HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Money
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:56:29 GMT

To all who have worried that I am getting ripped off by my commodities broker, 
I actually don't know what I paid in commission as I don't yet have the slip.  
It is a new broker for me as my regular stock broker does not handle 
commodities.  I have learned not to worry about paying a little more if I can 
get the right person to guide my order.  Note that I said "about $50".  I did 
not assume that there would be so many commodities traders listening.  Just 
trying to tell the "lambs" how the system works in general.  By the way, if 
anyone out there decides to speculate in commodities, and finds a broker quick 
to take your business, grab your money and run.  In each case when I have 
tried to get "qualified" to do futures, it has taken several weeks to do so.  
Good brokers will try to "cool you down" by being slow in taking your 
application.  This even happened to me when I had done business with the firm 
ten years.  They all (the good ones) tell you that no brokerage customer ever 
makes money in futures.  They are right.  

To John Moore, there are 100 oz in a Palladium contract.  Yes, there is the 
chance that I might take delivery, though I still have 6 one oz Pd "coin 
store" Engelhard 99.9% bars.  Last 5 bought recently at $102.  There is a big 
mark up on the little bars.  They come numbered and sealed in a plastic 
wrapper.  I took delivery on the last contract that I held for 1000 oz of 
silver.  The bar at the moment is sitting in my band saw.  Every so often I 
cut off a "slice".  Gave the "heal" away to a friend who admired it so much 
that I had to present it to him.  Silver has wonderful thermal properties, 
much better than copper for calorimetry.  It was a grand adventure to drive 
into the Harris bank in Chicago and tell them I was there to "take delivery" 
of a silver bar.  Never saw so much money in my life! 

Jim Yegerlehner asked for my net worth to determine whether he could believe 
that I was just having fun speculating in Palladium futures.  Then he proposes 
mortgaging the ranch (hard to do - the government really does try to protect 
us lambs) to buy more.  That would *** not *** be fun Jim.  

I started putting money into TIAA/CREF in 1961 and have been in it ever since.  
My physicist friends are quick to point out that I make more than they do, and 
so after all these years TIAA/CREF is up to the point that it would return 
more than I spend if I were to retire.  This gives me a wonderful sense of 
freedom.  Since the children have been out of college for some time, more 
money comes in than goes out.  Since "college freedom" a little speculation in 
stocks like "Three Mile Island" (actually a Corp. called General Public 
Utilities) bought at 4 1/2 sold at 25 has built up some "net worth". 

I am really in this for "fun".

Tom Droege

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: The Takahashi Experiment
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 17:35:45 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>I conclude that the chart recording labeled Exp. 115 - 34 sweep, and which 
>Takahashi labels with excess heats of 150 watts at high current and 71 watts 
>at low current is consistent by thermal transient analysis with a null 
>experiment. 

Ouch.  What confuses me, then, is why they don't see their other null runs
(of which everyone claims many) as "excess" heat runs.  

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WSJ News
Keywords: Ed Storms, 20 % excess heat
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:43:42 GMT
Organization: Colorado School of Mines


	Today's WSJ: "U.S. Researcher Claims to Replicate Japanese 
Experiment in 'Cold Fusion'", July 27, 1992, Page B5, By Jerry E. Bishop and 
Jacob M. Schlesinger
*****************************************************************************
	Here are highlights of this article:
	1. Ed Storms from LANL is the news maker;
	2. Takahashi-type experiment;
	3. 20% excess power;
	4. P&F with representatives from several Japanese companies held
	   a closed meeting in Sapporo last week;
	5. Storms indicated the cracks on one of the Pd foils are responsible 
	   for the failure of producing excess heat for the second run;
	6. Francesco Celani from Frascati claimed 10% excess from Takahashi-type	   cell;		
	7. Ikegami might get excess too but not sure yet.
********************************************************************************
H. Liu
Phys. Dept, CSM
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:40:26 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1992Jul23.182537.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au  
(Dieter Britz) writes:
> Something bothers me about the Ying experiment. I'm just a humble
> electrochemist, so maybe some physics expert out there can enlighten me:
> The Ying theory says, correctly, that one of the branches of d-d fusion is
> d + d --> (4)He + gamma (23.x MeV); this is in fact the controversial minor
> branch, with a probability of 1E-07 times the other two, with the infamous
> 50:50 branching ratio, yielding neutrons or tritium. OK. Ying now proposes
> to enhance this minor branch by tickling it with gamma rays at just that
> energy, 23.x MeV.
> 
> I understand that quantum physics is not like chemistry but I still can't
> shake the thought that this is the wrong way around. In chemistry, if you
> have a reaction like
> 
> A + B + C + ... ---> O + P + Q + ...
> 
> then if you add, to a mixture of all these, one of the products O, P, Q ...,
> you drive the reaction backwards.

Well, to me the situation is not analogous to chemistry, because in
chemical systems the interation is always present between physically
nearby reactants (being electrical in nature), while in nuclear interactions
the interaction is not always present (being the short range strong 
force) between physically nearby reactant. So, if you toss in the gammas,
the d-d-gamma dont all see eachother anyway.

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.

??



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 01:11:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

I don't think we need to invent new buzz words and then attempt
to breath some sort of ulterior motives into them. Socialism
is socialism, regardless of whether it is being exercised in the
technical arena or the social welfare arena.

Socialism breeds bureaucracy and bureaucracy is the cause of much
of the idiotic red-tape and hidden expense of government.

On the other hand: Some projects are so large that it requires
funding from sources larger than available from any private sector 
source. And bureaucracy has the positive virtue of decreasing the
rate of change -- this is generally called conservatism and is
generally viewed as preferable to radical liberalism. Bureaucracy
also _tends_ to avoid the hidden agendas of private sector financial
sources to find profits at the costs of safety and intelligent
use of resources.

Now I don't attempt to say that there isn't a terrible price to pay
for bureaucracy run amuck as we now have it. But there definitely is
a good and proper place for it.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We are doing the Ying Experimentnex
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:52:19 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

[ Stuff Deleted ]
> 
> We do not yet have the right stuff to do Ying, so we are doing pseudo Ying.
> We are also doing something that Ying has not yet done according to Jed
> Rothwell.  We are alternating periods of "Ying On" with periods of "Ying 
> Off".  

I propose a naming system for the "Ying On"/"Ying Off" processes.
"Ying On" should be called "Ying", while "Ying Off" should be called
"Yang".

> 
> I estimate that the effect of our "Yind On" device is two or three orders
> of magnitude less than the specified "Ying On" device.  
> 

Please note that this post was made in a humerous state of mind and
I intended no offense by it.  The "Ying" and "Yang" comment was made in
reference to the Chinese philosophy of "Yin and Yang".

-- 

   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,638,400 minutes ...         | Beatles
              |    and a minute is a long time.            |   When I'm 64
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's 12 hour cycle
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:13:40 GMT

I don't know what possible solar/cosmological effects there are, but a 12 hour
cycle period might hide unknown influences.  I think the 24 hour cycle was
the best.  I think a good 12 hour cycle switch point would be at high
noon and midnight -- at least for the sun.  Other cosmological sources??
A six hour cycle increase the chance for cancellation, and shorter times
are even better.

  -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier)
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Summary: A third possibility
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 23:27:30 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <9207290006.AA08478@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some sort of chain 
>reaction *must* be appealed to....
>
>The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the gain is 
>greater than 1.0000 by some significant amount....
>
>I see two general possibilities to explain the absence of mushroom 
>clouds in Orlando and Batavia.
> 
>One is that at any given time there are only a very few pending 
>event opportunities...
>
>The second possibility is that event opportunities can assume bi-
>stable states....
>
>  -- John Logajan

A third possibility is that the "stimulated emission" may have a narrow
cross-section around the path of the stimulating photon.  If so, and if
the emitted gammas follow the path of the initiator exactly, the cascade
should be limited in scope: each incident gamma might sweep out a very
small fraction of the volume of Pd.  This effect is independent of the
effects John Logajan proposes, and any or all might be operating to suppress
the mushroom clouds.

A couple of random thoughts:  if CNF is indeed a stimulated emission
phenomenon, one might expect it to work better in sheets than in wires,
and better in chunks than in sheets.  Random trajectories through the
material would have a longer average path length in each case.

The other random thought:  is there any known way of *reflecting* 23 MEV
gammas?  Or refracting them?  Even a fairly low efficiency might be
useful, given sufficient gain on each pass through the cell.  For lasers,
you like to have a cavity with mirrors on the ends.  No one has yet
brought up this idea, and I expect it is for good reason (eg. it being
utterly impossible), but I am curious enough to ask.

Even absenting the possibility of reflectors, an obvious thing to try is
to aim one's beam of gammas down the long axis of a rod-shaped Pd electrode
so as to maximize path length.

	Cheers,
	Charles Poirier
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:56:57 GMT

In article <920723020943_72240.1256_EHL23-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>It would be very good for this field if I had the money to mail out a survey
>to all of the people on my list, asking what results they have achieved
>lately. DB's bibliography is great help, but it takes many months for papers
>to appear, and a paper may not lay out the facts you want for a database. It
>would be good if I could publish such a database.

This is another good argument for getting every researcher in the US, and
possibly the world, on the net.  

So, if I'm not mistaken, Ying's hypothesis means that the reason why
so few researchers got valid results, and why few of them got
any kind of repeatability was because the cold-fusion was being 
set off by environmental radiation.  This would mean that the people
who carefully shielded their experiments while looking for
gamma rays should have had the worst results!

If I were in charge of research money (which I'm not...yet),
I'd say we keep spending enough money on CF until we figure out
1) if CF is real
or
2) why it appears CF is real if it is not

Even if CF is not real, I have to start wondering what important 
calorimetry problem we are having that lead so many reasonable people
to conclude that something is going on.  This _is_ an important
problem to solve!

-Thomas
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A stupid question about reaction cross-section, etc.
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:01:54 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <6879@charon.cwi.nl> jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes:
>The discussions on this group have long gone past the point where my
>physics education went, so this is probably a stupid question, but
>here goes anyway: I keep hearing about the reaction cross-section; is
>this a number that rolls out of theory or is this an experimental
>result?

Both.  The great triumphs of nuclear physics are when the two agree to 
better than a few percent.  In general terms, cross sections at low 
energy have been measured in excruciating detail and cross sections 
for the basic n+p system have been measured very carefully at a wide 
range of energies.  In addition, spin-dependent observables (where 
either the projectile or target or both are polarized and/or the spin 
of the ejectile or recoil or both are measured) have also been measured 
for the n+p system with excellent precision, providing the basis to 
calculate many things of relevance to the d+d system with confidence. 

The biggest weakness in the theoretical results for d+d is that no one 
bothered to calculate anything since about 1956 since the results seemed 
uninteresting and outside the possibility of being measured.  The FPH 
claims changed *that* in a hurry!

>The reason I ask is the following: if it is experimental, would it be
>possible that the real chance of two deuterons fusing is actually a
>lot bigger than we think, only that usually the end result of the
>reaction is again two deuterons?    ...

This would not be fusion and would give no energy:  d+d --> d+d has the 
same mass in the final state, hence no energy released.

--
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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:16:34 GMT
Followup-To: isus!hoyt@tnet.com
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Keywords: Thorium, welding rods, tungsten
Summary: Try Tungsten welding rods

In article <9207231834.AA07357@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
>
>I got four sets, just in case it is my last chance to
>get radioactive material on the cheap.
>
 I noticed in a welding supply catlog "thoriated" tungsten welding rods.
I don't know how much is in them, but I'm guessing it's for stabilizing or
starting the arc.

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates!_________|
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TD's Y
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:47:46 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>the source can be turned on and off.  For 
>the time being, you must trust me that I have found a way to do this that 
>does not disturb the calorimeter balance.  

My guess?  You inserted a bit of radioactive material (Co 60?) on the end of
a length of stiff wire.  You either push or pull this away from the Pd, or
you have a hunk of tinfoil or other shield on one side of the bit of "hot"
stuff, and you rotate it toward or away from the Pd.  The rotation method
would introduce the least amount of outside heat interference.  The push
pull method could transport heat in or out of the cell -- but of course,
only minute quantities, depending upon the thermal storage capacity of
the exposed wire segment.

>The geometry is such, that when on, it provides an estimated one ten
>thousandth of the flux used by Ying.

Ah, your existing design won't let you get close enough.

>I remind you all that god has a gamma ray source and he (used she 
>last time) capriciously turns it on and off. 

What?  You signed a non-disclosure agreement with god too?  :-)

All I can think of is cosmic rays, or their by-products.  My Heathkit
geiger counter only counts about 8-15 counts per minute of natural
background radiation (source unknown.)  Don't know what you guys get their
in Batavia, but I imagine it can't be too much more intense.  You guys
don't glow in the dark, do you? :-)

  -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Models
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:39:15 GMT

Tom Droege, my house-mate from 35 years ago, sez:
>No one has discussed my first order system model.  Les Earnest, I know
>you studied this at MIT in the same course that I took.  Are you listening?
>Is it possible that none of you have used spice like programs to model
>physical systems?  What do you do with all those computers??  I will be
>the first to admit it is a weak model, but I was very surprised when it 
>told me there was no net power!

Sorry for the slow response -- I was travelling last week.  Alas, at
MIT I "progressed" from linear systems to artificial intelligence and
then to research management (a.k.a. "artificial stupidity"), so I'm
not much help.  Give me a programming problem and I'll thrash out a
solution, but please don't ask me to deal with reality.
--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Films and surface effects
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:29:27 GMT
Reply-To: moss@cs.umass.edu
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)
In-reply-to: bill@xpresso.UUCP's message of 21 Jul 92 19:35:21 GMT

>>>>> On 21 Jul 92 19:35:21 GMT, bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) said:

Bill> Please excuse my elementry level chemo/physics, but I might have a
Bill> possible clue for you.  Leaving out whatever extras might be involved as
Bill> an electrolyte, isn't the deuterium what used to be known poopularly as
Bill> "heavy water"?  i.e. water with an extra oxygen atom?  .....

Well, my physics, etc., is only elementary, but (no offense intended, Bill)
clearly better than yours. Even I know that heavy water is D2O as opposed to
ordinary water H2O. H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide; D2O2 would be deuterium
peroxide I guess. What's heavy about the water is that each hydrogen atom has
an additional neutron in the nucleus, making it deuterium. Two deuterons can
fuse to make a helium nucleus and release energy; this is one of the basic
fusion reactions that can happen in the core of stars, etc.
--

		J. Eliot B. Moss, Associate Professor
		Department of Computer Science
		Lederle Graduate Research Center
		University of Massachusetts
		Amherst, MA  01003
		(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:03:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Poirier brings up an interesting idea that I've been
mulling around -- what if this CNF thing is really
just another form of a laser? What if it's a stimulated
emission?

John apparently would classify this as a nuclear reaction.
I'm quite willing to agree with this idea.

But, of course, we can be sure that a laser will work
only as an energy sink, so the calorimetry is critical
and everything else hinges on the reliable duplication of
the successful experiments in order to varify this.

I'm quite sure that if it is a stimulate emission that
emits in, say, the infrared region, that an experiment
could be designed to optomize for such a thing.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:34:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Jul23.185657.15206@src.umd.edu> tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>In article <920723020943_72240.1256_EHL23-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>>It would be very good for this field if I had the money to mail out a survey
>>to all of the people on my list, asking what results they have achieved
>>lately. DB's bibliography is great help, but it takes many months for papers
>>to appear, and a paper may not lay out the facts you want for a database. It
>>would be good if I could publish such a database.
>
>This is another good argument for getting every researcher in the US, and
>possibly the world, on the net.  
>
>So, if I'm not mistaken, Ying's hypothesis means that the reason why
>so few researchers got valid results, and why few of them got
>any kind of repeatability was because the cold-fusion was being 
>set off by environmental radiation.  This would mean that the people
>who carefully shielded their experiments while looking for
>gamma rays should have had the worst results!

     This was the thought of some early on.  This was one hypothesized
     reason why people like Pons and Fleischmann were able to get results
     while people like Gai who surrounded their detectors with 
     oodles of lead and cinderblocks did not.  Of course, at that time
     there was a bunch of speculation about novel particles, not ordinary
     old gammas and alphas.

                                dale bass



--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926