HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Database
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:43:50 GMT

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

Thomas Edwards comments on my database idea: "This is another good argument
for getting every researcher in the US, and possibly the world, on the net."

This would help, but as Dieter can tell you, somebody has to do a lot of hard
work to organize the data. Also, Japanese researchers are very unlikely to get
on a net, since they do not generally speak English fluently, and they do not
have time. Most of their papers and meetings are in Japanese (obviously!).
Finally, the big corporate people, who have the best results both here and in
Japan, would never, ever, contribute a word. They might respond to a formal
survey. OTOH, I am no Fritz Will, so they would probably ignore me.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (Mike Miskulin)
Subject: Re: Palladium
Organization: High Energy Concepts
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:11:26 GMT

In article <920717124300.202026cd@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>Just went long one 100 oz Palladium contract for December delivery.  Contract
>price $88.00 per oz.  Note the September contract is $88.70 so it is cheaper
>to buy Palladium in the future than today.  This means that speculators think
>the market is going down.  
>

It also means that there is a cost of carry to be considered.  If you take
delivery in September vs December you have lost 3 months of interest on
the cash you use for your purchase - lets take the 3 month Treasury as the
risk free rate - at about 3.25%.  This gives an uncompounded loss of about 
$0.70 to own palladium in September vs December.


Mike



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mike Miskulin		mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us	70053,551@compuserve.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Social responsibility?
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 06:15:46 GMT

Bob_Sidebotham@transarc.com writes:
>What happens to society under this scenario? Do researchers have a
>responsibility to evaluate the destructive possibilities inherent in
>their work *before* publishing?

There are some things that cannot be kept secret, no matter how important
it is to keep them secret.  The very act of govenrments trying to now clamp
down on CF research would be taken as an obvious signal that something 
powerful is to be discovered.  "Basement bombers" would take on a new meaning,
and ferocity.  Foreign enemies would go on three shift work day.  The secret
would quickly become the biggest non-secret in history.

When P+F went public, the genie was out of the bottle.  There is no way to get
the genie back into the bottle.  If there is something to CF, there simply is
no way of preventing that discovery from now being made.  

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stimulated Emission
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:11:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

While thinking about the Ying device, and how to exploit its effect without 
the continuous use of a gamma source (i.e. making a gamma ray laser), I was 
struck by the following thought:

1)  If D+D+gamma -> He4+2gamma exists, then:

2)  (your favorite gamma source)+gamma -> fragments + 2gamma

should also exist.

In other words, if gamma induced fusion exists, then gamma induced fission 
should also exist.

Conversely, if gamma induced fission doesn't exist, then gamma induced 
fusion won't, either.

Are there any known cases of gamma induced fission?

Mike Jamison
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Runaway power
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:52:48 GMT

A table of energy and power.

3.5 megawatt-hours  --  The energy available in Droege's Pd electrode if all
                        loaded D's fused into He4's.

8.9 milliwatts      --  The delta power between Droege's boson source in,
                        and out.

60 picowatts        --  The delta power if each incident boson only triggered
                        a single D+D=>He event.

4 picowatts         --  The power of the incident bosons themselves.



If the correlation between Droege's boson in/out mode and heat output is
statistically significant, then there *must* be a chain reaction, even if
it is chemical in nature.  The need for a chain is even greater in a lower
energy chemical reaction, since far more events are required to achieve
the same delta-power.

There also *must* be a moderating mechanism even if it is chemcial in nature.
If it is nuclear, then there must be a reason that a gain of 150 million
doesn't build to ignite the entire 3.5 megawatt-hours in a fraction of a
second.

  -- John Logajan
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Occam's razor
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:11:39 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
>2.Why have the believers in cold nuclear fusion (sic) been so conservative
>and not suggested this "obvious" explanation: energy *not* conserved.

This really has a very simple explanation -- a loyalty to the time tested
notion known as Occam's razor.  Go with the simplist explanation that
remains consistent with the known data.

Here the battle lines form around what is "known" and what isn't.  But
no one is going to jump to violations of energy conservation until they
have to.

At some point in *every* discovery, you have to accept that not all of the
lab results represent experimental error.  In principle, however, you could
maintain exactly that -- human error, human mendacity, whatever.

On the other extreme you could believe in things without any evidence, and
a truck load of counter-evidence.

Between these extremes lies a contiuum and individuals fall in different
positions.  No two people will have the same standards of "proof" for
everything.  Thus are born the debates over what is "known", what is
"certain."  But this doesn't mean that two debators cannot both appeal
to Occam's razor, or the elements of logic.  It may merely mean they have
different starting premises.

It is hoped that eventually the correlation between reality and the
conflicting premises will sort itself out.  In some people's minds,
that is already done, in others, that is still ongoing.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: mcculley@racy.zko.dec.com (Bruce McCulley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:40:09 GMT
Reply-To: mcculley@racy.zko.dec.com (Bruce McCulley)
Distribution: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation



I too saw this report, I believe it may've been on page B4 of today's WSJ.

Can't recall all the details, but one salient point that stuck out for me 
was that the successful experiment used electrode material from the same
supplier in Japan as the successful Japanese experiment and another cell
using material from a different source was unsuccessful...

Sorry for the skimpy details, I'm working from memory of a report sanitized
for general interest audience...

--bruce
From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:12:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.MePjNuS00WBME3xIw9
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I think Dieter Britz is confusing macroscopic thermodynamics with
microscopic kinetics when he invokes Le Chatlier's principle to question
how the input of gamma irradiation affects the D + D --> He-4 + gamma
reaction.  In microscopic reaction rate theory, before we can talk about
Le Chatlier's principle and equilibrium, we have to say something about
the reverse elementary reaction, He-4 + gamma --> D + D.  When we know
the relative rates of each of these steps, we have an equilibrium
constant.  But suppose the rate of that latter step is zero, i.e. that
it does not occur.  You have an irreversible reaction, no 'equilibrium',
and no place for Le Chatlier's principle.  Or, if you add aluminum
powder to a solution of copper, metallic copper will form and the
aluminum will dissolve.  You can't get metallic aluminum back by adding
more product copper metal.

PJK
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: marki@netcom.com (Mark N. Iverson)
Subject: ...to lighten things up a bit.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 19:12:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (Los Angeles area access)
Distribution: usa


[Everybody must be asleep |-) zzzz  out there, as I thought someone would 
 have jumped on this immediately...]

In recent reply to one of Tom's articles, someone (think it was Deiter) wrote:

>                                              ...  Tom Droege, I think,
>has told us that he sometimes accumulates gas, and then it recombines in a
>rush.  This causes heat surges. 

Thank goodness the sense of olfaction doesn't work over the net!!!  :-)


Tom, try taking some papaya tablets after eating; it really helps! ;-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[ and another opportunity that i couldn't pass...]
[ ...altho, it contains a very serious element...]

Terry Bollinger writes:

>Hmmm...  Had no idea that "proper funding" is required in order to expire
>from radiation poisoning...  }=-)>
>
>(I vote for the Tooth Fairy sneaking in from Buckaroo Bonsai's 9th.  CNF
>researchers, hold tight to your teeth!  :-)  )

...Buckaroo's comment after his Cold Fusion Mr. Coffee melts down...




                "No Matter Where You Glow, There You Die"




wake up out there...

Mark

-- 
Mark N. Iverson
marki@netcom.com                    /  We dance round in a ring and suppose,
                   (scientists)--> |   but The Secret sits in the middle,
Disclaimer: mine, and only mine.    \  and knows.               -- R. Frost

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Subject:  DD->4He + gamma
Reply-To: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:34:16 GMT

Someone wrote "I think dd->alpha violates some quantum transition rules"
In fact it is even more basic: it violates energy momentum conservation and
that is why something has to be radiated (gamma).

For those interested in why: The mass of an alpha is *less* than that of two

deuterons. The minimum initial energy that the two deuterons can have is if
 theyare at rest and they then fuse to make an alpha at rest. This satisfies
 momentumbut the *energy* (mass = rest energy/c**2) dont balance because of the
 mass
defect of the alpha. The result is that the alpha is produced in a short lived
 eexcited state and sheds the excess by gamma radiation.


Anyone who has studied QED knows that it costs probability to shed gammas -
roughly alpha=1/137 per gamma in the matrix element. The more gamma you shed
 theless chance. So shedding 2,3 etc is less and less likely. Even one kills you
by around a million relative to the "direct" strong processes of t+p or
n+3He.

Concerning Ying, and the whole world for that matter: forget theory and
look for products. No products, no fusion. As explained in detail a
couple of months ago these arguments about products depend only on
*general* arguments of *energy conservation* and the order of magnitudes
of nuclear binding energies (which are the *source* of any energy released
in nuclear transmutations).

Invoke as many miracles as you like to hide the products of dd fusion
and you wont explain the lack of products in the data *unless* you are
prepared to give up *energy conservation*. Even Jed Rothwell keeps
on about energy conservation, so it seems even he is ont prepared to give
up thta property (I am sure Jed will correct me if I am wrong; I have only
quoted from memory). I am nopt prepared to, by the way, but here is an
historical note that might amuse younger readers.

Pauli invented the idea of the neutrino in order to explain the *apparent*

violation of energy-momentum conservation in beta decay (193x). This is
now confirmed exptally. What is less widely known is that people as eminent
as Bohr seriously considered the possibility that E-mom might *not* be
conserved in nuclear beta decay; their thesis being that we had seen a whole
new change in outlook going from macroscopic to *atomic* dimensions, quantum
theory etc; and now one was extrapolating those ideas to *nuclear* dimensions
which was a comparable leap in scale.

I posted this for three reasons.
1."Establishment" science *is* open to "crazy" ideas
2.Why have   the believers in cold nuclear fusion (sic) been so conservative
and not suggested this "obvious" explanation: energy *not* conserved.
The ultimate free lunch.
3. Sorry. My memory has a half-life shorter than lithium-11 and I
forgot what the third post was supposed to be. Maybe I recoiled from the
enormity of the rest of this posting.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:33:17 GMT

In article <weRiXuK00UhW04InRD@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol) writes:
>Bruce Scott talks about He-3 or T induced secondary reactions as a
>source of high energy fusion output.  If this were important, then He-3
>or T experiments would have been done.  In fact, I know of an
>unpublished search for CNF using a sample loaded with multi-curies of
>tritium and no ...no... indications of fusion were observed...
>...also guesses that D + D --> He-4 violates some quantum...rule...

Look, the fusion scenario we are working on is the D + T, which has the
highest cross section. We normally work only with D, since T is quite
difficult (more expensive) to handle safely. The small DD fusion rate
can be and has been measured in many tokamaks. Fusion neutrons from
D + T were measured directly in the JET DT shots; the "fusion power"
(which was *not* recovered in any usable form) of 1+ MW was calculated
from the production rate of these neutrons.

I'm not surprised that no-one has seen *cold* fusion with T, since this
is illusory in general.

Jim Carr answered to the effect that D + D --> alpha + gamma does indeed
violate selection rules; that's why the cross-section was so small that
the NRL "blue book" made no mention of it.

Rolfe Petschek gave the quantum details. Both posts confirmed my suspicion.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Newton's Constant Somewhere
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:56:11 GMT
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

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

Tom's D. comments:

"Briefly, there is a big difference between a calibration resistor in an open
calorimeter, and a cell which bubbles and causes the electrolyte level to
change.  Don't know how one can be used to calibrate the other with much
accuracy."

Well, it is not a big difference. I have lots of data to show it is a
moderate, predictable difference, but the point is well taken. Fleischmann and
Takahashi both suggest that it is better to calibrate with electrolysis than
with a resister. I suggest it is best to calibrate with both. It does not add
to accuracy, but it gives you a better feel for the calorimeter.

Regarading water levels: it is essential that you get a handle on this.
Calibrate with the highest possible water level, the lowest level, and in the
middle.

"Jed Rothwell, if you would write shorter messages I would read them more
carefully." Hey, I got a lot to say! I'm talkin' politics & Japan here, both
wordy subjects. Seriously, though, there have been so many misconceptions
about this business, and so many odd, incorrect ideas about basic calorimetry,
that I feel it is time to lay it out in depth. Dieter objects to my treating
the subject as if I was talking to children. You, and he, are both welcome to
chalk that up to my own ignorance of the field, and my need to explain every
point in enough detail to allow anyone to see if I have gone off the track.

I notice, however, that in spite of his objections, Dieter has not attempted
to explain how a simple calorimeter could be off by a factor of 30. You gave
it a good solid try, but your analysis is wrong. Keep Trying! It is a good
exercise for everybody. I don't know why you are wrong, but my data shows you
are completely off. (Having real data is a luxury; its great for people like
me who do not understand heat transfer theory. I don't *have* to understand
it, I can see right here that mixing does not change between phases, and the
TCal remains constant.)

Mark Hugo, by the way, tells me you forget Newton's constant somewhere.

- Jed
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Social responsibility?
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:52:59 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul31.061546.29620@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>Bob_Sidebotham@transarc.com writes:
>>What happens to society under this scenario? Do researchers have a
>>responsibility to evaluate the destructive possibilities inherent in
>>their work *before* publishing?
>
>There are some things that cannot be kept secret, no matter how important
>it is to keep them secret.  The very act of govenrments trying to now clamp
>down on CF research would be taken as an obvious signal that something 
>powerful is to be discovered.   ....

I think the point was for the researchers to keep it secret, from the 
governments as well.  This was the approach taken by fission researchers 
prior to WWII (concerning the number of neutrons released in the fission 
of U-235) up to the point when Joliot and Curie published their findings 
on the subject -- to the horror of others who had seen same and suppressed it.

Of course, the "secret" is still out there for anyone else who looks....

>When P+F went public, the genie was out of the bottle.  There is no way to get
>the genie back into the bottle.  If there is something to CF, there simply is
>no way of preventing that discovery from now being made.  

This is true.  Who you tell about it is another matter. 

--
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)
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:31:44 GMT
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Jul23.224026.14653@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>Still, even when one thinks about it in a more proper intuitive way,
>it seems a bit odd (please correct my intuition....): in my mind,
>in the d + d -> He + g, the two d nuclei slam together and start 
>vibrating, and the vibration shakes off a gamma of the same frequency.
>
>if you add the gamma back to a bunch of d's, so what? it may shake
>individual d nuclei a bit, but it bounces off because its not
>at a resonant frequency and in any event it doesn't seem to
>encourage the d's to get close together.

The forward reaction rate in a reaction involving dd and He (assumed to
be essentially classical particles) and a gamma is

k*(n+1)

where n is the number of gamma's in the quantum state into which the
gammas decay.  If there is more than one state then this is the average
number in such possible states.  The rate of the back reaction is

k'*n

Now k/k' in this case is less than 1, assuming more d's than He's so all
we need is to increase n.  Suppose we have a source with a band width of
1eV [this seems to me wildly optomistic]
and center frequency of 24 MeV.  Now assuming that this
is at the correct frequency to have n of order unity would require
an energy density in gamma's of (hbar c)^{-3}(pi)^{-2} E^3(Delta E)
where E is the center frequency, hbar is Planck's constant, c is the
speed of light and pi is 3.141592654... . Well, now that turns out to
be rather a lot - not bothering to be careful I seem to get 
10^26 ergs/cm^3 but it is clear that this has to be lots and lots
in comparison with, say the energy flux associated with a black body at
the temperature of the sun (ouch) (which is only a few keV).  To see a big 
effect you need n much bigger than unity (say, 10^50).

Thus I think that the possible answers are

Ying sees no effect.
This and similar theories are the wrong ideas for Ying's effect.
Ying is dead, long since but had access to the biggest damn monochrome
source you ever dreamed of, since melted.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: dfdaly@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov (Dennis F. Daly)
Subject: ITER contracts
Originator: dfdaly@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center  Hampton VA  23665
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:39:13 GMT

Does anyone have any information on the signing of the ITER contracts for the
start of the design phase?  My girlfriend is a Nuclear Engineering student at
North Carolina State University, and has no access to the net at her summer
job.  I thought I might find some information from this news group.  Thanks
in advance for your help.

					Dennis Daly
----
And now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...



Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion