HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Subject: Question for basement physicists
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 25 Aug 1992 16:45 EST  

Tom Droege's data postings suggest that *something* is going on in his CNF 
cells worth looking at.  As I understand it, the radiation detector he's 
using is only measuring a fraction of the total spherical surface (an 
assumption here that any radiation coming from his cell is uniform w.r.t a 
spherical shell surrounding the cell - new tongue twister there :)) 
corresponding to the distance between the detector and the CNF cell.

I assume the radiation intensity (here intensity is used in the same way as 
it's used for describing photon intensity) is proportional to 1/d^2, where 
d is the distance between the detector and the cell.  To determine the 
total radiation from the cell, one must multiply the counts/unit time by:

4*pi*d^2/(detector area)

My question is simple:  Has anyone performing CNF experiments stuck a cell 
in an ionization chamber?  It would seem to me (admittedly I'm lacking in 
high energy physics experience) that using a couple of CCD cameras pointed 
at the chamber, (at 90 degree angles, to remove *any* doubt about the 
neutron source), connected to a computer which is in turn triggered to 
store snapshots of the chamber when some threshold radiation level is 
exceeded, would help to clear some of the mystery up.

I realize I'm talking about thousands of dollars (but *not* millions of 
dollars) worth of equipment.  I would think that with a decent amount of 
scavenging, one could reduce that cost by at least an order of magnitude.  

This just seems like the next logical step (IMHO) in the CNF saga.


Mike Jamison
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: se_taylo@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor)
Subject: Current Status please
Organization: Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Vienna
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:02:44 GMT

A recent report on the BBC Science in Action series stated that Martin 
Fleischmann made a presentation of new(?) cold fusion results at the British
Association for the Advancement of Science last week in Southhampton.

Probably many non experts reading this newsgroup, including me, would like
to know where this work now stands. Can someone summarise MF's presentation
and perhaps the current status of the field?

+-- I -------- fax +43 1 391452 --------------------- voice +43 1 391621 169 --+
| T a y l o r  Alcatel-ELIN Research, 1-7 Ruthnergasse, Vienna A-1210 Austria  |
+-- n ---- ian@rcvie.co.at --- PSI%023226191002::SE_TAYLOR --- 20731::ian -----+

 All opinions subject to change without notice (Signature Release 3 Version 3)
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day
Keywords: sonoluminescence
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:17:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <=5bn71#.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.160631.20329@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>
>>      The second thought is that the cavities act to concentrate 
>>      such 'vibrations' in such a manner as to cause Deuterium ions
>>      occupying the same interstitial site to fuse (or even Pd and
>>      D, recalling some vaguely interesting results from a conference
>>      past).  Of course, this sidesteps the necessity of a second miracle to 
>>      unconcentrate the energies in such a manner as to avoid easy detection 
>>      of the gammas and particles that should scream out of the lattice.
>>      However, for the sake of the argument, we can assume 
>>      that the 'unconcentration' mechanism is the reverse of the 
>>      miraculous 'concentration' mechanism seen in sonoluminescence.
>>
>The problem here is that your sonoluminescent example is exactly
>wrong for such a theory. It takes a very large sound flux and
>converts it into a detectable form of energy. The string lately
>seems to be saying that immense energies are being generated
>and that the heat is only a small part of wwhat's there.
>

     Consider this, if you were just looking for photon fluxes, you would not
     see the input power of sonoluminescence at all (ignoring for the
     moment that one is probably supplying the acoustic excitation oneself).
     Also if you were looking for acoustic vibrations at 6eV/molecule,
     you would never see the excitation at roughly 12 orders of 
     magnitude lower.

     As far as immense energies, they are only immense compared to what
     is chemically available.  The heat fluxes themselves always seem
     to be some fraction (usually not large) of input power. 

     As far as the heat being only a small part of what's there, I 
     have no idea what else you could be talking about in the context
     of 'anomalous events in metal-hydrides'.  It seems to me that heat
     is all there is.

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day
Keywords: sonoluminescence
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:53:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug26.160631.20329@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>
>      The second thought is that the cavities act to concentrate 
>      such 'vibrations' in such a manner as to cause Deuterium ions
>      occupying the same interstitial site to fuse (or even Pd and
>      D, recalling some vaguely interesting results from a conference
>      past).  Of course, this sidesteps the necessity of a second miracle to 
>      unconcentrate the energies in such a manner as to avoid easy detection 
>      of the gammas and particles that should scream out of the lattice.
>      However, for the sake of the argument, we can assume 
>      that the 'unconcentration' mechanism is the reverse of the 
>      miraculous 'concentration' mechanism seen in sonoluminescence.
>
The problem here is that your sonoluminescent example is exactly
wrong for such a theory. It takes a very large sound flux and
converts it into a detectable form of energy. The string lately
seems to be saying that immense energies are being generated
and that the heat is only a small part of wwhat's there.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Subject: Waves in solids
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  3 Sep 1992 12:52 EST  

The wave analogy I come up with comes from when my parents had a circular 
swimming pool.  We used to stand in the center of the pool, in an inner 
tube, and alternately push down/let up on it.  This set up a standing wave 
which peaked in the center of the pool, and also at the edges.

The question to ask is:  How is the force distributed at the pool walls 
compared to the pool center?  The peak/valley delta of the waves was close 
to 4 ft. at the center of the pool (the pool was a 15 ft. diameter, 4 ft. 
high job.  Yeah, a lot of water kinda splashed out :)).
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day
Keywords: sonoluminescence
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:45:43 GMT

In article <j6cn#9-.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.231725.28591@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     As far as the heat being only a small part of what's there, I 
>>     have no idea what else you could be talking about in the context
>>     of 'anomalous events in metal-hydrides'.  It seems to me that heat
>>     is all there is.
>>
>Uh, lately there has been the thread about GeV gammas hoping about.
>And although there have been several experiments that carefully looked
>for radiation, there were several p[osts about people not being
>able to find that sort of radiation. GeV gammas aren't going to
>appear all by themselves. There would be all sorts of stuff
>flying about and most of it would be detectable if by no other
>means then by the 'canary effect'. :-)

     I did not realize that anyone was taking that rot seriously
     (as if much of this is serious).  After all, the postulate of 
     invisible high energy gammas is just another way certain
     proponents wish to avoid finding a nuclear signature.  Unfortunately,
     I don't exactly think this avoids anything since you now have 
     to explain why you never see the high energy gammas, and it makes the
     momentum balance more difficult.

     However, my New Method (TM) avoids the necessity of experimenters 
     being lightly toasted by simply postulating two miracles by analogy
     (or one if you are not fond of the whole subject) where many were 
     required before.
 
     I'd have to say that this is an important advance. 

>As to heat -- it is a matter of debate whether there is any heast
>at all. :-)

     Plenty of heat has been generated, especially in the debate...

                               dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:41:27 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In the 20 August issue of nature, there is an article about the
Nucleon Cluster Model and Cluster Sciences Corporation recently featured
in this group. The article is excerpted as follows:

Scientists deny alleged support of comany's "new nuclear science".

Washington - Ten scientists cited as supporters of a nuclear theory
that is the foundation of a new cold fusion company are complaining
that they do not in fact support the theory and that their names have
been used without their knowledge.

[...] lists 16 'Supporters of the Nucleon Cluster Model' many of them
scientists. But the ten who could be reached last week deny supporting
Brightsen's model and object to the use of their names.

[Quotes from Warren Buck, whom we heard from earlier on this group]

Besides Buck, ten other 'supporters' have repudiated the model. (Of the
remaining five, two could not be contacted, and two - including retired
Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, the former chief of US naval operations - are
non-scientists).

[...]

"Perhaps 'supporters' was a bad choice of words", Brightsen admits. But
he says "we think what's in the press release is accurate, subject to
interpretation".
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Subject: Re: FASER theory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  3 Sep 1992 12:39 EST  

Touche! to Barry Merriman.

If ball lightning is fusion powered, why are the people who've observed it 
alive to tell about it? (goes hand in hand with huge excess heat claims for 
CNF observers).

Does leave the question of how the stuff stays together, assuming it's 
really a plasma...

Mike Jamison
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:47:54 GMT
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Aug19.153710.7498@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.113435.27357@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>>We are have slipped 6 to eight weeks for a number of reasons.  
>>Still the commencing of diagnostic work will require three months

>	I'm curious about what sort of device you are testing.  Is it
>simply a larger and more powerful PLASMAK assembler,  or is it actually
>intended to produce a nuclear yield?  If so,  what kind of fuel are you
>using?  Can you tell us anything else about it?

No, there is no nuclear yield sought at this juncture or expected and 
certainly none that would be of interest in any commercial sense.  This 
work is at a very initial level. (Mostly all due to funding limitations).  
That aspect of the work is two to four years hence.  

First we haven't completely verified with critical diagnostic 
measurements that the long lived plasmoids that we can create in open 
atmospheric air are indeed the physical embodiment of the PLASMAK(tm) 
magnetoplasmoid (PMK) that we have conceptualized and theorized.  Even 
though the special features already observed make it a likely PMK and 
the formation technique used was formulated by the theorized concept, a 
number of other studies must first be run to produce the data to certify 
the verification and this must happen before serious thoughts of 
obtaining nuclear yields come up.  These preliminary diagnostics 
should be well along by January/February. 

We expect that the air plasmoids should be emitting soft X-rays and may
upon physically induced disruption produce a fairly stiff although very
short X-ray burst, (much like that seen during the disruption of a 
H or Super H mode operating tokamak.)   Consequently it is necessary to
complete building the block house in which the creatures can be formed 
and studied  -- for example, stereoscopic X-ray images of the PMK's in 
their own light showing an internal 3D picture of its currents.  
Calorimetry can give us both total energy and a good measure, by 
subtraction, of a PMK's loss rates.  

And now back to dreams of buttering radiation blocks during heat and 
humidity of tomorrow's fusion times.    

+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: 13 out of 13 ain't bad, but it ain't 100 sigma!
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:18:27 GMT

Just so the skeptics know that I know, one way of looking at the data makes
it about 1.5 sigma.  You don't have to do very many experiments looking at
plain old noise to get that result from time to time.  But this is the kind
of stuff that keeps me going.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: FASER theory
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 01:49:06 GMT

In article <65103@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
> TITLE: Reposting of FASER Theory
> 
> 
>         Fusion Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
> 
> 
>             Copyright (C) June 4, 1989  by David H. Mitchellp

[non theory deleted]

If resonant standing waves induce fusion reactions in a solid medium,
you need to explain why the medium is not ripped apart first, since
the fields required are much greater than the binding enrgy of the
material. This is the obvious problem with such 'theories', and I note
that there was no mention of how to avoid this.

In absence of such a mechanism, you would at least need to cite
experimental evidence that this occurs. Citing P&F hardly counts, I'd say.



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson)
Subject: Where did everybody go?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:44:57 GMT

The title says it all
From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day -- Theory or Mindlessness^2
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:35:01
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
Reply-To: aboulanger@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU's message of 26 Aug 92 16:06:31 GMT


In article <1992Aug26.160631.20329@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:


	"Theoretical explanations for this phenomenon, especially
	 as regards the fast time scales, is lacking.  Here we have
	 reported that the spectral peak lies at photon energies which
	 are higher than those required to dissociate the molecules
	 comprising the medium in which energy concentration occurs."
	 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 69:1182 (1992))

	 I was reading along in an article on sonoluminescence and
	 it occured to me that we could postulate a similar mechanism
	 (unknown, of course) for 'anomalous phenomena in metal hydrides'.
	 After all, with sonoluminescence we have cavities (bubbles)
	 in which very strong (actually, miraculously strong) concentration
	 of acoustical energy occurs.  In the above quoted experiment,
	 field average sound energy level is about 10^-11 eV/atom and
	 the spectral peak is somewhere above 6 eV (Could be far above.
	 They report the spectrum to fit the tail of a 25000K blackbody,
	 though there is no reason to assume an equilibrium process 
	 at all.).

	 They thus find at least 12 orders of magnitude concentration
	 of the imposed sound field, concentrations that actually seem 
	 implausible since the medium dissociates below these energies.


I have posted this reference a couple of times since I think it is a
pretty neat energy concentration theory that may play a role in sonoluminescence:

"Minimal Chaos and Stochastic Webs"
A.A. Chernikov, R.Z Sagdeev, D.A. Usikov, M Yu Zakharov, & G.M. Zaslavsky
Nature Vol 326 (9 April) 1987, 559-563

Abstract:
"Particles within a stochastic -- or chaotic -- web in phase space can
be accelerated to high energies even by weak magnetic fields, and the
properties of the web show similarities to the quasicrystal state.
Examples of webs with five- and sevenfold symmetries are given. The
establishment of stochastic webs and structural coverings of the phase
plane may yield new and unexpected results"

From the Summary:
"... Similarly, the solution of the problem of the existence of the
stochastic web allows one to establish the limits of adiabatic
invariance and analyse the origin of ultra-high energy cosmic ray
particles. ... Our results suggest the existence of a similar
stochastic web in problems of hydrodynamic structures and structural
modification of solids. ..."

Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: LaTeX submission to Phys. Rev. ?
Summary: poor type face
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:18:28 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Distribution: na
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <5192@dove.nist.gov> gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861) writes:
>
>I have used the revTeX macros to format submissions for the last two
>PRA articles I've written, but decided not to submit electronically
>because the version of the Computer Modern Fonts they used was
>terrible. ...   
>   ...          After all, the idea is to publish your work in a
>format that will encourage others to read it.
>
>        .....                             there's no reason not to set
>the Physical Review in a consistent manner. In fact, according to the
>APS News (Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 3--6), the APS is looking into
>accomodating other fonts in their LaTeX electronic submissions
>program.

This is a very good point.  Perhaps we should all send E-mail to 
our favorite journal (pra@aps.org, prb@aps.org, prc... etc) and 
make this point with cc: to wbytex@aps.org.  I know the editor of 
Phys Rev C, and they would like to encourage this process since 
they like the potential for cost reduction once an economy of scale 
is reached, and I know I like the faster response and more accurate 
resulting product. 

--
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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Misner et al.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:22:03 GMT
 <mcirvin.715321420@husc8> <1992Sep1.173341.13698@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>2.) The modern notation, which drives some people crazy, has a definite
>purpose: to break people of the habit of thinking that relativity calculations
>depend on the choice of the coordinate frames. Furthermore, the more condensed
>form of the notation is alot easier to deal with when doing a long calculation,
>once you know how to use it.

I'm all in favor of using modern notation.  I didn't really understand
GR (or gauge theory!) until I learned how to use it in a differential 
geometry class.

>If the book has one major flaw, it is the description of the "sandwich"
>version of the initial value formulation for geometrodynamics. Dr. James
>York has proven that the description is inconsistent with the constraint
>equation solution.

I remember hearing somewhere that the "Schild's ladder" construction
used to describe parallel transport is in some way flawed.  According
to the story, to find the mistake is an exercise in some other book.
Has anybody else heard this story?
-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
From: muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:14:43 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>: But, I'd think that if you learned anything from the survey, it
>: would have been that this mushy, warm fuzzy philosphy is not the
>: way to understand nature. You should be distressed by the way 
>: philosophical tracts such as the Tao of Physics and Dancing Wu-Li 
>: Masters have warped physics to fulfil some philosphical need, and
>: sucked you into their fantasy. I can't believe you want to follow
>: in their footsteps.

I wonder whether the discoveries in physics (say in terms of QM
and relativity) made in the 20th century were really such a big
deal after all.  I suspect the prevalence of the popular media
are in large to blame.  QM discovered that depending on how one
sets up an experiement, subatomic units behaved as particles or
waves.  Now who is to blame for that ?  Why, the critics, say,
it's all the fault of the experimenter!  Now, critic #II
comes along and says that there is all this deep human psychology
inbedded in this disturbing fact so much so that in fact it
might even be connected to "eastern mysticism".  Not a bad
way to earn money...  Anyway, I think a big deal is being made
out of mere theory.  The folks in the 17th and 18th century
seem to have gotten along with Newtonian physics much easier
than have the moderns.  Short of Leibniz's characterization of
gravity as an "occult force", by and large, they were happy
to accept and work with it in practice.  Not that it made it
right of course :=).
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem