HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmp1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JEFFREY MICHAEL PARSONS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 31 Jul 92 04:21:26 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Jul28.214406.3757@nmt.edu>, houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

[deletions]

>
>       Another batch of people that are fun to listen to (as soon as I hear
>someone start saying about this,  I start giggling) are the people who try
>to explain the difference between a "conservationist" (which they claim to
>be) and a "preservationist" (what they are usually accusing somebody else
>of being).  I thought that this originated in the late 80's-early 90's
>anti-environmental PR campaign,  (Yes,  they are anti- people,  because the
>only things they could be pro- for are like pro-.5%-of-the-population, or
>pro-us,  pro-big-business,  or pro-welfare-rancher,  or pro-desertification,
>or pro-deforestation or pro-republican :-)  but I later found a reference
>to someone using this around the 70's,  so that particular chestnut has
>been around for a long time.
>
[more deletions]

I have quoted this paragraph in an attempt to illustrate how far off base this
thread has gone.  I guess in a U.S. election year there are always frustrated
radicals who will use any means at their disposal for political expression.  I
suppose I don't mind that, but I do mind when they do it on the physics board.
I think Paul might be happier on talk.politics and I think sci.physics would
be better off if he were.  This stuff does not belong on this board and it is
a violation of the rules of usenet to put it here.  Not to mention that the
constant war of flames that it inspires is simply annoying to those who would
use this board for discussing physics.

Flame Guard:  The parts of the above article which I deleted had no more to do
with physics than the parts that remain.

I know that converstations tend to drift, but let's not get carried away.

Jeff Parsons
Lehigh University
Physics Undergrad

How does that kill file thing work again? :-)
--
From: cornell@sc2a.unige.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ... an infinite mesh of 1ohm resistors ...
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:40:31 GMT
 <1992Jul25.210947.12316@cs.yale.edu> <1992Jul27.210947.5820@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> <1992Jul28.000844.27051@mixcom.com>
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland

In article <1992Jul28.000844.27051@mixcom.com>, 
ttyytt@mixcom.com (Adam Costello) writes:
> 
>                                                              The "solution"
> involved imagining that you could inject an amp of current into a network
> of resistors.  No capacitors!  Where is the charge supposed to go?

Imagine a grid (2n+1)*(2n+1), with a perfect 1A current source in the middle
AND  perfect earths attached all around the edges.  By symmetry, 
1/4 amps flow through each of the resistors neighbouring the source.
Now let n go to infinity.  This is what is meant by "injecting 1A into
an infinite network of resistors".

All that is required for the current to be 1/4 A is for the (square) 
grid to have rotational symmetry order 4 around the source. As n-> infinity, 
it becomes less and less important for the sink to be attached precisely in 
the middle; you should satisfy yourself of this if you want to be sure the 
solution works.  Then both the current source and the current sink mentioned 
in the solution may both be considered to be in the centre of the grid, so 
the total current in the resistor connecting the 2 terminals is 1/2 A.

> Regardless of whether this can be done in the laboratory, there's still
> the question of whether it can be done in the mind.  Certainly, if the
> network were finite, it would make no sense.  Does the infinitude of the
> network allow a source with no sink?  

Another way of doing the problem is to note that the capacitance of the 
network increases with size.  Therefore, the initial 1/4 amps is able to flow
for a time of order 1/n^2 before the potential of the grid increases 
significantly.  Just take a series of measurements on successively larger 
and larger grids on a timescale that is smaller than this and you're laughing.

> AMC

Stephen Cornell.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: mind-numbing gedankenexperiment
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:54:42 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <Jul.24.14.22.06.1992.9421@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes...
> 
>And I'm the King of England.
> 
>Ben Weiner
>("Weiner" is not a particularly Hanoverian name.)

That's OK.  "Hanover" is not a very British city.  But that never stopped
anyone.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky sci.physics:11528 sci.astro:8285
From: danq@whitehouse.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Re^2: Structure of Time (answers to some questions)
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:41:48 GMT
Organization: The Grand Old Party Hearty
Originator: bhoughto@sedona

In article <1992Jul22.135139.26174@tellab5.tellabs.com> jcj@tellabs.com (J. Johnson) writes:
>So life is based on what kind of neutrinos God uses to cook 
>the space potato?  Does this also imply that cottage fries 
           ^^^^^^
>are *evil*?

HI!!! IM DANNY!!!  I"M THE VICE-PRESIDEN!!! YOU SHOULD'A SPELLT THAT "POTATOEE' MAN!!!

THIS IS A NEET BBS!!!  CAN WE GO TO MARS?!  ALLYOU PHISICS GUYS
MAKE ME LAUGH WITH YOUR BEARDS LIKE THAT!!!

					--DANNY
					  "I SHOT 42 LAST MONTH!!!:"
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: Aristotle and the Modern Physicist
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:26:14 GMT

I'm sorry, I expressed myself badly. What I meant to ask was this.
Presumably there is some "quantum spacetime" that approximates Minkowski
space. What does it look like?
At the end of your letter you hint at heretical tendencies. I would be
interested to hear about these. Though I hasten to add that there is
nothing unorthodox in anything I have said; it's all straight GR.
From: nicho@VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:00:35 GMT
Reply-To: nicho@vnet.ibm.com

In <1992Jul21.093756.5392@s1.gov> Loren I. Petrich writes:
> -- discussion about something called BART, which I am assuming has
> nothing to do with the character on TV --
 You like public transport, fine. I don't. equally fine. The problem
occurs when public transport advocates assume that they occupy some
sort of moral high ground, that enables them to force people who
don't like public transport, to use it. Frankly, the more people who
use public transport the better. It frees the roads up for me.
<the problem with public transport is, well, you know ... it's public ..>
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk
                  voice/fax: 44-794-516038
From: mdturner@riker.acs.calpoly.edu (M Turner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Bubbles
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:55:08 GMT
Reply-To: mdturner@riker.acs.calpoly.edu
Organization: Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo

Robert B. Mathews (bob) writes
  I seem to remember, from looking at bubbles,
> that the water tends to get pulled up the side of the bubble by surface
> tension.  This distorts the bubble, especially with small bubbles.  I
> would not expect to find a nice right angle corner where the bubble
> meets the water surface...  You would need one to have a "perfect
> hemisphere."

So youthink the bubble surface sort of soomths out to the surface?  Yes i see  
that now.  BTW good to hear from you bob.

What about pinching and pulling, that seems to be unaffected by the  
connections to the water.

mark
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:24:07 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <9207231834.AA07357@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
]I got four sets [of Coleman Lantern Mantles], just in case it is my last chance to
]get radioactive material on the cheap.


Smoke detectors have a very hot source in them. My counter goes bananas
(many hundreds of counts per minute) when placed within an inch of them.
Almost nothing farther away.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Summary: can't do aneutronic fusion this way
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:12:54 GMT

>D + D --> He + gamma

The problem is that DD doesn't go this way. There are two branches:
  D + D --> He^3 + n + 3.27 MeV
        --> T + p + 4.03 MeV
with equal probability. Most energy from D + D comes from the secondary
reactions, which have much higher cross-sections:
  He^3 + D --> alpha + p + 18.3 MeV
  T + D --> alpha + n + 17.6 MeV
In each case, the energy is divided such that C/M momentum is zero.

I think D + D --> alpha violates some quantum transition rules.

Source: NRL Plasma Formulary, 1983 edition.

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: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:19:43 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

>Does anyone know the state of research of inertial fusion is at?
>How close to breakeven, compared to tokomaks? Is anyone besides LLNL is US or
>world doing research on inertial fusion?

Try Key, "Lasers generate plasma power," Physics World, August 1991, for
a survey of the laser-based inertial fusion energy programs worldwide.  
The article is aging as an accurate description of what's going on in 
the mercurial world of big-science funding, but the semi-technical 
background is interesting.

A proposed Nova upgrade/replacement at LLNL could get into the regime
of scientific breakeven eventually, producing megajoule-range fusion
output with megajoule-range drive beams.  Of course, the "wall plug"
efficiency would be rather less.  A commonly accepted definition of 
"IFE," as distinguished from laboratory microfusion experiments, is
10 MJ in and 1000 MJ out, for a gain of 100x.  D-T pellets capable of
supporting this gain requirement, and also compatible with the drive
beam in question, will be an important R&D area.

The key areas of IFE R&D are somewhat different from those of MFE,
because the questions are different.  We have assurances, from a
series of nuclear-weapon-driven experiments called Centurion-Halite,
that IFE-relevant pellets can be driven and fused.  The numbers are
still classified, but the people who have access are permitted to
show me a qualitative cartoon of where we are now (tiny pellets driven
by today's lasers) and of Centurion-Halite results, with IFE in the
middle.  The big issue is how to drive the pellets in a way that is
more cost-effective and causes fewer complaints from people living
around the power station.  :)  That might turn out to be big lasers 
(which in any case would be necessary for pellet and maybe reactor 
R&D) or particle beams.

Some scientists consider the latter approach to be especially 
promising. I'm writing this in a fugue state from the production of
a published version of the Conceptual Design Report ("CDR" ~~ DOEspeak 
for "proposal") for the Induction Linac Systems Experiments, a step 
towards a driver based on heavy-ion beams from an induction linac.  
If you're really interested, drop me a note and I'll put you on the 
mailing list.  We expect to get a go-ahead to start building it.

The Germans are working on a synchrotron-based approach at GSI.
I don't know whether Sandia is still running their proton diode,
Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II, but they've been pursuing the
use of beams of light ions.

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:18:52 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Thomas H. Kunich writes:
>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.
 
I strongly disagree and assert that this lack of appreciation of the
differentially greater destructive impact of direct government 
funding of technology development, especially in fusion, vs other 
forms of socialism, is central to the greatest problems our world 
faces.
 
Socialism is destructive in proportion to the immaturity of the
field in which it is applied.  Bureaucracy is the antithesis of
innovation and creativity -- it is least damaging where there are
mature, well understood disciplines and standards and most damaging
in nascent fields where the overthrow of established ideas and a
diversity of approaches are required and the sources of funding must
be close to the action so as to prevent an incursion of funding 
parasites with their run-away foot-dragging, wasteful "experimentation"
and ultimately, viciously anticompetitive politics.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Can't type
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:43:23 GMT

From:	FNALD::DROEGE       23-JUL-1992 17:43:21.78
To:	GOV%"fusaion%zorch@ames.arc.nasa.gov"
CC:	DROEGE
Subj:	Radiation Lengths

I walked down the hall and found a physicist with a famous little blue book.

Radiation Lengths:

Lead     0.56 cm
Concrete 10.7 cm
Water    36 cm

A radiation length is the length of material required for the intensity of
the gamma rays to fall to 1/e of their initial intensity.  Does not seem to
be a strong function of wave length, or there would have been more data.  
But this obviously does not work at really long wave lengths (i.e. visible
light).  Possibly you start calling them gamma rays when this starts working. 

I notice that it is getting hard to tell my "set" of private information from
the "set of all information revealed on the net".  A AND NOT B = 0 ???

So if I wanted to shoot gamma rays in from outside, they would not be bothered 
much by 5/8" inches of aluminum, a mm or so of ss, and all that styrafoam.  But
the geometry is important.  Those of you who can look up the drawing of my
calorimeter in ICCF2 will notice that it would be possible to cut a hole in the
outside of the foam, through the aluminum inner layer, and through more foam, 
and that this could be done with a dremmel tool while the experiment was
running.  This would allow placing a source within about 10 cm of the running
cell.  Plugging the hole with foam would pretty much preserve the calorimeter.
In any case if not true, one would see a big change in balance while grinding.

I should tell you all that long before there was any communication with Ying
there was a radium dial watch taped to the outside of the calorimeter on day 
1 and it was inside on top of the cell on day two.  No obvious result.  

Of course, moving a source that was 10 cm away from a cell to say 10' away 
would change the intensity by a factor 62500.  Enough of a factor to do
an experiment.  Most of the above in answer to John Logajan.

Richare Long gives some information obtained about Ying's earlier work which
I presume is now public.  Not clear who is quoted but Long writes "the setup 
doesn't work with Co60 alone...".   Perhaps Ying and Chow did not have a 
very sensitive detector.  The stuff in the TV picture looks pretty crude.
Again commenting on John Logajan's butt kicking source, perhaps Ying could not
tell 1/2 watt from 20 watts.  

There is only one piece of protected information in the kit I received from
Ying.  It contains a specific configuration and a specific procedure.  I am 
not following the procedure yet, though I plan to when the stuff arrives.  I
am really only doing what anyone could do reading the stuff posted here.  

Tom Droege
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trinary
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:01:02 GMT

Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:

>change it from a binary experiment (source "In" or "Out"), to 
>a trinary experiment ("In", "Out", or "Mid").

But suppose there is a "critical" level of incident radiation.
"Mid" might be either over or under the critical level, and 
therefore might look "In" or "Out."  Would this be useful
information in a statistics experiment or would it cause
further confusion?

 -- John Logajan
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ying and the conductivity of ionization trails
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:14:26 GMT

Here's a wacky idea.  Ying says they "rejuvenate" by a reverse current
of 600 uA at 15V.  This implies an electrolyte ("old" D2O) resistance
of about 25,000 Ohms.

When running in normal mode, Ying claims an input power of 15mW.  This
works out to 775 uA at 19.3V -- assuming a 25K resistance.

Now Ying introduces a ionizing radiation source.  What happens to the
electrolyte resistance when it has ionization trails punched through
it by the decay products? 

I don't know about the chemistry of such interactions in liquids, but
I do know that in high resistance atmospheres, the conductivity increase
through the "trail" and allows current to more easily flow.

If the current flow is intense enough, the "trail" is maintained.  If
the current flow isn't so intense, the "trail" quickly breaks up.

Let's assume we have short lived conductive "trails" formed in the
D2O by the passing of the ionizing radioactive particles.  We'd get
very short "current" bursts through the liquid.  If we don't have
a good means of measuring fast transients in current flow, we are
likely to have our true electrical input power under-reported.

We might see anomolous heat because we've lost track of the actual
amount of input power we are injecting.

Ying's "new" D2O might even have a higher resistance (he didn't release
enough numbers to tell for sure, but it looks like it to me.)  This 
would make it even more susceptible to "gains" in heat due to the
difference between non-conduction and ionized conduction.

 -- John Logajan
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Slurry
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:56:56 GMT

Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
> A way to increase the intensity would be to form an alloy of the 
> palladium along with the alpha source (Po 210), and also possibly the 
> gamma source (Co 60).

Or a possible(??) reaction control might be to put one or both of the sources 
into the electrolyte, kept in suspension by the constant stirring.  Boiling
or other liquid loss *might* help shut down the reaction???

  -- John Logajan
From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:01:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.cePzwgi00WB7R_zmpX
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

My complaint to Dieter Britz about the inapplicability of Le Chatlier's
Principle was rebutted.  I used a specific chemical example to simplify
my point.  DB countered that in the equilibrium

     2Al + 3Cu(++) <=> 2Al(+++) + 3Cu

although adding copper (as I was discussing) would not re-generate
metallic aluminum, adding Al(+++) would reverse the reaction.  But I did
not suggest considering the addition of more Al(+++) anymore than the
suggestion has been offered to check the reaction

      D + D --> He-4 + gamma

by pumping helium in to see if deuterium is formed.  So I still stand by
my comment and example.

PJK
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Subject: Re: Peroxide again!
Summary: Yes, peroxide again.
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:33:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.210626.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
 medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.033005.14971@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
> (James R. White) writes:
>>                ... The most likely chemical explanation is that
>> deuterium peroxide (D2O2) is being formed at the platinum anode. ...
>
> We've been down that path, as our politicians like to say. Forget peroxide.
> At the overpotentials in cnf electrolysis cells, you go straight to O2 at the
> anode. ...

An overpotential of half a volt is enough to allow peroxide to form.
This is an order of magnitude less than the total voltage at which
many cnf cells operate, and the potpourri of contaminants that are
present might well cause such an overpotential. This is a much less
exotic assumption than that there is a radiation-free ash-free nuclear
process producing the heat.

Do you know what the overpotential at the anode is in any of the cells
which have produced large bursts of heat?

After considerable thought, I have concluded that the most impressive
results must be due to either peroxide or something much more exotic.
The amount of excess heat in these results is too large to be explained
by calorimetry errors. And only deuterium and oxygen are present in
large enough quantities to store the huge amount of energy involved.
That is why I would like to see peroxide taken seriously, and decisively
ruled out (or in) by the researchers who are getting these impressive
results.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion