HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Latest News
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:08:00 GMT


     Don't get upset Tom, the data isn't really that bad.  Wilcoxon's
Rank Sum W alpha = 0.037, Binomial test alpha = 0.0730, Paired
differences alpha = 0.1094 or 0.3438 (There were an odd number of
measurements this time.  The two numbers are for discarding the first
or last measurement respectively.)

     Also the apparent slight increase in effect with time has become
a deluge.  (At which point did you start using the "blank" source?)

     One last point...a geiger counter is not the best detector for
gamma rays.  Putting an appropriate material (Boron, I think) in place
will substantially increase the sensitivity to gammas. I've seen
counters which come with just such a shield.


					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ITER contracts
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:14:31 GMT
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

>Does anyone have any information on the signing of the ITER contracts for the
>start of the design phase?  

I think the international agreement was just signed (things were held
up for a while, apparently not because of any disagreement, just 
because some papers were slowly working their way through Japan's
bureaucracy).  

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Ying Experiment
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:34:19 GMT

In article <920722135155.242008a0@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:

   Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average 
   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts

   On      17760      4.9        532.8        49          0.0300  +/- 0.0027
   Off     48060     13.4       1268.8        50          0.0264  +/- 0.0010
   On      87300     24.3       2715.0       100          0.0311  +/- 0.0011
   Off     77220     21.5       1621.6        50          0.0210  +/- 0.0006
   On      82740     23.0       3607.5        50          0.0436  +/- 0.0006
   Off     51840     14.4       1658.9        50          0.0320  +/- 0.0010

   As a statistician this looks like a good place to use some
non-parametric tests.  (Non parametric statistics to not assume
anything about the error distribution, although they still assume
independence of data samples.)  Of course you pay for the relaxation
of assumptions in test power, but in my opinion it beats looking for
100 sigma to overcome assumptions about error sources...

   A week more of data would make a more reasonable data set (say ten
on periods and ten off).  For the current data using Wilcoxon's W
statistic (H0 = no effect, H1 = excess heat during on periods), I get
alpha = 0.20.  (In other words, there is a 20% chance that a random
data set would be this "good" assuming the null hypothesis is true.)

   Probably a more powerful test given the expeimental setup would be
to look at On-Off pairs using a signed rank test (this is the less
likely to be affected by long term drift in the calibration).  I get
alpha = 0.125 for the current data, but a sample of three is very
small.  I'll post again when Tom supplies more data.


					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ionization conductivity -- Not!
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:55:21 GMT

I wrote:
>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.  

Apparently not.  I tried this at home.  I took two thin sheets of aluminum
about 2 inches long by 3/4 wide, held them apart about 1mm (by double
sided sticky foam tape at top and bottom with about a one inch open gap)
and immersed them in distilled water.

Then I applied 40 volts DC. After a bit, the resistance of the cell settled
out to be about 56,000 ohms.  I inserted a 10,000 ohm resistor in series
and got approx a 6 volt drop across it. (Which is how I determined the cell
resistance.)

Then I would alternately place my Coleman lantern mantles near the pill
bottle holding the aluminum plates. (These thorium mantles only produce
about 1000 counts per minute, about 1mRem on the dial.)

Across the 10K resistor I hooked a 100Mhz o-scope.  The only thing I saw
was slight low frequency drifting, probably due to bubbles.  There was
nothing different between the case with radiation and without.  With the
room lights turned down, I could see single triggers.  If this mechanism
was going to account for a half a watt of power, I *would* have seen something.
Even occasional single events.  But nothing.

  -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: We are doing the Ying Experiment
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:55:36 GMT

We are doing the Ying Experiment.  I have just read the letter I wrote and 
can say that.  I also specified a six month time limit, but for the most
part others have revealed a lot, and some have guessed a lot.

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

So far, we have the initial "off" period, followed by an "on", "off", and
an "on".  The two "on" periods both accumulated more heat than the two
"off" periods.  Since god has a "Ying On" device that she turns on from 
time to time, it is not possible to have a true "off" period.  

If this keeps up for a few more periods, I propose to set up a "double blind"
experiment.  I will have one of you out there tell me when to be on and off.
Then I will send data to a second who does not know the on - off sequence.
A third can then look at the two sets of data and compare them.  I should
be able to find someone at Fermilab to come by every couple of days and 
seal the data disk and mail the full one.  

The present period is 24 hours.  Not a high speed experiment, but it has 
always been my belief that a very sensitive low level experiment will be 
more convincing than one that blows the recreation room off my house.  

I nominate Jim Carr to start thinking about how to set up such an experiment.

Tom Droege
From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The proof is in the pudding
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:43:38 GMT
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

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

Tom Droege comments: "The Takahashi configuration is such that I don't know
how to get a model, and thus don't believe that it can be calibrated."

We don't need a model to calibrate. We run a heater, then we run electrolysis
at different levels, and we get straight calibration lines. During the
experiment we watch the input power, the flow Delta-T, and the box
temperature; they track very closely. This proves that box temperature
measures heat accurately.

We know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the water is constantly, thoroughly
mixed. This is a clear plastic box; you can look inside it, and see that the
water is bubbling, sloshing and splashing around. Bubbles, and occasional
small pieces of grit, are driven everywhere. Furthermore, we have three
thermocouples, separated vertically and horizontally. With joule heating, they
show a thermal gradient. With even one watt of electrolysis, the gradient
almost disappears.

We don't have to know exactly how the box works in order to be certain that it
*does* work. A computer model is good, but actual experimental data is
indisputable proof.

Before I leave for vacation, I would like to quickly address your other
statement: "We live in a fluid called air, Jed.  Sometimes we have Tornadoes,
but not all the time.  They are very capricious.  That is because temperature
gradients in a fluid can do very complicated things..."

"Capricious" is the key word. Storms do not start up after a few weeks, and
persist for 4 months steadily. They do not respond to input proportionally,
changing in a precise manner every 6 hours. They are not inversely correlated
with neutrons.

Takahashi's grad students hauled the box out of the neutron counter by pulling
the red wires shown in the photo, and sloshed in new heavy water periodically.
Flow gradients would never survive such jostling; they would stop temporarily,
and then take another two weeks to restart. The conditions in the box were
just as conducive to thermal gradients during the first week as they were 2
weeks later, or 4 months later. If this miniature storm could flick on at
random after a few weeks, then sometime during the next four months, it would
flick off again at least once.

Furthermore, if a gradient could produce a bogus 30 watt positive reading on
the low end and 100 watts on the high end, then from time to time it would
produce strongly negative readings of -30 and -100 watts, as the flow shifts
capriciously around. Neither Takahashi nor I have ever observed anything like
this. In any case, visual observation of the box and my computer data both
prove that there are no gradients, and that Takahashi was not seeing a tempest
in a test tube.

- Jed
From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Subject: Scales from eyes
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:31:53 GMT


Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>

>Pauli invented the idea of the neutrino in order to explain the *apparent*
>violation of energy-momentum conservation in beta decay (193x). This is
>now confirmed exptally. What is less widely known is that people as eminent

Of course! Scales fall from my eyes! The answer has been there, staring at us,
all along. The hitherto missing emission is neutrinos! Deuterium fuses to
alpha plus a bunch of neutrinos - a lot of them in fact, because you need a
lot to shed that much energy. But you don't detect them without a tank with
tons of gallium or dry cleaning fluid or whatever. Doug Morrison has
occasionally posted his theories about the "missing" solar neutrinos; well,
did you notice that according to him, recently the figures show that there are
not as many missing as people thought - or, *as there used to be* ... What
with cold fusion experiments all around the world (hundreds of labs), all
putting out masses of neutrinos, no wonder the neutrino detection sites are
finding more!

>I posted this for three reasons.
>...
>3. Sorry. My memory has a half-life shorter than lithium-11 and I
>forgot what the third post was supposed to be. Maybe I recoiled from the
>enormity of the rest of this posting.

What are you hiding, Frank? Were you going to tell us about neutrinos but then
changed your mind?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuterium Absorption
Date: 22 Jul 92 05:42:30 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>John Logajan writes:
>"If I manually closed then opened the circuit, ... bubbles ... from the Pt
>(anode) ... almost no bubbles ... from the (cathode)"
>
>During many runs, we have observed that fresh Pd absorbes almost *all* the
>evolved Deuterium (Hydrogen).  At least 90%, possibly higher for a fresh
>cathode.  This is likely true for the Ni and Ti cathodes, I have not tried
>Ti.  

I guess I was too obtuse with my description.  What I found confusing
about the observation was that there were no bubbles for a fraction of
a second, and then there were.  Meanwhile, bubbles started right away
at the Pt anode.  I could shut off the power before the bubbles ever
started at the cathode.  Now I believe it was probably some form of
absorbtion (the whole basis for the cell in the first place, no? :-)
but why did absorbtion efficiency drop off so quickly, so that bubbles
formed rather than getting "pushed" into the anode.

I was trying to link this in some way to your "film" being disrupted
by bubbles idea -- but I admit I was stretching it a wee bit.

[My next experiment, when I get round tuit, will be to run a pulse
generator so that I only have sufficient duty cycle on time to do the
non-bubble time bit, and then let it relax long enough before the next
non-bubble on time.  And *then* I will crank up the voltage in hopes of
an asymetrical "hammer" effect.  Where I can do a short on time pulse, and
really "drive" those hydrogen molecules into the anode, yet relax enough
so as to not waste undue heat -- yet get around to the next hammer blow
before the injected molecules can find their way back out.

This is all based on the naive belief that maximum loading has something
to do with the electrolyte/anode interface voltage gradient, and that a high
current (i.e. high applied voltage) will give the steepest gradient.]

  -- John Logajan
From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Date: 29 Jul 92 10:52:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.weRiXuK00UhW04InRD
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Bruce Scott talks about He-3 or T induced secondary reactions as a
source of high energy fusion output.  If this were important, then He-3
or T experiments would have been done.  In fact, I know of an
unpublished search for CNF using a sample loaded with multi-curies of
tritium and no ...no... indications of fusion were observed.  This was
done a couple of years ago.

Bruce Scott also guesses that D + D --> He-4 violates some quantum
selection rule, but I do not believe that is the case.

Paul J. Karol
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion

>In sci.physics.fusion, alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>
>    	Cerencov radiation is produced as a charged particle
>    moves through the medium in which speed of light, adjusted for
>    the refraction index of the medium, is less than the speed of
>    the beforementioned charged article. Is this concept/effect
>    extendible into the domain of charged particle moving through
>    metals? It is a somewhat(a lot?) naive question as I know that the
>    concept of refraction index can be extended to take into account
>    absorption, but does a charged particle moving through metals
>    loose its energy by mechanism similar to Cerencov radiation in
>    dielectrics. It seems to me it must.

It probably does, but it may be very difficult to measure in metals.
My guess is the Cerenkov radiation is absorbed in the metal before it
can be detected, but I don't know for sure.
From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  DD->4He + gamma
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:13:36 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Jul30.161013.12714@cs.ucf.edu>, long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long) writes:
> In article <1992Jul30.131601.20968@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>  
> rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>> In article <weRiXuK00UhW04InRD@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu  
> (Paul Karol) writes:
>> 
>> >Bruce Scott also guesses that D + D --> He-4 violates some quantum
>> >selection rule, but I do not believe that is the case.
>> 
>> d is spin 1
>> He is spin 0
>> gammas are spin 1
> 
> I believe that both d and He4 can have different total spins than those  
>[ ... ]
> we can rule out spin 1 He4, but spin zero d is certainly a possibility.
> 

Spin zero d's are unbound, aren't they? Like diprotons and dinutrons.

-- 
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za

------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: 26 Jul 92 00:59:17 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Jed Rothwell writes:
>
>Jim Bowery comments:
>
>"TECHNOSOCIALISM IS THE SINGLE MOST DESTRUCTIVE POLICY BEING PURSUED
>BY THE UNITED STATES AND, INDEED, THE WORLD."
>
>Well, I don't want to get too involved in this -- never though about it
>really -- but we Japanese jes' lo-o-o-v-e techno-socialism-big-
>government-economic-planning. Hey, it works for us. What can I say?
 
No it doesn't.
 
For some reason you missed my distinction between "industrial policy"
and "technosocialism" or you wouldn't have made your statement.  In Japan 
the majority of its R&D funding decisions and risks are made and taken
by the private sector.  In the US the majority of the R&D decisions
and risks are made and taken by the public sector.  
 
In the cases where Japanese R&D decisions and risks ARE made by the
public sector, such as with the H2, Tokamak, the 5th generation 
computer project and others, the results are negative, just as they 
are in the US with the Shuttle, the Tokamak, VHSIC, Sematech, Synfuels
and a host of other technosocialist programs too numerous to name.
 
On the other hand, "industrial policy" includes tax incentives which, 
while they do "pick winners" in the sense of favoring certain private 
sector activities over others, do NOT "pick winners" in terms of awarding 
specific funding to individuals or groups on the basis of how politically 
savvy and ability to suppress competition -- as is currently done under
the policy of technosocialism the world over.
 
If you don't like the term "technosocialism" to describe the policy
of public sector investment decisions and risk taking favoring the
more politically savvy and ruthlessly anticompetitive among us, then
I suggest you come up with a better term, because whatever its name,
everyone attempting to make fusion a reality knows the face of
this policy in gorey detail and could certainly use a commonly 
recognized name that goes with that face.
 
"The Beltway Beast" has a nice ring to it.

You have any other ideas?

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:12:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Jul23.131216.3065
Organization: Wright State University

>>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms, per one of 
>>(?Frank Close?)'s postings.
> 
>>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74 
>>angstroms.
> 
> and
> 
> In article <1992Jul22.182608.24724@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
> (John Logajan) writes:
>> In article <22JUL199212352997@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>>>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms
>>>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74 
>>>angstroms.
>>>Hence, in liquified D2, the probability for fusion should be at least 2 
>>>times greater than it is for a PdD cell
>> 
>> Hmmm.  You have the average seperation of D2 to D2, no?  In a gas or even
>> in a liquid this is probably much greater than the 1.7 average for Pd:D.
>> The liquid D2 is lumpier, but on the average much more dilute, no?  Which
>> is the more important value, the average of the lumpiness, or the lumps?
>> 
Just finished calculating the values.

Pd Atomic Radius              = 1.37 A
H (best guess for D) Radius   = .46 A
Pd Crystal Type               = FCC (Face Centered Cubic)
Unit Cell Length              = 3.875 A
Min Diam Interstitial Site    = 1.135 A
Dist between int site centers = 2.74 A

There is plenty of room for 2+ Ds to bang around inside of one of these
interstitial sites.  In fact due to the geometery there may be enough room
for 3 Ds to be present.  This is based solely upon size constraints
not electromagnetic potential constraints.

With two Ds in one interstial site the minimum seperation would be
.46 A and the maximum would be .675 A.

Another advantage to being inside of an interstitial site is that the
Ds have a much greater force keeping them together then they have when
in liquid or gaseous form.

Now how about some of you Chemical Phycists & Physical Chemists calculating
the maximum pressure a Pd crystal could exert upon two Ds in an interstitial
site?

-- 

   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.            |   Yellow Submarine
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Forest for the trees
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:17:00 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>The discouraging information is that the effect seems to have gone away or 
>reversed with the shorter interval. 

You have a better feel for your data, but it looked like power out was
increasing.  Yes the correlation with in-out disappeared, but so too does
a flywheel smooth out a steam piston's herky-jerky thrust.

You've lost the on-off signature, but what of your net power out?

> Perhaps there is a time lag.  But one as long as indicated boggles the
> synapses.  

Doesn't the whole concept? :-)  You mentioned a possible time lag effect
*before* you switched to shorter cycles, so at least it isn't totally
an after the fact explanation.

  -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning)
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Reply-To: ted@nmsu.edu
Organization: Computing Research Lab
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 07:12:57 GMT


In article <920716225805_72240.1256_EHL48-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

   Pretend that someone has handed you a multimeter and a thermometer
   and said, "measure the amps, volts, and temperature of that cell.
   Be sure you get the temperature right to within one degree C. If
   you get it wrong, our government will loose $100 million, and you
   will spend the rest of your life working at MacDonalds."

   Would you do the work carefully? Would you repeat the measurement
   over again, to be sure you got it right? Of course you would!


actually the human answer is not to make sure they get it right, but
rather to recruit enough others so that the blame for getting it wrong
will be spread around enough.  this results in a massive decrease in
the collective intelligence applied to the problem and often results
in stupid decisions.


with regard to miti being terribly careful people, take the 5th
generation project as the canonical counter-example.  there were lots
of claims made by people regarded as trustworthy by miti, and now
a few years and yen later, the program is essentially a bust.  none of
the real goals of the project were met.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion