HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Secondary x-rays as crucial test
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:05:33 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Thanks for the input on secondary x-rays as a probe of possible nuclear
reactions in a heat producing cell.  So far, I have only heard of two ways out
of x-ray-monitoring as a crucial test:
1.  p + p --> d + e+  + neutrino + 0.42 MeV
Since the neutrino carries off nearly all the energy without heating the cell,
this requires truly enormous reaction rates, something exceeding 10**16 per
second for a watt of excess power.  Since the p-p reaction proceeds via weak
interaction, the reaction
cross section is tiny -- this is why the sun burns as slowly as it does.  Plus, 
we have conducted experiments of this type in the Kamiokande detector, which is
a sensitive neutrino detector.  If copious neutrinos were being produced, the
Kamiokande would have seen them, but such were absent.  (We did see some
neutrons.)  This escape route seems to be ruled out.

2.  Perhaps massive particles are involved in the nuclear process.
This idea postulates the existence of new particles which have the property of
inducing nuclear reactions without being themselves consumed.  Such a catalyst
would seem to require a lepton, since hadrons react strongly and would be lost.  
Two such hypothetical particles would have to be present in order to preserve
momentum conservation, without having a light particle carry off energy which
would in turn result in secondary x-rays.  Having worked extensively with muon
catalyzed fusion (an irrefutable example of cold fusion), I find the idea of
two heavy leptons required to catalyze a nuclear reaction to be quite
impossible.  In any case, the particles postulated remain hypothetical.

Jon Webb suggests that Bollinger's total mass conversion idea would make
measurements of nuclear particles impossible in a recent posting.  Please
explain how in such a model heat could be produced in a cell without producing
secondary x-rays.

I am serious about this.  I want to know why looking for secondary x-rays could
not be a crucial experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is nuclear
or not.  

I can accept difficulty of reproducibility in a new field as representative of
nascent science (as opposed to pathological science).  But if an idea or field
cannot be falsified by any experiments, then this is not good science.  It is
metaphysics.

Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:04:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1ba4snINNiu9
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: >        I don't necessarily feel that the soviets are "better" 
: >than we are, just that given the same money to spend on equipment, 
: >they are EQUAL in intelligence as we.  We are not "genetically" 
: >superior, only financially superior to other countries.  The 
: >soviets have been the originators of many industrial ideas which 
: >WE have taken without credit- which is also unfair (e.g. Titanium 
: >plating technique on twist-steel drill bits).
: 
:      But they did not have the same money, or the same technological
:      base.  Half their country was lying in ruins and millions of
:      their men were dead.

Though by the end they had managed to marshal enough of their industrial
resources to defeat at least part of the German army. 

:  Immediately before that happened, Stalin
:      had managed to kill large numbers of the people necessary to 
:      build those weapons.  This 'financially superior' stuff is
:      nontrivial, especially when building nontrivial things like
:      fusion weapons.

Yes.

I think it's clear that espionage aided the soviet's efforts.  (As
well as analyzing the fallout products and other observations of our
tests.)

I also believe that if they did NOT have top-rate physicists and
mathemeticians, on the level of Sakharov, Kurchatov, Landau and Kolmogorov,
they couldn't have done it at all, considering all the above.  It's
exceedingly unlikely that they could have stolen enough to render the task
trivial.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
From: an288@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ash
Date: 13 Oct 1992 00:48:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an288@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Hittinger)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu



Suppose that the ash is something ordinary that is already present?

You'd miss it.

It would probably be enviro-friendly - wouldn't that be great?  And if
Tom has a party and buys beer with the profits on his futures contracts?
-- 
--------
NO DAD!! You're supposed to type it in with downer case letters!
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Chemical energies
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:33:10 GMT

In article <9210101442.AA08191@anubis.network.com>
logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
 
>
>I was scanning the CRC HCP heat of formation tables for chemical reactions and
>the most energetic chemical reactions I saw were those associated with flourine,
>the hottest being a liberation of about 100 kcal/mol, which is just under 4ev
>per atom.
>
>I may have missed some that were "hotter", since it was a many page table and
>an incomplete table, and I had to mentally divide the total energy by the
>number of atoms in the molecule (to get the energy per atom, since multi-
>atomed molecule's kcal/mol is the sum of many atom's energy of formation.)
>
>So compare this "hot" 4ev reaction with Droege's Pd or loaded D rates which
>must be over 100ev by now, or his D2O rates which must be nearing 2ev, and
>you can see that chemistry is either already out of the question, or that
>Droege et al have found a way to use water as a high-power fuel.  Either
>way, it is a discovery of note.
>
Dick Forman comments: the hottest reactions that I know are are either the heav
ier borances (decaborane) or some funny nitrogen reactions. I worked on azides
once upon a time (early '60s) and they are pretty hot but I think other
nitrogen reactions are hotter.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Talking Theories
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:11:18 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Thomas H. Kunich writes:

"Theory tells us that if there is a nuclear reaction of some sort going on it
will leave all sorts of telltale traces. There are no traces -- only an
unexplained heat. And most of the theories to support the production of this
heat either deny reality (there _is_ no ash) or are so wildly improbable under
present theory..."

Well, of course if present theory "tells us" that there must be ash, then a
theory that denies ash is "wildly improbable under present theory." If theory
#1 "tells us" A, and theory #2 says B, NOT A, theory #2 is wildly improbable
under theory #1. And visa-versa.

So what does that prove?

Anyway, I never said there was no ash. I said we have not found it yet for
some reason, maybe it is half way to Alpha Centuri by now. Who knows? That's
what we need a couple of million bucks to find out.

I suggest you tell your talking theories to shut up for a while. They should
stop "telling" you things. They should just pipe down. Talk back to them. Look
at what the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is telling you, instead. That is how you
make progress in science, you look at evidence first, theory next. Also, if
there is conflict between the two, evidence always wins, and theory always
loses.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:59:13 GMT

In article <11024@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

>Perhaps it is time to think real hard about nuclear reactions that release 
>only a fraction of a keV and that might have a lower coulomb barrier than 
>what we have considered so far.... 

     This potential lowering of the coulomb barrier (pun recognized)
     in the appropriate situations has always intrigued me (though I 
     hadn't before considered reactions that might be in the low keV's.
     Are there any suitable ones?)

     I hark back to interesting and basically unexplanable results
     by Cecil /etal from the Colorado School of Mines (reported at the
     early conference on 'cold fusion phenomena' at Los Alamos).  They
     implanted D ions into a thin foil of Pd (95 keV implantation I believe).
     They then turned off the beam, turned on a current (roughly 2 A/cm^2
     in case it matters), and saw a particle spectrum that included a 
     reproducable broad feature around 5 MeV correlated with the current
     and the implantation with better than 4 sigma statistics.  
     The interesting thing is that this is around the reaction

           Pd(isotopes) + D -> Pd(isotope+1) + P + ~4-5 MeV

     for the Pd isotopes 110 (11%), 108 (26%), 106 (27%), 104 (15%),
     102 (1.02%) (The percentages are nominal abundances).  Cecil 
     mentioned that this might account for the rather broad feature since 
     the individual lines fit rather nicely in the broad feature.

     Of course, this would not directly help explain things since one would
     see 5 MeV stuff whizzing around in the lattice, and one would 
     presumably see consequences of the decay of Pd^111, Pd^109, Pd^107 etc.  
     However, if this does happen in this ion implantation setting (the big
     if), the rather massive coulomb barrier (10^-4000 penetration factor
     comes to mind) has been breached by some process.   So, maybe such 
     thoughts are applicable to other, lower energy, reactions.

     Does anyone know what has become of Cecil's research, and can anyone think
     of suitable reactions?  The only ones I can think of are in the MeV
     range.

                                 dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: If that fails, what's next
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:22:14 GMT

In article <921009142417_72240.1256_EHL48-2@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>4.   By the same token, we would know it is "somewhat" not nuclear, because
>there are no x-rays.
>- Jed
>
Dick Forman comments: 4 is wrong.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Nuclear detection offer to Henny Penny
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:10:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.124409.161@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>I would like to invite Tom to come here for experiments.  We can also look for
>x-rays, gamma-rays, energetic particles.  The invitation is open to other
>serious researchers as well.
>
>This trip asks much of Henny Penny (Tom's term), so I add another offer to
>help:  I would like to learn whether the heat is nuclear in origin or not.  We
>are completing a PORTABLE (pardon the capital letters) x-ray detector with
>about 10% intrinsic efficiency and 20% resolution at 21 keV (the energy of the
>k-alpha x-ray from palladium).  It runs at room temperature and the detector
>and pre-amp fit into a 3cm diam X 3cm long can, that may fit next to or even
>INTO an electrolytic cell which is producing heat.  (Doing so may also be a way
>to turn off the cell, if the quantum mechanicians on the net have their way.)
>Better x-ray detectors are available, when liquid-nitrogren cooled, etc.  This
>one is designed to permit intrusion into a working cell hopefully.  And it is
>lunch-box-size computer-based and portable.
>
>What do you think, Tom?
>
>Sincerely,
>Steven E. Jones
>Brigham Young University
>
Dick Forman comments: Those are the words of a true scientist. Unfortunately,
I have "proprietary" information that indicates to me that the excess heat
may be related to something other than palladium. Since I was possibly the firs
t one to push for palladium fusion-fission reaction I would like to request
that the cost of the trip might be better used for some other experiment
that might be better defined after Nagoya. Since I am about to be unemployed,
I will not be at Nagoya, but the reports from others should be enough. For thos
e of you who do not follow this thread too closely I would like to remind the s
keptics that as a comment to Professor Takehashi at MIT, I offered the suggesti
on that his next experiment should be time resolved IR images of the cell while
it was undergoing excess heat. I'm told it was on the distributed video tape.
My current suggestion is to wait about a month before spending a lot of time an
d money on what I currently believe is the WRONG experiment. A month ago I
would have said run with it.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droegestone Bridge
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:24:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: anubis.9210150624.AA29481

A question for Tom Droege, or anyone else who understands his calorimeter.

I can see the details, but not the big picture.  I can see the puck-plate 
zero temperature gradient mechanism.  I can see the plate-base TED servo 
throttling down during the leading edge of a cell heat impulse.  And I can 
see the spool heaters backing off from that same heat impulse.  But I 
don't see how it all hangs together -- specifically,  I don't understand 
the referrence to a Wheatstone bridge arrangement.

My understanding of the essential characteristics of a Wheatstone bridge 
(which I just acquired a few hours ago after opening a physics book, so 
now I am an expert :-) are that:

1) Two (not necessarily identical) gradient producers are forced to 
operate under identical conditions.
 
2) We can arbitrarily assign one of the gradient producers as the fixed 
reference.

3) Part of the second gradient producer is variable and part is fixed.

4) We can use an uncalibrated (except for zero!) yet highly sensitive 
gradient detector as a simple null balance indicator.

5) We connect the indicator so that it is between a fixed point on the 
first gradient producer and a fixed point on the second gradient producer 
(between the fixed and variable parts of the second gradient producer.)

If we know the ratio of the gradients at the tapped point on the first 
gradient producer, and if we adjust the second variable gradient producer 
until the indicator shows no difference in gradients between the two 
tapped points, then we now also know the ratio of the second gradient 
producer -- it is identical to the first's.

And if we know the value of the fixed part of the second gradient 
producer, we now also know the value of the variable part.

                        +
                        |
                 ----------------
                 |              |           At null, R1/R2 = R3/R4
               ------         ------ 
               | R1 |         | R3 |            and  R2 = R1/(R3/R4)
               ------   /\    ------
                 |     /  \     |
  Tap point 1 -> |----< M  >----| <-Tap point 2
                 |     \  /     |
               ------   \/    ------
   Variable -> | R2 |         | R4 |
               ------         ------
                 |              |
                 ----------------
                        |
                        -

So, how is the Droege Zero Gradient Calorimeter like a Wheatstone bridge? 


- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Drop all bombs please
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:06:26 GMT

In article <E0599F44FA5F23C046@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>
>I came in this morning, specially and only to look at my email - being on
>holidays this week - and there are three spf Digests. I find, however, that
>the cnf content could be compressed into a single one, the rest is all about
>H-bombs. Please, all you bomb crazies, go away, you are cluttering up this
>group. The volume of your verbiage suggests that you could run a special
>news group on that fascinating topic for a long time - so start one. Then we
>can focus once more on non-bomb fusion.
>Thank you in anticipation of a higher S/N level.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can all see the foresight I displayed when I nominated Dieter as the
moderator for sci.energy.nuclear.catalysis
--Dick Forman--
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Misc.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:24:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.214932.7072@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
>
>In article <921008141730.202004d4@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>>But enogh neutrons would leave me with a stiff cat.  So we are left with
>>low energy photons.  As I posted before, I have a small suspicion that there
>>might be some.  But certainly not enough to explain the heat.  So I am left
>>
>>P.S. Remember that low energy photons are IR and thus heat.  Eventually we
>>will have to build detectors to look for light and heat in a cell.  Enough
>>people have run open cells to pretty well rule out light.  This leaves us
>>with trying to put IR scanners in a cell.
>
>P&F speak of boiling off the D2O. You are measuring heat. IR couples very
>poorly to water -- where is the IR reacting to either transfer enough of
>a small amount of energy to the D2O or there must be very large amounts
>of IR so that poor coupling can still demonstrate heat like this?
>
>In other words -- if it's coming off as IR something else is going on.
>
Dick Forman comments: What wavelength IR are you talking about. I've always
believed that the water filters I used absorbed IR. Not all wavelenths of
course. Look in Landolt-Bornstein (spelling uncertain) tables on filter solutio
ns for optical spectra.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: *NOT* being serious
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:00:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Dale Bass has pointed out the errors in my SWAG.  For reference, though, 
the NASA Lewis Research Center *alone* produces 80,000 pounds of waste 
paper per *month*.  

That's 480 tons per year, and we're one of the smaller centers.  The 
environmentalists (and the rest of us)  will be happy to know that NASA's 
starting to recycle its paper.

About 4,000 contractors/civil servants at LeRC, so roughly 500 lbs/human/
year, which is only six or so orders of magnitude off from Dale's 
calculation :).  Six orders of magnitude, now *where* have I seen 
discrepancies like *that* before.... hmm, can't seem to remember...:)

Mike Jamison

BTW - Add me to the "no more H-bomb postings, please" list.
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If that fails, what's next
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:26:37 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <921009142417_72240.1256_EHL48-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>3.   We would know that CF is "somewhat" nuclear. Obviously, it triggers some
>nuclear reactions, because nuclear products and radiation have been measured
>at high levels in many laboratories; again, this cannot be all due to
>experimental error.

Why not?  These measurements have *not* been at the 100 sigma level.  One 
of the claimed "nuclear" products is tritium, which begs the question of 
why one has not seen the x-rays from the fast proton if d+d or the 
photon from p+d.  The possibility of contamination of D2O is real, and 
the probability of concentration of contaminants by electrolisis is high.

>4.   By the same token, we would know it is "somewhat" not nuclear, because
>there are no x-rays.

I think Steve's point is that it is *not* nuclear fusion if you cannot 
see x-rays from the effects of the recoiling charged products.  That 
was what motivated the work by Deakin et al here at FSU, and his point 
is well taken. 

What remains to be done is to put a 10 mW (or 10 W) cell that operates 
under known and predicatable conditions into a sophisticated system 
that will measure a variety of nuclear observables simultaneously; in 
particular where any heat bursts can be matched to nuclear effects that 
appear in coincidence with them.  

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)