HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:05:02 GMT

poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) writes:
>A third possibility is that the "stimulated emission" may have a narrow
>cross-section around the path of the stimulating photon.  If so, and if
>the emitted gammas follow the path of the initiator exactly, the cascade
>should be limited in scope: each incident gamma might sweep out a very
>small fraction of the volume of Pd.  This effect is independent of the
>effects John Logajan proposes, and any or all might be operating to suppress
>the mushroom clouds.

Actually, I think it fits under the broad definition of chain reaction.
I wasn't trying to define what the chain reaction really was, or whether
it was even nuclear or chemical in nature.

My only point was that if there is a statistical correlation between the
application of incident bosons and heat gains (in excess of a one-for-one
correspondence to either nuclear or chemical reactions) then some sort of
chain must exist.  Your proposal certainly falls within the genus "chain",
and it has a nice "moderating" mechanism to boot.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
From: bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Films and surface effects
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:35:21 GMT
Organization: (N.) To be organized.  But that's not important right now.....

In article <9207200027.AA06057@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
>Tom Droege writes:
>>I think it is some sort of surface film which forms then tears away in
>>one big piece.  Vigorous bubbling inhibits the formation, while low
>>currents allow peaceful formation.  
>>
>>It is hard to tell, but it looks like the "anomalous heat" comes during the 
>>steady periods of low cell voltage.  i.e. we have a thin steady surface film.
>
>Ying also described a quick onset time (no reference to months of loading
>D into Pd) and the need for a "rejuvination" by reverse current for 10 seconds
>after a few hours of "heat".
>
>Tom's speculation about a surface film being associated with "heat" and just
>the general Ying shallow penetrating alpha source idea points to a very near
>surface effect.
>
>It's hard, however, to tie Tom's film to Ying's results, since the electrolyte
>used by Ying has not been disclosed on the net.  His press release merely
>mentioned Pd and Pt electrodes in a bath of D2O.  That would actually be a
>fairly high resistive electrolyte, so one would presume there is something
>else in the electrolyte.
>
>If we are actually dealing with films, it is probably pretty important to 
>know what the film is made of, and hence the electrolyte used by Ying.
>
>On the other hand, there is an effect I noticed when I was idly playing with
>a Mills cell.  If I manually momentarily closed then opened the circuit,
>making contact for a fraction of a second, bubbles (of Oxygen, I presume)
>would float up from the Pt electrode, but almost no bubbles (of Hydrogen,
>I presume) would float up from the Ni (or Ti) electrode.  Where did the
>Hydrogen go???
> 
>If I held the circuit closed for slightly longer, still a fraction of a
>second, then the Hydrogen bubbles would appear.  Why the onset delay???
>
>I don't have a pulse generator, so I haven't been able to study this
>transient phenomena further.  I also don't know if it relates at all to this
>"film" business, but I thought I'd mention it.
>
>-- John Logajan

Please excuse my elementry level chemo/physics, but I might have a possible
clue for you.  Leaving out whatever extras might be involved as an
electrolyte, isn't the deuterium what used to be known poopularly as "heavy
water"?  i.e. water with an extra oxygen atom?  If so, the "reaction" would
seem to be stripping off oxygen one atom at a time as follows:

   1.  Starting with h3o one oxygen atom gets stripped off.
   2.  Then with h2o another is stripped off.
   3.  With ho same again.
   4.  Only now would you see a hydrogen atom (bubble).

Hope that helps.....
--

bill@xpresso.UUCP                   (Bill Vance),             Bothell, WA
rwing!xpresso!bill

You listen when I xpresso, I listen When uuxpresso.......:-)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Subject: HUNDREDS?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:47:41 GMT

In article <920720154844_72240.1256_EHL23-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> most, but you skeptics should face reality: *hundreds* of other
> experimentalists have observed this, albeit at lower levels. HUNDREDS. Many of

I'll be the mug: who are these HUNDREDS? Or are you plucking facts out of the
air, Jed? Remember, I have the bibliography (and you have it too), and there
are some HUNDREDS of experimental papers alright, but not HUNDREDS of
calorimetry papers or authors. Where do you get this number from? Give us a
list of names.

> I see you have taken a shot at explaining the error:
> 
> "As I have pointed out several times, power into a resistor is not necessarily
> the same as power into an operating cell, since the latter might lead to a
> more complex waveform that might or might not lead to your power measurement
> being skewed.  It is my understanding that it was a problem like this that
> made it so difficult to diagnose what was going on with the Neumann energy
> machine."

Here I must come in on Jed's side (I think it's his side). In most cells I
have read about, the current is controlled, i.e. constant for periods of time.
As long as the cell voltage then does not cross zero (and that cannot happen),
AND as long as you are not extremely unlucky and sample synchronously with
some periodicity of the cell voltage (e.g. only at the highs, or lows, of a
sine-wave shape), then the power is indeed the same as for a resistor. There
are persistent suggestions of high-frequency oscillations in the current
supply, and I persistently maintain that this is almost impossible. For
constant current and positive cell voltage, Int(i*E).dt ("Int" meaning
integral) is the same as i*Int(E).dt = i*<E>, i.e. current times the mean cell
voltage E. If there is a flaw in claims of excess heat, this is not its source.

Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
-------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Defense of a Bad Model
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:09:04 GMT

Gene Mallove writes:
"As I understand Tom's analysis, he takes the *initial* slope of the
temperature decline from Hi to Lo ...."
You bet.  My model is that it is a first order system and is thud a 
decaying exponential.  
GM "But this makes no sense because the slope of the power curve is 
changing throughout the 45 minutes to an hour ..."
That is exactly why I used the initial slope.  On the (gross) assumption
that it is a first order system, the initial slope (and final value)
tell me everything.  

No need to beat a dead horse.  Unless some work has been done on simulation
using differential equations, it is unlikely that the ideas can be followed.
The ideas work pretty well for electronic circuits, aeroplanes and missiles;
and I have done some work on all.  But I am not very good at it and always
have to think about which is the pole and which is the zero.  I am sure 
there are a few reading that are far more expert than I.

Heat is a whole different problem.  Most heat problems, unlike electronic
ones to not have nice closed solutions.  But computer models work pretty 
well now days.  

My only point, I repeat, is that the Takahashi cell is not a very good 
calorimeter.  One just can't say anything about what is going on.  I know
there are calibrations at various points.  I just don't know how to be
sure that they mean anything.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Subject: Thanks for the quality
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:56:19 GMT

For those of you who have Jon Noring, or anything with alt in the
newsgroups list, in a kill file; he has made a posting to this
group.  It seems that his friend (acquaintance?) Dr. Puthoff has
suggested "vacuum energy" as the source of energy without ashes.
In fairness to Jon, the posting is quite reasonable, by 'net
standards.  But it probably marks the end of the quality of this
group, which has enjoyed unusual freedom from cross posting.  It
has been a group whose "signal" has been strong enough to overwhelm
the noise generators.  (I hope I'm wrong about using the past tense.)
Tom Droege and Dieter Britz are an inspiration to those of us who only
sit and read.  Others contribute to the high signal content, but
I think that those two stand out.

Once the group becomes "popular" because it is mentioned in the
entertainment news (anyone selling news for commercial considerations),
it will join sci.space.shuttle and sci.med in the flood of postings
from people who do not understand the science involved.  You don't
have to be a fusion scientist to have access to a newsgroup.  See
the posting of "Heavy Boots" in rec.humor.funny (recent) for some
examples of how far away from science you can get, or almost any
other sci group.

Any ideas on how to stem the tide?  Should there be an "accept" as
well as a "kill" function?  Send your replies to me, rather than
posting to the group, and I will summarize.

Bill Hawkins  bill@texan.rosemount.com  Work/Voicemail 612 895-2085
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Calorimetry
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:51:36 GMT

Jed Rothwell says: "Your method of deriving the TCal from the slope does
not work."

Under my assumption that it is a first order system, if the initial value and
slope and the final value are known, then everything is known.  Of course it
is not a first order system.  But it might be close enough that this view will
give a check on the other measurement.  My point still is that this analysis
gave an answer closer to a null result than the claimed high power, so I am
suspicious.

Steve Finberg looked up my 1958 MS thesis where I first started working on this
kind of computer model.  Since, I have worked on the computer simulation that
drove the centrafuge that trained Grissom, Shephard, Glenn, etc., to practice
flying their capsule under "g" forces.  Wrote code and did simulations for many
missiles that never flew (because of the simulations).  But I am not an expert.
Most of these simulations do not work.  We completely failed to get a decent 
model for the present calorimeter.  

But I am not so sure that an arbitrary electrochemist is an expert.  Jed is 
correct in saying that transient analysis is harder than steady state.  But 
now we have the FFT and can do some wonderful things.  Still it is hard to get
any model that works for an arbitrary system.  That is why McKubre and myself
work hard on the physical configuration of the calorimeter.  With the right
physical layout, it is possible to have a reasonable model.  The Takahashi
configuration is such that I don't know how to get a model, and thus don't 
believe that it can be calibrated.

I now retire from the discussion, as Jed can clearly type faster than I can.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:26:08 GMT

In article <22JUL199212352997@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms
>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74 
>angstroms.
>Hence, in liquified D2, the probability for fusion should be at least 2 
>times greater than it is for a PdD cell

Hmmm.  You have the average seperation of D2 to D2, no?  In a gas or even
in a liquid this is probably much greater than the 1.7 average for Pd:D.
The liquid D2 is lumpier, but on the average much more dilute, no?  Which
is the more important value, the average of the lumpiness, or the lumps?

And, something I should know after all this time, but are the D's in the
Pd lattice mono or do they still hang around together?

In any case, there is D2 in a Ying device -- at the surface of the Pd
electrode, coincidently enough, where all the alleged anomolous heat
effect is going on.   Hmmm.

>The experiment:
>Two identical dewars, each having an equal amount of D2.

I don't think anyone is going to trust gas volume measurements. :-)

If you are going to run atmospheric pressure tests, might as well just
look for nuclear by-products.  A real D2 device would have to remain liquid
to at least beyond the boiling point of water to be a commercially useful
power source -- which means pressurized D2.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:1916 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:1951
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A Different Perspective (was Re: Cold Fusion, real again?)
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:17:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul30.120230.1@ualr.edu>, ratiller@ualr.edu writes:
> Here are some of the numbers culled from the patent #5,018,180 by Kenneth
> Shoulders, section 31, column 67/68(no page number).  
> [...]
> 	(16 / 0.001) * 30 = 480,000 times more output than input!!!!!!
> 
> 
> These numbers seem quite amazing.  I hope that they can be confirmed.
> 
> In column 69, Shoulders mentions that the "source of the energy appears
> to be the zero point radiation of the vacuum continuum."
> 
> Would anyone care to comment on the numbers?

Yup. Build one and confirm them. But don't be dissapointed if it doesn't
happen to work. This a quasi-periodic phenomenom, where someone files a
patent for extracting energy from nothing. To date, none of them have worked.

The sci.physics.fusion group is centered on a particular variant of this
which is hellishly difficult to reproduce, but enough people believe in it
to generate a healthy amount of discussion (and there have been enough
positive results to give hope that it is real). Alt.sci.physics.new-theories
was created to give a forum for people with alternate theories - but be
prepared to be dissected, flamed and mentally parboiled if you aren't
knowledgeable enough about the theory to answer questions.

> Robert Tiller
> Still studying to be a genius

You might want to change your signature. People see the word "genius" in a
self-description and mentally translate the entire description to "twit".
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: lane@ast.COM (Lane Kagey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We are doing the Ying Experiment
Summary: Is there a correlation with solar activity?
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:04:37 GMT
Organization: AST Research Inc., Irvine, CA

In article <920721124650.20206aab@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, Tom Droege writes:
> ... periods.  Since god has a "Ying On" device that she turns on from 
> time to time, it is not possible to have a true "off" period.  
> 

might this imply a correlation between CF results and solar activity 
(or being near Chernobyl ;-) ) ? is this a relevant question? 


-- 
Lane Kagey                          lane@ast.com -or- ...uunet!legs!lane
c/o AST Research Inc. Dept 670      fax: (714) 727-8589
16215 Alton Parkway P.O. Box 19658  Tel: (714) 727-8468
Irvine, California 92713-9658
From: logajan@sleepy.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coleman mantles, decay rate
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:25:16 GMT

From the "feel" of the count rate of my geiger counter sampling Coleman
mantles, I'd estimate it to be about 2 orders of magnitude higher than
background radiation.  Somewhere in the range of 100's of events (at the
detector tube) per minute.  Not terribly intense.

But, the count was hardly diminished by tin foil -- but mostly blocked
by my Revere Wear copper clad stainless steel frying pan.

 -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Now trying to do it right.
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:24:40 GMT

We are back to running the experiment on a 48 hour cycle, 24 with source
in and 24 with source out.  I will try to make the changes on a more 
regular interval, so that I can use things like the FFT on the data.  But
it will be hard to do it right until I build a machine to do it. 

I seem to be much less excited than some of the rest of you.  There have 
been too many false alarms in the past.  So the first data just says to me
"take the time now to do a better experiment".  There is the problem that
the "anomalous heat" level does seem to be increasing over time.  For any
long term change over 10 mw, I am at a loss as to the cause.  Ov course
every time I do something, like the recent change in the saw tooth algorithm,
there is a small chance for a change in calorimeter balance point.  

But I believe the calorimeter is very stable.  So if it is indicating 30 mw
and this changes to 40 my and I have not done anything like change the saw
tooth frequency, then I think it is significant, and have lots of data to
prove it.  (mw not my)

So there will not be much to report for a while.  I have you all excited 
and the data is not worth that yet.  Poor Ed Storms talked too much and it
has got him a lab full of reporters.  

The plan is to alternate source in and source out until the new source 
arrives.  I will then put it in on the next "in" cycle.  If this produces 
a big increase in power, I will get excited, and will put up a "red alert"
message!  Meanwhile, I will accumulate low level data for a base line.

Tom Droege

P.S.  Robert Eachus, I have tried every way I know (not much) to send you
a message.  How do I do it.  Would like to give you detailed info on the
data.
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:33:22 GMT
Distribution: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department


Sorry I did not include the details in my original post.
According to the Wall Street Journal article, materials
scientist Edmund Storms claims to have successfully replicated
the Takahashi experiment.  Storms claims, in a paper submitted
to Fusion Technology, that his experiment began putting out
an excess of power after 90 hours of operation
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Subject: Re: Better Experiment Now In Progress
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:12:16 GMT

In article <920721160021_72240.1256_EHL12-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
> 
> Tom,
> 
>      I will fax your comments to Takahashi. I think you should talk to him
> directly to resolve some of these doubts and questions you have raised. Your
> comments are helpful, but somewhat off the mark. The good news is that he
> improved his calorimetry, and he has started a second experiment.
> 
>      Let me ask a few questions, based upon my replication of Takahashi's
> work. If his excess heat is an artifact of the convection loops and so on:

(stuff deleted)

I'm not sure I understand under what conditions Takahasi measures the excess
heat. Is the 20 minute current sawtooth just used to charge the electrode, or
is he doing the XS heat measurements during these ramps? I would have thought it
very hard to do such a measurement because the calorimeter never reaches the
steady state - i.e. temp always lagging behind the power somewhat. I notice that
this is not a problem for McKubre because he always runs at constant power, 
backing of the heater power as the current is ramped. So what does the "high
low" operation refer to exactly?


As for the earlier thread on Murphy Brown and Dan Quayle, we have in fact heard
of them in Australia. The former is, I believe,  an important media person, 
the latter is some actor who plays the part of a half-witted Vice-President in
some American sit-com. I hope I've got this right...


todd green
From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stimulated Emission
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:01:07 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Mike Jamison asks about gamma induced fission and whether or not it has
ever been observed.  One of the most respected references, "Nuclear
Fission" by Vandenbosch and Huizenga (that's JOHN HUIZENGA, crew), has a
25-page subchapter on "photofission".  It's old stuff already.

Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:28:43 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul23.193434.10646@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.185657.15206@src.umd.edu> tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>>
>>So, if I'm not mistaken, Ying's hypothesis means that the reason why
>>so few researchers got valid results, and why few of them got
>>any kind of repeatability was because the cold-fusion was being 
>>set off by environmental radiation.  This would mean that the people
>>who carefully shielded their experiments while looking for
>>gamma rays should have had the worst results!
>
>     This was the thought of some early on.  This was one hypothesized
>     reason why people like Pons and Fleischmann were able to get results
>     while people like Gai who surrounded their detectors with 
>     oodles of lead and cinderblocks did not.  Of course, at that time
>     there was a bunch of speculation about novel particles, not ordinary
>     old gammas and alphas.

Right.  There was much speculation about muons and other cosmic rays in 
particular, plus possible novel particles as final products or as part 
of the mechanism. 

However, it is not true that all experiments were shielded or that all 
shielded experiments got null results. 

There were at least two experiments that I know about that were set up 
with scintillator paddles positioned to provide veto or coincidence 
information on possible fuision neutron events associated with cosmic 
radiation.  These did not see any results above background. 

There was also a Jones experiment done in a mine near Leadville that 
was below a separate experiment that was looking at very high energy 
cosmic rays.  He saw bursts of neutrons (at a level hundreds of times 
weaker than his original paper reported) at very infrequent intervals. 
The timing of these bursts was then checked with events seen at the 
surface experiment and it was noted that there was no correlation. 

Note that a silver mine would be expected to have a significant alpha 
background that could be relevant.  However, it is very unlikely that 
the alphas could penetrate the apparatus, and the rates Jones saw were 
not a possible explanation for any heat.  Ying's suggestion poses an 
interesting question to those who thought they had controlled all the 
variables in the problem....

--
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