HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: 10 Jan 1993 18:45:12 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamilton.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
: 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?

Funny you should mention this.  Seth Putterman was talking with me
about various unsolved "simple" physics problems.  Specifically, how does
a spark happen when you make "static electricity"?  What
are the dynamics that caused the macroscopic
voltages get so concentrated out of low-energy large scale motion?

: 
: Dick Blue
: NSCL @ MSU

--
-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: kjones@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (Kent Jones - EECS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:44:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: serval.1993Jan11.174415.20125
Organization: Washington State University!

In article <1993Jan8.150648.365@walter.cray.com> sxb@fermi.cray.com (Stephen Behling) writes:
>
>In article <930106131352.20c082a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>> Status #7 Cell 4A3
>[...]
>> We are presently operating at 800 ma which results in a cell voltage of 4.5 
>> volts.  Present calorimeter balance is at 7.300 watts.  Peak to peak changes 
>> over the last several hundred hours are consistent with the 0.035 mw one sigma 
>> calibration.  But there is an offset from the December calibration with only 
>> probable cause due to high temperature TED creep.  Remember to get the 
>> temperature range we are operating with the shell servo off and floating.  A 
>> curious observation is that we are more sensitive to the outside air 
>> temperature than to the room temperature.  So while the room temperature is 
>> relatively constant, the calorimeter "sees" the outside through the dewar, 1 
>> 1/2" of foam, a (now) floating aluminum radiation shield, 1 1/2" foam, 10' of 
>> air, and an R19 house wall or R30 roof.  
>> 
>   Especially in winter, inside air humidity is strongly correlated
>with outside air temperature.  Perhaps??
>
>    -steve behling

Could the barometric air pressure which is also related to the temperature
be having any affect? i.e. could there be more gas absorption by the pd under 
greater pressure?

	Kent Jones
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Subject: Re: Inconsistent Experiments
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:20:25 GMT

In article <930106161158.20c082a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

   While I agree with most of what Jon Webb says in reply to Jed Rothwell, when
   he says:

   -- it can't be the case that Mills & Farrell and Yamaguchi and Notoya and
   Pons and Fleischmann and McKubre are all right; they have inconsistent
   experiments."

   I don't think we know enough about what is happening to know that they are
   inconsistent.  For example, they could all be wrong, and that would make 
   them consistent!

   So Jon, how are they inconsistent?  From my view, they could all be 
   based on some common principal.  

You may be right; perhaps there is some completely unknown theory that
will explain all of them.  But their explanations of the phenomena are
completely different, and inconsistent; e.g., Mills & Farrell's
shrinking hydrogen theory vs. Pons & Fleischmann's deuterium fusion
theory.  The experimental conditions they think are important are
different -- e.g., Notoya's abhorrence of parafilm vs. Pons &
Fleischmann's use of it, at least in the early experiments.  Their
experimental results (amount of heat seen and time taken to see it)
are completely different; some claim copious amount of heat almost
immediately and with excellent reproducibility, and others claim small
(10% excess) heat after long periods of time, and unreliably.

There are so many differences between these experiments that the only
thing they really have in common is that they put isotopes of hydrogen
and metal in non-equlibrium conditions, and got more heat than
expected.  There is very little reason to think that all of these
experiments derive their excess heat from the same basic source.  It
is only because of historical context that we seem them that way.

-- J
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: cf seminar
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:35:56 GMT




                        COLD FUSION  

 A Massachusetts Institute of Technology IAP Lecture Program
       January 16, 1993   Saturday 9AM-4PM   Room  6-120 

   Cold fusion is the production of excess power from
 electrochemical cells, typically involving heavy water with
 palladium, or light water with nickel. From these systems and
 from metals in gases, nuclear products and radiation have
 also been reported, such as tritium, neutrons, helium-4, and
 charged particles.  As the literature of cold fusion expands,
 the startling phenomena are of continuing interest to
 experimentalists, theoreticians, inventors, and
 entrepreneurs.  In this day of lectures, discussions, and
 videos, we will focus on the history, science, technology,
 and business of cold fusion.

9:00    Registration             - Background Videos
9:30    Introduction, Overview   - Dr. Mitchell Swartz
9:45    A Brief History of Cold Fusion

                   Theory and Experiment
                                 - Dr. Eugene Mallove
10:45      Survey of Palladium and Nickel Systems
 Isotope Loading  - Dr. Mitchell Swartz
 Theories         - Professor Peter Hagelstein (MIT)
 Calorimetry      - Professor Vesco Noninski (Fitchburg State)
 Input Power      - Isidor Straus
 Panel discussions: findings, measurement and definitions of
                   potentials, input and excess power.

12:30                   *****LUNCH *****
         Video Tapes of Boiling Cold Fusion Cells
                 - Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons

       Looking Ahead: Technology, Politics and Beyond
1:30 Implications for Space Exploration - Dr. Eugene Mallove
     Commercialization of Cold Fusion  
                               - Hal Fox, Fusion Info. Center
     Patent Perspective        - Attorney Robert Rines
     Enterprise and Innovation - Richard Shyduroff
     Panel Discussion          - All
4:00    Open Discussions, Planning for the 1st "Heat Off"
        Contest, Summary
_____________________________________________________________
Information on pre-registration for the meeting:  contact 
  Dr. Mitchell Swartz, 617-239-8383 [mica@world.std.com]

    * IAP is the Independent Activities period at MIT
 $3 registration, refreshment fee ($5 non-MIT Community)
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:3173 misc.invest:15836
From: jice@luth.chorus.fr (Jean-Christophe Hugly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:11:12 GMT
Reply-To: jice@chorus.fr
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: Chorus systemes, Saint Quentin en Yvelines, France

In article <3959@key.COM>, rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
%% What investment strategies can folks suggest that would benefit 
%% from events that dramatically decrease the costs of energy. 
%% My ideal investment would be somethink like selling electrity futures
%% -deliverable in some long horizon-short. Now, to the best of my knowledge
%% there are no "pure" energy futures  Oil futures would come close, but 
%% oil is used for lots of other things besides just producing energy, though
%% I'd expect oil and coal prices to both drop rather dramatically  after
%% some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses of oil
%% (i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response to
%% cheaper energy prices.

Think about :
	- umbrellas
	- fridges
	- boats
	- grounds in the north not yet usable for agriculture

Because if the price of energy decreases dramatically, the earths temperature
will rise.

J-C

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: kjones@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (Kent Jones - EECS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry Test
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:14:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: serval.1993Jan12.041455.25711
Organization: Washington State University!

In article <930111132916.20802676@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>associated cryogenic problems.  We would not need to buy a camera and flash 
>tube system right away, as we could sit with our noses up against the glass 
>chamber wall looking to see an event.  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.   
>
Maybe I am missing something, but if bubbles of water collapsing can cause
fusion, then wouldnt I get radiated while body surfing at the beach?

Probably another stupid question, so someone please set me straight...

Kent
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Request for published report exceeeding E*I
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 02:59:33 GMT

<STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu> writes:
>I refer you to the August 1991 Fusion Technology article "Excess Heat
>Productionby the Electrolysis of Aqueous Potassium Carbonate ..." by Mills
>and Kneizys (the present author) in Vol 20, Number 1, pages 65-81.

>The TOTAL output power is:
>6.9 C /(14.8 C/Watt) = .466 Watts
>If we ignore the 1.48*I correction, the total input power is:
>3.08 x .085 = 0.262 Watts
>Seems we observed power exceeding V*I by:
>[(.466-.262)/.262] x 100 = 78%

I've been under the false impression that exceeding V*I was only a fairly
recent claim (i.e. mid 1992.)  I have made some statements and assumptions
to that effect.  I stand corrected.

-- 
- 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: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: RE: Re: Hydrinos, harmful or not?
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:31:04 GMT


Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
>In the general case, do atoms with valence electrons in non-ground states
>cease to react chemically or do the chemical properties change radically?

I suppose that by "non-ground" states you mean the normal states for the
valence electrons. Most elements have all of their electron shells filled,
except the outer ones, which are those that take part in chemical reactions.
A chemical reaction can be described as a process in which one or more bonds
are made or broken, and this means that some of these valence electrons
change the degree to which they are being shared between different atoms.
The inner-shell electrons don't get affected. You can do things to them, e.g.
by shooting x-rays at them; this is done in x-ray fluorescence, where you
knock electrons into higher states, and they (or others) later fall back,
emitting more x-rays. You can also excite the valence electrons (more easily
in fact) with ultraviolet or visible light, and they, too, fall back; such
excited species can also enter into chemical reactions more easily sometimes.

Generally, then, we can excite electrons to higher-energy states, and they
generally (if not knocked completely out to infinity) fall back down, with
emission of energy. The Mills theory, however, proposes that the very inner
electrons at low quantum numbers (that for most elements require x-rays to
knock out) can fall down into sub-basement states. This is the opposite
effect, and Mills reckons they will do this only in the presence of some
other elements that can absorb the resulting energy quanta, i.e. exactly the
right amounts. So the shrunken atom then could only return back up to the
normal state by being offered the same energy quantum by another atom; it
could not spontaneously come back up. Chemistry is not involved here, in fact
- since we are talking about hydrogen with its sole (valence) electron, that
electron when in its sub-basement state could not enter into a normal chemical
reaction, which is no doubt why these "hydrinos" are reckoned to be safe.

I think we are safe from them too, just as we are safe from Kurt Vonnegut's
Ice-9...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: "Clumps of neutrons" (was: CNF biblio...)
Summary: Theoretically *maybe*, but none seen by good experimentalists 
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:15:04 GMT

I will briefly poke my head up, out of lurker mode, for this one.  In
article <9C0D43A6BE3FA08B2D@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>here is the next lot. You will perhaps admire my straight face in the
>abstracts below (I do), in the face of strong provocation, you'll have to
>admit. The flavour of the month seems to be clumps of neutrons; three out of
>the four suggest them, either as dineutrons (Yang), quad-neutrons (Matsumoto)
>or even up to 1E09 in a bunch (Fisher). In all cases, the observed anomalies
>of cold fusion are thus explained, it seems. 

Readers should be aware that explanations involving polyneutrons aren't
*totally* incredible, at least on the face of them.  (When you get down
to details ... more about that in a minute.)  Various more or less
credible models have been proposed that allow for the existence of very
weakly bound polyneutron states, particularly 6N and 4N, although the
main model positing that 6N would be weakly bound also says that 4N
would be slightly *un*bound.  A series of experiments looking for
polyneutrons using radiochemical techniques were performed by Anthony
Turkevich (U. of Chicago, a most reputable nuclear chemist) and his
colleagues during the late 1970s; Dieter, let me know if you're
interested, and I'll try to scare up a reference.

What is significant, however, is that these *very* careful experiments
(nobody in the world was better at stuff like that than Tony) turned
up not a shred of evidence for stable 6N, 4N, or any-other-N.  It's
fine to "explain cold fusion" in terms of some exotic mechanism like
this; but when extremely competent experimenters go to great lengths to
find the agent behind the exotic mechanism and fail, the explanation
begins to lose some of its appeal.  Bluntly, I have a lot more faith
in Turkevich than in the polyneutron advocates, and it will take more
than unreproducible claims of excess heat to change that.

As for ultraheavy hydrogen, let's not get ridiculous ...

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Hydrinos, harmful or not?
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:45:02 GMT

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>The Mills theory explains the excess heat as coming mainly from hydrogen atoms
>falling to a lower energy state, one of the 1/N states. For this to work, the
>resulting hydrinos would have to remain as such indefinitely, otherwise you'd
>reabsorb the heat, and no excess. This would explain why Mills does not
>believe in a biological hazard. For the hydrino to do something chemical, it
>would have to get back up to a normal state, or be ionised.

In the general case, do atoms with valence electrons in non-ground states
cease to react chemically or do the chemical properties change radically?

-- 
- 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: <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: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:27:17 GMT

Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
>Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>:
>
>>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.
>
>I can offer an explanation, in terms of the Mills theory (which I don't
>believe):
>The Mills theory explains the excess heat as coming mainly from hydrogen
>atoms falling to a lower energy state, one of the 1/N states. For this
>to work, the resulting hydrinos would have to remain as such indefinitely,
>otherwise you'd reabsorb the heat, and no excess. This would explain why
>Mills does not believe in a biological hazard. For the hydrino to do
>something chemical, it would have to get back up to a normal state, or
>be ionised.

>From what I understand of the M&F theory, there is no reason why two
hydrinos could not chemically combine the same way the larger cousins
do.  In fact, from my original discussions with Mills he said that it
would release more energy than would the larger cousin equiv., and the
bond energies for the hydrino dimer would be higher.  We still have
not heard from Dr. Farrell as to why the hydrinoes are chemically
inert...

Sincerely,

Steve Kneizys...
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:35:21 GMT

rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:

>The more I read the news in sci.physics.fusion, the more that I tend
>to think that _somebody_(my own favorite horses in this race are some
>of the small companies working on hot fusion) will come up with a 
>dramatically improved energy source sometime in the next 30 years.

>What investment strategies can folks suggest that would benefit 
>from events that dramatically decrease the costs of energy. 
>My ideal investment would be somethink like selling electrity futures
>-deliverable in some long horizon-short. Now, to the best of my knowledge
>there are no "pure" energy futures  Oil futures would come close, but 
>oil is used for lots of other things besides just producing energy, though
>I'd expect oil and coal prices to both drop rather dramatically  after
>some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses of oil
>(i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response to
>cheaper energy prices.

>Thanks for your suggestions. Followups to misc.invest.

Shorting is probably a bad strategy for a long time frame,
and there are no long term puts.

So, the strategy should be to invest in industries that
will benefit from cheap energy.

For example, you might invest in Japanese companies,
since Japan must import a lot of oil from the Middle East.
If Japan could have its own independent energy, that would
make it much less vulnerable, increasing the economic
viability and security of the country.

But you might be right in the long term but the short-term
could be very rocky. For example, suppose you implemented
this strategy just before the Nikkei Index went from
32,000 to 16,000 ..

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Erebus and Dante
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:19:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0JMpA.GA.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@SNOW.FOX.CS.CMU.EDU

Steve Jones suggests:

   Another reader asked me privately whether the active volcano in
   Antartica, Mt. Erebus, might be tested using the publicized robot
   for the presence of tritium.  Erebus volcano is actually a good
   place to look, since very little tritium remains from H-bomb
   testing way down there in the So. Hemisphere, I understand.  I do
   not know whether the robot will get samples which could be tested
   for tritium content.

The Dante expedition is all over. It has been judged a technical
success, but the robot did _not_ make it down into the crater (kinks
in the fiber-optic tether lead to a loss of control comms). So as far
as sampling is concerned it was a failure. There will almost certainly
be future missions --- a great deal has been learned from this one.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:3240 misc.invest:16111
From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:09:56 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C0o7Ay.HEB@cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
>rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
>
>>The more I read the news in sci.physics.fusion, the more that I tend
>>to think that _somebody_(my own favorite horses in this race are some
>>of the small companies working on hot fusion) will come up with a 
>>dramatically improved energy source sometime in the next 30 years.
>
>>What investment strategies can folks suggest that would benefit 
>>from events that dramatically decrease the costs of energy. 
...........
>>I'd expect oil and coal prices to both drop rather dramatically  after
>>some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses of oil
>>(i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response to
>>cheaper energy prices.



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.



>For example, you might invest in Japanese companies,
>since Japan must import a lot of oil from the Middle East.
>If Japan could have its own independent energy, that would
>make it much less vulnerable, increasing the economic
>viability and security of the country.




Japan seems to be making major investments in a strategy that would
make their energy Plutonium based.  Short term, this could give them
great advantages because there's a lot of excess PU, and it's
comparatively cheap.  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.  If
you don't believe this can happen, look at the Trojan nuclear plant in
Oregon; planned for 40 years of operation and clean-up costs of about
$20 million, it closed after 17 years with projected cleanup costs
around $550 million.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion