HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LiOD and energy per molecule so far
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:59:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: sleepy.9210041559.AA05057

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>Cell 4A2
>Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O

If I recall in cell 4A1, LiOD was added in excess to the effect that there
was a large portion of it saturated out of solution.  And this, if I recall,
was purely for anticipated long term runs, to cover gunk losses, etc.

Are you now, or will you in the future, run with less "excess" LiOD, since you
now seem to think you can detect duds within a week.

Actually, I just want to know how many moles of LiOD you have in your cell :-)
It seems like that is the only electron volts per atom calculation I don't 
have sufficient info on to make.

Using Droege's Oct 2 data and anticipating another 2000 joules (a half day
or so) to and even 60,000 excess joules gives:

 1.0eV per D2O/H2O molecule (1.6 moles)
80.0eV per Pd atom (0.02 moles)
85.0eV per loaded D atom (0.94 loading)
 x.xeV per LiDO molecule (quantity unknown)
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2229 sci.physics:15553
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Subject: My Stupid Idea re Antimatter
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:02:38 GMT


After I sent my far out idea about anti-protons I realised that there
would have to be hell of a lot of gammas, there presumably being no
other path for the energy of anihilation.

Sorry,  Dick Jackson
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Subject: Gotta see those graphs
Reply-To: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:20:10 GMT

Some possibilities for graphics formats to pass around here, 
specifically for line plots of measured data.  I have marked my opinion
of pluses + and minuses - :
 HPGL (Hewlett-Packard Graphics Language -- for plotters)
   + Most plotting software will output it
   + Vectors - fairly small files
   + 7-bit ASCII (I think) = easy mailing
   - Screen display software hard to find (?)
 TEKTRONIX 4010 (for an ancient graphics display terminal)
   + Vectors with some compression - very small files
   + 7-bit ASCII
   + Screen display by public-domain terminal emulators on many CPUs
   - Not a common output format from modern software
 GIF (Graphics Interchange Format -- Compuserve)
   + Raster graphics - arbitrary images
   + Display software and format interchange software for many CPUs
   + LZH compression - reasonably compact (for raster graphics!)
   - big files, compared to vector formats
   - 8-bit data, may require arcane uuencode treatment for mail
 TIF (Tagged Image File -- desktop publishing)
   + Raster graphics - arbitrary images
   + display software and format interchange software for many CPUs
   + Common output format for PC-based graphics programs
   - big files
   - limited standardization -- several "dialects" exist
   - 8-bit data, may need arcane treatment

Comments encouraged.
  -chuck
   

  

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Radiation danger?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:08:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.194008.18482@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>
>Dick Forman M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>As Tom and I have discussed privately there is no radiation danger.
>
>If you just meant to say that there has been no measured radiation, then
>you are probably right -- I mean, if it doesn't effect the geiger counter,
>it probably won't effect the human body.
>
That is NOT what I meant.
 
>But if you meant that there are theoretical reasons to feel confident that
>there is no radiation danger -- then you aren't telling us all you know. :-)
>
That's true.  There is still plenty of danger and in a dirty enough set up
even the possibility of radiation.  But then I could be wrong.
 
>--
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
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: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:19:21 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Thanks for the feedback.
The suggestion of Dietz that a neutrino may carry off the energy seems to
violate the criterion that the crucial experiment be conducted with  heat
producing cells, since the neutrino will not deposit energy in a cell.  The
same problem exists for other highly penetrating radiations, such as GeV-energy
particles and high-energy gammas:  how can these deposit enough power in a cell
without producing copious secondary x-rays?
The suggestion that a massive charged particle picks up most of the energy
seems to be ruled out by the need for momentum conservation:  the lighter
particle carries most of the kinetic energy.
To Logajan I would point out that (to my knowledge) no experiment to look at
x-ray spectra has yet been performed with a cell that is claimed to be
producing excess power at the time.  I would not presuppose the results of such
an experiment.  However, I would like to see such an experiment done since if
the heat is indeed nuclear, then I have argued that secondary x-rays must be
present.  
Further efforts to shoot holes in my argument are welcomed.
Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: Graphs of Droege experiment data
To: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: U. of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.205234.2059@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:

   Good point, except that everyone here who can understand the meaning of
   the graphs also probably has the smarts to take the published data tables
   and produce their own graphs.

Perhaps we have the smarts, but not all of us have the time or the
software; I appreciated Robert Horst's graphs.
From: jrtz@stat1.bst.rochester.edu (John Ritz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Examples of Statistical Experim. Designs ?? Anyone ?
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:28:56 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


 

	Examples of Statistical Experim. Designs ?? Anyone ?

	
	I would be interested in seeing some explicit examples 
        of people using Statistical Experimental Designs : 
        One - and Two - way ANOVA , Randomized Block , 
        Mixed effets , Latin Squares , Factorial etc. , 
        in this area of science. If you have any , please 
        email me at jrtz@stat1.bst.rochester.edu . You 
        can give a reference to a Journaltogether with 
        volume , no. and pagenr. ( e.g. Technometrics , vol.11 ,     
        no.1 .. ) .

        Thx !
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Who is who
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:31:00 GMT

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

There has been some confusion about people's names and theories, and about the
theory referenced by Jerry Bishop in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 28. Terry
Bollinger writes:

"...the wager in question was simply whether some reporter would be brave
enough to broach the idea of TMC in a highly public medium.  Net-conscious
reporters are clearly aware of the discussion a couple of months ago on the
Rothwell/Menlove et al TMC theory, so I figure that sooner or later someone
will dare to mention it in something like the Wall Street Journal."

I believe that refers to the Brightsen NCM (nuclear clustron model, not
theory), which was presented Rothwell and Mallove, not Menlove. Eugene Mallove
is with Clustron Sciences Corporation. Howard Menlove is Los Alamos National
Lab.

The WSJ article says that Peter Hagelstein of M.I.T. "said the mysterious
phenomenon producing the excess power in the experiments 'probably is not
fusion.'" Hagelstein does not believe that CF is caused by total annihilation,
or antimatter; he thinks CF is a neutron transfer reaction.

I believe it is fair to say that there has been a general consensus among all
CF researchers for a very long time that CF is not fusion. Nobody knows what it
is, but it is definitely not the kind of reaction that occurs in the sun,
because it does not generate a large neutron flux. On the other hand, it is
definitely a nuclear reaction of some sort because it generates massive heat,
neutrons, tritium and helium 4 in quantities that are far, far above the
minimum threshold of detectibility. A reaction that generates these products,
in *any* amounts, is nuclear by definition. The argument that the products are
not "commensurate" is specious nonsense. Any confirmed amount of product is
proof of a nuclear reaction, the fact that it is not "commensurate" with know
reactions simply proves that CF has not been seen before, and cannot be
accounted for by conventional theory.

- Jed
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Two more questions from a layman
Date: 6 Oct 1992 23:05:29 GMT
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics DataBase
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.131.1.21


While waiting for more signal on this channel here are two more
questions from a layman:

   1) Should one worry about Tom Droege's problems with his UPS?
      When considering buying one of these circa 1984, I
      was told that it did an excellent job of conditioning
      the power coming out, but could have bad effects on
      other devices attached to the circuit "behind" the UPS.

   2) Tom made some remarks about how he liked BASIC as he
      was able to go in and tinker with the programs (paraphrase!).
      As someone who gets paid to do this sort of tinkering, I
      was a bit put off by these statements --though I agree that
      interpreted languages _are_ easier to tinker with.  Any
      possibility that the tinkering caused anomalies?

I have the highest regard for Tom Droege.  His "real-time" publishing
is incredibly refreshing compared with the usual post facto polishing
of results that passes for scientific publication.

    --Brad Sherman
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two questions from a layman
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:47:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: VOILA.NICKH.92Oct5134703
	<1992Oct5.024008.20040@EE.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Oct5.024008.20040@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:

   [...]

   Let me ask if I understand this correctly.  This is apparently net
   excess power coming from somewhere of approx 0.07 W, or about 6000 J
   of energy if the experiment runs for 24 hours.  Now, my impression is
   that the energies released by common exothermic chemical reactions are
   on the order of 1,000 to 10,000 J per gram of "fuel" used in the
   reaction (is this correct?).  If this is true, than the excess energy
   in Droege's experiments could be entirely accounted for by the
   chemical reaction of a few grams, or at most a few tens of grams, of
   some kind of purely chemical fuel per day of operation.

   If this is true, is it not a very serious (and difficult) concern that
   the excess energy could be coming from the chemical reaction (or state
   change) of some very small amount of "fuel" in the setup, perhaps in
   the form of an impurity, which could be very difficult to identify or
   test for?

Yes, this is all true. But the whole point of Tom Droege's rig is that
there _aren't_ grams, let alone tens of grams, of "fuel": the whole
cell is controlled in great detail (think about what it means to
control the heat transfer of the cell to within a milliwatt).

Also I'm sure that everything in the cell will be analyzed for state
changes when he strips it down.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:49:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
>* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
>* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *

Four days ago, Tom Droege was reporting 15,000 joules excess accumulated over
an eight day period.  He also implied he had 1.6 moles of D2O/H2O and 1/50th
of a mole of Pd.

From this we can estimate 0.25 electron volts per D2O/H2O, or 20 electron
volts per Pd, or, assuming .95 loading, 21 electron volts per loaded D.

If there is chemical "ash", then, it is probably outside the Pd electrode, as
20eV's per atom is quite unusually high for chemical energies, I believe.
 
0.24eV's is nothing special, but it does imply a goodly fraction of the 
electrolyte has undergone the anomolous chemistry -- if that is what it is,
and therefore, should be easily detectable in post chemical analysis.

For those who want to make their own calculations, there are:

1.6E19 electron volts per joule.

6.02E23 atoms per mole.

Therefore, eV's per atom is found by inserting joules (J) and moles (M):

( J * 1.6E19 ) / ( M * 6.02E23 ) = eV per atom

-- 
- 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: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Latest Result
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:47:21 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>we charged at about 30 ma per sq cm for about a day, then went to the
>present 170 ma per sq cm.

I take it that the Pd electrode was virgin (not used in previous experiments)
and therefore you did not have the Pd repetitively "breath" D in and out in
an attempt to purge gaseous contaminants pre-existing in the Pd.

-- 
- 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: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Gelatinous amphoteric aluminum layer.
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:08:59 GMT

Thanks to all who offered suggestions for making a geladinous amphoteric
aluminum layer.  

I don't always get around to answering each message.  It does not mean that
they are not appreciated.  Sometimes the pile just gets too high.  

Looks like we are up over 50 killojoules.  For a frantic day I thought I had
found a big error in the heat computation.  The shell servo got hung and I
did not notice it immediately.  So there are two days where the heat was 
over reported.  Looks like a total of 4 killojoules or so.  

So the two largest power days have to be reduced.  When this is done there is
a steady upward trend in the net heat.  

There was a large heat pulse last night.  Over 200 mw for over a minute.  
About 23 joules total.  It was a clear sudden increase with an exponential 
decay.  Have about 20 measurement on the curve.  We do not see these with
a resistor in the cell or with H2O (but not much data) or with D2O running
backwards!

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Two more questions from a layman
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:28:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.234338.18822@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>
>* A modern BASIC in general will NOT be (just) an "interpreted
>language" (and will NOT have line numbers, and WILL have all the
>modern structured programming concepts, and WILL have local as well as
>global variables, and so forth and so on).
>
Just as a point of reference, any _complete_ programming language will
accomplish pretty much what any other programming language will do.
Terminology and syntax may vary, but the final code will compile to
basically the same size and speed.

There really isn't any legitimate arguments left that support BASIC over
Pascal of C or even LISP -- except the ease of programming any specific
task in a particular language. (i.e. Artificial Intellegence projects
are easier to program in LISP than C, yet many LISP compilers are written
in C. :-))

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Latest Status
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:04:33 GMT

***************************************************************************
* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
***************************************************************************

Tom Droege
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Result
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:56:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>We have faithfully continued the 2 microcurie source in/out on alternate days.

It occurs to me that there is something else that correlates to in or out
besides radiation levels -- vibration from the clunking around of moving the
source in or out.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lame answers to layman's questions
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:43:45 GMT

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>excess power coming from somewhere of approx 0.07 W, or about 6000 J
>of energy if the experiment runs for 24 hours.

>energies released by common exothermic chemical reactions are
>on the order of 1,000 to 10,000 J per gram of "fuel" 
 
>If this is true, than the excess energy
>in Droege's experiments could be entirely accounted for by the
>chemical reaction of a few grams, or at most a few tens of grams, of
>some kind of purely chemical fuel per day of operation.

Droege's cathode consists of about 2 grams of Pd (if I did my calculations
correctly.)  He also has about 30 grams of D2O.  He has an unknown (by me)
amount of LiOD, teflon, foam chunks, and glass??? all in immediate contact
with the active portion of the cell.

Cell 4A2 has been running for 20+ days with a rather linear continuous
increase in power output, so it is easy to find the average power over
twenty days -- take the current power and divide by 2.  Thus the system
has produced about 3000J a day for the last 20 days.  In just the first
7 days, chemical energies accounted for by the Pd or the loaded D exceeded
your stated high limits.

That leaves D2O, LiOD, teflon, foam chunks and glass as the remaining
potentially significant unknowns.  I suppose the free oxygen could combine
with the foam -- burn it, so to speak, but I think that would effect his
gas volume measurements.

I don't know the quantities of any of the other occupants (except for the
30 cc's of D2O) and so can't hazard a guess.  But I think that it is
unlikely that D2O represents a source of chemical "fuel" in the 1000-10000J
per gram range :-)

 -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Subject: Re: Radiation danger?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:07:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.194008.18482@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>If you just meant to say that there has been no measured radiation, then
>you are probably right -- I mean, if it doesn't effect the geiger counter,
>it probably won't effect the human body.

   I don't know about your geiger counter, but our geiger counter is
notoriously poor at detecting gamma rays.  It does fine on high energy
betas but doesn't find low energy betas either.  You may want to get a
gamma counter and/or wear a detector badge of some kind just to be sure.
     -Andy
ajpierce@med.unc.edu
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:06:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Sep30.210640.13147
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep30.160534.16744@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>Dick Forman M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>I would like to propose a new Internet newsgroup: sci.nuclear.energy
>>The newsgroup would be moderated to delete the clutter.
>
>By most measures, this is a low clutter newsgroup already, and would
>be a low clutter e-mail group.  My guess is that what you want is
>pretty specialized and would be most efficiently served by an e-mail
>reflector.

I agree with John. As sci.nanotech shows, moderated newsgroups reflect
the ideas of the moderator and stiffle true discussion.
From: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Summary: comment on science journalism
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:40:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: bu.97082
Reply-To: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: Boston University


>GET SOMEONE WITH A SCIENCE BACKGROUND TO LEARN JOURNALISM. That is the only
 was

>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.

 brief, i hope, interruption from this group's topic. yes dick, i do have
a physics background but i still wonder about your above statement. it's
a question most science journalists argue about at one point or n another.
for instance, in the last month i've written about deafness research,
making antihydrogen, and spinal cord research--and i don't know
if my "background" helped in any of them. jerry bishop, for instance,
has no real science background. the grad programs, however, now seem
to require a science background and then try to turn you into
a journalist. enough of an interruption--just wanted to remark that
your comment is provocative and debatable issue.

cheers,
john travis
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion