HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: Two questions from a layman
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 02:40:08 GMT

John Logajan writes:
>
>Including everything, Droege was puting in 10.151 watts and getting out
>approx 10.216.  Of course, you don't need all the heaters and what not
>if you aren't trying to make precise measurements -- so let us just look
>at electrolysis energy input, about 2.66 watts in and about 2.73 watts
>out -- for a gain of about 2.6%

Let me ask if I understand this correctly.  This is apparently net
excess power coming from somewhere of approx 0.07 W, or about 6000 J
of energy if the experiment runs for 24 hours.  Now, my impression is
that the energies released by common exothermic chemical reactions are
on the order of 1,000 to 10,000 J per gram of "fuel" used in the
reaction (is this correct?).  If this is true, than the excess energy
in Droege's experiments could be entirely accounted for by the
chemical reaction of a few grams, or at most a few tens of grams, of
some kind of purely chemical fuel per day of operation.

If this is true, is it not a very serious (and difficult) concern that
the excess energy could be coming from the chemical reaction (or state
change) of some very small amount of "fuel" in the setup, perhaps in
the form of an impurity, which could be very difficult to identify or
test for?

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Reply on cell configuration
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 04:58:23 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>This media needs a good (simple) graphical expression mechanism.

PostScript is universal, many print shops will output your PostScript
file if you don't have your own PostScript printer.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: mitchell.swartz@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: 25 Sep 92 02:31:21 GMT

Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  

  Very interesting talk on "cf" experimental work, reported to the MIT community by Michael McKubre, this afternoon.

  Aluminum (and silicon) appears to have an important role, as an in-situ gelatinous (amphoteric, I think) layer upon the cathode thereby increasing the likelihood of successful generation of baseline excess heat (range 1-30%).  The aluminum modified cathode is reported to create a "relatively causal, reproducible" system.

  His laboratory reports generating this baseline excess more than thirty times.  Heat burst, generating >300% excess power, initiate spontaneously, but much more rarely.  I think he reported that these have occurred three times.


Summary:  Excellent presentation, well received.
          More than a score of experiments demonstrating baseline excess heat using a much more reproducible system than originally reported by FP.
          Aspects of loading, and other factors, appear to continue to control these phenomena.



           Mitchell Swartz

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Really Crazy Idea?
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:28:09 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc.


Here is an idea on the fringe of looniness, I hope I can rely on the
gross errros being pointed out in a reasonably tolerant manner.

A couple of years ago I came upon a proposal that ball lightning was
caused by a grain of antimatter, presumably from outer space, coming to
rest in the atmosphere. The resulting visible light comes from electron
stripping as the grain annihilates -- of course there is a lot of gamma
also.

Well, you don't have to believe this, but it is nice try I think.  Anyway,
supposing that there is some antimatter around.  Consider a bare
anti-proton.  The whole point of my idea for "cold fusion" is that a bare
anti-proton might be meta-stable, viz.  A. it will repel the electron
clouds of its neighbouring atoms, and B.  I don't think it can react with
a normal electron because of baryonic conservation (if it can please tell
me, I will shut up and go away).

The rest is easy, i.e. the Palladium deuterid/hydride system provides a
way for these (rare) anti-protons to get together with a real proton and
ker-pow!  Oh well, I suppose there would be gamma rays, but maybe no ash?
With so much energy per event the radiation level might be low for the
energy outputs actually observed.  Presumably these anti-protons exist in
water, maybe somehow preferentially in heavy water, and have to be carried
into the Palladium lattice as part of the electroysis system, along with
the deuterons/protons.

I apologise A. for not working numbers re. radiation levels (I am not a
working high energy physicist with handbooks at my side) , and B. for the
half-baked nature of this idea.  But who knows??

Dick Jackson
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Wall Street Journal Article
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:28:20 GMT

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

There was a splendid article in the September 28, 1992 edition of the Wall
Street Journal, page B3: "Predictable Heat Source Reported From 'Heavy'
Water Electrolysis." It was about the September 24 lecture given at M.I.T.
by Dr. M.C.H. McKubre, of SRI International. It begins: "A California
scientist funded by the electric power industry reported he has repeatedly
and predictably gotten excess heat from the electrolysis of 'heavy' water."

The article also talks about Dr. Edmund Storms of Los Alamos, who has
"replicated a Japanese experiment that produced more power, as heat, than it
consumes." It says that the Japanese experiment (Takahashi's) was "a major
factor in prompting the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and
Industry to earmark 2.7 billion yen ($22.4 million) for 'cold fusion'
experiments over the next few years." The article quotes McKubre, "we are
unable to account for the excess temperatures by any artifact or to account
for the excess heat by any mechanical or chemical process of which we are
aware," and adds, "Ruling out mechanical and chemical processes leaves only
nuclear processes of some sort to explain the experiment."

The article says there is a "growing suspicion" among CF researchers that CF
is not the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, but some other "mysterious process"
instead.

- Jed
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:33:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <920928120420.20800356@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>***************************************************************************
>* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
>* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
>* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
>***************************************************************************
>
>Tom Droege
>

     This is wonderfully enigmatic.  Is this the experiment of 18 September?

                            dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Update change: 743, not 744;                  bombs away.
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:50:01 GMT


Hello,
1.
^^
in my update just now, I included the item starting with
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Romodanov VA, Savin VI, Shakhurin MV, Chernyavskii VT, Pustovit AE;
>Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 36(5) (1991) 572.
>Original Russian in: Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 61 (1991) 122.
>"Nuclear fusion in the solid state".
>** A glow discharge of deuterium gas was allowed to act on a Pd sample, and

etc; well, I then found that I already had it in the big file. So my count is
not 744 but 743. This will be correct in the archive. Sorry about that, it's
a result of scanning both Phys. AND Chem. Abstracts, and not always watching
out.

2.
^^
All you hydrogen bomb lovers: we've had this disease before. I reckon most of
those following this group - even some of you lot - would agree that fusion,
mainly cold but occasionally hot, is the main object here, but not fusion as
in bombs. Please take this bomb stuff elsewhere, it lowers S/N. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Pathway Question
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:14:07 GMT

Now that Tom Droege seems to be zeroing in, I am moved
to suggest a reaction pathway that I don't recall having been
discussed.  In my mathematician's ignorance of matters
nuclear, there are probably many reasons why it won't work,
but then cold fusion is impossible anyway.  Right?

Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:

D + D -> T + P + energy

energy is less than fusion to helium by decay energy of tritium+
an electron mass, but should still be well positive.  The proton 
and triton although, high energy, will be be rapidly stopped in
the Pd lattice and so produce no external radiation.  The T can 
chemically hide in the aboundance of D, and its fairly low energy
decay may not have been noticed.  T probably contaminates everthing
anyway.  

This suggests looking for an excess of T in the cell products.
Perhaps the discussion about the Pd absorbing a neutron suggests
a mechanism whereby some sort of neutron-Pd resonance can mediate
the 2D to T+P fusion.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Tongues hanging out
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:09:02 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct1.005856.20816@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
]Dick Forman  M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
]>Based upon information provided to me by another sucessful experimenter,
]>I know the "next generation" experiments won't be on palladium.
]
]Why must you torment us so??  :-)

Go long on nickel ;-)


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:52:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.061935.18534@asl.dl.nec.com>
terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>In article <920928195537_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM>
>Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>> The [Wall Street Journal] article says there is a "growing suspicion"
>> among CF researchers that CF is not the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, but
>> some other "mysterious process" instead.
>
>Hee hee ho ho.  Wagers, anyone?  How long until an article comes out in
>which the concept of "total mass conversion" is clearly and understandably
>applied to such experiments?  Any REALLY brave reporters out there?
>
>I would personally strongly advice against any public reference to TMC
>unless and until the level of easy reproducibility of such experiments
>is worldwide and absolutely unequivical.  Without that TMC is the silliest
>bleeping idea ever proposed on this net, and should be taken in exactly
>that light.
>
>With such reproducibility...  Well, most likely I'd just fall off my
>chair laughing.
>
>                        Cheers,
>                        Terry "still here" Bollinger
>
Dick Forman says: Wagers huh---Put your money where your mouth is.
                   Define the bet and suggest your bet size.
                     Sometimes losing money is the only thing that
                      teaches someone a lesson. Since I am so far in the
                       hole by someting similar to what Tom D. has spent
                        AND YOU ARE SO SURE IN YOUR ANALYSIS---Give me odds
                         that indicate your level of belief in your own
                          analysis or stop cluttering the thread.
     Is there a netter that will volunteer to hold the bet (when terms and
         odds) are finalized.
Where I come from this is the long form of:
      PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
 
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Graphs of Droege experiment data
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 20:52:34 GMT

In article <67243@cup.portal.com> Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
>Or you could post more X-Y data and I could occasionally post some graphs.)

Good point, except that everyone here who can understand the meaning of
the graphs also probably has the smarts to take the published data tables
and produce their own graphs.   Heck, I don't understand the graphs, but
have been producing them in color (green lines for source-in, red lines
for source-out) since Droege began publishing them two months ago.

So maybe just publish the data points and let the end user worry about
transforming them into a picture.  If so, just aim for a little consistency
between column arrangements so that we don't have to re-program the parser
for each "update."



-- 
- 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: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:45:50 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <BvF2Ks.2pD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.204514.12015@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes...
>>In article <6867@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>>>
>>>   1) Building a fission U-235 bomb is supposed to be fairly easy. U-235
>>>      ....
>> 
>>Need I remind you that it took the Russians 4 years (!) to develop a
>>fission bomb and that was with leaked information and all of their
>>scientific force behind the project? Jeez, you'd think that all there
>>is to making a bomb is saying it's easy.
>
>Question: was this four years _after_ they had developed the ability to
>enrich uranium in "sizeable" quantities?

The Soviets exploded a fission device about 4 years after we did.  (This 
made Szilard's estimate of 'within 5 years' famous and shocked those who 
thought the Soviets would be 5-years-awar for decades to come.)  That is, 
about 4 years after learning that it was feasible, they designed, acquired 
the materials, constructed, and detonated the weapon.  It took the US, 
with all of its scientific force that wasn't working on radar or codes, 
less than 3 years *without* knowing that a Plutonium bomb was doable. 
The difference was probably (1) we were richer and (2) we had not been 
affected by the war.  

I would guess that a large part of that time was spend building their 
plutonium production plant and getting it into full production.  (I doubt 
they put any resources in a U-235 bomb since it must have been as obvious 
to them as to us that they could not be made in large quantities.) 

--
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)
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2262 sci.physics:15667
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:27:34 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Way cool. The only reason I read this group is for Tom Droege's status
reports, and now, _finally_, after years of patient, careful,
disappointing work he's got his 100 sigmas.

I'd like to buy him a beer.

Hell, a case of beer.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Energy Foundation...(was H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:10:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1ao2s3INN2o4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>
>The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices
>Freidwardt Winterberg
>(pub) Fusion Energy Foundation, New York 1981
**** LAROUCHE ALERT! ****

Speaking of the FEF, has anyone heard of them lately? The FEF was the
'science' arm of jailed right-wing extremist Lyndon LaRouche's organization.
They published ``Fusion'' magazine and 'Executive Intelligence Review'.

Much of the FEF stuff is utter bunk. They had a few cracked scientists on
their staff (i.e. people who once did respectible work but then snapped).

I recently saw one of Lyndon's 30-minute campaign ads. Yes, he is trying
to run for US President (again) from jail. It was the same one he used in
his 1988 campaign but it included a taped statement from his cell in the
Federal Pen.

	Scott
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Analysis
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:28:13 GMT

Jim Bowery writes:

"Do you know anyone at Batavia who could od a quantitative isotopic
analysis of your Li reagent?"

One of the reasons that I put up these posts is the forlorn hope that 
some one will say "let me do this for you - it may have a neat result".
But mostly people say "why don't ***you*** do this or that."

Thank you, I am doing all I can.  But some of you out there are helping.
And doing real neat things.  So occcationally Henny Penny gets someone to
help with the grinding or the baking.  But everyone shows up to eat.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Replies
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:52:44 GMT

Deac Moo writes:

"It's only a verifiable experiment if he can do it all over again  :)..."

Not quite so.  I have spent the last couple of days reading old log books.  It
is a strange sort of self torture.  It seems that only irrelevant things are 
written in log books, the really important things are always left out.  But 
then I have almost everything on all those disks.  But I warn anyone who
wants to help out by writing a data viewing program that it is a big job.  
Actually two big jobs as there is the old calorimeter data format and the new 
format.  

The very first D2O run done in July 89 looks just like the present run.  Many, 
many runs in between are the same.  But I have been determined not to publish 
a really positive result until I was quite sure of my calibration.  I am now.

I quote from our ACCF1 (Utah Proceedings - March 1990) paper:

"We find the evidence for "anomalous heat" to be persuasive but not absolutely 
convincing.  We have presented data that we believe to be representative.  
Still there are enough calibration runs which show too much heat and D2O runs 
which show little or not heat that the whole process could be noise."

This is the quote that Huizinga liked so much that he included it three times 
in his book.

So Deak Moo, I have done it over, and over, and over.  What was 3 sigma in 
1989 is 100 sigma now.  I must say that there are still lingering doubts.  But 
only a fool is sure of anything.  And that is certain!

Does anyone want to speculate on the chance for getting funding to investigate 
spontaneous combustion of LOL vs getting funding for "anomalous heat" 
research?

To John Logajan.  This run was made with the cell of the previous Takahashi 
style run.  It was cleaned with a succession of HCl, Joy, H2SO4, Cheap Shampoo 
(no perfume), and finally many changes of distilled water (from supermarket - 
but finally last week I got my hands on some good water courtesy of Nalco 
Corp.).  It was then dried out over night under a heat lamp.  The cathode was 
new, and was cut from an Engelhard bar with a final finish with a surface 
grinder.  This run was started by loading the cell with the D2O/H2O mix, then 
immediately (5 min) putting it into the calorimeter at a commanded zero 
current (+/- 0.5 ma).  It was held there about 10 hours while a calibration 
was taken, then we went to the charging current of about 32 ma per sq cm. 

I am pretty careful about putting the source in and out.  If I bump into 
anything it is foam.  But I do worry about the cat purring.  

Tom Droege

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy per atom, so far
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:02:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Using Droege's Sept 29 data and anticipating another 5000 joules today gives:

 0.8eV per D2O/H2O atom
63.0eV per Pd
67.0eV per D loaded (0.94 loading)

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Could This Be a Positive "Anomalous Heat" Result?
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:44:06 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>If any one out
>there wants me to run with H2O then you have to explain to me why I should 
>not better run with Mazola oil, Gerbil blood, or holy water from Lourds.

You *should* be running with polywater -- for obvious reasons. :-)


>We also did source in/out changes during this time with no observed effect.

This meant something in your Ying days, but what do you mean now?

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853