HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:31:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: ptolemy.ETHANB.92Apr6093120
Organization: U. of Washington

In article <WEBB+.92Apr6092543@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) writes:

   This article is taken from the New Federalist, a publication of the
   political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, which makes it suspect.  The
   LaRouchies have for years been claiming a conspiracy to suppress cold
   fusion.  I'd wait for it to be reported elsewhere before giving it any
   credibility.  Hell, if the press conference was packed, why haven't
   there been any other stories about it?  -- J

Actually, before cold fusion arrived they were claiming that hot
fusion would be fueling our cities today if it weren't for the nasty
conspirators (the usual suspects include Henry Kissinger and Queen
Elizabeth).  I once accidently joined their organization and got their
magazine for a couple of years -- it was enlightening to see what some
people can believe.
--

-- Ethan (ethanb@u.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Reply-To: fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:50:31 GMT
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron induced fission
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:52:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: mwvm.167C97CE1.M21742
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Apr14.003514.9862@cs.rochester.edu>
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
 
>
>In article <167C810A71.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>
>> One of the real problems in science today is the paucity of mentors.
>> Mentors could be counted on to know the old literature.  How many
>> nuclear physicists are aware of Segre's paper on deuteron induced
>> fission of molybedenum to produce (for the first time) technicium?
>> And it was published in the relatively high prestige journal Nature.
>
>Fission of molybdenum to make technetium would be a neat trick, since
>technetium has a higher atomic number!
>
>What you are garbling is the creation of Tc-99 from Mo-98 by the (d,p)
>reaction, followed by beta decay of Mo-99.  This is covered in some
>detail in nuclear physics texts.
>
>For example, in the well-known text "Nuclei and Particles".
>
>The author of which is Emilo Segre.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Sorry, I have never seen that book.  It was my understanding that there
were also some other Tc isotopes.  Also, how does Mo(d,p)Tc reaction differ
black box process of Mo + d = Tc + radiation products.  That is, if I
don't know the answer because I understand the nuclear physics, why isn"t
it just like the P&F stuff.  I have input of Molybdendum and deuterons
and fusion occurs.  Or is it fission since I get radiation products out
after the decay of the intermediate state?  Thanks for the mentoring
anyway.
Dick
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Concerns About the Fusion Engineering Act
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:36:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.qVZyiB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA


 
In response to the concerns raised by Doug Morrison and Dick Blue
about the proposed Fusion Engineering Act:
 
>It says that preference should be given to aneutronic fusion - which is 
>defined as "any fuel which when burnt in a fusion energy system, produces 
>neutron radiation carrying away less than 10% of the produced energy." The
>figure of 10% seems very high for an aneutronic reaction which means 
>no neutrons. It would allow more than 10**16 neutrons per second from
>a megawatt power plant which would be a major radiation hazard and would
>damage the materials used in the construction.
 
The Act sets up two definitions of "aneutronic":
 
"Energetically aneutronic" and "Environmentally aneutronic"
 
The rational for the 10% figure on the "Energetically aneutronic"
definition was to allow for D-He3 systems, which typically have 
5% of their energy carried away by neutrons, to win one of the
milestones.  The idea here is that 90% of the energy is carried away
in a totally aneutronic form which could use a different conversion
mechanism from that used to shield against neutrons.  Although
it is very unlikely that a realistic system will produce between
5% and 10% neutronic energy, 10% figure was chosen so that the 
associated milestone wouldn't be He3-specific.  (Note:  The 
 definition most widely used for "aneutronic fusion " is the D-He3 
 level of 5% -- a level which is most decidedly NOT "aneutronic" 
 from an environmental standpoint.)
 
With "Environmentally aneutronic" the 1% figure was chosen as a level
which would make fusion significantly more attractive, from an 
environmental standpoint, than current nuclear plants and therefore 
which should be treated as a milestone.  The expected winner here is
either H1-B11 at 0% neutronic energy or some wildcard like cold fusion
with only very sporadic neutron emissions.
 
>There would be 10 monthly auctions of "10 kilograms of Helium-3". Curious.
 
The He3 auctions were carefully structured to ensure that no one,
in government or out, could exclude a qualified Fusion Engineering
Enterprise from access to He3 as test fuel for the achievement of 
the related milestones in "energetically aneutronic fusion."  

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuteron induced fission
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:56:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: mwvm.167C810A71.M21742
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

One of the real problems in science today is the paucity of mentors.
Mentors could be counted on to know the old literature.  How many nuclear
physicists are aware of Segre's paper on deuteron induced fission of
molybedenum to produce (for the first time) technicium?  And it was published i
n the relatively high prestige journal Nature.
The year 1937.  The source the E.O. Lawrence cyclotron at UC-Berkeley.
I think this may be related to the "new" work in this area from NY.
N. Bohr has a Phys. Rev. paper on D-induced fission in 1940.
I'll bet that his work was done without computers and fancy models...
and neutrinos that change from electon neutrinos to... so that the
standard model for the Sun doesn't need to be corrected.  Galilleo
may have recanted but I am an atheist.  I believe something is wrong
with the nuclear physics being practiced by some theorist.  Experiment
is all there is.
 
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198; FAX: (703)883-5200
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
please, please, do not clutter up the fax lines. Others use and need them.
Dick Forman formerly of NBS.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Subject: Cluster impact fusion
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 17:12:43 GMT

An erratum is in press in Phys. Rev. Letters by Beuhler, Friedlander and
Friedman. They have found what many have suspected, i.e., that the
anomalously high fusion rates (Phys. Rev. Lett 63, 1292 (1989); J. Phys.
Chem. 94, 7665 (1990); Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 473 (1991) and Bae et al,
Phys. Rev. A44, R4091 (1991)) were caused by traces of light contaminant
ions containing deuterium.

Now we can wait for errata from Pons and Fleishmann (and others) ....

Ciao,

Raul Baragiola
Univ. Virginia 

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: chung@mtl.mit.edu (James E. Chung)
Subject: A. Takahashi Seminar on Pulsed D20/Pd Electrolysis at MIT on 4/15
Organization: MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:27:52 GMT



ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE LECTURE
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 4PM
GRIER ROOM 34-401

EXCESS HEAT AND NUCLEAR PRODUCTS FROM PULSED D2O/Pd ELECTROLYSIS
PROF AKITO TAKAHASHI
OSAKA UNIVERSITY

The lecture will present results of the latest experiments in which a 
cell has produced 100 watts, on average, of excess (anomolous) power 
continuously,  for more than two months. Correlations have been observed 
with weak neutron emission. Two types of neutron spectra have been 
observed- the classical "Jones type", and another one with a broad 3-7 
Mev peak, in addition to the usual 2.45 Mev peak.  Details of the 
experiments will be discussed.




Disclaimer:

The author is posting this message as a public service
and has no opinion (public anyways) about cold fusion.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Reply to Andrew - Palfreyman
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:00:34 GMT

>So why DSCUSS the bamned thing? Why not bring along the foaming beaker...

Hay, fair is fair.  When I give a paper on the CDF at Fermilab I am not 
expected to bring along the detector (all 10,000 tons).  Dr Takahashi
deserves to get a hearing for his technique, ideas and measurements.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Subject: March 27 news conference
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 19:52:04 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU

I must apologize for my comment about the publication on the March 27
news conference.  I noted that the publication came from the New
Federalist, a Lyndon LaRouche publication, and implied that it may
have been a false report.  My cautionary comment even made its way
into Doug Morrison's Cold Fusion Notes, where it took on the air of
refuting the whole thing. I now have confirmation that the conference
did in fact take place -- both information from people who know people
who were at the conference and an article in Chemical and Engineering
News, April 6, 1992.  Most of the claims in the New Federalist article
are repeated in the article in Chemical and Engineering News, so the
press conference must have taken place, and those claims must have
been made.

By the way, I'm one of those True Believers you hear about.  In spite
of it all, I'm still looking forwards to the Fleischmann-Pons cold
fusion generator (1992 version).

-- J
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject:  Science by Lawyers
Reply-To: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:24:40 GMT

I trust that anyone who considers endorsing the proposed legislation that
has been posted here will read the full text carefully.  Somehow I have
the feeling that someone is trying to pull a fast one here.  What may
sound like a good way to get more funding for cold fusion research has
some rather odd features tacked on that have nothing to do with cold
fusion as we presently know it.  I call your attention to but one of
these, the bit about selling off large quantities of 3He.  Anyone know
who might find that to be something useful to have on the law books?
And what do they have in mind when researchers are given access to a
bit of the Nevada test range?

Dick Blue
NSCL         Those who have it archieved should reread D. Morrison's
             comments on pathalogical science and political inter-
             ference in scientific matters.
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Comments on McKubre et al
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:43:57 GMT

Dieter Britz writes:

"Surely this is sloppy overlaying of recorder traces?"

First I would like to invite someone from McKubre et al to get on the net
and explain figure 7 and 8.  Next notice that figure 8 is dated 10/31/90,
and P16 data is dated 12/21/90 as run start.  So these runs were completed
about the end of January.  It looks to me like the work of people with 
patent attorneys who are timing their publications to match the one year 
delay of an international patent application.

My problem is with Figure 7.  For Figure 8, I would attribute the increase
at 488 to the current change at 472.  From all that I read, a big time delay
is expected.  Looks to me like the cell died at 610, then they turned off the
current.  Why else stop a cell that is running after only 6 days of output?
After waiting 20 days to see something?  I sure wouldn't turn a running cell
off so quickly.  Figure 8 looks like Mac output, so I would expect it to 
be lined up properly.

Figure 7 looks like chart recorder output, so could suffer the allignment
problem.  But note that if the allignment is OK, then first the power 
dropped to zero, then the current was turned off.  Placing a straight edge
on the numbered tic marks shows the allignment is *not* right.  Looks like
variable stretch in chart paper to me.  By actually reading the text (perish
the thought - top of page 436) they say that the cell voltage went up and 
the changes were an attempt to keep it going.  Going all the way back to 
early P&F statements, this is one way working cells die.  

Has anyone noticed that the three out of five cells that worked were all
implanted with He4?  That first heat varied from 1330 hrs P12 to 474 hours
P14?  P15 implanted with He4 gave heat while its brother P16 implanted with
He3 did not?  

We have found that polishing the surface increases the loading.  This based
on a circa 1900 reference.  

The present dilemma is whether to turn off the present cell which got to 
0.93 D/Pd after running it 600+ hours in order to run a Takahashi type cell
with advertised 5 day to heat time.  I need to build build about 10 more
calorimeters so that all options can be explored.  But my associate who 
gives me money to build water machines would kill me!

Tom Droege
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:25:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU

This article is taken from the New Federalist, a publication of the
political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, which makes it suspect.  The
LaRouchies have for years been claiming a conspiracy to suppress cold
fusion.  I'd wait for it to be reported elsewhere before giving it any
credibility.  Hell, if the press conference was packed, why haven't
there been any other stories about it?  -- J
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science by Lawyers
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:11:10 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Larry Wall writes:
>This all becomes much clearer if you stop thinking about cold fusion
>and start thinking about stuff like Paul Koloc's Plasmak(TM) notions.
Paul was one of several inventors who had input on the creation of
this law.
 
>Personally, I thought the
>proposed legislation was a bit whacked out (whose 3He are they going to
>auction off, anyway?)
 
The DoE has more than enough He3 to support these auctions.
 
> $1.2G is QUITE a bunch of carrots, though.
 
The time-valued money spent on fusion to date is around $30 billion.
The net present value of the future fusion budget cashflow, is about 
the same.
 
Please let me know if you have any other concerns.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF Matrix
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:33:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.P3BaJB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Has anyone done a comprehensive survey of the experiments in electrolytic
CNF which tries to parameterize the "experimental space" and scatter the
various experiments in that space to see how much of it has been explored 
and what the results look like for different regions of the space?
 
What I'm thinking of is something like:
 
Experimental parameters: ->  H2O, D2O, Li, ...
Experimental conditions:
         |
         V
Pons and Fleishman              ,  * , * , ...          Results
Pons and Fleishman            * ,    , * , ...          Results
Pons and Fleishman              ,  * ,   , ...          Results
Pons and Fleishman            * ,    ,   , ...          Results
Mills et al                     ,  * , * , ...          Results

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Reply to Tod Green
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:14:41 GMT

This is a reply to Tod Green who writes:

"This is more of a general comment on recombiners and loading measurements."

My only regret is that I have but one calorimeter to run for my country.
I like the suggestion of filling the headspace with D2 but it requires that 
I make a D2 generator.  One more thing to do.  I have only recently been able
to build cells (thanks to Cam Tibbals and his wonderful milling maching) that
do not leak.  I figured it would be easier to contain N2 and O2 than H2.  But
that may be a problem of the past.  

Now my observations are that recombination is never less than about 80% 
independent of the current between 20 ma and 400 ma.  My little servo measures
nicely the rate of excess gas generation.  I am using about 2 in sq of the
carbon fiber impregnated with teflon and (I think) Pt. provided by Stormes.  
I find it hard to imagine that the catalyst between 80% and 100% over such a 
wide current range.  So I have concluded that the D(H) puffs in and out of
the Pd.  Besides, I have seen this happen when running on the bench.  In the
calorimeter I am blind.  I certainly have seen intermittent catalyst operation.

I think two things are going on.  There is surely intermittent catalyst 
operation.  But I think there is loading and unloading of the Pd.  

At the end of the current run, I will run the same profile between the Pt
anode and the auxillary Pt electrode to see if I still see the same effects.  

Another thing that I do not understand, is that recombination is (if it is
intermittent recombination) more regular at low currents than at high current
densities.  I would think that the higher temperature would result in greater
recombination efficiency.  The catalyst clearly gets quite hot at high 
current.  I have a Pt impregnated teflon catalyst with a hole burned in it to 
prove it.  I assume that the basic process is unstable in that the hottest spot
does the conversion and thus gets hotter???

Tom Droege
From: fusion@zorch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stop Morrison Stop
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:48:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: FNALD.920409111136.20a0032d
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Stop Salt Stop!  I think that is what you were supposed to say to stop the
magic salt machine.  But someone forgot and the ship sank and that is why
our oceans are full of salt.  

I have already received 5 copies of "Cold Fusion Update #6"  I thank Douglas
for his effort, but please, friends, don't send me any more copies.

Tom Droege
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A. Takahashi Seminar on Pulsed D20/Pd Electrolysis at MIT o
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:42:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: cup.57136
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

: EXCESS HEAT AND NUCLEAR PRODUCTS FROM PULSED D2O/Pd ELECTROLYSIS
: PROF AKITO TAKAHASHI
: OSAKA UNIVERSITY
: 
: The lecture will present results of the latest experiments in which a 
: cell has produced 100 watts, on average, of excess (anomolous) power 
: continuously,  for more than two months. Correlations have been observed 
: with weak neutron emission. Two types of neutron spectra have been 
: observed- the classical "Jones type", and another one with a broad 3-7 
: Mev peak, in addition to the usual 2.45 Mev peak.  Details of the 
: experiments will be discussed.

So why DISCUSS the damned thing? Why not bring along the foaming beaker
powering some little thingummyjig on the lecturn as he speaks?

How hideously indirect.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | wolfpack, silver, down to the water             |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew palfreyman@cup.portal.com   |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Waht is magic about 158 F (70 C)?
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:44:42 GMT

>From FD 232

"FLEISCHMANN AND PONS TO BUILD A COLD FUSION BOILER THIS YEAR"

Can anyone speculate about the temperature figure quoted as 158 F in the
article?  Now 158 F (70 C) is the temperature rating of most commercial
electronic parts.  Why would this possibly be a limit for a boiler?  Is 
this just below some phase change?  This number must have come from some
where!  Must say that Dieter Britz got me, so I looked at the date of the
press conference.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 13:40:34 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr16.123611.22389@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.010412.46751@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>>
>>As long as you are asking for suggestions, I repeat mine: "Run the
>>cells with liquid D2", this should simplify the accounting.
>
>Well this is somewhat difficult.  D2 is a molecular fluid which is not
>likely to conduct very well at all and it is difficult to try to think
>of ions which will dissolve in it as it is a highly non-polar molecule,
>being very tightly covalently bonded and made up of identical molecules.
I agree here that finding an appropriate doppant would be tricky

>It is also true that this would require a not inexpensive cooling
>apparatus as D2 is liquid in an "awkward" range between the liquid
>ranges of the usual cryogenic fluids.  It should also be noted that H2
>(and therefore also D2) gas is highly explosive and in the days before
>there was helium as a cryogenic fluid and H2 was the coldest cryogenic
The idea is not to keep it cold but to measure the rate of evaporation
(with appropriate control) to see if unknown source of heat exists.

>fluid there were lots of (dangerous) explosions in cryogenic labs.
Yes, it is dangerous, that is why I am not doing it myself since I do
not have appropriate facilities.

>Finally you would have to keep the whole thing cold and worry about heat
>leaks into the system as a possible source of error and expend many
>times as much energy cooling the system as is used in electrolysis
>heating it.
One does not need to worry about leaks into the system as long as one
knows how much is leaking in.

>
>I can not say, in consequence of the above reasoning that I think this a
>good idea.
>--
>Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
>Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
>Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
>Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
You may be right that it is a difficult and dangerous experiment and
has no commercial future, but at this point people are trying to prove
or disprove THE EXISTENCE of CNF, so I believe this is as valid an experiment
as any other.

Best Regards.



Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion