HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: The experimental basis of relativity
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:56:58 GMT

In article <921218195256_72240.1256_EHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>He did not perform them, Michelson and Morely did. He derived his theory from
>their experimental observations, and then verified aspects of the general
>theory for the first time with the observations of the solar eclipse in 1919
>(I believe it was).

Well, if Einstein didn't even perform his own experiments then how could
he call himself a scientist? That was your statement concerning Deiter
Britz was it not?

>Now that CF experiments have shown that aneutronic nuclear reactions can occur
>in metal lattices, theories must be devised to explain this. Any theory that
>predicts that these reactions cannot occur must be discarded.
>
Jed, I can tell you how to convince the most arden skeptic; build an
industrial sized CNF reactor that developed several kilowatts of excess
heat from a few watts in. Since CNF is a fact this is something well within
not only reason, but necessity, in order to build on all of the research.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Re: The first S. Jones low-level CF result
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:40:43 GMT

Since this will probably be my last opportunity to comment before
taking off for the holidays,  I want to let Steve know that I am not
just ducking out replying to him.  I would like to see some of the
issues I have raised aired out a bit, and to have any errors I have
made corrected.  I believe the basic issue centers on the characteristics
of the neutron detector used in the initial experiment, and I rely on
the description of that detector as contained in the reference:

"A neutron coincidence spectrometer," Czirr and Jensen, Nuclear Instruments
and Methods A284 (1989) 365-369.

This paper does indicate that this spectrometer was used in the "capture-
spectrum mode" for the "recent cold-fusion experiments".  See page 369.
In a nut shell, the spectrometer consists of a cylindrical volume of
liquid scintillator, BC-505, 12.7 cm dia. by 12 cm length.  The volume
is divided roughly in quarters by three circular plates of 6Li glass
scintillator.  The liquid and the glass are viewed by two PM tubes
which form the ends of the cylinder.

The neutron detection characteristics of the liquid are primarily
determined by elastic scattering events in which an incident neutron
imparts some or all of its kinetic energy to a recoiling proton that
in turn produces a scintillation light pulse in proportion to the
recoil energy.  Hence the signal generated is proportional to the
neutron energy loss with a maximum pulse height which corresponds to
the total neutron energy. 

The 6Li glass on the other hand, reponds to neutrons via the reaction
6Li(n,t)4He + 4.78 MeV.  That energy is shared by the two particles
in the final state and determines the pulse height, essentially
independent of neutron energy because the reaction generally occurs
at or near thermal energies.  Hence no neutron energy information
can be derived from this signal!

The average path length for one scattering by a 2.5 MeV neutron
in the liquid is about 9 cm, and another 6 cm for a second scattering
so a far fraction of the neutrons escape from this detector without
depositing their full energy.

With these facts in mind I want Steve Jones to explain how a peak
corresponding to 2.45 MeV energy gets generated in this detector and
what the calibration method was that determined the peak shape and
position.  I am aware of the Figure 6 in the Czirr and Jensen paper
which shows an experimentally determined peak shape for 2.9 MeV
neutrons, but it also shows the response going off scale as it rises
toward channel zero.

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Making it big.
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:14:26 GMT

In article <921211231651_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>My contribution was to pay for the equipment, and analyze the data,
>which I downloaded into my computer by phone.

Wow!  I didn't know you paid for the equipment!  Here I am with a
savings account earning a modest interest and you're putting your money
where your mouth is on cold fusion.  You're a braver man than I.

Sometimes I wonder if I could make it big, and I'm envious of
the people who have.  There are a few different ways to do it.  Bill
Gates is the richest man in the country and he did it with some
brilliant marketing ideas.  You can tell he's really made it now.  He's
building his own salmon run and his own electronic art gallery where
you can press a button and see any art masterpiece you want.  And
that's just the beginning.  He's got so much left over, he's
untouchable.  He's the founder of his family.  His descendants will
point to his picture on the wall and say he was the one who started it
all.  To build a fairly safe savings account and pay for your
children's college tuition is nice, but to pay for your children's
children's children's college tuition, and to know that you have such a
large, diversied portfolio that you just *can't* lose it all, is really
something.

Gates may have made 5 or 10 billion, but he hasn't made it scot-free.
He's created some hard feelings by guarding his software rights.  At
least he's an honest businessman as far as I know, not like Milken or
Boesky.  Milken may have set a new standard for annual income, but it's
no fun being a billionaire if you'll burn in hell afterwards and
you're behind bars.

But then there are those few rich men who don't have to worry about
jail or even undue jealousy or suspicion, who are actually *admired* by
their peers and countrymen.  These are people like Edison and Bell, and
more recently Edwin Land, who clearly created so much wealth for
society that it didn't really matter that each took a large slice of
the pie.  Heck, the pies were so big that maybe they weren't large
slices.  Maybe they were teeny-weeny slices of titanic pies.  Even most
of those freeloaders who claim not to covet money do not begrudge
Bell's billion dollars because of his morally upright service to
humanity.

It's been a little while since anyone made it that big with a single
invention.  Maybe cold fusion will be the next one.  And maybe you,
Jed, will have a small portion (percentage-wise) of the resulting pie.
I doubt it though.  Cold fusion is a long shot.  I'd give
at least 20 to 1 odds against.  But good luck anyway.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Re: CF Kits for sale
Organization: The World
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:28:16 GMT

    Recently I attended the Material Research Society conference in
Boston.  The conference has a trade show, with lots of stuff on cryogenics,
superconductors, materials processing equipment, etc.
	One company was exhibiting some cryogenic or vacuum equipment
(I don't remember which).  One of their products is a HUGH assembly used
in the NTT kit.  If you are going to buy one, you better have a barn
available.

Greg Aharonian
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion & Gravity
Date: 13 Dec 92 13:30:21 GMT
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Bz30J3.BrD@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.024506.14647@news.media.mit.edu> pierre@media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire) writes:
>>
>>>Does gravity affect fusion reactions? If so, in what way.
>>
>>	No, it doesn't. Gravitational interactions are completely
>>negligible when compared to the strong interaction (responsible for
>>the fusion reaction itself) or the electromagnetic interaction
>>(responsible for the attraction/repulsion between charged particles).

>   Depending on the level of pedantry which this question requires, one
>could argue that the sun's fusion is extremely dependent on the existence
>of gravity. The force may be small between nucleons, but when 1E58 of
>them gang up they can make their presence known.

COLLECTIVE effects are often overlooked.  Another example is lifetimes
of energetic or relativistic particles that may exist in quasi stable 
magneto-plasma configurations.  The kinetic energy or magnetic energy
the average individual particle would not be sufficient to drive it
long against mildly dissipative low angle scattering collisions even in 
a slightly collisional plasma.  However, relativistic electron currents 
(carrying the bulk of the current) in a high field plasma have 
substantial (collective inductive) energy and consequently considerably 
extended lifetimes.  

+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:50:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.172222.3467@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen (nod sivad) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.201708.26730@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>HICCUP Fusion: Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure Fusion
>>
>>A humorous name, yes, but the suggestion you are about to read for totally
>>conventional Jones-level "hot-in-cold" fusion is entirely serious.  I hope
>>someone out there will actually give it a try.
>>
>>For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "cavitation" refers to the
>>creation -- often via ultrasound -- and subsequent collapse of very tiny
>>bubbles in a fluid.  Exceptionally high pressures are generated as the
>>bubbles collapse.
>
>Is it possible to generate a "cavitation effect" in a solid?  Like palladium
>or nickel for instance ;-)  Wouldn't "cavitation" in a solid lattice offer 
>still higher pressures and temperatures than a liquid?  Perhaps this could 
>serve as (still another wild) mechanism for cold fusion.  I don't suppose, 
>though, it would explain the lack of fusion products.

     Some current theories call for sonoluminescence to be caused by
     true shocks.  It is difficult to imagine the process that would
     create an analogy to a spherical fluid dynamic shock within a solid     
     without turning it into a fluid.

                                  dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Summary: Re:  Sonofusion at BYU
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:14:50 GMT
Followup-To: 1890
Organization: Brigham Young University

Correction:  my earlier discussion of possible cavitation of deuterium bubbles
in our original electrolytic experiments and the possible relation of this to
sonoluminescence and to our claims of low-level d-d fusion in such 
experiments is posted in "Sonofusion at BYU" dated 10 Dec. 1992 (rather than
11 Dec).  I hope that others will comment on this posting and Terry Bollinger's
15 Dec. speculations along similar lines.  We hope to carry out SL experiments
in D2O in the BYU tunnel laboratory, looking for neutron generation,
during the next few months.  Stay tuned.

--Steven E. Jones
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yes, but why do it the hard way?
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:22:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz461J.2n4.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <921210152138_72240.1256_EHL63-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

   ... The nickel cells are infinitely
   easier to replicate, more stable, far more powerful, and more predictable. The
   palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them? The idea
   is to get heat, not to bash you head against the wall for months and months
   trying to replicate an experiment that cost SRI $2 million bucks to get
   anywhere with. Why bother? ... From my point of view, Tom and the
   others who are still working with palladium are setting up an expedition to
   cross the American continent by Conestoga wagon, when they could just buy a
   ticket and fly Delta. The object is to get there, not to suffer along the way.

Well, your analogy almost works, but not quite.  It is really more
like travelling to Shangri-La by Conestoga wagon vs. Delta airlines.
In the beginning we had some people who said it's not hard to get
there, just get in your wagon and go, you can find it.  Unfortunately
they oculdn't show us how because of patent claims.  Then it turned
out it took weeks to get there, and was a lot harder than they said.
People who claimed to have been there weren't able to describe how to
get back again, their cameras didn't work or something while they were
there, etc.  Now, some new people come along and say forget the
Conestoga wagons, here's Delta air lines, it works, guaranteed.  Well,
not exactly *guaranteed*, it turns out it's harder than it looks, but
we can do it whenever we want, unfortunately we can't show you how we
do it because we want to make money off it, etc.

As Scotty on Star Trek said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me
twice, shame on me."  When Pons and Fleischmann first announced, I was
sort of willing to believe (based on their reputations) that two
miracles could occur: fusion could take place in palladium at room
temperature and the fusion would not produce copious amounts of
neutrons.  But I'm not willing to believe in a third miracle, namely
that it doesn't require special materials like deuterium.
*Especially* since the theory claimed to explain this kind of fusion
invokes sub-orbital states of hydrogen, which *really do* violate
quantum mechanics -- they are not just situations that might not have
been considered before, like deuterium in palladium with applied
electrical energy.

-- J
From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:55:13 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <colin.32@physci.uct.ac.za>, by colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON):

>>You sound just like one of those old line COBOL programmers I used to know,
>>who never wrote a single line of Pascal, but who used to rail on about
>>"structured languages are a bunch of nonsense and garbage." You never did it,
>>you never saw it, you don't know anything about it. Period.
> 
> Crap.  If you were saying that about me, then you'd be correct, because I'm 
> a nuclear physicist (I like to think), not an electrochemist.  So I'm a 
> programmer, but I don't write your language.  Now Dieter's in the field, so 
> he's a Pascal (if you insist) programmer.  You're saying: "you've never 
> written a programme to do x (which is a subset of the programmes Deiter's 
> expected to be have been able to write during his career) therefore any 
> comments you make about other people's attempts to write such things are 
> garbage."

Be careful of arguing by analogy. Sad, to say, but what Jed said is,
IMHO true of SOFTWARE people (I'm a software type, I've lived the
battles Jeds implies.) But, software is not science. And there is
little similarity between software development and scientific
research.

In other words, I think you are both making invalid arguments in this
case.

To say more than I should...

I've written in both COBOL and Pascal. Last time I counted, about 16
years ago, I'd programmed in something over 40 lanaguages. And the
main language you use does affect how you see problems and what
problems you can deal with.

			Bob P.


-- 
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:05:49 GMT
Subject: Re: the sounds of multidimensional mirth
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>   Actually the text appears to have been about physics, 
>   and presumptions.  Attention is directed to the actual text below.
>   Perhaps the second paragraph might have begun "To produce a nuclear
>   heat theory without fast ..." with the word "theory" to clarify what
>   was meant.   The actual text is:

Yes, "theory" should be inserted there.

>   Also says Brian Rauchfuss:
> 
> ==  "There are definately funny things going on in the cold fusion
> ==  world, I am just not sure if these are funny physics or funny
> ==  human nature, or perhaps both."
> 
>    I respectfully submit that neither the physics, if anomalous,
>  nor human nature, partially examined to date, at this point appear
>  "funny".
>     [as in affording light mirth and laughter" (Webster, ibid.)].

Definition 2 (in American Heritage) is more appropiate.  "Strange and odd"
physics if CF is true, and either "strange and odd" physics/chemistry or human
behavior if it is not.  I will be astonished either way.

BDR
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: RE: Trying to keep clean
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:16:31 GMT


Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE

Exactly what cleaning procedure you use depends on what you are trying to keep
out. Is it trace metals, that might deposit and change the electrode
characteristics? Or is it organics, that might settle on the cathode and
inhibit a reaction? The one unusual thing about cnf electrolysis is that very
long times are involved. No matter how carefully you purify everything, there
will remain enough of anything to make at least a monolayer on the cathode,
given enough time. A monolayer is about 1E-12 mol/cm**2, not much in about 100
ml solution. Certainly oil should be kept away, and I recommend running your
water directly into your cell through an active carbon column. You don't need
"20 washes with hot water and 10 with cold"; soak your glassware (or better:
your quartzware, but polypropylene might be OK - I'd prefer teflon) in hot
conc HCl, then wash with triply quartz-distilled water, something like 5 times
will do. Keep away rubber, use teflon stoppers.

If you were a scientist in a lab, I'd suggest fighting gunk with gunk; i.e.
deliberately adding a surfactant, in the hope that a friendly surfactant might
replace an unknown, possibly harmful one, at the surface. But you'd need to
try a lot of different kinds, and you are not doing fundamental studies in
your basement.

Degrease your Li, sure. Oxide layers might not matter that much, since, when
you dissolve Li2O in water later, it turns into LiOH (or LiOD) anyway. But
grease, yes, that's an unknown, possibly harmful gunk. I am not too happy
about touching anything that is to go into the cell, with surgical gloves
either. Chemists wear these not so that they can touch things, but to protect
their hands against accidental spills. They will be full of gunk on the
surface. Use metal (or teflon?) tweezers to handle the Li.

If you think you have to exclude oxygen during some phase, remember that most
plastics, and I'll bet the latex that those gloves are made out of, will let
oxygen through. So you'd have to keep the argon flowing to minimise oxygen in
your glove bag.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: The Problem
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:21:22 GMT

Don't realy want to use up too much space with this, as it was only intended to
encourage clear thinking about power measurement.  But John Hassler suggests
cutting the wires and another suggested using the voltmeter leads to short
the wires.  

Having engineered a superconducting device or two (flux pumps) I would not 
advise either, but in general cutting the wires is more dangerous than 
shorting them.  There is always some stray inductance, and with zero 
resistance this makes whatever voltage it must to keep the current flowing.  

I learned all this the hard way.  I had a power amplifier driving a 
superconducting transformet.  Every time we made some mistake in the drive 
program we would have to replace about 50 power transistiors.  The current
just keeps going, and going, and going!!!  Eventually we learned that there
always has to be an alternate current path for protection.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

> ==  "To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a
> ==   very creative explanation, which is generally not
> ==   forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions is pretty the
> ==   only way to go, and then you have to explain why this
> ==   strange reaction is not observed in the rest of the
> ==   world."
> 
>    Any physical reaction continues with or without any of our
>   (or other sentient) creative explanations.

We were talking about the theories involved, and how those theories are
constrained by the evidence.  Not whether the results actually appear.

There are definately funny things going on in the cold fusion world, I am just
not sure if these are funny physics or funny human nature, or perhaps both.

BDR
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Student Project
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:20:47 GMT

Dieter Britz says "Actually if the right grad student comes along, ... .

Let me argue why this would be a good student projece.  Most things a student
might do, no one cares about.  Here is a project that is guaranteed thorough
review and comment no matter what the result.  The student is likely not to
do a very good job the first time.  He/she will then find the results torn
apart and it will have to be done again.  By the time all this is completed,
the student will know a lot about how to do a good experiment, and will likely
spend much more time than anticipated.  Who knows, they might even learn some
electrochemistry.  I would think this would be a great way to prepare a student
to do a thesis.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion