HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Status of new experiment
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:47:17 GMT

We are running a new pseudo Ying experiment - status 17 August 92.

We are running with alternate application of the 2 micro curie 60Co source on 
a 24 hour interval.  This is the same cell as previously run, but we are 
operating on more of a Ying profile.  Sorry, we can not yet tell the details.  
However, previous calibrations would indicate that the calorimeter electronic 
measurement should be very stable under this type of operation.  There would 
still be a correction due to ambient temperature and cooling water 
temperature, see below.   
                                                         
Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average 
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts

1   On      85320       23.7      1992.8        50          0.0234  
2   Off     86280       24.0      1600.9        50          0.0186  
3   On      86400       24.0      2657.8        50          0.0308  
4   Off     86830       24.1      2323.3        50          0.0268  
5   On      86330       24.0      1992.4        50          0.0231  
6   Off     86040       23.9       106.3        50          0.0012  
7   On      86400       24.0      1792.6        50          0.0207  
8   Off     86400       24.0      2873.7        50          0.0333             

As weather patterns change there is a contribution from the various 
temperature control systems in my house.  Normally at this time of year, we 
could count on continuous air conditioning.  But this seems to be a more than 
usual abnormal year.  Jennifer even turned the furnace on between point 7 and 
8.  For various reasons, I decided not to try to control the situation, but 
just let the house conditions go where Jennifer and the weather take them.  If 
I interfere, I might try to introduce a favorable bias.  The difference 
between on-line and off-line calibration is about a 10 mw rms weather 
variation.  If we run long enough, a real trend should show up in spite of the 
variations due to weather, even in the raw data as above.  

I do notice that we seem to be accumulating more joules when the source is in 
than when out, and point 9 is unlikely to change that trend.  

Tom Droege

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Subject: Tom Droege's XS Joules
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:58:19 GMT


We have seen a flood of data from Tom. This group has been strangely low-key
on this; the latest table has:
>1   On      85320       23.7      1992.8        50          0.0234
>2   Off     86280       24.0      1600.9        50          0.0186
>3   On      86400       24.0      2657.8        50          0.0308
>4   Off     86830       24.1      2323.3        50          0.0268
>5   On      86330       24.0      1992.4        50          0.0231
>6   Off     86040       23.9       106.3        50          0.0012
>7   On      86400       24.0      1792.6        50          0.0207
>8   Off     86400       24.0      2873.7        50          0.0333

I disregard the "on" and "off" bits, because I refuse even to consider the
remote chance of this Ying stuff. However, am I missing something, or do I see
about 40 sigmas of excess Joules here? Why are not all the TB's jumping up and
down in a frenzy? Please tell me if I am indeed missing something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Typo in NCM paper
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:36:58 GMT

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

There is a typo on page 4 of the Brightsen - Mallove paper "Explanation of
Cold Fusion Reactions Based on the Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM)." The second
equation now reads:

1H + 2H --> 3H + Ea

It should be:

1H + 2H --> 3He + Ea

Tom Droege and others have asked me to send the paper in electronic form, but
I have not been able to do that because it is in Gene's Mac. I don't speak
Mac, and I have not been able to get it into a PC intact. Sorry. Anyway, the
fission paper is essential background to understanding the CF paper. The
fission paper is not electronic, and it includes many graphs like "Fission
Yields for Thermal Neutron Fission of PU-241," so, we are stuck with paper
and fax distribution.

- Jed Rothwell
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:43:28 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

To the community following cold fusion:
I have been asked about recent publications (Dieter Britz).  Proceedings of the
Provo meeting on "Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems" is
published by the American Institute of Physics as Proceedings No. 228,
published in 1991.  Approx. 1000 pages.  A few copies are available from BYU
at $68 each, or the book can be ordered from AIP.  BYU fusion group members
contributed to 5 papers, including work on neutron and charged particle
emissions and on the geological cold fusion hypothesis.  Papers by Menlove, 
Takahashi, Claytor, Miley, Chambers & Hubler & Grabowski, Wolf, Meyerhof,
Cecil, Golubnichyi, Celani, Anderson and others are included:  about 70 
contributed papers are published in the AIP book.  Editors are S.E. Jones, 
F. Scaramuzzi and D. Worledge.
I have 1991 publications regarding cold fusion also in 
Fusion Technology, 20:915-923 (Dec 1991)
Proc. Int. Conf on Surface Modification of Metals by Ion Beams.

The Kamiokande experiments were also asked about.  It is not true that 
"no neutrons were seen" in the experiments.  It is unfortunate that such
rumors are spread prior to publication on this net.  My response is that
a master's thesis with great detail regarding the experiment including results 
will soon be distributed, pending approval by the collaboration.  Then
interested persons may review the data for themselves.  I will also be speaking
on Kamiokande and recent BYU results next week at the IUPAC meeting in Park
City, Utah, and later at the cold fusion conference in Nagoya.  Results have
already been presented at scientific meetings by myself (e.g., Uppsala, Sweden
in June 1992) and by Japanese colleagues.  We have avoided press releases.  We
are trying to go through normal scientific channels.  A paper will be submitted
for peer review about November, according to our plan.

Finally, BYU now has nice neutron and gamma detectors operating in a 110-m deep
tunnel in the Wasatch mountains.  There is some interest here in possible
neutron emissions from cement prepared with D2O, which cannot be explained by
photodisintegration due to gammas from daughters of the U or Th chains, for
example.  We are still (after some 8 months) looking for a conventional
explanation for the energetic neutrons.  So far, no conventional explanations
account for the magnitude nor the time dependence of observed emissions.  The
idea comes from the notion of geological cold fusion, since hydration reactions
occur both in setting cement and in the earth.  We're still having fun with
this, but quietly and with essentially no funding outside the university.

I read the net only occasionally, but hope that the BYU work will not be
totally forgotten.

Sincerely,

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics, BYU
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Cold Fusion Solution
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:16:14 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <199208180939.AA29638@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
: According to news reports here, many people are paying out fortunes in
: the hope of taking part in the second coming which is promised in Korea
: in October.  I presume that this is not connected to the CF meeting in
: Japan around that time?  Perhaps you [Jed] should include it as a side
: trip; people who have just been disappointed in one venture are often
: surprisingly ready to subscribe to other nonsenses.

There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to WSJ Post
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 12:28:26 PDT
Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

I copied the post about the WSJ article from bsherman@genome.lbl.gov
(Brad Sherman) to the RIME Science Conference. The following comment
was posted by DAVE BOONE:
=====================================================================
     It's interesting to note that a few weeks ago there was a news
     report that Dr. Pons had contacted the University of Utah in
     an attempt to buy some of the patent rights the university had
     filed when CF was a hot topic.  The university reportedly
     declined the offer.  The university spent $5 million tax
     dollars researching CF.

--
edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Silicon Valley, Ca
From: 751kaiser@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ITEC reactor status
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:16:43 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

hello

does anyone know of the status of the ITEC reactor.

i hear they're building it to be the first reactor to reach the
the ignition point if i understand it correctly.

it's full name i believe is International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor
and that the US, Japan, EEC and what's left of the USSR are all involved.

thanks in advance

matthew						galileo
From: MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (Red Face Dept)
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:54:36 GMT
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Hello all,
Well, after posting my last update, I found out I had made two mistakes.
Firstly, the NCFI lasted 2 years, not 6 months (where did I get that idea
from?), kindly pointed out to me by Todd Green; secondly I had the exchange
rate for the yen all wrong. Swinbanks misled me here, writing "a few million
yen (US$1,000-$2000)", from which I took the ratio to be 1:1000. I have now
looked it up, and it's more like 100 (120 or so), so the figure is a few
million $ - still not in the 100 millions bandied about by Jed, though. I
grovel in embarrassment. Also, there is some disagreement (but not my mistake
in this case) between the two reports about just how firm this is; Swinbanks
reckons MITI has decided to apply for the money, Myers reckons it's
practically in the bag, barring the unlikely, and research will start next
year. We'll see.
 Another embarrassment is my posting about Tom's Joules. I guess I haven't
read Tom's postings so carefully, and I ought to know that he does not know
where his zero line is. In that case, there are some large fluctuations, many
times the Joule error - but a fluctuation does not an excess heat event make,
nor a Joules dip a hitherto unknown nuclear heat swallowing act. If you follow
me.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Addition 19-Aug-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 722

Comment: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myers FS;                                     Science 257 (1992) 474 (24-Jul).
"Where there's heat there's yen".
** Another report of MITI's decision to fund some cold fusion research in
Japan. Unlike the one in Nature (Swinbanks), this one is fairly certain that
this will go ahead, "barring last-minute objections by the Japanese Ministry
of Finance". MITI does not subscribe to the reality of cold fusion but is just
being pragmatic in the face of excess heat reports. This report mentions
figures of $1-$3 million, and a consortium of Universities and about 10
leading Japanese utility, electronics and metallurgical companies to do the
work, over a 5-year period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until further notice. Mailing
address: Mech. Eng., Newcastle University, NSW 2308, Australia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Error Limits of Posted Data
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:30:51 GMT

Dieter Britz got excited reading my error limits column.  Sorry, Dieter
the column is misleading and I will change it for the next post.  The 50
joule over 24 hours was based on calibration runs where known errors were
corrected.  This data is still uncorrected.  I just didn't think.  So the 
proper error limit for this data is more like 840 joules - 10 mw rms over
24 hours.  Will change this for the next post.  In addition, after 106 days
of operation, I no longer claim to know where zero is.  But remember the 
stability claimed is of order 10 mw uncorrected and less than 1 mw corrected 
for the environment.  So when the operating point was changed to better 
match the Ying conditions and the power level went from of order 90 mw to
of order 20 mw, I think this is a real change.  Further, it did not go 
negative, an encouraging sign that I have it about right.  Still, I claim
that zero is known to no better than 150 mw until it is calibrated at the
end of this run.  

You all are "reading my log book over my sholder".  I appreciate suggestions
that help me get it right.  I started putting the 50 joule limits to indicate
how much precision the calorimeter had.  It is certainly not the right error
for the present data.  This is not publication, more like a discussion of 
current work before the "wine and cheese" talk.  I will do serious work on
the data before any publication, hopefully with the participation of you all. 

Note that 150 mw over 24 hours is 12960 joules.  So Dieter, the in/out
effect in the data is all there is until it is corrected by end of run
calibration.  Who knows, I kind of suspect that there is a real net.  But
I don't think I could claim it even if the end of run calibration says it
is there.  I think I would want a calibration at both ends of the run to 
claim a positive result, and the begining of run calibration was written to
a non-existent disk!

Tom Droege
From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:21:46 +0200
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Cape Town


In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM>, Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes: [most of which has been sent to the
electronic winds by yours truly...] 

> PRESS RELEASE  August 10, 1992 

Can anyone tell me the point of puffing off an oddball theory like
this?  Is this sinister?  Do they want to attract shareholders? 

> ... NCM Periodic Table of the Beta Stable Nuclides, and the complete
> explanations for thermal neutron fission characteristics, presents
> incontrovertible support for CSC's Nucleon Cluster Model.

Immediate reaction: Balls.  Though you're welcome to try to convince
me otherwise.  I await the paper...

> 
> CSC will focus on developing commercial technologies aimed at converting
> radioactive waste to a non-radioactive state; designing advanced
> materials for manufacture of superconductors; creating superior
> semiconductor formulas; developing new isotopic materials with useful and
> unique physical and/or chemical properties; and the developing propulsion
> devices -- all of these can be derived from the NCM.

Yeah, yeah.  Unless these clusters have extra-nuclear properties I
really don't see what semiconductor tech has to do with NCM.

> 
> Mr. Brightsen has submitted a scientific paper describing the application
> of the NCM  to the conventional fission processes to the Journal Fusion
> Technology.

Why there?  Hey, Nuclear Physics A, no less, or Phys Rev C for
something as far reaching and as completely successful as this!

>  The paper has already been reviewed and praised by leading
> experts in the nuclear energy field. 

How about in the nuclear physics field?

> 
> CLUSTRON SCIENCES CORPORATION ANNOUNCES
> BREAKTHROUGH IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE
> 

I reckon if this one's a lemon, they'll be calling it "klutztron".

-- 
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za

------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
From: logajan@sleepy.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Co60 gamma energy
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:37:50 GMT

Someone sent me e-mail suggesting Co60 gammas could be 5MeV.  The CRC HCP says
two gamma versions are likely, 1.1 and 1.33 MeV.   I also checked the
before and after atomic weights of 27Co60 and 28Ni60 and the difference
amounts to about 2.82 MeV  (which the CRC also says is the decay energy)
but I had to subtract 0.511MeV for the electron mass.

That leaves about 2.3MeV to be divided up between the gamma, the nucleus and
the neutrino.
 
 --John Logajan
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brigsten, Mallove Fusion Technology Draft.
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:59:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Aug19.185901.15373
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <920817133057.20203560@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:

>Jed Rothwell sent me a copy of the Brigsten-Mallove Fusion Technology Paper.
>They have obviously been given the word, as the abstract recently posted has 
>been cleaned up from the version I have.  My version reads like an MIT press
>release.  
>
>There is not much content in the paper.  But one thing is amazing.  They 
>claim that we don't see the 3He and 4He products is that they come off at 
>"ranging up to 5.59 Gev" very high energy.  That's 5590000000 ev folks!
>
>The claim is that the heat seen is due to the relatively small interaction
>rate as they leave the cell.  Hmmm!  I am glad that I am only seeint a few
>mw.  With watts, I would worry about the stability of the concrete in the 
>basement walls.  


Amazing!  This actually passed that journal's review process??

A helium nucleus that energetic will lose energy in matter primarily
by nuclear collisions.  Should it run into a heavier nucleus, you get
something called "spallation" -- the nucleus is shattered into many
small pieces, including numerous neutrons.  Indeed, spallation appears
to be the most efficient way to make neutrons with an accelerator; 1.6
GeV protons on a lead target will make about 55 neutrons per beam
proton.  Particles incident on lower-Z materials will make fewer
neutrons, but, still, 5.6 GeV is much more than the total binding
energy of any nucleus (about .2 GeV), so those nucleons will be
flying.  This secondary radiation would be unmistakable and rather
unhealthy, if one is supposing that watts of power are being produced.

The cross section for collision of an energetic alpha particle with a
nucleus will be roughly the cross sectional area of the nucleus -- a
few barns.  This means the mean distance to interaction will be on the
order of tens of centimeters in a liquid or solid.  There's no way to
pretend that the vast majority of alpha particles will conveniently
fly away before interacting -- a significant number would collide
before leaving the cell, or even the cathode.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mr. Neutron gets divorced
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:52:40 GMT

eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> any model which has enough energy to slam the nucleii together
> by force, also leads to all sorts of detectable radiation.

But nothing new is being proposed here.  This is just simple
Compton "agitation" by the incident gammas.  Even if no other
process occurs, we ought to expect the Co60 gamma rays to
knock things around a bit.  I believe you said something to
the same effect before -- the incident gammas *must* be
doing something, some secondary effects are *required* by the
situation.

And going to the hypothetical interaction, the "neutron exchange"
is still a "virtual" process because the input energy is
insufficient to produce a free neutron on its own accord.  The
energy is "borrowed" from the excess of the Pd neutron capture --
implying close proximity and nearly simultaneous neutron
emission and capture.

If I understand it, there are two ways to make tunneling more
probable.  One is to make some form of energy available so that
the reaction doesn't have to borrow as much from the Bank of 
Uncertainty.  The other way is to make the tunnel very short.

Comptom agitation makes the tunnel short.  Is there reason to
doubt that 1-2 MeV kinetic deuterons can have nuclear relations
with Pd's?  Even if the probability is low for any given
approach, there is a heck of a lot of ricocheting going on.
(I know, for instance, that air molecules at standard temp and
pressure collide 10^9 times per second, and their kinetic
energy is in eV rather than MeV!)

And finally, as someone else pointed out, deuterons are oblong,
and therefore at a minimum, 50% of the time, they will approach
the Pd nucleus neutron first.  Add the repulsive force acting
only on the proton, and you have a tendency for the deuteron to
rotate neutron first toward the target Pd nucleus.

The deuteron neutron can get closer to the Pd than the deuteron
proton, which should enhance tunneling.  And at some optimum
kinetic input energy, should slow down, stop and reverse -- that
is, hang around for a bit before zooming off from the repulsive
force if capture didn't yet occur. 

This deceleration force is felt by the proton and transmitted
to the neutron thru the internal nuclear forces.  But it is an
additional strain on the nucleus.  No?  Like stopping fast with
a box on the hood of your car.  The car stops but the box keeps
going.

The Henny Youngman nucleus -- "Take my neutron.  Please!"

  -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion