HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's in an experiment? (was: Re: The experimental basis of relativity)
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:19:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: physci.colin.34
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <921218195256_72240.1256_EHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:


>Now that CF experiments have shown that aneutronic nuclear reactions can occur
>in metal lattices, theories must be devised to explain this. Any theory that
>predicts that these reactions cannot occur must be discarded.

Sure, we all agree that *if* the first part of the sentence is true, the 
second follows.  Any dimbulb knows that.

I maintain that your theory that the few experiments showing excess heat, 
and the few experiments showing nuclear products (and these are not 
necessarily mutually inclusive) indicate that aneutronic nuclear reactions 
can occur in metal lattices has insufficient basis.  I would think that even 
if I believed the heat measurements.  Not that I exclude the possibility 
that the CF measurements are right, let me hasten to add.  They are just not 
convincing.  Especially the nuclear product measurements.  Now your theory 
runs contrary to a well established theory called (wait for it, and here 
I admit that the name is emotionally charged - no, that's not the 
phrase) "The Standard Model".  Hence I will reject your theory until the CF 
brigade come up with more believable (in the sense of the measurement) 
data - or until they come up with a more - established sounding name than "
The Standard Model".   

There is almost always a layer of theory between the measurement (raw 
data) and the published data.  Often even before the measurement.  It is 
quite possible to get different results from one set of measurements.  It 
just depends on how you apply the "laws" or theory.  Heck, even a 
temperature measurement's like this.  You can't measure heat directly.  You 
need to measure the temperature.  Simplistically, you have a theory that 
mecury expands when it gets hot.  Then you say "I have a rise in 
temperature - that means there's a flow or source of heat".  Only then do 
you get to your watts. 

It is you who are confused between evidence and theory.  (Can our honourable 
grammarians Mitchell or Greg examine this parting shot?  It looks wrong.)
--

Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:56:40 GMT
Subject: Re: a 2 dimensional argument
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>     Greg, if "it stands to reason", what exactly is the reason? Why?

I remember our "Twist of a Ribbon" theorist (I'm sorry, I can't remember your
name right now...)  put up a paper which described this in great detail.
Assuming that it is some sort of fusion or fission, the problem is that all
known fusion reactions (especially D-D) produce energy in terms of very fast
nuclear particles, which if it is to be observed as heat, must be transfered to
the general atomic lattice.  The fast particles will collide with other
particles, producing various forms of radiation like X-Rays, neutrons, etc.
Heat will be formed, but only after many other forms of radiation are emitted.

To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a very creative
explanation, which is generally not forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions
is pretty the only way to go, and then you have to explain why this strange
reaction is not observed in the rest of the world.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
bdr@fc.hp.com
From: rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF Kits for sale
Keywords: found this in another group
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:14:39 GMT

I came across the following posting by Dave Leibold in
comp.dcom.telecom, of all places.  It seems like something
relevant to this group, and I have not seen any mention of
it.

I'd also like to say, that as a long time reader, first time
poster, this is the most fascinating group on the internet to
follow.  I do hope someone studying the progress of science
has captured all this and will be reporting on it.  Truly
amazing process.

Anyway, the post of interest, submitted to another group by
Dave Leibold and duplicated without permission:

---------------------------------------

The Dow Jones news service (by way of {The Globe and Mail}) reported
that a Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) subsidiary, Advanced Film
Technology, will offer a $725 000 (USD) science kit that purports to
be an apparatus for "cold fusion" experiments. The kit comes complete
with vacuum chamber, sensing equipment, and a how-to guide on making
your very own cold fusion experiments.

NTT researcher Eiichi Yamaguchi claims to have successfully set up a
"cold fusion" reaction last month. Theoretically, a workable cold
fusion process will generate vast amounts of energy using cheap raw
materials.  

Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 
INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG

---------------------------------------

end of copied message.




-- 

-Bob Virzi                | Think Globally. ...               |
 rvirzi@gte.com           |                 ... Act Locally.  |
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: RE: Re: quantity and quality at your location
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:45 GMT


Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) (alias "you"):

>I must confess that I was being silly.  If it's a first for
>sci.physics.fusion, I apologize.

No no no no! This is the norm here! As someone recently remarked, if you have
nothing to say, this is the list for you.

Actually, your postings are at least entertaining and do not cause wear on my
teeth, as some others do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: the sounds of multidimensional mirth
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:30:15 GMT



  In sci.physics.fusion:4628, rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM
    (Brian Rauchfuss) states and discusses
    (with the fuller relevant quotes here from 4569 and 4574):

::   "We were talking about the theories involved, and how those 
::   theories are constrained by the evidence.  Not whether the 
::   results actually appear."

  Actually the text appears to have been about physics, 
  and presumptions.  Attention is directed to the actual text below.
  Perhaps the second paragraph might have begun "To produce a nuclear
  heat theory without fast ..." with the word "theory" to clarify what
  was meant.   The actual text is:

::    "Assuming that it is some sort of fusion or fission, the problem
::  is that all known fusion reactions (especially D-D) produce energy
::  in terms of very fast nuclear particles, which if it is to be
::  observed as heat, must be transfered to the general atomic
::  lattice.  The fast particles will collide with other particles,
::  producing various forms of radiation like X-Rays, neutrons, etc.
::  Heat will be formed, but only after many other forms of
::  radiation are emitted.
::    "To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a
::  very creative explanation, which is generally not
::  forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions is pretty the
::  only way to go, and then you have to explain why this
::  strange reaction is not observed in the rest of the
::  world."
      [sci.physics.fusion, 4569, Brian Rauchfuss, 14 Dec 1992]

==    Any physical reaction continues with or without any of our
==   (or other sentient) creative explanations.  There may not be a
==  "perceived sound" or a "thought" without us, but the reactions,
==  all physical reactions, proceed in their own indomitable way.
==    Certainly one can get "production" without adequate theory."
     [sci.physics.fusion:4574, mitchell swartz, 16 Dec 1992] 



  Also says Brian Rauchfauss:

==  "There are definately funny things going on in the cold fusion
==  world, I am just not sure if these are funny physics or funny
==  human nature, or perhaps both."

   I respectfully submit that neither the physics, if anomalous,
 nor human nature, partially examined to date, at this point appear
 "funny".
    [as in affording light mirth and laughter" (Webster, ibid.)].

  Many of the postings on this net containing wit, novel theories,
and banter which, however, are.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Re: NTT, Yamaguchi, and $565,000 can't be wrong?
Organization: The World
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:20:55 GMT

    Considering Japan's Fifth Generation project lack of breakthrough results,
and the current crisis with Japanese banks (ie loan loss exposure due to
big drops in real estate and stock holding equity), as just a few of many
Japanese companies' screwups (like the ones we have here in the US), and
it becomes less impressive that a big Japanese company is lending its name
(and stock price) to cold fusion.
    Also, much of Japan's great physics research comes out of the Japanese
Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI).  That you haven't heard much out
of these guys is not reassuring to the big company theory.

Greg Aharonian
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Loudmouths and Paranoids
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:15:01 GMT


Jed, just a shortish response here. This debate must be getting on people's
nerves. Let us agree to disagree. You think I am a paranoid hyena living under
a rock, I think you are all mouth and don't realise what a mess,
scientifically speaking, you have got yourself into. Not being a theorist and
having a tendency to bow before eminence like Schwinger who surely will not
promote a theory without using all his Nobel-level knowledge, I can just take
on the possibility that cold fusion somehow produces helium and heat, and
nothing else. OK, where is that helium? However, when people claim to find
tritium, then it looks more like normal fusion, and they must also find the
protons and a heap of secondaries (lots of neutrons, x-rays, and maybe more),
otherwise they are in trouble.

Anyway, let us stick to the subject and terminate these personal exchanges;
feel free to abuse me privately by direct email, then only I will get bored.
I would be very interested in real evidence, as I say, e.g. a prototype,
producing a net energy gain; preferably running off its own juice. But a
scientific paper in a refereed journal, describing a set-up that others can
put together and which reproducibly yields unexplained heat, would also do.
I understand that it might be a long way from such a device to the prototype
that shows a positive energy budget, so I won't insist on that. Meanwhile, I
will continue to abstract those few real scientific papers in refereed
journals, that are still appearing. I look forward to adding your book to the
list when it gets published.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Re: Christmas Suggestions
Organization: Yale University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:50:00 EST

In article <921214130816.20400eba@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>
>I got an early morning phone call from my brother.  It seems the NTT $565,000
>cold fusion kit has made one the lists of things to buy those that have
>everything in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS.  This is not news.  What is news is
>that they say that "two have been sold."  I wonder who bought them.
>
>Tom Droege   Droege@fnal.fnald
 
Shucks! With this InterNet thing it's getting harder and harder to keep
a secret, and darn near making my job impossible!
 
SANTA
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power flow stuff (the Droege dilemma)
Date: 12 Dec 92 07:13:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmt.1992Dec12.071347.27922
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <11DEC199214524483@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>Paul Houle suggests finding the direction of the B field, the E field and 
>then determining the Poynting vector from this information.  There may be a 
>problem with finding the B field (where is your reference point, 
>specifically).
>
>I suspect the "easiest" answer is to measure the voltage between the 
>superconductiing wires, noting the sign.  Use the compass to determine the 
>B field at one of the superconducting wires (remember that the B field 
>generated by a wire looks like a bunch of concentric circles with the wire 
>at the center, in a plane perpendicular to the direction of current flow in 
>the wire).
>
>The compass will align with the B field (its B field will point opposite to 
>that of the wire).  Using the right hand rule, you can find the direction 
>of current flow in either of the wires, assuming you know which direction 
>the B field points on a compass (N to S or S to N, sorry, I can't remember 
>- Tom, can I take my EM book with me as a reference :))
>
>Coupling the direction of current flow with the E-field information, you 
>can find out where the battery is.  Q.E.D.

	Yes, I actually got a little confused about this later and
thought it out from your perspective and I got the same answer.  I was
a little bit bothered about what the actual physical difference
between the source and sink of energy are, but then I thought how the
current flows from - to + on a battery and + to - on a sink. The right
hand rule works for my first answer too -- S = E X B (where X is the cross
product), so you can, say, take your right hand and point your middle
finger along the E field, and point your thumb along the B field and
then your pointing finger is the poynting vector,  and that is the way that
energy is flowing.  (Try it!)  Using your right hand lets you instruct a
small child (but training a dog or most physics students might be harder)
to do it without any thinking about currents.

	Frames of reference create no problems,  since the equations for
electromagnetism are Lorenz invariant and the energy flux will come out
right for whatever frame you are in.

	It might actually be interesting to set something like this up for
physics students (very smart high school students or average college
students) with ordinary wire (Just make it thick enough and the voltmeter
cheap enough (The leads short enough!) that one could not detect voltage
drop.  Then let five or six of them into the room (omit a blackboard if
you are cruel) and let them argue about the answer.




-- 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: the development of a multidimensional argument
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:37:30 GMT

                  

   In article  sci.physics.fusion:4569 {14 Dec 1992},
 rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
==    "Assuming that it is some sort of fusion or fission, the
==   problem is that all known fusion reactions (especially D-D)
==   produce energy in terms of very fast nuclear particler, which
==   if it is tk be observed as heat, must be transfered to the
==   general atomic lattice.  The fast particles will collide with
==   other particles, producing various forms of radiation like
==   X-Rays, neutrons, etc. Heat will be formed, but only after
==  many other forms of radiation are emitted.

  With all due respect, "all known fusion reactions" does not
 include those reactions which scientists catalogue
 thereafter, or fail to catalogue at all.
                     


==  "To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a
==   very creative explanation, which is generally not
==   forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions is pretty the
==   only way to go, and then you have to explain why this
==   strange reaction is not observed in the rest of the
==   world."

   Any physical reaction continues with or without any of our
  (or other sentient) creative explanations.
   There may not be a "perceived sound" or a "thought" without us,
   but the reactions, all physical reactions, proceed in their own
   indomitable way.  Certainly one can gdt "production" without
   adequate theory.

   As to why this reaction is not observed in "the rest of the
 world", it is obvious to any serious reader of this net and the
 literature, that such reactions may apparently go on in the "rest
 of the world" and beyond.  Steven Jones and many others have
 promulgated several ideas in which geologic physics and
 extraterrestial physics may have had some surprises for
 conventional thinking.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Something I didn't know
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:22 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

For once DB has scooped me. He announces: "Tell us, for example, about the
prototype that is supposed to be out end of this year."

You got your sources mixed up, Dieter. That news did not come from me. Who
announced a prototype? A prototype of what, a reactor? Please find out, and
tell us more.

DB asks, "why should I try any nonsense?" Answer: because lots of other people
say it is not nonsense, and your job as a scientist is to find out by first-
hand experiment whether it is nonsense or not.

Let me get something straight here. You are an electrochemist. You have been
pontificating and making these statements all these years, and you even got
cited by Morrison at Nagoya (you lucky dog!). Are you telling us that you have
never even performed an experiment? Not with palladium, not with nickel?
Nothing? Do I understand this correctly? Have you ever been in a lab where a
CF experiment was underway? Ever been to a meeting, at least?

If you have not done an experiment, and not even met with the people who have,
then you have no business passing judgement on CF like some kind of expert.
Shame on you! You cannot judge a brand new field of science if you are not
even willing to run an experiment or two. At least you should get a feel for
the procedures and problems involved. It is absurd. Other people have done the
Mills experiment dozens of times, they have published papers, uploaded
comments, raw data, and suggestions. You haven't even lifted your little
finger (I gather), yet you claim to know more than them. Your opinion is worth
more than Srinivasan's experimental data? Where did you learn science, K-Mart?

Here you are in a fully equipped electrochemical lab, and you not even willing
to spend a couple of days running a simple little Mills cell! What kind of a
scientist are you? You cannot not learn science by reading papers and
uploading cynical comments about them. If you are so darn sure it does not
work, then you should have the guts to do an experiment or two, and tell us
what happens. If you have time to do all this librarian work, surely you have
time to mix up some potassium carbonate.

You sound just like one of those old line COBOL programmers I used to know,
who never wrote a single line of Pascal, but who used to rail on about
"structured languages are a bunch of nonsense and garbage." You never did it,
you never saw it, you don't know anything about it. Period.

- Jed


Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: a skeptical 2-dimensional argument
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:09:05 GMT

  In  sci.physics.fusion:4542;14 Dec 1992; greg@marvin.uchicago.edu
     (Greg Kuperberg) states in "Re: a 2 dimensional argument":


=  "It's not the logic that I purport, it's the logic that the skeptics
=  purport, and of course I'm not alone in claiming it, since I'm
=  deliberately parroting what other people say."

   Deliberately and also sedulously by your own admission.
 

=  "You suggest that a nuclear reaction, rather than producing one or two
=   gamma photons, might produce ten million infrared photons.  You're
=   right, I overlooked that possibility.  I guess that means my goose is
=   cooked and my scheme is forced.  Or at least that of the unruly gang of
=   skeptics, to which I may or may not belong."

    I hope you can shield your goose; try books or hydrocarbons.
    Some inaccuracies, however, are also here.

   ** re: the 1-2 gamma -> 10,000,000 IR 
      All sorts of new branches and branch ratios may be possible in the
 condensed phase.    My humble suggestion was to include the full range and
 diversity of radiation.  I stand corrected, and augmented, by your list;
 and also suggest the addition of plasmons and domainons to the possible
 exiting flux.   As to actual mix: please check the experimental
 (and other) literature. 

   ** re: the "unruly gang"
   Many skeptics, to which we may or may not belong, based upon my
 observations appear to be neither unruly.  Nor may they all
 purport such illogical schemes.
          [Perhaps there is more than one "Society"?]

  In summary, although your prose remains fascinating, however, the
  "parroted" logic is simply not explained.

    
   Where is the well-performed experimental paper (with data
  available if needed) disproving cold fusion, which obtained
 adequate measured loadings for sufficient confinement times? 

   Why do skeptics so easily dismiss so many grounded
 correlations of this new technology based upon their outdated
 newspaper reports?

   Where is a single paper, or calculation, proving that fusion
 which occurs in a solid material ** must ** necessarily generate
 neutrons at the expected plasma-equivalent levels?
              

   When can the proponents and skeptics work together to solve
 the most important energy problem, and potential solutions,
 facing the people of the world?


     Mitchell Swartz         
          mica@world
                                      
                              
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion