HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reaction rates -- dimensional analysis
Summary: watts into MeV into Curies
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:07:43 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

After seeing some discussion of the amounts of heat reported by 
Tom Droege (thanks for keeping us up to date) relative to chemical 
sources, I thought I should remind everyone of some numbers. 

1 Joule is about 6.24 x 10^{12} MeV.  

 (I use MeV because that is a typical scale for nuclear energies.) 

  -----------

Tom reports an accumulation of 36 kJ = 2.25 x 10^{17} MeV.
                               58 kJ = 3.62 x 10^{17} MeV

This corresponds to quite a bit of "ash" or "smoke" 

  -----------

It happens to be convenient to do the rate conversion for a power 
level of 80 mW, since it comes out to be a nice round number: 

    0.08 Watts = 5 x 10^{11} MeV/s.

Now if about 4-5 MeV came from each reaction, we are talking about 
the equivalent of about 3 Curies.  If even a tiny fraction of this 
reaction produced radioactive products, they could be detected easily 
and, most importantly, the lab could be a dangerous place to work.  

You old timers will recall that such estimates were the source of 
concern about the health of Pons and Fleischman.  

--
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: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:53:51 GMT

In article <1ai32gINNpfn@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)  
writes:
> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> : <This is Hans Bethe writing>
> : "It is difficult to describe to a non-scientist the novelty of the new
> : concept.  I was entirely unexpected from the previous development.
> : It was also not anticipated by Teller, as witness his despair immediately
> : preceeding the new concept.  ....  The new concept was to me, who
> : had been rather closely associated with the program, about as surprising
> : as the discovery of fission had been to physicists in 1939.
> 
> If this is the case, there must be something besides just
> ``radiation pressure'' involved.  I can't imagine them sitting around
> in 1951, and slapping their head and saying ``Oh my god, we forgot
> about the photons!''
> 
I have to try a WAG (wild ass guess):
A fusion gun.
U235 was exploded with a clunky gun, then elegant physics was
used to fission plutonium.  So the mind set was probably to
look for elegant solutions - ellipsoidal reflectors and the like.

It might be that a fission explosion accelerating a slug of matter
which collides with a fusionable mass results in enough compression
to start the fusion reaction.  Realization of this might be 
startling since the gun concept was long ago rejected.

Also, I seem to remember some pictures of aerial fusion weapons
being long and slender.  Easy shape for a gun, but not for
ellipsoidal reflector, or secondary x-ray driven implosion etc.


--
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: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
Date: 7 Oct 1992 04:03:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


jonesse@physc1.byu.edu () says:
>(to my knowledge) no experiment to look at
>x-ray spectra has yet been performed with a cell that is claimed to be
>producing excess power at the time.  

I was just "testing" the test.   It seems to be good in one direction, but not
the other. X-rays and heat make everybody happy.  Heat without x-rays leaves
us searching for a new test.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: A who?
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:34:22 GMT

Hey guys, how do I put a gelatinous amphoteric aluminum layer on my cathode?

Tom Droege
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:07:51 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <6867@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>In article <jy+pv3#.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>> You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
>> is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
>> some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
>> of commonly available hardware store components.
>
>I'm sure there are some on this newsgroup who know far more than I do on
>the subject, but they probably can't say anything. What I recall from the
>various unclassified sources I've read is:
>
>   1) Building a fission U-235 bomb is supposed to be fairly easy. U-235

The gun method is described in some detail in DoD publications.

>      However, producing U-235 is the well known pain in the nether regions.

Actually it is quite easy.  First, get all the silver from Fort Knox...

>   2) Building an implosion fission bomb of Pu-239 is supposedly a lot
>      harder. You need to produce the critical Pu-239 ...

That was said rather easily.  This is industrial process chemistry on 
a truly heroic scale.  Don't forget you have to *machine* the Plutonium 
into the right shapes ... 

>      Getting enough loose neutrons at the same time is supposedly less
>      than trivial.

I think memory says Bethe solved this problem.  I recall an interview 
where he said that he was most concerned when watching the test with 
whether he had made any mistakes.  (Bethe rarely makes mistakes.) 

--
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: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:36:30 GMT

I would like to propose a new Internet newsgroup: sci.nuclear.energy
The newsgroup would be moderated to delete the clutter. Since I receive my
termination notice from MITRE tomorrow, and will lose access to Internet
on 30 October 1992 (the last day I will have an office at MITRE), or possibly
earlier (they might need my PC for someone else), I cannot be the moderator.
I nominate Dieter Britz who is ideal for this job. His time shift from the US
provides perfect timing. He has moderated the previous days' stuff by the time
those of in the US get up. He reads it all anyway. He knows the wheat from the
chaff.
Besides, I think I still owe him one (in the argot of my country) for the way h
e handled my published work from Fusion Facts.
DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO SET UP A NEW NEWSGROUP????
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
Internet address good until 30 October 1992.
After 30 October 1992 by MCIMAIL to Dick Forman, Maryland, USA
If I find a new job with INTERNET access I will update above addresses.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Who is who
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:45:20 GMT

Hi ya'll,

In article <921001170759_72240.1256_EHL72-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

> There has been some confusion about people's names and theories, and
> about the theory referenced by Jerry Bishop in the Wall Street Journal
> on Sept. 28.  Terry Bollinger writes:
>
> | "...the wager in question was simply whether some reporter would be
> | brave enough to broach the idea of TMC in a highly public medium.
> | Net-conscious reporters are clearly aware of the discussion a couple
> | of months ago on the Rothwell/Menlove et al TMC theory...
>                                 ^^^^^^^
> I believe that refers to the Brightsen NCM (nuclear clustron model, not
> theory), which was presented Rothwell and Mallove, not Menlove.

OWWWWCH!  My sincere apologies to both parties.  I knew this quite well,
having communicated will Bill Johnson enough to know darned well that
Menlove and Mallove are most certainly not the same people.  Thanks for
the correction.

> ...Hagelstein does not believe that CF is caused by total annihilation,
> or antimatter; he thinks CF is a neutron transfer reaction.

More power to him.  It doesn't work.  (Yes, I'm being arrogant again...)

> The argument that the products are not "commensurate" is specious nonsense.
> Any confirmed amount of product is proof of a nuclear reaction, the fact
> that it is not "commensurate" with know reactions simply proves that CF
> has not been seen before, and cannot be accounted for by conventional
> theory.

Wow, that's interesting logic.  An analogy:  I discover a form of fire that
burns in a vacuum.  But very, very, VERY careful examination shows that my
new form of fire does in fact manage to catch a very small number of oxygen
and hydrogen atoms from the imperfect vacuum and combine them into water.

Therefore any claim that New Fire is not a form of combustion is specious
nonsense.  Any confirmed amount of water produces is proof of a combustion
reaction, the fact that it is not "commensurate" with known combustion
reactions simply proving that my New Fire has not been seen before, and
cannot be accounted for by conventional combustion theory.   :-)

.....

Misinterpretation or not, I've decided to take Mr. Forman up on his wager.
More later.  It will be a carefully restricted wager between myself and
him only, if he can spare the $1 (vs. my $500) that I will be proposing.

				Cheers,
				Terry

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Commensurate
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:28:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.173523.3913@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>
>This is true -- but there are some (wild-ass:-) reactions in which detecting
>the "ash" is very hard.
>
>If, for instance, the 1H1 (protium) is being converted into 1H2 (deuterium)
>it would be very difficult to find the "ash" in a sea of pre-existing 1H2.
>You would have to be a very good bean counter from the git-go.
>
>Similarly, if the Pd is being fuso-fizzed into lighter elements, it would
>take very sensistive and dedicated assaying to discover the minute
>impurities -- and you'd had to have pre-assayed it to eliminate the 
>possibility of pre-existing impurities.
>
>Finally, TMC (total matter conversion) is the hardest to detect, since
>there are no useful ratio changes.  Accounting for such minute amounts
>of mass are, I suspect, nearly beyond the means of laboratory practice.
>
>The ash could be there in commensurate amounts, yet still be devilishly
>hard to detect.

What about energy being released only as heat? You seem to be
insinuating that regular nuclear processes are not involved.
Certainly there is energy coming off processes (except protium
to deuterium??) that is released as harder energy than IR.

As a critisizm of Tom D's work I can only say that he has a _very_
complicated set-up and is working with very small amounts of
material. I'm not at all sure that his set-up can reliably discount
other sources of errors, though I can't think of anything off-hand
and I respect his abilities.

My experience with Peltier devices tells me that they are liable to
sustain fracturing in the crystal structures if the temperature is
cycled more than 20 degrees. Whether this occurs over time at lower
deviations I can't say. But that would certainly change the efficiency
of the Peltier junctions and possibly the apparent data.
>
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radiation danger?
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:40:08 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dick Forman M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>As Tom and I have discussed privately there is no radiation danger.

If you just meant to say that there has been no measured radiation, then
you are probably right -- I mean, if it doesn't effect the geiger counter,
it probably won't effect the human body.

But if you meant that there are theoretical reasons to feel confident that
there is no radiation danger -- then you aren't telling us all you know. :-)

-- 
- 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: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Subject: Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:56:33 GMT

In article <BERG.92Sep24152751@malice.cass.usu.edu> berg@malice.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg) writes:

>      I've been following this rather, ummm, interesting thread for a couple
>   of days now.  Although some of these 'devices' are clearly fraudulant,
>   some others are reasonable.  Problem is they aren't creating
>   "free energy" but rather tapping sources that are so large that it
>   seems that way.  For intance, take the idea of tapping the earth's magnetic
>   field.  It should work.  (Didn't they just try something like that
>   recently on the space shuttle?) ...
>
>This was hardly "free" energy.  The energy was extracted from the motion of the
>satellite and shuttle NOT from the earth's magnetic field.  Getting the shuttle
>into its orbital motion was hardly "free".
>--
>Glenn A. Berg                        CASS

After talking to the Physicists around here (I'm just a data acquisition
programmer) it seems the use for the shuttle experiment is reversing it and 
using batteries to help maintain orbit.

Roger
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Fusion Energy Foundation...(was H-Bomb secret is out)
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 05:06:58 GMT

jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.) writes:
>The FEF was the 'science' arm of jailed right-wing extremist Lyndon LaRouche

LaRouche is so bizarre that people are always trying to paint him as being
in the enemy's camp.  LaRouche, however, was formerly a Marxist.  He was most
recently a Democrat.

He is actually neither left, right, or Libertarian.  He is just some eclectic
combination of bizarre beliefs.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2269 sci.physics:15699
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:00:30 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

First, the two statements below are in conflict because of a problem in 
language usage.  It seems clear that the first person uses "make" in 
the sense of "conceptual design" or perhaps in "engineering plans". 
The second person is using "make" in the more normal sense of "build". 

>In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
>>intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
>>amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.

The *design* of a U-235 fission bomb was trivial.  A solution existed 
before they ever got to Los Alamos, as Serber's Los Alamos Primer 
makes clear.  (I hope to hear more about this and the summer of '42 
in a few weeks at the DNP meeting.)  No tests were needed. 

Plutonium proved more difficult, but the first test worked. 

Fusion was difficult.  Very smart people had, history shows, some 
very wrong ideas.  Now it is true that calculation showed them to 
be wrong, but they proceeded with a (pointless) test anyway.  In 
the meantime (after working on the problem for almost a decade), 
a solution was found that worked on the first try.  This suggests 
that it is more a matter of creative invention (where the invention 
is not immediately obvious from one's experience) than engineering. 

In article <jy+pv3#.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
>is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
>some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
>of commonly available hardware store components.

I think this must be referring to the very real problems of building 
a fission bomb.  I think there was a story in Analog that parodied 
the process.  The problem in the case of both weapons is assembling 
the "special nuclear materials".  Not easily done unless your basement 
is the size of the Hanford reservation.  

--
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: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who is who
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:42:31 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <921001170759_72240.1256_EHL72-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>I believe it is fair to say that there has been a general consensus among all
>CF researchers for a very long time that CF is not fusion.  ...

>                            ....            The argument that the products are
>not "commensurate" is specious nonsense. Any confirmed amount of product is
>proof of a nuclear reaction, the fact that it is not "commensurate" with know
>reactions simply proves that CF has not been seen before, and cannot be
>accounted for by conventional theory.

It must, however, be accounted for by *some* theory or model, and if the 
products come from the reaction that produces the heat then the products 
must appear in direct proportion to the heat generated.  

This is what I mean by "commensurate". 

One cannot argue that product X has been seen in such-and-so an amount 
and that Y kiloJoules (note spelling, Tom, your "l" stutters) are 
produced, and then ignore the fact that you are claiming that 10^5 TeV 
of energy came from every reaction that produced that product.  

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 
amout 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. 

Then, if the nuclear ash is not found, it becomes time to reexamine the 
orginal hypothesis that the energy is of nuclear origin -- or look into 
the experimental design with more care paid to the ash.  The latter is 
easier if there is a system that will produce heat in predictable 
amounts on demand. 

--
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: Two more questions from a layman
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:43:38 GMT

>   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?

Just for the record (and not to argue either pro or con with the main
thrust of this statement):

* A modern BASIC in general will NOT be (just) an "interpreted
language" (and will NOT have line numbers, and WILL have all the
modern structured programming concepts, and WILL have local as well as
global variables, and so forth and so on).

Microsoft QuickBASIC for the Mac, as just one example, can be either
interpreted or compiled (and when compiled will do standard numerical
calculations as rapidly as a good compiled Pascal or C on the same
machine -- and access with ease all the Toolbox and graphics
capabilities of the Macintosh OS besides).

I know very well the esteem in which BASIC is held by "real
programmers"; but anyone who is really "put off" by the very idea of
programming in BASIC should IMHO update or broaden their view.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Gotta see those graphs
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:32:08 GMT


To add postscript to the list:

 Postscript
   + most laser printers will print it.
   + 7-bit ASCII
   + Vectors - fairly small files, but:
   - Verbose - larger than necessary so that it is human readable.
   - Not easily displayable on most terminals.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:15:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.151921.155@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

 > The suggestion of Dietz that a neutrino may carry off the energy seems to
 > violate the criterion that the crucial experiment be conducted with  heat
 > producing cells, since the neutrino will not deposit energy in a cell.

You misunderstand: the neutrino's share of the energy would indeed be
lost, but the recoil would leave the deuteron with about .6 kev (sorry, I
miscalculated before), which would be safely deposited as heat without
x rays.  1 watt of heat would now require about about 10^16 events per
second; at this rate a mole of protons would last a year.

 > The suggestion that a massive charged particle picks up most of the energy
 > seems to be ruled out by the need for momentum conservation:  the lighter
 > particle carries most of the kinetic energy.

So we imagine *two* massive particles are required, and that their
momenta come out equal and opposite.  This does seem unlikely, yes,
but is not logically impossible, and would imply that these supposed
particles would not do much unless concentrated (say, near the surface
of an electrode).

Very massive particles might get concentrated inside the earth, by
gravity; perhaps this would be of interest if you want to try to make
things happen in the core.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu