HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: What did Droege know, and when did he know it?
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 07:21:19 GMT

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>Nonetheless, Mills is now depicted as a "moving
>target" by someone who failed to heed Mills' advice and who asked Mills for
>suggestions to further his (Droege's) perception of how the experimental
>verification of this excess heat phenomenon should proceed.

Droege did in fact duplicate the Mills experiment and results and so posted
those results here.  He then went on to throw additional curves at it to see
if it would break.  I think his experimental variations are much more difficult
to pass off than you are letting on.

To reiterate, he (Droege) *got* excess heat with a recombiner attached, as long
as the recombiner was outside the calorimeter.  Simply moving the recombiner
inside the calorimeter (and thus eliminating the need for the 1.48*I
"correction") made the anomalous heat disappeared.

You have to recall that at that time the claimed anomalous heat was still
less than the I*V input, and so could be explained by recombination or
parallel current paths.  In my own experiments of a few months ago, either
recombination or parallel current paths caused a measured 23% reduction in
evolved gases.  This would have caused a mis-identification of anomalous
heat in an open cell of the Mills type.

>I am now free to say that more recent experiments have 2.5 watts in and
>50 watts out. Once again the 2.5 watts is V*I (no 1.48*I correction).

With success rates like these, you can afford to be more generous toward
your detractors.  :-)

But seriously, is there any possibility of getting an independent neutral
observer to witness this gain of 20 in operation?  He could sign a
non-disclosure agreement on technical details (he wouldn't even need to be
given any beyond those measuring electrical energy input and temperature
measurement.)

I believe it might be a lot easier to find neutral competent observers on
this issue than you may at first think.
-- 
- 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: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: Reply to Bruce Dunn
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:03:47 GMT

Bruce Dunn wonders if my outside temperarute effect could be due to line 
voltage variations.  Don't think so Bruce.  There was a table in the early
version of the Como paper that got cut out of the final version due to the 
space limitations.  It listed some of the control measurements taken over
a three day period of operation, I repeat some of them below:

Variable                                   Mean           Sigma
+5 Volt Reference                         5.0008        .00022
ADC Reference                             4.5299        .000081
+15 Supply                               14.9590        .00072
High Quality Ground                       0.00049       .00012
Cell Current                             -0.5557        .0011
Current Sum                               0.0017        .00068

In general while running I watch 60 odd such variables.  Any that look 
suspicious I can plot, and I store the last 3 1/2 hours so that the recent
history of anything funny can be brought up.  I usually plot about 10, which
is about the limit of colors that can be distinguished.  

The ADC reference has been through three layers of regulator before it is 
used.  The last two in a temperature controlled environment.  So there are 
lots of checks.  But never enough.  The Mark II version suffered from some 
cleverness on my part that is too complicated to explain, but probably was the
source of the reported heat pulses.  This was partially fixed in the Mark II/
V, and will be fully fixed in the Mark III.

So this remains a tough business.  Simple open cells, i.e. Mills, have large 
error bars.  Complex designs like my kludge can have complex interactions and 
so tale long and careful study.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 698
Reply-To: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:53:33 GMT

John Logajan logajan@ns.network.com asks:
 
 
>In the general case, do atoms with valence electrons in non-ground states
>cease to react chemically or do the chemical properties change radically?
 
Atoms with valence electrons in excited states are much more reactive than
atoms in ground states. Furthermore, the reactions of excited-state atoms
and molecules typically undergo reactions by  different pathways
(mechanisms) than ground-state atoms and molecules.

John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Chuck Sites' dotted balloon
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:20:44 GMT

I have a question relating to Chuck's assertion:

	"Still the release of electrons during the void collapse
	should concentrate at the center of the void."

Is this obviously the case?  What makes the electrons move toward the
center of the void?

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Nonsense
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:47:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <930105213557_72240.1256_EHL58-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>Still, doesn't it ever occur to you that you are a making public fool of
>yourself, and heading off a cliff for no reason?

I think it's a risk that we all have to live with when we post to the net.

I know that you've promised not to publish any more essays, Jed, but I
am very curious as to how committed you are to CF.  You said that you
haven't invested all that much money into it.  Will there be more in
1993?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jr@ksr.com (John Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrolyte gases as an overlooked variable
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:51:10 EST
Organization: Kendall Square Research, Waltham, MA
In-reply-to: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca's message of 3 Jan 93 19:40:56 EST

Well, I can't resist this, so this naif (me) steps up to:

In article <19199@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
	To speculate, the level of nitrogen in the headspace (and thus in the
   electrolyte) may affect anomalous heat production if it is proceeding via
   sonofusion.

Sonofusion is a fascinating idea (as is the Mills-Farrell suborbital).

But if nitrogen correlates to excess heat, and oxygen is present, are
we simply finding a way to catalyze nitrogen burning?  Nitrogen is
plentiful, but oxides of nitrogen aren't so wonderful to the planet.
But trading some NOx or NxO production for fossil fuel burning might
be a win.

This could be tested in a closed cell by flushing with nitrogen...

(Of course I don't even know for sure that oxidizing nitrogen is
exothermic).
--
/jr, aka John Robinson                       Place stamps here
internet: jr@ksr.com                    Post Office will not deliver
uucp: {world,harvard,uunet}!ksr!jr      mail without correct postage
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: Woops!
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:20:51 GMT

Looks like I multiplied by 4.1 instead of dividing by 4.1 to convert joules
to calories.  So the K column should at least be divided by 16.8.  Even then
the values look rather large compared to the numbers in Lewis.  You have all
been warned!

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Ni CF Recombiner
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:16:36 GMT

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

There have been some questions about the use of recombiners in closed cell
nickel light water CF experiments. I have heard from 2 or 3 people who have
done successful experiments of this type, but Tom Droege and one other person
said that experiments with recombiners fail, and Mills says you should not
use a recombiner. Perhaps the problem is in the type of material used in the
recombiner. Bob Bush, of California State Polytechnic U. reported success, so
I asked him what kind of he used. He reported as follows: "the recombiner is
platinum black impregnated into a nickel screen mesh on one side, coated on
teflon on the other side."

My impression is that commercial, off-the-shelf recombiners are finicky and
unpredictable, and that many are not designed to work at room temperature. I
recommend open cells. Since there are apparently some cases of recombination
on the cathode, you should not declare a definite excess until you are well
above total input power I*V. If you insist on a closed cell, I urge you to
include a large, low pressure escape valve in the cell design. Select a valve
that cannot become plugged up by condensed salts or other crud that appears
in CF cells after weeks of operation. The accident at SRI that occurred
exactly one year ago was caused by a valve that was incorrectly aligned and
blocked off accidentally.

- Jed


Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
From: FEC%UK.AC.RUTHERFORD.VAX2%V2.RL.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk
Subject:  Faster than light mail service
Reply-To: FEC%UK.AC.RUTHERFORD.VAX2%V2.RL.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:40:31 GMT

In a recent posting I reminded Jed Rothwell that

>"You posted, on behalf of Gene Mallove your colleague, a statement in early
>1992 claiming that I had deliberately ignored in Too Hot To Handle important
>positive data on neutrons that would have damaged my thesis, and that had
>been sent to me by Dr. Worledge of EPRI prior to my book. This is utterly
>false, as anyone can confirm by calling Worledge."

Jed has replied:

 >>I called Dave Worledge last week, but he was not there. He must be out of
>>town. He told Gene he sent a lot stuff to you. Maybe it got lost in the mail.
>>Why don't you call him and ask for another copy? I gather that part of it
>>described the work of Howard Menlove, of Los Alamos. Menlove did not make it
>>into the index of THTH.



So you called Worledge last week and he wasnt in. Keep calling until
he is. It is over *six months* since you posted Mallove's reckless accusations.


You suggest that the papers Mallove refers to might have been
"Lost in the mail". Is it you or Mallove that has invented this?
If you are going to be the postman for Gene Mallove, first ensure that
what you are encouraged to post has at least some chance of being credible.
Check your facts both of you. As I stated in my original objection to
Mallove, Worledge sent me four papers, which I received; these were sent
on 7 May 1991, four months AFTER the first appearance of Too Hot To Handle.
Worledge did not send me papers prior to these; the accompanying letter
from Worledge to me makes it clear that this is his first attempt to
communicate papers to me: "Several of my colleagues have informed me that
your book Too Hot To Handle contains many interesting and provocative
discussions of the early cold fusion era --- etc".

So "Lost in the Mail" is an excuse that should have been lost in the mail.
Try again, but this time get Mallove to speak for himself.


>>The issue is that you very deliberately ignore things. Even now, you are
>>deliberately ignoring everything we know about - - conservation of energy
>>- - and the roles of experimental evidence versus theory.

After your attempt to post excuses for Mallove (he of the energy non-conserving
5Gev helium) it hardly seems worth reminding you that you have *not* explained
where I said that theory rules over experiment.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: RE: Wegde-Out; liquid lithium; UC & Pd; liquids with wide temp ranges
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:19 GMT


Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com

>My favorite response so far was from Dieter:  He described my "wedge-out"
>mechanism as sounding a lot like wishful thinking.

>Alright!  That's exactly the kind of whack-em-about-the-ears criticism
>that the UC (ultracavitation) idea needs.  Dieter zeroed in on exactly
>the weakest link:  Can you _really_ get massive acceleration through this
>kind of proposed mechanism, or not?

Just to clarify things, let me add that what I regard as possibly wishful
thinking, or at least a very unsupported bit of optimism, is secondary
wedging. The primary wedging effect seems reasonable, but it requires some
quantification. I once had to do with molten salts, a field new to me at the
time, and I thought up a beautiful explanation - all in words - of something
or other to do with charge transport (I forget the details). My colleague, to
whom I explained it, was agog with admiration of my acuity of thought, and I
basked in the glory. It turned out I was quite wrong. Whatever the scientific
method is, one of its most powerful tools is certainly the use of mathematics
to quantify things, starting with simple assumptions. Words can lead you
astray.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Subject: Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Keywords: Casimir Effect
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:00:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.074948.27304@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> 
|>      Just curious.  What meaning is assigned to 'the dynamical analogue
|>      of the Casimir effect'?  I don't really see any place for the 
|>      Casimir effect or an analogue in the process.  This isn't exactly
|>      a subtle indication of zero-point energy.  Are you sure it
|>      wasn't a joke?  
|> 

Definitely not a joke: Proceedings of the National Academy 89(4091)1992.

The basic idea, as best I understand it, seems to be this. The ordinary
Casimir effect concerns two static conductors. One calculates the energy
difference due to the vacuum energy which exists between them; this leads
to an inverse-fourth-power force. Now consider the case where the conductors
are in motion. The time dependence introduces a new level of complexity.
In ordinary perturbation theory, one difference between the static and
time-dependent cases is that in the static case you calculate changes in
energy levels, while in time-dependent theory you calculate transition 
probabilities; the same is true here. In the dynamic case, there is a
probability for a photon to be emitted -- hence, possibly, sonoluminescence.

Actually reading the paper indicates that this is not quite, as I had
thought, a theory of sonoluminescence already completed; no experimental
data is addressed. However, he states repeatedly that this is his mechanism
and that he in fact developed the theory with sonoluminescence in mind.

Also with cold fusion in mind, by the way, though he doesn't say so. The
reason I knew about this was that he gave a talk here last year on both
subjects, although he deliberately did not make any explicit link between
them: he just said that sonoluminescence proves that everyday phenomena
(bubbles on propellors, electrochemical cells) may hold unexpected new
physics.

Incidentally, I can think of a "hand-waving" reason for at once thinking
that the Casimir effect might be involved. Although everyone thinks of the 
static Casimir effect as "a subtle indication of zero-point energy", it's
really not so subtle when you think about it: at a certain scale of distances,
namely the scale of small water droplets, it's van der Waals and Casimir
rather than Newton and Maxwell you have turn to. Now sonoluminescence
originates with bubbles right in that size regime, but in a dynamic
environment... If only I could think of things like this in advance, I'd
be Schwinger!

N. Redington
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson)
Subject: Re: Electrostatic fusion
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:15:45 GMT

In article <9212310041.AA08904@anubis.network.com> logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>Lloyd G. Allred, Ph. D. writes:
>>The sharp points produce enormous fields. 
>
>It is true that the gradients can be over very short distances, but a
>proton falling through, say, 20kv has the same final kinetic energy 
>whether the 20kv gradient is spread over a meter or an angstrom.
>
Please forgive me if I am asking a stupid question (this is not my field). Does
this mean the the D ions will be more concentrated at the tip? Possibly
increasing the probability of an event IN the PD latice?

just a thought,
Mark Epperson
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Droege's snare for wayward Mills hydrogen
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:20:38 GMT

ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL writes:
>The proposals (from the net and from private communications from net
>readers) for demonstration of this process are under consideration by
>HydroCatalysis Power Corporation and Thermacore.

Speaking of demos, has anyone tried the simple "snare" idea proposed by
Tom Droege (almost a year ago) to trap the Mills postulated shrunken
hydrogen?

The assumption was that such hydrogen would diffuse more easily through
most materials.  So he put a B+W TV set under his apparatus and turned it
on.  The idea was that any sub-hydrogen diffusing into the picture tube
through the glass envelop would have a good chance of being "scanned"
by the sweeping electron beam.  This collision would supply enough energy
to the sub-hydrogen to knock it back to normal hydrogen.   And the normal
hydrogen would have a much more difficult time diffusing back out of the
TV tube because of its physically larger orbital dimensions.

So the hydrogen would be trapped inside the TV tube.  After a period of
this hydrogen capture mechanism, the TV picture would start to distort,
a sort of smearing effect from the constant collisions of the beam with
the hydrogen gas.  This is known as a "gassy" TV picture tube, a common
and fairly easy to diagnos failure mode.

-- 
- 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: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: Inconsistent Experiments
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:45:14 GMT

While I agree with most of what Jon Webb says in reply to Jed Rothwell, when
he says:

-- it can't be the case that Mills & Farrell and Yamaguchi and Notoya and
Pons and Fleischmann and McKubre are all right; they have inconsistent
experiments."

I don't think we know enough about what is happening to know that they are
inconsistent.  For example, they could all be wrong, and that would make 
them consistent!

So Jon, how are they inconsistent?  From my view, they could all be 
based on some common principal.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 00:33:46 GMT

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>A curious observation is that we are more sensitive to the outside air 
>temperature than to the room temperature.

The only explanation I can think of is that the changing infared flux from
the house walls to the calorimeter walls doesn't have as good a coupling to
the room air as to the solid walls of the apparatus.  This makes sense.  We
know from normal sun/earth/atmosphere interaction that 80% of atmospheric
heat is first captured by the ground and then transfered to the atmosphere by
the physical contact of the wind against the earth.

The problem is that thermometers, being solid objects, should mimic the
coupling, and hence indicate the actual temperature on the outside calorimeter
shell.  Hmm.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminesence and fusion
Date: 11 Jan 1993 03:21:56 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3


I think we can get some reality-checks on acoustically generated fusion
by comparing it to the results from known inertially confined fusion
results.  Specifically, I remember a few things from the Physics Today
article a few months ago about ICF.

For it to work, the DT fuel must be compressed to nearly Fermi
degeneracy.  This compression happens on timescales of a few nanoseconds,
I believe.  The central problems are (of course) the zapper technology,
and fluid instabilities in the compressing plasma fuel.

Can sonoluminesence come close to these parameters? It seems unlikely.

Now---what about that "dynamical analogue to the Casimir effect" proposed
by Schwinger.  It seems that this might play a significant role in
ICF fusion, considering the speed and violence of the process.

I gather the idea is that photons may somehow be radiated by a rapidly
compressing conductor (the plasma) changing the "eigenfunctions" of the
EM field inside, resulting in differing "zero-point" energies.  Thus,
may the ICF compression in some way extract energy from the vacuum? Or
at least use the energy generated that way in getting closer to 
the conditions needed for fusion.


It's been recently revealed that hydrogen nuclear weapons work on the
same principle (or really vice versa) as ICF.  (which means of course
that thermonuclear weapons aren't really thermonuclear at all, but
more really pyconuclear---government misinformation, I wonder)

Might this postulated Casimir effect play a big part there?  Might
hydrogen weapons get part of their energy from the vacuum?

That would be of course totally far out, but that's exactly how insiders
described the discovery by Teller & Ulam.    Hans Bethe wrote (in 1954, but
not published until 1982)
"The new concept was to me, who had been rather closely associated with
the program, about as surprising as the discovery of fission had been
in 1939.  Before 1939 scientists had a vague idea that it might
be possible to release nuclear energy in 1939, they would have worked
on anything else rather than the field which finally led to the discovery
of fission, namely radiochemistry."

It's been described as "very interesting physics".

Compressing something with radiation pressure may be pretty bold to begin
with, but would that be incredibly surprising to somebody like Hans
Bethe, who was working on the project himself?

Any back-of-the-envelope calculations, anyone?


In the same article, HB concludes with "In summary I still believe
that the development of the H-bomb is a calamity."

--
-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".