HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Night Thoughts on Bell's Inequality
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:24:17 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

In <312@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.200550.24404@riacs.edu>, 

>The nonlocal effects predicted by QM are not limited to polarizers. They
>are pervasive, although they cannot usually be tested for
>experimentally. There is a growing list of different experimental tests
>for nonlocal effects. I believe there are mechanisms associated with
>a quantum collapse process extended over space and time that account for
>these effects. You seem to be postulating a new class of
                                             ^^^ not really
>physical phenomena that make it appear as if these correlations exist,
                                 ^^^^^^ yes
>when they do not occur as predicted. Either it is impossible to
 when they DO appear as predicted.  I claim that they don't occur.  They appear
to occur due to an artifact of the correlation process coupled with a local
hidden variable effect.
.
>build detectors with the needed efficiency, because of some new
>laws of physics or experiments using efficient detectors would show
>that Bell's inequality is not violated. I am curious if you have any
>reason for believing that these physical effects exist other than to
>avoid violating locality.

>Paul Budnik

I'm unclear about what physical effects you may be considering since
I don't quite agree with your assessment of what I said.  I'm simply
following a hunch that inherent within the quantum formulation is the
notion of simultaneous measurement of n-particles.  Since non identical
particles must be spatially separated this immediately forces a space-like
separation on the detection events.  This comment is not sufficient
unto itself but must be coupled with the physical fact that particles
do not always reveal themselves due to any number of reasons.  Only
very special collective states produce joint detection of all n-particles.
The winnowing out of all measurement results except these special states
introduces a bias (human imposed) into correlations.  Again this is not
sufficient unless detection has an upper bound less than 1 (in efficiency).

Clear glass is a case where optical photon-matter interaction is minimal.
Such situations leads one to consider the basis on which we determine
detector efficiency.

Doug Danforth
From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Subject: re: Hydrogen bands and excited deuterons
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 08:26:21 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

Chuck Sites speculates about excited states in deuterons which have escaped 
detection.

When looking at Photodisintegration the inverse ("time reversed") reaction 

 n + p -> d + gamma

is often looked at.  Thus far, a monoenergetic beam of neutron has only been 
seen to produce a monoenergetic (for a given angle) set of gammas.  If there 
were an excited state in deuterons, we'd almost certainly have seen two 
different gammas, as the deuterons will be formed in the excited state at 
times.  Also, we'd see a resonance structure in the neutron capture cross 
section around the deuteron excited state. This hasn't been seen either.  
The same goes for the gammas.  The first photodis. experiments looked at the 
gamma attenuation as well, I think.

However, *IF* a deuteron can be excited, and *IF* it can decay only by 
fusing with another deuteron, we'd probably have seen some rather strange 
signatures in deuterated organic liquid and anthracene crystal 
scintillation detectors.  For a start, when exposing such a detector to 
gammas, we'd see events which pulse shape discrimination would tag as 
neutrons, from the energetic charged particles produced in the fusion 
reactions. We ain't seen none, and we have done *lots* of gamma calibrations 
on our scintillators.  Of course, we haven't really looked for them, but I 
think the numbers would have been sufficient for it to be as obvious as a 
slap in the face with a cold fish.  I think I'll go and peer through some 
event tapes soon.

How valid is your heavy band soliton model for organic crystals, Terry? 
(This is my total ignorance of your theory speaking)  Does it rely on the 
delocalised electrons in the metal lattice?  Lots of those in the organic 
molecules, with all those lovely double and triple bonds.

Event tapes... Tom, if you can dump your data from your floppies onto 
magtape or onto a mainframe, no need to write a data reduction package. How 
about using something like XSYS, which can be tailored to analyse all sorts 
of parameter configurations?  Then the only job is that of writing a routine 
to translate your data into XSYS format. (which might be the headache).

--

Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Lawson Numbers?
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:23:50 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct9.210544.10674@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> eliasen@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ELIASEN  ALAN BRUCE) writes:
>
>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!

About 20 MeV (out of rest mass of about 4*931 MeV) but this is the rarest 
of the d+d fusion channels.  The p+t and n+He-3 channels are in the 5 MeV 
range (out of the same rest mass).  

Fusion reactors will probably burn d+t to alpha+n.

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

Most common is alpha decay (95%, about 4 MeV).  Rest is electron capture.

>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. 

The numbers above are order of magnitude.  

--
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: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Subject: Re: Various Replies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:51:07 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

Tom, excuse the stupid suggestion, but could the cat sleeping
on the equipment be causing a difference? My cats like to sleep
on warm things like the vcr and the computer. Could you equipment
be seeing kitty insulation transients? 

Levity aside I am really glad to see some high quality work.
Keep up the good work!

Chris Kostanick
Outside of a dog a book is a man's best friend,
inside of a dog it is too dark to read - Groucho Marx

Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2445 sci.physics:16314
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:42:36 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

> 
> Does the detonation wave really maintain itself?
> 

Matt,

        The fusion reaction continues so long as the energy does 
not exceed that of the "nuclear bottle".  At that point, the 
bottle starts to give way to the superior energies of the fusion 
reaction, and the whole thing blows itself apart, thus halting the 
reaction.  During this directional energy reversal, considerable 
more (unregulated) fusion reactions occur, and that is the net 
gain of the fusion device over the fission device...........sq
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: No bathing suits?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:41:40 GMT

In article <E1C0D848A19F233353@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>
>Fair enough; I hadn't noticed that you run at constant cell temperature. I do
>agree, of course, that a chemical process would leave chemical products. My
>point is that until you came along, people have claimed so much heat that they
>could reasonably say that it can't be chemical, ash or no ash. Your small
>levels of excess heat are down at the level where a chemical process is not
>quite ruled out - I think. I haven't looked at your numbers lately but I guess
>your accumulated excess Joules would still require a few grams of product, so
>again we're in trouble, maybe. I will also admit that I seem to be backing off
>a condition I made a while ago: that an effect has to be somewhere around 100
>sigmas, rather than the usual piddling 3, to be convincing. Well, here you are
>with 100 sigmas, and I'm still skeptical. Not fair, I know. I guess I am
>waiting for you to tell us that you've found an error (knowing that you're
>doing your damndest to find one, just like Paneth et al in 1926), and it all
>balances now...

The problem that bothers me is that, if I understand Tom correctly, he is
determining heat by Power*in - Power*out - K (should = 0). It is the K
(the efficiency of the heaters and coolers) that seems to me to be the
sticking point. Apparently he runs a curve to determine this figure by using
a resistance heater. I can't think of a better way to do this but if does
give me a nagging worry about unknown factors that effect efficiency.

> Let me also say, however, that I'd be delighted if it is you, Tom, who comes
>up with real, incontrovertible evidence that there is some sort of new effect
>here.

And that goes for me also.
From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Falsify
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:11:42 GMT

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
>if an idea or field cannot be falsified by any experiments, then this is
>not good science.

Agreed.  But heat measurements are attempts to falsify the interpretation
of the event too -- else they would have no point at all.


- 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: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Errata sheet for Droege Calorimeter PostScript drawings
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:36:34 GMT

Tom Droege sent me the following errata on the PostScript drawings I sent
out yesterday (I drew them based upon my interpretation of his faxed paper
and comments he's made on the net from time to time.)

Figure 1. 
The source port goes through to the surface of the Dewar.  I ground through the
shell with a Dremmel tool one night.  The shell is only 1/16" aluminum, not 
5/8".  But the next design will be thicker.

Figure 2.
You might add the potential lead in the puck-plate space.  This is critical
for high accuracy.  

Figure 3.
There is no foam in the cell.  The thermometers are also not in the cell.
The paper had the old cell design.  The new design has a 8 mm glass tube
right down the center.  It stops above the anode/cathode with a bicycle fork
shape which holds the anode/cathode.  The thermometers are inside the tube,
and the foam chunks keep the cell thermometer which is in the tube but under
the liquid level separate from the catalyst thermometer which is up in the
catalyst area.  There are then two smaller tubes for the gas, one which goes
to the cell bottom, and one at the top.



My own errata are:

Figure 1 -- The dewar is stainless steel.
Figure 3 -- The test-tube is polycarbonate, not glass.

I don't want to send out another 33k file right away, so I'll let a week
or so go by before I think about sending out the drawings again with the
errata included.  I don't want netters coming after me with long knives!
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2385 sci.physics:16119
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:15:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: iowegia.Hk83RB6w165w
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

> In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU
> >
> >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.
> 
> You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
> is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
> some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
> of commonly available hardware store components.
> 


Thomas,

        If someone were to "GIVE" a physicist the controlled 
materials used in construcion, one *could* build either a fission 
or fusion bomb for from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars 
using commercially available supplies.

        Nukes really are simple devices, just labor intensive to 
build customized hardware (but not impossible), and the 
procurement of tritium in large quantities as well as plutonium 
239 make the task a bit of a chore.

        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?

        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
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 06:43:21 GMT

In article <y8wFsB4w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>
>        I didn't say it would be "EASY", I only said it would be 
>possible.  Take for example, when I rebuilt my automatic 
>transmission.  I had never done this before, so I bought a 
>Chiltons manual on it, a rebuild kit, and set to work.  Once I had 
 ...
>        You see, building a nuke is like anything else you do, it 
>is hard the first time- but since you and I both know it can be 
>done, and *HAS* been done, that part makes the task that much 
>easier.  The pioneers did not have that luxury- they weren't sure 
>if it would even work, or what the effects would be..........sq

     Is there a Chiltons' for nuclear weaponry?  Boy, those folks think 
     of everything.

     Seriously, I'd love to see you rebuild your transmission without
     being able to see one nor ever having seen one, not being 
     able to have any parts, not knowing what metals it is made of, 
     and having no manual.

     It'd take you decades just to figure out how one should work,
     not to mention the time learning how to fabricate the parts.

                                 dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: h-bobm secret is out
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:06:43 EST
Reply-To: "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com>
Distribution: sci
Organization: Channel 1 Communications


MK> "Radiation implosion", and not a fission-triggered explosive shock wave.


The Progressive magazine had an article several years ago about the
H-bomb secret.  It included a diagram showing the fusible material in
the shape of a truncated cone. At the larger end of the
cone was a radiation shield and beyond that was a fission bomb.
This was all encased in a cylindrical jacket made of U235?

The article said that the configuration resulted in the
radiation from the fission bomb evenly compressing the fusible material
to the point of ignition.
---
  SPEED 1.20 #1132  ****
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as crucial test
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:58:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: DUCK.WEBB+.92Oct9095837
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU

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

   Jon Webb suggests that Bollinger's total mass conversion idea would make
   measurements of nuclear particles impossible in a recent posting.  Please
   explain how in such a model heat could be produced in a cell
   without producing secondary x-rays.

Bollinger's idea is this: deuterium atoms atoms act as fermions and
get delocalized within the palladium, just as electrons acting as
fermions get delocalized.  They get so delocalized, in fact, that they
extend over a larger region of space than the strong force.  One of
the deuterium atoms then interacts with a soliton and decays into
low-energy photons (low energy because they are distributed over the
extension of the atom) and a neutrino.  There's no conservation of
baryons because of the limited range of the strong force.

Steve, I'll send you a copy of Bollinger's "A Twist of Ribbon" under
separate cover.  I don't know if there's anything to this idea, not
being a physicist; but I like its elegance.

-- J
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Columbus may have discovered america on Oct 12 but I found nothing!
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:35:47 GMT

In article <921013123345.228018c2@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:

> This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  13 October 1992 
>
> Executive summary:  After end of run calibration it looks like a null 
> experiment.
> ... perhaps something unusual happened during the power outage ...
> ... My bet at the moment is the heater servo, which does have a pot...
> ... At the moment, I just don't want to look at the data ... 

Tom, I hope you get things straightened out, and thanks for your honesty
to everyone on the net about having encountered some difficulties.

Changes nothing from this end, however.  I'd still like to see some
explicit exploration of the idea of Born Violations, and would have
gone ahead and posted my last item whether even if you had posted
yours first.  Hang in there.

				Cheers,
				Terry
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chemical energies
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:05:36 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Dick Forman writes:
>
> The hottest reactions that I know are are either the heavier borances
> (decaborane) or some funny nitrogen reactions. I worked on azides once upon
> a time (early '60s) and they are pretty hot but I think other nitrogen
> reactions are hotter.


        The concept of "how much energy can you possibly get from a chemical
reaction" has been gone over throughly by those interested in rocket
propellants.  Several standard works on chemical rocket propellants give
plots of the heat of combustion of various elements with various oxidizers.
To summarize some data taken by eye from a graph in "The Performance of
Chemical Propellants" by Glassman and Sawyer, only a few reactions are
capable of generating more than 4 kcal/gram total reactants.

Oxidizer           Fuel      Energy (kcal)
O2                 Li        4.8
O2                 Be        5.6
O2                 B         4.3
O2                 B5H9      4.0
O2                 Al        4.0
F2                 Li        5.6
F2                 Be        4.8
F2                 Mg        4.1
F2                 Al        4.2

        All other chemical reactions fall under these values on a per gram
basis.  Hydrogen, oxidized with O2 or F2, yields only about 3.2 kcal/gram,
but is a favored rocket fuel with either oxidizer because the low molecular
weight of the product more than makes up for the modest energy release.
Ozone, as an oxidizer, yields a bit more energy than oxygen because of the
energy tied up in the ozone molecule.  Liquid ozone however is subject to
spontaneous explosion, and is not usually considered a practical oxidizer so
doesn't usually appear in compilations of this type.
        Boranes (boron and hydrogen compounds) are good rocket fuels, with
B5H9 (pentaborane) and O2 just barely yielding 4.0 kcal/gram.  Hydrazine
(N2H4) is the most energetic common "nitrogen" fuel, and yields only 2.5
kcal/gram with F2.  Strangely, a usable rocket can be produced by using
pentaborane and hydrazine.  The formation of BN provides heat, and all the
hydrogen provides a low molecular weight exhaust.






--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:14:28 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

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

> In article <Hk83RB6w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) wr
> >
> >        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. 
> 
> --

Jim,

        Maybe I should have clarified my definitions- we weren't 
using MODERN fuel injection (e.g. Electronic Fuel Injection, EFI) 
which is based upon a microprocessor to drive the atomizer in the 
throttle body.  You see, diesel is fuel injected (per se) and the 
Germans invented that before WWII.  What I was trying to say was 
simply that an atomic bomb is an example of "old technology", like 
electric toasters.  Yes, they are still in use today, but they are 
not that "high tech", as they were invented long ago.  The 
computer terminal you are reading this from right now was 
impossible technology at the time the bomb was developed.  That 
alone should reiterate my point in a tangible terms...........sq
From: gbs@kolob.mti.sgi.com (Greg Shippen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Columbus may have discovered america on Oct 12 but I found nothing!
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:22:43 GMT
Reply-To: gbs@mti.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: kolob.mti.sgi.com

In article <921013123345.228018c2@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
"|> "This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  13 October 1992 
"|> "
"|> "Executive summary:  After end of run calibration it looks like a null 
"|> "experiment.
"|> "   

Tom, if you'll permit this admitted "computer-type" a chance to ask a 
clarifying question:

If I understand correctly, you are indicating here that the experiment running 
since September was flawed.  You have also indicated in the past that you felt 
that you had seen anamolous heat for years but had not had confidence in the 
data until recently.  Do you continue to believe that you have seen anamolous 
heat or are you now calling into question all the data over the past few 
years?

-- 
Gregory B. Shippen
Silicon Graphics Inc./MIPS Technology Inc.			gbs@mti.sgi.com
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. M/S 10L-175                      
Mountain View, CA  94039 (415) 390-4483