HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 30 Jul 92 10:09:50 +0200
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <29JUL199212110773@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
> While thinking about the Ying device, and how to exploit its effect without 
> the continuous use of a gamma source (i.e. making a gamma ray laser), I was 
> struck by the following thought:
> 
> 1)  If D+D+gamma -> He4+2gamma exists, then:
> 
> 2)  (your favorite gamma source)+gamma -> fragments + 2gamma
> 
> should also exist.
> 
> In other words, if gamma induced fusion exists, then gamma induced fission 
> should also exist.
> 
> Conversely, if gamma induced fission doesn't exist, then gamma induced 
> fusion won't, either.

I don't think conventional theories of nuclear physics follow this
logic! :-)

Gamma induced fission does indeed exist - for a start in deuterium
itself. If you hit a deuteron with a gamma of greater than its binding
energy, (2.2 MeV), it will photodisintegrate.  Same goes for any
nucleus. No one has yet been able to do the opposite - e.g. fire a
gamma at two nucleons (neutron and proton) and see them fuse. It's
completely counterintuitive. Like putting a stick of dynamite between
two rocks and expecting the explosion to make them stick together.

The only way I can see the Ying scenario working is if the gamma
somehow gives a deuteron kinetic energy (maybe momentum is absorbed
by the lattice for conservation purposes) and that deuteron goes
shooting off and hits another deuteron. I, however, remain entirely
sceptical of this. If a 24 MeV gamma hits a deuteron, you get protons
and neutrons. If a 1.5 MeV gamma hits a deuteron, it excites it. 

As far as chain reactions go, I agree that to explain the supposed
Ying effect, you need one, but you can't get one without trashing
nuclear physics. Fusion is not like fission. In fact, it's quite the
opposite :-) 

I'm finding the statistical and thermondynamical reatment of nucl phys
very interesting. Hitherto I've been strictly a ball-and-chain man.

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

------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trinary experiments
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:33:55 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Another idea for Droege's latest experiment would be to 
change it from a binary experiment (source "In" or "Out"), to 
a trinary experiment ("In", "Out", or "Mid").  The Mid state 
would have approximately half the radiation reaching the 
cathode.  This could be done by moving the source farther 
from the experiment, using separate strong/weak sources, or 
by interposing some material to reduce the radiation reaching 
the experiment by about 50%.  He could run for 24 hours in 
each of the three states, or better yet, run for 12 hours in 
each state.  Then, if the two 12-hour periods per day are 
called AM and PM, in a three day period he would get all six 
states -- In_AM, Mid_PM, Out_AM, In_PM, Mid_AM, Out_PM, ...
If the trials are not thought to be independent, the next 
three day period could reverse the order (Out would follow In 
rather than Mid).  

The statisticians could then go crazy -- determining the 
effect of AM/PM, memory effects, correlations with weak and 
strong sources, etc.     

-- Bob Horst
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Subject: Re: Revised Ying Thing info
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:36:33 GMT

In article <1682BE37C.MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>, MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
reports:
>  
>      On 01 July (#1688) I posted as Document #2 Dr. Ying's first
> issued statement out of the OSC.  Last Saturday I received from
> his office a similar statement, but sufficiently different to
> deserve re-posting.  At least this new statement has a dateline.
> Transcription follows:
...
>           Paneth and Peters (1) (2) observed hydrogen in glass producing
> a trace of helium.

I hope that the rest of Ying's stuff is more reliable than his history.
Paneth and Peters observed no such thing. They THOUGHT for a while that this
was what they observed, but as I have said before, they didn't trust their
results and kept looking for errors, and found them. So what they actually
observed was not the production of helium, but the ingress of helium into
their cell through the glass walls, which had become more helium-permeable
because of the hydrogen present.
Today's cold fusion researchers do not seem to operate like that, with only
a few notable exceptions like Tom Droege. Others do not seem too eager to try
to prove themselves wrong, leaving that to others who, however, do not have all
the experimental facts at their disposal. I have been waiting for a thorough
look at FPALH-90, and it seems it has appeared at last. I'll be getting hold
of it the next few days, and will report on it.

Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
-------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:25:27 GMT

In article <MePjNuS00WBME3xIw9@andrew.cmu.edu>, pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Paul Karol) writes:
> I think Dieter Britz is confusing macroscopic thermodynamics with
> microscopic kinetics when he invokes Le Chatlier's principle to question
> how the input of gamma irradiation affects the D + D --> He-4 + gamma
> reaction.  In microscopic reaction rate theory, before we can talk about
> Le Chatlier's principle and equilibrium, we have to say something about
> the reverse elementary reaction, He-4 + gamma --> D + D.  When we know
> the relative rates of each of these steps, we have an equilibrium
> constant.  But suppose the rate of that latter step is zero, i.e. that
> it does not occur.  You have an irreversible reaction, no 'equilibrium',
> and no place for Le Chatlier's principle.  Or, if you add aluminum
> powder to a solution of copper, metallic copper will form and the
> aluminum will dissolve.  You can't get metallic aluminum back by adding
> more product copper metal.

I did suspect that my physical gut feeling was suspect, and several people
have now told me so. I have been reminded of stimulated emission from lasers
and so on; I accept all this, and that Le Chatelier never thought of cold
fusion enhancement.

Your point about copper and aluminium is wrong, though, mate; my chemistry is
OK, if not my physics. Thermodynamically speaking, in the system Cu++ and Al,
although the equilibrium is far to the side of Cu + Al+++, i.e. the reaction
(simplified)
3Cu++ + 2Al  <=> 3Cu + 2Al+++  goes to the right,
you can't get it to go back by adding Cu, true, because you can't increase
the activity of copper beyond 1; but in principle if you add a lot of Al+++,
you'd shift the equilibrium backwards, if only a tiny bit. This can get sort of
theoretical, though, in some cases you are talking about 1 atom in a normal
volume, AND the reaction rate might be astronomically small (there I go again).

I still want to see a Ying reactor doing its stuff - just like the Pons water
heater {:]

Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
-------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday 
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:31:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.163322.27469@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu  
(Jonathan Grad) writes:
> 
> Sorry I did not include the details in my original post.
> According to the Wall Street Journal article, materials
> scientist Edmund Storms claims to have successfully replicated
> the Takahashi experiment.  Storms claims, in a paper submitted
> to Fusion Technology, that his experiment began putting out
> an excess of power after 90 hours of operation

I just went down to our company library to check on the article in question.   
He is claiming a 20% increase in heat output over heat in.  Of particular note  
for the experimentalists in the group:  A cell that did not produce excess heat  
was examined and the paladium was found to have microscopic cracks that were  
not on the paladium in the working cell. 
--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:27:42 -0400 
From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: D+D-->He+gamma

Could someone be kind enough to post a brief (100-200 word) summary of
the 'Ying' CNF scheme that seems to involve the equivalent of stimulated
fusion by resonance gammas.  Just the gist of the model?  I've gotten
lost in all the side-tracking and never did get a good grasp of it.  I'm
particularly interested in how 'heat' appears.  

Thanks to any responders.

Paul J. Karol
From: Ligon@macgw1.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:30:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE-CRD

In article <1992Jul23.222407.18064@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
I have a small hand-held Geiger counter which I take with me when my wife 
drags me off to antique stores.

The place to look is in the old chinaware section.  It turns out that the 
"fiesta ware" pieces which are very bright orange got that way because they
use a uranium containing glaze. The uranium is natural abundance, of course,
but the purity must be pretty high because the activity is quite significant.

The New York regulations on "Ionizing Radiation Protection" (12 NYCRR 38)
list this as an exempted use as follows:  "Source material contained in any
of the following products: Glazed ceramic tableware, the glaze of which
contains not more than 20% by weight of source material;....."

Woody Ligon
standard disclaimer applies
(ligon@macgw1.ge.com)
From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom doing the Ying-Yang. Hassles with alphas.
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:09:15 +0200
Summary: How do we get the alphas into the palladium?
Keywords: yinge, droege, cold, fusion, alphas
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Cape Town

Tom Droege talks about turning the source of alphas and gammas off and
on.

Gammas are easy (you simply take away the source).
Alphas would (it seems to me) require a complete redesigning of the
cell in order to place the alpha source very close to the palladium,
and then use a shutter to turn the source off and on.
(the range of 5.5 MeV fission alphas in water is in the order of a few
microns - and they'd hardly get anywhere in the palladium.)

In order to get your alphas to make it through the calorimeter, water
etc you'd need either an evacuated tube right up to the electrode, or
to pump in alphas of 200 MeV+. Nasty.

IMHO, the (very dubious) advantages of introduction of alphas into the
experiment is simply not worth the hassle. I'd be interested to know (
and must wait, of course) to know just how Ying is introducing his
stimulatory alphas.

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

------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
From: dietz@cs.rpchester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DD->4He + gamma
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:55:28 GMT


In article <EACHUS.92Jul30141425@Dr_No.mitre.org>, eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:

|>    If Yang is right and has gamma mediated fusion, the three (most)
|> probable reactions are:

Listen, this is just getting too silly.  We can compute the
intensity of gamma radiation needed to get sufficient stimulated emission.
The number is absurd, by scores of orders of magnitude.   The "gamma
stimulated emission" theory is about as plausible as the "divine intervention
from the Sun God Ra" theory.

So let's stop pulling bogons out of gullibility space, ok?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  DD->4He + gamma
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:35:04 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul30.161013.12714@cs.ucf.edu> long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long) writes:
>
>             ...                             In the case of d, alligned  
>spins have a lower energy than opposite spins, and so spin zero is  
>possible if the deuteron is excited by a photon.  .... 

The deuteron does not have any bound excited states.  If it did have 
a bound S=0, T=1 state, we would observe bound di-neutrons.  We don't. 

The S=0 resonance is not unbound by very much, if I remember the size 
of the singlet phase shift, but my top-of-the-head few-body physics 
knowledge is pretty limited.  

The key number in such a discussion is the decay width of the resonance 
as observed in photo-disintegration studies.

--
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)
From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oops.
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:09:25 GMT
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

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

DB asks:

"I'll be the mug: who are these HUNDREDS? Or are you plucking facts out
of the air, Jed?"

Oops, sorry. No, not the air. I am plucking it out of my database. I did
not really mean hundreds of group leaders who have published papers, I
meant hundreds of people tagged in places that have reported excess heat,
who happen to have their mailing address in my computer. Like for
example, 3 at Hokkaido, 5 or 6 at Bockris's lab., a bunch in India,
several at NTT... The number of groups who had reported heat last year
according to Fire from Ice (page 246, courtesy Fritz Will) was 34. There
have been a lot since then, of course. Most are getting more heat than
ever, a few have probably decided they did not get heat after all. This
is an informal count, not by peer reviewed papers. And you never really
know what is happening at places like Hitachi. They take information,
they don't give it (not often, anyway).

It was not an accurate way to express the idea, I should have said
"hundreds of workers in dozens of labs..." or some such. There is a big
difference between one person in a lab doing this alone, and three people
working together. A group is much better; it is much more likely to catch
an error or a dumb mistake.


DB asks again: "And by the way, with your smoke screen you evaded my
question, which I put here once again: you say McKubre is still seeing
excess heat; do you mean he is still looking at the pre-explosion results
and seeing the same heat, or do you mean he is doing new experiments and
again seeing excess heat?"

Not evading, just forgot. Kind of busy. Remind me if I forget. I meant
pre-explosion results were much better than those reported at Como. Way
better, but I have heard 50 different versions of just how much better,
so who knows? McKubre is back from Japan and back at work now, I have
heard. I have not spoken to him directly, lately. All work was suspended
until the report came out. The report was delayed because of political
problems, I believe, and also because they could not understand the cause
of the accident. It seems to me they offer two possible causes, so
perhaps they still don't know exactly what caused it, but I do not like
to speculate on such matters now that a detailed report is available. If
anyone wants to know, please call EPRI.

And by the way, what is with your smokescreen? Let's hear *your* version
of Takahashi and P&F and McKubre are off by such huge factors? Hmmm? You
know how these experiments work, so tell me how every one of them, for
three years, has managed to be so dreadfully wrong? I am gunna make a
collection of these explanations for posterity: "How A Million Phycists
Defied 150 Years of Calorimetry -- And Lived To Tell The Tale!" Not
snappy enough?

- Jed
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Reply to Tod Green
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:57:05 GMT

Tod Green says:
"Maybe somebody should ring these people up and ask them what their current
position is wrt XS heat."

Did not ring them up but I note that Huggins and Liaw are on ICCF3
advisory committee.  If I thought my previous work was junk, I would 
find it convenient to be somewhere else.  (after retraction of course).

A conversation with Tetek at Oak Ridge sounded like Scott had retired.
So possibly the score is not so bad.  Talk a few months back with Oriani
indicated he was pretty much in a class with me - he had seen enough to
want to keep working.

It is hard for those who need to keep their jobs and their reputations to
be one of "all claimed heat in 1989 but haw many of those are still going
strong now?"

In short, I don't think that normal rules or logic apply when their are
witch burners looking for victims.  

Tenure is supposed to solve this problem, but it does not really.  What is
needed is old age and money.  Ross Perot just demonstrated that even high
office is worth continuously getting beat up by the media.  It is not fun
to have your friends avoid you. (not even high office is worth etc.)

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Latest Result
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:00:58 GMT

We continue the pseudo Ying experiment.

We now have 4 days of running at an average of 8 hour source in/out time.
This represents 5987 data points.  

Mean Power Source In/Mean Power Source Out = 1.001

Looks like a null result to me.  So back to 24 hour period.  Yes Dick Blue
I know to be careful of the earth's rotation.  But note this is a 48 hour
period.  24 hours in, 24 hours out.  Perhaps Dick can name a few things off
the top of his head with this period.

The trouble with the skeptics is that they don't work very hard.  Note that 
I did worry about 24 hours and ran 4 days so that there were the same number
of samples at all times of day, with the 8 hour test.  Come on Dick, you
can do better than "Line Voltage".  I am three layers of regulation (woops
it is actually 4) away from that proble.  And the last two are in a 
temperature controlled box.  Why don't you think of something exotic for
me to worry about, like the early morning utility frequency correction 
cycle?  Tides are a little better.  There is a small problem in my device
that might even be tides.  Why should I have a small day night effect when
heavy water is in the calorimeter and not on the calibration runs?  This
is something to investigate when I give up on "anomalous heat".  But Dick,
I do look, and worry a lot!  Of course there is a correction for air 
temperature.  But it is really quite small, even when I run (as at present)
with the outer shell servo off to allow wider calorimeter temperature 
control.

Tom Droege
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oops.
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:03:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Jed, pardon me if I sort of butt in here for a minute.

I think that problem is coming down to a perfectly simple 
idea: either there is excess heat being measured or there 
isn't.

If there is excess heat, then we are all interested in the
mechanism from which it occurs. 

If there isn't any excess heat, but there _appears_ to be 
excess heat, then we must also find an explaination for that.

In either case, the necessary questions will always have some
personal portent of someone's failure. I don't think that is
important to the subject and should be ignored since science
is the act of correcting mistaken ideas.
From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does it need to be hot?
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:11:16 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.


	Now that many are discussing different ways to get hot (read
alpha/gamma radio-active) substances closer to the electrode including
suggestions to create Pd/Po-210 alloys; I want to ask what makes everyone
so sure alpha-sources are the way to go(besides that Ying is using it)
instead of preparing the electrodes by pumping He4 into it by electrolysis.
Someone posted a while back some data about permiability of Pd to He4, 
I remember it was something interesting and could be related to Ying-type 
catalysis.

Could that someone repost that data, thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Subject: Re: Mystery black box experiment
Summary: D2O2 effects
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:30:05 GMT

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>          ... There are three issues: accuracy of measurement, duration of
> charging up time, and the excess power level. If you get one or more of these
> wrong, you may think you have an excess, but it may actually be stored up
> energy. However, there is an absolute limit to the size of this error: the
> absolute maximum chemical storage capability of palladium (assuming no energy
> is stored in the heavy water). ...

This is a bad assumption. The most likely chemical explanation is that
deuterium peroxide (D2O2) is being formed at the platinum anode.
High concentrations of D2O2 can pass unnoticed, if no check is made.
This can lead to excess heat in at least 4 different ways:

1) The decomposition of a liter of D2O2 gives about 4 MJ of heat. Heat
   can be stored up over the long precharge and released later in very
   impressive amounts. If the Pd cathode is .1cc and the cell is 1 liter,
   then 40MJ/cc of Pd can be observed. (More if there also are other errors.)

2) If the thermometer is in the electrolyte and its surface catalytically
   decomposes D2O2, then it could read higher than the actual cell
   temperature.

3) If the calorimeter is calibrated by adding a known amount of heat to
   a working cell, the increase in temperature could increase the rate
   of D2O2 formation. This would absorb energy and thus make it appear
   that a given amount of heat causes a smaller temperature rise than
   is actually the case. Thus, a balanced cell would appear to be
   giving excess heat.

4) D2O2 reacting with hydrogen at the cathode would have the same effect
   as recombination. This would only happen after the cell had been
   operating a while, and it might turn on and off unpredictably.
   Spot checking to see if recombination is occurring could easily
   miss this.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion