HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Products and proportionality
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

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

J. A. Carr writes:

"I approach the analysis of these data with the explicit assumption that this
is a result of some (unspecified, perhaps unknown) nuclear reaction. This means
I assume that some a+A --> b+B reaction occurs with the release of energy.  I
therefore expect to find b and B in direct proportion to the energy release. 
The number to be found clearly depends on the amount of energy expected from
the reaction, but certain limits can be imposed on the top end.  This
establishes a lower limit on the numbers to be expected, since less energy per
reaction means *more* ash. "

I believe this model is much too simple. I think the evidence already at hand
disproves it. In my view, nuclear products like neutrons and tritium stand in
relation to CF the way smoke relates to flame. Sometimes, you get a lot of
smoke, and very little open flame, but other times, you get all flame and no
smoke. I think that in the end, we will discover that "CF" is not one unified
phenomenon, it is a complex series of different reactions or phases, that occur
in different ways, and produce different products.

To put this in concrete terms:

Mizuno talks about the different "phases" the CF reaction goes through as the
D:Pd ratio changes. He believes that as the loading increases, we first see a
lot of tritium produced, then that effect dies away and we begin to see a
neutrons and a little heat. As the loading goes higher, the neutrons fade away,
and the heat becomes intense. Unfortunately, these phases are difficult to
separate out from one another, because palladium does not load in a precisely
even fashion. One part of the sample may be at 0.85, while another is at 0.90,
so several phases go on simultaneously.

What this means is not that there is 'no ash,' but that you can never be quite
sure whether you are going to get lots of one type of ash, or only a little
bit, while the rest goes up the flue as smoke (as it were). Since we don't know
how to build fires yet, every one of them burns differently. We cannot expect b
and B in direct proportion to the energy release; we have to look for some
complex, unknown mixture of A, B, C, D and who knows what else, which sometimes
show up in the gas, and sometimes remains in the palladium. The proportions of
A, B, C and D in relation to the heat vary from 0% to 100%, depending on
unknown factors. Okay, loading is known, but what other factors are there, and
how do they work?

Another source of complexity would be if my colleague Brightsen is correct, in
which case some portion of the product is now halfway to Alpha Centuri,
having missed the detectors altogether.

- Jed
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Two more questions from a layman
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:23:04 GMT

In article <1at63pINNq6j@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>
>   1) Should one worry about Tom Droege's problems with his UPS?
>      When considering buying one of these circa 1984, I
>      was told that it did an excellent job of conditioning
>      the power coming out, but could have bad effects on
>      other devices attached to the circuit "behind" the UPS.

Cheap UPS's have cheaply designed frequency stabilizers. This can but isn't
likely to, cause trouble in some sorts of downstream devices that could be 
frequency sensitive. I wouldn't put a clock downstream, but for what Tom
is doing he should have no trouble.
>
>   2) Tom made some remarks about how he liked BASIC as he
>      was able to go in and tinker with the programs (paraphrase!).
>      As someone who gets paid to do this sort of tinkering, I
>      was a bit put off by these statements --though I agree that
>      interpreted languages _are_ easier to tinker with.  Any
>      possibility that the tinkering caused anomalies?

There is the possibility for errors in every single step of the
procedure. I don't think we need worry any more about Tom's
programming skill than his technical expertise. :-) In other words,
if there is an error, it's up to him to find it or to supply sufficient
information to someone else to spot the problems.
>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 07:16:54 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
> Dick Forman requests info:
> Does anyone who follows the publication of that pulp journal "Science"
> know if they have yet rescinded their NO RESUBMISSIONS Rule? I would like to
> resubmit my manuscript titled: On the Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions of
> Palladium and Deuterium.  The rejected it on 10 May 1989 and I would like to
P&F derived researchers should boycott "Science" and "Nature".

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:12:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.172629.152@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:


> Since the nuclear reactions at work are not known, can one hide
> forever by saying that the correct nuclear products have not been
> searched for?  Or, as in the case of P+P --> D, cannot be found due to
> low S/N?

> [ argument about X-rays omitted ]

Also, don't forget Coulomb excitation of the palladium nuclei.  This
should produce gamma rays at characteristic energies.

In a spirit of playfulness, though, I can imagine some loopholes.

p+p+e-->d+nu:  Conservation of momentum says the neutrino
carries off most of the energy, so the deuteron is left with only
about 1.1 keV.  This is too little to excite K or L shell electrons
in palladium.

Another bizarre possibility would be to imagine that the heavy water
is contaminated with some exotic stable massive charged particles,
and that -- somehow -- these particles end up carrying off the energy
from some kind of nuclear reaction.  Such particles would masquerade
as superheavy isotopes of hydrogen (if positively charged).  Even
carrying MeV of energy, such particles, if sufficiently massive, could
not cause inner shell excitations upon collision with a palladium
atom, as the energy in the center of mass frame would be too small.

By the way, there are stringent limits on the abundance of exotic
superheavy isotopes of hydrogen of mass < 1200 AMU (Nuc. Phys. B,
1982).  Smith et. al. electrolyzed 6000 liters of commercial heavy
water down to a few tens of microliters, then used a time of flight
mass spectrometer.  Upper bounds of ratio of exotic isotopes to 1H of
10^-28 to 10^-29 were found in the range 12 AMU to 1200 AMU.  However,
at higher masses, the limits were much less tight; around 10^-15 at
about 5000 AMU, with lower limits at higher masses (this bound was
from a measurement of the density of the sample.)  I don't know if
anyone has tried to better these bounds since then; there might be
astrophysical bounds.  Concentrations in heavy water would be roughly
5000 times higher, as the exotic isotopes would be concentrated along
with the deuterium.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent)
Subject: Re: Two questions from a layman 
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:40:06 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri -- Rolla
Keywords: energy yield; experimental error 

I have two questions which I hope have simple answers:

	1:  I've gathered that Tom's latest results duplicate earlier
experiments.  Could someone (possibly Tom?) post a value for the excess
heat (i.e. 100 joules in, 300 joules out= a 200% excess)?

	2:  How much excess is necessary to be considered above experimental
error?

--
wdechent@clciris.chem.umr.edu
From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmas in Solids
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:03:36 GMT
Reply-To: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <kaXqRB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim
Bowery) writes:
|>An excerpt from the Scientific American article "Plasmas in Solids"
|>by Raymod Bowers (this photocopy looks like it was from the 60's):
|> 
|>This article will describe some experiments involving plasma waves in
|>solids and will show how they resemble similar waves in a gas plasma.  
|>...
|>One might reasonably ask:  What is the point of such experiments?
|>No one cazn hope to create a thermonuclear reaction in the plasma
|>of a solid, nor can one remotely approach the scale of phenomena
|>that is the crucial element in astrophysical problems.  This is
|>quite true.  Yet plasma experiments in solids offer a unique
|>opportunity to observe plasma behavior under well-defined and 
|>accurately known conditions. 

I agree, but I believe you are a little timid in how useful this line
of study is. Solid state plasmas offer a glimpse into something that
normal Astrophysics, or magnetic fusion, or even inertial fusion don't
usually have to deal with --- Quantum Mechanics. Solid state plasmas
can be cooled to a low temp. and are very high density. Effects of
quantum degeneracy can be investigated. Thus solid state plasmas (along
with the new and exciting field of single component confined plasma
traps) are the only ways (that I know about) to look at these effects.
This quantum plasma physics is important. It may have a good deal to
say about steller cores (and maybe even planetary cores) as well as
dynamics of neutron stars. Watch closely and you will see some papers
from some of the precision labs talking about what is the crystal 
structure of an electron gas confined in a axial electric potential
and a cylindrically symmetric magnetic field. --- Neat stuff.

Finally, IF CF is real, then the explanation for the effect will probably
have to involve some theory about quantum effects of solid-state
plasmas.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Pathway Question
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:45:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.203715.20844@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu  
(Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.201407.23663@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
Clarke) writes:
> 
> > Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:
> >
> > D + D -> T + P + energy
> >
> > energy is less than fusion to helium by decay energy of tritium+
> > an electron mass, but should still be well positive.  The proton 
> > and triton although, high energy, will be be rapidly stopped in
> > the Pd lattice and so produce no external radiation.
> 
> This last statement is not true.  The tritium will sometimes undergo
> secondary reactions with deuterium before slowing down, each reaction
> producing one 14 MeV neutron.  If I recall correctly, about 2 x 10^-5
> neutrons get produced per tritium nucleus.  This would be easily
> detectable.
> 
> This is all well known.  See Huizenga's book, for example.
> 
> 	Paul F. Dietz
> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Mea Culpa.  Fools rush in ...
Thought the idea was probably too easy :-)
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: October 2 Experiment Status
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:36:52 GMT
Reply-To: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE () says:
>It is of some concern that the power level shows such a steady increase.  

It does seem to be one of the most constant slopes I've seen in
experimental data. :-)   Thank heaven for bursts.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:37:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.051747.26324@asl.dl.nec.com> I said:

> But I absolutely stand by the logic of [my TMC vs. CNF] argument.
> Nothing else fits...

Just it case:  Be it known that I really have no interest in inviting any
further discussion on Twist.  My emphasis in the above sentence is on the
absurdity of proposing nuclear mechanisms that leave no nuclear products.
If you find Twist absurd yet insist on dabbling with bizarre distortions
of established nuclear theory, then you need to think carefully about who
is really proposing weirder theories (farfetches, actually) than whom.

> And I remain as confident as I was two years ago (more so in fact) that
> there is genuinely some room for novel physics in my proposed mechanism
> of heavy-particle band solitons...

New physics, but not necessarily TMC!  The heavy-particle soliton is a
fascinating little problem (if somewhat obscure) that I would love to do
a real paper on someday, quite independent of whether there is anything
to palladium heat anomolies or not.  The prerequisite for really radical
new physics is massive, world-wide replication of a pointedly non-chemical,
non-nuclear heat production effect.  Haven't seen that yet, have you?

				Later gaters,
				Terry
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathway Question
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:54:24 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:
>
>D + D -> T + P + energy

I make the total energy to be about 3.84 Mev, with about 0.96 Mev's going
into the T and 2.88 Mev's going into the P.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:26:03 GMT

tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

>3) You've worked with enough related subjects that you don't need
>   to try it. In which case your security clearance prevents you
>   from talking.

This is maybe not quite true: there are stories that Lybia and Iran are
offering much money ($20000/month) to Russian nuclear engeneers.
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
**********************************************************
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:05:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dick Forman M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>I would like to propose a new Internet newsgroup: sci.nuclear.energy
>The newsgroup would be moderated to delete the clutter.

By most measures, this is a low clutter newsgroup already, and would
be a low clutter e-mail group.  My guess is that what you want is
pretty specialized and would be most efficiently served by an e-mail
reflector.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Possible?: 2 integers specifying a point in 3D space.
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:10:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.717523804

I just realized that my method for encoding the rational points neglects
the possibility of negative coordinates!  Well, OK, make all the
fractions positive, then put another digit on the beginning of the
numerator integer that tells which octant the point is in.  If the
base is less than 8, you can use more leading digits.
-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:27:20 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct6.183626.24921@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom) writes:
>
> I have never read this group so I have no idea if it has been sloshed
>around before, butI would like to know, in a nutshell, just what
>Spontaneous SymmetryBreaking is.          ...

In a nutshell, eh.  How about in a wine bottle? 

Spontaneous symmmetry breaking is just what its name implies: one has 
a symmetry, say a single BB being dropped down the exact center of a 
recently emptied beer bottle.  The BB will end up at the center of the 
bottom of the bottle because it is slightly concave.  (OK, maybe it 
really isn't, but lets assume that it is.)  This is an unbroken symmetry.  
Now use a wine bottle, which has a raised area in the center. In principle, 
the center is still an equilibrium point, but it is unstable. The BB will 
not end up in the center, but rather off to the side in some direction.  
The symmetry is broken, spontaneously.  It really does not matter what 
direction the BB chose, since the BB now defines a unique reference 
direction in the bottle. 

In physical systems, this sort of mechanism is used to explain how 
a particle can be described by equations that are symmetric about m=0 
and yet acquire a non-zero mass that breaks the symmetry. 

>        CH3  O            CH(CH3)2        |      dadaMatrix
>           >-P-S-CH2CH2-N<            VX  |                       
>    CH3CH2O               CH(CH3)2        |     aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu
>                                          | A kinder gentler lobotomy...

Now, could you explain what that thing in your signature is to those 
of us who are chemically challenged? 

--
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
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: Understand...!!!!
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:30:18 GMT


I am holding in my hand a baloney sandwich. I hereby declare that this
is an instance of a clock. Now I note that as the baloney sandwich
decreases, so does my hunger. Since time is what a clock measures, I
deduce that: Time is hunger.

In short, this definition of time is a load of baloney. Time is NOT what
you measure with a clock. Time is the length of timelike worldlines. Its
definition has nothing to do with the way you happen to measure it, whic
h is a mere technological bagatelle.



: 
: Philosophically, this is the viewpoint that once you have something defined,
: (such as a way to measure it, for example) it has *some sort* of reality.
: 
: When you define a 'clock', you are defining 'time'.  There are lots of way
: to build clocks, and an 'ideal' one may be an abstraction as opposed to
: any particular implementation, but those are the breaks.  We'll just have
: to say that people have some idea of 'clockness', and that we can build
: clocks that people generally agree are pretty good ones  nowadays (rubidium
: or cesium standards, for example).  People agree that grandfather clocks
: with weights aren't really so good - they can be affected by the environment
: in ways that 'better' clocks are not.
: 
: Anyway, the idea of time as something that is measured by a clock clears up
: some of the problems many people have with relativity.
: 
: All one has to do is to realize that what a clock measures depends on how
: it moves.  This is counter to practical every-day experience, where one
: expects _ideal_ clocks to stay synchronized no matter how they move around. 
: However, at sufficiently high velocities (and/or gravitational fields), this
: difference becomes measurable even for a 'perfect' clock.  (I'm not sure
: exatly what practical confirmatory evidence is availble, but I know there is
: at least some, - i.e. from particles that wouldn't be expected to live long
: enough to penetrate the atmosphere otherwise, but are observed to do so in
: practice).
: 
: This leads right to the idea of the 'relativity of simultanaeity'.  If
: the time elapsed on a clock depends on how it moves, you can no longer
: synchronize distant clocks simply by moving them together - you'd have
: to specify _how_ they were moved together.  Before relativity, one could
: assume clocks would always stay synchronized no matter what - after
: relativity, one no longer has this view.
: 
: Similar things happen with fields as far as 'reality' goes. In principle,
: there is a way to measure an electric field, for instance (the acceleration
: of a unit charge), though I'm not aware of any practical absolute methods
: (more practical ones measure changes in electric fields).  In this sense, a
: field is 'real'.
: 
: Fields also turn out to be a useful way to look at reality, (at least IMO)
: but that's another issue.
From: John.C..Baez@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Simple observation about Quantum Kitty Cats
Date: 25 Sep 92 07:27:04 GMT

Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Sep24.165209.8983@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.040054.5442@galois.mit.edu>,
>|> [...]
>|> So far, so good - I'd be happier if you added that there is no such
>|> thing as an "explanation" of a physical theory... except perhaps by 
>|> showing that it follows as a special case or approximation of another,
>|> better physical theory.  We can't knock on God's office door and ask
>|> him "why" the laws of physics are the way they are.

>I posted an article about a week ago entitled "descriptions vs. 
>explanations" in which I addressed this issue.  

Whoops!  Sorry, I forgot that was you.  Guess I have no problem.

>Reification of the descriptive equations
>is an exercise in mysticism.

I have nothing against mysticism in its place, but certainly no Taoist
*or* Buddhist would mistake the moon for the finger pointing to the
moon.  I agree with your point but would say:

Reification of the descriptive equations
is an exercise in mystification.

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech