HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:44:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: bu.96900
Reply-To: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: Boston University

In article <1992Sep26.142803.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green) writes:

>This all seems a bit odd  - I thought McKubre advocated running a very
>clean system so as to avoid poisoning of the cathode surface, and hence the
>use of a teflon cell etc. If he were using a glass cell then the Si, Al
>and B would be leached from the cell walls by the LiOD, but where are they
>coming from in a teflon cell? Is he deliberately adding Si and Al once the
>experiments are in progress?


In a comment after the talk, Mckubre explained that he was doing just that.
With detail i missed, he explained a complicated setup in which he
was able to "hypodermically inject" (that's what i thought i heard)
Si or Al into the cell with out compromising its closed nature. If I
find time, I'll try to post a more detailed summary of the talk but
I'm swamped at the moment.--so don't count on it. Sorry.

Brief comment--excellent presentation but of little comfort to
those who think a power source could emerge forom this research.
He ran his cells for 1-3 months and got modest excess energy if
you factor in all th energy he pumped into the system. Still, there's
priobably some neat physics/chemistry going on. I still
reserve judgement on the affair.

john travis
p.s. slight correction to dick forman: my thesis compared the press
coverage of cf to that of high temp supreconductivity--not exactly
a history of cf. i leave that to close, mallove, et al.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: rprice@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (rodney.price)
Subject: Re: Gotta see those graphs
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:46:27 GMT

In article <921006033359_73770.1337_EHA25-1@CompuServe.COM> Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com> writes:
>Some possibilities for graphics formats to pass around here, 
>specifically for line plots of measured data.  I have marked my opinion
>of pluses + and minuses - :
> HPGL (Hewlett-Packard Graphics Language -- for plotters)
>   + Most plotting software will output it
>   + Vectors - fairly small files
>   + 7-bit ASCII (I think) = easy mailing
>   - Screen display software hard to find (?)
> TEKTRONIX 4010 (for an ancient graphics display terminal)
>   + Vectors with some compression - very small files
>   + 7-bit ASCII
>   + Screen display by public-domain terminal emulators on many CPUs
>   - Not a common output format from modern software
> GIF (Graphics Interchange Format -- Compuserve)
>   + Raster graphics - arbitrary images
>   + Display software and format interchange software for many CPUs
>   + LZH compression - reasonably compact (for raster graphics!)
>   - big files, compared to vector formats
>   - 8-bit data, may require arcane uuencode treatment for mail
> TIF (Tagged Image File -- desktop publishing)
>   + Raster graphics - arbitrary images
>   + display software and format interchange software for many CPUs
>   + Common output format for PC-based graphics programs
>   - big files
>   - limited standardization -- several "dialects" exist
>   - 8-bit data, may need arcane treatment
>
>Comments encouraged.
>  -chuck
>   
You've left out PostScript!  Everyone (just about) can print out
a PostScript file, the format is ascii to begin with, there are no 
built-in limitations on the type of image, and file size can be
reasonable if you're careful not to include too much detail.  I've
sent graphs back and forth over the Internet many times without
any problem.  And I should point out that the editors of Physical
Review A...E and Physical Review Letters accept electronic 
submissions with PostScript figures now.  I sent one off there a
week ago and they reproduced it without any trouble.  If it works
for them it ought to work for you guys as well.

Rod Price
rprice@physics.att.com


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 743 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:25:17 GMT


Hello all,
since the item below seems appropriate right now, I send it off by itself. As
you see, this is a report of the BA meeting, already commented on by Frank
Close on this group. Fleischmann, like Jed, wants it every way: it's not a
normal fusion reaction, which explains why it doesn't behave like one; on the
other hand, when others find evidence of normal behaviour like helium and
neutrons at 2.45 MeV, this, too, proves that it is - what? A normal fusion
reaction, or what? I am confused.
Show me the apparatus producing those kilowatts of heat, and I'll go for it.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 6-Oct-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 743

Journalistic comment: archived file CNF-CMNT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coghlan A;                               New Scientist 135 (1837) 8, 5-Sep-92.
"Test-tube fusion lives on in exile".
** Andy Coghlan was at the British Association meeting and reports here on
Fleischmann, who was also there. He and Pons are working in a secret lab in
France, financed mainly by the Japanese think-tank, Technova. Fleischmann once
again quotes a number of groups around the world for positive results, and
claims up to 3000 W/cm**3. He says it is not normal fusion, because it's not
happening in the gas phase, but in a solid. However, he also quotes others who
have found helium, and even neutrons at 2.45 MeV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:17:10 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

In <920928120420.20800356@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:

>***************************************************************************
>* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
>* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
>* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
>***************************************************************************

>Tom Droege

I hope you are regularly checking your radiation badge.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Hiding the Ashes. NOT!
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:35:47 GMT

John Logajon suggests two nuclear reactions as being more difficult to
detect:  First is the converstion of 2 protons to a deuteron, which is
hidden by the presence of large quantities of those species.  I guess
I'll give him that one if he really wants it.  Of course it's hard to
see what role all the deuterium in the cell is playing except to hide
the ash, and most physicists would doubt that weak interactions could
be driven at the required rate.  Second try is Pd fuso-fizzle to lighter
elements, and there John strikes out because of the large change in
neutron-to-proton ratio required.  For Pd it is 60 neutrons to 46 protons
while all stable light nuclei are very close to a 1 to 1 ratio.  The
excess neutrons might be emitted directly or else the fission products
beta decay.  Either way the ashes are easy to detect.  Also note that
no one wants a CF process that uses Pd as the fuel, and finding what
is wanted is an essential feature of cold fusion research to date.

Jed Rothwell now proposes to hide the ashes by inventing lots of different
reaction pathways.  Let's see how well that is going to work if we
can detect nuclear reactions with a sensitivity of say 10^5 bellow
what is commensurate with the "heat".  Have you got 100,000 different
reactions in mind, Jed?

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: 26 Sep 92 06:28:03 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: fennel.cc.uwa.edu.au

In article <1992Sep25.141631.22228@athena.mit.edu>, redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington) writes:
> 
> As I understood Dr. McKubre's talk, the aluminum or silicon
> layer serves to prevent deuterium from escaping from the cathode,
> which he likened to a "leaky bucket". He emphasized the importance
> of very high (.9+) D/Pd ratios and of a long (300 hr) waiting period
> before the action starts. He claimed that Li is absolutely necessary
> and remarked that it found its way into the lattice; I had the 
> sense he was being evasive about its precise role, but maybe not.
> (For example, he remarked in passing that 300 hrs is closer to the
> diffusion constant of Li than of H, and also mentioned doing an
> isotopic analysis of the lithium as well as the palladium.)
> He also remarked that boron, (added after loading, which it would
> kill), encourages the big heat excursions.

This all seems a bit odd  - I thought McKubre advocated running a very
clean system so as to avoid poisoning of the cathode surface, and hence the
use of a teflon cell etc. If he were using a glass cell then the Si, Al
and B would be leached from the cell walls by the LiOD, but where are they
coming from in a teflon cell? Is he deliberately adding Si and Al once the
experiments are in progress?

BTW, because the cathode reaction is D2O + e- --> D + OD-, you would expect
that the pH in the vicinity of the electrode to be much more alkaline than
the bulk solution and the likely place for hydroxides to precipitate. And
increasing the current would increase the pH gradient further. I recall that
McKubre uses 1 M LiOD rather than 0.1 M LiOD so his electrolyte is much more
alkaline than most in any case.

---
todd
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tongues hanging out
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:58:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dick Forman  M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>Based upon information provided to me by another sucessful experimenter,
>I know the "next generation" experiments won't be on palladium.

Why must you torment us so??  :-)

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:07:45 GMT


I get asked regularly how to get the archived bibliography files. Here is how:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Use the userid
   anonymous and your e-mail address as the password (but 'anonymous' seems
   also to work). Once connected, enter
   cd fusion
   to access the fusion archives.  Then you may enter
   dir fusion.cnf*
   to get a listing of the bibliography files. The index is large, so this
   restriction saves a lot of time; if you should type in a global DIR, you
   can terminate the endless stream with CTRL-C, which gets you what the
   system calls an amicable abort. To transfer a given file use
   GET (ie. mget fusion.cnf*  or  get fusion.cnf-bks  etc.).
   Enter  quit to terminate ftp.

2. Via LISTSERV, which means you get it sent by email. To first find out what
   is in the archive, send an email to listserv@ndsuvm1.bitnet, with a blank
   SUBJECT line, and the "message" consisting of the command
   index fusion
   You get a largish list of all files available. To get any one of these
   files, you then send to the same address the command, e.g.,
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1
   etc, according to what you're after.
   My files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap5 (papers, slices 1..5),
   cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals),
   cnf-unp (unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal
   references from Terry Bollinger). There is also the file cnf-brif, which
   has all the references of the -pap* files but without annotations, all in
   one file.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
                                                                      Dieter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two questions from a layman
Date: 5 Oct 1992 00:09:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent) says:
>	1:  I've gathered that Tom's latest results duplicate earlier
>experiments.  Could someone (possibly Tom?) post a value for the excess
>heat (i.e. 100 joules in, 300 joules out= a 200% excess)?

Including everything, Droege was puting in 10.151 watts and getting out
approx 10.216.  Of course, you don't need all the heaters and what not
if you aren't trying to make precise measurements -- so let us just look
at electrolysis energy input, about 2.66 watts in and about 2.73 watts
out -- for a gain of about 2.6%

>	2:  How much excess is necessary to be considered above experimental
>error?

That depends upon the experiment, and Tom tells us he can estimate balance
to about 1/1250th of a watt.  As of Sept 30 he was reading a sustained power
output about 80 times his resolution, with occasional bursts about 250 times
his base resolution (though I think he rates bursts on a more conservative
standard than long term average power out.)

As an editorial aside, there is *NO* level of sophistication that guarantees
against pilot error -- so I'm still half expecting Droege to announce he has
found an age-degraded gizmoid is responsible for a false measurement.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:12:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.201710.13594@riacs.edu>
danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth) writes:
 
>
>In <920928120420.20800356@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>
>>***************************************************************************
>>* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
>>* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
>>* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
>>***************************************************************************
>
>>Tom Droege
>
>I hope you are regularly checking your radiation badge.
Dick Forman comments: As Tom and I have discussed privately there is no
radiation danger. There remains the serious hazard of a nuclear reaction
based thermal explosion.  That is: DO THESE EXPERIMENTS IN A BLOCKHOUSE
WITH YOU AND YOUR EXPENSIVE GEAR OUTSIDE AND THE CELL INSIDE.
In a phone conversation yesterday with Mike McKubre he confimed the LACK
of radiation hazard for the particular nuclear processes that occur in these
experiments.
 
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.
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2230 sci.physics:15558
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:22:14
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mbk@hamilton's message of 28 Sep 1992 17:08:42 GMT

In article <1a7e6qINN4rj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:

> Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
> inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
> They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
> countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.

A number of years back, _Progressive_ magazine published a cover story
which purported to reveal the secret of the hydrogen bomb.  (They said
that they had deduced it from unclassified material.)  The government
neither confirmed nor denied that _Progressive_ got it right, but they
did try to censor that issue, so a great many people thought that
there was probably something to it.

Now that the government is finally revealing some information about
H-bomb construction, I'm curious: Does anyone out there happen to know
how close what _Progressive_ said is to what the government is now
saying?
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:38:06 GMT

In article <1a7e6qINN4rj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
>
>Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
>inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
>They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
>countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.

Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.

This is obviously a concern for  countries who have a hard time getting their
hands on much of the right materials.




-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:22:07 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>We continue the source In/Out experiment even though there does not seem
>to be a large effect on the energy accumulation.

It seems you must be talking about a Ying source.  I must have mis-read
your post of several weeks ago when you said you were done with Ying and
Takahashi.  I presume you aren't using sawtooth charging, however, since
there seems to be no mention of it in your latest posts.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:41:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.5yR2RB1w165w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Audit:  sci.physics.fusion,JBowery,1
>Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
 
Do you know anyone at Batavia who could do a quantitative isotopic
analysis of your Li reagent?
 
It would be nice to know whether or not the bomb guys got their hands
on your Li before you used it.

--                    
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: Latest Result
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:34:15 GMT

First, I think I have really gone over the edge into "believerland".  I am
not really a believer by trade in anything.  But at some point, one begins
to act seriously on what has been measured, and I now find myself making
production calorimeter sketches.  

In response to several queries for more information, I hope the last post
was useful.  I have spent many hours observing the 60 odd variables that
I record, and have seen a lot of very interesting events.  Particularly 
interesting are reactions between the power level, the absorbed gas, the
temperature of the cell, the temperature of the catalyst, and the cell 
voltage.  I would like to be able to put up a set of data points and say:
"Wow, look at this!".  But the detail is too fine to show anything with 
typed in graphs.  For example, explain an event where the cell gets hot, 
the catalyst gets cold, and there is a small accumulation of energy over 
the previous trend - all with no particular change in cell gas volume.  

Jim Bowery, "reply" did not work to you.  But you reminded me to call and
place an order for a March Palladium contract.  Presently have a small gain
in the two December contracts that I hold.

To John Logajan, we charged at about 30 ma per sq cm for about a day, then
went to the present 170 ma per sq cm.  We have faithfully continued the 
2 microcurie source in/out on alternate days.  As with the earlier source
with Takahashi experiment, the source is placed on the outside of the 
Dewar, about 5 cm from the cathode.  

At present the power level seems to be slowly decreasing.  We are at about
60 mw average.  So far about 42 killojoules accumulated.  The present plan 
is to run this cell until it quits putting out power, or we have run so long
(about two more weeks) that we think it is just drift.  It the cell does
not stop by itself, we will reverse the cell current and try to make it stop.
I am pretty sure about the starting calibration, but it is best to have on 
a zeri measurement at each end of the run.  My belief level will be greatly
reduced if I cannot get an ending zero.

Will answer a reasonable number of questions like "what is the cell voltage
doing" -- etc.  I have observed a lot more than what gets put up here.

Tom Droege