HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: RE: The Notoya Demo
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:26:57 GMT


Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu

>The following measurements were recorded by David Buehler (BYU graduate
>student) on the Notoya cells.  I post these to meet the request by D. Britz,
>without comment.
>Cell with Ni cathode AND control cell with resistor, initially:
>3.4 volts,  0.6 amps.
>Buehler moved alligator clip from power supply about 5 cm closer to the cell
>on very thin lead entering the control cell, result:
>3.0 volts,  0.6 amps (constant current supply).
>... One more item, the wires entering the
>Ni cell were nearly the thickness of a dime (U.S.), while the wires entering
>the control cell were much thinner (one was very fine).

I assume the thickness, not the diameter, of a nickel is meant {:].
Anyhow, here some back-of-the-envelope stuff: The resistivity of Ag is 1.6E-08
ohm.m. We now know that this lead was 5 cm, and the voltage drop along it was
0.4 V, for a current of 0.6 A. I.e. 5 cm had a resistance of 0.7 ohm, roughly.
I make that a diameter of about 40 micrometers, truly a fine wire. Such a fine
wire is not easy to solder on without melting it through. My suspicions are
reinforced, this looks like a bit of sleight of hand.
If I were to try my hand at this sort of thing, I wouldn't use such an obvious
device as an ultra-thin lead. Much better to have two apparently identical
cells, both fed with the identical input power, but having different heat
conduction constants. Much harder to detect. Or, one cell has a recombiner in
it, the other doesn't. Anybody with more ideas?
 I understand from Jed Rothwell's posting, that this very same demo will be
on show in a couple of places in the USA, such as at MIT? I hope this net will
have a mole there, with a meter in his/her pocket. Take a good look, please,
and tell us all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Moishe Garfinkle <GARFINKM@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Fusion Digest 562
Reply-To: Moishe Garfinkle <GARFINKM@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:33:39 GMT

>Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
>Originally-From: Moishe Garfinkle <GARFINKM@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU>:
>
>>ION IMPLANTATION AS A DEFINITIVE MEANS OF INVESTIGATING ANY POSSIBILITY OF
>>INTRACRYSTALLINE NUCLEAR FUSION;  Moishe Garfinkle;  Drexel University
>>FUSION TECHNOLOGY v22;(Aug 1992)p 160
>
>Moishe, you seem concerned that this gets overlooked. Be assured that it is
>not; your paper was included in the bibliography some weeks ago, and was also
>presented on this list among some other updates. You have not been ignored. I
>must also say, however, that you were not the first with this idea. There are
>something like 10-15 papers in the bibliography, describing ion implantation,
>including USA, French, Russian, Danish and perhaps other workers. One team
>reckoned they achieved a local d/Pd loading as high as 9.  None of this helped
>anybody, though, no hitherto unknown nuclear processes were unveiled, only
>well known old self-targeting effects - most people neglect to turn off the
>ion beam before measuring neutrons or whatever they measure.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter, I was only concerned because I neglected to include "cold fusion"
among the key words assigned to the article.  Glad you found it.
I don't wish the main point of thr article to be lost.  Neutron detection
or anomolous heat can be misconstrued, and in fact be misleading.  Only
a detection of the products of reaction in situ and directly would be
unambiguous.  That is the point I am trying to make, and apparantly from
other comments I have largely failed.  The device proposed is solely
for this purpose:  A means of unambiguous detection, if cold fusion is a
reality.  The jury is still out!
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wrong Spirit
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:16:27 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <921111031513_72240.1256_EHL22-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> [...] let me share some additional thoughts [...]
> I will leave out the technical details; [...]

Not to start a flame-war, but there is regretably too much of this
going on in cold fusion research. Technical details should be the
*only* relevant topic of conversation. Personality issues should be
left for observers to see who makes a fool of themselves.

> The "skeptics" refuse to allow us to publish anything! They refuse to look at
> the experiments. *They* are running and hiding, not us.

Where have I heard this before?
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Subject: Re: Missing Oxygen
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:34:45 GMT

From article <921106162911.208010ce@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE:
...
> This leaves us with no good way to measure the cathode loading.  I think 
> the resistance is not well known - or even meaningful at high loadings.  
> Expansion of the cathode is hard to do, and depends on the shape of the
> cathode.  I cannot imagine how to weigh the cathode while it is under 
> electrolysis.  I have all along assumed that a cell can not be turned off 
> and the cathode removed and weighed.  It it is, then at least sometimes 
> a lot of gas is lost.  So what to do????

An in situ load cell?  You would still need to either drain the
electrolyte and replace it with "inert" gas or fresh electrolyte of
known s.g, or determine the s.g. of what is in there already - a good
old fashioned battery hydrometer, perchance :-)

Allan Duncan		ACSnet	 a.duncan@trl.oz
(+613) 253 6708		Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au
Fax    253 6664		UUCP	 {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan
    Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: The Notoya Cells
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:34:50 GMT

OK, now I get it.  They started with both cells at 3.4 volts and 0.6 amps.
It sems to me that the control cell should have been adjusted to the same 
input power.  2.57 volts and .72 amps gives a control cell resistance of
3.57 ohms.  3.4 volts and .6 amps of the test cell gives a power of 2.04 
watts.  To put the same power into the control cell, they would have had
to set the voltage to 2.7 volts, at which point the current would have 
been 0.756 amps.  But the current was not readjusted enough.  So they were
puttin 2.04 watts into the test cell but only 1.85 watts into the control
cell.  I believe that the test cell was warmer.  

What bothers me about all the cell pictures that I have seen, is that I only
see two leads on the cell.  It is impossible to make a good measurement 
without 4 leads on the cell.  It is important that they be attached correctly.
The potential leads must be on the cell side of the current leads.  This 
includes the P&F pictures which always seem to have only two clip leads.  

I recommend an "A" for David Buehler in field science.  But he will more 
likely be grades on how neatly he writes up his report, or whether he states
his premise correctly.  

Tom Droege
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Notorious Notoya Demonstration
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:15:36 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

We have repeated Notoya's demonstration of excess heat performed before
the world at the Nagoya, Japan meeting in October 1992, based on data from
this demo. garnered at the meeting by BYU graduate student David Buehler.
We find that a temperature difference between cells of approximately 10 C
is readily obtained, with the "control cell" being cooler.
But the heat is not nuclear.
Here are the data from the Nagoya demo:
Control cell, initially: 3.4 V at 0.61 amps, so total R = 5.57 ohms (+ or -).
The "nuclear" cell with nickel anode ran at approx. the same voltage and I.

Then Buehler pointed out to Nagoya that the wires leading into the the 
resistance wire in the control cell were much thinner than the (dime-thickness)
wires leading into the Ni cell.  In fact, one wire going into the control cell
was hair-thin by my observation.  She obliged him by moving the alligator clips
from the power supply for the control up each wire some 10-15 cm so that the
clips were now close to the entry points of these wires going into the cell.
Buehler recorded the new conditions:  2.57 volts with 0.72 amps, so total
R (in cell) = 3.57 ohms.  Thus, the thin leads going into the control cell
contributed 5.57-3.57 = 2.0 ohms to the resistance of this "control".  We see
that 2.0/5.57 = 36% of the heat of the control was dissipated into the air!
David reports further that the f
fine wire going into the control cell was perceptibly warm to the touch.
With approx. 1 mm diameter wires leading into the nickel cell, with approx.
5.6 ohms resistance in the electrolysis cell, nearly all the heat here was
dissipated in the (light) water electrolyte.  It registered about 10 C warmer
each time I checked it.
But can these conditions sustain a 10 C temp difference between "nuclear" and
control cells?  We have performed an experiment to find out, today.
We set up two graduated cylinders with 32 ml H2O in each.  In one, we inserted
a resistor of 6.2 ohms.  In the other, we placed a 3.8 ohm resistance in the
water and a 2.3 ohm resistance in the air.  Control cell at 3.42 V, 0.56 A,
1.92 watts with 0.72 watts dissipated in the air and 1.20 watts in the water,
approximating closely the conditions of the Notoya control cell.  Other cell
at 3.37V, 0.54 A, 1.8 watts, essentially all dissipated into the water.
After one hour of running, the temperatures were 46 C in test cell and 36 C
in control.  After 2h 50 m, 46.5 C and 36.5 C respectively.  Thus, a 10 C
difference was maintained.
These conditions and results correspond closely to those of the Notoya
demonstration and show that the excess heat, supposedly nuclear in origin,
can be explained in terms of Joule heating differences.
Respectfully,
Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Subject: Hypothesis on Pd micro-cracks and time-varying loading
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 13 Nov 1992 10:15 EST  

At high loading, Tom Droege sees the Pd/D loading oscillate over time.  
Does it make sense to assume that this is due to the formation of micro-
cracks in the Pd itself.  In other words:

Loading increases to a certain critical point in a section of Pd.  The Pd 
fractures due to stress.  The D that was contained there is then able to 
escape from the Pd.

Repeat above cycle for different physical locations in the Pd.

When the Pd surface is at first highly polished, does it become less 
polished during electrolysis (I thought this was mentioned, somewhere).

If so, surface cracking could be the explanation.

I may be regurgitating something that's been posted before.  If so, I'm 
sorry about that.


Mike Jamison
From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hi resistance wire
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:51:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: sail.12886
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <9211130554.AA07264@anubis.network.com> logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>Since all the other angles have been beat to death on the Notoya demo,
>I'll focus on the apparent wire resistance, which seems excessively
........
>Dr. Jones first claimed that a section of about 5cm of the wire dropped 0.4v
>at 0.61A, ergo 0.66 ohms.  That's almost 4 ohms per foot.
.........
>Tom Droege said he heard 36 gauge wire, but in both copper and silver, such
>resistance per foot is 0.4 ohms, 1/10 of the Buehler experimental value.


If you put .66 amps into a # 36 copper or silver wire, its temperature
will rise dramatically, and so will its resistance.  I would not be
surprised by an increase of an order of magnitude.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Hi resistance wire
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:26:33 GMT

Since all the other angles have been beat to death on the Notoya demo,
I'll focus on the apparent wire resistance, which seems excessively
high.

Dr. Jones first claimed that a section of about 5cm of the wire dropped 0.4v
at 0.61A, ergo 0.66 ohms.  That's almost 4 ohms per foot.

Then he claimed a 10-15 cm section was approx 2 ohms, which again is on
the order of 4 ohms per foot.

Since these numbers "scale" with wire length, it is unlikely that clip
contact resistance is a significant contributor.  (Plus I just tried a couple
of dirty gunky alligator clips at home and I consistenly got connections under
1/4 ohm (or as low as I could resolve on my meter.))

Tom Droege said he heard 36 gauge wire, but in both copper and silver, such
resistance per foot is 0.4 ohms, 1/10 of the Buehler experimental value.

Gauge 38 platinum wire would have about 4 ohms per foot.  You'd have to go
to about gauge 46 copper or silver wire to get 4 ohms per foot.  But then
at 700ma you are probably exceeding the fusing current of such small wire.

Gauge 28 nichrome wire would also have about 4 ohms per foot.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Mail
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:10:59 GMT

Somehow I managed to completely mess up my mail directory.  So if you have
sent something that required a reply, I may not have received it.  It was 
some sort of directory cancer that tried to fill all available space on the
disk.

Tom Droege
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D absorption by various metals
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:57:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Does anyone have information on the loading achievable for Ni and Ti?

How are these metals most efficiently loaded with D?  (The posts I've seen 
dealing with loading Ti suggest that electrolysis isn't used).

Thanks in advance.

Mike Jamison
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Yellow crud anomalous heat
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:30:07 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:

>Given that the yellow crud density is between 1 and 10

I concur that a specific gravity of 10 represents a good upper limit
(next time, weight it, heh heh.)

>I estimate that this contributed of order 100 micro-watts to the
>anomalous heat.

At an estimated 10 grams with a molecular weight of 299, I get 1/30th of
a mole, or 2E22 molecules.  At the 1eV per molecule in my previous
estimate, that comes out to 2E22 eV, or 1250 Joules.  Over 4 million
seconds, that is 310 microwatts.

However, as an editorial aside, I see no reason to believe that the power
comes out at a constant rate, given your own observations of shifting
centers of recombination, leading to who knows what changes in the rates
of formation of PtO2.4H2O

Also add a +/- factor of 10 to my original energy estimates, I did guess
a lot.


- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahasi's Heat?
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:35:53 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: fennel.cc.uwa.edu.au


One thing that sort of perplexes me about the reports on the Nagoya conference
is the lack of commentary on the XS heat results of A. Takahashi. You might
remember that this experiment caused a very big stir because the amount of
excess heat was very large (up to 200% I think) and there were reports
of replications done elsewhere. Takahashi's results were also a major factor in
convincing MITI to start a cold fusion program. Given all this, I expected
that Takahashi's XS heat claims would be an important result of the conference
but, in Jed's summary, only his results with deuteron beams are mentioned. My
suspicions were further raised when I read in _Fusion Facts_ that Takahashi
(at another conference prior to Nagoya) was now claiming 20% heat i.e. down
by an order of magnitude from the initial claim. Maybe Jed could give a status
report on the Takahashi work and the CFRA experiment. I might be dead wrong
but I get the feeling that this is another big result that is starting to
fizzle and that people are looking for other bandwagons to jump on.

---
Todd
From: fusion@zorch.ogi.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Missing Oxygen
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:13:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: FNALD.921106162911.208010ce
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to John Logajan for explaining the missing oxygen.  Looks like the
formation of Hexahydroxoplatinic acid consumes oxygen.  That is pretty well 
what I see.  When I run with excess oxygen in the cell - what happens if 
nothing special is done - there is early in the run excess gas accumulated 
which matches the expected absorption of D2 by the cathode.  So immediately
after charging, there is excess gas (oxygen).  This then slowly disappears 
over time ast the "yellow crud" (easier to type out than you know what) is
formed.  

This leaves us with no good way to measure the cathode loading.  I think 
the resistance is not well known - or even meaningful at high loadings.  
Expansion of the cathode is hard to do, and depends on the shape of the
cathode.  I cannot imagine how to weigh the cathode while it is under 
electrolysis.  I have all along assumed that a cell can not be turned off 
and the cathode removed and weighed.  It it is, then at least sometimes 
a lot of gas is lost.  So what to do????

Thanks again to John.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Subject: New Scientist: Lukewarm reception for Japanese cold fusion
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:02:52 GMT

New Scientist, 31 October 1992, page 10, has a short article on
Yamaguchi of NTT's result as reported at the Third ICCF.  He takes a
palladium plate 30 mm square and 1 mm thick, one side coated with
palladium oxide.  It is placed inside a chamber which is evacuated
then filled with deuterium and heated.  Yamaguchi claims it absorbs
760 times its own weight of deuterium.  The other side is then coated
with gold and reheated in a vacuum.  Two or three hours later he
observes atoms of He-4.  The temperature of the plate rises by 100
degrees C.

Yamaguchi claims the palladium atoms fuse as they migrate towards the
palladium oxide.  One critic at the conference claimed the He-4
probably came from the glass in the apparatus.

NTT has repeated the experiment five times.

David Williams, head of the department of chemistry at University
College London, suggests the rise in temperature came from oxidation
of the deuterium, and the He-4 came from the glass.

-- J
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Jones @ Kamiokande III
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:52:40 GMT

I have some difficulties with the neutron rate numbers given by S. Jones
in his recently posted summary of their experiments at Kamiokande.  First
off there are the random neutron emission rate numbers:  "detectable
limit for random neutron emission of 10^-4 neutrons per second."  I take
that to mean roughly that is the background rate and essentially nothing
was seen that was significantly different from background.  Clear enough.
But then we have the statement in the initial summary that there were
some bursts at a rate of 0.06 bursts per hour and a maximum multiplicity
of 4 and later there is a statement of 9 bursts with maximum multiplicity
4 in a run of 387 hours.  I think 0.06 bursts per hour computes to be
less than 2 X 10^-5 events per second so the crux of the matter is whether
"bursts" can be detected in a random neutron background of a comparable
rate.  I think some fancy statistical foot work may come into play here,
but that is not really of much concern to me.  I would like to draw out
some more information on the character of these bursts.  I would guess that
by definition a burst involves the detection of 2 or more neutrons within
some preset time interval.  If we are talking about 9 events with a maximum
multiplicity of 4 I would be curious to know the multiplicity distribution.
As a guess, perhaps it is 7 twos, 1 three, and 1 four.

In so far as it relates of cold fusion, I believe Jone's assertion is that
these burst events occur only for a given type of cell containing D2O and
do not occur when the D2O is replaced by H2O.  It would also seem that
this type of event could be expected to be associated with residual 
radioactive impurities, and that D20, through photofission, can enhance
the probability for multiple neutron events in a way that H2O would not
duplicate.  Furthermore I have no strong sense that multineutron events
should provide a better signiture for the occurance of cold fusion than
does the singles neutron rate.  What this experiment does show without
question is that some previously obtained higher event rates have not
been confirmed .

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Here We Go Again
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:32:28 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

From article <921102190826.20a02eab@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE:
... 
> Meanwhile, I have been more successful than I would have liked in the water 
> machine work.  The company wants me to drop everything and make water machines.

I missed this - could someone enlighten me?
Allan Duncan		ACSnet	 a.duncan@trl.oz
(+613) 253 6708		Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au
Fax    253 6664		UUCP	 {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan
    Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Notoya Demo
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:50:36 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

In previous posting about the Notoya demonstration, I said "Then Buehler
pointed out to Nagoya..."  Of course, David pointed this out to Professor
Notoya, not Nagoya.  Prof. Notoya is at the University of Hokkaido, and
this work was front page news in two Japanese newspapers that I know of, in
recent weeks.  I think these excess heat claims were also cited in J. Wall
Street.
--Steven Jones