HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: RE: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:15:59 GMT


In my update, which was written in a bit of a hurry, I wrote
> Fugacity is defended qualitatively by Bockris et al, even quoting a Bockris
>paper of 1972, which I would have used as an argument against this "theory".
>The secret is said to be that what happens between gas particles is not the
>same as at the wall, where pressure is measured. And Landau and Lifshits
>(spelled consistently "Lifchits", I don't think polyglot Bockris did much of
>the writing of this one, I bet he knows some Russian and knows the
>transliteration rules).

This is of course hacked off. It should go on with: "are quoted as saying
that at pressures exceeding 1E17 atm, you might get nuclear effects due to
electron capture by nuclei".
Also, it was "colour", not "clour" of the gold on the Pd that disappeared in
the earlier Yamaguchi. I must be more careful and not try to rush these out.

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>In article <C24B5835131F203349@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
> writes:
>>
>>Hello fellow searchers for The Truth,
>>==============================================================================
>>                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                           Additions 19-Nov-1992
>>                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>>                     Total no. of journal papers: 765
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Bush RT;                                        Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 301.
>>"A light water excess heat reaction suggests that 'cold fusion' may be
>>'alkali-hydrogen fusion'".
>> [...]

>Immense economic ramifications is a bit understated, if his results could be
>duplicated.
>The question is: Is anyone trying to duplicate this work? While I have
>my doubts, this at least looks somewhat promising as an avenue of
>investigation. Finding calcium ash is pretty interesting.

Yes; but before others jump in and express their doubts, let me add that Bush
himself throws some doubt on this. He rightly points out that Ca is pretty
ubiquitous and might well be contamination from the cell. He is pretty
careful. In another place, he did find a trace of Sr, which presumably would
not be so likely as a contaminant. But the analysis method is pretty
insensitive and needed a few tricks, so this, too, needs confirmation, at the
very least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Back To The Future
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:43:35 GMT

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

Terry Bollinger, who either missed or misses the McCarthy era, asks:

"By the way:  Mr. Rothwell, perhaps you could help me out by answering
a little question that you seem to have missed or sidestepped several
times in the past... Have you ever in any way been funded by the LaRouche
organization for your efforts..." and bla, bla, bla.

Don't be ridiculous! I have never sidestepped a question in my life. Anyone
who has ever know me for more than 5 minutes can tell you that. You might as
well accuse Art Clarke of being modest as accuse me of being evasive. I may
make an ass of myself spouting off untruths, but I have never, *ever* evaded a
question. On the contrary, I tend to go charging in like a bull when you wave
a cape like that, even though I have promised a dozen people I will send them
this document I am translating. I have answered that particular question many
times, right here in this forum.

So, to answer your question: Nope. The LaRouche people drive me nuts. I have
to deal with them from time to time, because they show up at the cold fusion
conferences, but I have no business or social relationship with them because
they make me sick. They have, however, quoted translations by me, but that is
the author's business, not mine. Lots of people quote stuff that I translated
originally, including Fusion Facts, MITI, and the New York Times, but nobody
ever pays for quotes, in any field. As far as I know, I am the only source of
Japanese Cold Fusion information translated into English.

I wish they would leave us alone and go back to supporting hot fusion
reactors, fission reactors, breeder reactors, space travel, food irradiation,
maglev transportation, tax cuts, evolution (not creationism), high temperature
superconductors and... HEY! Wait a second here... Didn't you say you worked
for NEC? Just a second... I think you guys are in the superconductor business
aren't you? Don't deny it! Yeah... Perhaps you could help me out by answering
a little question that you seem to have missed or sidestepped here. What are
*you* doing in line of business clearly supported by and *abetted* by the
LaRouche organization? Oh, man, are you in for it!

I declare you guilty as charged. Step under the kleig lights, please. Raise
your right hand and swear: "I am not now, and never have been, a member of the
LaRouche Party..."

- Jed
From: sdf@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Fulton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:28:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

In article <1992Nov17.151633.11143@Arco.COM>, dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham) writes:
> I am a regular reader of this group and not a CF researcher.  I have
> a (somewhat) informed layman's knowledge of physics.
> 
> I do not understand why STILL no one can tell whether or not CF exists.
> 
> I have read everything I could get on the subject both in the press and
> here on the net, and am amazed at the level of diatribes, accusations
> of outright fraud/intentional lying, etc.
> 
> Is the level of emotion shown here evidence of what is at stake?
> 
> Is science-in-the-making such a messy process (a la law-making and
> sausage-making) that this is a normal part of the discussion?
> 
> Just wondering.
>  
To "prove" that cold fusion exists means usually to have a laboratory design an
experiment to prove it does. Then to carry out this experiment with positive results
e.g. heat/neutrons etc. produced that can't be explained any other way.

Secondly the experiment has to be repeated several times to verify the results.

Thirdly the experiment then has to be verified by at least two other laboratories not
connected with the first lab. i.e. preferably on the other side of the world or like.

All of this needs to be reported in a "respectable" scientific journal.

From my reading,and correct me if I'm wrong,the first has been done countable times
the second occasionally but the third never (as of yet).
i.e. cold fusion possibly exists but hasn't yet been verified sufficiently.
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I * V
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:31:51 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In one more (vain?) attempt to bring civility to things ...

In article <921121164207_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

>Hoping to pour oil on troubled waters, and not on a bonfire, 

OK, so far so good..

>Dick Blue comments: "Since this experiment is conducted in 'vacuum' it is time
>to give Jed a little review of what that word means..." Well, Dick, I believe
>Yamaguchi said it was 10 ^ -8 torr. That sounds pretty vacuuous to me, kind of
>like your knowledge of what Yamaguchi is doing. 
...
>In my opinion, you are are
>making a fool of yourself.

Not only do you pour oil on the bonfire, you provide a blowtorch too...

Jed, can you remember to use the same manners you would use with MITI
contacts in this forum?  

I guess I'm fighting a losing battle, trying to bring professional
behaviour to a bar room fight.  Sigh.

I give up.  It looks like BOTH sides would rather fight than be civil.


-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Structure
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:22:59 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>Thus if Li is absorbed by the cathode (as I suspect) then the fresh 
>electrolyte would make up for the loss.

The Li atom has a diameter of 3.04 A while the Li+ ion has a diameter of 1.2 A.
The H or D atom has a diameter of 0.74 A while the H+ or D+ (or Li+++) would
just have the nucleus diameter at about 0.00025 A.

Pd-Pd bond lengths are given as 2.75 A, which equals the Pd diameter.

If we assume Pd atoms are spherical and each touching 12 other Pd atoms in
the metal crystal packing structure, there exists a "torus" around each
sphere-sphere contact point which has a clearence of about 0.42 A diameter
of circular cross-section.  It is actually more of a triangular cross-section,
with sides curved inward.  The 0.42 A dimension is for the largest spherical
object that could pass through the triangular cross-section.

Neither the H (or D) atom or the Li+ ion are small enought to pass through
the inter-connected 0.42 A "torus tunnels" unmolested.  The H is willing to
give up an electron to become H+, and thus shrink to near nothingness in size,
but wouldn't the Li+ be much harder to turn into Li++ or Li+++ ?

In fact, if Li+ is going into the cathode, and since it might be fitting into a
space smaller than what it would like to be in, perhaps it is the Li that is 
causing these Pd cathodes to bend, twist, crack, and pit.

Another question arises as to where the D or Li resides in the Pd crystal.
The triangular torus cross-section represents the minimum diameter of the
constriction around the spherical points of contact, but the volume fluctuates
with a hexagonal pattern around the torus as it plays in and out around the
spherical surfaces of the neighboring atoms.

There might be more or less "favorable" sites around these hex "nodes",
but other than that, there is no reason that many more than six D molecules
could fit in the same torus -- which I believe must be true for loading
ratios greater than 1.0.

And if it is possible to overload these toruses, then during times of
disequilibrium, regional overloading conditions may occur.


- 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: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Subject: Re: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:58:29 GMT

In article <921119171505_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

   There are glass porthole windows in the vacuum chamber, but the experiment is
   not in a glass container and there is no glass in the experimental apparatus
   that is inserted into the chamber.

   There is no sign of any leak through the glass window during extensive
   testing of the vacuum chamber.

Jed, thanks very much for finding this out from Yamaguchi.  Posts like
this are the reason I still read your stuff.

As I understand the problem, though, sealing the glass from the
outside is not the issue.  The problem is that there may be 4He within
the glass itself.  This is then released when the vacuum chamber is
filled with deuterium or hydrogen.  This is the effect Paneth
discovered, which explained where the helium was coming from in their
system, when they originally claimed cold fusion. -- J
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:16:29 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <921119171505_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>        ...      she [Notoya] is doing a public demonstration, plus she has
>a paper, of course. These is no way on earth any scientist could possibly be
>more open, and more candid, and more willing to expose an error than this. In

This is true.

>four years of CF, Notoya is the first scientist I have heard of who is
>willing to boldly stick her neck out this far. She will show the world the
>device, and she offers to let any other scientist poke around with it. 

This is not being fair to Steve Jones. 

Steve was, by far, the first scientist to allow other scientists to make 
measurements with his device.  He not only allowed all of us to see his 
lab notebooks from day 1 and allowed visiting teams in his lab, he set 
up the experiment in another lab (with Moshe Gai, a sceptic, at Yale) 
within 6 months (I know the results were semi public by October) of the 
original announcement.

--
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: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:52:08 GMT

In article <350@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.194334.20447@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>> In article <344@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>> >This is the question. Continuous models are the simplest to work with
>> >mathematically, but are the simplest possibility as models of physical
>> >reality? I do not think so.
>> 
>> It isn't clear to me that any such distinction can be made.
>
>As one simple example consider the difference between a model based on
>finite difference equations and one based on partial differential
>equations. 

    Name a physical system in which the FDE is considered more fundamental
    than the PDE?  For most of us, we take the 'true' PDE and muck it
    up, introducing loads of spurious conservation laws and higher
    order terms, by deriving a finite difference formulation of it. 
    I'd be interested in a system in which we did the reverse.

                            dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rsf1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Robert S. Fritzius)
Subject: Hadron jets
Keywords: hard scattering
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:14:09 GMT

The following propuzzle is inspired by the Jacob and Landshoff article,
"The Inner Structure of the Proton," Scientific American, March 1980.

Suppose our job is to slam 30 GeV protons head-on into other 30 GeV
protons, but every now and then a nitrogen or an oxygen nucleus happens
to drift right into the path of one of the kamikaze protons.  KaBam!

Might we not expect to see a shower of hadrons, spawned by the rude 
and violent dismantling of that hapless nucleus?  If so, can we
easily discriminate that shower from those brought about by the
desired proton-proton collisions?

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder)
Subject: Re: ufo evidence VS. CARL SAGAN
Organization: Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:04:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.144711.6241@lut.ac.uk> (Thomas Mc Neill) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.204055.2280@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
>wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>           
>>           
>>                            UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
>> 
>>                I watched all of Dr. Carl Sagan's updated "Cosmos" 
>>           programs on PBS during summer 1991.  In one of them, he STILL 
>>           maintains that there is no physical evidence for UFO 
>>           Spacecraft, "just stories". 
>>     
>>                I should think that by now he would have heard about the 
>>           Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were 
>>           found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the 
>>           U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger 
>>           somewhere. 
>
>How come these ufo's always crash in the STATES on RANCHES in the middle of
>NOWHERE and in easy reach of the US MILITARY.
>
>Why hasn't one crashed where the MEDIA could get to it FIRST?
>                                        


This brings fo mind a few other questions:

1)  If the aliens are so smart, why do they not land one of these craft
(intact) at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum?

2)  When they contact people, why do they not contact any famous
journalists or talk show hosts?  Or why not contact some famous
scientist or science writer?

John
snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu


Xref: sparky sci.physics:19035 sci.math:15100
From: hougen@focus.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Fresnel coefficients for unpolarized light?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 04:19:46 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: focus.csl.uiuc.edu
Keywords: Fresnel,light,polarization

hougen@focus.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) (THAT'S ME) writes:

% Does anyone know how to compute the power of unpolarized
% electromagnetic radiation?

Forget this part of the question.  This is really obvious and of no
use. 

% What I really need to know is what the
% Fresnel coefficients are for unpolarized light.

I may have already answered my own question.  The solution I get is 

           R = (1/2)(R_N + R_P)

where R is the coefficient of reflection for unpolarized light, R_N is
the coefficient for light polarized normal to the plane of incidence
and R_P is the coefficient for light polarized parallel to the plane
of incidence.  Can anyone confirm this result.

Darrell
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
Subject: Re: Jokes, sexism, and the MIT dating scene
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:17:17 GMT

Well, while *I* was a Caltech undergraduate ('58) there was once a
petition to admit women as undergraduates.  It was not taken
seriously, and perhaps was not meant seriously.  Also, in a popular
songbook for students in those days there was a song containing the
stanza:

	My girl's from MIT.
	She is a travesty.
	Girls who go for engineering
	Are not so hot appearing.

Say what you like, the world does change.

%^)

-- 
        Joe Fineman             jcf@world.std.com
        239 Clinton Road        (617) 731-9190
        Brookline, MA 02146
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: energy and mass for the last time
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:54:14 GMT

In <Nov.17.17.52.49.1992.8552@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:

Mr. Weiner you wrote:

>And now, here's an example where energy is *not* conserved.  Due to
>the expansion of the universe, radiation is redshifted and loses energy.
>Where does the energy go?  
>-Ben
      Abian answers:

  The energy is spent irretrievably for moving TIME forward.

  There is where the energy goes (irretrievably)
 
  With best wishes and regards,
                                      Alexander Abian
-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: harper@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (John Harper)
Subject: Re: Why is "Physics Today" so expensive?  (Are there student discounts?)
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:20:17 GMT
Cc: harper

In article <41095@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
>I looked into subscribing to Physics Today and I was
>shocked that the price was something like $125 for a monthly.  I get
>Science for $47 and it is a weekly!
>
Find out what the student rate is to join the American Geophysical Union
(I think $7 per year), or there may be an even cheaper organisation from 
which you get Physics Today with no extra charge. Ask around your local
geophysicists (lots of them near UCSD!) and physicists.  
Other useful periodicals: New Scientist, Scientific American.

John Harper Mathematics Dept. Victoria University Wellington New Zealand
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to SIMPKINSON
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER,  YES!!!!  
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:04:45 GMT

In <1eefkuINNa0f@agate.berkeley.edu> dvs@soda.berkeley.edu 

                                          11-18-92
Dear Mr. Simpkinson  you wrote:

        
>Dear Mr. Abian:  Please quantify ANYTHING with your theory.  Please do not
>use any of the "noises" of famous bravo-sierra purveyors such as Newton,
>Einstein, Hamilton, et al.  Among the problems you may wish to address:

 My reply is:

    I cannot quantify  anything with my Theory because I do not know

            what  A  is in my    E = M(0) exp(-At)

and I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.   I am expecting that the talent-
ed Physicists will use my brilliant fundamentally revolutionizing idea:


(A2)     TIME HAS INERTIA  (i.e., TIME IS MATTER) and some energy is
         irretrievably dissipated for moving TIME forward.  Thus,
         the Principle of Conservation of Energy must be rejected.

and accordingly revise all their outmoded 19-th century  conservation
principle-based quantifications.  Then you will tell me how to quantify 
the items raised in your questions. 
    I supply the radically new and revolutionizing ideas - let the
others quantify.  I have said several times:
     REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE  and if needed QUANTIFY !  (I seldom need
quantification !).

 However, based om my very vague intuitive feelings,  my vague and nebulous 
approximating answers to your question:

>   Compute the trajectory of a particle of mass m in a uniform gravitational
>field (or the Abian equivalent) equal to earth's at sea level given an
>initial velocity, neglecting air resistance.  Simplifying, How high will a 1
>kg ball go if I throw it straight up at a velocity of 20 m/s?  Where will it
>land if I throw it (with the same velocity of 20 m/s) at a 45 degree angle 
to the vertical?

would be:
           (a)   around  20.41 meters high  
 
           (b)   twice as in (a), i.e., around  40.82  meters  away.

I may be quite off since I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.
  
   This is my entire reply to your posting.

   With best wishes and regards,
                                         Alexander ABIAN


   REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE  and if needed QUANTIFY !


-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)