HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Subject: Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Keywords: Casimir Effect
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:36:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.225833.29067@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.|> 
|> So again, has sonoluminiscence _already_ been solved, or not?
|> 
|> 
|> 				Cheers,
|> 				Terry Bollinger

Doesn't Julian Schwinger say it's the dynamical analogue of the
Casimir effect?

N. Redington
14S-100
MIT

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Thanks, Jed for putting on your bad guy list
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:20:36 GMT

I have said some harsh things about cold fusion experiments in one
context or another, and I expect I will continue to do so.  Still I
would like to stay fairly close to making valid remarks and to correct
the most significant errors that creep into these missives that are
obviously tossed off without any editing.  So even if it is Jed Rothwell
who says I tell lies, I would like to track down and correct my
misstatements when that is possible.  I will need your help, Jed, to
spot the specific misstatements to which you refer.

Most recently you asserted that I had incorrectly associated Yamaguchi's
name with liquids.  I am sorry if I have made any remarks that would
tend to indicate that improper association.  As I recall the key point
I wished to make about Yamaguchi's experiments had to do with the
operating pressures at which he was attempting to use an RGA scan to
resolve 4He+ ions from D2+ ions.  I can't for the life of me think
how I may have gotten "liquids" into that discussion.  Please help
me out, Jed, by specific references to any of my lies that you think
I should retract.   I don't intend to tell lies.  I really do be
believe in the power of truth.

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Re: Blue's questions about BYU experiment
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:35 GMT

In reply to BartB, perhaps it would help if I gave a bit more complete
description of the data which is under discussion.  This is not a
case in which there is a well defined peak at the appropriate energy
and that is all.  As is common for measurements of this sort, there
are in fact two measurements required:  one for effect and one in which
the effect is somehow turned off without altering significantly the
interferring background signal.  The background determined with the
effect turned off must then be subtracted from the measurement for
effect to see any net signal that remains.  It sounds more straight
forward than it may actually be.  For starters both the measurement
for effect and for background are subject to statistical fluctuations.
Furthermore in the experiment under discussion the background may
have an unknown time dependence that limits the acuracy with which
one can due a subtraction of two data sets recorded at different
times.  The background measurement may not be "proper" for other
reasons, such as a removal of a background source such as the
palladium sample itself.  Finally, one question I am raising
about this experiment has to do with the nature of the signal
the detector would record even in the absence of background.  In
the Czir-Jensen paper that describes the detector, the calibration
spectrum shown is not in accord with the signal claimed in Jones
paper.  This is not just a question of extrapolation beyond the data.
The data is more or less a continuum from zero energy to well beyond
anything associated with 2.45 MeV neutrons.  It is a very tough
experimental problem, and when it has only been done once and several
other attempts give different results or nothing at all.... well
I don't think it is one of those "facts" that Jed Rothwell says
we just have to accept.

As an aside, Thanks to Jon Webb for his well stated reply to Jed's
latest.  Saves me the trouble.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:48:25 GMT
Reply-To: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


 Dave Andrews dandrews@bilver.uucp writes:

>Can you say whether or not you have found a way to CONTAIN the little >buggers(hydrinos)?
 
No, I cannot say.

John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: The Dunn Summary
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:23:54 GMT


Many thanks to Bruc Dunn for an attempt at an overview of CNF experiments.  I 
nominate Bruce as the keeper of the summary table, and hereby provide my input.

Type 1 No recombiner, completely open.

Mills runs this way.  Plain water, very open to the air for his large cells.
Ni Cathode, Pt anode, K2CO3 electrolyte.  Sees heat.

Ying.  P&F type cell, open, but exposed to a source.  Sees heat.

Appleby.  P&F type cell, not gas tight, Saw heat (Not Active?)

Type 2, No recombiner, bubbler

Huggins.  P&F type cell, Saw heat, not active now, but Martha Schreiber of his
group now works with McKubre.

Type 3, Recombiner, bubbler

Droege ran Mills experiments in this mode.  No net heat seen.  

Type 4, Recombiner, orifice

No experiments known to me in this category.

Type 5, Recombiner, syringe or bellows

Droege runs mostly this way.  I have run with cell purges of Helium, Deuterium,
Oxygen, and Argon.  With the Deuterium purge, absorbed Deuterium is made up by
more Deuterium from an auxilliary syringe.  With the Oxygen purge, excess 
oxygen is taken off into an auxilliary syringe.  The present run is with an
Argon purge.  The cell was filed and sealed up in the Argon bag.  An early 
disaserous attempt was mad to fill with Helium.  All that is left is a great
picture of me in front of the apparatus with my cat and the Helium baloon I 
used as a source of helium.  Wonderful American Flag on the balloon.  

Type 6. Closed and pressurized.

McKubre and one of the Japanese runs this way.  McKubre back loads with up to
10,000 psi of D2 gas.  There is no vent.  Evolved gas just builds up the
pressure.  But now I guess (after the accident) that the blow out plugs are set
for lower pressure.  He said the last runs were made at 50 psi, I remember. 

The big mystery is how P&F run.  To my knowledge they have never told us.  The
early paper said "sealed with parafilm".  What the heck is parafilm?  But if 
they seal the cells, they have to vent the gas.  My guess it that they are 
Type 2, but perhaps someone can fill in.  Remember that even Hawkins was never
in the back room, so we have to get the answer from P or F.  

The only first class experiment that I know of (McKubre) runs with a 100%
D2 fill.  I guess 10,000 psi is a lot of kPa.  McKubre says that this high
pressure completly prevents the formation of O2 bubbles.  Perhaps someone 
can explain this.  Where does the O go if it does not make bubbles?  But he
has also claimed excess heat at the much lower 50 psi.  

How about it Bruce, do you want to be keeper of the matrix?  If so I will start
sending everything I can find.  At present I am keeping what I know in my head
and trying to do the same job as you in trying to find a common thread in the
successful experiments.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Parafilm and other CF garbage
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:16:27 GMT

What is Parafilm you ask.  It is simply parafine wax supplied in thin
sheets that is routinely used in biology, biochem, and related field
as a quick and easy way to seal flasks that you don't want exposed to
the nasty little things that float in the air.  I don't think it meets
the Jed Rothwell protocol for keeping CF experiments squeeky clean
with respect to organics.

As to other recent CF news that I would assign to the dust bin is
the message from Prof. Farrell that Mills is producing 50 Watts
of heat with 2.5 Watts input power - too big an effect to require
careful measurements.  But, of course, we can't be told anything
about how this is done!  Perhaps Mills would consider releasing
a video.

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Hydrinos, harmful or not?
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:44:15 GMT


Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>:

>When Mills and I were first considering the possiblility of the hydrino
>causing harmful biological effects, were we going on the assumption that
>it was a highly reactive species and would thus not participate in
>catalytic effects.  Then Mills changed his mind, and said that any
>hydrinos would be inert.  I'm not sure why he changed his mind.  Perhaps
>Dr. Farrell has an explanation as to why they would be inert rather than
>highly reactive.

I can offer an explanation, in terms of the Mills theory (which I don't
believe):
The Mills theory explains the excess heat as coming mainly from hydrogen atoms
falling to a lower energy state, one of the 1/N states. For this to work, the
resulting hydrinos would have to remain as such indefinitely, otherwise you'd
reabsorb the heat, and no excess. This would explain why Mills does not
believe in a biological hazard. For the hydrino to do something chemical, it
would have to get back up to a normal state, or be ionised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Neutron Measuring 50 Years Ago
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:53:22 GMT


I am typing in this extract from the New Scientist magazine (without
their permission, although the managers of such an excellent magazine
would surely approve) because it reminded me of what I am not reading
in this group:

"... The experiment resumed at 2:30 pm. Fermi again instructed the pile to
be operated with a single conrol rod, as he calculated what the neutron
count would be when the rod was withdrawn by another foot....

"The neutron counter was eventually overwhelmed, and everyone's attention
turned to the chart recorder, its pen scratching out a continuous ascent.
Fermi spent several minutes carefully checking that the rise was
exponential, that is, rising by the same factor in each successive time
interval -- evidence that the chain had been established. He put away his
slide rule and broke into a broad smile, announcing: 'the reaction is
self-sustaining'. The reactor was working at half a watt."
					     ^^^^^^^^^^^
Obfusion: the New Scientist recently lam-(ever so slightly)-pooned Frank
Close in a jokey almanac for 1993. Something about his hat.

Dick Jackson
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Chuck Sites' dotted balloon
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:03:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.083354.588@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>
>>I have a question relating to Chuck's assertion:
>
>>	"Still the release of electrons during the void collapse
>>	should concentrate at the center of the void."
>
>>Is this obviously the case?  What makes the electrons move toward the
>>center of the void?
>
>   Would the ionized electrons be focused to the center?  I think
>statistically they would be. For one, we already have imparted
>some momentum to the material-void interface, and it's directed
>to the center of the void.  That momentum is transferred by lattice 
>electrons already, so if the collapse does ionize the inside surface,
>it would seem to me, they would be forced into the direction of the
>center. 

     Think about it this way.  Why would electrons concentrate in 
     the center of a void if a) their velocities statistically 
     center about the velocity of the interface at the time
     of the ionization, and b) they electrostatically repel each other,
     and c) they are generally attracted to the ionized fluid?
     I can see an argument for leaving them behind, but even that
     falls on the fact that they are easily dragged around and
     tend to hang around places that are attractive.

                         dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jaydee@seanews.akita.com (Jay Dee Pritchard)
Subject: Explanations
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News + Mail
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:15:31 GMT

That post on the nature of electrons is well done!


--
[] SEANEWS [] Seattle Public Access Usenet News + Mail [] +1 206 747 NEWS []
jaydee@seanews.akita.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: A real wire
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:53:07 GMT


Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan):

>The result is that in the earths atmosphere, a sphere of about 15" in diameter
>is require to hold a voltage potential of 1,000,000 volts without causing
>electrical breakdown in the air due to high near surface gradients, while
>it only requires a wire of about 2" in diameter to transport 1,000,000 volts
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>along a high tension power grid with causing electrical breakdown of the air.

Now that is what I call a real wire! Would that be silver, John?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:03:41 GMT

Hi folks,

In article <1993Jan9.014604.28670@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

> In article <1993Jan8.214902.837@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> 
> | ...  I am worried that this could be turning into [a] ping-pong match...
> 
> 'Ping pong' is over.  I was interested in nothing more than explaining to
> you certain difficulties in what you were saying.

Actually, what you provided is what I would consider to be some of the best
dialog and cross-examination I've ever seen on this particular group.  You
stuck with facts, and you went straight for the conceptual jugular -- the
weakest links in the ideas I'd presented.

In short, you're an outstanding scientist.  I hope you will keep working on
your variant of the shock wave idea, and that you will post it here.  I'm
intrigued by what you have said to date, but (like you about mine) I'm not
convinced about the details and I'd love a chance to critique _your_ model.

.....

Comment in general:  Beware the Farfetches of Terry.  I will go on for some
length discussiong _possible_ mechanisms for increased intensity in bubble
cavitation, but until I see some actual, highly reproducible _experimental_
results I will remain just about as unconvinced as Dale Bass about the final
results.  (I'm perhaps a little more optimistic because of my off-beat entropy
arguments, but much of what Dale has said is doggone convincing.)

After all, how _can_ you say that all cavitation collapses will not turn out
to be governed by some very general principles that will guarantee nothing
more intense than noodling fireplace-level hot gases can ever be achieved by
cavitation?  I certainly cannot exlude such a possibility, and I think Dale
has pointed out a lot of reasons why such general failure modes _should_ be
considered as both possible (and perhaps likely).  Experiments are the only
way I can see to resolve such questions with any degree of certainty.

In that vein, I do hope that some of this net dialog will encourage reasoned,
well-thought-out new experiments in cavitation.  If folks had gone strictly
by the "rules," I'd say it's very likely sonoluminescence would never have
been found in the first place.  Why?  Because if you had asked the experts,
I'd bet that the majority of them would have rather adamantly said: "NO --
there are simply no mechanisms by which the simple, well-understood effect
of cavitation can produce visible light.  So don't waste your time on it."

But of course, sonoluminescence _did_ turn out to exist, didn't it?

So why quit now?  Push cavitation a bit and see what happens.  Who knows,
someone out there just might wind up uncovering the existence of one or two
_more_ things happening that everyone "knew" could not happen in cavitation.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:48:28 GMT


In article <1992Dec17.221424.6404@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

> Is there any reason why [cavitation] couldn't be done in, say, liquid D2?
> Would the ultrasound necessarily vaporize the D2 before the cavitation
> process is set up?

I didn't give my answer to this one earlier, but it's a good question.

The UC paper gives the basic approach I'd take to answering it, which is
that to the degree that you can keep the vapor pressure down and surface
tension up, you should be able to get proportionately good UC effects.  The
absolute temperature (low in this case) shouldn't matter all that much
except as it affects these other two issues.

So your best bet would probably be to keep the D2 as cold as you can without
freezing it.  (Actually, that would apply to nearly any liquid at whatever
temperature range, at least according to what I've laid out in the UC paper.)

A general problem with such cold-gas liquids is that the Van der Waals forces
that hold them together are not very intense, so that the void surface will
tend to vaporize pretty quickly.  Without specific numerical models and some
baseline experimental data, it'd be hard to say the degree to which such
issues would affect the final result.

I'd say it would be an interesting experiment if you could set it up.

I would agree that the ultrasound heating could make it hard to keep at it
for very long, but then you might not need too many cycles just to check it
out for luminescence and/or UC effects.  You might also flow the liquid D2
throught the chamber (preferably at a modest rate) to provide cooling.

Also, you could probably get away with less intense ultrasound that might
reduce the heating problem.  That's because the Van der Waals intra-fluid
bonds of D2 should be easier to to rupture and stretch than the hydrogen
bonds of water.

				Cheers,
				Terry

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: RE: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:44:23 GMT


Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
>In article <1993Jan8.021210.27077@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>> ...
>> Words are much more dangerous than equations.  Equations are well-defined
>> and can be examined quantititively for correlations with experience.
>> Words are fluid and mutable and ill-defined.
>> ...

>Alright!  Concur completely.  Precisely why I _stuck my neck out and sent
>out the UC draft_ -- so others would whack me up the side of the head and
>(maybe even occassionally) help me develop specific quantifications for it.

>I rushed it because it has very specific experimental implications, some
>of which seemed to be pretty relevant (and maybe even accurate).  This was
>a terrible thing for me to do?  Maybe next time I should sit on it for, oh,
>six months to a year and patent the daylights out of every other sentence?
>Alas, I just don't have that high of an opinion of my own ideas!

Relax, Terry. As the originator of the "words are dangerous" quote, let me add
that it was not meant as a put-down, but rather as an encouragement for you to
quantify these arguments. As they stand, they are not enough, that's all.
Quantification (mathematics) can also be way off, of course, if you start with
nonsensical axioms. But the very act of formulating mathematical relationships
seems to focus the mind, and one tends to reduce the starting premises to a
minumum of (safe) assumptions. In any case, a beautiful argument will always
get to the point where you have to provide some numbers. How big is the
effect? Is it significant? As I have asked, is 100,000K = 10 eV enough for
fusion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Subject: Fractional State Hydrogen Atoms
Reply-To: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:20 GMT

John Logajan asks:


>Speaking of chemical reactions, I assume the Mills theory is still proposing
>fractional level orbitals.

Yes.  We call any hydrogen atom in the n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... state a
hydrino.   
 
>Has any more theoretical or experimental data come foward to decide whether
>such forms of hydrogen represent biological hazards?  Or are they essentially
>inert?
 
No more theoretical work.  I can't comment on the experimental data.  As
far as we can tell they do not represent a biological hazard.

John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Fractional State Hydrogen Atoms
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 03:15:10 GMT

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>As far as we can tell they [hydrinoes] do not represent a biological hazard.

This can only be true, I would think, if they were essentially chemically
inert below temperatures hostile to lifeforms.  Much of biological chemistry
involves the structures of molecules, and the size of the constituent
atoms has a strong influence on such structural alignment.  Thus a smaller
hydrogen atom would certainly muck up biological chemistry if it had similar
chemical properties to its larger cousin.

-- 
- 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