HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 20 Nov 1992 07:18 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <98407@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes...
>In article <19NOV199211063691@csa1.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1 (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>If energy and matter are not interconvertible, where does all the energy
>>of an atomic bomb blast come from?  
> 
>Simple.  The energy that used to be binding is now blast, light, heat.
>While it was binding, the energy was localized enough that we could
>weigh it directly, and so the bomb weighed E-bind/c^2 more than it
>would have otherwise.

This follows nicely upon my previous post, in which Dan Platt stretches
the definition of mass so as to never convert mass to energy.  Now you
are going to stretch the definition of energy so that we never have to 
convert energy to mass.  You are willing to say that when we weigh atoms
that we are weighing their energy and not their mass?  This is a strange
definition of weight.  How much of what you weigh is energy, and how 
much is mass?  It seems, surprisingly, that the atom has just enough
energy that it is all released in a particular nuclear fission reaction,
leaving only the mass behind.  What about other nuclear reactions? 
Is there any mass at all in this version of the Watts theory of 
matter/energy nonconvertibility?  How would you go about reconciling
this point of view with Dan's version of the Watts argument that everything 
which you would call energy is really mass?   

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Electric Power Transmission (was: History of AC vs DC Power)
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:28:17 GMT

In article <HAGERMAN.92Nov19122352@rx7.ece.cmu.edu> hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John
Hagerman) writes:

>        In 1970 a 1,380-km (856-mi), 800-kV direct-current (DC) line
>        was placed in commercial service to connect northwestern U.S.
>        hydroelectric sources with the Los Angeles area.  Such systems
>        ... avoid stability problems sometimes encountered by AC
>        systems; DC systems are sometimes used to connect AC systems
>        even over short transmission distances.

Wow. Thanks for the information, John. I hope someone will be able to drop the
other shoe and tell us where to learn more about this twenty-year-old
technology. I'd like to know how the DC is produced at source and how it is
handled at its destination. It would also be interesting to know something of
the record over the last twenty-two years of this link, and whether there are
now many more of them.

I am under the impression that our EHV transmission lines here in British
Columbia are all AC. They are of the four-wire spaced configuration which
supresses corona. For that reason I mention them in my teaching, and I'd not
like to think that I didn't know the mode of transmission.

If you've never visited a hydroelectric power generation plant you've missed a
treat. In our Peace River facility there are huge generators one can get up
close and personal with, and even enter if they are open for maintenance. I saw
the shaft end of a generator once on James Burke's "Connections", but I think
that's the only other contact I've had with this impressive sight.

Leigh
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Compelling Mysteries (II)
Followup-To: sci.physics
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:38:08
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
	<1992Nov10.183620.483@sei.cmu.edu> <1992Nov23.024112.20169@isus.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: hoyt@isus.UUCP's message of Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:41:12 GMT

hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes:

> Answers from the Reciprocal System of Physics:

> A theory that is otherwise complete and consistent with no monopoles
> is pretty good evidence [that monopoles do not exist].

A theory, however consistent, is not evidence.  Evidence is the result
of observation and experiment.
--
franl@centerline.com         "So what we've decided to do is set you up in
uunet!centerline!franl        Cicely, situated in an area that we Alaskans
(USA) 617-498-3255            refer to as The Alaskan Riviera."

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQCNAisQJSUAAAED/jbCQchSwFG7IFKkrCQ6QKLxB0LVbP6co87karNBb88ur1+S
FK82JT9mNlWKvP4HHFEI1kLKk0PAvd0nez/mQIriAMUT2pfOnIAtdqtpddgQseZZ
7BY2vMiorjG7pe6e11Q+UIQcvqsY3Bl89YBgqrydWm8UWMy2qXeXQmAScOodAAUR
tC9GcmFuY2lzIFAuIExpdHRlcmlvLCBKci4gPGZyYW5sQGNlbnRlcmxpbmUuY29t
Pg==
=6hNb
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japanese Cold Fusion in NYTimes
Summary: 17 November "science times"
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:07:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: sun13.11353
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

For those who are interested, and I assume that is most of you, there is 
a nice article in today's (17 Nov 92) NYTimes about Cold Fusion research 
in Japan.  Dateline is Nagoya, and the article is a feature article 
follow-up to the recent conference.  (The article is in the "Science Times" 
section, starting on B-5 in the national edition we get here.) It includes 
nice pictures of Ikegami and Takahashi and some interesting statements 
from all parties involved. 

Akito Arima says he still sees no reason to take out the razor and shave 
his head, Huizenga says the Japanese are repeating mistakes made in the 
US, Ikegami says he had to go to Europe to find a "critic" since no 
Japanese would attack the work being done, and some observations that 
Japan is more technologically optimistic and thus willing to take a 
chance on a long shot like cold fusion.  There is much more; the 
continuation of the article is about half a page. 

What I found most interesting was a statement that implied that each 
professor in Japan has $40,000/year in discretionary research funds!

--
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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
Subject: Cold Fusion Confusion
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:16:33 GMT

I am a regular reader of this group and not a CF researcher.  I have
a (somewhat) informed layman's knowledge of physics.

I do not understand why STILL no one can tell whether or not CF exists.

I have read everything I could get on the subject both in the press and
here on the net, and am amazed at the level of diatribes, accusations
of outright fraud/intentional lying, etc.

Is the level of emotion shown here evidence of what is at stake?

Is science-in-the-making such a messy process (a la law-making and
sausage-making) that this is a normal part of the discussion?

Just wondering.
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kamiokande and BYU experiments
Summary: D-H dependence of "radon puffs"?
Keywords: cold fusion, radiation detection, background radiation
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:52:32 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <BxL58w.5x@news.iastate.edu>, hawk@iastate.edu (John D Hawkinson) writes:
| In article <1992Nov11.101727.189@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

|  >As I have reported at recent scientific conferences, further studies on
|  >cement +D2O at Kamiokande and in the BYU tunnel lab continue to show a
|  >"clear random neutron emission" while the cement is curing (not after
|  >heat-curing).  The cement+H2O samples show no signal in four tries.

| ...the NUREG/CP noted (page 338):

|    "A number of studies have been made, and others are in progress, on the 
|     emanation of radon from various materials.  A few points of interest
|     emerge.  One is that an increase in the water content of concrete or
|     other porous material increases the emenation rate (Auxier, 1974)."

| Any speculation as to what impact "radon puffs" from the drying concrete 
| might have on the detector setup?

...or as to possible dependence of such puffs on whether the water is heavy
or light?

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Lecture Notice
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:04:50 GMT

In article <eLXLuB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

>Why any researcher who genuinely believes they have replicated
>some aspect of the P&F "excess heat" would consider MIT worthy
>of their attention is beyond me.  MIT has gone out of its way
>to establish itself, along with Cal Tech and other major "academic"
>institutions, as irrationally opposed to alternative fusion
>technologies while irrationally favoring proven idiocy such as
>the Tokamak.  They no longer have any credibility.
>
I think that a restatement of the above observations is that
MIT, in an effort to counter the irrational hysteria surrounding
the so-called 'cold nuclear fusion', has demanded strict scientific 
evidence and a reasonable theory to support the expensive research
that would have to go into it.

On this net we have seen Tom Droege, a fine scientist, make a few
mistakes that led him to erroneously believe that he had positive results.
But he checked his work and found his own errors. Notoya, with all due
respect, certainly did not. And this is the sort of thing that MIT
doesn't want to be associated with.

And it seems imminently reasonable to me.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Terry's Two Bits
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:28:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.053954.3582@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:

>By the way:  Mr. Rothwell, perhaps you could help me out by answering
>a little question that you seem to have missed or sidestepped several
>times in the past.  Whenever I go over your recent postings I am struck by
>how much your ad hominem style of argumentation resembles some delightful
>examples of Lyndon LaRouche literature I once collected.  In particular,
>the ability to go from direct personal attacks of nearly everyone in
>sight to moaning about the rude "manners" of uncouth Americans such
>as Dr. Jones is something that not just any person is capable of doing.

As a relatively impartial observer in all this (I've been reading this
group for a couple of weeks, but don't have a clue who you folks are
or who wants to gore which ox.  Nor do I have a clue if CF is real or
a hoax...):

Mr. Rothwell seems to me to have been rather well spoken in 
describing the attacks and rude manners displayed here.  I have
no idea if the th wire was fraud or folly, but Occams Razor
says it was a simple mistake...

>We anxiously await your total renuciation of any past or current association
>with Lyndon LaRouche and his various organizations.

No, 'We' don't.  I don'twant to hear a thing about LaRouche.  Period.
I want to hear about experiments done that show the state of 
research into cold fusion and don't give a tinkers damn about LaRouche.

Can we call a truce between you two and get back to some science now?

Personality wars are pointless...
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: NY Times Article
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:51:38 GMT

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

Busy, busy, busy, but I have to post this tidbit:

There was a pretty good article in this morning's New York Times (11/17/92) in
the Science Times section, titled "Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In
Japan."


Steve Jones comments:

"Your public letter resorts to ad hominem attacks, even in its title:
'Notorious Steven Jones'.  You further state that our efforts to understand
the basis of the heat demonstrated to the world in Nagoya by Dr. Notoya are
'unreasonable, unscientific, sloppy and uncalled for.'"

Hey, give us a break, Steve. Cut out the B.S. If you are going to publish
letters with snappy titles like "Notorious Notoya..." you are going to get it
back from me. Like it or not! What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander too. Don't play high and mighty scientist, please, you are as
emotionally attached to your views as anyone.

I must say though, you are completely, 100%, inside the bounds of
reasonableness, fair play and enlightenment compared to Dieter Britz. I
presume you think that poor old Notoya made a mistake. You do not think she
committed fraud, right? That is perfectly okay. I thought you were pretty
sneaky coming down on her like a ton of bricks without warning or consulting.
You say you talked to her, which is good, but I think a few more minutes might
have helped. However, it is just politics, hitting someone from behind is
standard operating procedure, I guess I have done it myself from time to time.

Just remember that when you call someone "notorious," you better not scream
and complain when I call you the same thing. If you don't like words like
that, don't use them yourself. As they say in kindergarten (which is where
this discussion is rapidly headed), "you started it."


Thomas H. Kunich comments about Takahashi:

"Steven Jones now tells us that the cells were open and that no _calibration_
was taken."

I didn't catch that, but if Steve said it, he is wrong again. I have the
calibration curves from the current run right here in my Takahashi file.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: The point, I believe
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:23:17 GMT

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>V. Noninski states on 20 Nov. "my conviction that S.Jones has deliberately
>adjusted the data, after my criticism (obviously the change of data was made
>to support his initial denouncement of Notoya's experiment..."   
>
>Such statements... are unreasonable.

I could be wrong, but I believe V. Noninski is just illustrating the type of
abuse that CNF'ers experience upon making small mistakes which they later
retract.  To see my point, replace references of S.Jones with references to,
for instance, P+F.

In this case, S.Jones has his debunker hat on instead of a CNF'er hat, and
so gets V. Noninski full blast.  Had any other debunker made the same small
error (claiming equal input voltages) and then retracted it (now claiming
unequal input voltages) his name would have been where S.Jones' name is.

I believe the parallels of the Noninski blast to the anti-CNF'er blasts
do catch a bit of the latter spirit.  I'm sure even S.Jones would be amused
if he weren't the accidental recipient. :-)


- 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: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:22:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.230343.20315@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>Hmmm ... I'm not trained in this area at all, but the thought comes
>to mind:  IFF the theory is true, is there any isotope of alkali metal
>that, when transformed per the theory, would produce a clearly identifiable
>isotope of target material? 

IF he is fusioning calcium it is really simple to use a mass spectrometer
to identify the isotope mix. A dead giveaway and necessary considering that
even your breath probably contains enough calcium to contaminate the suh a
finding.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Notes/ visit to Takahashi's lab
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:16:02 GMT

With all due respect to Dr. Takahashi, I must make some comments
on Rothwell's embarassing and unwarranted diatribe.

It would seem rather apparent when a scientist reports that a
meagerly instrumented experiment is reporting highly positive
data and then the experiment is more carefully instrumented and
then reports very much less positive results that the cause may
not be the changing of the experiment but the more careful gathering
and evaluation of the data.

Steven Jones now tells us that the cells were open and that no
_calibration_ was taken.

Bearing this in mind, I think that Dr. Takahashi may have been a
bit early in reporting his data.

This is not to say that he has found no results, but that it would
appear that his results are unreliably documented.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Future tense cynical
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:43:21 GMT

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Dr. Notoya will bring the cells to the U.S. in a few weeks, tentatively to 
>Stanford University in the last week of November, and definitely to M.I.T. 
>around December 1 or 2.  Anyone who wishes to measure the resistance of the 
>silver and platinum leads will be more than welcome to do so. You do not 
>have to measure it "somehow;" it is not "a challenge."  You can bring your 
>own meter, or borrow Dr. Notoya's.

There isn't a non-cynical sounding way to put this, so I will make no pretense
(even though I secretly hope Dr. Notoya is correct)...

What are the odds that Dr. Notoya and her cell will now be inconveniently
delayed from making the trip by some reason or other, such that further demos
will have to be postponed indefinitely?


- 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: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Subject: Ni - H2O electrolysis
Reply-To: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:13:16 GMT

Here's the current plan for Mills/Notoya replication:
3 cells, A & B under electrolysis, C thermal only.  Constant current.

   [ EXCESS GAS COLLECTION ]
   [      2 CONTAINERS     ]

         ^          ^               Key:  OOOOOO  = gas tubing
         O          O                     ......  = wiring
         O          O
 D1  [ Dessi ]  [ Dessi ] D2
     [  cant ]  [  cant ]
         O          O            
      [ Pt ]     [ Pt ]       ...( R )......( R )..............
         O          O         :         :                     :
     [ Dessi ]  [ Dessi ]     :         :..----\              :
     [  cant ]  [  cant ]     :         ...servo>..           :
         O          O         :         :  ----/  :           :   
          O          OOOOOOOO:          :         :           :
 ........  O    ...........: O     .....:......   :   ........:
 :      :   O   :          :  O    :          :   :   :       :
 :      :   O   :          :   O   :          :   :   :       :
 :    --:---O---:--      --:---O---:--      --:---:---:--     :
 :    [ :       : ]      [ :       : ]      [ :   :   : ]     :
 :    [ :       : ]      [ :       : ]      [ :   :   : ]     :
 :    [ Pt     Pt ]      [ Pt     Ni ]      [ :.D G S.: ]     :
 :    [           ]      [           ]      [           ]     :
 :    [   K2CO3   ]      [   K2CO3   ]      [    H2O    ]     :
 :    -------------      -------------      -------------     :
 :      CELL A              CELL B             CELL C         :
 :    ( Control )        ( Experiment )      ( Control )      :
 :                                                            :
 :              ------------------------                      :
 :.............( +   CURRENT SOURCE  -  ).....................:
                ------------------------  

Features:
Series configuration guarantees equal current in all cells.
Cell C ("resistance" control) is actually a power transistor servo'd
 to force same voltage on cell C as cell B.  This forces equal power
 into cells B & C.
Cell A (control) simply electrolyzes water to H2 & O2.  Evolved gas
 is dried, then recombined on Pt catalyst.  Resulting water vapor is
 absorbed on dessicant D1.
Cell B's evolved gas is treated the same and absorbed in dessicant D2.

Weight gain of dessicant (from before/after weighings) indicates amount
of H2 & O2 produced.  Steady-state evolution of "excess gas" would
indicate unanticipated gas chemistry.

Simplified calorimetry (temperature rise of cell dewars) estimates heat
generation <10%.
Operating current approx 150 ma.

Question:
What is a reliable form of Pt catalyst (or Pd or other) to recombine
 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O at room temp, ambient pressure?  

-Chuck


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion