HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Subject: Not your normal assignment
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:39:31 GMT

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

Me: "Let me make your assignment crystal clear: prove the heat is an
experimental error."

Tom D: "That is not the way science works, Jed.  Experiments are published
with enough detail for replication."

Yes. I know that. I am not giving out your normal, everyday scientific
assignment here. Instead, I have in mind that someone should "debunk" cold
fusion the way the American physicist R. W. Wood debunked "N-Rays" on
September 29, 1904. Wood did not need to "replicate" the experiments (which
was impossible, in any case). All he had to do was to show that the method of
detecting and measuring the effect was bogus.

CF is exactly the same. No "skeptic" needs to replicate anything, or perform
any experiment in order to debunk it once and for all. You do not need to
know anything about the cell construction; not a single detail. All you have
to do is prove that calorimetry does not work.

It is simple! For 200 years, we have been measuring heat by generating linear
temperature calibration curves, and then running samples that generate
unknown amounts of heat. We see how hot the calorimeter water gets, then by
referring back to the calibration curve, we see how much heat was generated.
Either this method works, or it does not. The so-called skeptics say that all
excess heat results are invalid, therefore they are saying that this method
does not work. They are asserting that heat does *not* raise water
temperature in a linear, proportional manner; or they are asserting that
thermometers do not measure temperature. These are very simple, very
straightforward assertions, so they should be dead simple to prove.

The issue is not what is in the "black box" cell, or what nuclear or unknown
processes it is undergoing. The issue is far simpler than that: can we, or
can we not, measure the heat that comes out of a cell? If we can, then the
skeptics are utterly wrong and misguided, and the Japanese are entirely
justified in spending money to enhance and commercialize the effect.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Subject: DOE budget request, IEEE comment
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:26:33 GMT


This is no doubt stale news, but in the latest issue of Fusion Technology,
i.e. vol. 23, no. 1, January 1993, p.131, there is a statement by the Energy
Policy Committee of the IEEE on the FY1993 DOE budget request for fusion
energy. There is to be strong support for an overall package of energy
technologies including energy conservation and efficiency, electric power
generation and storage systems, photovoltaics and renewable energy, and
advanced nuclear fission power as well as fusion power technologies. In the
last context, both magnetic confinement and inertial confinement fusion are
to be supported. Cold fusion is conspicuous by getting no mention at all in
this statement.
In the same issue of FT, there is a report of the 14th IEEE/npss Symposium on
Fusion Energy. This might interest some of you, to help get a feel for what
front-line researchers are saying and doing. I had the feeling that inertial
confinement fusion (ICF) has been forgotten; this is far from true. It got
close to $200 million in 1992, and there is a fair amount of comment on it,
including some allusions to its military interest. Curiously (if you remember
the postings of Koloc on this group) one of the designs is called Prometheus;
it's a KrF laser, whatever that means. If you want to get a feel for the
current fusion scene, chase this paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: <None> (reply to Britz)
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 23:00:55 GMT

>In ... jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>
>> ...  So why throw the BYU work in with P/F claims?
>>   PLEASE HELP STOP THIS NONSENSE.
>>The distinction is clear in Huizenga's book and Frank Close's, but uncritically
>>muddled in Mallove's (which I profoundly resent).  It seems that believers in
>>the unfounded notion that xs heat as claimed by P/F is nuclear  USE the
>>low-level nuclear findings of the BYU group and others to support their claims.
>>To me, this is grossly unfair and fallacious.  I will continue to fight such
>>nonsense.

   I'd strongly agree that Jones' genuine science indeed should be
(and by knowledgable people is) clearly distinguished from P&F's
??? (whatever it is they do).



Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states 
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 06:54:19 GMT

monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Monkey King) writes:
>The 1 -- 1/2 transtion giving a photon of 54.4 eV, or 228 angstroms, is 
>indeed a rather inaccessible energy.

I believe this is incorrect.  A fall from infinity to n=1/2 gives 54.4 eV,
but a fall from n=1 to n=1/2 would (assuming MKF) give 54.4-13.6=40.8 eV.

It is unlikely that any hydrogen atoms in a MKF cell will start from anything
other than the n=1 ground state, and therefore we should look for 40.8 eV
photons rather than 54.4 eV photons.

-- 
- 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: Quick reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:38:36 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9301211614.AA22296@suntan.Tandem.com> Rusty Perrin <U7584RT%DOEMA.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu> writes:
>Jed Rothwell writes:
>
>"If...we refuse to allow any new experiments (as DoE has done)"
>
>There seems to me to be a big difference between refusing to fund any
>experiments and refusing to allow any experiments.       ... 

Precisely.

>            ...            So if contractors to the DOE are using DOE funds to
>conduct CF research with funds intended for another purpose, DOE has to stop
>that or people could wind up in jail. It's the law.   ...

It is also important to note that DOE enters into "contracts" and NSF 
makes "grants".  There is more than just a semantic difference here.   
The DOE can always fall back on its contractual language to stop you 
from doing something that it did not fund. 

--
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: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Mercury Thermometers
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 01:21:53 GMT

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>...water is *not* a "good thermal conductor".
>...water is a pretty good insulator.

Hey, wait a minute!  Aren't you the same guy who a few months ago was
lecturing us about how crummy even the best insulators were? :-)

-- 
- 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: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states 
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 19:27:56 GMT

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>trying to resolve some of the issues I mentioned, vs. (say) just getting mad
>at me or some such reaction.

My view is that Mills' claimed results are so fantastic that experimental
error is unlikely, and therefore Mills is either telling the truth, or is
running a scam.  I'm just killing time here until the situation resolves
itself.

>Yes, you can "farfetch" other aspects of the proposed suborbital system, but
>keep in mind that the next step is to _critique yourself_ as severely as
>possible_.

I should really formulate my statements into the form of a question.  i.e.
when someone says, "it must be X" or "it can't be X", then all I am asking is
did they consider this variable or that variable also?  I am intellectually
ill equipped to be anything more than a question poser.

>It _does_ make the behavior of very simple particles "context dependent" in a
>most peculiar fashion.

I think an example of "context dependent" would be the mass difference between
a hydrogen atom with an electron with a forward spin versus one with an
electron with a retrograde spin.  These differences change the "step"
energies very slightly of the photons emitted in transversing the various
"n" states, yet Planck's constant remains rock solid.  We end up with pairs
of closely spaced emission (or absorption) lines in our spectrums.

>You seem to be shooting for the idea that
>the electron will "stop" when it gets to the proton surface.

Wouldn't the strong (or is it the weak) nuclear force insist?

-- 
- 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: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Subject: Jed Clears the Air?
Reply-To: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:39:22 GMT

If we accept the latest missive from Jed Rothwell as CF gospel we have
the following:

<< They know the fuel is water....  They know that the fuel contains >>
<< thousands of times more energy than gasoline....                  >>

<< They needed to do 200 experiments over 2 or 3 years, like McKubre.>>

Last time I heard anything about Mckubre's work it involved the use of
D2O with ordinary water serving as a blank that produced no heat.  Just
where are we, Jed, on the question of heavy vs. light water?  You site
McKubre's work as a prime example of careful and diligent experimenta-
tion, but what has been learned from those 200 experiments?  If you
want to use McKubre's results as a standard for CF research, how
can you jump ship on all the D2O experiments, and assert that "They
know the fuel is water."?

Then you return to your old challenge that "You must prove the heat
does not exist."  Wrong!  As has oft been stated the burden of proof
lies with you and other advocates of cold fusion.  We skeptics can
just sit back and watch you flounder about as you make your wild
assertions without any logical basis in fact.  "Heat" with no
apparent source is going to be a tough commodity to sell.  My
advice, as always, is that you will have to track down the source
before you attempt any development of cold fusion.  The idea that
water is a potential fuel has been tried before.  You will have to
do better.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Reply-To: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:32:05 GMT

Jed, in a response to Frank Close says:

"How so?  What other work? Tell us exactly what McKubre, Kunimatsu, Srinvasan,
Storms, Mills, and Thermacore have done wrong."

McKubre looks pretty good.  Kunimatsu I do not recognize.  Srinvasan I have 
already critiqued here.  Storms published on 1/2 of a good run.  I would have
been more conservative.  Mills I did extensive work duplicating, and found 
problems which have not yet been resolved.  Thermacore has not to my knowledge
published, so I have no way of evaluating their work.  

So my personal assessment is that the field (based mainly on McKubre's work)
is provocative, but not convincing.  

Later Jed says:

"Let me make your assignment crystal clear: prove the heat is an experimental
error."

That is not the way science works, Jed.  Experiments are published with enough
detail for replication.  Belief results when enough separate replications are 
made so that workers in the field generally agree on the result.  One problem
for me is that I have observed that McKubre leaves importent parts of the 
recipe out of the published papers.  So I can not be sure that my work is 
really a replication.  So that reduces the weight of the McKubre result.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Submission for Fusion Digest
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 18:46:18 GMT

Gary S. Collins  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
>The rough connection just found between the uncertainties in position and 
>momentum of a matter-wave is more precisely expressed in Heisenberg's 
>uncertainty relation:
>	(dx)(dp) >= hbar/2. 						(1)

Farrell suggests the electrons gain mass as they fall to lower orbits, so
I'm wondering how this might affect the "p" quantity.

For instance, how does a muon's mass effect its orbital radius and the
minimum energy of a muon/proton "atom?"  Is the n=1 radius still .53A ?
Or is the orbit bigger or smaller than .53A ?

How about minimum energy?  Does a muon in n=1 state give the muon/proton
system less energy than an equivalent electron/proton system? More energy?
The same?

-- 
- 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: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states 
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:15:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.044246.16642@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, 
monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Monkey King) writes:

|> Here is a physics question: when an electron in a atom radiates, which
|> particle loses mass -- the electron or the nucleus or both?  For example,
|> suppose a proton and an electron at rest, initially unbound, the total mass
|> is M = Mp + Me, where Mp and Me are rest mass of the particles, respectively.
|> The electron then combines with the proton to form a hydrogen atom in the
|> ground state, losing 13.6 eV in the form of radiation.  The total mass of the
|> two particles is now M - 13.6 eV.  Now the question is which particle is
|> lighter than before?   And why? Can you say here that you can't ask such a
|> question because you have to treat the atom as a single entity?  This
|> quesiton is relevant to Bollinger's argument about the electron becoming
|> lighter and lighter when it falls thru the basement to become a hydrino.  I
|> hope experts in this group can give a serious answer to my question (Blue,
|> Carr, Jones, are you listening?).  

	Even though I am not one of the above mentioned . . . the correct 
answer is that neither loses mass.  The rest mass of the system in its initial 
state is M.  The rest mass of the final state (hydrogen + photon(s)) is 
also M (conservation of rest mass is guarenteed by the seperate conservation 
of momentum and energy); the rest mass of the hydrogen atom is smaller than 
that of the system as a whole.  The masses of the electron and proton do 
not change (unless of course they decay, which would be novel).  

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:59:39 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1993Jan25.044246.16642@zip.eecs.umich.edu> monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Monkey King) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.011105.16977@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>>chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:

>Here is a physics question: when an electron in a atom radiates, which
>particle loses mass -- the electron or the nucleus or both?  For example,
>suppose a proton and an electron at rest, initially unbound, the total mass
>is M = Mp + Me, where Mp and Me are rest mass of the particles, respectively.
>The electron then combines with the proton to form a hydrogen atom in the
>ground state, losing 13.6 eV in the form of radiation.  The total mass of the
>two particles is now M - 13.6 eV.  Now the question is which particle is
>lighter than before?   And why? Can you say here that you can't ask such a
>question because you have to treat the atom as a single entity?  This
>quesiton is relevant to Bollinger's argument about the electron becoming
>lighter and lighter when it falls thru the basement to become a hydrino.  I
>hope experts in this group can give a serious answer to my question (Blue,
>Carr, Jones, are you listening?).  

	Actually,  neither particle becomes lighter.  The "negative energy"
in the system is going to be "negative" electromagnetic energy in the
space around the particles.  Of course the net energy is going to be positive,
but you will find the difference if you,  say,  compute the electric field of
a positive and negative charge at a distance of 1m and at a distance of .5 A
and then work out the energy density and integrate to find the total energy.

	If you care about the inertia of the whole system,  you have to
remember that the fields have inertia too -- since particles already have
"electromagnetic mass".

	Of course there was a little swindle here because we have serious
problems in defining electromagnetic energy;  i.e.,  the electromagnetic
energy of a point particle is infinite.  This is a problem that isn't
entirely resolved;  but it is still pretty meaningless to say that
either particle actually "loses mass",  only that the system (including
fields) does as a whole.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states 
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:34:03 GMT

Hi folks,

In article <1993Jan21.192756.23373@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:


> .. My view is that Mills' claimed results are so fantastic that experimental
> error is unlikely, and therefore Mills is either telling the truth, or is
> running a scam...

Dr. Farrell is definitely not the scam type.  I think he is entirely sincere
in his beliefs about subground states and his experiments, and that he is a
downright decent fellow.  However, I flatly do not accept his technical
premises for proposing subground states.  I am also convinced that no amount
of tinkering around with that particular set of premises will ever lead to
a theory that is consistent with how the universe as whole behaves.

I know nothing at all about Mills except what I've seen on this group.


> I think an example of "context dependent" would be the mass difference
> between a hydrogen atom with an electron with a forward spin versus one
> with an electron with a retrograde spin.  These differences change the
> "step" energies very slightly of the photons emitted in transversing the
> various "n" states, yet Planck's constant remains rock solid.  We end up
> with pairs of closely spaced emission (or absorption) lines in our
> spectrums.

That is covered without change by _existing_ QM, though.  Jim Carr could
comment far better than I, if he takes an interest in a quick explanation.


> | You seem to be shooting for the idea that the electron will "stop" when
> | it gets to the proton surface.
>
> Wouldn't the strong (or is it the weak) nuclear force insist?

Nope.  Strong and EM normally don't usually "see" each -- they are two ships
passing in the night, so to speak.  That has to be modified by the (very)
weak interaction, of course, but even then I suspect that if you could
somehow stably stuff an electron into a proton it would still be several
minutes (comparable to neutron decay times) before the electron and some
quark bumped into each other via the weak force.

There is no "solid" surface to a proton, only the outer edge of a bag of
three asymptotically (sp?) bound quarks moving at very high speed.  They
don't like other quarks (protons, neutrons) much, but are generally
indifferent towards electrons.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: 26 Jan 1993 05:15:59 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3


What are the possible angular momentum states of these alleged
"1/N" hydrogen states?  What transisions are allowed in
single-photon radiation?

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states 
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:17:14 GMT

Sorry, folks, but I'm not interested in having anything to do with another
Mills et al phase in this group.  See you all later (maybe _reeeaaal_ later).
Email me directly if you have something you really want me to read.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger


                "If the stone dogs in front of the old mansion
                 hear thunder, they always run under the porch."

                            --Example of a logically valid statement that
                              demonstrates how a false premise ("stone dogs..
                              hear thunder") leads to _any_ implication (if
                              stone dogs can hear, why _not_ run, too?).

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion