HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Subject: Why Ying?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:25:37 GMT

Something bothers me about the Ying experiment. I'm just a humble
electrochemist, so maybe some physics expert out there can enlighten me:
The Ying theory says, correctly, that one of the branches of d-d fusion is
d + d --> (4)He + gamma (23.x MeV); this is in fact the controversial minor
branch, with a probability of 1E-07 times the other two, with the infamous
50:50 branching ratio, yielding neutrons or tritium. OK. Ying now proposes
to enhance this minor branch by tickling it with gamma rays at just that
energy, 23.x MeV.

I understand that quantum physics is not like chemistry but I still can't
shake the thought that this is the wrong way around. In chemistry, if you
have a reaction like

A + B + C + ... ---> O + P + Q + ...

then if you add, to a mixture of all these, one of the products O, P, Q ...,
you drive the reaction backwards. This is Le Chatelier's Principle, and we
understand it today in terms of thermodynamics, equilibrium constants etc.
Looked at in this light, it would seem to me that if you shoot gammas at PdD,
you'd squash even that tiny branch producing (4)He, and get even less fusion.
Where am I going wrong? How can the gammas pull the branch out of probability
space?

Why, in fact, should this enhance the fusion rate? The way I think it works is
that two d's decide to fuse (at some astronomically small rate [if you can have
something astronomically small] or, if you believe Jones+, a very small but
measurable rate of about 1E-21 fusions/d-d pair/s), and they first go into an
excited intermediate state, from which there are certain probabilities for then
exiting into one of the three branches. If the gamma rays shot at the target
were (against my gut feeling) to enhance the (4)He branch, then you still would
not get a fusion rate larger than the original one.

So please, experts, explain these points. Frankly, it sounds like a lot of
garbage to me. Ah, that feels better.

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

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:48:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul28.000122.10365@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) writes:
>
>I wouldn't want to claim that the 5th generation project and the
>hysterical response in the U.S. were products of a conspiracy between
>research groups in the two countries, but that model certainly fits
>the data.

Les, I think that you are subscribing to the 'conspiracy' theory of
history. I don't believe that people can successfully be so devious.

The _stated_ goals of the Japanese 5th generation computer were to 
achieve real artificial intellegence and that always reminded me of
the cartoon where two scientists were looking at the blackboard and
one says to the other, "I think you have to work on the middle part
there." And in the middle of a group of calculations is the statement,
"And a miracle occurs."

The Japanese discovered that miracles don't often occur on schedule.
So I think we can safely assume that their project did meet the
expectations.
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My bosons are bigger than your bosons
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:11:51 GMT

>My guess?  You inserted a bit of radioactive material (Co 60?) on the end of
>a length of stiff wire.  You either push or pull this away from the Pd, or
>you have a hunk of tinfoil or other shield on one side of the bit of "hot"
>stuff, and you rotate it toward or away from the Pd.

Mike Jamison tells me I am out to sea on the penetration power of gammas.
He says 4 Mev gammas are depleted only 90% per inch of lead.  He also
says that penetration effects vary with energy, penetration dropping
once again as energies increase beyond a certain level.

So Droege probably (???) has an external gamma source -- which accounts
for his 1/10000th of Ying's intensity.

You could still use my "stipulator" (as comedian Norm Crosby?? would call
it) for the alpha source.

I averaged Tom's three "on" powers minus the average of the three "off"
powers, and I come up with a delta power of 8.5 milliwatts.  Though this
is about 1/60th Ying's delta power, Tom claims his incident boson
intensity is 1/10000th that of Ying's.

Conclusion -- Tom's bosons kick butt.

  -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: What I Know About Gas
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:16:51 GMT

Thank you all for the discussion of the D2O2 problem.  Let me try to tell
you what I know for sure.

I am running with a saw tooth between 60 and 400 ma per sq cm.  This means 
there is a big change in the cell temperature in the head space above the
liquid since the catalyst is there.  About 10 C over the cycle.  The 
headspace volume is about 50 cc so this alone would produce a 1.7 cc 
change.  But sometimes I see a small change and sometimes it is as much
as 6cc.  There tends to be a decrease in gas volume when the current 
drops at the end of the saw tooth.  Since this is as much as 6 cc it 
is too much to be explained by temperature.  This held up for very slow
cycles so it cannot be explained by thermometer temperature lag.  The 
total cell voltage is about 6 volts at the high current point and 3.5
volts at the low current point.  

I am quite willing to accept that the long term gas loss is a leak.  I
have done separate experiments where I tie off the gas syringe system
and check it for leaks and find none.  It has more tubing than the cell
and it is tygon where the cell tubing is viton.  But so far about 
2000 cc have disappeared and this seems to much to be anything but a 
leak.  I also do not think it is anything funny in the syringe.  I have
done a number of hysterisis loops for test and have observed no gas 
"pumping" type of loss.  

A lot would be explained if D2O2 were formed at high temperature and
high cell voltage, and then disassociated at low temperature and low 
cell voltage.  Remember I previously ran the ramp backwards and did 
not see the same gas change.  So it requires a sudden drop in current
to disassociate the D2O2 by this theory.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Stimulated Emission
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:40:10 GMT

In article <29JUL199212110773@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>
edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>Conversely, if gamma induced fission doesn't exist, then gamma induced
>fusion won't, either.
>Are there any known cases of gamma induced fission?
>
>Mike Jamison
Photo-induced fission is known for Uranium and probably many other heavy
isotopes.  People have studied this process to understand more about the
fission decay products and the branchings.
Dick Forman
 
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: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laws of physics
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:37:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.ceP5a6C00WBMQ1v5ZK
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I think Eliot Moss has missed the point I was trying to make.  My
understanding was that there was no known *mechanism* (pathway) to
explain cold nuclear fusion at high rates within the confines of known
laws of physics.  Laws and mechanisms are different. 
"Superconductivity" needed a new mechanism (pairing) to be understood,
but no laws of physics changed.

The question I had raised was, does CNF (forgetting the arguable
experimental situation, please) violate any *laws* of physics?

PJK
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Subject: Cold Fusion, latest success ? Where is FAQ ?
Organization: Puplic-Access-Xenix-System
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 12:42:31 GMT
Summary: fusion
Keywords: fusion

Hi,
please can somebody give me a help, where I can find a FAQ
(frequently asked questions) about the new success of Cold Fusion ?

What about the Takahashi experiment ? Do they put 1 Watt electricity
power in   and get 30 Watts heat power out , or what ?

Please post some summary or a FAQ !

Please not to chemical-techno, cause I'm more into electronics !

Best regards Stefan Hartmann.
email to: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de



-- 
 
*************************************************************
*  Stefan Hartmann       This is how to contact me:         *
*  EMAIL: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de                          *
*  Phone : ++ 49 30 344 23 66      FAX : ++ 49 30 344 92 79 *
*************************************************************
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:34:28 GMT

I checked my brother's Coleman lantern mantles with my 
geiger counter and found they weren't radioactive!  I've
checked others before and they were radioactive.

Today I went to the sporting goods store to investigate.
Coleman now sells something called "Gold Top" or some
such name, and claim it is four times tougher.

But they don't contain any Thorium.  Fortunately they
are still selling Thorium containing mantles -- or,
perhaps they are clearing them out of inventory???

The new ones cost $1.50 and the old ones cost $1.00.
The old radioactive ones are clearly marked that they
contain Thorium.  The ones I bought today are Model 20.

I got four sets, just in case it is my last chance to
get radioactive material on the cheap.

 -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Calorimetry
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:07:52 GMT

Jed Rothwell writes:
"How could convection suddenly have this effect 2 or 3 weeks into the 
experiment, and why does it build up over time?  The effects of convection 
currents must surely be the same throughout the experiment."

We live in a fluid called air, Jed.  Sometimes we have Tornadoes, but not all 
the time.  They are very capricious.  That is because temperature gradients in 
a fluid can do very complicated things.  Lakes are known to develop inversion 
layers and "turn over" at unpredictable times.  These effects are also 
observed in deep ocean behavior.  The largest computers are yet to be able to 
predict these effects.  I have observed something similar to lake "turn over" 
in my cells.  So I do not trust the thermometer in the cell to provide 
anything more than an indication that the temperature at one point in the cell 
is changing.  

The only calorimetry that I will begin to trust eliminates any dependence on 
temperature gradients in the calorimeter.  McKubre uses one scheme to attempt 
this, I use another.  There are others that do good calorimetry.  Takahashi is 
not yet on my list.  

Tom Droege


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Subject:  the third point i forgot
Reply-To: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:10:24 GMT

When I suggested that CNF believers were too conservative and asked why

they had not suggested violation of energy conservation as an "explanation"
of heat without nuclear products I said I was posting for three reasons; I
cited two and forgot the third.

Here is the third.

If you *are* prepared to suggest that energy is not conserved then what
is wrong with the following: "Too much energy for chemistry. Therefore
energy is not conserved".
No need to mention *nuclear* at all.

However like me, and Jed Rothwell, and most other people on this net
(is this true), you probably prefer to believe that energy *is* conserved.
In which case what is wrong with my argument that there must be 10**12
pieces of nuclear ash per joule?

Which brings me to what was *really* my third point. When Bohr was prepared
seriously to contemplate that E-mom might be violeted in nuclear beta decay
it was because of the existence of *clear, reproduced, incontrovertible
experimental evidence* that a "forbidden" process was happening. Some of
us still have to take that leap of belief in the present episode.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Subject: Re: Measuring D2O2 in LiOD electrolytes
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:46:45 GMT

In article <13765@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
writes:
> Measurement of D2O2 in saturated LiOD solutions
...
> Using 50 microliters of color reagent, 50 microliters of saturated LiOH, and 50
> microliters of peroxide or water, I found that 10E-1 molar and 10E-2 molar
> peroxide produced an almost instantaneous dark blue-black color.  10E-3 molar
> peroxide produced a dark blue color, but took a couple of minutes.  10E-4 molar
> peroxide over several minutes produced a yellow-brown color, clearly
> distinguishable from the colorless solution produced by substituting water for
> the peroxide.  10E-5 molar peroxide or water gave no visible color.
>         I leave it to others to do the appropriate calculations to calculate
> whether the detection limit of 10E-4 molar is adequate to rule out peroxide
> effects in cells.  If not, I would be prepared to further fine tune the assay,
> probably using larger volumes and spectrophotometry at 360 nm.

Good on you, Bruce. I suppose Tom really ought to get a syringe, take out a
wee drap of his electrolyte and try this. However, as to sensitivity: no need
to go to ultra-low concentrations, because D2O2 came in as a suspect gas
swallower or excess heat producer, so it would have to be in excess of, say,
0.01 M to even register in Tom's data as a disturbance.
 I still say forget peroxide.

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

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Just Mucking Around
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:25:02 GMT

Ed Storms nicely sent me a copy of the ICCF3 preprint.  It contains several
tables.  Table 2 lists all the disasters - dieing recombiner, broken 
connections, etc..  Table 3 lists all the different operating points, saw
tooth, high-low, steady etc..  It looks just like my log book.  It looks
just like what I can read from the McKubre paper.  

My point is that we are all struggling to find a repeatable experiment.  What
keeps us going is that every so often we see something.  But I think that 
no one has it yet.  This in my opinion includes P&F.  There may well be 
nothing to find, but it is sure fun trying.  So to some of you standing by
the sidelines wishing you could participate, there is still time!  Jump in,
you are not that far behind the rest of us.  ( An alternate reading of the
previous statement is "Misery loves company").

Bob Horst suggest a three level experiment.  You bet Bob, I actually have
two 1 microcurie sources coming.  So we can do background, weak old, one
microcurie, two microcurie.

For thought.  Everyone worries about getting the loading high.  The theory
seems to be that high **uniform** loading is needed.  Thus P&F are rumored
to be using Pd/Ag alloy because it is stronger and can take loading without
fracture.  How in the world can it be uniform?  To me, a real process must
work on a single crystal grain!  Or possibly in a single grain boundary.
So I advocate building a sensitive device and looking for a tiny effect.  
Then it can be optimized.
From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:09:38 GMT
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

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

Jim Bowery comments:

"TECHNOSOCIALISM IS THE SINGLE MOST DESTRUCTIVE POLICY BEING PURSUED
BY THE UNITED STATES AND, INDEED, THE WORLD."

Well, I don't want to get too involved in this -- never though about it
really -- but we Japanese jes' lo-o-o-v-e techno-socialism-big-
government-economic-planning. Hey, it works for us. What can I say?

I am not actually Japanese, you understand. Honorary Japanese, maybe.

- Jed
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: DD->4He + gamma
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
	<20432@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:49:24 GMT

In article <20432@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@cs.rpchester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

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

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

   I'm not familiar with any theories involving the Sun God Ra, but I
think you are jumping off half-cocked.  I know that any reaction which
requires three simultaneous inputs is highly improbable.  But that has
nothing to do with what I was trying to say.  In that reaction the
branching ratio must be very different from the ratio in the standard
d + d reaction.  Period.  I did not propose pulling bosons OR bogons
out of probability space, or attempt to justify Yang's theories.



					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks for the quality
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:37:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

After seeing Noring's posting I immediately placed it in
the realm of the Tesla Society and dismissed it. I got some
of the literature from the TS (more likely the BS) and
they seem to specialize in perpetual motion and rediculous
claims, backed up with the most transparently dubious experiments
possible.

I suggest totally ignoring such postings as a method to
keep the 'noise' level down. (If you think those other
conferences are bad, try looking at sci.nanotech -- there
hasn't been a _single_ intelligent posting there yet!)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: I have a little list...
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:47:51 GMT

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

Todd Green has an interesting list of people:

"Oriani, Wadsworth, Scott, Huggins, Appleby, Landau, Schoessow and Hutchinson
all claimed heat in 1989 but how many of those are still going strong now?
Answer: none."

Hmmm. I have not heard of Wadsworth, Landau or Hutchinson; they are not in
my computer. Of the others, I just talked to Oriani, and I have been in
touch with Huggins and Abbleby, but I don't think they are in the CF
business any more. Schoessow is still going strong. To my knowledge, none of
these people has retracted. The claims of Oriani, Huggins and Appleby seem
solid to me, I don't know anything about Schoessow.

You understand of course, that with a database of hundreds of scientists
working in, or related to CF, I cannot check them, or judge them. No doubt
there are some flakes in there, but I just take what they tell me at face
value. This is a mailing list, not an FBI check. Many people in the list are
working on CF but not doing experiments, like the theoreticians, and the
people at Rockwell who analyze other people's cathodes.

I am quite sure there at least 100 others in Japanese corporations who I have
never hear from. For example, I only have 3 names from Technova, and no
address in France, where there must be at least five or ten people hard at
work. I have only two or three in China, but the head of the program there
told me they have launched a "large project." Goodness knows how many people
that might mean. I have only one or two names in Russia.

It would be very good for this field if I had the money to mail out a survey
to all of the people on my list, asking what results they have achieved
lately. DB's bibliography is great help, but it takes many months for papers
to appear, and a paper may not lay out the facts you want for a database. It
would be good if I could publish such a database.

"I heard rumors that [McKubre] can get up to 250%, but is this true?"

Your guess is as good as mine. I have heard that rumor, and several others.
I do not know the truth. If I did, I would have to say, "sorry, I can't
answer." I talk so much that it may seem strange, but I keep secrets when I
am told to. People who don't keep secrets never hear anything more! It is
the oldest rule of journalism. An old journalist trick failed to elicit the
information you are after. Bockris and I fed Mike two enormous Texas Style
meals and several bottles of first class Champaign -- I lost track of how
many -- and Mike never even blinked! Not one word! By the way, Bockris paid
(which is journalistic trick # 2: somebody else pays.)

"If only there were a few more good experiments like this one... [McKubre's]"

Amen. I hope he really is back to work, and Godspeed to him.

- Jed
From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laws of physics
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:24:29 GMT
Reply-To: moss@cs.umass.edu
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)
In-reply-to: 72240.1256@compuserve.com's message of 19 Jul 92 05:46:36 GMT

>>>>> On 19 Jul 92 05:46:36 GMT, 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) said:

Jed> Paul Karol comments: "I was not aware CNF violated "known laws of physics"
Jed> as stated in Jed Rothwell's posting.  I thought CNF only violated known
Jed> mechanisms and models, but not any laws..."

Jed> Don't misquote me, I said "appears to violate." It is a common figure of
Jed> speech. You have expressed the same idea, in a more technically accurate
Jed> fashion. Nothing anywhere ever actually violates the laws of physics. The
Jed> problem is, we don't know for sure what those laws are, because we are not
Jed> God.

Of course, nothing can violate the true laws of physics, by definition. The
issue here is whether it violates the known and generally accepted laws of
physics. That is, are we dealing with a phenomenon that can be explained in
terms of known laws, even though we have yet to figure out the explanation, or
does our collection of known laws need revision to permit and explain the
phenomenon?
--

		J. Eliot B. Moss, Associate Professor
		Department of Computer Science
		Lederle Graduate Research Center
		University of Massachusetts
		Amherst, MA  01003
		(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion