HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Trying to keep clean
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:47:48 GMT

One of the things I try to do in these posts is to expose the scientific 
thought process.  Not the computational analysis that the text books are full 
of, but the decision making process of how a research path is selected.  

You may recall that when I was faced with building a calorimeter I 
purposefully did not look to see how others did it.  Now I am asking everyone 
how they clean things.  What gives?

With the calorimeter I wanted to try to extend the art.  I felt I had a chance 
of beating it.  With cleaning, I have no such ambition.  I will be content if 
I can figure out how to do a workman like job.  

The advice I have received is wonderfully diverse.  Some of it you have seen 
here, some has been sent privately.  Us commercial glass cleaner some say 
(contain chromic acid), others say DON'T USE CHROMIC ACID!  So I have to look 
at everything that has been sent and what I can read, weigh my assessment of 
each advisors qualifications, and make a decision.  There is no one to tell me 
if I have made the right decision.

The apparatus tells me that much later.  As Dieter Britz has pointed out, not 
all electrochemists (who it is assumed do the cleaning right) get a positive 
result.  Possibly I have to do something wrong.  

My brother is pushing me to build a vapor degreaser.  The plan at the moment 
is to buy a 24 cup coffee maker and to put a copper cooling coil in the top of 
it and to load it with perchlorethylene.  I guess this will then be a 
perchlorethylene percolator.  (The basket is of course removed.)  This should 
work great to clean the Lithium.  The problem is then to get it into an inert 
atmosphere before it oxidizes. 

My present scheme is to flow argon gas into the needle end of a large syringe.  
The plunger will be removed an the Lithium quickly brought from the degreaser 
to the syringe.  Then I put in the plunger, turn off the gas with a three way 
valve and push in the plunger, switching the valve to the sealed position as 
the argone is pushed out.  With luck, I end up with very little gas and even 
less oxygen in the syringe.  Then the syringe can be moved into the argon 
atmosphere of the glove bag which will be kept free of solvents.  

One universal piece of advice that I have received is "No Soap".  OK, No Soap.
I bought a box of vinyl gloves a while back with the idea of making my own 
glove box.  Now I am worried that they are not safe to use as they are likely 
full of plasticizer(sp?).  Would rubber gloves be better?

Once I build the degreaser, I will use it to clean all the cell parts that 
will stand it.  I see that the Polypropylene cell I plan to use does not stand 
it, but everything else looks OK (A in the Cole-Parmer table).  Then rinses 
with acids and finally deionized water.  Looking for suggestions on the 
sequence here.  

Please keep all the good advice coming.  

Tom Droege

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Making clean LiOD
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:54:35 GMT

To avoid the potential problems associated with organic material from the
surface of lithium (ie oil residues) getting into the LiOD, would it be
feasible to do the following?

1) Clean the oil from the Li with your favorite procedure

2) In an argon atmosphere, dip the lithium briefly into a container of D2O.
The resulting reaction will strip off the outer layer of lithium, and
presumably the organic material and any oxidation products etc.

3) Before too much of the lithium has reacted, move the freshly stripped
lithium to a second container of D2O, leaving behind the crud in beaker
number 1.

        Having never worked with lithium, I don't know its physical form and
whether this is feasible.  Comments?


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
From: det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Bag
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:01:29 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com

In article <18345@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>pentane and hexane).    Acetone and alcohol won't likely dissolve the oil,
>which I think will be a mineral oil.  To check if a candidate solvent is any

Don't use alcohols or ketones on Li, you will get some degree of surface
reaction (particularly the alcohols).  Your best bet is some form of alkane.
If you can find starting ether, it is a mix of low boiling hydrocarbons
that will not react with the lithium or leave a residue, and they should
work very well in removing the mineral oil.  Diethyl ether will also
definitely work, but is hard to get and the extreme flammability hazard
definitely makes this a poorer choice IMHO.  One more warning, do *not*
use halogenated hydrocarbons (trichlor, etc).  I have heard of explosive
reactions, although I haven't experienced one myself.  I have, however,
seen lithium foil in contact with Teflon(!) turn the Teflon black by
reducing it down to carbon.

I see you've already discovered argon is the best choice for an atmosphere.
Nitrogen reacts with lithium to form a black lithium nitride layer.  Argon
is available from welding supply houses (I don't know if that's where
you've ordered from, if not from a welding house you now have another
shopping alternative).





-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: greg@marvin.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Re: according to Webster
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, Univ. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:18:42 GMT

In article <BzBEGA.Jr8@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  Of much more importance, however, and most pertinent to this
> net:  We still are, respectfully, waiting for the (or
> whatever) logic - which your prose continues to avoid - but
> which is the basis for your parroted claims.    

Aha!  This is a pressure tactic!

If I've parrotted the claim, as we've agreed that I have, then it's not
my claim to defend.  I said that the skeptics claim that you would have
to have neutrons or some other obvious fusion products and you agree
that they do claim that.  Fine.

Actually, even if I did claim myself what I merely am stating that
other people claim (I'll admit that I do believe it), why should I give
you any more of an explanation than you've already received?  If I
don't, you might *choose not to believe me*.  What a horror that would
be.  It might even drive me back to my real work.

Please don't wait on me any more.  Thanks.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: The Bag
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:52:49 GMT

In article <18345@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>The
>trick is to get a solvent for the oil which itself can be evaporated without
>leaving a residue.  From a hardware store, I think that your best bet might
>be xylene, followed perhaps by paint thinner.  An alternative might be
>lighter fluid (of the liquid type that you pour into a Zippo - it is largely
>pentane and hexane).

I seem to recall that all of these chemicals are pretty impure. If memory
serves, we used to oil fine machinery like watchworks with lighter fluid
because it would penetrate and leave behind a layer of oil.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Cell Power Measurement 101
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:21:27 GMT

I keep looking a photographs of supposed "cold fusion" cells and all I see
is two clip leads. 

Folks, you have to have four leads to make a decent measurement.  (McKuber
seems to do this right but have not seen any one else.)  Two leads carry 
the current, two connected to the cell on the other side of the clip leads
measure the potential across the cell.  These leads carry very small current.

There is lots more to worry about, but the above will likely get you a 1%
measurement.  For more accuracy you have to take Cell Power Measurement 201,
301, 401, ... .  Sorry that is McKubre.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: Postmortem Analysis of Tom's Cells
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:28:07 GMT


  In article sci.physics.fusion:4655 chuck@coplex.com
 (Chuck Sites)discusses his analyses of SEM outfitted
 with EDAX X-ray backscatter system for element analysis.

   A very good discussion to his electrode analyses
 are presented, and therein he says:

==   "In our postmortums we did find several metals on the
== surface apparently transported by the electrolytes that
==  include Pt, Cu, Zn, S.  These were not minor concentrations,
==  and the source of Cu, Zn was from a brass connector  that
==  made contact with the electrolyte. In the other active
==  cathode (Takahashi style) we saw Pt, Cu, Fe, Zn.  This cell
==  had an inactive stainless steel part submerged in the
==  solution. To me, it is some what amazing that stainless steel
==  which is pretty inert and fairly resistive to chemical
==  attacks, becomes apparent in our analysis even though its not
==  suppose to be an active electrolysis participant.  It was
==  only in contact with the electrolyte, and yet we see deposits
==  Fe on the Pd cathode. Tom mentioned to me that stainless
==  should have Ni in it.   It I recall it could also have
==  Vanadium too.  If it does, these weren't apparent in our
==  analysis." 

   The stainless steels date from 1820

      [J. Stodart and M. Faraday, U.K.]
    with the reports of usual corrosion resistance displayed
 by these iron chromium allows.
 
   The addition of Ni creates the austenitic stainless steels.
   Small quantities V (also Mo, W, and Ti) yield desirable alloys.

Suggestions re stainless steel:

   Perhaps you could identify the type?

   It would be obvious if electic fields inadvertently
 corroded the metal, so lets assume the intrepid experimenters
 have ruled that out. 

   Second, the stainless steels actually corrode slowly,
 but slowly over their entire surface, so as to avoid dreaded pitting corrosion.  Therefore, one must also consider that 

   1) the metallic atoms will enter the solution anyway

and 
  
   2) in the presence of oxidized chalcogens (and the sulfur
 is that and not a metal; specifically thiosulfates),
 stainless steel loses its resistance. 

   Could these be formed in the S-containing solutions in
 which the experiment was conducted?  

   Contaminants such as oxidizing chlorides, and organic acids
 also will perform a similar function.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Yes?
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:20:30 GMT

In the 17 Dec. 1992 17:51 message Dieter Britze says:

"No, no, no, no, yes, no and no, ... "

Dieter, are you sure about the yes?  Hint: You could say "no".

Frank Close computes the number of joules in 100 watts for ten minutes and
comes up with "over 10**4joules".  Seems like an unnecessary understatement 
to me.  Frank, you could easily give the rest of the order of magnitude to
the "true believers" and still make your point.  It does not seem to me to 
require "a new form of precision time piece" to have similar cells boil away
in the same time.  Likely some self limiting feature of a boiling system 
could cause similar times.  But please don't think I am a believer. 

Dick Blue says "The reality of cold fusion can never be established by 
calorimetry alone, ... .  I agree Dick.  But "anomalous heat" can be 
established by calorimetry alone.  Confirmed "anomalous heat" would be very
interesting - no matter how small.  And besides, it is fun to build ever 
more accurate instruments.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:22:19 GMT

In article <921216170326_72240.1256_EHL68-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>You're a braver man than I.
>
>Goodness, it wasn't all that much money! It came to around $12,000 when all
>was said and done, and we still have enough materials for several more runs.

If it was only $12,000 then I am only moderately impressed.  It's still
$12,000 more than I've invested in cold fusion.

But if, as you believe, cold fusion isn't really a long shot, you
should get a great return on your investment, to the tune of about a
million percent.  If you managed that, I would really be impressed.

Is $12,000 enough?  I was thinking about how much you'd need to
build a prototype power supply.  It seems to me that a 400% energy
surplus should be enough to keep a turbine going, but you want to make
sure that it's efficient enough to power the electrolysis and and have
some left over.  If you got something like that to work it should
convince any remaining die-hard skeptic who has any sense.

>I am in the software business, and I admire Bill Gates a great deal. You are
>wrong about Edison and Bell, lots of people were extremely jealous of them,
>and they were both very tough customers, who drove hard bargains.

Ok, I overstated my case.  What I meant to say is that Edison and Bell
have gone done in history as heroes, while Gates will probably be
remembered as just another businessman.  Sure, there is some lingering
bad press about Edison, but still his achievements make the overall view
of him positive.  In fact I saw a school play about Edison as miracle
worker, Edison inspired by God, Edison as Jesus.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Wrong Guy!
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:20:39 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Richard Blue mixed me up with Mitchell Swartz, which is very flattering to
me. Hey, I could never say anything like this:

"Cold fusion reactions are neutron-penic, that is, these reactions appear to
be deficient in the expected number of neutrons..."

I have never even *heard* of neutron-penic. I better look it up in my
Sanseido Electronic Technical Dictionary. Mitch has a ton of advanced
degrees, and he can run rings around me. Richard must have used my name out
of force of habit. Ha! Ha! I do the human interest and business columns
here, I leave neutrons to you experts.

I gotta question for Richard, by the way. Seriously, no sarcasm. Please
summarize you comments about Yamaguchi. I gather you think you could improve
on his work. Fair enough, I never saw a software package I did not think I
could improve on with a few inexpensive tweaks, especially somebody else's
package (mine are close to perfect). But, are you saying that the
deficiencies are so bad that Yamaguchi's results are invalid? Or, are you
just saying it could have been done better, but the basic results stand? I
don't follow your lingo enough to read your bottom line here -- please spell
it out in plain English.

Season's greetings to all. Make that Neutron-Penic Greetings to all!

- Jed


Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: signal to noise (helium) reconsidered
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:37:59 GMT


  In article sci.physics.fusion:4612 Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
 discusses helium production and states that 

==  "Contrary to some statements that have appeared on this net,
==   there has been NO measured helium detected at such a level."

    He bases this on the fact that: 

==   "It is straightforward to look for nuclear products at this
==   level. Indeed anything above 10**5 should be relatively easy."


  Would it really be "easy" as Frank Close has claimed? 

  What is the background of Helium? 

  What if the putative ash of "cf" is helium-4, will that matter? 

  If there are no neutrons, and one allows unexpected physics one had
 better consider the possibility of  D + D + ? --> He-4 + ?

  The problems are that helium  is peculiar in most of its physical
 properties and mainly a helium-4 isotope ( 99.99987 %).  


   The atmospheric prevelance of Helium is:

                       5.24  +/- .004 ppM by volume (CRC)
                      .00052 % (sea level)   [after Heslop, Inor Chem]
 
  so lets take 5 parts per million by volume.

  Use Avogadro's number, and a rough and ready STP calculation puts
 circa 10**14 helium-4 in each cubic centimeter of air.  

  Given the fact, per Frank Close's calculation, that 10**14 putative
 helium-ash may be created over 600 seconds, it becomes obvious that
 this is the same order of magnitude as there are helium-4 atoms in
 each cc of an open system.  This obviously offers serious
 difficulties in using that putative "ash" as a detector in an open
 system.

   In summary, the problem is that the production rate (see above,
 10**14 over 10 minutes in an open system) is dwarfed by the helium
 content in the ambient.

==   "One way (among several) to test for the source of any helium is by
==  measuring the relative amounts of helium, argon and other elements
==  whose relative abundance in air is known. If you have an excess of
==  helium relative to these then you may eliminate air as the sole
==  culprit."

   Argon lobs in at 0.93% of the atmosphere.  S/N experts, enjoy.



Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: Neutronpenision on your mind
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:43:43 GMT


  In sci.physics.fusion:4633 greg@zaphod.uchicago.edu
  (Greg Kuperberg) invents a new word: Neutronpenision.

  In past posting I had recommended calling some the reported
 experimental results in this field "neutronpenic".

  Both words appear to show "neutron" as a base.

***  Penic?   I made up my word - neutronpenic - based upon

   -penia, from the Greek 'penia' indicating
      - "poverty, lack of, less than usual"
             [cf. Scientific Words, Flood, ibid.]

   As is obvious, there are "less than usual" numbers of
 neutrons in whatever these systems do. 
   Therefore neutronpenic is a logical word.


***  Penision?  Greg Kuperberg has finally sent me to the
 dictionary again [making me wonder if it is time to invest in
 a thicker dictionary]

   - penis,   "male organ of copulation" [Webster's ibid.]

   Now if my memory of linguistics is at all correct
 (doubtful) 'sion' means or implies "act of".  

   So exactly what does Kuperberg seem to have on his mind.

      .......

      .......

     Chesire-cat English?

     If the logic and mathematics of Dr. Kuperberg (a real
 doctor) matches the level of diligent prose seen here, then
 it may more probably be in the imaginary-realm or along
 another Reimann surface.


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Subject: Re: Power flow stuff (the Droege dilemma)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 11 Dec 1992 14:52 EST  

Paul Houle suggests finding the direction of the B field, the E field and 
then determining the Poynting vector from this information.  There may be a 
problem with finding the B field (where is your reference point, 
specifically).

I suspect the "easiest" answer is to measure the voltage between the 
superconductiing wires, noting the sign.  Use the compass to determine the 
B field at one of the superconducting wires (remember that the B field 
generated by a wire looks like a bunch of concentric circles with the wire 
at the center, in a plane perpendicular to the direction of current flow in 
the wire).

The compass will align with the B field (its B field will point opposite to 
that of the wire).  Using the right hand rule, you can find the direction 
of current flow in either of the wires, assuming you know which direction 
the B field points on a compass (N to S or S to N, sorry, I can't remember 
- Tom, can I take my EM book with me as a reference :))

Coupling the direction of current flow with the E-field information, you 
can find out where the battery is.  Q.E.D.

Mike Jamison
From: silver.e@zooid.guild.org (Eric Silver)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neuclionics Weekly
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:46:57 GMT

Forgive the intrusion;
  Are there readers of Neuclionics (sp?) Weekly in this newsgroup?
Would readers please suggest other newsgroups concerning the nuclear 
industry, particularly Nuclear Power Generation.
Thank you,

Eric Silver - York, Upper Canada.
silver.e@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Cell Assembly and Cleaning Plans
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:57:29 GMT

I have done my best to listen to all of you, now here is the plan.  Will 
probably do this this weekend.

There is a cell innerds, the cell test tube, and Lithium to consider.  With 
care I should be able do do everything handling only the parts of the 
completed cell which are "outside" while operating.  Will wear the plastic 
gloves which I realize are only useful to protect me since they will put 
plasticizer on the parts that are touched.  

I have some "old" D2O which was opened long ago in air and so likely has some 
H2O contamination.  I consider that this should be good enough for a final 
rinse. 

The following steps will be done in the kitchen (no open fires, the stove has 
electronic ignition) under the "hood".

The cell innerds have been used before, and so have the "yellow crud".  Since 
this is cleaned nicely with HCl will start:

Dilute HCl in ultrasonic cleaner - two changes  - get rid of "yellow crud"
1,1,1 - Triclorethane in the vapor degreaser.   - get rid of grease
xylene in ultrasonic cleaner - two changes
acetone in ultrasonic cleaner - two changes
de-ionized water in ultrasonic cleaner - two changes
rinse in "old" D2O and store in cell test tube wet.

The cell test tube is Polypropylene.  New one so it is not clear that cleaning 
does not make it dirty but:

Dilute HCl in ultrasonic cleaner
de-ionized water in ultrasonic cleaner -two changes
rinse in "old" D2O - combine ingredients as above.

Lithium:

Rinse in xylene, three changes
Move to clean glass bottle, and dry under argon gas.  
Quickly close bottle while flushing with gas.  
Will live with the resulting oxygen contamination, as there is lots of oxygen
in the final system.  Want to keep the xylene out of the glove bag.

Now I move into the glove bag, and turn on the argon gas.

After flowing long enough for several exchanges I weigh and mix the LiOD.  The 
plan is to break down about half of the 1 liter bottle of D2O into 100 ml 
bottles.  These are new polypropylene bottles that came with screw caps on 
them.  I assume that I will just dirty them if I try to clean them, though 
some of you could likely make them cleaner.  

I will put out a dish of Driright and a dish of catalyst.  The previously 
cleaned cell will be opened in the bag but the cell inside will not be allowed 
to touch anything.  Now I can fill the cell in the argon atmosphere, and seal 
it.  Later when I hook it into the gas system, it will be done in a way to 
minimize gas contamination, by clamping and cutting the tubing.  

Tom Droege
                    

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion