HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Commensurate
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:55:19 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct2.173523.3913@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>I assume that some a+A --> b+B reaction occurs with the 
>>release of energy.  I therefore expect to find b and B in direct proportion 
>>to the energy release.
>
>This is true -- but there are some (wild-ass:-) reactions in which detecting
>the "ash" is very hard.

Of course, which is why I was careful to point out elsewhere in my post 
that it is important to have some idea of what the possible ingredients 
in your model might be.  Experiments can be designed to test them, and 
existing reliable information can be used to constrain them.  A big 
problem has been the unreliability of the conventional wisdom about 
this phenomenon. 

>If, for instance, the 1H1 (protium) is being converted into 1H2 (deuterium)
>it would be very difficult to find the "ash" in a sea of pre-existing 1H2.
>You would have to be a very good bean counter from the git-go.

This would say that the light-water null tests were wrong.  If they 
were wrong, a different design could give you a shot at seeing this, 
or whatever else is assumed to happen in such a reaction. 

>Similarly, if the Pd is being fuso-fizzed into lighter elements, it would
>take very sensistive and dedicated assaying to discover the minute
>impurities -- and you'd had to have pre-assayed it to eliminate the 
>possibility of pre-existing impurities.

I think you would say fuso-fished, to pronounce it right! 

If the Pd is going to lighter elements, the chance that you could 
avoid making any of the many possible radioactive daughters is small. 

>Finally, TMC (total matter conversion) is the hardest to detect, since
>there are no useful ratio changes.  Accounting for such minute amounts
>of mass are, I suspect, nearly beyond the means of laboratory practice.

Not sure what you mean here.  Are you talking about something that 
violates baryon number conservation?  That would be a *major* 
discovery. 

--
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: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:42:24 GMT

In article <96900@bu.edu> jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.142803.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green) writes:
>
>>This all seems a bit odd  - I thought McKubre advocated running a very
>>clean system so as to avoid poisoning of the cathode surface, and hence the
>>use of a teflon cell etc. If he were using a glass cell then the Si, Al
>>and B would be leached from the cell walls by the LiOD, but where are they
>>coming from in a teflon cell? Is he deliberately adding Si and Al once the
>>experiments are in progress?
>

Cell is Quartz and Teflon.   Yes he is adding the inpurties after the loading
is done.

>
>Brief comment--excellent presentation but of little comfort to
>those who think a power source could emerge forom this research.
>He ran his cells for 1-3 months and got modest excess energy if
>you factor in all th energy he pumped into the system. Still, there's
>priobably some neat physics/chemistry going on. I still
>reserve judgement on the affair.
>
>john travis

John

I disagree, from discussion after the talk I really think Mike 
McKubre thinks of the effect as a realizable heat source.

He explained most of the time as soon as they see excess heat, 
they start disturbing the system.  He seemed to feel their 
disturbances were responsible for stoping each run.  

One of their first experiments was the one that showed excess 
heat the longest.  It ran over eight days with out disturbance.
The only reason it was allowed to run so long was everyone was 
away at a conference when the excess started.  Apparently only a 
technician was left monitoring the setup.


*******************************************************************************
Steve Finberg			W1GSL			w1gsl@athena.mit.edu
PO Box 82 MIT Br 	  Cambridge MA  02139		    617 258 3754
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Bomb Plans and Duelling Servos
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:49:33 GMT

My question for those who think building nuclear weapons is just a matter
of knowing how it was done is: "Given a complete set of drawings could
you build an Oldsmobile?"  Pardon the home-town reference, but having
witnessed what it took to turn an a blob of uranium into a rod and then
draw that rod into wire I have come to believe that the ingredients and the planaren't equivalent to having a bomb.

My other question(s) have to do with Tom Droege's marvelous calorimeter.
If I were to pick on two features of these Pd plus D2O sytems that may
make calorimetry especially difficult they are the relatively large
capacity to store chemical energy and a tendency to release energy in
"bursts".  My sense is that most calorimeters (including Tom's) are
designed to work well under quasistatic conditions and are generally
calibrated and tested that way.  So I would like to ask Tom how his
device copes with energy pulses.

>From his recent post, my reading of his descriptions is that there are
two servo loops which are doing the same thing.  As I understand it
the puke-plate sytem is servoed to maintain constant heat flux out of
the dewar.  (Oops that is puck-plate sytem...)  If a source in the
dewar sends a heat pulse to the puck the servo drives the temperature
of the puck up to provide a return pulse.  Meanwhile there is also
a heat pulse delivered to temperature sensor in the dewar which
through another servo loop also drives the temperature of the puck-
plate up.  Finally the whole system is returned to its original
temperature by a lowering of the power to the heater.  Did you
happen to notice that there may have been a net heat input into
the dewar during this excursion?

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2253 sci.physics:15649
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:17:59
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU's message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:38:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:


   In article <1a7e6qINN4rj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
   >
   >Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
   >inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
   >They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
   >countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.

   Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
   intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
   amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.

Ok, you're wrong. ;-)

There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
design after some very smart people pondered the problem
for 10 years - someone who knows the answer told me that
the essence of the problem can be pieced together by
a _smart_ graduate student with a decent computer in
6-12 months, and a _good_ student should be able to
solve the problem given the hints in unclassified literature,
as opposed to fission bombs which are designable by an 
average physics grad.
	
*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
From: dschleef@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Mr Zeppelin and his band)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:50:00 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <6867@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
> (deleted)
>      to be produced ab-initio. A certain amount of trial and error is
>      apt to be necessary.
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

To any prospective bomob builders:

Please note that trial and error is not an option.  Trials are certainly
detectable by the major countries of the world, (namely the US, who would
be certain to follow it up...) and errors would certainly not be well
recieved, especially in a major metropolitan area.  Sucesses, I might
add, would not be well recieved, either...

dave.

David Schleef
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:19:35 GMT

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
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathway Question
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:37:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Sep30.203715.20844
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep30.201407.23663@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:

> 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.

This last statement is not true.  The tritium will sometimes undergo
secondary reactions with deuterium before slowing down, each reaction
producing one 14 MeV neutron.  If I recall correctly, about 2 x 10^-5
neutrons get produced per tritium nucleus.  This would be easily
detectable.

This is all well known.  See Huizenga's book, for example.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2298 sci.physics:15777
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:17:28 GMT
	<STEINLY.92Oct1100456@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<sadun.717966849@quack.ma.utexas.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: sadun@quack.ma.utexas.edu's message of 1 Oct 92 19:14:09 GMT

In article <sadun.717966849@quack.ma.utexas.edu> sadun@quack.ma.utexas.edu (Lorenzo Sadun) writes:

   steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   >In article <1adca5INNllh@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:


   >   : Ok, you're wrong. ;-)
   >   : 
   >   : There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
   >   : and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
   >   : design after some very smart people pondered the problem
   >   : for 10 years 

   This isn't credible.  The first fission bomb was in 1945, and the 
   first fusion bomb was less than 10 years later (1953, I think).  
   Moreover, the US didn't seriously try to develop a fusion bomb until
   the late 40s, when the Cold War was in full force, and when it became
   likely that the Russians would soon have a fission bomb.

   In short, the design process was relatively quick (and the parallel Soviet
   effort was even quicker, taking only a couple of years to go from A-bomb
   to H-bomb).   Waiting for Ulam's breakthrough (whatever
   it was) may have held things up for a couple of years, but nowhere
   near 10.

Read Ulam's autobiography, the design details and process are still
classified but theory was being done on small scale in the early 40's,
it is true that full scale development only started in the 50's but
it seems clear from comments made by people who were there that
there was no workable design until Ulam made a conceptual
breakthrough, I don't know if the Soviets made the same breakthrough
independently, they had a couple of very good people working on it,
or if they "borrowed" the design. Moot point, no one here discussing
the issue _knows_ one way or the other.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		       "standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 5 Oct 1992 00:39:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices
Freidwardt Winterberg
(pub) Fusion Energy Foundation, New York 1981
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmas in Solids
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:02:19 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

An excerpt from the Scientific American article "Plasmas in Solids"
by Raymod Bowers (this photocopy looks like it was from the 60's):
 
This article will describe some experiments involving plasma waves in
solids and will show how they resemble similar waves in a gas plasma.  
In these experiments the plasma consists of the carriers of electricity
to be found in any metal or other solid conductor.  The carriers can
have  either negative or positive charge, and in certain semiconductors
the two carriers can exist simultaneously, just as they do in gas
plasma.
 
One might reasonably ask:  What is the point of such experiments?
No one cazn hope to create a thermonuclear reaction in the plasma
of a solid, nor can one remotely approach the scale of phenomena
that is the crucial element in astrophysical problems.  This is
quite true.  Yet plasma experiments in solids offer a unique
opportunity to observe plasma behavior under well-defined and 
accurately known conditions.  In a solid, one can usually 
determine quite precisely the number of charge carriers, their
masses, their random heat energy and the boundaries of the plasma.  
Such a degree of knowledge and control is rarely attainable in
gas-plasma experiments, which often take place in transient
discharges where conditions are subject to rapid change.  Consequently
certain aspects of plasma theory can be tested better in solid than 
a gas.

--                    
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: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Latest Result
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:39:37 GMT

In article <920929125437.208007bf@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>First, I think I have really gone over the edge into "believerland".  I am
>not really a believer by trade in anything.  But at some point, one begins
>to act seriously on what has been measured, and I now find myself making
>production calorimeter sketches.
>place an order for a March Palladium contract.  Presently have a small gain
>in the two December contracts that I hold.
>
>Tom Droege
Dick Forman says: Please let's be nice to Tom and not blow his contract.
Some guy posted the true use for the thethered satellite that some physicists
had in mind when they put one over on someone.  Let me assure you sometime
soon palladium futures contracts will drop back to "normal." Based upon informa
tion provided to me by another sucessful experimenter, I know the "next
generation" experiments won't be on palladium.  Since he and I won't be able to
 get together until the week of Columbus Day, you wild-ass speculators on the
metals market might get rich by then. No bets after that unless you totally
lose your minds and do short sales on the options market. If that is not what t
hey are called I'm sorry I did options never commodities.
Tom: Leave that week free and plan to be seeing me and several other friends of
yours that week.  I'm shooting for DC but Johnny, who is the most important pla
yer in this game, will be away for the next week and a half.  He didn't tell me
where and I didn't yet have your post or the return call from the other guy.
It will make a nice surprise on top of his two recent successes.
Sorry to be cryptic, but my e-mail is on another part of the system and
I'm late for dinner.
 
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: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 21:40:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

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.      *
>***************************************************************************

Here we wait, breath abated, for details. You are the only person posting here
that is running real experiments. Let's get some real DETAILS!

Good going Tom.

Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2235 sci.physics:15578
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 28 Sep 1992 22:07:09 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>> Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
>> inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.

Are these some of the secrets the Rosenbergs gave to the Russians,
for which they were executed?

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU
Distribution:  world
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:13:12 GMT

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
>>      produces enough loose neutrons that you don't really need a trigger
>>      to get things going - you just need a critical mass (produced in
>>      1945 by firing a plug of U-235 through a ring of U-235 at the
>>      end of a howitzer piece). However, producing U-235 is the well known
>>      pain in the nether regions.
> 
>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?

If the four years includes the time it takes to produce enough fissionable
material for a bomb, then I don't see why this an indication of the difficulty
under question. (Bomb design, that is.)  Getting a good working enrichment
program going would certainly eat up some of that time.  (Assuming they
were using U235 and not Plutonium.  I imagine that getting Plutonium would
take even longer than that.)  (But I'm no expert, so Flame Away if you
are and my argument is full of it! :-) )

If the four years does _not_ include the time to get enrichment working
good enough, then it_does_ seem to be longer than you'd think it ought to
take to do something that seems to be so easy on the face of it.

Gene 
Battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:13:09 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
: In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
: 
: 
:    In article <1a7e6qINN4rj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
:    >
:    >Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
:    >inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
:    >They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
:    >countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.
: 
:    Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
:    intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
:    amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.
: 
: Ok, you're wrong. ;-)
: 
: There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
: and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
: design after some very smart people pondered the problem
: for 10 years - someone who knows the answer told me that
: the essence of the problem can be pieced together by
: a _smart_ graduate student with a decent computer in
: 6-12 months, and a _good_ student should be able to
: solve the problem given the hints in unclassified literature,
: as opposed to fission bombs which are designable by an 
: average physics grad.

So can we figure it out online?  Let's figure out what the subtlety
is, and how to solve it.

: 	
: *  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
: *  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
: *  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
: *  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
: 

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion