HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Lecture Notice
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:23:02 GMT

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

LECTURE NOTICE

Thursday, December 3, 1992, 4:00 p.m.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Building 34
Room 34-401 A, the Greer Room

Access from Vassar Street, Cambridge, MA

Excess Heat Production in Electrolysis of Potassium Carbonate Solution with
Nickel Electrodes

by Dr. Reiko Notoya
Catalysis Research Center
Hokkaido National University
Japan

Dr. Notoya will give a lecture and a demonstration of a light water - nickel
cold fusion device, which generates 3 to 4 times more heat energy than the
electrical heating energy put into it. It will be shown in a side-by-side
comparison with a resistance heater control cell. When the same power is input
into both cells, red alcohol thermometers show that the cold fusion cell
becomes about 15 degrees Celsius hotter than the control cell. The temperature
difference is immediately apparent to anyone who touches the surface of the
glass containers. This temperature difference persists indefinitely.

For more information, contact Jed Rothwell at:

Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312-F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341

Phone: 404-451-9890   Fax: 404-458-2404

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: vnoninski@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU
Subject: Re: S.Jones' posting of November 19
Reply-To: vnoninski@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:41:32 GMT

Dear Colleagues,

It seems that exactness  in his  statements  is  not  of  primary  
concern  to  S.Jones.  For instance, on November  19 he writes:

"I endeavored to correct my mistake immediately when I learned of 
it, twice before on the net  (this  is  my  third  try  with  Dr. 
Noninski)".

What does this statemen mean ?

Correcting  of  his  mistake  was  not  such  innocent   an   act  
as  S.Jones  would  like  to  present   it.   He  "endeavored  to 
correct" the figures he posted only  after   he   was  shown  and  
"learned"   that   these   figures    do    not    support    his 
sensational "discovery" of Notoya's "mistake". 

Further, under the circumstances  it  would   probably  be   more  
prudent   for   the   author   to    restrain    himself     from 
statements like : "But the fact remains that much  of  the  joule 
heating of the control cell occured outside the control cell,  in 
the very thin lead wire ..." since it is  not   at   all  obvious 
that  such  a  fact  "remains".  As   noted,   the   measurements  
reported  after   the   criticism   contradict   those   reported   
before   the criticism and this provides an  obvious  reason   to  
suspect  that the latter  figures,  reported  from  measurements, 
were in  fact  made up to sustain the initial claim for "mistake" 
in Notoya's cell.

"Contributions" of this type, based  on  adjusting  the  data  to 
support one's point at any rate, are  the  least  needed for  the 
discussions of  scientific  matters  and  particularly  for   the 
debate  about  the reality of the excess heat during electrolysis 
of  H2O  solutions with Ni  cathodes,  claimed   by   Fleischmann  
et  al.

In  addition  to  reinforcing  my  conviction  that  S.Jones  has 
deliberately adjusted the data, after my criticism (obviously the 
change of data was made to support his  initial  denouncement  of 
Notoya's experiment), from his posting of November 19  I  further 
learned with astonishment  that  he,  admittedly,  is  ready   to  
publish  and make ultimate statements based on data that has  not 
been critically analysed by him. It was enough for  him  to  just 
hear some figures from some student and the  moment  he  realized 
the figures fit his goals he rushed to publish them. 

How     can     one     be     certain     that     in      other   
publications   and  statements  of  S.Jones  the  author  is  not 
similarly selective when choosing the "facts" he publishes ?

Truly yours,

Vesselin  Noninski                            November  19,  1992

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: In case there was ever a doubt
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:35:54 GMT

One of the things Mike McKubre presented at the (private) Washington meeting
was his experiment P-15.  This experiment is also discussed in the Como 
proceedings.  

I have now re-read the Como proceedings several times.  I can find no mention
of the addition of 200 ppm Aluminum.  Yet there it was on the view graph last
Tuesday.  

Workers in this field are not publishing complete experiments.  Q.E.D.

In fact, reading the Como paper again, I find some of the content downright 
misleading, considering what McKubre knew at the time.  Please be aware that
I am not accusing McKubre of being in any way unethical.  He is being paid to
do this work and to keep the results secret until they can be given patent 
protection.  He is operating under one set of rules - the paid researcher.  I 
am operating under a different set of rules.  You guess them.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:03:43 GMT

In article <4iPJuB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>> >found (3 microgram). This subrevolution within cnf could have immense econom
>> >ramifications, writes Bush.                                      Jul-91/Sep-
>> 
>> Immense economic ramifications is a bit understated, if his results could be
>> duplicated.
>> 
>> The question is: Is anyone trying to duplicate this work? While I have
>> my doubts, this at least looks somewhat promising as an avenue of
>> investigation. Finding calcium ash is pretty interesting.
>
>It is especially interesting in that a) doing good quantitative
>analysis on Ca is relatively easy and b) the heat is correlated.

Hmmm ... I'm not trained in this area at all, but the thought comes
to mind:  IFF the theory is true, is there any isotope of alkali metal
that, when transformed per the theory, would produce a clearly identifiable
isotope of target material?  That is, could one use the equivalent of
radioactive tracers to prove the transition?  (I know, the isotope could
change the reaction such that it didn't happen... but a positive should
be easy to show.  Either with a radioactive starting material yielding
a surprising drop in electrolite radioactivity or with the appearance
of a surprising increase in an odd isotope of Ca or Sr that would not
be common in nature...  Potasium has a couple of common isotopes, why
not just start with an isotopicaly pure material and see what the 'ash'
is, then re-run with mixed isotopes and again see what the 'ash' is.
If it is the same in both cases, something would start to look fishy...)


-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A better demonstration
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:44:48 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: fennel.cc.uwa.edu.au

Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

(Much stuff deleted...)
 
>Indeed, I am not going to say another word about Notoya's experiments. Words
>are wasted when another actual public demonstration is three weeks away.
>Anyone is welcome to come, and you are free to measure whatever you want with
>the cell. I expect that the so-called "skeptics" like Dieter Britz are cowards
>and will not come; or they are such fools that they believe these electronic
>letters implicitly, so they have made up their minds, and they will not bother
>to look for themselves, or send someone they trust to look. That is up to
>them, I personally could not care less whether a single so-called "skeptic"
>comes or not. I will be in the audience, it is not my lecture, and not my
>demonstration. I expect it will work, but only God Almighty knows for sure.
 
Jed, I don't think a couple of cells sitting on a bench with thermometers in
them is going to convince anybody at MIT. More likely it will just bring more
ridicule and accusations of bad calorimetry. An experiment that WOULD convince
all of us would be if you and Notoya went over to Batavia and set up the cell
in Tom Droege's calorimeter and demonstrated excess heat there. Surely this is
feasible if Tom agrees. If you expect poor old Dieter Britz to fly over from
Denmark to witness the demonstration, surely we  can expect you to fly over 
to Illinois for a definitive test in a calorimeter that is known to be
accurate? How about it? 400% excess heat in a benchtop demo might not be too
convincing but, a 4000 sigma event in the Droege beast would make for a strong
case.

----
Todd Green




Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:14:43 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Nov18.154812.5759@hal.com> bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>
>Based on a life long association with research scientists I'd say that
>what you see here is both the good and the bad of science as it really
>happens. Well, all most, these guys are using their "Sunday go to
>meeting manners" because this is a public medium and there are
>non-scientist present.

Hmmm.  There were plenty of non-scientists, plus the worst sort of 
non-scientists with their video and tape recorders, present at the 
Baltimore APS meeting and that did not affect anyone's behavior 
that I could see.  Scientists are like most people: generally polite 
until their toes are stepped on.  A lot of the anger associated with 
responses to cold fusion comes from having spent a lot of time on 
an experiment (in good faith) only to learn later that some of the 
statements (including published data) on which that work was based 
were something less than the truth.  

Remember P&F saying that it was easy, and that all you needed to know 
was in their paper?  Remember how long ago it was that they promised 
to display a working household hot-water heater?  How many first-year 
lab students would build a control that had main components constructed 
from different materials, as we have seen most recently?  

Physicists tolerate mistakes made by students and other newbies.  They 
do not like it when someone who should know better has not done their 
"homework", but will tolerate such mistakes by colleagues who admit them, 
in print, if it was accidental.  They really dislike faked data. 

--
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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: phsjga@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Jacques G. Amar)
Subject: Yamaguchis_Experiments
Reply-To: phsjga@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Jacques G. Amar)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:22:50 GMT

I`ve just read an article in New Scientist Oct.31 issue (British science 
magazine) about the experiments of Eiichi Yamaguchi of NTT.
They sound quite interesting, and are claimed to be easily reproducible.

It appears he takes a `chip` of palladium (3cm x 3cm x 1mm), one side of
which has been oxided and exposes it to deuterium gas so
that it becomes saturated (high pressure ?).  The other side of the chip is 
then coated with 
gold (to seal it?) and heated (how much?, in a vaccuum ? or in a vaccuum-tight
container ?).  
After several hours, he observes a 100 C rise in temperature in the chip. 
Also, He4 is detected in the chamber. 
He apparently believes that deuterium `migrates` toward the Pd-oxide side 
where it fuses to form He4.  
He also claims that `at 
the peak` , 1 million-billion (10^15) fusions per sec occur.

An alternative interpretation due to David Williams of Harwell is that the 
heat is due to oxidation of the deuterium (presumably due to the oxygen 
in the Pd-oxide layer ?) to form D_2O, while the He4 is due to impurities in 
the glass container.  I presume however that this can be checked by using H 
instead of D (have they ?) and/or looking for D_2O.  I would imagine also 
that repeating the experiment (as was done 5 times with `perfect` success) 
 but with the _same_ container could also be a check.  


Can anyone provide more information on this experiment ?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: What about Yamaguchi?
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:07:25 GMT

I feel the need for a refresher course on what Yamaguchi's experiment
actually involves.  In addition to a Pd sandwich with an oxide and a
gold side with Pd:D in between there seems to be a rather high ion current
applied "perpendicular" to the plane of this sandwich.  Is this in
vacuum or in liquid?  Either way I don't see anything too surprising
about an observation that this thing comes apart.  Next how is the
energy balance determined?  I would also like to know what kind of
material properties the oxide layer is likely to have.  I know that
wierd things happen when you form oxide layers on alumnimum, for
example, relating to large electric field gradients on thin layers.
Does an oxide layer on Pd have similar properties?  Next some elementary
chemistry would seem to indicate that having an oxide in close contact
with a layer loaded with deuterium might lead to an explosive situation.
I think that when we have an experiment that is worth $8-billion in
paper profits it is worthy of a good going over.  Does anyone know
some of the details about Yamaguchi's experiments, or is this one of
those deals that is kept shrouded in industrial secrecy except when
there is some selfserving PR work to be done?

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Light Water Replications
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:21:55 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Thomas H. Kunich comments about the work of Bush and Eagleton:

"The question is: Is anyone trying to duplicate this work? While I have my
doubts, this at least looks somewhat promising as an avenue of investigation.
Finding calcium ash is pretty interesting."

Yes. Notoya's replication of Bush's work is what caused the recent brouhaha in
this forum.

Let me review the history of this, just to bring everyone up to speed here: 

Bush and Eagleton use a light water - nickel cell. Their experiments were
prompted by reports from Mills & Kneizys, and Noninski. After Bush replicated,
five other groups in the U.S. told me privately that they had also replicated,
getting about 30% excess heat, in most cases. The best results that I know of,
as of today, are reported by Mills, and by Thermacore, Inc, which is a
military contractor that specializes in thermal engineering. They get 900%
excess, as reported in Business Week magazine, Oct. 26 issue, page 88. I know
very little about Thermacore, I have no paper from them. However a high
ranking scientist in the U.S. military who is a friend of mine tells me that
he has worked with Thermacore for years, and they are experts at measuring
heat. He visited them, and described their experiment to me, and it sounded
convincing.

The news of these replications reached me last winter, and prompted me to send
the light water protocol and copies of papers by Mills, Noninski and Bush to a
large number of workers throughout the world, asking them to try it. To my
knowledge, only four groups tried the experiment, but all four replicated with
very little trouble, and reported at Nagoya. Three are in BARC, India, who's
work was reported by Srinivasan, and one was in Hokkaido. It is possible that
other groups tried, but did not report back to me.

For more details, see the Nagoya Conference Abstracts:

"Tritium and Excess Heat Generation During Electrolysis of Aqueous Solutions
of Alkali Salts with Nickel Cathode," M. Srinivasan et al. (et al 8 others!)

"Excess Heat Production in Electrolysis of K2CO3 Solution with Ni Electrodes,"
Notoya and Enyo

Bush reports finding calcium, and so does Notoya. Bush has also observed other
transmutations, with other salts, like strontium carbonate. I am not aware if
anyone else has tried replicating these other results. Many people point out
that calcium is a common contaminant.

- Jed
From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Subject: Mills cell instrumentation
Reply-To: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:44:35 GMT

I'm setting up a Mills test with a colleague.  Our goal is a simple, 
robust experiment which will (possibly) convince us personally that
something is going on.  Please make suggestions.

We plan to run an ambient-pressure (open) cell in a stoppered Thermos
ca. 500 mL with a simultaneous resistance control.  I would like to
bubble the exhaust gases through solutions which will react with H2 & 
O2 to produce a quantitative chemical record of gas evolution -- 
ideally a weighable precipitate, but titrations are acceptable.  We
need advice on the chemistry.  Low-tech, low-toxicity preferred!  

Thanks, all!  -Chuck

P.S. - IMHO all participants in recent flame wars should be ashamed of
themselves.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 08:12:14 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> >found (3 microgram). This subrevolution within cnf could have immense econom
> >ramifications, writes Bush.                                      Jul-91/Sep-
> 
> Immense economic ramifications is a bit understated, if his results could be
> duplicated.
> 
> The question is: Is anyone trying to duplicate this work? While I have
> my doubts, this at least looks somewhat promising as an avenue of
> investigation. Finding calcium ash is pretty interesting.
> 

It is especially interesting in that a) doing good quantitative
analysis on Ca is relatively easy and b) the heat is correlated.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Is the power input AC?
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:19:06 GMT

The question has been ask before as it applies to the Pd-D cells, but
perhaps it is time to ask it again with a thought to the Ni-H experiments
and the Notoya-Rothwell demo that is supposed to be so easy - i.e.
starts first time, every time without any long preparation period.
Spongy nickle got me thinking about very large surface to volume ratios
and the possibility that what we have in this case in a huge electrolytic
capacitor.  I think the engineers at MIT would do well to be prepared to
make some AC measurements on this demo or at the very least have an
oscilloscope handy!

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Yamaguchi and 4He
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:22:13 GMT

I think there are still some points of confusion as to whether and to
what extent the Helium observed by Yamaguchi can be a simple contaminant.
What Jed has relayed to us is the assurance that there is "No effect for
leaking 4He through glasses."  What this clearly indicates is that
Yamaguchi still is not in touch with the ways in which glass can be a
source of the helium he is observing.  The 4He need not be coming through
the glass.  The glass itself may be a reservoir for helium.  However, this
possibility becomes academic if the quantity of helium is very large.
So how much helium is Yamaguchi finding?  Jed gives us numbers like
10^16 atoms per second and a time period of something like 10^4 seconds.
Unfortunately these two numbers don't go together.  In fact it is hard
to make much sense of the 10^16 atoms per second as being indicative
of the helium production rate.

Since this experiment is conducted in "vacuum" it is time to give Jed
a little review of what that word means.  Vacuum is any pressure below
normal atmospheric pressure with the composition of the residual gas
completely unspecified.  Whenever I hear a claim that someone has
detected helium at very high levels in a situation where deuterium
is likely to be the dominant species, a red flag goes up.  Does
Yamaguchi no what he is doing when he tries to varify the presence
of helium in a deuterium atmosphere?  If he is using a mass spec I
would like to see a listing of the partial pressures for everything
and a plot of the peaks in the region of mass 4.

If we take Yamaguchi's observations at face value, it would seem that
the dueterium experiments produce enough helium to be conmensurate with
kilojoules of nuclear energy, but that the same heating is seen with
hydrogen.  However, the hydrogen experiment produces no helium.  Of
course his measurements of the energy released are nonexistant so
there is lots of wiggle room left.  Of course one possibility is
that those 10^16 helium atoms per second were evolved along with
10^16 high energy gammas per second in a reaction that is very
inefficient at "heating".  Of course no one bothered to have a
suitable radiation detector present when this occurred.  When is
he going to get serious?

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion