HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:11:42 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Oct6.151921.155@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>
>Thanks for the feedback.
>The suggestion of Dietz that a neutrino may carry off the energy seems to
>violate the criterion that the crucial experiment be conducted with  heat
>producing cells, since the neutrino will not deposit energy in a cell.  The
>same problem exists for other highly penetrating radiations, such as GeV-energy
>particles and high-energy gammas:  how can these deposit enough power in a cell
>without producing copious secondary x-rays?
>The suggestion that a massive charged particle picks up most of the energy
>seems to be ruled out by the need for momentum conservation:  the lighter
>particle carries most of the kinetic energy.
>To Logajan I would point out that (to my knowledge) no experiment to look at
>x-ray spectra has yet been performed with a cell that is claimed to be
>producing excess power at the time.  I would not presuppose the results of such
>an experiment.  However, I would like to see such an experiment done since if
>the heat is indeed nuclear, then I have argued that secondary x-rays must be
>present.
>Further efforts to shoot holes in my argument are welcomed.
>Steven E. Jones
>Brigham Young University
>
Hard experiment to design as combining the calorimeter with an x-ray window
means using Be or thin aluminized mylar. I would suggest the thin aluminized
mylar approach.  See paper by Charles E. Bouldin and others in RSI and
where for designs that could be made to work for this purpose. Those cells
were used for other types or x-ray work at CHESS, SSRL, and NSLS.
 
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,sci.physics
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:44:11 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <DawFsB3w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>
>        We refuse to give the Soviets credit for elements 104 
>through 106 (I believe) and if I remember correctly, we have 
>proposed OUR OWN AMERICAN names for these elements should we one 
>day "catch up" and synthesize them ourselves (this may have 
>already taken place however).  American equates with ego, 
>something that is very very hard to swallow..............sq

Catch up and finally make them.  Really rich.  FYI there are 10 isotopes 
of Rf(104), 10 more of Ha(105), and 5 isotopes of 106 known well enough 
to get mass and lifetime entries in the 7/92 nuclear wallet cards.  
People have done chemistry on the longer-lived (several seconds) ones. 

Discovery of an element is more than making a report or publishing a 
paper, although both contribute to priority.  What matters is that the 
properties in those reports stand up to later scrutiny as more measurements 
are made at other labs.  Confirmation is essential before the results 
are accepted as official and names handed out. 

What I like about your post is that you are still so centered on american 
versus soviet issues that you completely ignore the european role.  There 
are many fine labs in europe, which spends more on nuclear physics than 
the US by several different measures.  And since when was Mendeleev (or 
Curie or Einstein or Fermi or Nobel or Rutherford or Hahn or Meitner) an 
AMERICAN name?  Only Bk, Cf, Lr and Am fit that description.   

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: "MICHAEL MORRISON" <mmorrison@gmuvax.gmu.edu>
Subject: RE: Fusion Digest 541
Reply-To: "MICHAEL MORRISON" <mmorrison@gmuvax.gmu.edu>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:25:16 GMT

Dear Group:
	I must admit that I have not been keeping up with the postings on the
list because... well there are sooooo many of them and I find that I have
to scan for hours before I find anything I A| understand and B| interests me.
	Is there anyone there who would be kind enough to provide a short
but informative summary of the advances in fusion technology in the past ...
oh.. six months or so.. so that a layman like myself might understand?
	Thanks in advance!
	Michael Morrison

P.S. if you would be good enough to send it to my address directly with the
title - Hey Mike - Fusion... or something like that as I get a lot of stuff
and sometimes erase it witout knowing what's inside.... thanks
From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathway Question
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:42:21 GMT
Reply-To: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <1992Oct1.005424.20730@ns.network.com>,
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
|>clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
|>>Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:
|>>
|>>D + D -> T + P + energy
|>

Actually, this reaction has a 50% branching ratio. So you would expect
to see equal numbers of 3He and T in the reaction products (unless you
invoke some exotic reaction).

|>I make the total energy to be about 3.84 Mev, with about 0.96 Mev's going
|>into the T and 2.88 Mev's going into the P.

Well, just to split hairs. I have:
D + D -> T(1.01MeV) + p(3.02MeV)

These are from the plasma formulary rev. 1990. Logajan what source are
you using? (Of course we probably needn't worry about 5% descrepencies
when we see no products at all.)


As others have noted, such T's should not go unnoticed by properly
designed experiments. T's decay fairly rapidly. More than 1E11 such
reactions will have to occur before you get 1 Joule of heat (remember
folks, 1 Joule = 6.2 E18 eV). Therefore, unless your calorimeter leaks
badly, you should measure several Tritium decays each second. It is
for this reason that exotic mechanisms must be invoked. If the reactions
were the ordinary ones, then you should see alot of reactants. Of course,
in my opinion, none of these "alternative" reaction ideas have much
credibility at this time. They are cooked up to "explain" cold-fusion.
They need to also predict some experimental fact.        

john w. cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu
From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My fantastic imagination again
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:45:32 GMT
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

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

Jon Webb writes:

"Jed, I understand that your background is not in science, so you probably don't
know this, but the Japanese will never do this, either. The trick in science is
to find a neat, simple experiment that measures a few things and demonstrates
or refutes a theory.  Setting up an experiment that measures everything you can
think of is never done..."

I am not sure whether Jon is being patronizing, or whether he is praising my
vivid imagination; my ability to dream up wild, unlikely scientific projects.
I shall assume the latter, and I must respond: you give me far too much credit
for these ideas, Jon. I am not so imaginative, and I am certainly not the first
person to propose such a project. In fact, it is entirely possible that I know
people who are actually doing things like this, and others who are getting ready
to.

The experiment I proposed does not measure "everything" I can think of. Not by
a long shot. I did not even mention Pd loading, for example. I mentioned
measuring three main parameters in real time: the chemical composition of the
gas and electrolyte; various high energy particles; and of course, heat, since
you never can tell whether you have an intense CF reaction or not unless you
look for heat. 

This proposal is not a radical or new approach to science. When you do not know
what you are looking for, it is common practice to do a wide ranging experiment
that looks in several places at once, rather than to second guess Mother Nature
about where she is hiding her secrets. Before dreaming up one theory after
another, it is common practice to do some broad, basic research, gather some
data, and to describe what is happening. The way to fit a jigswaw puzzle
together is take the pieces out of the box first, and arrange them on the table
for all to see.

I know of DOZENS and DOZENS of scientific projects and experiments that are far
more complex than the one I just outlined. So I think your statement was rather
silly. I also think you don't know enough about my "background" to make any firm
judgement about my ability, or my knowledge of what kind of experiments are
possible, or indeed, my knowledge of what kind are now underway. I think you
have stepped out of line, and I am always happy to show people where the line
forms: Nagoya, Japan, in two weeks.

- Jed
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The value of failed experiments
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:26:07 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

I am mostly one of the silent majority of this group that only read the
group but I thought this might be inspirational or at least informative
to the scientists here.

As an engineer, I've been asked annually to be a science fair judge at
the local public school systems at all levels (3-12).  When judging we
have been repeatedly given instructions to grade 'experiments' higher
then 'research projects'.  When talking to the students, frequently
they will hide any data from us that is contrary to what they decided
was the correct answer.  That is they are conducting an experiment
with a set answer in mind.  If the experimental results are not what
they expected, they will redo the experment, doctor the results, or
flat-out forge data and lie to the judges and their teachers.

Almost none of the students are aware that even experiments that are
negative or have surprise results are still valid/good/important
experiments.  I don't know whether this is a fault of the American
school system or a fault of Americans in general.  Anyway, I think
that Tom's results must be taken in stride and the experiment must
go on.  I too think that this is a very important contribution to the
scientific community (plus how am I going to know when to start buting
Palladium [Titanium, Nickel, or whatever] :) ).

Just the ramblings of an interested observer,



-- 

   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...         | Beatles:
              |    and a minute is a LONG time!            |   Yellow Submarine
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2404 sci.physics:16173
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:01:51 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <R373RB5w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>
   ... regarding Steinn Sigurdsson's comments about the apparent 
       subtlety in the design of a fusion bomb ...

>        Why must everyone make everything overly complex!  ;)
>
>        We as scientists designed the H-bomb back in the fifties, 
>before the advent of transistors, before the advent of IC's, 
>before the advent of the 8088 processor and WAY before the advent 
>of the 80486.

But not before the advent of computers.  One of the LANL news magazines 
had a story about the MANIAC and the earlier machines used to do the 
necessary compututations.  I think that article said that one of the 
early calculations for the "super" required about a billion operations.  
They were willing to wait a few months to get the answer. 

>        The actual design of the bomb is simple as I have 
>previously stated.  The only complexity is the procurement of the 
>spent fuel for the jacket, the plutonium for the fissionable core 
>and the tritium for the fusible fuel. 

I liked your design.  I think that is what I came up with when I 
was about 10 years old.  I doubt that it took years of puzzlement 
by brilliant men to invent it, and I doubt that equally smart 
physicists would admit surprise at its invention.  All of this is 
quite clear from the public record related to the debate concerning 
whether we should procede with a program to develop the "super". 

>                                       Given the simplicity of 
>reactor design, I for one am suprised that nobody has ever built a 
>small enrichment chamber, enriching natural uranium as 
>hexafluoride gas, and then using this 235 enriched uranium, built 
>a small reactor to breed plutonium for a bomb.  Natural uranium 
>238 absorbs neutrons as well as being split by them- resulting in 
>plutonium 239, which can be extracted chemically.  This plutonium 
>could then be used to build a bomb, or as the core bomb to a much 
>bigger fusion bomb.

Now I begin to question your sincerity.  People have done this. 
Quite a few, in quite a few different places.  And in each case, 
they were able to make simple order-of-magnitude estimates of 
exactly how big a "basement" or "back yard" they needed to do this 
work, especially the enrichment of U-235 and chemical separation 
of Pu-239.  I suggest you do the same.  If your answer does not 
come out to be about the size of a small town  ;-)  try again. 

--
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)
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2419 sci.physics:16221
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:50:27 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: In article <1992Oct7.201848.5499@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
: >>        I am actually suprised that nobody has built a "back-yard" 
: >>nuke in their basement for "neighborhood nuclear 
: >>superiority"....sq
: >
: >	This would actually be a pretty amusing home project.  Get several tons
: >of natural uranium.  Process it into uranium hexaflouride and hope that you
: >don't spill any nasty chemicals.  Probably would do much better using laser
: 
: (additional humorous and insightful discussion about how "easy" it is
: to build a nuclear bomb.)
: 
: Don't forget that the entire point here was to build a _fusion_ weapon
: and the claim was that it was easy. Even after you've gotten the nuclear
: fuel the rest of it makes this portion look like child's play. Contrary
: to what some people think, the accuracy of some of the _details_ is beyond
: what most _countries_ are able to produce.

I think there are two issues.  There is an enormous engineering and
capital investment needed to build both fission and fusion bombs.  I
know that and I'm not interested in its details.

For fusion bombs, specifically and not fission bombs, there are apparently
very unobvious physical principles and effects that do sound interesting,
and worthy of speculation on the net.

In both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. there are *physicists* who are called
the "fathers" of the hydrogen-bomb (i.e. Ulam & Teller, and Sakharov).

For the fission bomb, many physicists worked on calculating the details,
but the fundmental physics and principles were basic knowledge to all,
and so there isn't any one single "discoverer".

That's what of interest here.  Knowing what really goes on is good for
controlled fusion as well.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Studying Calibration Problems
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:00:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1bims2INN86j
Reply-To: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE () says:
>I did pet the cat a lot.  

But does he know he is a neutron density monitor? :-)

>If you act on my preliminary results you do so at your own risk.

Cost me about $100 in chemicals the last time you had a preliminary
verfication of Mills. :-)  Between the time I sent for the nickel
plating stuff and the time I received it, you'd already gone null.
Kinda took the fun out of waiting for mail-order packages. :-)

I've decided being a theorist is cheaper. :-)

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:01:02 GMT

Droege reports bursts (a common phenomena in CF, apparently.)  Droege tells
of several minutes long bursts reaching several hundred milliwatts at peak.

But Droege is seeing heat through the lense of thermal-mechanical low pass
filters.  If the source of the heat is more intense but shorter lived, it
is likely unseen as such at Droege's thermometers.

For instance, a 200 mw burst for 2 minutes could just as easily have been
created by a source event that ran at 400mw for 1 minute or 24w for 1
second, or 24 MegaWatts for one micro-second, or 24 GigaWatts for one
pico-second.

As the time gets shorter, the event gets hotter.

This has implications for detection.

My Geiger counter cannot distinquish multiple events happening within a
short period of time.  I don't have the specs of it handy, but let's say
that two events within less than 1/100th of a second will register as
one "click."

If these high energy bursts are shorter than 1/100th of a second, no matter
how radioactively intense they are, I get but one click out of my Geiger
counter -- not much to go on when it tends to click about 10-20 times
a minute from background radiation.

I don't completely understand dosiometers (or know how to spell it) but
I'd get a couple and place them around the active test cell.

Short bursts might also generate EM pulses.

How about neutron counters.  Suppose it gets a blast of neutrons lasting
a few pico-seconds.  Does it count just one?  Or can it count the trillions
that have flashed by in the pico-second wide burst?


- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aspect aspect
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:15:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlabs.1992Oct7.181500.20651
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

I can't help but think that if Terry is right and this is some kind of
macroscopic quantum mechanical sort of thing, the attempt to observe
nuclear ash might preclude the production of heat.  Hmm.  Is the
observation of heat a real observation in the QM sense, or is entropy
somehow priviledged, like in black holes?  Can one cheat by measuring
the temperature of Shroedinger's Cat's Box?  Does the universe observe
black bodies without our help?  If a tree falls in the forest and...

Oh, never mind.

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Columbus didn't know where he was either :-)
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:59:07 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>So I must conclude that there was no anomalous heat.

The problem must be more systemic than power failures circa Sept 17, since
you indicated previously that you saw similar signatures in data going 
back to 1989.

>Sorry, everybody, I really thought that the experiment was going as indicated.

We knew what we were getting into when we took up your invitation to look 
over your shoulder as you did your lab work.


- 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: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:12:14 GMT

In article <isgksB4w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>        True, Curie, Einstein, Fermi, and Nobel were not native to 
>the United states, they were not born here- but they CAME here to 
>do their research and to become great. 

Pierre and Marie Curie did the research work for which they are known
in France.  I don't think either of them ever visited the U.S.  Nobel
was Swedish and did all of his work on explosives in Sweden; hence the
prizes given in his name are given in Sweden; I don't think that he ever
visited the U.S. but I could be wrong about that.  Einstein had most of
hist career behind him when he came to the U.S.   Fermi was eminent,
and had I think already done the work for which he received his
Nobel prize when he came to the U.S.
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lawson criteria
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:06:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

John McCauly (sp?) laments about the amount of paperwork generated in the 
definition/design of fusion research reactors.  Well, John, if you gathered 
all the paperwork generated by Space Station Freedom's design and *refined* 
it get all the trace radioactive contaminants, you could run a small town 
for years from the fissionable materials.

The other 99.999999999% could be used to power the rest of the world's 
converted coal fired plants for another century or so (this must be where 
they get the "there'll be a shortage in another [fill in your favorite 
number] of years").

Mike Jamison