HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Thanks to all
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:49:29 GMT

I thank all of you that have given me advice on cleaning, etc..  I can't wait
for someone to ask for advice on electronics.  "Start with some clean sand.  
Reduce to form silicon ...".

Dieter Britz tell the electroplater's story.  He has cleaned it up for our 
delicate ears.  You can guess what he does in my brother's version of the
story.  

Note Dieter that I not only reported variable gas output from a Mills cell but
also a deficit in heating value.  But I retired from the field when I realized
I was not equipped to do the chemistry.  Perhaps I am not equipped to do the
P&F experiment either.  But I am getting better and better at calorimetry.  
That is just conductors and insulators and machining and instrumentation.  

My hope is still that it can be done with fair cleaning and good 
instrumentation.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Power Measurement
Reply-To: les@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:40:20 GMT


Tom Droege said:
   You are placed in a room with a compass and a voltmeter.  Through the room
   pass two superconducting wires.  [.  .  .]

John Hassler answers:
	 You left out engineers.  I'd cut the wires.  Then the answer is
   obvious.  (Your problem statement, above, does not exclude this solution.)

Doesn't work -- you were not given wirecutters.

This kind of solution reminds me of a Request For Proposals that was
issued by the U.S. Air Force about 30 years ago.  They were concerned
about possible ambiguities in the chain of command after a nuclear
attack and wanted a system developed that would determine with
certainty whether the President was still alive.

Inasmuch as I was in a nonprofit corporation that was doing systems
engineering for them, I proposed that they build a small radio-
controlled device to be attached to the President at all times.  In
case of uncertainty, the device would be remotely activated and a
small bomb inside would go off, thus resolving the uncertainty.
While this met their specifications, they found it unacceptable for
some reason.

--
Les Earnest           Phone:  415 941-3984    Fax: 415 941-3934
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Profit incentives
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:21:55 GMT

Hi folks,

I might add a remark or two about why I'm so adamant about *not* investing
in any way in TmDxHy (that's transition metal hydrides/deuterides, folks)
heat anomolies:

 a) Thanks primarily to Jed Rothwell's recent prolific writings, I'm no
    longer sure I believe in their existence.  (Go figger, Jed.)

 b) On the off-hand chance that TmDxHy heat anomolies are real and are
    a significant energy source, then nothing would delight me more than
    to see *dozens* of people (expecially experimenters like Tom Droege
    and others) to get good solid patents and make mucho bucks off of them.

    Contrariwise, I would hate to see only one or two patents by large
    groups, because that would just kill the profit incentive that would
    really make the technology take off.

    Thus it is that I really do hope Twist proves correct, because I've
    now had it published in a public medium for a sufficently long period
    of time to ensure that the basic points in it *cannot* be patented.

    Assuming Twist is valid, patents would instead need to be based on
    serious experimental work and techniques for using the basic idea,
    rather than on the basic TMC concept.  That would delight me greatly,
    because it would mean that some of the hard-working types who have
    invested their own time and energy (yes Jed, that would of course
    include you) would have a decent shot at making a valid patent.
    (That is, IF any of it is real at all, of course!)

    Me?  Goodness, if I *was* right, I don't think I'd be *that* bad off,
    do you?  Plus I've known several people with mucho gobbos of buckos
    and have perceived no correclation whatsoever between the degree of
    mucho gobbos they owned and their actual level of satisfaction with life
    and living.  Having a really enjoyable and fun life seems to depend
    much more on how you go about living it and how you treat those around
    you, I think.  (Wow, I'm starting to sound like a Christmas ad!)

				Cheers,
				Terry
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluid mechanics question.. how crude is the heat estimate?
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:42:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <11DEC199218025457@zeus.tamu.edu> i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR) writes:
>
>I am kinda of puzzled by this cold fusion thing but I have an open mind
>about it. The question I have is a question from a fluid mechanics
>person and not that of a (nuclear) engineer :
>
>How can one so precisely determine the amount of heat generated?
>have they been fluid flow studies about this ? that is computer generated
>calculation proving that what the sensor gets  is linked to a certain amount
>a heat on the cell side.
>I am working in two-phase flow ( I DO NOT use correlation) solving the 
>Navier-Stokes equation and I know that even phase change problem 
>(such as the one occuring in the boiling) is a bitch... how can people be
>so sure of the heat generated ? My reasoning comes from my total distrust
>of heat transfer coeficient used in nuclear engineering that are there
>to give an estimate and not a TRUE value ( since they are mainly used 
>for design purposes)...

     Energy balances are much easier than detailed flow calculations,
     especially when you aren't venting to the atmosphere. A seemingly
     good example of how to do so fairly accurately has been posted
     by Tom Droege regularly (in various incarnations).  Any more adverbs
     in the previous sentence, and I'll have to barf on my own prose.

     By the way, how do you do two-phase flow without correlations
     or constitutive relations based on correlations?

     Where do you get your computer?  Mine won't go that fast.
     People have difficulty computationally accounting for a single
     bubble interface, to say nothing of the generic interspersed
     turbulent two-phase flow.

     If you do have some magic approach, please tell me soon.  I'm finishing
     a dissertation on boiling two-phase flow calculations in cryogens
     using all sorts of averaging and jury-rigged constitutive relations.
     A more elegant approach would sure be appreciated.
     
                            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
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion


I think there is a difference in philosophy here:

In sci.physics.fusion, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> That is not how real scientists, in real labs, behave. When people like
> Farrell, Noninski, Srinivasan, or Notoya report a positive result, a real
> scientist takes them seriously, and gives them the benefit of the doubt. A
> real scientist assumes they are right, unless he spots an error and has some
> reason to believe they are wrong. If he spots an error, he does the experiment
> himself to prove his point. 

No, he only does the experiment if he does *not* spot an error; why do the
experiment when (presumably) you can just communcate the error?  Do the
experiment when it has a chance to confirm an unusual effect, not when you are
just trying to prove it doesn't work.

> Generalities about other experiments performed in other labs, back in 1989,
> are also irrelevant. You have to show exactly why a particular experiment is
> in error, and you have to disprove it utterly and completely. It is not enough
> to say that a 6 deg C Delta T might actually have been 5.8 C, or even 4. You
> have to prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the Delta T was so close to
> zero that it was insignificant, because if there is any heat at all, and it
> persists long enough, the reaction must be real. A little nitpicking here and
> there will not do, you have to demolish the entire thing, all 6 degrees in one
> experiment, all 30 degrees in another.

Here is a major difference in philosophy too: I think that if reasonable doubt
is thrown on the results of an experiment, most people will wait for a better
result before they accept it (others will try to replicate the result without
the problems that lead to the doubt).

> If you encounter even ONE experiment -- like McKubre's -- where you can find
> no holes, and no possible objections, then the game is over, you lose, the
> heat is real, and CF is real. That means that the other good experimenters,
> like Kunimatsu, Mizuno, P&F, Takahashi, and the others are right too, although
> they do not have such convincing data sets.

Science usually requires replications (with the replications being convincing
too!), though one convincing experiment can do wonders.  I think CF should be
taken more seriously due to results like McKubre's.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: wolff@einstein.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Subject: Re: Cell Power Measurement 101
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:12:38 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:

>I keep looking a photographs of supposed "cold fusion" cells and all I see
>is two clip leads. 

>Folks, you have to have four leads to make a decent measurement.  (McKuber
>seems to do this right but have not seen any one else.)  Two leads carry 
>the current, two connected to the cell on the other side of the clip leads
>measure the potential across the cell.  These leads carry very small current.

Volt meters are much closer to ideal than ammeters. Thus 10v max, 10Mohm,
-> 1uA -> 10uW. (you can correct for that: the amperes running though the 
cell is 0.1 to 1uA lower than what you actually measure)

Next: the two extra leads that Tom talks about should be connected to the
cell _AT_ the insulating barrier. If you connect them closer to the actual
experiment, you are neglecting the power developed in the leads from the 
insulation to the cell. This can easily build up to figures in the 
milliwatts range.

>There is lots more to worry about, but the above will likely get you a 1%
>measurement.  For more accuracy you have to take Cell Power Measurement 201,
>301, 401, ... .  Sorry that is McKubre.

Tom knows much more about this than I do. Trust me. (and him :-).

>Tom Droege


					Roger
-- 
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783644 or +31-15-142371
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Natoya Nagoya Experiment
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:24:33 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <921215135233.204026b8@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE:

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

I don't think I've ever heard this story. And I was IN Utah when this
all started. Fill us in.

			Bob P.

-- 
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: jsm@beam.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Subject: Ampere tension and fusion
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:27:10 GMT

I found an article put up on a bulletin board entitled 'Fusion trials
challenge EM theory' (Electronic Engineering Times, April 6, 1992, p 36).
It sounds rather interesting. Anyone have more info?

In summary, one idea actively pursued by fusion researchers is to drive lots
of current (1 MA @ 1 ns) down a frozen deuterium wire. Neutrons and gammas
are observed.  They calculate a maximum temperature of about 1 million degrees
centigrade, which is not hot enough to explain the observed neutron production.
They need 100 million degrees!

So, what is causing the enhanced fusion? Some speculate that Ampere tension
is responsible. This is a repulsulve force on a conductor
that is parallel to the direction of current flow and is proportional to the
square of the current. Apparantly this force can explain the neutron
production.

The hitch is that Ampere tension is not predicted directly by modern E+M
theory and sounds hard to prove or disprove.  As usual, patents have
already been filed (for fusion using Ampere tension).

	Scott
From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:42:23 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> A digression.

> Isn't it conventional to say that "thermonuclear fusion" is one in
> which the reaction sustains itself by producing high temperatures as
> a result of previous fusion reactions?  By this measure, fusion in
> stars and in tokamaks is in fact, thermonuclear, but we don't
> really consider ICF to be "thermonuclear" fusion.

  Actually this is incorrect. Most modern ICF pellets are designed to
ignite at the center (the hot spot) and a burn wave then propagates
outward through the fuel. This burn wave is indeed the result of
previous fusion reactions.

  Jim
--
-------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Jack Daniels and interesting life.
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:25:49 GMT

dale bass says: "By the way, wild hunches seem to make life interesting."

Bob Daniels asks about the Jack Daniels.  From TIME May 8, 1989:

"We came down from the hike," recalls Pons, "and then we stood around the 
table in my kitchen, had a couple of Jack Daniel's and started drawing 
pictures."

Sorry that was Bob Pendleton that asked.

If I was forced to do the Natoya type of calorimeter demo, I would be very 
careful to match the two cells.  I would likely try a Pt - Pt cell for the 
control, and adjuct the electrolyte and the anode and cathode areas so that
the control cell had about the same voltage drop at the test cell current.
The problem is that you can't afford the Pt wire to make a Mills cell copy 
with Pt - Pt electrodes.  

Then I would adjust the reference cell *** power input *** until the reference
cell was at the same *** temperature *** as the cell under test.  Not very 
easy to do for a  *** human *** but a well trained machine can do a pretty 
good job.  

Even this has a lot of problems unless you are willing to invest in all that 
Pt wire.  That is because with smaller electrodes, the heat is not liberated 
in exactly the same place.  

Jed Rothwell will say that the hotter cell clearly indicates more power.  Well
maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't.  At least this scheme gets away from the 
1.48*I correction, or greatly reduces the correction required depending on 
how close the cell current is matched when the system temperatures match.
I would use one of my TED devices to sense the difference in cell temperature.

The more I think about it, the more I see problems with the Natoya demo.  I 
think it is just meaningless.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Why is Neutronpenision called Fusion?
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:28:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.165526.3894@midway.uchicago.edu> greg@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
: In any case it seems terribly misleading to me to call something fusion
: when you don't know what it is...

That part's true.

: and neutronpenision is as good a name as any.

And that part's not true.

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Eventually
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:07:52 GMT

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

I thank DB for posting the Hal Fox's quote about "$25 million over the next
few years..." I missed that article. However, the wording explains everything.
$25 million eventually, over the next "few" years is not the same as a real
$25 million annual budget in the bank right now. You cannot write a check on
money that may become available over the next few years. There is not $25
million available today in all of North America and Europe, in fact, I would
be very surprised if there was $2 million.

DB also comments: "You, Jed, have seen only one leg of the elephant
electrochemistry, but there are many other aspects to it.

You are ignoring most of what I said, and quoting me selectively to distort my
words. I said, "There are, of course, many kinds of electrochemical devices
ranging from crude, massive industrial electroplating machines, to devices
that deposit thin film metals on computer chips. It is broad field."

DB comments: "I find it a bit hard to swallow that ultracleanliness should be
The Secret."

So do I. I never said that, and neither did anyone else. There is no single
"secret" with CF, any more than there was a "secret" 100 years ago when Edison
and his staff struggled to make the first lightbulb. There were dozens of
secrets back then, about filaments, vacuum pumps, glass and metalurgy, and
Edison figured them all out, one at a time, with fantastic perserverance and
intelligence. There is no one "secret" to writing good programs either, there
are hundreds.

Getting back to cleanliness, I said that many electrochemists are more
concerned about cleanliness than physicists, and way better at materials
science. I said, and repeated many times, that cleanliness appears to help a
great deal, especially with Pd CF. I said that Ni CF appears to be much more
forgiving, and works okay with reasonable cleanliness, but some people have
reported it works better with ultracleanliness. The fellow who washed the
glassware so many times, by the way, was not running a CF experiment when he
did that.


Greg Kuperberg says, "My point is not that you know that there will be
dangerous amounts neutrons if there is cold fusion, but rather that there
might be.  You don't just take an umbrella when you know it will rain, you
take one when you think it might rain, or else you might get wet."

AMEN! Exactly right.

- Jed


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

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Black Stuff
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:35:25 GMT

John Logajan writes "when I run my Mills type cell in reverse current mode,
the Ni (now) anode becomes coated with a dark black substance, ...)

Let me be the 200 th person to tell you it is likely Ni hydride.  Mills, I 
think, will tell you that you should never do that, and that it permanently
kills the effect.  I wanted to do it as a means of calibration since a nice
way to check such a reaction is to run reverse at the same cell power.  This
should duplicate everything but the "mystery" power.  So a nice experiment 
would be to operate periods of forward and reverse.  Enough reversals and 
you could compare forward temperature with reverse temperature and draw some
conclusion.  Alas, Mills says this kills the effect.  So does running with
a catalyst according to Mills.  So he carefully eliminates the good ways to
do this experiment.  This leaves only looking for Hydrinos.  I have done that
without success.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:14:24 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 there any reason why this couldn't be done in,  say,  liquid
D2?  Would the ultrasound necessarily vaporize the D2 before the cavitation
process is set up?
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: dandrews@bilver.uucp (Dave Andrews)
Subject: Re: Maybe the neutrons will find you
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:06:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.191414.20023@midway.uchicago.edu> greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>
>Your claim is that you have found a new kind of fusion.

Do you actually READ any of these posts?  Jed has repeatedly denied having
claimed ANY discovery or result. 

>Maybe in your research you will stumble across a third kind of
>cold fusion that does generate a whole lot of neutrons just like solar
>fusion, uncontrolled thermonuclear fusion, laser fusion, and magnetic
>fusion do.  It's hard to enjoy your riches if you have cancer.
>Do you wear a radiation monitor in your work?  Maybe even if you don't
>find neutrons, the neutrons will find you.

What nonsense.  Please take pontification or religious arguments elsewhere. 

- David Andrews
  dandrews@bilver.oau.org

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion