HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:36:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr16.123611.22389
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Apr16.010412.46751@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>As long as you are asking for suggestions, I repeat mine: "Run the
>cells with liquid D2", this should simplify the accounting.

Well this is somewhat difficult.  D2 is a molecular fluid which is not
likely to conduct very well at all and it is difficult to try to think
of ions which will dissolve in it as it is a highly non-polar molecule,
being very tightly covalently bonded and made up of identical molecules.
It is also true that this would require a not inexpensive cooling
apparatus as D2 is liquid in an "awkward" range between the liquid
ranges of the usual cryogenic fluids.  It should also be noted that H2
(and therefore also D2) gas is highly explosive and in the days before
there was helium as a cryogenic fluid and H2 was the coldest cryogenic
fluid there were lots of (dangerous) explosions in cryogenic labs.
Finally you would have to keep the whole thing cold and worry about heat
leaks into the system as a possible source of error and expend many
times as much energy cooling the system as is used in electrolysis
heating it.

I can not say, in consequence of the above reasoning that I think this a
good idea.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ACOUST@BNR.CA (Nahum Goldmann)
Subject: Announcement:  ONLINE INFORMATION HUNTING, by Nahum Goldmann
Reply-To:  acoust@BNR.CA
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:13:55 GMT

Dear Dr. Mueller - please place the attached announcement on fusion.
I believe that this book could be of interest to its participants.
Please send me the issue with this announcement.

Greetings and thanks

Nahum Goldmann
<acoust@BNR.CA>


Announcement:  ONLINE INFORMATION HUNTING, by Nahum Goldmann

 (Please also pass this announcement to the Library/Information Resource
  Center in your organization.

This book (McGraw-Hill/Windcrest, ISBN 0-8306-3945-4, tel. 1-800-233-1128,
price Paper $17.95, Hard $29.95) is amongst a limited number of
publications on computerized information retrieval specifically addressed
to the end-user.  The book describes what kind of information is available
online, how to search for it, and how to use it to your professional
advantage.  Also included is a brief introductory section on academic
e-mail networks.

The book outlines the SUBJECT EXPERT SEARCHING TECHNIQUE - a new
methodology for online information gathering.  This efficient
research method is especially tailored for the end-users of
information who are working in rapidly developing scientific
areas, and can be used as a means of professional survival in rapidly
changing scientific and professional areas.  It has been successfully
used by several R&D organizations.  With this technique, occasional users
such as scientists and students can now master the use of online
databases for themselves.

"... Although intended for end-users, the book could serve as... an
introductory online search course for librarians."
                       - Dr. Roger K. Summit, Dialog

"... I recommend that practicing physicians, researchers, and students
start with this very useful book."
                       - Can. Med. Ass. J

"... A definite basis for an undergraduate course in '(Intelligent)
Information Retrieval.'"
                       - Dr. Alex Meystel, Drexel U.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Catalysis of nuclear reactions
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:30:56 GMT

While it is generally considered bad form to advertise one's own work I
recommend that those people who still have an open mind, read my article in
Fusion Facts Vol 1, Issue 7 p.17 (january 1990).  Dieter rightl6y considers
this somewhat of a "rag" but I wanted to put something in print.  The article
is titled: Fusion: An [sic] Historical Perspective and the author is myself
Richard A. Forman, then working for Optimum Technology, Inc., my own company.
It was badly hacked by Herb Fox, the editor of Fusion Facts, but basically
it says, in American vernacular, you can't tell the players without a score-
card.  For Dieter and other non-Americans I would translate this to first find
out the reactants and reaction products. Then worry about why something is
or is not seen.  As a recent paper pointed out there are old mechanisms
that re well known to enhance barrier tunnelling.  MY POINT: WHY TRY TO
UNDERSTAND MECHANISMS WHEN EVEN THE REACTANTS AND REACTION PRODUCTS REMAIN
UNKNOWN. The pilloried pioneers in THIS AREA are Rollison and O'Grady.
I still believe their work is correct.  I am biased because it goes along with
my INDEPENDENT predictions in this area, but still it was a new experiment.
Teller used my work in the press conference so it can't be all that nuts.
I just don't want to be pilloried or worse.  I prefer to let the critics of
new research have their say and will wait for them to be hoist by
their own pitard.  Pitard is a pun for those of you who know older English.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
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: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Reply to Dieter Britz
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:56:34 GMT

Dieter Britz writes:

"What is the mixing time of the cell?  In other words, could this be thermal
fluctuations due to thermally inhomogeneous electrolyte? ..."

When one looks at enough random data, like and off TV channel, one begins to
imagine almost anything.  so Dieter is right to worry about bandwidth, etc.

We record about 60 items once each minute.  The measurements are actually 
means of 100 measurements, and on some items we compute rms values of the 
measurement to detect changing noise patterns.  Most things in the calorimeter
have time constants of the order of 15 minutes to a half hour.  There is a 
very small 70 hour time constant.  

So it is curious to me indeed when a series of measurements at one value of 
the cell temperature are followed by a series of measurements at another 
temperature with a step much larger than the noise in between.  It really 
looks to me like the cathod suddenly got hot.  Based on thermal capacities
and the heat transfer between the cathode and the electrolyte, it looks to 
me like the rise was 300 C or so.  It really looks like the electrolyte 
suddenly got hot, then slowly relaxed to the direction it was heading before
the "event".  The 300 C is cathode rise based on a much larger volume of 
electrolyte - actual electrolyte rise is a distribution of events with a 
maximum of .2 C for 60 cc of electrolyte.  Have seen larger signals with
larger cathodes.  This to me means chemistry, as I would expect a nuclear 
event to be localized, and thus not depend on cathode size.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: alberti@mudhoney.micro.umn.edu (Albatross)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: March 27 news conference
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:22:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Apr9.212237.3272
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: CIS

In <WEBB+.92Apr9145204@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) writes:
>By the way, I'm one of those True Believers you hear about.  In spite
>of it all, I'm still looking forwards to the Fleischmann-Pons cold
>fusion generator (1992 version).

Pons and Fleischmann have signed a contract with Norelco, Inc., to market this
new item under the name "Mr. Fusion".  A model capable of powering a DeLorean
will be available in late 1993.
--
Bob Alberti: Computer & Information Services U of MN   |aka: Albatross| Unitar-
Internet   : alberti@boombox.micro.umn.edu             |Metropolis BBS| ian/
Disclaimer : My employer does not mean what I say.     |(612) 721-1870| Univer-
Ingredients: 30% header, 30% quote, 10% comment, 30% cutesy signature.| salist!
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A plea for more responsible debate
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:24:55 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920401140931.23a00c21@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>            ...               Now days, by the time information gets into a 
>"proper publication" it is so old that it is "history record" and not a source
>of information.

That is not a very good excuse, nor is it true. 

My own experience is that a paper published in the Physical Review will 
appear in print, in the library, about twice as fast as if it were in a 
conference proceedings.  Typical lead times of the former are about 4-5 
months from the moment I send it off to the moment it appears in the mail. 
Less if no revisions are required, more if one has to fight the referee. 

Now that paper may be late in being _submitted_ because I was too busy 
talking about it at conferences and writing up proceedings of same, but 
that is never a very good excuse.  Conference proceedings are not as 
widely distributed as journals.  The only advantage of talking at a 
conference is that people (who are also likely to be an interested 
audience) see the work and know to look for it when it is published.

A good example.  Two talks were given at a March 1991 conference that I 
attended.  The proceedings arrived in late February 1992.  A completed 
version of one of the papers was submitted to the Phys. Rev. in October 
of 1991 and appeared in March 1992.  The full paper is 10 pages and 
contains tables and figures and discussion that makes a clearer physical 
point than the proceedings, where only 6 pages in a smaller format were 
available.  Given my time, I actually read the PR paper before looking 
back in the proceedings to see the original!  Now the other talk on a 
similar subject, given at that same conference, has still not even been 
submitted -- partly because it is based on data that were shown at a 
conference and "published" 7 years ago but have not yet made it into a 
refereed publication.  Science suffers because the latter is not uncommon. 

--
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)
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron induced fission
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:44:56 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <167C810A71.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>
>I think this may be related to the "new" work in this area from NY.

 This must be the point I missed in all this.  What work on d induced 
 fission is being referred to here?

>N. Bohr has a Phys. Rev. paper on D-induced fission in 1940.
>I'll bet that his work was done without computers and fancy models...

 I am sure he used "computers" (1940 definition, a person: himself) and the 
 same fancy model he developed and that is still used today, with some 
 important improvements to include single-particle effects.  After all, 
 Bohr could not predict the fissionable isotopes like we can today, he 
 was providing an explanation of the plausibility of such an instability. 

 As to your statement that "experiment is all there is", I can only refer 
 you to Kant: 
                Concepts without percepts are empty, 
            whereas percepts without concepts are blind.

 or Darwin: 
            How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation 
            must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service.

--
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)
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:52:20 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb @ School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University) once wrote....
>Hell, if the press conference was packed, why haven't
>there been any other stories about it?  -- J


Very good question.  If you don't believe the press conference took 
place why not ask Malov, etc.  And why not ask the press who didn't 
cover it why they didn't.


----
Please respond by e-mail as I get very far behind in reading this 
newsgroup.

         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: PacBell.COM!uunet.uu.net!syntllct!anasaz!john
Subject: Re: Heat pulses in P&F cells
Reply-To: PacBell.COM!uunet.uu.net!syntllct!anasaz!john
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 07:01:16 GMT

In article <920409175943.208004be@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> you write:
]Interpretation #2
]
]This interpretation is too bizarre to be put before the eyes of 
]skeptics.  Will send in a plain brown mail message to those who ask.  
]But this is why we keep working. 

As long as the postal inspectors (or whatever) don't arrest us for it,
please send me your plain brown mail message. Thanks.

Send to john@anasazi.com.
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inventions
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:22:23 GMT
Reply-To: comp.patents
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <NJP5iB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

   Raising the economic and social status of the inventor is the ONLY way
   we will ever compete with the Japanese.  The TI situation is good news.
   I'll be a lot more hopeful, however, when I see people like you getting 
   filthy rich and appearing on the Forbes list.

This is way off the subject of this group (so I've redirected replies
to comp.patents), but something like this happened.  There was a guy,
whose name I forget, who got the idea of putting all the components of
a microprocessor on a single chip, and applied for a patent.  For
years he's been laughed at by the makers of microprocessors, but he
was awarded a patent recently.  He negotiated a deal with Siemens (I
think), who agreed to pay him royalties and also to handle pursuing
other manufacturers for royalties on his behalf.  The Siemens deal
lone has netted him hundreds of millions of dollars.  He's plowing it
back into his own research.

-- J
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 16:46:06 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

In article <1992Apr16.123611.22389@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>
>Well this is somewhat difficult.  D2 is a molecular fluid which is not
>likely to conduct very well at all and it is difficult to try to think
>of ions which will dissolve in it as it is a highly non-polar molecule,
>being very tightly covalently bonded and made up of identical molecules.

	All true, but the electric field will induce polarization in D2 anyway
and therefore make it a better solvent. Alternatively one has to find another
gas which can act as a solvent for D2.
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science by Lawyers
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:54:22 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <199204081532.AA03791@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU> writes:
: I trust that anyone who considers endorsing the proposed legislation that
: has been posted here will read the full text carefully.  Somehow I have
: the feeling that someone is trying to pull a fast one here.  What may
: sound like a good way to get more funding for cold fusion research has
: some rather odd features tacked on that have nothing to do with cold
: fusion as we presently know it.  I call your attention to but one of
: these, the bit about selling off large quantities of 3He.  Anyone know
: who might find that to be something useful to have on the law books?
: And what do they have in mind when researchers are given access to a
: bit of the Nevada test range?

This all becomes much clearer if you stop thinking about cold fusion
and start thinking about stuff like Paul Koloc's Plasmak(TM) notions.
(Paul has been plugging his aneutronic device for years in this and
similar forums.)  Note particularly the prizes for extremely large
output from a small amount of equipment.  We're basically talking
about a fusion rocket engine, and no way are you going to do that with
cold fusion.  I can well imagine that someone like Paul might want to
get a bit of test range, along with the implied federal blessing of a
certain amount of potential messiness in the early test phases.  :-)

: NSCL         Those who have it archieved should reread D. Morrison's
:              comments on pathalogical science and political inter-
:              ference in scientific matters.

I'm sure the loyal oppostion can and will point out that the matters
they're trying to interfere with politically aren't themselves purely
scientific in nature.  They probably see it more as a big science vs.
little science thing, with the understanding that big science can't
help but be too political from the outset.  Personally, I thought the
proposed legislation was a bit whacked out (whose 3He are they going to
auction off, anyway?), but I'm not in principle opposed to giving the
little guys a break upon occasion.  $1.2G is QUITE a bunch of carrots,
though.

Still and all, if the tokomak folks are right, they'll end up claiming
those prizes themselves in another 50 years or so, so they shouldn't be
too upset--unless, of course, they're already older than about 25...

It is said that patience is a virtue.  I think it depends.

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet another suggestion for Tom Droege.
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:08:34 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

I understand graphite is very amenable to packing its crystal lattice
with foreign molecules. In fact, in previous Space-shuttle missions
it was found that graphite lost its ability to act as a lubricant
because it lost the gas from its lattice. So, if you Tom have access to
some graphite electrodes it might be interesting to try to use it instead
of palladium (and cheaper too).

Best Regards.
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inventions
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:38:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.NJP5iB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Tom Droege writes:
>In reply to Jim Bowery's comment about inventions.  Good news, Jim, the 
>rules have changed.  The Regan administration greatly changed the patent
>rules.  Now it is worth getting patents even if you suck at the government
>tit.  (sorry for being crude).
 
Amazing!  Is this just the small business exclusion (which I was already
 aware of) or does this apply to civil servants and larger contractors
as well?  What is the statute reference so I can look this up?
 
>As my technology transfer representative told me "we would like nothing 
better
>than to see our parking lot filled up with Porche's bought by inventors 
from
>their royalties."
 
>Another sign of the times.  Texas Instruments profit this year (if any) 
will
>be from royalties from the Japanese.  So in the last year I have received 
one
>patent and have four more in progress.
 
Raising the economic and social status of the inventor is the ONLY way
we will ever compete with the Japanese.  The TI situation is good news.
I'll be a lot more hopeful, however, when I see people like you getting 
filthy rich and appearing on the Forbes list.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
From: ictx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: info on D/helium-3 fusion
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:18:44 EDT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Cornell University

Hello all,
	Does anybody know of any good informational sources (textbook, research
papers, doctoral theses, etc.) containing information on Dueterium/helium-3
fusion.  Any information at all, especially that at a fairly introductory
level, would be appreciated.

		Thanks in advance,
			    	ICTX@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
				Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
				
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron induced fission
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:33:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <167C97CE1.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:

  > Sorry, I have never seen that book.  It was my understanding that there
  > were also some other Tc isotopes.  Also, how does Mo(d,p)Tc reaction differ
  > black box process of Mo + d = Tc + radiation products.  That is, if I
  > don't know the answer because I understand the nuclear physics, why isn"t
  > it just like the P&F stuff.  I have input of Molybdendum and deuterons
  > and fusion occurs.

Let me correct something: the discovery of technetium may have
involved simple neutron capture on Mo-98, with the neutrons produced
by deuterons bombardment of a (beryllium?) target in a cyclotron.
I'll have to go check the paper.  There is a nuclear reaction in which
a nucleon is stripped off a deuteron as it skims the nucleus (to be
contrasted with the usual nuclear reaction mechanism, in which the
projectile and target form a compound nucleus); this type of reaction
is covered in Segre, but I don't know if it was the one used to
discover technetium.

As for why this is not like the P&F stuff: a cyclotron is an
*accelerator*.  The deuterons are energetic, and can penetrate nuclear
potentual barriers.  This is all pretty mundane and understandable
using conventional physics.  Nuclear reactions have been done using
MeV range particles for more than half a century now.  The downside is
that simply shooting MeV range particles into a solid target can't
give a positive energy yield, since the vast majority of the particles
are stopped by electronic effects before they can collide with nuclei
(it is a useful way to make isotopes and neutrons, though).

P&F, on the other hand, posited some mysterious method of getting
very low energy (< 1 eV) deuterons to fuse.  

  >  Or is it fission since I get radiation products out
  > after the decay of the intermediate state?

Not at all.  Fission is a specific kind of nuclear reaction that
produces radioactive nuclei, but there are plenty of other nuclear
reactions that do the same.  

If you don't know the difference between fission and other nuclear
reactions, I suggest you get yourself a text on nuclear physics and
read it.  Segre is a bit advanced, but there should be others at a lower
level.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu