HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:18:53 GMT

In article <921119171505_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

> Terry Bollinger remarks:
>
> | "By the way, I truly do not think the kind of "ignore any problems, she's
> | right, she's right!" approach that Mr. Rothwell has taken in defending
> | Dr. Notoya..."
>
> Incorrect! Wrong! First of all it isn't my "defense." It is her's, I am
> merely translating her comments into English. Second, her defense has
> always been, and remains:
>
> | If you think this experiment is wrong, bring a meter, or an
> | oscilloscope, or any gadget you want, and measure the resistance, the
> | input power, or the heat yourself. The demo unit will be open for anyone
> | to examine in any fashion they would like, for up to three days at
> | M.I.T. The lab experiment, which is far better and more convincing, is
> | also open to the public. If you want maximum details, go to Hokkaido.
>
> This is the extreme opposite from an "ignore any problem" approach...

Fair enough.  I look forward to hearing the results of the MIT demo and
examination period, and I suspect many others do also.  And I wish Dr.
Notoya well with regards to reproducibility.  Such public demonstrations
are certainly going in the right direction to achieve such a goal.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Liquid Helium
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:35:41 GMT

Bruce Dunn has asked about the cost of liquid Helium in large quantities.  

Sorry Bruce, I could not get the cost of Helium on our large contract.  It is
apparently tied in with a lot of other things, including operation and service.

I did find out about our "small" contract.  It is a three year contract for 
200 to 300 five hundred liter dewars per year.  In this quantity (100000 liters per year for three years) it is $2.35 per liter.  I assume this is vented off
to the atmosphere.  While we have a collection system here at Fermilab, there
are a lot of places where it is used where it is uneconomical to collect the
gas.

If you are really serious about large quantities for your "Bombastotron" 
proposal, I can try to run down an expert for you.  We have a very large main
liquifier, and many small satelite refrigerators, a collection system, and it
also seems like we have some sort of operating contract with Air Products.  
Let me know.  

Tom Droege
From: hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Naive questions
Date: 21 Nov 92 07:50:15 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

I've already been flamed once, for trying to make a suggestion,
but I've thicker skin than to let that stop me from jumping
in again.  (Others may find another explaination.)
	In the measurements of excess heat from CNF cells,
is it customary to consider *past* energy input to the cells
in the computation?
	For example, it seems to be common to run cells for
many (sometimes hundreds of) hours before the observation of
activity.  When calculating that a cell is producing more energy
than is *currently* (no pun intended) being input, do we
disregard the rather substantial watt-seconds that have led to
this excess?  Can we observe excess heat for enough time to 
pay back the electrical energy used to charge the system and
still see excess energy output?
	If not, seems like we have invented a new type of
storage cell that releases heat in unpredicted ways.
	BartB

-- 
"I'll need a sample."  "Come again?"  "No, once is enough." -Joel to Holling
If there's one thing I just can't stand, it's intolerance.
*No One* is responsible for my views, I'm a committee. Please do not
infer that which I do not imply.  hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Helium and glass
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:12:11 GMT

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

Jon Webb writes:

"As I understand the problem, though, sealing the glass from the outside is not
the issue.  The problem is that there may be 4He within the glass itself.  This
is then released when the vacuum chamber is filled with deuterium or hydrogen. 
This is the effect Paneth discovered..."

If the glass is thin, like a test tube, people worry about helium leaching in
over time. Of course you cannot have thin glass in a vacuum chamber porthole.
Two other possible causes of helium contamination from glass have been
suggested: trapped helium can evolve out of the glass in the presence of
deuterium or hydrogen (as you point out); or, when the glass
is heated up. However, this does not always happen, because not all glass
contains helium.

When Yamaguchi does the experiment with deuterium saturated chips, he sees
helium-4 instantaneously appear in the vacuum at rates that correspond closely
to the amount of excess heat that the chip is producing. By "excess" I mean
over and above the amount of heat generated by the electric current. I suppose
it could be either chemical or nuclear heat; I do not know for sure whether it
exceeds the limits of chemistry in these experiments. In any case, you get a
blast of heat which is not from the electricity going in, and you get a
proportional blast of helium atoms at the same moment. Assuming the heat *is*
of nuclear origin, the consensus of opinion is that the total number of atoms
is "commensurate" with the heat. The helium appears at a the maximum rate 10
^ 17 atoms per second.

When he does the experiment with hydrogen saturated chips, he sees no helium-4.
So, I think that conclusively eliminates the possibility of helium liberated
from the glass by hydrogen.

The hydrogen chip experiments produce almost as much heat as the deuterium chip
experiments. At least, the sample runs shown in the paper do, they both go up
100 to 200 degrees, and waver around for a while. So, roughly the same amount
of heat is present in the chamber with both experiments, but you get helium in
one case, and no helium in the other, which eliminates the possibility that the
heat is liberating the helium. Another factor here is that the chip is sitting
in the middle of the chamber, and there is a high vacuum between the chip and
the window, which is good insulation. It would take a while for the chip to
heat up the window, yet the helium appears instantly. Plus, it is a hot chip,
but it is small; the total excess power coming out of it is between 0.5 and 5
watts. Not enough to heat up three windows much.

So, Yamaguchi concludes that the helium is not originating in the glass.

- Jed
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Notoya demo
From: dave@digaudio.byu.edu (David Buehler)
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:59:57 -0700

Because there was question concerning the voltage on Dr. Notoya's electrolysis  
cell, Steve Jones asked me to post a clarification.  As he explained, the  
voltage on the electrolysis cell was about 1.5 volts higher than resistive  
cell.  This was all explained with little signs in front of the two cells.  The  
control would have been meaningless if it used the same voltage and current as  
the nickel cell.  It really doesn't matter anyway, since we will have to wait  
and see the results from more careful experiments to see if anything unusual is  
happening.
_____________________________________________________________________________
 david buehler                                   byu grad studend
 dave@digaudio.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Sodium or Potassium
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:41:17 GMT

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
> Bush RT;                                        Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 301.
> There is experimental proof. Using a Ni cathode, a Pt anode and 0.57M K2CO3
>as electrolyte, and a plate of a "Ni alloy", excess heat was found, in
>contrast with M&F, whose theory demands light water and a sodium salt

Farrell's posted procedure on this very forum suggested K2CO3.  I remember
vividly because I bought and own 10 pounds of the stuff.

- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: The Wall
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:12:51 GMT

I wrote:
>Jed Rothwell mentions Mills gets 900% excess energy.
>I think Mills always subtracts 1.48*I first, so, for instance, if he was
>really running at 1.58 volts, he'd count his input energy as 0.1*I.  Thus it
>would only take 60% recombination to produce a 900% excess heat claim, under
>these hypothetical conditions.

To expand on this, the closer you can run a Mills cell to 1.48V, the greater
the ratio of excess heat you might be able to claim.  At 1.49V and 100%
recombination, you could claim 14800% excess heat.  At exactly 1.48V with
100% recombination, you could claim infinite heat gain (note infinite *gain*
rather than infinite *heat*, as there is quite a difference in concepts!)

So let me ask a question.  Is there any Mills cell anywhere in the world that
produces more excess heat than the limit set by 1.48*I?  If not, one might
want to wonder why not.


- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lecture Notice
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 13:01:37 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

> 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

Why any researcher who genuinely believes they have replicated
some aspect of the P&F "excess heat" would consider MIT worthy
of their attention is beyond me.  MIT has gone out of its way
to establish itself, along with Cal Tech and other major "academic"
institutions, as irrationally opposed to alternative fusion
technologies while irrationally favoring proven idiocy such as
the Tokamak.  They no longer have any credibility.

--                    
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: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:58:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: physc1.1992Nov16.085803.203
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Jed,
Your public letter resorts to ad hominem attacks, even in its title:
"Notorious Steven Jones".  You further state that our efforts to understand
the basis of the heat demonstrated to the world in Nagoya by Dr. Notoya
are "unreasonable, unscientific, sloppy and uncalled for."  You state that
we should have talked to Notoya and taken data there.  We did this, and
have reported the voltage, current and power given to each cell.  I trust
the one correction to our report got through, that is, the joule heating
to each cell was approx. the same, but the nickel-cathode cell had higher
voltage (and total power) to account for loss due to water decomposition
losses (the cell was open, letting H2 and O2 escape into the air).  I agree
with Tom Droege that xs heat claims based on open cells such as this are
not reliable.
So both David Buehler and I did speak to Dr. Notoya during the conference.
We took measurements of the voltages and currents with her instruments, with
her help, the alligator clips from the power supply were moved up the wires
close to the control cell, and we then found that much of the power in this
cell (36% - see earlier posting for details) was dissipated into the air.
Then we did an experiment here to see whether the set up as demonstrated in
Nagoya could result in about a 10 C difference in temperatures, based on 
differences in joule heating which we clearly expressed our concern to Notoya
about in Nagoya.  We found that the temp. difference could indeed be explained
by differences in joule heating, with significant heat in the "control" 
dissipated into the air due to thin wires , while the "nuclear" cell had wires
of approx. 1-mm diameter by my measurement there.  Actually, the exact
thickness of wires is less important than the power losses, which we measured
as described in a previous posting.  
    In science, we check each others' results.  Openly.  As I said in an
earlier posting, no personal attack is intended on Dr. Notoya.  Indeed, she
obliged our request to move the alligator clips which allowed us to measure
the (high) resistance of the thin wires entering the control cell.  We spoke
to her.  We took measurements of a publicly demonstrated cell with the
instruments displayed with it.  We checked the result and conclude that the
heat difference of the demonstration cells can be accounted for by differences
in joule heating *in* the cells.  I think this is consistent with standard
scientific procedure.  
    But Rothwell's ad hominem attacks are not.

Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: What Kind of Fool Am I?
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:00:47 GMT

For Jed's benefit, let me say right up front that I may well be foolish
to keep asking questions about these experiments rather than just
accepting everything that comes out of the CF community as the absolute
end with no ifs ands or buts.  But what the heck, that's why the gummint
has given us this toy to exchange information over.

Now back to Yamaguchi.  First off, Jed, you should understand that I
don't need to know Yamaguchi.  It is the Yamaguchi experiment that is
underdiscussion and, I started this by saying I didn't know enough about
this $8 billion result.  I still don't know very much about it, but if
we keep whacking away at each other maybe we can get some things sorted
out.  Now I have one more piece of the puzzle.  You say the chamber
vacuum is 10^-8 Torr.  I do a bit of arithmetic and come up with the
number that that corresponds to the order of 10^11 molecules per liter
residual gas.  If the chamber is say 10 liters we get 10^12 molecules
total.  Now you tell us POOF goes a reaction and in a second we get
10^16 helium atoms.  It would seem that the pressure would rise to
shall we say 10^-4 Torr.  Such an event would be hard to miss, right?
Does the good Dr. Y comment on such events?

Now we do same experiment over with hydrogen sandwich and no helium
is formed.  Does the pressure remain at 10^-8 Torr?  Is there a
pressure rise of any sort?

Next I hit the books and read up on the effects of high pressure
on peak shapes in mass spectrometers.  Guess what, Jed?  You can
have nicely resolved peaks in your mass spec when the pressure of
the residual gas is 10^-8 Torr and when the pressure rises to
10^-4 Torr the resolution goes to pot.  In fact most of these
devices don't work at all well above about 10^-5 Torr.

One final comment as to whether vacuum is a good insulator.  Ever
hear of radiation?  

It is probably unfair for me pick on the Yamaguchi experiment on the
basis of the information Jed has provided.  My point really is that
Jed is not a suitably critical filter so that his enthusiasm for 
these results should not be considered the final word on cold fusion.

Dick Blue 
NSCL @ MSU
From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon-catalysed fusion
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:12:00 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc, A Subsidiary of TRW

I thought it was time to take a break from all the bashing going on in this
group lately and ask a question about some REAL cold fusion.  I see Dr.
Steven Jones has been participating in this group regularly now, so I thought
I would ask about the current state of muon-catalysed fusion.  I haven't heard
much about it lately.

Are you still pursuing it as a possibility?  I assume you are still running
into the problem of getting enough reactions to happen during the short life
span of the muons.  Do you think there is a future in this, still?

------------
Cary Jamison
cary@esl.com

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Various Replies
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:13:35 GMT

Mike Jamison speculates on the source of the changes in gas absorption.  We 
have looked at several cathodes (Chuck Sites did the looking - what say Chuck)
and likely did not see many cracks.  No doubt about it, large volumes of gas
puff in and out.  I still think it is some sort of surface effect where the 
gas is held near the surface and "sheets" off.  I do *not* think it is 
a bubble effect.  Try to put a 10 cc bubble in a 50 cc cell volume and have 
it stay for minutes.  

John Logajan asks "what is a surface grinder".  You will find one in most 
machine shops.  Imagine a grinding wheel and motor suspended above a two axis
table - like a milling machine table.  You can raise and lower the grinding 
wheel, and move the work under it.  It is very easy on the right material to 
take very fine cuts.  When you have the head of your hot rod refinished, it is
likely done with a surface grinder.  Certainly the bearing surfaces on you 
crankshaft are done with a similar machine.  In any case, it is the next step
down from normal machining.  I guess lapping and then polishing are the next
processes to use for a fine finish.  Even so, a grinder and fine cuts will 
produce a mirror finish on steel.

Thanks for all the pH advice.  Next experiment will be done with 0.1 M LiOD
and I will exchange part of it from time to time to maintain cell conductivity.
I will have to learn to live with the resulting thermal transient.

The present experiment looks null now that I have turned the current down to 
zero.  But it again drifted in the direction of anomalous heat during the 
1.4 megasecond run.  About 70 mw.  I now plan to just let it sit a few days
and see what happens. 

Jed Rothwell has put up a long apology for the Notoya demonstration.  As far
as I am concerned, this is controversial work (cold fusion in general).  So 
different rules apply.  If anything is found wrong with an experiment, then
you throw it out, and then demand much higher standards for the next work by
the same experimenter.  This holds for me too.  I feell that I have used up
a lot or credibility by my recent "positive" announcement.  I will be even 
more careful in the future - even though these posts are not "publication".
It is clear that there was something wrong with the Natoya demonstration.  
There was obviously heat going into lead dissipation that Dr. Notoya was 
proposing to go into the control cell.  So I throw out the whole experiment, 
and require a much more thorough experiment from Dr. Notoya next time.  

John Logajan writes "Huh? Isn't the pH measurement redundant to your above 
stated observation?  That is to say, average cell voltage indicates the 
state of the pH."

I guess it does, John.  But my goal is to have as many redundant measurements
as possible.  Two or three or four on everything.  Then if they all agree, I 
can have some confidence in the result.  If they don't agree, then I learn 
something new.  That is even better.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Subject: Re: No No Noninski
Reply-To: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:42:35 GMT

Dear Colleagues,

On  November  11  S.Jones  posted  a  "correction"  of   Notoya's 
experiment based on the  figures  of  the  voltage  and  current, 
*measured* by his student. On that date S.Jones wrote:

"Cell  with  Ni  cathode  AND   control   cell   with   resistor, 
initially: 3.4 volts, 0.6 amps".

On November 13 S.Jones restated the same figures for the  voltage 
and the current, *measured* by his student:

"The  following  measurements  were  recorded  ...Control   cell, 
initially: 3.4 V at 0.61 A ... The  "nuclear"  cell  with  nickel 
anode (?! - remark  mine,  VN)  ran  at  approximately  the  same 
voltage and I."

On November 13, I posted a message pointing out that if we are to 
believe the figures S.Jones himself is  posting,  the  *measured* 
input heating power in Notoya's electrolysis cell is  lower  than 
the measured heating power in the  control  cell.   This   should  
lead  to  a lower temperature in the electrolysis cell than   the  
temperature of the control cell. That,  however,  goes   contrary  
to  what  was  reported  to have been observed by many in Nagoya.

On November 16, after my criticism, in a  third  posting  S.Jones 
arbitrarily increased the figure of the voltage of Notoya's  cell 
from 3.4V to 4.9V, explaining this with an apparently  dreamed-up 
increase in voltage to compensate for what he  calls  "hydrolysis 
loss", having nothing to do with the measurement of his student:

"... the voltage on the "nuclear" cell shown by Notoya in  Nagoya 
was INCREASED BY 1.5 V to compensate for the hydrolysis loss. ... 
the voltage on the cell with Ni cathode was 3.4 + 1.5 volts."

It need not be too strongly emphasized, however, that it is   the  
actual  measurement   of   the  current  and  voltage  which   is 
important  when  determining  the  input  heating  power  and  no 
catching at straws, like the proposed increase by  1.5   V,   can  
put more power into the cell. 

Obviously, the measured  values  of  Notoya's  electrolysis  cell 
current and voltage, posted by S.Jones, would cause it to have  a 
lower temperature than the  control  cell.  This,  as  I  already 
noted, goes contrary to what was reported to have  been  observed 
by many in Nagoya.

I  again  state  that  the  easy  explanation S.Jones  offers  of 
the Notoya puzzle, including the attempt to save his criticism by 
changing the figure of the cell voltage, is in error. 

Further, if S.Jones wants to be credible he should not change  at 
will, according to his own needs,  the  figures  he  is  posting. 
Otherwise the discussion with him is useless.

Truly yours,


Vesselin  Noninski                           November  16,   1992

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion