HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Misc.
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:29 GMT

OK, John Logajan, I can quickly side with the "other two".  i.e. I believe
that it is Ni oxide.  In any case it is black, and quickly forms and 
disappears as the current is switched.  Never take anything I say about 
chemistry seriously.  I repeat that Mills says you should not do that if yor
you are to see the effect. 

I add to my list "don't bake".  At least not between rinses.  Baking just 
hardens any residue making it harder to remove at the next cleaning stage.  

I take heart from Diter Britz's statement that all electrochemists do not
have success either.  So there is still hope that I can luck into a solution.

I warn the "secret" workers that there is a loose cannon on the deck.  If I
find the "secret" first I will tell all.  So you better put your "teaching"
in your patent applications or you could lose all.  The patent disclosures I 
have seen to date would not protect anything!  Remember you must "teach" one
"trained in the art" how to do it.  Since Dieter Britz says not all
electrochemists can do it and he is an electrochemist, then you must do more
than assume that the "class" of electrochemists are "trained in the art".  
Looks to me like you better spell out what electrochemical procedures are
the right ones to use.  

Since I don't see this sort of thing in the patent applications, I assume that
either the patent filers do not know what it takes, there is no effect, or that
there is an effect and the procedures are not being disclosed.  If the last,
then the patents I have seen so far would be ruled invalid.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: eachus@oddjob.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Trying to keep clean
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:46:44 GMT


     I just realized that in all our advice to Tom we may be barking
up the wrong tree.  Why not start with a Lithium salt--if you can get
Reagent quality LiCO3, all you have to do is drop it in D2O, then get
rid of the CO2.  (How do you get rid of the CO2, well you can use
LiOH... :-) Seriously, boiling the lithium carbonate with a condenser
connected would, if properly done, get you to pure LiOD with no
organics.  But follow the suggestions about using teflon and ceramics.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion at BYU
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:33:42 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Dec16.082828.20031@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas
.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

> In article <1992Dec15.191450.282@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
> writes:
>>Correction:  my earlier discussion of possible cavitation of deuterium bubbles
>>in our original electrolytic experiments and the possible relation of this to
>>sonoluminescence and to our claims of low-level d-d fusion in such 
>>experiments is posted in "Sonofusion at BYU" dated 10 Dec. 1992 (rather than
>>11 Dec).  I hope that others will comment on this posting and Terry Bollinger's
>>15 Dec. speculations along similar lines. 

>     Will this be in the stable single-cavity configuration like
>     that of Crum and Gaitan (c.f. J acoust Soc Am Suppl 87:S141 (1990))?
>     Are you set up to observe things other than neutrons?
> 
>     The reason I ask is that this configuration presumably allows some
>     'focusing' (for want of a better word) of the sound energy into
>     a much more localized excitation.  If one is to assume that
>     this energy can be further localized to nuclear scales (a further
>     miracle beyond the apparently demonstrated miracle of sonoluminescence), 
>     one might see x-rays and gamma rays before and while seeing neutrons being 
>     kicked about.
> 
>                               dale bass

Thanks for the comments.  Yes, we will use the single-bubble configuration
as used by Crum, Gaitan, Putterman and others, but with D2O and D2 in the
bubble, hopefully.                Yes, we are set up to look for
x-rays as well as neutrons (neutrons are more penetrating and therefore more
readily observed).  We intend to add a gamma detector:  3" or 5" NaI are
available here but not yet installed in our deep lab in the Wasatch mountains.
One idea I had was to use an H2O+D2O mixture, to look for p-d gammas (5.4 MeV)
as well as for d-d neutrons (2.5 MeV).  In other words, IF we see neutrons from
d-d fusion (a big IF), then it would be interesting to compare the d-d and p-d
yields.  Such information would go a long way to sorting out the mechanism for
for the fusion reactions. (This is admittedly wishful thinking; more:  should
we add Li salts?).
Regarding miracles in sonoluminescence(SL), I agree with you and Terry Bollinger
that there are mysteries here to be solved.  In a colloquium at BYU some weeks
ago, Seth Putterman of UCLA indicated that they had reached 100,000 C in recent
SL experiments, and that he thought 1 million C was possible.  I share his
excitement about SL.  Well before his visit, we had put 2+2 together, realizing
that D2-bubble collapse in our D2O electrolytic cells could POSSIBLY account for
our observations of a few neutrons.  Repeatable SL allows a means of
 reproducibly 
causing bubble collapse, so of course we are strongly motivated to look for
nuclear emissions in SL in D2O and H2O+D2O (etc.).  
It's a wild hunch at this stage.  

Merry Christmas,
Steven E. Jones


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Black stuff
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:16:14 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:

>John Logajan writes "when I run my Mills type cell in reverse current mode,
>the Ni (now) anode becomes coated with a dark black substance, ...)
>
>Let me be the 200 th person to tell you it is likely Ni hydride.  

Actually you are the first.  The other two people said it was Ni oxide.


- 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: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: neutrons, neutrons, everywhere?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:51:50 GMT



In article sci.physics.fusion:4576; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
 (Dick Blue) writes:


=   "Mitchell Swartz points out the fact that finding a simple
=  way to produce neutrons wouldn't be such a bad thing.
=  IF (and that is a big if) cold fusion did produce neutrons
=  it would have applications far beyond the inefficient water
=  heaters that seem to be about all CF developers can offer at
= present."

   Although I concur with much of Dick Blue's comments regarding
 radiation protection (and remain neutral but interested with
 respect to his theories) the above quote purporting what I
 have stated is not correct. 

   A review of the postings indicates that I pointed out that:

  1.  ... the literature indicates that what are called "cold
 fusion" reactions are neutron-penic, that is, these reactions
 appear to be deficient in the expected (with respect to other
 fusion environments) number of neutrons.

  2.  ... all experimenters should consider and anticipate
 output fluxes.  (Also I mentioned explosive hazards, but
 forgot to mention inhalation toxicity potential from some of
 the chemical agents discussed on the net - some of which are
 very hepatotoxic)

  3.  ... neutrons are very infrequently used in the radiation
 therapy of malignant solid tumors, although it was noted that
 my preference is very heavily towards the use of 2 to 18 MeV
 x-rays and electrons of various  energies.

  4.  ... neutrons in fact can give rise to induced
 radioactivity, which might be not desired, as well as
 biological problems.
                                         
  5.  ...  there was still a request for any proof that
 neutrons must be emitted in the condensed phase at the levels
 demanded by some theoreticians extrapolating from other
 systems, during whatever reaction(s) are occurring in the
 "cold fusion" (and other similar) systems.
  

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames)
Subject: Re: Trying to keep clean
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: NIH
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:40:12 GMT

In article <921211171031.20400aba@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE wrote:
[munch]
> here, some has been sent privately.  Us commercial glass cleaner some say 
> (contain chromic acid), others say DON'T USE CHROMIC ACID!  So I have to look 

The problem with chromic acid is that chromium(VII) is toxic and not nice
to put down drains.  Chromic acid is a great glass cleaner, but other,
alkaline systems are as good and less toxic.

> My brother is pushing me to build a vapor degreaser.  The plan at the moment 
> is to buy a 24 cup coffee maker and to put a copper cooling coil in the top of 
> it and to load it with perchlorethylene.  I guess this will then be a 
> perchlorethylene percolator.  (The basket is of course removed.)  This should 
> work great to clean the Lithium.  The problem is then to get it into an inert 
> atmosphere before it oxidizes. 

Of course, the lithium will react with the perchloroethylene, especially
after you heat it up.

Why not rinse the oil off of the lithium with xylene or hexane, leave it
covered with a small amount of xylene, place it in your glove bag, and then
remove it from the solvent and let it dry?  If you keep a flow of argon
through the bag the solvent vapors will be swept out.

> I bought a box of vinyl gloves a while back with the idea of making my own 
> glove box.  Now I am worried that they are not safe to use as they are likely 
> full of plasticizer(sp?).  Would rubber gloves be better?

We use thin cotton gloves to handle pieces (like sources and lenses) that
go into mass spectrometer vacuum systems.  This assumes the gloves are
clean
and that we will not sweat through them.  The gloves are cleaned by washing
in water, then acetone, then hexane.

> Please keep all the good advice coming.  
> 
> Tom Droege

We'll keep it coming, you have to decide how good it is.

Regards,
Carl Ijames
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Subject: airplanes
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:57:51 GMT

Lately, people have written about airplanes.  Someone, (Greg), speculated
about F15 CF.  I suspect this is premature.  Before there were such planes,
there were big jumbos.
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Saturday, 12 Dec 1992 11:04:07 EST
From: John Hassler <HASSLER@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power Measurement

In article <921208171137.25c016d7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
says:
>
>The discussion about power measurement reminds me of a problem posed by my
>mentor, Jack Riedel (RIP) one day at lunch at the PPA.
>
>You are placed in a room with a compass and a voltmeter.  Through the room
>pass two superconducting wires.  After you are locked in the room, a battery
>is placed across one end of the pair, and a load resistance across the other.
>Your problem, to save your life or win the fair maiden etc., is to tell which
>side has the battery and which side has the load.  Theorists only get one
>try at this problem, while experimentalists get an initial try to calibrate
>their apparatus. (to get the sign right).
>
      You left out engineers.  I'd cut the wires.  Then the answer is
obvious.  (Your problem statement, above, does not exclude this solution.)
==========================================================================
J. C. Hassler              Chem. Eng.             U. of Maine
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Re: Neutronpenision on your mind
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:11:42 GMT

In article <BzGxCw.7zu@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>***  Penic?   I made up my word - neutronpenic - based upon
>   -penia, from the Greek 'penia' indicating
>      - "poverty, lack of, less than usual"

You've elided the "a", and so have I.  If you had called it
neutronpeniaic, I would have called it neutronpeniasion.

>   - penis,   "male organ of copulation" [Webster's ibid.]
...
>   So exactly what does Kuperberg seem to have on his mind.

How can you accuse me having a dirty mind?  You're the one putting male
organs of copulation into the discussion.

To be honest, I was making a pun.   But don't tell anyone.

>     Chesire-cat English?

The "a" in neutronpenic and neutronpenision does seem to be something
of a Chesire cat, I agree.  Otherwise I don't see the relevance.
Only the cat's smile was left, not any other body part.

>     If the logic and mathematics of Dr. Kuperberg (a real
> doctor) matches the level of diligent prose seen here, then
> it may more probably be in the imaginary-realm or along
> another Reimann surface.

Are you accusing me of being silly again?

By the way, you're wrong about parroting being meaning sedulous
imitation.  Even if it were then "sedulously parroting" would be
redundant.  My dictionary, which is more recent than yours, says that
parroting means "mindlessly imitating".

In any case, I'm not sedulous.  Sedulous means diligent, and if I
were diligent I would be working and not talking to you.

sci.physics.fusion:  Where the sedulous meet the incredulous.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:55:51 GMT

In article <921215181833_72240.1256_EHL69-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

>If you have not done an experiment, and not even met with the people who have,
>then you have no business passing judgement on CF like some kind of expert.
>
Well, I guess this about puts the cork in the bottle as far as Rothwell
is concerned. One must wonder if he knows _anything_ about science.

Though we rail at mentioning Britz in the same paragraph with Einstein,
perhaps Rothwell would tell us what experiments Einstein performed to
derive the special theory?

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NTT Cold Fusion Kit/ JAERI
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:13:59 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <SRCTRAN.92Dec16232055@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com
 (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>     Considering Japan's Fifth Generation project lack of breakthrough results,
> and the current crisis with Japanese banks (ie loan loss exposure due to
> big drops in real estate and stock holding equity), as just a few of many
> Japanese companies' screwups (like the ones we have here in the US), and
> it becomes less impressive that a big Japanese company is lending its name
> (and stock price) to cold fusion.
>     Also, much of Japan's great physics research comes out of the Japanese
> Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI).  That you haven't heard much out
> of these guys is not reassuring to the big company theory.
> 
> Greg Aharonian

Agreed.  A fax I received yesterday from Dr. Yoshida of JAERI may provide
further insight:
"We in Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute have conducted cold-fusion
experiments by various types of wet and dry methods to verify the phenomena
during 18 months after March 1989.  We, at least myself, concluded on the
basis of our results that a large amount of excess heat as well as neutron
or tritium cannot be produced by the so-called cold fusion reaction,
except a possibility of unknown nuclear reaction with a generation of very
small quantity of neutrons.  As we experienced, I understand that it is very
difficult to measure precisely a low level neutron and it will be required
much longer time to confirm this which may cut a path into a new field of
science." 

Respectfully submitted,
Steven E. Jones

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fluid mechanics question.. how crude is the heat estimate?
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:02 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    


I am kinda of puzzled by this cold fusion thing but I have an open mind
about it. The question I have is a question from a fluid mechanics
person and not that of a (nuclear) engineer :

How can one so precisely determine the amount of heat generated?
have they been fluid flow studies about this ? that is computer generated
calculation proving that what the sensor gets  is linked to a certain amount
a heat on the cell side.
I am working in two-phase flow ( I DO NOT use correlation) solving the 
Navier-Stokes equation and I know that even phase change problem 
(such as the one occuring in the boiling) is a bitch... how can people be
so sure of the heat generated ? My reasoning comes from my total distrust
of heat transfer coeficient used in nuclear engineering that are there
to give an estimate and not a TRUE value ( since they are mainly used 
for design purposes)...




Igor Carron
PhD student 
Nuclear Engineering Department
Texas A&M University
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: Electric Power Input 101
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:58:24 GMT


  
  In article sci.physics.fusion:4593
 ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE (Tom Droege) on the subject
     "Cell Power Measurement 101" states:


==  "I keep looking a photographs of supposed "cold fusion" cells
==  and all I see is two clip leads. 
==  Folks, you have to have four leads to make a decent measurement.
==  (McKuber seems to do this right but have not seen any one else.) 
==  Two leads carry  the current, two connected to the cell on the other
==  side of the clip leads measure the potential across the cell.
==  These leads carry very small current.
==  There is lots more to worry about, but the above will likely get you
==  a 1% measurement.  For more accuracy you have to take Cell Power
==  Measurement 201, 301, 401, ... ."

    This truth in this is worth repeating and further considering,
 since there seems to be diversity in opinion as to what exactly is
 "equal input electrical power".

    Quaerie:

     Some experimentalists do not give a clear indication of what was the
 power input to the "control" cell.  That is, was the electrical power
 input (from a black-box consideration) equal for the two cells.  

     For example, one group  applies an electric power to the "reactor"
 cell of I0 * V0  watts,  but applies only  I0 * (V0 - x) watts to the
 "control".  x here is circa 1.4, and has been discussed elsewhere.
     Another group uses identical input powers.   Can there be uniformity
 and a clearer distinction?


    When readers hear 70% excess heat (or whatever value), unless it is
 clearly stated, many presume that the electrical input power was the same
 for the two (or more) cells. 

    Perhaps there can be a distinguishing label as to this Quality Factor
 characterizing any given system, which will clue a reader into *** how ***
 exactly the experiment was conducted.  Any thoughts?

    For example, when calculating, and posting, the "temperature
 differential", or the "delta-T" between the two systems, as an alternative
 equal electrical power input can be delivered to both the reactor and the
 control cell.   The description can then report the "equal power input
 delta-T" and then also calculate the further derived increase in putative
 excess heat by the addition of the "x"-term?  Equal power input delta-T
 could clue in the reader as to what was done. 

    It would interesting to know what the folks here think.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Carbon
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:49:21 GMT

Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk writes:

>All around us, there are organic compounds; in the air, and on all surfaces.
>We can't get away from them, especially in this plastics age. An
>electrochemical cell, and its electrodes, is coated with the stuff. So what?

Speaking of carbon... when I run my Mills type cell in reverse current mode,
the Ni (now) anode becomes coated with a dark black substance, which I presume
to be carbon.  It instantly disappears when the current is switched back to
the forward direction.


- 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: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Money
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:49:41 GMT


Jed lectures us about how to do real research, with MONEY as the carrot. This
is quite true; I know a couple of people doing good research just to keep
getting paid, and maybe make a lot of money. Without pointing the finger at
anybody (calm down now if you think it is YOU who is being addressed), may I
point out, however, that there is another way: you can also do "research". I
recently heard about an Australian company, based on some idea - I think it's
a new type of engine (no, not Sarich, he is fair dinkum). These people formed
a company, attracted quite a bit of share money, and are now set up in a shiny
and comfortable office in the most desirable part of Australia, and the main
bloke (director, I suppose) drives a Maserati and is generally living it up.
Research? Not a bit, it seems. They are slowly writing a number of patents,
but the promised prototype is not forthcoming. Meanwhile, a lot of money is
flowing into bank accounts and investments. No doubt one day the company will
go bust, but the principals will have a lot stashed away.
 I hope this is not happening with cold fusion. I have nothing against people
like Hal Fox - in principle anyway - making money from selling information,
and I would not feel ashamed if I were to start selling my bibliography (it
would be my Department that would get the money, anyway), which however I
will not; and it is a good thing cnf is being privatised. This way, it will
either come to something, or fizzle, in a reasonable time. The danger with
massive government financing is that it encourages make-work research, as I
believe hot fusion is, and Star Wars, where you have a huge effort doing maybe
some useful spin-off stuff and fundamental research, but the stated goal is
clearly unattainable. I note that, e.g., Hagelstein is just working on a
fine-focus x-ray laser, a useful device no doubt, but it doesn't justify the
USA spending all that money on comic-book space war technology.
 Again I find Jed and myself agreeing; I have said a couple of times that cnf
should be done by means of smallish efforts spread out, not by throwing a lot
of public money at it, exactly as Jed recently wrote. It is, of course, NOT
true that there is absolute zero funding of cnf in the USA. If you add up the
SRI contract, and the probably several NSF grants, plus the $25 million
pledged (according to Hal Fox) by a consortium of companies in the USA, there
is in fact quite a bit of money going that way. So stop complaining, use your
money, do that research, and let us have that prototype running on its own
steam and doing some useful work to boot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------