HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Request for published report exceeeding E*I
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:57:14 GMT

In article <9301071530.AA27161@suntan.Tandem.com> <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu> writes:
: On a humorous note, the acronym I suggest for this whole process of
: excess heat production is Gobs Of Energy From Unknown Sources (GOEFUS).

Nah, that doesn't distinguish the phenomenon from whatever it is that
makes my kids tear from one end of the house to the other all day
long.  And it has the additional problem of presuming the sources will
always remain "Unknown".  Unless, of course, you intend that to be an
editorial comment.  However, while there do exist fields of inquiry in
which the proponents prefer to define negatively, in perpetuity, the
scope of their investigation (the UFO and AI folks come to mind), I
don't think the proponents of excess heat are prepared to take that
step quite yet.

For reasons that may become obvious upon reflection, I prefer to call
the phemonenon MHTL.  That's short for "More Heat Than Light".

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Subject: Re: Chuck Sites' dotted balloon
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:33:54 GMT

blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>I have a question relating to Chuck's assertion:

>	"Still the release of electrons during the void collapse
>	should concentrate at the center of the void."

>Is this obviously the case?  What makes the electrons move toward the
>center of the void?

To answer Dale and yours questions regarding what would drive 
electrons to the center of a void collapse, let me see what I can 
think up here (educated guessing right now.)  First a geometric
argument.  If a void is being filled (say its a vacuum), a lot of
matter is moving towards the center of the void already.  That's
a simple implosion.  The question, then, is whether 1. electrons 
are liberated from the void-material interface during the implosion,
2. are they focused to the center of the void during the collapse.
(This may not be the case). 
To answer the first, think of the dotted balloon again.  When it's 
inflated,  we have several dots of equal spacing.  As it deflates,
we remove dots to maintain the equal spacing. Really it would be
like the dots are pushed off.  All ready we have a possible source
for a quantum transition as the system re-arranges (rotational and
vibrational). But who is pushing who.  There is a three dimensional
aspect to this such that forces are focused to the center. (That is
as the surrounding 'lattice' relaxes the energy is directed to the
void-material interface).  Depending on materials and such, the 
focused forces may be enough to ionize the material-void interface 
during the collapse.  This would be especially true if the collapse
is forced by an external source (with possible resonance conditions
applicable). 
   Would the ionized electrons be focused to the center?  I think
statistically they would be. For one, we already have imparted
some momentum to the material-void interface, and it's directed
to the center of the void.  That momentum is transferred by lattice 
electrons already, so if the collapse does ionize the inside surface,
it would seem to me, they would be forced into the direction of the
center. 

Well anyway.  I'm still trying to get a mental model of how sono 
works.  It's a lot of fun.

Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com

                     

         
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: The power of a homemade supply?
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:47:46 GMT

Steve Kneizys's recent post on how to replicate an MKF experiment informs
us that the available information includes "...very simple circuits I
designed so that anyone could just go to Radio Shack and get all the
parts..."

Steve, I must admit that makes me just a bit nervous.  I would think it
might take a very well designed current-regulated supply to cope with
some possibly very weird load characteristics.  Are you sure you
simple supply does what you ask of it?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:32:02 GMT

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <00966330.AB98DB60.10309@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>>Could someone set my mind at ease by making a clear statement as to
>>what is know about sonoluminescence, ultracavitation, and related
>>topics as opposed to conjecture based on doubtful interpretations of
>>a very limited data set?

>     The dataset is not as limited as it sounds, and the recent results
>     are a) consistent with earlier results, b) plausable on theoretical
>     grounds, and c) apparently well done.

>>My understanding of cavitation and bubble formation is that it can
>>involve a very small move away from equilibrium conditions.  All that
>>is required is that the local pressure in the liquid fall below the
>>vapour pressure.  I would assume that the bubble fills with vapour
>>on a time scale close to that required for collapse so I don't
>>understand why there is any talk about collapse into a "void".

>     Yes.  Void is used by fluid dynamicists to talk about a 
>     space filled with vapour.  We shouldn't be talking about a vacuum.

  Some food for thought.  What we seem to be discussing is how the 
energy of cavitation can lead to fusion.  IMHO, it's an excellent 
question, so let me give you my simple thought model of how it works.
Get a balloon, and put some dots on it.  The dots represent molecules
of the liquid at the void/liquid interface.  As you blow the balloon
up (representing the expansion of the void), add more dots to maintain
an equal spacing of dots.  As you draw lines between the dots (representing 
bonding) you can see this should collect a large number of electrons at the
surface interface (many weakly bonded).  The vapor molecules are self-
contained.  The collapse of the balloon, must then either push the additional
dots back to it source, or be pushed into the void area.  Either way a
significant number of bonds are broken at the surface, and that suggests
the emission of quanta. 

    Still the the release of electrons during the void collapse should 
concentrate at the center of the void.  If we assume the void is a fusible
vapor, two actions occur. Kinetic energy is transferred from the 
collapsing surface to the center by EM forces of the lattice, and 
free electron densities increase at the center.  It follows from 
the work of S. Koonin, that these combinations are optimal enhanced
fusion rates.

Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Health Hazards
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 18:54:57 GMT

ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL writes:
>3.  If you get 50% excess heat with a recombiner you will be surprised that
>people will still not believe it.  They will say that it is a chemical
>reaction, heat transfer problems, cosmic ray interactions, and god knows
>what all.

Speaking of chemical reactions, I assume the Mills theory is still proposing
fractional level orbitals.

Has any more theoretical or experimental data come foward to decide whether
such forms of hydrogen represent biological hazards?  Or are they essentially
inert?

-- 
- 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: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: Bubbles
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:27:38 GMT

Terry Bollinger has been corresponding with me about his bubble ideas.  This 
has reminded me that Fermilab once had a 15' bubble chamber, and there have 
been many other bubble chambers operated over the years.  

To introduce bubble chambers, I am reminded fo physics folk lore.  It seems
Don Glasser was opening a bottle of beer, and noticed a streak of bubbles 
that appeared as he opened it.  Being a good physicist, he tried to explain
the streak, and concluded that a cosmic ray had passed through the bottle just
as he opened it.  The cosmic ray left ionized beer molecules which then became
the nucleation sites for bubbles which formed in the super heated beer caused
by the decompression of the opening.  Fortunately the beer can had not yet 
been invented, so Don Glasser won a Nobel prize.  Ever since physics students
have been devoted beer drinkers.  

Modern bubble chambers worked with a large piston.  Fermilab's was 15' and 
there was at least one even larger.  Someone correct me but I believe that
there are no bubble chambers currently in operation.  The chambers were 
usually placed inside a large magnet, and surrounded by trigger electronics.  

A particle beam would be directed through the chamber, and when the
the electronics detected an interesting event (like a beam particle in, but no
beam particle out - meaning there had been an interaction) the piston would 
expand the chamber contents.  Some time later, the time determined by the 
bubble groth rate to get optimum resolution, a flash tube would be fired to 
expose film.  The film was then sent of the measureing machines where the
tracks (in 3 D) were measured, and computations made on the results.  

Now why does this relate to Terry's bubble ideas?  Well sometimes the chambers 
were operated with liquid D2.  Remember, the expansion of the chamber forms 
bubbles.  These colapse some time later.  Perhaps these collapsing bubbles 
cause D - D interactions.  As Terry would say a "far fetch".

What we need is to look at some "double expansions" where the bubble chamber
was expanded a second time shortly after the first expansion so tracks coming 
off a bubble collapse might be seen.  I know that the Fermilab chamber 
sometimes triggered more than once per spill, i.e. at less than a second after
the first expansion.  Then there was the PPA chamber that went 20 times a 
second.  

So does anyone out there know where to finde such film.  (Douglas Morrison are
you listening?)  

The problem is that bubble chamber experiments are very expensive, and no one
would likely support running one for such a wild idea.  But if the right old
film can be found, it might be worth looking.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: sxb@fermi.cray.com (Stephen Behling)
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
Originator: sxb@fermi
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:06:48 CST


In article <930106131352.20c082a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Status #7 Cell 4A3
[...]
> We are presently operating at 800 ma which results in a cell voltage of 4.5 
> volts.  Present calorimeter balance is at 7.300 watts.  Peak to peak changes 
> over the last several hundred hours are consistent with the 0.035 mw one sigma 
> calibration.  But there is an offset from the December calibration with only 
> probable cause due to high temperature TED creep.  Remember to get the 
> temperature range we are operating with the shell servo off and floating.  A 
> curious observation is that we are more sensitive to the outside air 
> temperature than to the room temperature.  So while the room temperature is 
> relatively constant, the calorimeter "sees" the outside through the dewar, 1 
> 1/2" of foam, a (now) floating aluminum radiation shield, 1 1/2" foam, 10' of 
> air, and an R19 house wall or R30 roof.  
> 
   Especially in winter, inside air humidity is strongly correlated
with outside air temperature.  Perhaps??

    -steve behling

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: dandrews@bilver.uucp (Dave Andrews)
Subject: Re: Fractional State Hydrogen Atoms
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:10:46 GMT

In article <01GT8EGK7KMQ0001WC@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>John Logajan asks:
>
>>Has any more theoretical or experimental data come foward to decide whether
>>such forms of hydrogen represent biological hazards?  Or are they essentially
>>inert?
> 
>No more theoretical work.  I can't comment on the experimental data.  As
>far as we can tell they do not represent a biological hazard.

Can you say whether or not you have found a way to CONTAIN the little buggers?

- David Andrews
  dandrews@bilver.oau.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchi's neutrons
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:42:41 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University


In "A straw man & Calorimeter drift", Jed Rothwell raises the point that
Yamaguchi "got a million [neutrons] per second for several seconds" whereas
I  "got a few dozen, " and "It seems to me that he has a lot more going for him
than you do. ... You see a spark, they see a bonfire.  What's the matter with
that?"

My colleague Howard Menlove, Fellow of the Los Alamos National Lab., visited
Yamaguchi late in 1992.  Howard has worked for decades on neutron detection,
and with the BYU group on measuring neutrons from deuterided solids.  The
numbers of neutrons he reports for random neutron emissions are consistent
with those we found:
"Experiments using high-efficiency neutron detectors have detected neutron
emission from various forms of Pd and Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas cells
and D2O electrolysis cells.  Four independent neutron detectors based on 3He
gas tubes were used. ... For the random emission yields, the levels (approx.
0.08 n/s) were similar to the yields reported by Jones et al." [in Nature]
[Quoted from Menlove et al., J. Fusion En. 9: 495-506, Dec. 1990.]

Following his visit to Yamaguchi's lab (NTT, Japan), Howard said Yamaguchi's
neutron detection system consisted of a pair of health-physics counters.
(I can imagine Dick Blue groaning at the news.)    The
neutron-detection efficiency of each is about 10E-6.  Thus, the detection of
a million neutrons per second is near the sensitivity of these rather
crude detectors.  By contrast, Menlove's detectors have a n-detection
efficiency of 30-40% (typically).  Howard told me that Yamaguchi's neutron 
counter technique was "unimpressive."  He did not believe 
Yamaguchi's claims of neutron detection at levels a million times ours, 
and neither should you.

But Yamaguchi's experiments are front page news in Japan.  If you buy the
NTT cold-fusion kit for a mere $565,000 (J. Wall Street 11/27/92), which is
based on Yamaguchi's experiments,
you might want to get a better neutron-detection system.

Also, note that even at 10E6 n/s, fusion would generate only about a microwatt
of heating  -- not measurable by current calorimetry experiments.  That is,
even if we believed Yamaguchi's claims of a million n/s, this is not enough
by far to account for macroscopic xs heat.

-- Steve
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri,  8 Jan 1993 16:04:36 -0500 
From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Tritium in Magma?

I've only caught the tail end of some discussion on the presence of
tritium in material from the Earth's core and allusions to its
indicating fusion occurs in the core.  I seem to recall that there is a
branch in uranium and thorium fission which leads to production of
tritium.  Is this point irrelevant?

Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: List
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:15:55 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan7.181458.5320@isus.UUCP> hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes:
]It has been pulsed with 1000V high current pulses once a second for a while
](interesting and spectacular display of red plasma--this probably creates
]ultrasonic shock waves. It was violent enough I was worried about shattering
]the container. It also created a black sediment of unknown composition);

Err... Hoyt... 1000V is enough to create a some amount of
self targetted fusion - have you noticed whether or not you glow in the
dark? Has your cat been complaining about neutron poisoning lately?
How about your neighbors (fortunately there is about 1/2 mile of
mountain and a mile of air between your house and mine :-)

Without a calorimeter, what are you measuring?

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Clinton: "Read my lips: We will bring utopia, at no cost to you!" - -
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 677
Reply-To: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:45:52 GMT

 DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov  writes
 
>Farrell says "I remind you that Droege was getting excess heat without the
>recombiner."  I was getting it with the recombiner too, John.  See 2) above.
>So can you explain the sequence?  I will be the first to admit that my
>experiments were not very good.  But not quite rubbish. (I know you did not
>call them rubbish, John.)  At the time I figured it would have taken about six
>months to do a good experiment.  I could not see a reason to try.
> 
>Tom Droege

1.  I did not call your experiments rubbish.  I did call your statement
that "Mills was a moving target" rubbish.  Mills was simply trying to help
you with an experiment that he did not recommend.

2.  I cannot explain your result (2).  I'll add it to the list of things
that I don't understand.

For what it is worth, I recommend, once again, that you not use a
recombiner. I cite the following reasons:

1.  The danger of explosion. 

2.  It is harder to get the excess heat.  Maybe it is contamination.  Maybe
it is H2 pressure.  There may be other reasons.  Mills has not spent much
time or effort on recombiners.

3.  If you get 50% excess heat with a recombiner you will be surprised that
people will still not believe it.  They will say that it is a chemical
reaction, heat transfer problems, cosmic ray interactions, and god knows
what all.

4.  The heat value of the recombination process is small compared to the
excess heat that can be produced.

The proposals (from the net and from private communications from net
readers) for demonstration of this process are under consideration by
HydroCatalysis Power Corporation and Thermacore.  My guess is that it will
not happen for a month or two.  At which time, the demo will be so
convincing that there will be no question of the energy producing potential
of this process.

A note to Dick Blue.  Keep your dust bin handy.

Best regards,

John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College




Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: Electrolyte gases as an overlooked variable
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Summary: Forgot one
Keywords: cold fusion
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:14:13 GMT

In article <19199@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>Summary Table
>Steady State Partial Pressure of Gas after Long Term Operation
>
>Type of Cell                             O2        N2        H2
>
>1  No recombiner, completely open        20        80        trace
>2  No recombiner, bubbler or orifice     33        none      66
>3  Recombiner, bubbler                  >50       <50        trace
>4  Recombiner, orifice                   20        80        trace
>5  Recombiner, syringe or bellows        60        40        trace
>
I think you forgot one: My Pd Pt cell has a hydrocap recombiner,
and was evacuated after Pd charging.  The head pressure is very low.

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com -| Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates__________|
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A real wire
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:44:40 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <9AFE0CEE377FA0C463@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz
<BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes...

>Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan):
> 
>>The result is that in the earths atmosphere, a sphere of about 15" in diameter
>>is require to hold a voltage potential of 1,000,000 volts without causing
>>electrical breakdown in the air due to high near surface gradients, while
>>it only requires a wire of about 2" in diameter to transport 1,000,000 volts
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>along a high tension power grid with causing electrical breakdown of the air.
> 
>Now that is what I call a real wire! Would that be silver, John?
>Sorry, I couldn't resist.

	Older books (1930s) show hollow conductor (drawn interlocking segments)
	for 100KV and up.  More currently (8)>>) clusters of two, three, or
	four smaller (~1") conductors spaced 6-12" are used, with spacer
	brackets to maintain the interval.  They simulate a larger
	conductor well enough for practical purposes.  Aluminum is common.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Electrons in fractures
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:42:07 GMT


Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu

<... quite a long posting, almost a JR unit... {:]  >

>I have one more question relating of fractofusion, bubbles, and
>non-equilibrium.  Suppose by hook or crook I do produce a transient
>electric field in the presence of some deuterons and some electrons.
>What keeps the electrons sitting still while the deuterons accelerate
>to velocities high enough to induce fusion?  I have always be taught
>that a mass ratio of roughly 4000:1 would leave the deuterons sitting
>still while the electrons rushed off to cancel the field.  Of course
>that is old fashioned theory.

Having said all that stuff in my last posting about words, I nevertheless
reckon this is brilliant, and I wish I had thought of it! Fractofusion
demolished in a sentence, it seems. Just like Frank Close's demolition of
Bockris's dendrite theory, in one brilliant sentence. I would like to be able
to refer to this, Dick - but the NEWS net is not a "real" reference. How about
dressing this up as a note to some journal? Nature might even take it as a
Letter, they have published a fracto-related paper. Wouldn't take you too long
to write a short Letter, would it? Come on, Dick.

How about it, you solid state experts out there? Is there any reason for this
to be wrong? Is there something to make electrons stick tighter to the lattice
than deuterons, i.e. harder to eject across a crack? I'd say not, look at
vacuum tubes (there are some of us, Tom, who remember them). How come
everybody writing about fractofusion has overlooked this? Prof. Jones, does
this not also apply to piezofusion, or is that an entirely different effect? I
must look up that paper to refresh my memory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion