HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: EX: Explanation AND Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:57:00 GMT


Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE

>I actually have an explanation for the cell gets hot and the catalyst gets
>cold with no change in gas volume.  But the electrochemists won't like it
>as it is not supposed to happen.  Besides there is the problem of the net
>heat gain.

I'm an electrochemist, Tom, but I'm game to read something that I might not
like. What is your explanation?


Originally-From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)

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

There is nothing odd about using a super-clean cell, and yet adding some gunk;
you might want YOUR gunk, not any old gunk coming out of the cell walls. The
use of poisons is a respectable technique. In the present context, they can
either suppress the recombination reaction of adsorbed deuterium atoms with
each other to form D2, and thus favour the ingress of deuterium into the Pd;
other poisons will prevent the ingress. So choose your poison wisely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: mrw9e@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Michael Robert Williams)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Summary: Build nuclear weapons in your spare time
Keywords: a-bomb,h-bomb, Taylor, books
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:22:17 GMT

I've been following this thread, and I'd like to recommend a couple of 
books on the subject that I'm sure will be of interest.

"The Curve of Binding Energy" a biography of a fission bomb designer,
      Edward (?) Taylor. In it he gives helpful hints on how to build
      a bomb in your basement, including good places to steal the
      fissionables from, refinement techniques, and even a list of good 
      targets. Taylor was apparently appalled by the lack of security
      regarding nuclear materials, so he had this book written to
      call attention to this fact.  A very thought-provoking book.

"The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices" is a must-
      read for all of you nuclear terrorists out there. It deals with 
      the mathematics behind detonating thermonuclear weapons, and it
      is quite engrossing. My favorite chapter was one called something
      like "On Detonating Thermonuclear Explosives of Arbitrary Size"
      and goes on to describe how you too can quite literally blow the
      atmosphere off of the planet with a suprisingly small weapon.

In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student
e-mail      :mrw9e@virginia.edu|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The probability of something happening is inversely proportional
to its desirability
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Cryogenic fusion
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:10:09 GMT

In article <80893@ut-emx.uucp> johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:

   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.
   ...
   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.

   Neat! But why aren't they using a wall stabilized plasma?  If the
plasma is contained in a non-conducting tube, the confinement slows or
inhibits (I assume slows in this case) the development of instabilities.
Clever design would use a glass for the tube that enhanced the energy
output as it disintegrates. :-)  Also, the rise time sounds a little
low to me for playing this type of games.  Getting down to 10 ns rise
would get a lot more energy into the plasma before it starts fighting
back.  (The reverse voltage created by the collapsing field usually
doesn't affect the current waveform through the plasma, but it can
drastically decrease the amount of energy you get in while it can do
some good.)


					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Reply on cell configuration
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:21:01 GMT

Thomas Kunich writes:

"I don't understand the "catalyst gets cold" part Tom.  Could you clear 
that part up?"

I have a number of "events" that I puzzle over.  I would love to be able to
share them, but they usually involve several curves.  This media needs a good
(simple) graphical expression mechanism.

The cell is a 100 ml centrifuge tube.  It has a teflon plug in the top which 
supports a 8 mm glass tube.  The end of the tube down in the cell holds a 
teflon structure which supports the anode windings.  The cathode plate slides 
in a groove between the anode supports.  The bottom of the glass tube is below 
the electrolyte surface and has a thermometer (AD-590) located there.  The 
tube is  then filled with chunks of foam, till there is another thermometer 
where the tube is in gas in the vicinity of the catalyst.  The catalyst is in 
a polypropylene mesh bag, wedged in the top of the cell tube.  A gas vent is 
brought out to a motor driven syringe which holds constant pressure.  Thus any 
changes in the gas volume indicate either that some gas has been produced (as 
when some disassociated D is absorbed by the Pd leaving behind oxygen) or that 
the gas volume has become hotter. 

At the present 800 ma, the catalyst thermometer reads approximately 50 C.  The 
cell temperature runs 30 C, and the calorimeter puck (see the calorimeter 
posting made today) is set at 24 C.  

Now to the puzzle presented which caused the question about the cell 
configuration.  How can the cell get hotter and the catalyst get colder with 
no change in the gas volume?  There was no change in the cell E*I product.  So 
that is not the cause.  There was also an apparent release of energy.  

I have lots more of these puzzles.  Sometimes after a while I generate an 
explanation.  It usually leads to an insight into the system operation.  I 
would really like to share these events. 

Tom Droege

Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2333 sci.physics:15873
From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Atmosphere ignition (was:The H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:59:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

During the Manhatten Project there was concern that the bomb
would ignite the atmosphere. After some calculations (according
to Ulam, "Adventures of a Mathematician") this fear was put to
rest.

Does anyone know if these results are declassified and published
somewhere? 

Thanks,
Steve Hoell		seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)
Subject: Re: A who?
Summary: Adding Impurties
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:31:56 GMT

In article <920929130343.208007bf@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>Hey guys, how do I put a gelatinous amphoteric aluminum layer on my cathode?
>
>Tom Droege


Tom 

First congratulations on getting your apparent 100 sigma result.

I had hoped the someone who was taking notes would post a more 
detailed account.  He was working from your posted list of 
questions,  between the two of us at the discussion after the talk
McKubre answered most of them.

In response to my question 

How do you add the Si Al or Boron into your closed system after 
finishing the loading with out disturbing the seal?

We bring the pressure measuring line out.  There is a catheter 
threaded thru it.  We can inject tiny foil ( ? powder ?) using
a hypodermic needle.


*******************************************************************************
Steve Finberg			W1GSL			w1gsl@athena.mit.edu
PO Box 82 MIT Br 	  Cambridge MA  02139		    617 258 3754
*******************************************************************************
From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: proposal for moderated group
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:27:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: CRAFTY.MOSS.92Sep30102717
Reply-To: moss@cs.umass.edu
Distribution: sci
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)

Dick asked me to post this email I sent him in response to his posting
proposing a new moderated group:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
New news groups generally require a period of discussion followed by a vote on
the charter/organization of the group. If the vote passes certain tests, then
the group is established after a certain delay. The actual mechanism consists
of a special "newgroup" message being sent out through the usenet system. This
is pretty minimal background but should give you the idea. The request for
discussion is supposed to be posted to a special group for discussion of new
groups, but can be cross posted to any other relevant groups. I try to stay
out of this since it tends to be high volume and high flaming ....  Eliot
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Note I am taking no public position regarding the advisability/desirability of
such a group; merely trying to inform. Now somebody else must take charge if
anything further is going to happen.     Regards -- E
--

J. Eliot B. Moss, Associate Professor	Visiting Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science		School of Computer Science
Lederle Graduate Research Center	Carnegie Mellon University
University of Massachusetts		5000 Forbes Avenue
Amherst, MA  01003			Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3891
(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax)		(412) 268-6767, 681-5739 (fax)
Moss@cs.umass.edu			Moss@cs.cmu.edu
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2309 sci.physics:15805
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:03:05 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

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

 [I know I cut this quote correctly, but I am sure *I* (jac) wrote 
  the material quoted with a ":" below ... I certainly said something 
  similar, but the inspirations (plural) were those of Ulam and Teller.

>>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.

Bad history.  The development of the "super" started in parallel with 
the so-called A-bomb and the record is clear that work in the late 
40's was an elaboration of the ideas developed during the war.  

The big push to build the "super" came in about 1950, but history 
also seems to make it clear that 'big push' meant doing some experiments 
that most thought would not work.  The invention was not a result of a 
massive industrial research program, but rather of insight developed 
by what was basically a 2-man plus assistant research group. 

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

Actually, the Soviet effort should have been of about the same duration. 
They were fully informed of the original Teller designs via Klaus Fuchs, 
so they were thinking about the same issues at about the same time.  It 
can be argued that it took about 5 years to prove the first guess was 
wrong and then, if one is sufficiently creative, invent a workable 
concept shortly thereafter.  

It will be most interesting, someday, to compare the classified histories 
of the Soviet and American programs and see if there were any similarities 
in how the solution was found.  Did Sakharov hit on the right idea the 
first time, perhaps before seeing the first Teller concept, or did he 
go through the same steps from the obvious to the subtle?  

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: schow@bcarh2d8.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Subject: Wagers (was Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:36:14 GMT

In article <168717CF2.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>Dick Forman says: Wagers huh---Put your money where your mouth is.
>                   Define the bet and suggest your bet size.
>                     Sometimes losing money is the only thing that
>                      teaches someone a lesson. Since I am so far in the
>                       hole by someting similar to what Tom D. has spent
>                        AND YOU ARE SO SURE IN YOUR ANALYSIS---Give me odds
>                         that indicate your level of belief in your own
>                          analysis or stop cluttering the thread.
>     Is there a netter that will volunteer to hold the bet (when terms and
>         odds) are finalized.

I will be glad to referee any such bets.

I am not choosy about what kinds of topics, you can bet on the outcome of
Tom's experiments, anyone's theory, or just press accounts. (Some readers
may recall that I proposed some bets even before there was a sci.physics.
fusion group).

Just to show that I am experienced and qualified - I am the referree for a
long standing bet made in the early 80's that will mature in 2020 (the bet
is whether fusion power will be real by then, in particular, whether *any*
fusion powered generators are on line on any power grid in the world,
generating revenue as well as power).

Clearly, the bet was made in the context of hot fusion, but the wording 
does allow cold fusion. So, Tom, your experiments (if succesful) may lead
to someone losing a significant bet.

--
Stanley Chow            InterNet: schow@BNR.CA
Bell Northern Research  UUCP:     ..!uunet!bnrgate!bqneh3!schow
(613) 763-2831
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2244 sci.physics:15620
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:02:41 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion

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.

This ``secret'' was known for a long time: one of the syllaby I use,
written in 1986, gives already the explaination of the principle of the
H-bomb.
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
********************************************************** 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Subject: Cell hot, catalyst cold; in Droege calorimeter
Reply-To: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:57:15 GMT

In FD502, Tom Droege describes his reaction cell and two temperature
sensors within the cell.  He reports events in which the temperature at
the top of the cell (catalyst region) drops while the temperature at
the bottom of the cell (submerged in electrolyte) rises.

I guess that at the catalyst
       D2 + 1/2 O2 -> D2O(gas) + 59.56 kcal/mol  [ = 1.29 eV/(D atom)]
produces hot water vapor.  This condenses into droplets on some cooler
part of the cell (releasing more energy), and the droplets run down
into the electrolyte.  Droplets of hot water may occasionally form in
odd places or run down special pathways that would show up as events
something like this.

I have seen that water droplets grow to about 40 mg before they break
off the end of a dripping tube.  I compute that this .002 mol
represents approx
   498  joules   reaction energy    @ 59.560 kcal/mol (ref 25C 1 atm)
    91  joules   condensation       @ 10.851 kcal/mol (ref 25C 1 atm)
     ...correcting to 50 C 1 atm reaction conditions...
   1.5  joules   for  D2 gas        @ 6.978 cal/mol/K
    .7  joules   for  O2 gas        @ 7.016 cal/mol/K
  -4.2  joules   for  D2O liq       @ 20.16  cal/mol/K
     ...and then cooling the droplet from 50 C to 30 C...
   3.4  joules                      @ 20.16 cal/mol/K
 
I think it's those 3.4 joules/drop that could be running around
uncontrolled.  If little puddles form, then drain suddenly, the energy
"quanta" could be even bigger.

  -Chuck Harrison

PS: This is near-forgotten high-school chemistry & the CRC handbook
talking, so someone tell me whether we're making sense here.
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Result
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:36:21 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Tom:

        I am enjoying your postings, and appreciate your careful work.  I and
probably others would appreciate a posting describing the calorimeter setup.
You may well have done this before, but if so I missed it.  What I have in
mind is not what is in the cell, but how the calorimeter itself works.  I
have the impression that you have a cooling circuit and a heater, but the
rest is vague.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
From: Glenn.Berg@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Glenn Berg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
Date: 24 Sep 92 19:27:51 CST

Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT

mh001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (matthew wain hacker) 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
   seems that way.  For intance, take the idea of tapping the earth's magnetic
   field.  It should work.  (Didn't they just try something like that
   recently on the space shuttle?) ...

This was hardly "free" energy.  The energy was extracted from the motion of the
satellite and shuttle NOT from the earth's magnetic field.  Getting the shuttle
into its orbital motion was hardly "free".
--
Glenn A. Berg                        CASS
berg@logan.cass.usu.edu              Utah State University
Phone: (801)-750-2987                UMC 4405
Fax: (801)-750-2992                  Logan, UT  84322

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Who is who
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:46:50 GMT

terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>.....                                                      >
>Misinterpretation or not, I've decided to take Mr. Forman up on his wager.
>More later.  It will be a carefully restricted wager between myself and
>him only, if he can spare the $1 (vs. my $500) that I will be proposing.
>
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
My name is Dick. Since I did not graduate from Harvard, if you feel that
you must use a title please use the correct one.
My title derives from Piled Higher and Deeper. The only other title I have
is B.S., and everyone knows what that is.
 
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: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Keywords: a-bomb,h-bomb, Taylor, books
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:00:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.162217.11910@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mrw9e@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Michael Robert Williams) writes:
>I've been following this thread, and I'd like to recommend a couple of 
>books on the subject that I'm sure will be of interest.
>
>"The Curve of Binding Energy" a biography of a fission bomb designer,
>      Edward (?) Taylor. In it he gives helpful hints on how to build
>      a bomb in your basement, including good places to steal the
>      fissionables from, refinement techniques, and even a list of good 
>      targets. Taylor was apparently appalled by the lack of security
>      regarding nuclear materials, so he had this book written to
>      call attention to this fact.  A very thought-provoking book.

	The author of this is John McPhee and like all of his books this is
really a good read.

>"The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices" is a must-
>      read for all of you nuclear terrorists out there. It deals with 
>      the mathematics behind detonating thermonuclear weapons, and it
>      is quite engrossing. My favorite chapter was one called something
>      like "On Detonating Thermonuclear Explosives of Arbitrary Size"
>      and goes on to describe how you too can quite literally blow the
>      atmosphere off of the planet with a suprisingly small weapon.

	This sounds interesting.  Do you have an author/publisher/etc on
it?



--