HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Subject: Brave new information age
Reply-To: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:00:32 GMT

  Does anybody out there have experience with WAIS (wide area
information servers)?  I've just found out about this Internet feature
and I think it's a hot ticket for Dieter's bibliography -- with WAIS, 
you could search the bibliography, by keywords, on-line.
  WAIS would also be a good way to archive the graphics files that many
of us yearn for but which don't fit in a mail format very well.
  So, anyone with WAIS experience, speak up!
  Happy holidays  -- Chuck
From: B7WA@MUSICT.MCGILL.CA (B7WA)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: looking for 3-d code for Sperical Pintch
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:43:54 GMT
Organization: McGill University

I am looking for 3-d code for sperical pintch computation
Please return to me > Thanks a lot.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Status #2 Cell 4A3
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:56:55 GMT

When we first tried to ramp up cell 4A3, nothing happened with the gas.  After 
a struggle, it was determined (at 3 AM) that there was a gas leak.  The new 
servo switch was balanced so well that it just sat at one spot with a leak.  
Will have to set it for a positive pressure for the next run to more quickly 
expose leaks.  What wonders Tom Edison could have performed had he had 5 
minute epoxy!  But the result of all this struggle was that there was likely 
0.05 to 0.1 D/Pd absorption. 

The cell was then run reverse for 24 hours with only a couple of cc of gas 
evolution.  We are not sure that this will remove absorbed gas, especially at 
the very low reverse current that we used.

We then ramped up cell 4A3 at 1 ma per sq cm per hour.  After 17 hours it hit 
the limit at about 0.8 D/Pd.  At this point the current density was 17 ma per 
sq cm.  After another half day with the slow cell current ramp still on, and 
little or no change in loading, we increased the ramp to 50 ma per sq cm per 
hour.  This caused an immediate indication of increased loading.  Eventually 
we appeared to get to 2 D/Pd.  

I say "appeared" since what was likely happening was that the catalyst was 
becoming less efficient.  What is required to explain the result is that the 
catalyst needs higher and higher concentrations of D2 and O2 to operate as the 
watts per unit surface area increase.  But the numbers are not large, the 
catalyst efficiency has only to change from 100% efficient to 90% efficient to 
get my result.  In other words, the catalyst was failing, but was still 
converting most of the evolved gas.  

By the time we got to 2 D/Pd (remember we measure excess gas - presumed oxygen 
from the D2 that was absorbed) the excess gas was accelerating even faster 
than the current was increasing so it was suspicious.  We then backed down the 
current and the excess gas decreased, indicating that there really was un-
recombined D2 and O2 in the cell (or that the cathode was outgassing - just 
can't tell).  Still we could only get it down to an indicated 1.6 D/Pd no 
matter what we did, including turning up the heat on the catalyst.  (Except 
for the resulting transient, my computer keeps track of all this so that such 
things can be done while still maintaining an energy balance.)

So it is a tough business.  I think the 0.8 number is conservative, especially 
in view of the unknown amount of charging when the cell was leaking.  This was 
also measured at very low current and with the catalyst heater on to insure 
that it would be working.  But I just don't know about the larger numbers.  We 
really need to measure the gas and the cathode resistance at the same time and 
make comparisons, but it is so hard to get all those leads into the cell! 

Happy Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night!

Tom Droege

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Good Question
Date: 1 Jan 93 19:32:01
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
Reply-To: aboulanger@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: terry@asl.dl.nec.com's message of Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:22:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.232206.20322@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:

   The "bunching up" is in fact the postulated energy focusing mechanism.  The
   problem is to quantify it specifically and propose a way that it might be
   able to exist in a transition metal lattice.  Look for mechanisms that _end_
   with strong field gradients, but begin with something more gradual.  Otherwise
   your attempt to focus energy will break up prematurely and nothing of any
   great interest will occur.

   I have no idea what such an electron-based energy focusing mechanism would be,
   but it would necessarily show a high degree of symmetry when represented in
   the appropriate space.  It would also have to "zero in" very specifically on
   a single very tiny region of the lattice for the final focusing of energy.
   (Note again the difference from "fracto" approaches, in which high gradients
   occur all over the matrix and no single focus can be identified.)

   > Seems to me that all those electrons in the lattice would want to lock up
   > in some way.

   Not normally.  You've got the metallic equivalent of an electron gas, and
   unless disciplined in some curious fashion it will behave like most gases --
   chaotically.


I have been boning-up on the stochastic acceleration literature that I
posted a reference to in this group as a possible acceleration
mechanism for light-emitting cavitation. (I was not thinking directly
in terms of solid-state fusion at the time.) However, in my digging
around, I discovered that there was an acceleration mechanism
postulated by Fermi which entailed accelerations via random fields.
(Fermi was seeking a mechanism for cosmic rays.) Ulam made a
simplified model of this. It consisted of a particle moving between
two walls -- one of which is periodically vibrating. Hmm, lets see --
Fermi (electron) gas, lattice vibrations (phonons), periodic
potentials (crystal lattice) anyone?

Just some solid state thoughts,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: "BERNECKY WILLIAM R" <BERNECKY@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Subject: wavelength vs temperature
Reply-To: "BERNECKY WILLIAM R" <BERNECKY@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:22:23 GMT

INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Using the following relations:

   (1)  mv= h/lambda	          h= 6.626 x 10E-34 J s
   (2)  E= (1/2)m v^2	          m(of D)= 3.34 x 10E-27 kg
   (3)  (1/2) m v^2 = (3/2) kT    k= 1.38 x 10E-23 J/(molecule K)

we have
   (4)  T (in Kelvins) = (h^2)/(3km) x (1/lambda^2)

We can use this simple-minded approach to calculate the quantum wavelength of
D and H in a Pd lattice.  I am using a D-D separation distance of 2.83 Angstroms
for D's in the octahedral sites, and a separation of 1.73 A for D in the
tetrahedral sites. (Are these reasonable numbers?)

We can calculate T for some interesting wave lengths, which are those where
there is maximum constructive and destructive addition of adjacent wave forms.

Table 1:  Distance between H species 2.83 A.

  spacing         lambda        T(H)         T(D)

   2lambda         1.42 A       317 K        158 K         constructive
   3lambda/2       1.87         181           91           destructive
   lambda          2.83          79           40           constructive
   lambda/2        5.66          20           10           destructive


Table 2:  Distance between H species 1.73 A.

  spacing         lambda        T(H)         T(D)

   2lambda         0.86 A       847 K        424 K         constructive
   3lambda/2       1.15         479          240           destructive
   lambda          1.73         212          106           constructive
   lambda/2        3.46          53           26           destructive

The "spacing" column refers to the D-D (or H-H) separation as a function of
the atom's wavelength,e.g. 2lambda spacing indicates that D's are separated
by twice their wavelength. . Lambda is the wavelength, T(H) is the temperature
in Kelvins at which H has the indicated wavelength, T(D) the temperature for D.

Question:  should there be anything interesting about D (or H) spaced 
exactly 1 lambda (or 2lambda) apart over some large spatial extent?
From: jcliu@four-lab4.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Liu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Nuclear Waste Disposal
Date: 30 Dec 1992 21:20:59 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley Dept. of Nuclear Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: four-lab4.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Accelerator Transmutation of Waste

Why even try to transmute waste?  If your goal is to reduce the
amount of fission products then underground burial is the way to
go.  The toxicity of high level waste after more than several hundred
years is controlled mostly by technicium-99 and strontium-90.  And
even then, their toxicities are over rated.

For really long-lived wastes...
Actinides in the form of oxides (e.g. Americium, etc.) are relatively
stable to solution in water and therefore transport by means of
diffusion through certain stable geologic environments is slow and their
danger is negligible.  And if needed, one could put these actinides back
into a fast reactor and burn them.

IMHO, I'd worry more about cigarette smoke and all the polonium-210
that's getting spewed into the air.  An NAS study in 1980 (See Lamarsh,
Intro to Nuclear Engineering, chapter on Health Physics) lists cigarette
smokers who smoke 1.5 packs/day as exposing their lungs to 8000 mRem/yr
of 5.3 MeV alphas from polonium-210 (a decay daughter of Radon).  This
is as much as 40 times the normal background of around 200 mRem/yr the
average population gets.  Go Figure your priorities.

James
=======================================================================
James C. Liu |    KARAOKE Addict!     Karaoke: You're the STAR!!!!    |
             |    Wanna go? Need someone who sings worse than you do? |
             |    Know about a cool karaoke bar? send e-mail          |
=======================================================================
From: mlevin@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Levin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: do quantum effects have any role in brownian motion?
Date: 1 Jan 93 18:16:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


     Do quantum effects (of the kind where they start talking about
unpredictability, quantum randomness, etc.) have any role in the
motion of molecules in a liquid (or solid, or gas)? Please reply to
mlevin@husc8.harvard.edu. 

Mike Levin
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21842 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2639
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: ABIAN as an AI Program - a case of precognition?
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:46:44 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)

In article <BzxHz1.Cyr@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>If this *is* the work of an AI team at Iowa State, [...]

By AI you mean Artificial Ignorance, right?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: Aspect's experiment
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:18:01 GMT

As a naive reader unfamiliar with the details of Aspect's experiment I
cannot comment on the conclusions being reached here. However, may I
interject a (possibly relevant) question?

In article <458@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <C00pCC.6FG@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>>[...] Furthermore, Aspect's acoustically driven switching
>> time for the polarizer orientations was short compared to flight time by a
>> factor of order 10 as I recall - so the interval between detections of any
>> two photons in the same pair is definitely spacelike. And I don't think
>> it's clear to anyone but you if your "critical delay" is the same as
>> Aspect's switching time.

Okay. The arrival of a photon at a detector is an event.

>The critical interval is not that between detecting two photons in the
>same pair. The critical intervals are those between when the polarizers
>change and this has an observable effect. These are not Aspect's switching
>time. They are the intervals that must be measured to prove Bell's
>inequality is violated.

Well, the change in the angle of a polarizer is also an event. But
what is "this has an observable effect"? If you had said

>The critical intervals are those between the change of angle of a
>polarizer and the arrival of the more distant photon at the detector

then I could understand this. Since you didn't say it, I assume you
meant something more, but it is not clear to me what that something is.

And later:

>You change both polarizers simultaneously and observe the delay between
>when this change happens and it affects the probability of joint detections.

Much the same unclear wording. You speak of the time between a pair of
events and an "it affects the..."  Am I missing a subtlety here
because of my unfamiliarity with the experiment, or is something being
*said* unclearly because it is not being *thought* clearly?

This is meant as a question, not as a challenge. Please treat it
accordingly.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Budnik's proposed experiment (was Re: temporally undecided states)
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:07:47 GMT

In article <464@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>
>The issue I am raising is not to determine the order of events. I am saying
>that to do an effective test of Bell's inequality you must directly measure
>the time between when the polarizers change angle and this influences
>the probability of joint detections. The way to do this is to record the
>times when the polarizers change and to record the sequence of detections
>at both sites. This must be repeated for a large number of trials. It is
>a technically difficult experiment because the delays will be dominated by
>the lack of synchronization between when singlet state particles are emitted
>and when the polarizer angles change. One can factor this out statistically
>to some degree, but one would like to have the particles emitted rapidly to
>minimize this effect. If they are emitted too rapidly it becomes difficult
>to distinguish joint detections from detections of two separate singlet state
>pairs of particles.
>
>In spite of these technical difficulties the experiment can be done and
>will yield some definite probability distribution for these delays.
>Quantum mechanics does *not* predict what the distribution of these delays
>are. It is an provably incomplete theory. That QM fails to predict
>these delays casts considerable doubt on its prediction that locality is
>violated. I now have a paper under review that makes this case. I am very
>interrested in any refutations of this argument.

Okay, a few comments from someone outside the field. If I'm totally
off the wall, point me to the appropriate papers. It's been over a
decade since I've thought deeply about this, but I'm still interested.

First, I don't see what the measurement of delays has to do with
testing Bell's inequality. If the probability of joint detections
falls outside a certain limit, then Bell's inequality is violated. The
angular dependence of this probability is relevant. How long it takes
for the probability to change when the polarizer angle changes isn't.

Second, if QM plus quantum measurement theory cannot, even in
principle, predict the distribution of delays your experiment is
designed to measure, then it is incomplete. Not merely EPR-incomplete,
but *really* incomplete. That's a very big deal. It seems to me that
this issue has to be resolved before it makes any sense to try to
interpret the possible outcomes of your proposed experiment.

Third, QM does *not* predict that locality is violated. If it fails to
predict the delays, then it is incomplete. The "only" thing that casts
doubt on is its usefulness as the basis for a description of nature.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
From: weiyi@eng.auburn.edu (Wei Yi Wu)
Subject: Gamma ray emission under irradiation
Reply-To: weiyi@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:25:43 GMT

Dear Sir:

I wish this is the correct group to post my question:  
which particle (proton or alpha) has more efficiency to generate gamma ray when they 
bombard on materials with same energy(say 2 MeV)? 
Are there any references on the problem?

Thanks in advance!

Have a nice day and a happy new year!

Sincerely

Weiyi Wu

Please reply to
						weiyi@eng.auburn.edu


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck)
Subject: Self-heating thermometer for anemometer
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:44:34 GMT

The National Semiconductor data sheet for the LM335 Kelvin Temp.
sensor shows a "air flow detector" based on comparing the output
of two sensors, one of which has a large current going throu
it and is hence subject to self-heating.  I'd like to use such
an idea to build an anemometer, and want to know... is either
the difference or the ratio of the temperatures proportional
to wind speed?  Any references on heat transfer from a warmed
object as a function of airflow? 

f.deck
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: quantum mech.
Date: 31 Dec 1992 07:03 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <C03zCI.7Ds@utdallas.edu>, nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani) writes...
>	eigenstate of that system. My other question about transition 
>	lifetime from the first excited state in a 1-D infinite well has also
>	gone unanswered. I do wish Sarfatti would rather answer such questions
>	than adding all that noise.

Yes.  There will be a spontaneous transition from the n=1 to n=0 state of
the infinite square well by spontaneous radiation.  You can look this
up in Liboff under "harmonic perturbation," if I recall correctly.  The
computation in Liboff is not a full QED calculation, but rather a 
model calculation to demonstrate the use of perturbation theory in 
quantum mechanics.  In his example, the x operator arises in the 
transition matrix element from the dipole interaction of the atom with the
classical radiation field.  In a full QED treatment, you can see it 
arise from an expansion of the outgoing photon plane wave in the limit
of large wavelength compared to the well size.

You can read more about this in the first couple of chapters of Sakurai's
_Advanced Quantum Mechanics_, which is very readable if you have
Liboff under your belt - but beware that it uses some out-of-date notations,
the worst of which are the Minkowski metric for SR, and some old 
conventions for solutions to the Dirac Equation.  

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cappucino Noise
Date: 22 Dec 1992 17:32:28 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1992Dec19.071907.14957@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella) writes:
>3/ The capucino 'steam' is a complex admixture of hot liquid, agglomerating 
>bubbles and free vapor.
>
>4/ At that point, my crystal ball goes hazy.

...fogs over.

				--Blair
				  "Hot cross puns,
				   no extra charge."
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Materials for simple static electricity expts.
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:21:59 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1992Dec18.234928.16107@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
>To this day I do not know why one end of that rod was etched, but I do
>know that I was rubbing the wrong end! My best guess is that the end is
>etched so that the *knowledgeable* physicist will always pick it up by
>that end, so as not to soil and render less effective the *other* end,
>which, as you've probably guessed, electrifies like gangbusters when
>clean and rubbed with the silk cloth.

My guess is your guess is correct.

Triboelectrification works purely by contact.  The function
of rubbing is to bring more "virgin" material into contact.
Because the two materials are insulators (find me two that
aren't and are still good for demos of triboelectrification),
you can't simply place them together and incant olde english;
you need to deform the silk fibers, rotating their large
total surface to the face of the cloth, and rub them
maximally around on the surface of the glass.

As you might imagine, etched glass has very little readily
available surface area, even though it would have fractally
much more total surface area.

I think in addition to the anti-oil argument, it's just
plain easier for rickety old physics lecturers to hang on
to the etched end than the smooth end.

Maybe if you'd been a bit more ancient yourself...

				--Blair
				  "Polystyrene peanuts are an absolute gas."
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, concluded
Keywords: anthropics, faith, humor
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:49:12 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

Uhh - in case anybody's keeping track there are physics threads in
sci.philosophy.meta now ...

In article <1992Dec19.215537.3152@aee.aee.com> gene@aee.aee.com (Gene Kochanowsky) writes:
>either case, no matter, it is possible to do science without faith, but 
>the converse, in "most" religions is viewed as hypocrisy. 

You got a different list of religions than me.

>It would be interesting if people would post what they think the word
>faith means and then a citation from their dictionary with reference. 

No, that would be pretty boring. Strictly speaking, definitions are matter
of agreement between the parties to the discussion. Otherwise it's the
same thing as shouting. Much better to skip the dictionary reference,
since if the definition persuades the disputants to agree, it isn't 
important if it comes from a dictionary. Even the OED cannot be taken
as beyond dispute.

>Much of this discussion centers around differing definitions. This process
>might result in a definition that all would agree reflects the common usage,
>like it or not. 

So what. If you want to convince people, you have to get them to agree
to _your_ usage, not common usage. Science is chock full of terms which
have important and useful meanings which are not in common usage. Take
for example the commonplace 'rate of speed'. Do _you_ use this  to be
synonymous with 'speed', the way it is _commonly_ used? If so, you cannot
expect many readers of sci.physics to join you, even should you produce
an entire stack of errant dictionaries to support this usage. I expect
most physicists are glad to be able to use acceleration in preference to
'rate of speed'.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.physics