HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: New Think
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:46:32 GMT

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

Dieter, give me a break. What is this supposed to mean?

"The available evidence does not fit any known process, but each bit of
evidence can be believed to fit, just barely maybe, one known process; the
process varies from one set of evidence to another. The natural conclusion, if
you want to be conservative, is that there is indeed no effect at all."

Good Lord! The natural conclusion, if you want to be a scientist, is that
there is something new is going on that you don't understand. Some process or
set of processes are occuring that look sort of like know nuclear reactions,
but obviously are not quite like them. What in the world are you thinking? You
cannot throw away exerimental evidence just because it does not fit any known
model or theory! That is crazy!

You never did address my point. I said there is no fixed, exact
proportionality between heat and neutrons, or heat and tritium. I mentioned
that many people think the reason for this is that CF goes through phases. You
went off on some tangent about multiplying entities, and never came back to
earth again. Is this such a revolutionary idea? Are there not other physical
processes that manifest different charactoristics depending on circumstances
like heat, pressure, dopants and so on? You would think I have proposed that
the world was flat.

I am glad to see that Richard Blue has finally laid out his agenda:

"So where should we go form here?  Launch another multimillion dollar research
program?  I don't see that 10 million dollars or even 1 million dollars can be
well spent on cold fusion.  McKubre has plenty of funding to expand his
efforts to include a basic nuclear radiation detection system to his
experiments.  If he has a cell that is truly producing heat from a nuclear
reaction it will take only a few hours with a basic NaI gamma detector and MCA
to show that nothing is happening."

The last sentance is contradictory.

This is another, very interesting view of how science should proceed. Anything
new, or anything that does not fit the existing dogma of science is obviously
wretched heresy that must be stamped out, right? Not one one person should be
allowed to study it, because we all know it is wrong, and free inquiry -- or
God Forbid, mistakes! -- will destroy science. We must only perform
experiments that everyone agrees in advance will work. One million dollars can
not be spared to replicate the work of the Japanese. Not even one hundred
thousand. No matter how many reports come in from places like the Japanese
phone company, or Osaka University, or Hitachi -- nobody in the U.S. will be
allowed to try a single one of these experiments because we are CERTAIN that
EVERY ONE OF THEM must be wrong.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:56:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.204122.14733@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>	Probably the only isotope separation technology that should scale
>down well is laser isotope separation,  but that is still kinda blue-skyish.
>Yet,  if it could be made to work,  there is no reason why one couldn't
>build a rather small isotope separation system that might even scale to
>basement operation size.  Now,  it might take you forever to make enough

     The lasers do not scale at all.  They take up rooms the size of industrial
     plants.  And once again, you're talking about a rather large power
     drain.

>	Then again,  laser isotope separation might become very handy
>for other elements.  Diamonds that contain isotopically pure C12 have
>about an order of magnitude better heat conductivity than regular
>diamonds...  And C13 diamonds should be harder.

     This is probably not the best way to pursue C-13, C12 separation.
     It would be a mite expensive.  Usually, higher mass differential
     isotopes than U-238, U-235 are most easily separated by chemical
     means.

                              dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Subject: Re: Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 00:29:21 GMT

In article <9210081701.AA28218@anubis.network.com> logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:

>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.

If you are worried about detecting an intense burst of ionizing radiation, 
you could place a charged electroscope near the cell. An intense burst would 
collapse the leaves instantly. If they fall slowly, then either there is 
lower intensity radiation or you live in a humid climate like Florida. This
method has the advantage of being very cheap compared to dosimeters which
require a high voltage charging station.

>
>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

Posted by Kline@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepting Results at Face Value
Date: 9 Oct 1992 04:53:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) says:
>There are plenty of worthwhile ideas in ordinary controlled hot fusion that
>are certain to produce 1 billion sigmas of measurable neutrons, radiation,
>and ash, gigawatts of fusion power (and maybe some excess), that aren't
>getting funded.
>
>I would rather have people work on those first.

It doesn't take a nuclear scientist (:-)) to see that there are very real
difference in leverage between the two cases.

Fortuately this isn't an all or nothing world.  It looks to me like
cold fusion is cheap enough to research that it'll get developed without
any government money -- fitting, really.  I mean governments have nearly
a perfect track record at betting on the wrong horse.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: schow@bcarh2d8.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Help!
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:54:29 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <921007133837.204006b3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>To whom it may concern:
>
>What is a sure fire way to kill the heat output of a cell?  Please put answer
>in a plain unmarked envelope if you do not want me to know the source.  You 
>can mail it from Japan so that I don't see the Stanford post mark.  


Just in case, I hope you have put your data disks in a safe place. Hopefully
duplicated safe places.  It would be really ashame if run away cells end with
a big bang :-)     


--
Stanley Chow            InterNet: schow@BNR.CA
Bell Northern Research  UUCP:     ..!uunet!bnrgate!bqneh3!schow
(613) 763-2831
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: A ray of Hope
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:07:46 GMT

Perhaps the "hydrinos" or "N-rays" given off by the cell cause loss of 
efficiency of the thermoelectric devices.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Talking Theories
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:38:27 GMT

In article <921011024224_72240.1256_EHL55-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>Well, of course if present theory "tells us" that there must be ash, then a
>theory that denies ash is "wildly improbable under present theory." If theory
>#1 "tells us" A, and theory #2 says B, NOT A, theory #2 is wildly improbable
>under theory #1. And visa-versa.
>
>So what does that prove?
>
>
>I suggest you tell your talking theories to shut up for a while. They should
>stop "telling" you things. They should just pipe down. Talk back to them. Look
>at what the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is telling you, instead. That is how you
>make progress in science, you look at evidence first, theory next. Also, if
>there is conflict between the two, evidence always wins, and theory always
>loses.
>
>- Jed
>
From one of the old folks: Right on Baby.  That's what I quoted P.W.
Bridgman as saying.  Dieter still doesn't want to call that paper a
publication though. He may recant (nice word, eh bloke) someday.
--Dick Forman--
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: whit@milton.u.washington.edu (John Whitmore)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:05:39 GMT

In article <wJ73RB4w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:

>> Are these some of the secrets the Rosenbergs gave to the Russians,
>> for which they were executed?

>        The Rosenbergs did not give anything to the russians that 
>they did not already know.  As "Americans", our government was too 
>cocky and proud to admit that the russians were able or even 
>capable of doing something that we did.  They figured it out on 
>their own

	While it is true that the Soviet bomb effort would have
yielded results without the Rosenbergs' help, it is ALSO true
that the effort would have taken significantly more time.
Russia didn't have to back up after reaching any dead ends.
Khrushchev is very clear on this point, in his memoirs
(and Nikita Khrushchev was neither cocky nor American).

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Oxymoron
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:50:34 GMT

In article <199210060843.AA25411@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
>Re: this week's ideas on nuclear ash
>
>If Jed, or anyone, wishes to check the latest "official" position on
>CN-F, the fax number for the "secret" laboratory in Sofia Antipolis
>(France) is (33)- 93 65 38 26. Mark it attn M Fleischmann and share
>the results with Tom Droege so that some of his HEP colleagues can
>help assay for the nuclear ash (though hopefully not the ones masquerading
>as HEPs that Jed once consulted on helium at Gev energies).
>
>
Dick Forman comments: Until the reacting species have been identified
it will be impossible to identify the ash unless one is lucky enough
to have a radioactive by-product.  As I said in the paper that Dieter
archived: the first step is to identify the reactants. The soups that
are around compound the problems. Do super-clean experiments and then
see if you can get excess heat. Let's just suppose that one of the
ash products is silicon.  Unless it is not a natural silicon isotope, there is
no hope of finding such a product if the cell contains any glass. Not that
I beleive that silicon is involved, but I wanted to use the dirt from the glass
as an example.
I really see no point in trying to find out anything from F&P. They are too
confused by lawyers and are apparently still doing cookbook type work. If they
really understood the process they would be doing something different enough fo
r all of us to have heard.
It's a pity that their lawyers have not told them the meaning of the Atomic Ene
rgy Act of 1947.  When I got my patent on isotope separation, I learned that on
e.  Oh well, maybe they have different laws in France.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:29:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle @ New Mexico Tech) writes:
>especially if you can shoot one [bomb] off in some place that wouldn't
>be missed:  Detroit,  Pittsburg,  Plattsburg,  Socorro.

As a native of Pittsburgh, I object to this.  Better to shoot them
off in New Mexico ... wait, that's already been tried ;)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Subject: conservation of momentum
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  9 Oct 1992 12:28 EST  

The reaction:  p + p + e-  --> d + n~ + 1.44 MeV

of course requires conservation of momentum.  Is not the 1.44 MeV equal to 
momentum, in a sense.  i.e., no matter what the mass of the neutrino is, 
won't the d have to recoil by:  1.44 MeV/(~2 GeV) or greater?

In other words, pretend the neutrino is a photon.  The recoil of the 
nucleus from emitting a 1.44 MeV photon should be about 740 eV, right?

(OK, I'm admitting my ignorance of nuclear physics here.  Please correct me 
if I'm wrong...)


Mike Jamison
From: mike@ruc.dk (Michael Zedeler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Newly started college project
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:08:17 GMT
Organization: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Danmark

Hi everyone!

I am writing on behalf of a group of students from Roskilde University Centre
in Denmark.

We have decided to work with problems concerning the enviromental impact of
fusion power. (Mostly the Tokamak-reactor-type.)

If you are presently working with fusion power, we'd be glad to hear from you.

More letters and questions will follow>>> Michael Zedeler.

Failure is human, absolute breakdown requires a computer!
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Help!
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:55:19 GMT

Tom Droege writes:

   To whom it may concern:

   What is a sure fire way to kill the heat output of a cell?  Please
   put answer in a plain unmarked envelope if you do not want me to
   know the source.  You can mail it from Japan so that I don't see
   the Stanford post mark.

Don't you just let the electrolyte boil away? :-)

Hope you get help.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear detection offer to Henny Penny
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:57:26 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.124409.161@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
: (Doing so may also be a way to turn off the cell, if the quantum
: mechanicians on the net have their way.) 

Well, the real problem is that nobody has checked the researchers to
see if they're dead.  As soon as somebody does, the whole CF wavefunction
will collapse, one way or another.

:-)

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chemical energies
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:42:03 GMT

I was scanning the CRC HCP heat of formation tables for chemical reactions and
the most energetic chemical reactions I saw were those associated with flourine,
the hottest being a liberation of about 100 kcal/mol, which is just under 4ev
per atom.

I may have missed some that were "hotter", since it was a many page table and
an incomplete table, and I had to mentally divide the total energy by the
number of atoms in the molecule (to get the energy per atom, since multi- 
atomed molecule's kcal/mol is the sum of many atom's energy of formation.)

So compare this "hot" 4ev reaction with Droege's Pd or loaded D rates which
must be over 100ev by now, or his D2O rates which must be nearing 2ev, and
you can see that chemistry is either already out of the question, or that
Droege et al have found a way to use water as a high-power fuel.  Either
way, it is a discovery of note.
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:41:52 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

> 
>  [... description wherein Steven J Quest compares extracting Pu-239 
>       from used fuel rods and machining same into parts for a fission 
>       weapon to rebuilding his automatic transmission deleted ...]
> 
>  heh heh heh
> 
>  Can you spell R-A-D-I-A-T-I-O-N ?
> 
>  There is a difference between the technical difficulty of certain steps 
>  in a procedure and the difficulty of doing something very dangerous on 
>  an industrial scale.
> 

Jim,

        I take it that you are suggesting that plutonium in any 
state is so radioactive that I can not hold it in my hand?  Well, 
I have handled and measured transuranium elements (of course in a 
glovebox) but with no more protection than that.

        For some reason (a few) people believe that radioactive 
elements are dangerous OUTSIDE of the body.  This is just not 
true.  One can handle PU239 in large quantities with only minimal 
radiation exposure.  There are no neutrons, only massive alpha 
(which do not pass through your skin) beta, and gamma (which are 
the bad boys).  Take this little fact for example, reactor cores 
are loaded and unloaded BY HAND, and you can prove this to 
yourself by reading any encyclopedia article about nuclear 
reactors.  They often show a picture of people working in the 
core.  Only during fission is the radiation intense enough to kill 
you- but even then it takes more than just a brief exposure.

        Contrary to popular opinion, it is very conceivable that 
someone can and maybe someday will build a nuke with indigenous 
materials and imported fissile elements.............sq
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: How many sigma can dance on the head of a pin?
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:36:31 GMT

Just used the nice procedure sent by Topher Cooper and the previous data 
to calculate sigma for the experiment.

I used the 7, 10, and 11 Sept points as the calibration.  One can argue that
the 10 and 11 Sept. points should not be used.  I am open to debate.  I like
them because they are points taken at exactly the same operating point as 
later shows heat.  

So if these points are used for the calibration experiment, and the rest of 
the points are used for the experiment, then we get

sigma = 361

If I use another calibration point of 0.0008 taken September 3 I get:

sigma = 450

Use the 2 Oct posting for data, and the extra Sept 3 point if you like, and 
compute your own sigma. 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the problem is to get the darn thing to turn 
off.  I will run for a while here, then start injecting stuff.  I think I 
will stop at the drug store on the way home for some boric acid.  But first
to disolve some aluminum foil in some left over electrolyte.  No need for 
a clean controlled experiment at this point, what I need now is for it to 
turn off or blow up.  Either will do nicely.  I always get the calibration
point after the cell is opened and removed.  But I cannot claim as much
accuracy for it. 

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Net Slow Down Explained
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:50:59 GMT

Many comments have come back to me that indicate it is taking longer than usual
for messages to get aroung.

What did you all expect.  With all that bomb stuff, the net is probably 
the best "jobs" program in recent history for the CIA and the NSA.  Lets
send the bomb stuff somewhere else and get this media back to high speed
operation.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Subject: For Tom Droege - doctoring the floppies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:37:33 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town
Keywords: tom data analysis floppies

For T. Droege. 

Sorry, Guys - I tried to email this but obviously I don't understand fnald's 
mailing protocol.  

O.K. - if you want this data analysed, send me a couple of your disks which 
are unimportant, along with a description of the parameters, format, some 
ideas of what you want graphed/plotted, any 2-d plots of one variable 
against the other, etc.  I'll see how easy/hard it is to convert your disks 
to the required format and if it's viable, I volunteer to do some data 
processing.  Though it might be only at the end of the year, when the 
undergrads are gone. (I'll do the preliminary tests immediately.) I'm afraid 
I only know how to work IBM clones, though, although we do have a couple of 
Archimedeses around. My snail address is:

Colin Henderson
Physics Department
University of Cape Town
Private Bag
Rondebosch
7700
Cape
South Africa.

Otherwise, I suppose a sample can be emailed.

I hope you get some good results with SEJ.

p.s. XSYS is a data reduction/collection/analysis package for modest scale 
nuclear physics experiments. I think it comes from TRIUMF originally.

4004 Westbrook Mall
Vancouver, B.C.
Canada
V6T 2A3
--

Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.