HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aspect aspect
Date: 7 Oct 1992 22:41:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) says:
>I can't help but think that if Terry is right and this is some kind of
>macroscopic quantum mechanical sort of thing, the attempt to observe
>nuclear ash might preclude the production of heat.  

Or the ability to reproduce the experiment will always be one less than
the number needed to convince you it is real. :-)

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: New Think
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:53:26 GMT

In article <921008222225_72240.1256_EHL33-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>This is another, very interesting view of how science should proceed. Anything
>new, or anything that does not fit the existing dogma of science is obviously
>wretched heresy that must be stamped out, right? Not one one person should be
>allowed to study it, because we all know it is wrong, and free inquiry -- or
>God Forbid, mistakes! -- will destroy science. We must only perform
>experiments that everyone agrees in advance will work. One million dollars can
>not be spared to replicate the work of the Japanese. Not even one hundred
>thousand. No matter how many reports come in from places like the Japanese
>phone company, or Osaka University, or Hitachi -- nobody in the U.S. will be
>allowed to try a single one of these experiments because we are CERTAIN that
>EVERY ONE OF THEM must be wrong.
>
(Yawn) Get off of it Jed. There is no such thing as _free_ inquiry if
what you're talking about is spending _my_ tax dollars.

If you have this unquenchable thirst for knowledge it is still there
with your own money. Try using that.

Theory tells us that if there is a nuclear reaction of some sort going
on it will leave all sorts of telltale traces. There are no traces -- only
an unexplained heat. And most of the theories to support the production
of this heat either deny reality (there _is_ no ash) or are so wildly
improbable under present theory that it is a waste of sorely needed capital
to waste any of it chasing this willo-the-wisp (gee there's a theory for
you -- willo-the-wisp is a total matter conversion caused my swamp gas.)

Now, if there is something to cold nuclear fusion all of the inquiries
by private parties will find a reproducable result sooner or later and
that will be the time to start talking about megabuck research projects.

Unless and until that happens, don't be suprised if other people rebel
against research projects that will short other more promising
enquiry.

Tom D. says there is heat. If he reproduces his results and has
a null control cell we can start believing that there is heat there.
If there is heat there we then have to convince ourselves that it
couldn't come from chemical means -- geez, a long charging time
followed by a short period of output makes me suspicious that any
heat source couldn't possibly be nuclear in nature.

So let's wait until there is some sort of proof of a real phenomena
before we fly off the handle accusing others of non-patriotism,
or being Ludites, or not understanding the possibilities.
From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Myth of Long Charging Times -- Debunked
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:44:31 GMT

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>a long charging time followed by a short period of output makes me suspicious

Look at Droege's data.  His "charging" time was under 48 hours, he started
charging on Sept 9th and it went positive anomalous by Sept 11.  Most of that
"charging" heat went into the enthalpy of D absorbtion into the Pd -- and
he'll get that heat back when he cuts power and all the D comes bubbling
back out.  So you can't borrow all the "charging" energy to account for
the anomalous heat -- that'd be double billing.

In any event, he has long since recouped the "charging" energy lost to
enthalpy -- so the "charging" argument flounders on all counts. 

Which brings me to today's **point**

There is revealed a new thread of consistency between all these anomalous
heat reports.  I think we agree that few or none of the other experimenters
matched Droege's micro-precision or accuracy.  In addition, people running
open systems had to throw in a bunch of fudge factors to nail down the
degrees of freedom -- and they had to be conservative in doing so to please
their skeptics.

Therefore, less resolution combined with overly conservative open systems
corrections had the effect of delaying the detection of anomalous heat --
giving rise to the notion of the need for long charging times.

I think this false notion is now laid to rest (as I believe Droege suggested
when he said he could now detect a dud within a few days.)  Anomalous heat
starts very soon, but at low levels.  It then builds slowly.  In most cases
this is initially below the threshold of detection or is attributed to the
slack of the estimated fudge factors.  Only after the anomalous heat level
climbs high enough do these less precise less accurate systems give an
unambiguous signal -- which has heretofore been falsely attributed to the
need for long charging times.

It is clear that Droege's stated intention of doing small but precise
experiments has laid this myth six feet under.


- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misc.
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:49:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct9.214932.7072
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <921008141730.202004d4@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>But enogh neutrons would leave me with a stiff cat.  So we are left with
>low energy photons.  As I posted before, I have a small suspicion that there 
>might be some.  But certainly not enough to explain the heat.  So I am left 
>
>P.S. Remember that low energy photons are IR and thus heat.  Eventually we
>will have to build detectors to look for light and heat in a cell.  Enough
>people have run open cells to pretty well rule out light.  This leaves us 
>with trying to put IR scanners in a cell.

P&F speak of boiling off the D2O. You are measuring heat. IR couples very
poorly to water -- where is the IR reacting to either transfer enough of
a small amount of energy to the D2O or there must be very large amounts
of IR so that poor coupling can still demonstrate heat like this?

In other words -- if it's coming off as IR something else is going on.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: eliasen@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ELIASEN  ALAN BRUCE)
Subject: Latest Lawson Numbers?
Summary: Request for information on latest statistics
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:05:44 GMT


I'm writing a terrible paper about nuclear fusion and comparing it
with nuclear fission.  I was wondering if someone could help me with a couple
of questions:

1.  What is the usual percentage of rest-mass released in a D-D fusion
   reaction (assuming Helium-4 output)?  What am I asking? D-T is hard enough!

2.  What is the percent of rest-mass released in the most common decay
   modes of U-238?  And what are those decay modes?

3.  What Lawson numbers are being achieved by fusion researchers?  And, please,
   for my reference, could somebody refresh me on the break-even and burn
   points at the relevant temperatures? Units, too, please?  My subscription to
   that old LaRoucheite rag "Fusion" has long since expired.  :) 

4.  What is the most probable method for obtaining usable energy from the
   resultant plasma?  Or is the answer, "hell, we'll cross that bridge when
   we come to it?"

5.  Big speculative question:  when do YOU predict that we'll see feasible
   fusion as a power source?  Remember, it's been right around the corner since
   1955.  And what is the greatest holdback?  Maintaining containment?

Please e-mail replies to:
 eliasen@ucsu.colorado.edu

P.S.  I know I'm too lazy to look the first two up.  You don't need to tell me.
      I'm really interested in the up-to-the-minute state of the art.  Thanks.
From: logajan@LOCALHOST.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coming soon: PostScripted drawing of the Droege Calorimeter
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:56:06 GMT

Tom Droege's FAXed calorimetery paper made it here before the copy Chuck
Harrison is sending via tire-net. So in about 5-6 hours from now (1:50pm
CDT current time) I will post the PostScript command language file.

It'll be about 32k bytes, about 1800 lines.  When printed it will be three
pages long, containing a layered view of the caliormeter with terse
explanations of various functions.  The drawing is "schematic" in nature
and does not attempt to show dimensions or nuts and bolts accurately.

There is no picture of all three layer groups combined together, but
I believe people of average skills should be able to visualize the
three as one -- there are some visual "clues" to aid in this task.

To view it, you will either have to find a PostScript printer or
find a PostScript viewer.  I believe many print shops will produce
PostScripted data (delivered to them on floppy, of course) for you
for a slight charge.

P.S.  Don't bother with any complaints about wasting net bandwidth,
you'll just be teasing my anarchical nature :-)

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Dick Forman comments on Mercury and its uses
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:34:49 GMT

In article <isgksB4w165w@iowegia.uucp>
quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>> the US by several different measures.  And since when was Mendeleev (or
>> Curie or Einstein or Fermi or Nobel or Rutherford or Hahn or Meitner) an
>> AMERICAN name?  Only Bk, Cf, Lr and Am fit that description.
>>
>
>Jim,
>
>        True, Curie, Einstein, Fermi, and Nobel were not native to
>the United states, they were not born here- but they CAME here to
>do their research and to become great.  Just remember as you
>disagree with the things I say- medical professionals of the time
>laughed at Flemming as he was developing Penicillin.  They openly
>called him "stupid" and other demeaning remarks.  They said things
>like " Penicillin is such a weak antiseptic it is not even worth
>persuing".  They put their faith in Mercuric compounds like
>Mercurichrome as the salvation for mankinds war against infection
>and disease.  As you know, Flemming was right- and so am I.....sq
>
>(today we say "how could anyone be so stupid to use Mercury based
>chemicals as anti-infectives in the human body!  Mercury is
>poisonous!  And yet so it was.....)
Dick Forman comments: Yes, mercury is poisonous. Could someone calculate
                      the number of pounds of mercury introduced into landfills
                      through the disposal of mercury, mercury-sodium, or
                      HMI streetlamps being disposed of by crushing the bulb
                      to prevent implosion danger.  The average life of one
                      of these lamps is 4000 hours or about 1/2 year. To
                      continue, the lamp manufacturers now make fluorescent
                      lamps whose life equals incandescent lamps, about 1000
                      hours. Fluorescent lamps contain miniscule amounts of
                      mercury, which produce a low pressure arc that emits
                      primarily at 253.7nm, a resonance line. The phosphor
                      on the inside of the lamp downconverts the near uv light
                      to visible. Good thing fluorescent lamps (the ones that
                      $6.00/each) last a long time.  I guess there must be some
                      unknown process defect in manufacturing the ones that
                      go on sale of $1.00 in the 4' 40W Cool White Shop use
                      variety that limits their life to less than 1000 hours.
 
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Drop all bombs please
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:21:04 GMT
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I came in this morning, specially and only to look at my email - being on
holidays this week - and there are three spf Digests. I find, however, that
the cnf content could be compressed into a single one, the rest is all about
H-bombs. Please, all you bomb crazies, go away, you are cluttering up this
group. The volume of your verbiage suggests that you could run a special
news group on that fascinating topic for a long time - so start one. Then we
can focus once more on non-bomb fusion.
Thank you in anticipation of a higher S/N level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Second draft of PostScripted calorimeter drawings
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:51:23 GMT

If anyone wants a copy of the PostScript page description language file
containing Tom Droege's calorimeter drawings -- with the inclusion of
the errata mentioned on a follow-up post, send me an e-mail message and
I will send you an e-mail copy.

   logajan@network.com


- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Off topic drift
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:46:24 GMT

I like to chatter as much as the next guy, but we are now into third and
fourth rounds in the battle whether nukes are easy to invent and build.

Some people recieve this particular group as e-mails and I don't think
they appreciate all this volume of off topic material.   Thanks.
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not Quite What I Had In Mind
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:23:52 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <921006162831_72240.1256_EHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

   No, I was thinking more in terms of setting up a large scale experiment
   that simultaneously monitors the electrolyte, the gas, and a wide spectrum
   of particles that might be emitted by the cell...

   The program I have outlined above has one obvious drawback. It would cost
   a great deal of money...

   [Thanks to cold fusion skeptics] we shall have to wait for the
   Japanese to do this for us.

Jed, I understand that your background is not in science, so you
probably don't know this, but the Japanese will never do this, either.
The trick in science is to find a neat, simple experiment that
measures a few things and demonstrates or refutes a theory.  Setting
up an experiment that measures everything you can think of is never
done, because it's too expensive (even for well-funded research) and
anyway you can never think of everything.

And anyway, I advocate Bollinger's total mass conversion theory (or
farfetch if you prefer), and if that theory is correct, all your
measurements wouldn't show anything, just some heat coming out.

-- J
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:08:11 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Hk83RB6w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>
>        The russians are selling millitary items for hard cash- 
>wonder if they are selling bomb parts, plutonium, tritium, or 
>maybe even the genuine article for hard cash?

This is a major concern of those concerned about proliferation, 
including russians, ukrainians, kazakhs and azerbaijanis as well 
as europeans and americans.  Control of tactical weapons is the 
biggest concern, but the US is (I think) buying large quantities 
of weapons grade material for conversion to civilian use to help 
circumvent the economic forces at work. 

>        Everyone, you just have to remember.  We weren't even 
>using fuel injected engines when the nuclear bombs were being 
>invented!  THEY ARE BLOODY SIMPLE DEVICES!  A television set is 
>many times more complex than a fusion or fission bomb......sq

We were using fuel injected engines and had demonstrated television 
before nuclear devices were developed.  They could not have been 
developed without electronics or delivered without those engines. 

--
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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as crucial test
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:40:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct8.120533.159@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

 > Thanks for the input on secondary x-rays as a probe of possible
 > nuclear reactions in a heat producing cell.  So far, I have only heard
 > of two ways out of x-ray-monitoring as a crucial test:

 > 1.  p + p --> d + e+  + neutrino + 0.42 MeV

No: p + p + e- --> d + neutrino + 1.44 MeV.  The reaction you describe
would be easily seen when the positron annihilates.

 > second for a watt of excess power.  Since the p-p reaction proceeds via weak
 > interaction, the reaction
 > cross section is tiny -- this is why the sun burns as slowly as it does.

Of course.  A Miracle is required.  But I thought miracles were de rigeur
in P&F-style Cold Fusionology.

 > Plus, we have conducted experiments of this type in the Kamiokande
 > detector, which is a sensitive neutrino detector.  If copious
 > neutrinos were being produced, the Kamiokande would have seen them,
 > but such were absent.  (We did see some neutrons.)  This escape route
 > seems to be ruled out.

What's the cross section for a 1.44 MeV neutrino to scatter off
electrons?  I do understand that Kamiokande was not sensitive to the
pp solar neutrinos, but rather saw the rather uncommon high energy
neutrinos from 8B and such.  What's the upper bound on 1.44 MeV
neutrino emission obtained from the CF experiments there?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:24:08 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

> Now I begin to question your sincerity.  People have done this. 
> Quite a few, in quite a few different places.  And in each case, 
> they were able to make simple order-of-magnitude estimates of 
> exactly how big a "basement" or "back yard" they needed to do this 
> work, especially the enrichment of U-235 and chemical separation 
> of Pu-239.  I suggest you do the same.  If your answer does not 
> come out to be about the size of a small town  ;-)  try again. 
> 

Jim,

        Enrichment of large (ton) quantaties of U235 for reactors 
DOES take a diffusion chamber the size of a small town, in fact 
the one they built for the early enrichment was at that time the 
largest single building ever built.  Now, I didn't say someone 
would need tons of U235, just a little over 3 kilos (to be sure 
and have a bit extra).

        I realize that I am oversimplifying the bomb in my 
descriptions.  Let me oversimplify in another way- the automatic 
transmission (which I have discussed earlier in a post on 
sci.physics).  To simplify, an automatic transmission couples 
mechanical rotational energy through a "torque converter", or 
"doughnut" as the guy at the junk yard calls it.  This is a 
mechanical to hydraulic couple, where all of the mechanical energy 
must go through a hydraulic medium (thus the "clutch" is always 
slipping- there is your reduced gas economy, mechanical energy 
converted to heat).  To get back to the point (sorry, my mind 
wanders) the torque converter is connected mechanically to a 
series of cluches (similar to motorcycle bands) which engage and 
disengage a series of decending order gears, and thus your gear 
ratio is changed.  The time for change is sensed by a mechanical 
connection to the carburator (where is your throttle position?) as 
well as how fast the torque converter is spinning (centrifugal 
force).  Finally, the ratioed rotational energy is delivered out 
the back of the transmission to the differential (junk yard label, 
the pumpkin) and out to the wheels.

        Is this an oversimplification?  Yes it is, because it is 
not definate enough to build a transmission based upon the 
information given here- but at least you now have fundamental 
knowledge in transmission operation- which was what my goal all 
along was.  Fundamental knowledge of how a bomb works, not step-by 
step how-to build one..............sq
From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Artist's conception
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:22:01 GMT

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> responded to this apparent post by:

Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
>Sorry Dieter that you cannot
>read proceedings as I have published the designs in the ACCF1 and ICCF2.  

I checked at four different USENET sites and cannot find any trace of this
post from Droege -- did anybody else see it?  I have suspicions that we
may be suffering from a fractured net.

If anyone has access to the drawings, if any, in the above mentioned
publications and cares to FAX them to me at the number below, I will
hand redraw them (thus avoiding copyright stickyness) in PostScript form and
publish them as PostScript language files -- suitable for printing at
your local PostScript compatible printer.

This offer is also open to submissions of drawings direct from the source
HIMSELF as well :-)

You all might want to contact me by e-mail first to save on unnecessary
duplicate submissions and their long distance phone charges.  (Not that I 
expect anybody to respond :-)

John Logajan MS010
Fax# 612-424-2853 



- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2442 sci.physics:16313