HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk>
Subject:  Questions of integrity for Jed Rothwell and Gene Mallove
Reply-To: Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:55 GMT

Jed writes about "facts" that one should weigh "which have been more
- - conclusively reproduced". Exactly.

I have not said, nor do I agree with, the next several lines within quotes
that Jed says I am saying.

I note too that you did not answer my question as to "where did I say that
theory takes preference over experiment". You made great play recently as to
how you never duck issues Jed, so answer it.

And while you insist on accusing Britz of having made statements on this net
that might damage your reputation and worse, and now are harping on again
including Taubes name too, I have to remind you, and readers, that you have
an outstanding matter in your own name here. You posted, on behalf of Gene
Mallove your colleague, a statement in early 1992 claiming that I had
deliberately ignored in Too Hot To Handle important positive data on
neutrons that would have damaged my thesis, and that had been sent to me
by Dr. Worledge of EPRI prior to my book. This is utterly false, as anyone
can confirm by calling Worledge. I have said so explicitly on this net
and challenged you/Mallove to withdraw or substantiate this libel.

  Yet all that you responded, after I challenged on two occasions, was to
distance yourself as it was Mallove's message:"I am too busy; I will deal with
you in good time; Gene deals with your province" was the gist of your
feeling of responsibility. But you acted as his postman Jed; had I posted
such things for a third party about you and then  claimed that it wasn't
really my business I can imagine the short shrift that you would give it.

The fact that Mallove has his own book in commercial competition with mine
could make this more than a trifling matter. I recall that you got very
hot about the possible financial implications if the Japanese took Dieter
Britz's remarks to heart. It could also have a more serious impact on
the developing perspective of cold fusion for future commentators.
Any evaluation of my account of the early history is likely to be based on
my credibility as an established and internationally known physicist. Were
Mallove's accusation thought to be true then this would raise serious
questions about my integrity and sideline Too Hot To Handle as a legitimate
work of record. So I repeat to you: Mallove is challenged to produce any
evidence to substantiate his accusations posted on this net about me last year.
If he refuses, or this challenge is ignored, then at least future historians
can draw their own conclusions about the integrity of two authors. And net
readers might also draw their own conclusions about the solidity of some
of the claims that are posted on this net, if they have not already done so.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Subject: Nitrogen reactions
Reply-To: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:52:11 GMT

In FD676  jr@ksr.com (John Robinson) (5 Jan 93 16:51:10 GMT) writes:

> But if nitrogen correlates to excess heat, and oxygen is present, are
> we simply finding a way to catalyze nitrogen burning?

Making nitrogen oxides (there are plenty to choose from) isn't
generally an energy-releasing process.  On the other hand, making
ammonia, NH3, from H2 and N2 releases more than 40 kJ per mole.  (This
reaction, enhanced by high temperature, high pressure, and an iron
catalyst, is used on a large scale for commercial manufacture of
ammonia.)  It is conceivable, under the special conditions existing at
a Pd or Ni cathode under hydrolysis, that this reaction could proceed
slowly.

To explain 50 watts of Mills power this way would require over a liter
per minute of N2 consumption.
Tom Droege note that this _would_ consume hydrogen.

> This could be tested in a closed cell by flushing with nitrogen...

... or in an open one by sparging with argon.
                                               - Cheers,  Chuck


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: irradiated
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:06:36 GMT



  In article sci.physics.fusion:4845, Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993
  Tom Droege (DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov) writes:

>>  "Almost any source could be used for test, but a little
>>   patience would give a cosmic ray.  I would not worry too
>>   much about getting radiated until I saw a track or two.   



  It is respectfully noted that ought be "irradiated".

  The electrode might radiate (or it might not),
   but if it did, and Tom Droege was in the incident beam,
   then he would be irradiated.


==   "radiated -- to send out rays, shine brightly"
==  "irradiated -- to cast rays of light upon,
        to affect or treat by radiant energy"
             [after Webster (ibid)]

  
  One should not work so long or so hard as to confuse
 one's self and the experiment.  Unless...
From: mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:49:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1ipr33INNkem
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamilton.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
:      No, it is not a small jump.  There are clearly shock phenomena
:      that involve ionization and dissociation, that upon species
:      recombination can emit light.  To then postulate nuclear excitation
:      from this is not a small leap at all, and the weak links are 
:      basically nonexistent links.  
: 
:      As far as the photons, they appear to be locallized at the
:      center of the bubble in 'stable cavitation'.  This would make sense
:      if there were a strong shock-dissociation-recombination chain
:      of events inside the vapour bubble.

When I went to the UCLA lab a few months ago, Prof Putterman said that
the light appeared to have a overall macroscopic polarization pattern,
which you would not expect from independent atomic recombinations, but
rather pointing towards some overall collective phenomenon.

I don't know what more recent experimental results say.

:                                 dale bass

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Reply-To: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:52:58 GMT

<logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)> quotes and writes:

>J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>>As far as we can tell they [hydrinoes] do not represent a biological hazard.
>
>This can only be true, I would think, if they were essentially chemically
>inert below temperatures hostile to lifeforms.  Much of biological chemistry
>involves the structures of molecules, and the size of the constituent
>atoms has a strong influence on such structural alignment.  Thus a smaller
>hydrogen atom would certainly muck up biological chemistry if it had similar
>chemical properties to its larger cousin.

When Mills and I were first considering the possiblility of the hydrino
causing harmful biological effects, were we going on the assumption that
it was a highly reactive species and would thus not participate in
catalytic effects.  Then Mills changed his mind, and said that any
hydrinos would be inert.  I'm not sure why he changed his mind.  Perhaps
Dr. Farrell has an explanation as to why they would be inert rather than
highly reactive.


Sincerely,

Steve Kneizys
Ursinus College

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Costanza@world.std.com (Peter Costanza)
Subject: charged points and wham!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:46:53 GMT

There has been some discussion of fusion at the tip of an
appropriately charged cone.  One response was that there is no need to
charge the cone, just whack it from behind and let the metal focus the
sound waves at the tip.  Perhaps someone should sharpen a good point,
juice it up, and then fire a bullet into the back of it....
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:22:02 GMT

arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>This just doesn't hold water.  In many of the oil producing areas of
>the world - especially, the US and the North Sea, the cost of
>production is high enough that a precipitous drop in consumption would
>just take these produccers off line.  The market would probably
>stabilize at about $15 per barrel.

As any economist will tell you, production costs don't set prices,
demand sets prices.  In other words, production costs will adjust as much
as possible to the demand level and if it cannot supply the demand at
the demand price, then trading will cease in that commodity.

Example, it might cost quite a bit to produce orange flavored mud pies,
but whatever the production cost, there is no demand, and so you cannot
even give orange flavored mud pies away.  It would be meaningless to assign
a price to such mud pies based upon their production cost.

>But long-term, when cheap alternative energy
>becomes available, the Japanese will suffer the costs of cleaning up
>their nuclear trash, while the rest of the world laughs at them.

I'm not sure if you're talking just plutonium or generic fission, but
look to countries such as France which get a large fraction of their
electrical power from fission.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart Bartholomew)
Subject: Re: Replies to D. Blue/Original BYU Expts.
Organization: The Great Beyond
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:12:50 GMT

	Um, please pardon the question from a mathematically
illiterate person, but how do you extrapolate a peak?
	Seems like you could make a guess as to the value at
some point outside the available data, but I don't see how that
tells you anything about the points, also outside the data, on
either side of the point (2.45MeV) of interest.
	BartB
-- 
"I'll need a sample."  "Come again?"  "No, once is enough." Joel<-> Holling
If there's one thing I just can't stand, it's intolerance.
*No One* is responsible for my views, I'm a committee. Please do not
infer that which I do not imply.  hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:45:42 GMT

Could someone set my mind at ease by making a clear statement as to
what is know about sonoluminescence, ultracavitation, and related
topics as opposed to conjecture based on doubtful interpretations of
a very limited data set?

My understanding of cavitation and bubble formation is that it can
involve a very small move away from equilibrium conditions.  All that
is required is that the local pressure in the liquid fall below the
vapour pressure.  I would assume that the bubble fills with vapour
on a time scale close to that required for collapse so I don't
understand why there is any talk about collapse into a "void".

Now as to sonoluminescence, I have the feeling that the conjectures
have run somewhat ahead of the facts in a chain of reasoning that goes
something like the following:  The emission of visible light from
a gas implies high excitation energies such as would result from
temperatures of many tens of kilovolts or higher so we can conclude
the sonoluminescence indicates conditions similar to high-temperature
plasmas are being produced in the bubbles.  It is but one small jump
from there to say that this might be a path to fusion.  It seems to
me, however, that this chain of reasoning has several weak links.
Suppose I suggest as an alternative point of view the notion that
the observed photons are not produced in the volume of the bubble at
all, but are instead coming from the boundary layer of the bubble?
What does the experimental data tell us in that regard?

Why would I think that the light emission is a surface effect?  Basically
because it is something easy to mimmick in the privacy of your own home,
and it can even be done in your kitchen.  Just unroll some plastic wrap
in a dark kitchen.  The layers of plastic film stick together because
the material is a polar dielectric.  When you pull the layers apart the
surfaces are left with unpaired charges in a nonuniform distribution
that is then equilibrated by surface discharges.  When I form a bubble
in a polar dielectric liquid might I not produce the same effect?

I have one more question relating of fractofusion, bubbles, and
non-equilibrium.  Suppose by hook or crook I do produce a transient
electric field in the presence of some deuterons and some electrons.
What keeps the electrons sitting still while the deuterons accelerate
to velocities high enough to induce fusion?  I have always be taught
that a mass ratio of roughly 4000:1 would leave the deuterons sitting
still while the electrons rushed off to cancel the field.  Of course
that is old fashioned theory.

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
From: STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:19:33 GMT
Reply-To: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to several postings and E-mail messages, I offer this reply:

I am not worried so much about the tone of the net being anti-CNF, but
I am unhappy about the LaRouche-type postings and the personal jabs
that often appear.  I guess I'm too much of an idealist.

As far as peer review, I do want that before I release any significant
findings.  But I also like the kind of peer review that Tom Droege does,
where everybody has a chance to comment on things while the experiment
is in progress.

I am fully aware that there are "problems" with the experiments Mills
and I published in Fusion Technology, but I have never personally been
asked to help anyone with a replication, so what do you want me to say?
Most of the "problems" have to do with our not using a constant temperature
bath, but we really didn't have to have one since our results were so
spectacular.  We wanted it to be extremely easy to replicate for anyone,
so we made the experiments simple.

A replication is fairy easy, as far as our data goes...we published
all details, including the very simple circuits I designed so that anyone
could just go to Radio Shack and get all the parts, as well as purchase
all other needed materials for less than $500 from chemical supply
houses. (If doing pulsed circuits, borrowing an oscilloscope would
be most helpful, but constant current cells also give nice results)

To anyone attempting an MKF replication:

1) Use very clean Nickel cathodes.  Do NOT use any organic solvents, or
any acid cleaners.  We used just distilled water on nickel purchased
from Aldrich used right out of the box. NO FINGERPRINTS!!!

2) When the cell operates correctly, you should observe a milky white
stream of bubbles along the cathode.  Large bubbles should tip you off
that the cells are not working properly.

3) Rubber and any other organic materials will cause problems...don't
put anything in solution except Potassium Carbonate, Nickel, Platinum
and glassware.  I have also use Teflon, but I have had some problems
with it, probably due to contamination of the teflon.  Noninski has
published results in Fusion Technology using some teflon.

4) It is often helpful to put the cell in reverse, with the Nickel as
anode, for about 30 minutes, at the very start of the experiment, but
most of the cells I use produced excess heat without this step.  Multiple
reversals of the cell polaritly can lead to serious performance deficits.


If you have any questions, I'd be glad to help.

Sincerely,

Steve Kneizys...
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: List
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:16:19 GMT

Hoyt A Stearns writes:

"I think you forgot one: My Pd Pt cell has a hydrocap recombiner, and was
evacuated after Pd charging.  The head pressure is very low."

Does it stay low?  Under these conditions, either outgassing or new absorption
will cause a pressure change.  Since I believe I see these things going on all
the time, I would be very interested if the vacuum holds, as it would indicate
possible problems with my measurement.  

Note anything kills the vacuum.  If there is D2 absorption then the excess O2
kills the vacuum.  If the cathode outgasses D2 then that kills the vacuum 
since there is no O2 to combine it on the catalyst.  

Again my measurements indicate a constant mucking around of the gas.  I am very
interested in your observations.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Keywords: Casimir Effect
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:41:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.160035.25521@athena.mit.edu> redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.074948.27304@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|> 
>|>      Just curious.  What meaning is assigned to 'the dynamical analogue
>|>      of the Casimir effect'?  I don't really see any place for the 
>|>      Casimir effect or an analogue in the process.  This isn't exactly
>|>      a subtle indication of zero-point energy.  Are you sure it
>|>      wasn't a joke?  
>|> 
>
>Definitely not a joke: Proceedings of the National Academy 89(4091)1992.

     Thanks for the reference.  

>Incidentally, I can think of a "hand-waving" reason for at once thinking
>that the Casimir effect might be involved. Although everyone thinks of the 
>static Casimir effect as "a subtle indication of zero-point energy", it's
>really not so subtle when you think about it: at a certain scale of distances,
>namely the scale of small water droplets, it's van der Waals and Casimir
>rather than Newton and Maxwell you have turn to. Now sonoluminescence
>originates with bubbles right in that size regime, but in a dynamic
>environment... If only I could think of things like this in advance, I'd
>be Schwinger!

     Unconstrained by experimental results, I can think of at least
     five ways to get light emission from a system, and the Casimir effect 
     is not the most obvious, nor seemingly the most plausible.  At small 
     scales, there are certainly different electromagnetic effects than if one
     envisions hard spheres, but unless one views the electronic levels 
     in an atom as an indication of zero-point energy, I think Schwinger
     may be reaching.

     Theories are a dime a dozen.

                                dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: Reply to Steve Kneizys
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:03:06 GMT

First I would like to welcome Steve Kneizys to the fray.  It ain't always 
pretty here Steve, but sometimes some real information gets passed.

Steve, if you have been following this gorup, you will have seen some comments
about systematic and statistical error.  Perhaps you can help me by putting 
some error limits on the last column of Table I of Mills and Kneizys.  It it
the lack of such error limits, and the supporting experiments that determined
them that prevents me from accepting your results as (as Dieter Britz would
say) a "quality positive".

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Keywords: Casimir Effect
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:49:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.063633.15257@athena.mit.edu> redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.225833.29067@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.|> 
>|> So again, has sonoluminiscence _already_ been solved, or not?
>|> 
>|> 
>|> 				Cheers,
>|> 				Terry Bollinger
>
>Doesn't Julian Schwinger say it's the dynamical analogue of the
>Casimir effect?

     Just curious.  What meaning is assigned to 'the dynamical analogue
     of the Casimir effect'?  I don't really see any place for the 
     Casimir effect or an analogue in the process.  This isn't exactly
     a subtle indication of zero-point energy.  Are you sure it
     wasn't a joke?  

     As far as Terry's post that I apparently did not reach this site, no it 
     has not exactly been solved in detail to my knowledge, however there
     are recent strong experimental and theoretical indications as to the 
     mechanism for the so-called 'stable cavitation'.  The mechanism is a 
     strong shock being shed into the vapour bubble after
     the bubble begins contracting.  About seven other possible mechanisms
     of various stripes are mentioned in Young's book on cavitation
     (appropriately entitled 'Cavitation'), a good book I'd recommend 
     to anyone interested in cavitation.  

     I was curious, so I looked at UNC (they apparently received Terry's
     post) and the full question involved the timing of the flashes.  
     Barber and Putterman's, in their 28 December PRL article,
     (again PRL: 69:3839 (1992)) measure the bubble radius of 'stable
     cavitation' against time and sonoluminescence.  They
     find that the the SL is 'clearly emitted at or near the moment
     of collapse' (Figure 1).

     Detailed measurements indicate that a roughly 40 microsecond
     period bubble sonoluminesces roughly 4 microseconds after reaching
     maximum radius (and the bubble surface velocity reaches Mach 1 about 10
     nanoseconds before reaching its minimum radius, Figures 3 and 4).  
     This would seem to indicate that the shock 'slow(s) down the collapse 
     of the bubble' and that it is, in fact, a shock.  I have seen a 
     very recent preprint that theoretically describes the first stages
     of this shock shedding process.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mallove - Morrison bet
Date: 9 Jan 93 16:36:15 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: fennel.wt.uwa.edu.au

Looking at Huizenga's cold fusion book a few days ago, I noticed that
there is mention of a bet between Eugene Mallove and Douglas Morrison
as to whether or not cold fusion wil be demonstrated as an "excess energy
generating nuclear phenomenon by Dec 31 1992". I would seem that Morrison
has won but maybe somebody (Jed Rothwell?) could find out if Mallove has
conceeded defeat yet. 

Todd



Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion