HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Natoya Nagoya Experiment
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:37 GMT

Since the debate over the "silver" wire has not died down, I would like to 
know if the wire was really "silver" or only "silver colored".  My bet is
that it was platinum and thus "silver colored".

Don't see why there would be any Ag wire around an electrochemistry lab.  What
use is it?  

Jed keeps telling us we should "copy the master exactly".  And then mostly 
tells us we should go to Japan.  Remember both the Ni and Pd work started here,
and by people who obviously did not copy "masters".

Has everyone but me forgotten the significance of the bottle of Jack Daniels?
And in Utah no less!

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:55:43 GMT

In article <AC70C12C1FDF202A6F@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:

   ... But I never have
   seen the sort of evidence that drives me into the lab to try a cold fusion
   experiment. Ni and plain water? You must be joking. I look at it this way.
   There is hardly anyone besides Mills and maybe Farrell, who takes the Mills
   "theory" seriously. A lot of people insist, however, that never mind the
   theory, the experiment works. But the likelihood of a far-out dubious "theory"
   accidentally hitting the mark and predicting an experiment that evokes a
   completely unrelated but unknown effect, is so small that it is not worth my
   time to have a go at it.

But Dieter, you must admit that there is no tenable theory to explain
excess heat in *any* cold fusion experiments.  Mills has a theory that
must be wrong, but he's no worse off than Pons and Fleischmann who
seem to be claiming D+D->4He, or any of the really wild theories
(twist of ribbon, mini-black holes, multi-particle interactions).  All
we have to go on is data, and Mills's data is probably about as good
as any of the second-tier experiments.  So I don't see a good reason
for doing, say, heavy water+palladium experiments instead of ordinary
water+nickel -- if you're going to do an experiment at all, that is.
At least if you do a Mills-style experiment the materials are cheaper
and the claimed effect is stronger.

-- J
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Rehash of Jones' Results
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:49:51 GMT

In response to the following from Chuck Sites:
	< The fact that a live count minus a scaled background produces
	< a 4 sigma difference for that one peak is certainly an
	< indicator of a deuterium dependent effect.

First off I don't see how anything relating to the peak in question can
be called "a 4 sigma difference".  There are 4 data points that are 3
sigma away from zero, but because of the renormalization of the background
that zero is a rather arbitrary.  Secondly since both the effect and
the background have to be determined in extended running times, and the
cosmic ray contribution is know to be time dependent, there is no
reason to expect the background subtracted to be a good match in all
details.  The fact that 1 of 14 runs showed a net effect could very
well be pure chance.  As a side remark I also wonder whether the
detector has ever been calibrated with a monoenergetic neutron source.
If not the energy scale may also be shakey as well, in particular with
regard to peak shape.  In any case the "effect" seen is not due to
2.5 MeV neutrons, but most likely gammas of some lower energy so how
it would relate to cold fusion is very much a mystery.

Now on the Kamiokande:
	< When an even occurs it is in small bursts of 2 3 4 neutrons
	< implies a dynamic source....

	< to compare older experiments may not be justified.

I am not sure what you mean by a dynamic source.  Fision induced
background events could certainly produce such bursts in a very
static environment.  Reading from the Ishida thesis regarding the
pressurized D2 gas with titanium I find: "all of the bursts appeared
in the normal temperature, not during the warmup from the liquid
nitrogen temperature, as reported in many references." (See page 69)
That sounds kind of static to me.

The comparison to the earlier Menlove-Jones experiment was not initiated
by Douglas Morrison.  A believe the assertion that the Kamiokande result
confirmed that earlier worked has its origin with Steve Jones. Douglas
was merely pointing out the differences between the two results.  If
you want to say that there is no reason to expect the older experiments
to agree with the latest one, I won't argue that point.  We will then
agree that none of these low level neutron experiments has every been
reproduced.  That is par for the course in cold fusion research, and
it really ought to be telling you something.

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: a 2 dimensional argument
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:07:15 GMT


   In sci.physics.fusion; 4536; [Subject: Re: quantity and quality at your
 location];  13 Dec 1992, greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) states:


=   "Well if a nuclear reaction produces a few watts of heat in aggregate,
=  it stands to reason that it should produce a few watts of radiation
=  also.  In fact, assuming that only one charged nucleus is formed in a
=  given indivisible fusion reaction, conservation of energy, momentum,
=  and charge mandate some radiation. I think the skeptics would say
=  that a quantity of radiation to match the observed heat would warrant
=  writing a will, or at least visiting the doctor, given that so many
=  cold fusion researchers avoid the planning planning planning that you
=  and I have both recommended. 

    Greg, if "it stands to reason", what exactly is the reason? Why?


    Your suggestion would seem to not include the "observed heat" as a
 "quantity of radiation".   Rather than considering that the "heat"
 actually observed may, itself, consist of infrared radiation, and phonon
 radiation (of more than one type), the logic that you purport (and are not
 alone in claiming) decrees to limit how nature must work.  In your forced
 scheme the existence of phonon and infrared radiation requires the
 presence of neutrons (etc., and whatever).  Why? 

    The only such similar couplings of which I am aware of are those
 through Hilbert Space wherein the polarization(s) that a material does
 undergo when wrought with an applied electric (or magnetic field in the
 equivalent) are linked to the conduction(s) which that material also
 undergoes.  The polarization(s) is linked through Hilbert Space to the
 conduction because as the material physically reorganizes (eg. as it
 polarizes with atomic separation, dipole rotation, ion drift, etc. etc.)
 in the applied electric field, the physical movements of those
 reorganization(s) are precisely those which cause the conduction.

    Where is a similar argument, or reason, for the linking of phonons and
 infrared radiation to neutron production?
                                 
   
   [Given your topology background, one more question.  I assume the field
 has advanced considerably since I was painting donuts almost four decades
 ago to find the chromatic number (7, I think) required to paint a
 maximally-colored-yet-distinct map on its outer toroidal surface.
   Was that not 3 more needed colors than flat-landers could conceive of
 being required?
   Perhaps the skeptics are merely 2 dimensional in their thinking?]
From: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the development of a multidimensional argument
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:03:04 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments / Attleboro Mass / USA
Originator: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com


In article <7600015@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
|> In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
|> 
|> > ==  "To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a
|> > ==   very creative explanation, which is generally not
|> > ==   forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions is pretty the
|> > ==   only way to go, and then you have to explain why this
|> > ==   strange reaction is not observed in the rest of the
|> > ==   world."
|> > 
|> >    Any physical reaction continues with or without any of our
|> >   (or other sentient) creative explanations.
|> 
|> We were talking about the theories involved, and how those theories are
|> constrained by the evidence.  Not whether the results actually appear.
|> 
|> There are definately funny things going on in the cold fusion world, I am just
|> not sure if these are funny physics or funny human nature, or perhaps both.
|> 
|> BDR

Furthermore are the funny things (I think I agree that funny things are going on)
fusion orsomething else?
-- 

Regards.
 
Don Rolph  a722756@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263
From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Christmas Suggestionsdir
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:15:48 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: fennel.wt.uwa.edu.au

In article <921214130816.20400eba@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
> I got an early morning phone call from my brother.  It seems the NTT $565,000
> cold fusion kit has made one the lists of things to buy those that have 
> everything in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS.  This is not news.  What is news is
> that they say that "two have been sold."  I wonder who bought them.  
> 
> Tom Droege   Droege@fnal.fnald

In Fusion Briefings (Nov 1992) it is mentioned that "They [NTT] have already
sold 2 kits to other NTT subsidaries" so the sales are in fact not too exciting.

----
Todd


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: greg@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Re: a skeptical 2-dimensional argument
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:22:27 GMT

In article <Bz9xr5.8qx@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>=  I'm deliberately parroting what other people say.
>   Deliberately and also sedulously by your own admission.

Sedulous.  Now there's a word I had to look up.  I like it.  But I
never claimed I was sedulous.  I'm not.

sci.physics.fusion:  Where the sedulous meet the incredulous.

>      All sorts of new branches and branch ratios may be possible in the
> condensed phase.

I think someone forgot to tell the nuclei that they are in a condensed
phase.  Otherwise we'd have quarks-a-hopping.

>  In summary, although your prose remains fascinating, however, the
>  "parroted" logic is simply not explained.

Maybe it's religious dogma like everything else the skeptics do.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: greg@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Why is Neutronpenision called Fusion?
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:55:26 GMT

I am now seriously wondering why neutronpenision, the observation of
excess heat without neutrons, was ever called fusion.  Assuming it's a
real effect, how do we know it isn't fission instead?  As long as we're
inventing our own branch ratios, maybe what happens is something like:

Pd + D --> smaller nuclei

Alternatively, since proton decay has been predicted by several grand
unified theories, maybe what we're seeing in the Notoya experiment,
again assuming that the experiment is good, is nickel-catalyzed proton
decay, NCPD.

In any case it seems terribly misleading to me to call something fusion
when you don't know what it is and neutronpenision is as good a name as
any.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: What I said is not what you said I said, and I have more to say
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:22:26 GMT

In article <921218174341_72240.1256_EHL52-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>Greg Kuperberg made some uninformed statements about me, and about Japan:
>
>"Jed Rothwell keeps assuring us that corporate giants (in Japan) don't
>make mistakes"

If I had said this then you might have been right that I made an
uninformed statement about you.  But that's a big "if".

As for my statements about Japan, you suggested that most
of them were true but had the wrong emphasis.  For example this one:

>"For example, when Sony lost hundreds of millions of dollars marketing
>Betamax, it did resemble a mistake." Quite right, even Homer nods.

See?  Even you agree.  Then you go on to say:

>The question is: over a period of many years, does Sony make a profit...

To profit or not to profit, that is question.  You agree with me and I
will return the favor and agree with you.  

Now you and I can go back, respectively, to my analysis of manifolds
and your data analysis of neutronpenision.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Reply-To: ded@aplcen (nod sivad)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:22:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.201708.26730@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>HICCUP Fusion: Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure Fusion
>
>A humorous name, yes, but the suggestion you are about to read for totally
>conventional Jones-level "hot-in-cold" fusion is entirely serious.  I hope
>someone out there will actually give it a try.
>
>For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "cavitation" refers to the
>creation -- often via ultrasound -- and subsequent collapse of very tiny
>bubbles in a fluid.  Exceptionally high pressures are generated as the
>bubbles collapse.

Is it possible to generate a "cavitation effect" in a solid?  Like palladium
or nickel for instance ;-)  Wouldn't "cavitation" in a solid lattice offer 
still higher pressures and temperatures than a liquid?  Perhaps this could 
serve as (still another wild) mechanism for cold fusion.  I don't suppose, 
though, it would explain the lack of fusion products.

							me
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: N-rays, Polywater, Cold Fusion
Organization: The World
Distribution: sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:37:26 GMT

    For the students of the history of science, isn't it great how every
forty years or so, scientists let their hair down and have some fun.
Consider the track record:  N-rays, Polywater and now Cold Fusion.

    Seriously, some of the strong advocates of Cold Fusion show look into
their history books and read about the rise and fall of hard-to-reproduce
scintific phenomena.  The parallels with cold fusion activities is very
similar.

    For any new desktop theory, if some nerdy kid in high school can't
recreate it, then it doesn't exist.  High temperature superconductivity
has passed this test.  Cold fusion hasn't.

Happy holidays.

Greg Aharonian
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Different kinds of claims
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:48:09 GMT

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

Some correspondents have accused me of contradicting myself for stating, on
one hand:

     "you must never, ever, believe or disbelieve any results based upon the
     reputation of the scientists involved;"

     While, on the other hand, saying the claims of NTT, IMRA, the NHEP, have
     great credence because they come from large, established corporations,
     and that statements from MITI like "we are certain the heat is real"
     should be taken seriously because MITI is the most successful government
     technology development agency in history.

This may appear to be a contradiction, but it is not, because I am looking at
the situation from a business point of view, and I am making two completely
different kinds of statements, about different kinds of scientific claims:

1. A small, revolutionary science breakthrough claim.

A claim that a primitive basement experiment has yielded a barely measurable
level of excess heat that continued for such a long time that it added up to
far more energy than any possible chemical reaction can yield. This is
incredible. It should never be believed -- or dismissed -- until years have
passed, and it has been widely replicated. Anybody could have performed the
original P&F type experiments; a graduate student or high school chemistry
teacher would have had access to the tools and materials needed, just as any
bicycle mechanic could have built a primitive airplane in 1903.

2. Big, industrial strength breakthrough claims.

A claim that a lab has performed 200 experiments costing $3 million. Or, a
claim that a group of scientists has used $560,000 worth of sophisticated
equipment for 4 years to make a CF reactor; and their company is so certain
they are right, it is about to market the equipment in an OEM deal. This kind
of thing is believable coming from a large, established corporation. If the
Atlanta Screen & Trapdoor Fusion Power Company announced a $560,000 OEM deal
for a CF reactor, you would be wise to assume it was a scam. If the world's
largest telephone company announces that deal, you better believe they mean
it. You would a fool to bet they are mistaken. NTT has a "track record" of
being right, and NTT never, ever, takes unnecessary, foolhardy chances, and
never jumps to conclusions.

Going back to my 1903 example, anyone could have built a 1903 Kitty Hawk
Flyer. A 1918 model Sopwith Camel was enormously larger, more powerful, more
sophisticated, and could not possibly have been built by a pair of bicycle
mechanics in their spare time.

- Jed


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

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Sonofusion at BYU
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:19:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.113342.285@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

>that there are mysteries here to be solved.  In a colloquium at BYU some weeks
>ago, Seth Putterman of UCLA indicated that they had reached 100,000 C in recent
>SL experiments, and that he thought 1 million C was possible.  I share his
>excitement about SL.  Well before his visit, we had put 2+2 together, realizing

     Is Putterman showing graphs with peaks?  Or are they still curves that
     indicate a peak at higher temperature?  

     Also, I've never been sure how physically well-defined temperature is
     in this context. It is clear that 10^5 C probably doesn't correspond
     to any equilibrium process.

     By the way, wild hunches seem to make life interesting.

                                   dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: CF radiation safety and where are we?
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:14 GMT

Mitchell Swartz points out the fact that finding a simple way to produce
neutrons wouldn't be such a bad thing.  IF (and that is a big if) cold
fusion did produce neutrons it would have applications far beyond the
inefficient water heaters that seem to be about all CF developers can
offer at present.

Now Jed Rothwell really does tend to carry on a bit much in his attempt
to turn all his villians into fools.  Jed, I deal with real radiation
safety issues involving real neutron sources as part of my job, and
I don't take senseless risks or expect others to do so.  I certainly
have never urged anyone to attempt to produce nuclear fusion without
any means of detecting fusion if it should occur.  You, on the
other hand, have been quite involved in activities such as public
demonstrations of cold fusion that may been a little less than perfectly
safe, perhaps. 

So if, as we have been told, the light water nickel systems are now
where it's at as far as cold fusion goes what has been learned to
date about this form of cold fusion?  I wish that anyone reporting
performance figures would always provide a set of absolute numbers
rather than just some percent surplus relative to break even.  Then
when all can see that high percent surpluses all result at low
pwer inputs, it will be easier to assess how truly wonderful such
results may be.  And with regard to radiation hazards associated
with this process, I have not heard word one about anyone reporting
radiation of any sort other than the tritium at BARC.  Does anyone
care to speculate as to what process burns water to produce heat
and tritium but no neutrons or gammas ?  Let's see.  Three protons
stick together in a lattice to form 3Li which then interacts with
magic particle X coherently to emit a virtual neutron that can't
escape.  That leaves 3He which does it again to form 3H and even
though it violates energy conservation we get tritium plus some
energy.  Meanwhile the virtual neutrons are absorbed by the nickel,
but there are no gammas and the isotope ratios of the nickel are
not changed because they too are in a lattice and nuclear physics
does not apply.  How's that for a theory?

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Infrared thermal imagers
Organization: The World
Distribution: sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:30:07 GMT

   Is anyone using infrared thermal imaging to measure the water temperature
and any anomalous IR emission effects.  You can get +-1 degree resolution
over large areas without having to stick anything into the water.  Seems
one way of removing a variable from these experiments, as well as being
able to detect hot spots that fishing with a thermocouple will miss.  
IR viewers are a tad expensive, but some of these efforts should be able
to afford or borrow such equipment.

Greg Aharonian
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Do major Japanese companies make mistakes?
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:46:36 GMT

In article <009652BA.BCF0F0E0.7270@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>Jed, Rothwell keeps assuring us that corporate giants (in Japan) don't
>make mistakes,...

Let's not make sweeping generalizations here.  On very rare occasions
they might make some teeny-weeny mistakes.

For example, when Sony lost hundreds of millions of dollars marketing
Betamax, it did resemble a mistake.

Also, when major securities firms in Japan were caught transferring
funds from small clients to big clients, some company officials
admitted that mistakes were made.

And then there was MITI's recently concluded Fifth Generation Computer
Project, which was supposed to make million-Cray-power computers that
could think like Homo Sapiens.  Maybe some of the original claims about
the project were a mistake.

And finally, nearly every stock market player in Japan has taken a bath
in the past couple of years.  A country's stock index losing half
of its value is usually evidence of mistakes.

But other than those four minor errors, major Japanese companies never,
never, ever make mistakes.  Certainly not the Nippon Telephone and
Telegraph company.  With the Yamaguchi Cold Fusion kit, its
reputation is really on the line.  If the kit fails to deliver excess
heat as no one has promised, no Japanese citizen will ever place a
phone call with NTT again.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion