HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Yes folks, they said Gev
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:01:27 GMT

Hi again,

In article <920818123150.2080127a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:

> Yes, folks, they are proposing matter-antimatter annihilation.  I did not
> type all those zeros because the repeat key got stuck.

Well, let's be slightly more accurate:  Because they are starting entirely
with *ordinary* matter, what they are really proposing is what is called
baryon violation -- that is, that under certain circumstances the protons
and neutrons in an nucleus (presumably with charge-preserving participation
by the electrons) suddenly decide to go "POOF!" for no obvious reason.

Precisely the kind of thing, I might add, what you will find described in
the FIRST PAGE of "A Twist of Ribbon."

In that zero-cost-to-the-investor document I mediated baryon via a rather
bizarre "stretching" re-interpretion of wavefunctions under certain fairly
well defined (and uncommon) conditions.  Mallove et al apparently mediate
their baryon violation via a currently mysterious local conversion of some
part of a nucleus (nuclei?) into antimatter.  Baryon violation, in any case.

Only I like mine better, because it has at least some incredibly outlandish
chance of down-conversion to ordinary energy levels.  That's VERY hard to
do with a gamma ray of such truly elephantine proportions.  And alas, if
you are playing the Farfetch game correctly, you DO have to eliminate
your solution branch if it leads to blatant, irresolvable violations of
common sense physics -- e.g., Pd wires are lousy at stopping multi-Gev
gammas, and reseachers tend to die rather quickly from them.

I look forward to the clarifications.  Yes, indeedy, I surely do...

			Cheers,
			Terry Bollinger (Ultra-Low-Cost Fetcher of Fars)

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Subject: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 12 Aug 1992 16:47 EST  

I hate to interrupt all these cool flames, but, what the heck :)

The last time someone asked Paul what he was up to, he responded that, if 
all went well, they'd be testing their device sometime in August (I'm going 
from memory here, I think it was August...)

Well, it's sometime in August, Paul, what's going on???

Mike Jamison
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
Date: 19 Aug 92 11:34:35 GMT
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <12AUG199216475632@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>I hate to interrupt all these cool flames, but, what the heck :)
>
>The last time someone asked Paul what he was up to, he responded that, if 
>all went well, they'd be testing their device sometime in August (I'm going 
>from memory here, I think it was August...)
>
>Well, it's sometime in August, Paul, what's going on???
>
>Mike Jamison 

We are have slipped 6 to eight weeks for a number of reasons.  
Still the commencing of diagnostic work will require three months
before we have enough data and information (analysis) to start pulling
chains. 

I would say to query again in around the end of January or into February.  

+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ron@vicorp.com (Ron Peterson)
Subject: Re: NUCLEON CLUSTER MODEL
Organization: V. I. Corporation, Northampton, Massachusetts
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:39:49 GMT

In article <01GNJGPVYVZC99E3H8@cebaf.gov> BUCK@cebaf.gov writes:
>TO THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY
>
>
>In a recent press release, I discovered that my name was listed as a Supporter
>of the Nucleon Cluster Model put forth by Clustron Sciences, Corp.  No
>permission to use my name in that press release was given.  I am demanding that
>a retraction be made and printed.
>
>Furthermore, any use of my name in association with the Nucleon Cluster Model 
>or with the Clustron Sciences, Corp. is unauthorized. 
>
>
>Warren W. Buck
>Professor of Physics
>Hampton University

Perhaps you would comment on what you know (if you know) of their model 
or their claims of revolutionizing energy and materials science?  I'd be
interested to know your opinion.
ron@vicorp.com or uunet!vicorp!ron
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Self-contained anti-matter
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:53:17 GMT

The Starship Enterprise of Star Trek fame has OBSOLETE technology!

They kept their anti-matter in special electromagnetic flasks -- carefully
mixed with matter to drive their warp engines.
 
Brigsten and Mallove must be claiming that we don't need special bottles
to hold anti-matter, we don't even have to find a supply of anti-matter.

Anti-matter is contained within the matter all around us.  Given the right
conditions, the matter/anti-matter charcteristics of normal matter can
be combined to produce annihilation energy.

  -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Yes folks, they said Gev
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:57:33 GMT

Jed Rothwell, how about putting up page 4 of the Brightsen-Mallove abstract.
It will save me typing it in, and I am sure you have it in loadable form.

Yes, folks, they are proposing matter-antimatter annihilation.  I did not
type all those zeros because the repeat key got stuck.  

Jed, that is page 4 of the draft you sent me dated 9 Aug.  Or you can put up
the whole thing.   

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Cluster Models
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 23:18:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug13.160300.611@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>	I really don't see why people are getting all steamed up about this.
>Hundreds of bogus technology companies pop up all the time,  and hundreds of
>them disappear.  These people aren't a threat to science,  since science
>is self-correcting.

Yeh, in San Francisco there was even a company founded on the
premise that you could chose winning stocks by using
parapsychology. You know about how lucky they were. :-)
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brigsten, Mallove
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:38:15 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
[Brigsten, Mallove claim]
> 3He and 4He products ... come off at "ranging up to 5.59 Gev"

This is almost exactly 6 nucleon (proton or neutron) masses.

Now even the most massive elements have little more than 1/10th of a
mass unit in excess.  So obviously 5.59 Gev can only be accounted for
by matter/anti-matter annihilation of six nucleons.

Since there is no "old style" anti-matter in a P+F cell, these guys
must be claiming that the matter of nucleons is made up of both
matter and anti-matter.

  -- John Logajan
From: logajan@sleepy.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News of the weird
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:24:56 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>You [Blue] will soon have to explain my tick-tock data if you want to 
>maintain your skeptic qualifications.

Hoping you resume publishing your on-going data.

  -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: The Data
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:06:03 GMT

To all who have sent me notes about the significance of the data, I do know 
about coin tosses, and simple statistics.  The data posted is raw.  It is
quite likely that the "in" and "out" groups will tighten up when the 
calorimeter ambiant temperature correction is applied.  

But I agree that the data posted is of order 1 sigma or less.  There is 
detail in the measurements that looks very interesting.  We shall see.  I 
have not bought any more palladium contracts on the strength of this data.  

In any case, the finished data set is apt to be a long way from 100 sigma.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Sincere Apology from Clustron
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:46:14 GMT

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

Dr. Warren Buck comments:

"In a recent press release, I discovered that my name was listed as a
Supporter of the Nucleon Cluster Model put forth by Clustron Sciences, Corp. 
No permission to use my name in that press release was given.  I am demanding
that a retraction be made and printed.

Furthermore, any use of my name in association with the Nucleon Cluster Model
or with the Clustron Sciences, Corp. is unauthorized."

Dr. Brightsen and the rest of us at Clustron Sciences would like to apologize
to Dr. Buck. We are anxious to retract that part of our statement immediately.
Apparently, we got our signals crossed and we failed to contact him properly
before issuing the release. Naturally, we would never have mentioned his name
if we had know it would upset him, and give us a poor scientific reference!

Let me briefly explain Dr. Buck's role in this, because I want to make it
clear that he had no role whatsoever in the controversial "cold fusion" aspect
of the NCM; he had no knowledge that the NCM has been recently expanded to
explain cold fusion; and no knowledge of Clustron Sciences (because we
mistakenly failed to contact him in time).

Dr. Buck reviewed the NCM model in an earlier stage of it's development, in
the mid-80's, long before cold fusion came onto the scene. At that time he
made valuable and encouraging comments about the work. When we issued the
press release, we felt that we should honor his help and moral support, just
as we acknowledge and thank EPRI for the three year grant that made the work
possible during that period. Many years ago, Dr. Buck was enthusiastic about
the NCM as it existed then; but of course, that does not mean that he approves
of the present model at all, or the cold fusion extensions to the model. We
did not mean to imply that he did; we are very sorry we gave that impression.
Please remember that the NCM covers much more than just cold fusion. We hope
that the less controversial parts of it will continue to garner the support of
the scientific community, regardless of the fate of the cold fusion
extensions. We acknowledge that the model might turn out to be correct in the
aspects that Dr. Buck and others reviewed, and incorrect as an explanation for
cold fusion.

- Jed Rothwell
From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Cluster Models
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:20:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.geWL_Xy00UzxM3aJoR
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

In all this recent discussion (euphemism) on nuclear cluster models and
a recent 'Press Release', why has no one mentioned Linus Pauling's
nuclear cluster model?  He even has a publication out in the most recent
issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (which no
physicist I've spoken to ever even looks at) on an explanation of
spectra of superdeformed nuclei using his cluster model.  There are
references to other alleged successes of his model in the paper.

Paul Karol
Nuclear Chemist
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:05:58 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <4730001@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> seghers@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (David Seghers) writes:
>>/ hpcc01:sci.physics.fusion / terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) /  8:48 am  Aug 11, 1992 /
>>
>>My my.  So all those nuclear physicists and chemists who have set up and
>>calculated results based on independent-nucleon nuclear shell models for
>>the last several decades are just flat-out *wrong*, hmm?  How interesting.
>>
>   This has been obvious, even to a lay person such as myself, for years!

Then you had better check out the work of Wiringa and company at Argonne. 

Their work is an attempt to calculate the masses of light nuclei with no 
model assumptions other than a non-relativistic potential between nucleons 
taken from fits to the NN data and the intrinsic limitations of their 
calculational scheme.  They do a very good job of getting mass-3 and mass-4 
and appear to get O-16 in their latest results.  

The weakness of cluster models is that they must take something like the 
mass of He-4 as a given and construct an effective interaction between 
the He-4 and the other particles.  This is not wrong, but it is better 
when the microscopic approach shows that those (sometimes arbitrary) 
choices can be justified based on a more basic starting point.  The risk 
of such approximations is that they are uncontrolled: you must trust your 
intuition that you are not leaving out anything important, and hope that 
a more complete calculation will not prove you wrong. 

I should add that the results of microscopic calculations tend to verify 
the assumptions made by cluster models (or collective models, etc) in 
the domain where they have been applied.  Thus the simpler model is just 
that -- simpler and more convenient to use, although limited to application 
in some particular domain -- and not more correct than the microscopic 
approach.  Certainly nothing new about any of this. 

--
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: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Cluster Models
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:03:00 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <geWL_Xy00UzxM3aJoR@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol) writes:
>In all this recent discussion (euphemism) on nuclear cluster models and
>a recent 'Press Release', why has no one mentioned Linus Pauling's
>nuclear cluster model?  He even has a publication out in the most recent
>issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (which no
>physicist I've spoken to ever even looks at) on an explanation of
>spectra of superdeformed nuclei using his cluster model.  There are
>references to other alleged successes of his model in the paper.

	I really don't see why people are getting all steamed up about this.
Hundreds of bogus technology companies pop up all the time,  and hundreds of
them disappear.  These people aren't a threat to science,  since science
is self-correcting.  If they can do some reproducable experiments to show
that their model is good,  then they will be taken seriously.  If they
can't,  then they won't.  It might take quite a while for the truth to
come out,  but it will come out.

	Similarly,  so far as engineering goes,  if they can actually build
some useful devices on the basis of this theory,  then people will take them
seriously.  If not,  they will fade away.  The only real danger is that
many people who invest in companies like this lose money.  Some of these
people are honest and clueless,  but some of them are con artists.



-- 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:37:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.113435.27357@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

>We are have slipped 6 to eight weeks for a number of reasons.  
>Still the commencing of diagnostic work will require three months
>before we have enough data and information (analysis) to start pulling
>chains. 
>
>I would say to query again in around the end of January or into February.  
>
>+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
>| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
>|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
>| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
>+---------------------------------------------------------************

	I'm curious about what sort of device you are testing.  Is it
simply a larger and more powerful PLASMAK assembler,  or is it actually
intended to produce a nuclear yield?  If so,  what kind of fuel are you
using?  Can you tell us anything else about it?


--
From: dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mr. Neutron gets divorced
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:02:26 GMT

In article <9208122352.AA10587@sleepy.network.com>, logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:

 |> Comptom agitation makes the tunnel short.  Is there reason to
 |> doubt that 1-2 MeV kinetic deuterons can have nuclear relations
 |> with Pd's?  Even if the probability is low for any given
 |> approach, there is a heck of a lot of ricocheting going on.
 |> (I know, for instance, that air molecules at standard temp and
 |> pressure collide 10^9 times per second, and their kinetic
 |> energy is in eV rather than MeV!)


Wrong.  There is not a "heck of a lot of ricochetting" going
on.  The behavior of an energetic deuteron in solid materials
is to lose energy very rapidly to ionization.  The chance
the deuteron comes close to a Pd nucleus is quite small.

Also, the maximum energy a deuteron could get from elastic
scattering of a (say) 1 MeV gamma is only about 300 eV -- and
that only if the gamma is reflected 180 degrees.  Electrons get
much more energy, but then electrons are much less massive.

Please, use common sense: if "ricochetting" deuterons had some
massive effect, wouldn't that have been seen years ago when people
starting bombarding things with deuteron beams?


 |> And finally, as someone else pointed out, deuterons are oblong,
 |> and therefore at a minimum, 50% of the time, they will approach
 |> the Pd nucleus neutron first.  Add the repulsive force acting
 |> only on the proton, and you have a tendency for the deuteron to
 |> rotate neutron first toward the target Pd nucleus.

Yippy. You gain a whole 3 or 4 fermis (10^-5 angstroms) this way.
Utterly negligible.  The last 3 or 4 fermis is not the problem!

I also want to add a correction to another misconception: the fact
that a neutron would liberate energy upon reaching the palladium
nucleus does not make it (much) easier for the neutron to tunnel
into the palladium.  Go look at the equations -- the exponential
term depends mainly on the height of the barrier, not on the depth
of the "hole" at the end.  In the case of this supposed neutron tunneling,
the integrated barrier is (for all but gammas very close to
threshold) *higher* than the barrier for direct cold D-D fusion (which, as
we all know, is calculated to be negligible).

Finally: it hasn't been explained why we wouldn't see the capture
gammas.  There's no obvious reason why the proton should get the
energy liberated by the neutron capture.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 01:03:48 GMT

>|> Or eggs.  Unless the membrane is pierced they can build up a lot of
>|> internal pressure.  The same probably applies to any food with a
>|> reasonably impervious layer on the outside.  The quick heating of a
>|> microwave oven can turn it into a potential bomb which can explode 
>|> when some poor soul cuts it or pokes it with a fork.

I thought to avoid this by putting the egg into a big pyrex measuring
bowl full of water, hopefully leading to boiled egg, shielded by the
water.  Wrong!  After a minute or so of heating, ka-wumpf!!!, egg and
water all over the inside of the microwave (didn't break the bowl
however).
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: An easy problem in general relativity
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:24:42 GMT

JB: Really? The loop representation indicates that the singularities go
away? So what happens to things falling "into" the singularity?
I know you don't want to argue about it, but I wonder what you will say
when it turns out that we are in fact inside a stupendous
Reissner-Nordstrom black hole already. In that connection, I note that
llamas did in fact come out of a naked singularity.

ps can you send me a preprint of your naked llama paper? Under plain
cover, please.
From: middle@npac.syr.edu (A. Middleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: the nature of exclusion
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:01:52 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University NPAC/SCCS

In article <1992Aug18.214628.9544@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.210429.23650@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@zermelo.mit.edu (John  
>C. Baez) writes:
>> Certainly compressing a gas of fermions is harder than compressing a gas
>> of bosons because of Pauli exclusion.  You can say "I'll try hard to
>> squeeze it down so they all get squished into the same state" -- but
>> even as you squeeze down the position you let your fermions occupy,
>> there's plenty of room in *phase* space
>
>right, but then that implies as I compress in space I expand in
>momentum, which would seem to imply ther temperature goes up.
> ...

More momentum does not necessarily mean higher temperature. Zero
temperature means putting the fermions in the lowest energy state
POSSIBLE. Since the lowest energy state is one electron of each
spin in each momentum state, the ground state has kinetic energy.
This kinetic energy will grow as the box shrinks.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:12963 sci.math:10349
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Length scales in physics 1 - the Bohr radius
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:50:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National University of Singapore

OK, so one can use dimensional analysis to give shoddy proofs.
Errr...and what has been gained thereby?
All this kind of thing is based on the assumption that Nature Abhors
Numbers Larger Than the Number of Fingers on Two Human Hands.
Is this fundamental assumption really true? If it is, then we have a
deep mystery  on our hands. Perhaps there is an anthropic explanation?
I propose: " The Digital Anthropic Principle".
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,rec.gambling