HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Subject: Fusion, simulations and the net
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 11 Sep 1992 13:08 EST  

This doesn't *exactly* fit the subject of fusion, but, neither have a lot 
of other posts to s.p.f :)

I've been curious as to the average number of computers connected to the 
net, and their individual/combined processing power.  At NASA Lewis, we 
have a scientific VAX cluster, along with the required supercomputers (Cray 
YM-P, Cyber something or other).  Obviously, their time is well occupied :)

At home, however, I've got a 486 that just sits most of the time.  The 
figures I've heard on the 486 (33 MHz) give it a FLOP rating of about 1 
MFLOP or so.  Get a million of these thing together on a net (well over 1 
million 486's have been sold, so this isn't entirely unreasonable) and 
you've got you Teraflop computer, with enough memory to run a simulation of 
just about any fusion configuration you want, in the background (we can all 
send e-mail in the foreground, and barely slow the background tasks down).

I believe a finite-element approach to such a simulation would run fairly 
well, keeping interprocessor communications down (a machine running at 1+
MFLOP isn't going to be doing much good if it has spend half its time 
getting information at 9600 baud [or lower]).

The other consideration is that PCs aren't the only machines connected to 
the net.

For all I know, some clever people may have written a virus that does 
something *good* already.  Maybe some simulations are *already* running in 
the background on the entire net, and most of us don't know it...


Mike Jamison 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Frank Reddy <0004847546@mcimail.com>
Subject: Ball lightning
Reply-To: Frank Reddy <0004847546@mcimail.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:53:34 GMT

Perhaps I missed something, but it seems that some appear to be skeptical
of the existance of ball lightning.

It IS a real phenomenon and has been produced in the laboratory.  A good
review of the evidence for its existence can be found in BEAD AND BALL LIGHTNING
by James Dale Barry (Plenum, 1980 --  ISBN 0-306-40272-6).  Stanley Singer
also wrote a nice piece in the News and Views section of Nature (350:108-9)
on the occasion of Japanese work in creating long-lived fireballs through 
the application of radiofrequancy discharges external to the ball itself.
This was one of the early theories (by Kapitza) of BL formation.  The Japanese
work is described in Nature 350:139-141, 1991.
 
>Earth or terrestrial Ball Lightning is probably also a source of fusion,
>power . . .

I'm not aware of any work that suggest this (which may not mean much, I admit).

>The yellow color of terrestrial ball lightning is due to the formation
>and trapping of ozone and nitrogen oxides in the external Mantle.

Singer and Barry give the most commonly ascribed colors as "typically
orange, red-orange, or intense white, less often blue, green, or yellow."  The
ball is usually 25-30 cm wide, with much smaller (1 cm) and larger (10 m)
also occasionally being reported.  Occasionally the balls move against the
direction of the prevailing winds and penetrate window panes without making
a hole in the glass (which was also observed in lab experiments).  An
absence of warmth sometimes has been reported in incidents when the BL 
passed close to observers; in others reports the ball may cause burns on
property or persons, and (rarely) disperses with a good bang.

Chimera it may be.  But lightning researchers class ball lightning as a 
real phenomenon.  It has been videotaped forming after strikes to antennas
or TV/radio towers, although the photographic record is rife with attempted
fakes or misidentifications.  And again, it has been formed in the lab. 

FYI,

Frank Reddy
0004847546@MCIMAIL.COM 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: FASER theory -- BL aspects
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
	<1992Sep07.042525.21187@prometheus.UUCP>
	<1992Sep7.191606.14371@nmt.edu>
	<1992Sep09.075524.17523@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:56:01 GMT


     I'm curious.  How fast a rise time do you need, and at what
voltage?  I remember buying 5 KV 80 microFarad Mylar capacitors from
Maxwell.  Only good for about a thousand shots, but a kilojoule you
can hold in your hand is nothing to sneeze at. (You'll break your
wrist--as I remember it they weighed about 20 pounds. :-)  They also
made larger capacitors and firing switches for them.  I remeber
pictures of a 50 Megajoule test.  We also used to buy 100 joule oil
filleds by the pallet load.  A lot more wiring, but they lasted for
years.  The only advantage of the mylar caps was an extremely low
impedence, and they weighed a tenth as much per joule. 

     Prices have probably gone up a lot since I was playing with high
voltage, but putting together a Megajoule source (with a once per five
minutes firing rate) could be done back then for under 100 thousand
dollars.  If you can use a homopolar generator, it can be done a lot
cheaper...
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where did everybody go?
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 07:20:07 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth) writes:

> In <1992Sep2.184457.17530@adobe.com> epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson) write
> 
> >The title says it all
> 
> That's what I've been wondering.  Is the network really functioning 
> correctly?

Some of the information being broadcast for free on this newsgroup could
be of a rather, uh, valuable nature.  Information is wealth.

--                    
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: pcsg8264@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Preston Craig Smith)
Subject: Potential Diagram for Tri-atomic Hydrogen ion H3+
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:58:39 GMT

Our group here at U of I is doing some computer modeling for TFTR and in the
calculations, we need the potential energy diagram for H3+.  Monotomic Hydrogen
and diatomic are readily availible, but we cannot seem to find information 
on H3+.  Any ideas out there?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory --
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:16:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmt.1992Sep7.191606.14371
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Sep07.042525.21187@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>It now can be reproduced "at will", subject to the fact that BL 
>formation is potentially very dangerous endeavor and requires 
>sophisticated safeguards and as well as formation equipment.  At
>the present time the process is closely held.  

	I am kind of curious about what your machine can do.  How big of a
ball lightning can you make and how long does it last?  I assume that the
energy involved in formation must be rather large if formation is a
"dangerous endeavor"...  About how much energy is involved?

-- 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Mills & Ying
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:50:04 GMT

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

John Logajan remarks:

"Tom Droege also replicated it [the Mills experiment]. However, he went
beyond the Mills procedures and coupled the thermal input and output together,
which resulted in net negative result."

Yes, and he is not the only one. Two other groups I talked to used a closed
cell and/or a separate recombiner enclosed in the calorimeter, and came to
the same conclusion. Yet several others have measured net positive heat. It
is baffling. The current density is low, so it is hard to distinguish excess
heat from recombination. I wish I had the money and the time to try it myself.

Regarding Ying's work: let me emphasize that I *think* he is missing something.
Perhaps he is mismeasuring the input electricity, since that appears to be the
weakest part of his experiment. However, I have not seen any papers from him,
or talked to him at length, so that is just a tentative guess.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Uh-huh
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:09:06 GMT

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>I think Ying made a mistake

Just for the record, Jed Rothwell said this same thing to me in a private
post a few days after Ying first announced his results.

>The Mills experiment, by the way, is still alive and kicking. I have recently
>heard from two other respectable groups who now think they have replicated
>it.

Tom Droege also replicated it.  However, he went beyond the Mills procedures
and coupled the thermal input and output together, which resulted in net
negative result.

The assumption of 1.46 volts as part of the calculation is thus shown to
be in question.

-- 
- 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: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Enthalpy
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:43:14 GMT

I succeeded in finding the nice Roger Dutton article.  FD-216, 4 Mar. 92.
My 66 Killojoules per mole translates to 15.8 k cal per mole.  Roger quotes
10.2 k cal per mole.  Possibly I will be closer to his number when I really
look at the data.  

What I measure are cc of evolved oxygen and the calorimeter balance.  I 
compute that 26.35 joules are lost when one cc of oxygen and two cc of 
Deuterium do not recombine.  If I postulate that the deuterium hides 
somehow in the cell, and only the oxygen comes off, then I expect to see
-26.35 joules for each evolved cc of oxygen.

What I measured during yesterday's charging run were numbers between 18
and 22 joules (negative) for each cc of gas (presumed oxygen) evolved.
If I am doing it right, then 26.3 - 22 = 4.3 joules per 2 cc absorbed 
deuterium = 2.15 joules per cc = 2.15*22,400=48,160 joules per mole / 4.18
=11.5 k cal/mole.  The 18 number gives 22.4 k cal per mole.  So I have 
numbers that are about a factor of 2 over Rogers range of 4.8 to 10.2
k cal per mole.  

Perhaps someone can point out some obvious error in my thinking.  A factor
of two would be nice.  The whole experiment involved the evolution of about
100 cc of gas and a calorimeter balance change of order 2000 joules over
5 hours.  It only takes about a 15 mw error to move my answer to match 
the Roger Dutton number.  There is the added problem of the time lag of 
the calorimeter response.  I guess it is just a hard measurement.  

Could someone who has read the Flanagen paper tell me how they made the
measurement?

Tom Droege
From: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lecture Notice
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:23:15 GMT
Reply-To: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: Boston University

>>M.I.T. EECS-LECTURE
>>THURSDAY 1-2 PM
>>SEPTEMBER 24, 1992
>>ROOM 18-490 (LANDAU BLDG.)
>>
>>Observations of Heat in Electrochemical Studies of the Palladium/Deuterium
>>Systems Employing an Isothermal Flow Calorimeter
>>
>>by M.C.H. McKubre, SRI International

>[will some one attend and post a review]
>Also, is this a preview of a talk to be given in Japan in October??
>*************************************************
>E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
>RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198


I may be able to do so. Could this be a significant talk? Is this the
first time SRI is going to discuss it's results?

john travis
jstravis@bu-pub.bu.edu















.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Where be his quiddits now?
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:24:53 GMT

In article <920903021853_72240.1256_EHL41-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

> In the cold fusion experiments that have been performed heretofore,
> with the instrumentation that has been used, in the manner in which it
> has deployed, GeV particles of the type and number we predict should
> occur may not have been readily detected. Even if said particles had
> been detected by the instruments, they might have been vetoed, or
> confused with some other particle or particles.  This is not to
> suggest or imply that said particles could not easily be detected with
> the proper type of equipment, when such equipment is used in the
> prescribed manner by persons sufficiently skilled in the art of
> particle detection.

Two comments on all this...

  (1) Detecting that, specifically, multiGeV 3He nuclei are present may be
difficult without proper equipment.  Detecting that something is
filling your lab with a dangerous level of fast neutrons is not.

  (2) I've looked at the Brightsen/Mallove paper.  Simply ludicrous.
A competent student could spot multiple impossibilities, even ignoring
the creative thinking about the effects of energetic 3He nuclei.  I
was especially amused by the claim that one could get 5.6 GeV out of
the reaction 1H + 2H --> 3He.  Not only is that about 1000x the energy
you'd compute by calculating the difference in masses, it's twice the
energy of the entire rest mass of the reactants!

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lecture Notice
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:44:17 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920911151753_72240.1256_EHL27-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>M.I.T. EECS-LECTURE
>THURSDAY 1-2 PM
>SEPTEMBER 24, 1992
>ROOM 18-490 (LANDAU BLDG.)
>
>Observations of Heat in Electrochemical Studies of the Palladium/Deuterium
>Systems Employing an Isothermal Flow Calorimeter
>
>by M.C.H. McKubre, SRI International
********************************************
Does anyone plan to attend this seminar AND post a summary for the net??
Also, is this a preview of a talk to be given in Japan in October??
*************************************************
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.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: The Rev. Thomas Bayes and Cold Fusion
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:36:27 GMT

I stole that title from something I just ran across on page 9 of the
Jan '92 issue of Physics Today - a commentary by Phillip W. Anderson
on the application of Bayesian statistics to "needles in haystacks and
the fifth force."  For "fifth force" one may as well substitute "cold
fusion" and Prof. Anderson's commentary will remain equally valid.  I
think a few quotes will serve to convey the essence, and I will indicate
my changes in the wording by CAPS.

"These statistics (Bayesian) are the correct way to do inductive reason-
ing from necessarily imperfect experimental data . . . The essence of
it is to clearly identify the possible answers, assign reasonable
a priori to them and then ask which of the answers have been made more
likely by the data.  It's particularly useful for simple "null" answers."

"Let us take COLD FUSION.  If we assume from the outset that there is
COLD FI
USION and we need only measure its magnitude, we are assigning
the bin with zero SURPLUS HEAT an infinitesimal probability to begin
with.  Actually we should assign this bin, which is the null hypothesis
we want to test, some finite a priori probability - like 1/2 - and
share out the remaining 1/2 amoung all the other possible VALUES.
We then ask the question, does a given set of statistical measurements
increase or decrease this share of the probability?  It turns out that
when one adopts this point of view, it often takes a much larger devia-
tion of the result from zero to begin to decrease the null hypothesis's
share."

Having read this my conclusion is that those of you trying to make a
case for cold fusion should find a good book on Bayesian statistics
or, at the very least, read what Prof. Anderson has to say in its
entirety.

Correction:  The fourth line of the first quote should read a priori
probabilities to them...

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory --> FASEN --- "n" (somewhat epic)
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:25:48 GMT
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Sep11.011307.4212@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.050038.4393@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.  
>Koloc) writes:
>> What is required in this case is a radiation that has little 
>> or no cross-section for non-fusing matter, but has an 
>> exceptionally high capture cross-section for capture by  
>> -- and transform of -- near fusion events into fusion events.  
>
>That would do the trick, but is such really possible? As you note,  
>electromagnetic radiation could not be so discriminating. As for
>neutrinos, its hard to image their capture cross section could be
>large enough, even if there were some resonance at their frequency.
>Plus, where would the neutrino's come from to drive the process? The
>fusion events postulated don't release any.

I agree and for that reason it doesn't have commercial possibilities.
I certainly would be nice to efficiently generate copious and specific 
neutrinos.  

But what about its consideration as a triggering mechanism in stars??   


>Barry Merriman, UCLA Dept. of Math ,UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
             barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:24:02 GMT
Subject: Re: FASER theory
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion

In sci.physics.fusion, edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:

> If ball lightning is fusion powered, why are the people who've observed it 
> alive to tell about it? (goes hand in hand with huge excess heat claims for 
> CNF observers).

I do not believe the claim is that ball lightning is fusion powered, but
rather that ball lightning is a self-compressing form of plasma, and that it 
may be possible to improve the compression to the point of ordinary fusion.

> Mike Jamison

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball lightning - -  B-52 encounter
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:00:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep15.132626.11731@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> 
>On the one unique occasion when the "BL magnet" passed the aircraft 
>it probably picked up the unshielded iron within the plastic radome 
>at the front of the ship and disintegrated catastrophically on 
>impact with that plastic wind shield.  Incidentally it didn't "see" 
>it (no repelling image currents from the non-conducting plastic)
>or it would have avoided it.    :-)

There is little ferrous compounds in a B-52. Any such were confined to 
the odd nut or bolt.

>Note the damage location is interesting.  Apparently the radome had
>two layers of plastic, the outer one which was transparent and an
>inner one that was not. 

I'm afraid I did not make myself clear enough. The fiberglas layup was
quite normal and the inside of the radome was painted opaquely. The
total thickness must have been some 3/8" and there was no delamination
detectable for any sort of moisture to intrude upon. I looked very carefully
at this while trying for explainations.

My final determination was that such a mark is the source of the cartoon
lightning bolts and must be common enough that many people are familiar
with it's meaning.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 05:54:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <7600008@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
>
>There is a sentence in there which states (paraphrased):  "of the remaining 5,
>2 could not be contacted and 2 were non-scientists."  This implies that there
>was one scientist who could be contacted and did not object to his name being
>used.

Might I point out that at least one of those quoted is apparently a
member or stockholder in this company?
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Where be his quiddits now?
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:36:52 GMT

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

I mentioned that some high energy pals of mine said GeV particles might be
elusive. Tom Droege would have me speak close to the card, lest equivocation
undo me, so let me rephrase that:

In the cold fusion experiments that have been performed heretofore, with the
instrumentation that has been used, in the manner in which it has deployed, GeV
particles of the type and number we predict should occur may not have been
readily detected. Even if said particles had been detected by the instruments,
they might have been vetoed, or confused with some other particle or particles.
This is not to suggest or imply that said particles could not easily be
detected with the proper type of equipment, when such equipment is used in the
prescribed manner by persons sufficiently skilled in the art of particle
detection.

By golly. I have been spending a lot time with the legal eagles, haven't I? Tom
wanted to know who I talked to, but since I just asked them for a preliminary,
informal reading on the subject, not a definitive opinion, let's let them mull
it over and speak for themselves.

In other news, Fleischmann went public in England and gave a talk at the
something like an NAS meeting. I don't have the paper yet. We had a nice chat
with him, he sounds like he is in good spirits. The BBC, Independent
Television, and the British newspapers played it up pretty well. I think they
called it the revival or rebirth of CF - I can't remember. My notes are in the
other computer, which is undergoing a diskectomy and a DOSectomy. Tom suggests
that computer errors, caused by alpha particles, may indicate that the NCM is
correct. As far as I know, I am hundreds of miles from the nearest CF
experiment, but I have had many hardware crashes lately, so it must be that
anytime anybody anywhere runs a CF experiment, my computer dies. Ha! That
proves the model definitively; these particles must be for real. They are
mighty powerful, and they are aimed right at me! Yessir, we are going to expand
this to be the NCM - ESP - CompuParanormalParanoia Model.

- Jed