HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Probability courses (was Re: Schrodingers Dog)
Date: 5 Oct 1992 11:44 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
Keywords: Cats , Quantum Merchanics, Cruelty to Animals
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct5.002102.22858@riacs.edu>, danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth) writes...
> 
>How many of you (with BS, MS, or PhD in physics) were required to take
>a course in probability theory given by the math or statistics departments
>in your universities?  A course in statistical mechanics does NOT count.
> 
>I ask this simply because I had to leave the field of physics before I
>was exposed to the true beauty of probability theory.  Neither Stanford's
>undergraduate degree program nor the U. of Maryland's graduate program
>required a course in probability theory.  This is truely remarkable
>since Stanford's statistics department is about 100 feet from the
>physics building!

At MIT, there was no "requirement" for probability.  But when I was a 
Junior, and Gian-Carlo Rota offered course in Probability, I and many 
of my friends siezed the opportunity.  After having all gone through 
"Differential 'Quations" with him, we knew it would be a fantastic class,
and it was.

There were very few required classes outside of the core physics courses
and your basic courses which covered vector calculus, differential equations,
and linear algebra.  After that, you had to rely on the good sense that 
God gave you to choose your classes wisely.  I think that most of us did
alright, without the restrictions of course requirements.  

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rmrin@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (r.m.rickert)
Subject: Information on author F. David Peat (Einstein's Moon)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:48:13 GMT


I've just finished reading a delightful little book, "Einstein's Moon",
by F. David Peat.  First explanation I've ever seen of Bell that I understood 
(partway at least).  

The copy I read came without as dustcover so I don't know anything about the
author.  Anyone have some information on him?

-- 

Dick Rickert  AT&T Consumer Products Laboratory
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Expansion
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:34:07 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>if the universe were filled with stars, in the density of a galaxy, the
>universe would have recollapsed long ago. The region of space which is
>inside a galaxy satisfies the same local einstein equation as the above
>recollapsing example, so why do galaxies live so long?

Boundary conditions, no?  The galaxy is attached to a lot of less-
dense space surrounding it.

Certainly the curvature of space across a galaxy is negligible
(in our universe, anyway).  Across an entire universe filled with
stars, it's not.
From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cryogenic fusion
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:26:48 GMT
Reply-To: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <1992Sep25.153551.3393@memstvx1.memst.edu>,
cse_stu@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
|>Does anyone know if there is any research being do in the area of cyrogenic
|>fusion?


Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "cyrogenic fusion". However,
I am familiar with some work that could fit that category. However, I
usually hear it referred to as a "Dense Z Pinch".

Z Pinches have been known for a long time. However they are unstable on
MHD time scales (very rapid). The idea in the Dense Z pinch is to freeze
some deuterium ice and rapidly extrude it into a experimental chamber. Then
is a pulsed power supply to cram huge currents down the fiber and almost
instantly create a Z-pinch. Since it starts out as ice the density is
really high, so there is hope to reach Lawson's Criterion before the
instability kills you.

As I remember, the big center for doing this work was Los Alamos. The
name Shlacter comes to mind. I think there was a recent AIP conference
on the subject. If your local library has a full set you might run
through the titles for the last 3 years and see.

Oh yea, I just put my hands on a set of abstracts. Jack Shlacter gave a
talk at the U.S.-Japan Workshop on Nuclear Fusion in Dense Plasmas held 
here at Texas in October of Last year. I don't know if proceedings were
published (will be published?).

Here are some notes from Shlachter's abstract: The work has been going
on for 6 years. Simple Linear Z pinch fibers are extruded across 5 cm
anode-cathode gap. Current = 1 Mega-Amp with a 100 nano-second rise
time. Total stored energy is 200 kJ in a MArx bank generator. Result:
column expands rapidly in first 10 ns due to m=0 sausage instabilities.
Neutron Yield is lower than expected. Only 1e9 - 1e10 neutrons per pulse.*
Points to reduced density.


I don't know where the work is going from here. I don't evene know if
LANL is still working on it. Anybody out there know anthing more?


* Eat you heart out CF-fellas.

john w. cobb
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2304 sci.physics:15788
From: mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 1 Oct 1992 20:40:15 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamilton.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

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.

No I don't think so.  Bethe's article describes some people working on the
principles of a fusion bomb ('classical super') during the war.  There
certainly wasn't any serious try at *manufacturing* a fusion bomb until the
late 40s, but even then there were indications that the basic design (from
1946 or so) was flawed.  Specifically, in 1950, it was in serious doubt that
any fusion bomb was even possible.

Of course a group of theorists doing calculations and lab experiments is not
necessarily "seriously developing" compared to the industrial resources
necessary to produce one, so from the governmental & beauracratic position
you're right.  But from the physicists, I disagree.

: 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).

Yeah, Sakharov's a pretty smart puppy.  I don't remember for sure, but
didn't the soviets have a practical h-bomb before the U.S.? (I.e. the
U.S. had a singular, but impractical, test in 1951, but nothing else until
1954).

:   Waiting for Ulam's breakthrough (whatever
: it was) may have held things up for a couple of years, but nowhere
: near 10.

After the trick was discovered, Bethe says it was remarkably quick to actually
make the thing, an achievement on the same order as the original fission
bomb design.

: 
: Lorenzo Sadun
: sadun@math.utexas.edu

--
-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
Subject: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:26:28 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

Gentlemen,
I have been following with interest the heat-generation work of Droege and the
discussion by Carr, Rothwell, Britz, Blue and others regarding the need for
nuclear "ash" to accompany nuclear reactions.  The principle question seems to
be:  "Is the heat due to nuclear reactions?"  (Tabelling for the moment the
question "Is the heat real?")  
Since the nuclear reactions at work are not known, can one hide forever by
saying that the correct nuclear products have not been searched for?  Or, as in
the case of P+P --> D, cannot be found due to low S/N?
I would like to put forth a way around these problems, and see if anyone can
shoot holes in my proposal/challenge to heat producers:
1-  Nuclear reactions are of the order of MeV's.
2-  At a power of 1 watt, the rate of nuclear reactions is 6 X 10**12/Q,
where Q is the energy released per reaction.
3-  Combining points 1 and 2 - retaining generality in not specifying a
particular nuclear reaction - we deduce that 1 watt of excess power requires of
the order of a trillion reactions per second.
4-  The primary products may hide, but at these rates, secondary X-rays cannot
hide.
5-  For instance, in palladium, the k-alpha x-ray has 20 keV, which is quite
penetrating.  In heavy water, approximately 20% of these X-rays survive after
40 mm.  The palladium is a better attenuator, but with either a volumetric or
(better) a surface reaction, significant X-rays ought to get out:  a few
percent survive 300 microns of Pd by montecarlo calculation.
6-  MeV-energy charged particles produce excitations which lead to copious
X-ray production.  My colleague Larry Rees estimates, for example, 3X10**-8 k
x-rays per 3-MeV-proton.  With a trillion or a billion nuclear reactions per
second, the 20 keV x-ray yield ought to be easily detectable.

Have I missed something, or should secondary X-rays provide for a crucial
experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is in fact nuclear in origin?

P.S.  In nickel, the 7.4 keV line should be readily detectable if nuclear
reactions are occurring in the metal at rates claimed.

Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
P.P.S.  One should use spectroscopy, of course, to determine the x-ray
energies, in order to get a clearer picture of what is going on.  I would not
be satisfied with exposures of x-ray film.
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:09:11 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>From this we can estimate 0.25 electron volts per D2O/H2O, or 20 electron
>volts per Pd, or, assuming .95 loading, 21 electron volts per loaded D.

Using Droege's Sept 28 data, everything increases by 2.4.

So now we have 0.6eV per D2O/H2O atom, or 48eV per Pd, or, at .94 loading,
51eV per loaded D.

At what eV per atom do we agree it is no longer chemcial?

-- 
- 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: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:54:26 GMT

In article <97082@bu.edu>
jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis) writes:
>>GET SOMEONE WITH A SCIENCE BACKGROUND TO LEARN JOURNALISM. That is the only
>
> brief, i hope, interruption from this group's topic. yes dick, i do have
>a physics background but i still wonder about your above statement. it's
>a question most science journalists argue about at one point or n another.
>for instance, in the last month i've written about deafness research,
>making antihydrogen, and spinal cord research--and i don't know
>if my "background" helped in any of them. jerry bishop, for instance,
>has no real science background. the grad programs, however, now seem
>to require a science background and then try to turn you into
>a journalist. enough of an interruption--just wanted to remark that
>your comment is provocative and debatable issue.
>
>cheers,
>john travis
I guess you're right. I remember what my friend Earl Callen used to say.
But he made people so angry.  I don't like making people angry.
As I remember it John your specialty was physics.
Earl Callen at an APS meeting in the early '70 said that:  "Physicists
can work in any field and do it better than people trained for the field."
Last I knew after Earl left NOL, now something else that is the next
successor to Naval Surface Weapons Center, he went to American University.
Check with him to see if I have been accurate. I think it was quoted in the
abstract printed in the Bulletin of the APS.
 
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: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Commensurate
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 17:35:23 GMT

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.

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.

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.

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.

The ash could be there in commensurate amounts, yet still be devilishly
hard to detect.

-- 
- 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:2291 sci.physics:15762
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 10:04:56
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu's message of 30 Sep 92 23:13:09 GMT

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

   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.

Let's not!

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: johng@cres1.anu.edu.au (John Gallant)
Subject: Close and Fleischmann on Australian Science Show
Organization: Centre for Resource and Environment Studies, Australian National University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 00:43:55 GMT


Just for interest's sake:

Interviews with Frank Close and Martin Fleischmann (sp?) were broadcast
on the Australian radio "Science Show" this weekend. There was (as far
as I could tell) no new information from either party - new to this
group that is. Fleischmann sounded optimistic but somewhat bitter - he
quoted Max Planck (I think) saying that he doesn't expect to convince
his critics, he's just waiting for them to die out.


-- 
    John Gallant           johng@cres.anu.edu.au  "Every \item command in
Centre for Resource and      ph: +61 6 249 0666    item_list must have an
 Environmental Studies      fax: +61 6 249 0757    optional argument".
Australian National University                     Leslie Lamport, LaTeX
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:45:23 GMT
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Oct6.022730.25720@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:

>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

>>Have I missed something, or should secondary X-rays provide for a crucial
>>experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is in fact nuclear in 
>> origin?

>Ah, you are asking if anomalous heat results should be ignored on the basis
>of known physics, no matter how apparently reliable the heat measurements
>are.  For if the heat continues to be measured in excess of known chemistry,
>and simultaneously does not reach your criteria of X-ray emission, you are
>forced either to abandon the criteria, or ignore the heat measurements.

                            **OR**: 
                           to enter, 
                     close the closet door, 
                     turn out the light and 
                             THINK. 

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222         | 
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M. Koloc) |       
| (301) 445-1075  ********  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:18:39 GMT

In article <books.2.0@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu>
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books) writes:
>>      I've been following this rather, ummm, interesting thread for a couple
>>   of days now.  Although some of these 'devices' are clearly fraudulant,
>>   some others are reasonable.  Problem is they aren't creating
>>   "free energy" but rather tapping sources that are so large that it
>>   field.  It should work.  (Didn't they just try something like that
>>   recently on the space shuttle?) ...
>>
>>into its orbital motion was hardly "free".
>>--
>>Glenn A. Berg                        CASS
>
>After talking to the Physicists around here (I'm just a data acquisition
>programmer) it seems the use for the shuttle experiment is reversing it and
>using batteries to help maintain orbit.
>
>Roger
>books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
Dick Forman comments: while you of course are correct. BUT you've let the cat o
ut of the bag. The only way mere physicists can tread in the techie environment
of Space Shuttle expts. is by hiding their true motives. By the way there is
a nice article on new fishing reel technology which could be useful for winding
up the wire in the New York Times in the past week or so. The company that
makes the reel is AB? Garcia of Sweden and it uses a new method of laying down
the layers that they call Hard-X technology.  Physicists, who else, have commen
ted on some possible low tech failure modes of the Shuttle's fishing reel.  Whi
le I could be accused of bias because I am also a physicist, their explanation
which I suggested to a colleague the day after the failure, sound good.
I would nevere have gone public with it though. Since they did, I feel it is fa
ir to comment and to suggest a fix. Since I gave up guided spooling for
surf casting reels about 40 years ago I would love to know how the Hard-X techn
ology works; unfortunately the NYT article did not have a picture that was usef
ul.  Finally I would be able to get rid of my ancient Penn Squider reels and
show those spinning reel freaks how casting should be done.
 
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,sci.physics
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 20:29:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

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

You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
of commonly available hardware store components.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Fast Typing Syndrome
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:36:27 GMT

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

I often type too quickly and post incomplete sentences with unintended
comical effects, but I outdid myself this time by saying:

"Howard Menlove is Los Alamos National Lab."

He is a great fellow and we like him very much but he is *with* Los Alamos,
he is not the whole show.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion