HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:11:01 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul26.002202.8209@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <9967@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>
>>The issue in any experimental investigation is not how big an effect
>>you claim, but whether the effect is real and reproducible.  In 
>>particular, I always look for the control of systematic errors and 
>>the significance of the signal. 
>
>     Yes.  But part of whether the effect is 'real' is how close to 
>     the edge of detection the effect is.  My guess (actually vague
>     remembrance) is that Jones' current results would not even be
>     seen by the old equipment and that the old results would be
>     extremely substantial in the new equipment.

Your vaque remembrance is accurate.  The later results are many times 
more sensitive than the results reported in Nature.  It should be 
remembered, however, that there were many questions about the results 
in Nature because of the high background level and the sensitivity of 
the signal to the background subtraction.  Also, Jones saw nothing in 
the set up provided by Moshe Gai at Yale, which was more sensitive than 
the original experiment by a factor I do not recall, but about 3-5 I think.  

What is interesting here is that Jones worked to control errors and was 
not afraid to put his experiment in front of someone else's detectors. 
The result is an experiment where the effect is quite far removed from 
the limit of detection by the system ... just not too interesting.

>     I am always afraid of the rare event that mimics such bursts.
>     The problem with boosting signal to noise is that you make
>     more important the source of noise that you had no experience with
>     before.

This is always a concern, especially in a mine, but the devices being 
used are pretty well understood.  It is important to note that the 
imposition of a coincidence requirement is a very strong filter against 
random sources of background.  The absence of any events with 2 or 3 or 
... neutrons, just ones with 70 or 80 neutrons, argues against noise 
of a conventional sort.  Jones was asked many questions by those 
present concerning all the things they would worry about as a possible 
source of odd events, and he had already considered them and had good 
answers.  What puzzles me is why I have not seen this work published 
yet, but maybe I missed it.  Dieter?

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:28:18 GMT

>siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>
>...Modest effort (on laser fusion) at Garching in Germany...
>
>Bruce Scott replies:
>
>There is no inertial fusion going on at IPP Garching. There is a
>stellarator (W7-AS) and a tokamak (ASDEX Upgrade), and part of the
>design team for ITER. Besides this there are groups for tokamak physics

   But is there not a very large short-pulse iodine-laser facility in
the new IPP/MPQ building?  (In fact, the building was partly designed
around it).  And does not this include a facility for irradiating
targets with the laser beam?  And was not laser-induced fusion at
least a part of the motivation for the initial investment in this
facility at the time the decisions were made a decade or so ago (along
with general laser plasma physics and perhaps X-ray laser
experiments)?

   I certainly thought that was the case; though I also have the
impression that the interest in completing and using the facility may
have diminished in recent years, and the focus turned from laser
fusion possibilities more to a general focus on laser plasma physics.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Models
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:17:04 GMT

Back when P&F made their announcement I wondered what all the arguments
about thermometers were about.  So I set out to make measurements which
did not depend on temperature gradients.  Now I find myself on the other
side of the argument. 

Jed, you have a model whether you know it or not.  Your model is that the
thermometer tells you something about the calorimeter power level.  As I 
remember it, Takahashi made a rather large change in calibration between
the original data and the MIT presentation.  I expect a few more changes
as he learns what the "model" is for his calorimeter.  

Sorry that you say that you can look inside your calorimeter.  Guess you
have a better design than I as I do not know how to put in a window 
without introducing a large variable error.  

No one has discussed my first order system model.  Les Earnest, I know
you studied this at MIT in the same course that I took.  Are you listening?
Is it possible that none of you have used spice like programs to model
physical systems?  What do you do with all those computers??  I will be
the first to admit it is a weak model, but I was very surprised when it 
told me there was no net power!

Tom Droege
From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A stupid question about reaction cross-section, etc.
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:41:09 GMT

The discussions on this group have long gone past the point where my
physics education went, so this is probably a stupid question, but
here goes anyway: I keep hearing about the reaction cross-section; is
this a number that rolls out of theory or is this an experimental
result?

The reason I ask is the following: if it is experimental, would it be
possible that the real chance of two deuterons fusing is actually a
lot bigger than we think, only that usually the end result of the
reaction is again two deuterons? (So, in stead of 50% chance of the
tritium path, 50% chance of the He3 path and a tiny chance of the He4
path we actually have 50% DD path, 25% T, 25% He3 and tiny% He4 or
something similar). In such a regime (where there would be many more
opportunities for fusion than we currently think) it would be a lot
easier for the gammas or alphas to change the behaviour of the whole
system, since there would be many more opportunities for them to have
a significant influence...
-- 
--
Jack Jansen        | If I can't dance I don't want to be part of
Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl | your revolution             -- Emma Goldman
uunet!cwi.nl!jack    G=Jack;S=Jansen;O=cwi;PRMD=surf;ADMD=400net;C=nl
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:06:53 GMT
Distribution: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department


Today's Wall Street Journal (July 27) includes an article (page B3) claiming
that a group at Los Alamos has replicated the Takahashi results. Sorry I
can't provide any details - my copy is not in front of me.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Subject: Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:05:23 GMT

edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:

>If I understand what Dr. Ying is saying, Pd may not be the best medium for 
>verifying his theory.  The probability  for forming a virtual He atom 
>should increase with decreasing distance between atoms (inverse square 
>probability?).

>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms, per one of 
>(?Frank Close?)'s postings.

>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74 
>angstroms.

and

In article <1992Jul22.182608.24724@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
> In article <22JUL199212352997@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms
>>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74 
>>angstroms.
>>Hence, in liquified D2, the probability for fusion should be at least 2 
>>times greater than it is for a PdD cell
> 
> Hmmm.  You have the average seperation of D2 to D2, no?  In a gas or even
> in a liquid this is probably much greater than the 1.7 average for Pd:D.
> The liquid D2 is lumpier, but on the average much more dilute, no?  Which
> is the more important value, the average of the lumpiness, or the lumps?
> 
> And, something I should know after all this time, but are the D's in the
> Pd lattice mono or do they still hang around together?

If I remember my numbers correctly, the d-d separation in D2 gas is 0.72 A,
and in PdD it is about 4.2 A. This was one of the early "proofs" by physicists
that cnf is impossible. It falls down on the possibility (accepted by some
knowledgable people) that the PdD crystal environment has some special
properties to enhance fusion rates. I wouldn't know. Are Schwinger and
Hagelstein senile and non compos, respectively? We must not go by authority, it
is said, but inevitably we do. Frank Close and Huizenga are authorities, too,
and they flatly deny the possibility of such special solid state effects.

The question whether there is any D2 in PdD is a good one. In fact, there is
no unity about just what form deuterium takes in the deuteride. Most people
accept that it is in the form of rather highly mobile deuterons, i.e.
positively charged deuterium nuclei; I did find at least one paper claiming
that it is in fact negatively charged D- ions that predominate. I don't know.
Metallurgists will tell you that at high loadings, when micro-voids form, some
deuterium will evaporate off into these as D2 gas; this could be the way that
super-0.8 loadings fit in. This is well known to metallurgists and corrosion
people, because these small gas bubbles are under high pressure (not 10**27
atm though) and do damage to the metal; it happens to important metals like
steel, copper, etc. and is called hydrogen embrittlement.

Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
-------------------------------------
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide again!
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:55:22 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Dieter Britz writes:
> 
> Jorge Stolfi emailed me privately and submits that Tom's gas loss is best
> explained in terms of D2O2 formation. This could be tested by either taking
> out an aliquot from the cell and testing chemically for peroxide (I think
> iodide should do, but would want to look at a table of standard potentials
> to be sure) - or to inject a drop of a test solution, something I am sure Tom
> would shudder at the thought of.


        In some research that I was doing several years ago, I had the
opportunity to develop a sensitive assay for peroxide formed in solutions of
auto-oxidizing phenolic compounds.  The test was based on iodide, with the
sensitivity enhanced by using liquid starch (which forms a blue colored complex
with the product).  Tom tells me that he is using saturated LiOD in D2O.  I
will try to spend a couple hours in the lab this weekend and see what I can
develop in the way of a sensitive spot test using a single drop of electrolyte.
I think the main problem may be the strong base, which may have to be
meutralized before proceeding with the test.  I will post any methodology that
I develop.
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:11:11 GMT

In article <9949@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.193434.10646@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>>     This was the thought of some early on.  This was one hypothesized
>>     reason why people like Pons and Fleischmann were able to get results
>>     while people like Gai who surrounded their detectors with 
>>     oodles of lead and cinderblocks did not.  Of course, at that time
>>     there was a bunch of speculation about novel particles, not ordinary
>>     old gammas and alphas.
>
>Right.  There was much speculation about muons and other cosmic rays in 
>particular, plus possible novel particles as final products or as part 
>of the mechanism. 
>
>However, it is not true that all experiments were shielded or that all 
>shielded experiments got null results. 

     True, which is one reason (among many others) why the hypothesis 
     fell into abeyance.  Another thing detracted from the plausibility.
     It was difficult to understand why certain people at altitude and certain
     people not at altitude got results, while others at altitude and
     not at altitude did not.  Of course, if it were gammas, that 
     could easily explain the intermittency seen in some experiments.

     However, is it just me or does Ying's mechanism seem a bit 
     contrived?

     Well, there's always the solar cycle ...

>There was also a Jones experiment done in a mine near Leadville that 
>was below a separate experiment that was looking at very high energy 
>cosmic rays.  He saw bursts of neutrons (at a level hundreds of times 
>weaker than his original paper reported) at very infrequent intervals. 
>The timing of these bursts was then checked with events seen at the 
>surface experiment and it was noted that there was no correlation. 

     Funny, I have always felt that Jones' experiments were even more
     questionable than PF (no offense intended to Dr. Jones who could
     probably be more profitably employed doing something else).  At 
     least Pons and Fleischmann claimed a substantial effect.

                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:08:49 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
>>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some sort of chain 
>>reaction *must* be appealed to.

>	I am glad someone else thinks there is a possibility of chain
>reaction (possibly run-away if the geometry is right). As I said before,
>people probably have to be carefull what kind of electrodes they build,
>high surface/volume ratio is probably safe. 

Actually, I believe that the fact that there have been apparent very high
gains and no runaway means that runaway conditions are *NOT* easy to obtain.

I believe the following two properties are required to explain the current
results.

1.) Any major anomalous heat *must* require a chain reaction of sorts.

2.) There is an inherent moderating mechanism opertating apart from but
    in conjuction with the chain.

Without a chain reaction, there is no way to account for the huge gains.
Without a moderating mechanism, there is no way to account for the lack 
of serious lab explosions.

I have no idea what the chain reaction is, nor what the moderating mechanism
is.  I just know they are required to exist to explain the supposed data.


-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: 25 Jul 92 21:26:08 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul24.151111.7971@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <9949@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>>There was also a Jones experiment done in a mine near Leadville that 
>>was below a separate experiment that was looking at very high energy 
>>cosmic rays.  He saw bursts of neutrons (at a level hundreds of times 
>>weaker than his original paper reported) at very infrequent intervals. 
>>The timing of these bursts was then checked with events seen at the 
>>surface experiment and it was noted that there was no correlation. 
>
>     Funny, I have always felt that Jones' experiments were even more
>     questionable than PF (no offense intended to Dr. Jones who could
>     probably be more profitably employed doing something else).  At 
>     least Pons and Fleischmann claimed a substantial effect.

The issue in any experimental investigation is not how big an effect
you claim, but whether the effect is real and reproducible.  In 
particular, I always look for the control of systematic errors and 
the significance of the signal. 

One of the strengths of this latest work by Jones is that he has a 
number of detectors and a setup where he can monitor coincident 
events with particular emphasis on bursts.  His signal to noise in 
that experiment looked very good; there were no coincident events 
except for very rare cases that consisted of a burst of tens to 
hundreds of neutrons.  A burst or nothing.  The "accidental" rate 
is thus zip, although the energy produced is also zip because of 
the low rate of bursts -- one every day or so I recall. 

Thus I think it is more likely that Jones is close to establishing 
a *nuclear* effect that is at variance with simple predictions than 
that P&F(&H) have established a nuclear fusion effect.  

I think it is, unfortunately, also true that P&F have not yet established 
heat effects in a controlled and reproducible fashion ... at least in 
the sense of a published paper or patent that describes a device that 
anyone skilled in the art could construct and obtain a well-defined 
effect in a reliable and consistent fasion.  (They may have done so to 
their own satisfaction in private, but that is not the same thing.) 

--
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: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Summary: none at IPP Garching
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:04:03 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>
>>Is anyone besides LLNL is US or
>>world doing research on inertial fusion?
>
>...Modest effort...at Garching in Germany...

There is no inertial fusion going on at IPP Garching. There is a
stellarator (W7-AS) and a tokamak (ASDEX Upgrade), and part of the
design team for ITER. Besides this there are groups for tokamak physics
in general, general theory, and plasma-wall interactions.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:59:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion


I could not find this article on page B3, is this the correct page number?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:09:09 GMT
Reply-To: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics DataBase
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.224.80


In article <1992Jul27.183113.8208@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.163322.27469@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu  
>(Jonathan Grad) writes:
...
>> According to the Wall Street Journal article, materials
>> scientist Edmund Storms claims to have successfully replicated
>> the Takahashi experiment.  Storms claims, in a paper submitted
>> to Fusion Technology, that his experiment began putting out
>> an excess of power after 90 hours of operation

Here's the result of a quick search of the U.C. Berkeley on-line
card catalog for author E. Storms:

[Books]
Holley, C. E.
  The actinide carbides / C.E. Holley, Jr., M.H. Rand, E.K. Storms ;
  executive editor, F.L. Oetting ; editors, V.A. Medvedev, M.H. Rand,
  E.F.  Westrum, Jr.  Vienna : International Atomic Energy Agency ;
  [Murray Hill Station, New York, NY, : UNIPUB, distributor], 1984.
  Series title:  The Chemical thermodynamics of actinide elements and
  compounds ; pt. 6.

Storms, Edmund Kugler, 1931-
  The refractory carbides [by] Edmund K. Storms.  New York, Academic
  Press, 1967.  Series title:  Refractory materials, v. 2.

[Current Contents]
Storms E.
  Review of Experimental Observations about the Cold Fusion Effect,
  Fusion Technology, 1991 DEC, V20 N4:433-477

Storms E; Talcottstorms C.[sic]
  The effect of Hydriding on the Physical Structure of Palladium and on
  the release of contained tritium, Fusion Technology, 1991 SEP, V20
  N2:246-257

Storms E; Talcott C.
  Electolytic Tritium Production, Fusion Technology, 1990 JUL, V17
  N4:680-695

[No way to tell if it's all the same guy.]
----------
    --Brad Sherman
From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:29:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul29.142915.289051
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <9207290006.AA08478@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
>Tom Droege reports an apparent 9mW average difference between 
>
>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some sort of chain 
>reaction *must* be appealed to. [Standard disclaimer about the 
>reliability of the original data, etc.]
>
>An average gain per trigger event of less than 1.0 will never 
>account for the gain of 150 million.   An average gain of exactly 
>1.00000 will not account for it either.
>
>Only gains greater than an average of 1.00000 can hope to account 
>for the net gain of 1.5E+8.  And gains greater than, yet very 
>nearly, 1.00000 are improbable due to the arbitrary geometry of 
>the Pd cathode surface which presumably "leaks" doomed chain 
>events.
>
>The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the gain is 
>greater than 1.0000 by some significant amount.  But that leads to 
>further requirements.  If the event times are on the order of 
	I am glad someone else thinks there is a possibility of chain
reaction (possibly run-away if the geometry is right). As I said before,
people probably have to be carefull what kind of electrodes they build,
high surface/volume ratio is probably safe. 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion