1995.06.02 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Result of $700 vote
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Result of $700 vote
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 09:34:56 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 1 Jun 1995, Robert Virzi wrote:

> >Griggs
> >Russian device
> >Patterson/Cravens
> >Dr. Pons' Little Water Heater (just joking, I think)
> 
> Dieter, great job on the vote!  Results seem pretty clear.  I would suggest
> that before we select a device to purchase, we come up with some numbers
> as to what each would cost.  Perhaps Griggs would give us a discount.  ;-)
> 
> In any case, once we establish what each would cost, we should select one,
> and commence any fund raising needed to obtain the device.  Let's make the
> choice on technical merit, tempered with knowledge of what it would actually
> cost to aquire the unit.  I would personally make a further contribution,
> and I believe others have indicated the same sentiment as well.
> 
> So, do we have at least MSRP for the devices under consideration?  

I don't know what an MSRP is but I have some information about the Russian
device. It seems that the smallest costs about $260 and the biggest, $800.
So I guess we can afford a medium sized one (adding shipping charges from
wherever) without more money. If we're interested, I think I can get the
necessary details from my source. I also have an enthusiastic YES from Scott
Little; he is raring to get his hands on such a machine to test.
Do we need to vote, or can we just go ahead and organise a Russian machine
for Scott? Scott, how's your Russian? You know, "when in doubt, read the
manual"... 

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 08:37:33 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <conrad.802021616@skid.ps.uci.edu>,
Conrad <conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:
>
>>"Conspiricy" is in the eye of the beholder. There can be forces that
>>individually add up to a de facto conspiricy in which the parties
>>never conspired to conspire but their actions total up as though they had.
>>(Idon't know whether that's clearly stated or not -- english *is* my
>>first language :-)   )
>
>>It seems to me the "conspiricy" theory is all that makes Wallace's work
>>extreme -- the way you interpret it. Stated the way I interpret it, it is
>>simply the truth.
>
>Part of Wallace's conspiracy theory implies the JPL scientists lie
>about how they calculate orbits.  He claims they must use "his
>theory", while in the published literature, JPL scientists state that
>they do take GR into account.  I don't think this is something you can
>describe as a passive conspiracy.  This one of many reasons I find
>Wallace's claims totally unbelieveable.  His work is also extreme
>because his version of physics is clearly in conflict with well
>established physics.
>
>>You have to be kidding. You must be living in a different universe than I 
>>do. I have presented A VERY COGENT thesis that is self consistent AND 
>>consistent with empiricism. It is sraightforward and explains much that
>>cannot be explained by the present model.
>
>I have not followed the threads associated with your theory, but from
>what I have seen, your work conflicts with QED, and QED has been
>successfully verified by many high precision measurements.  This leads
>me to believe that your "VERY COGENT" thesis is wrong.
>
>For example, you claim that photons have an invariant mass,

(I would suggest that rather than follow the thread, read the work itself.
It's posted, this newsgroup, separately.)

As to the invariant mass of the photon. My claim is that *the individual
quantum comprising the photon is invariant.* But photons are comprised
of a multiplicity of quanta; therefore the photon is variable (by creation
and by Doppler effect.)


 >but recent
>work has established that the upper limit on the photon rest mass is
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WAIT A MINUTE! Everyone's been pounding me on the head for taking the
position there is a rest mass for the photon -- I've been accused of
heresy. Now what's this, blythly quoting the PRL -- as a matter fact?

Let's set that aside. The figure given, 10^-48 gr is *very* interesting.
As I have stated, in my theory the individual basic constituent of the
photon is  "*the* quantum". Twenty years ago I worked out that the mass
of said quantum was 7.37203854 x 10^-48 gr.

For years I've watched as experimental refinements kept approaching this
figure.

There is one problem. The experimenters refer to that mass as the
*upper limit* of the photon, when it is in fact the *lower* limit.
(of the *photon* but upper limit of the quantum)! 

There is no lower mass (of the quantum) for it is the fundamental
building block of the universe.

>10^{-48} gm, Fischbach etal, PRL, 73, #4, p514, 25-July-94.  This
>upper limit is 21 orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of the
>electron.  What is the minimum invariant mass of the photon in your
>theory?

7.37 x 10^-48 gr.

>>There are predictions, you simply must look closely for them.
>
>Since you are proposing a radical new theory, I think the onus is on
>you to provide clear cut predictions and experimental tests that
>distinguish your theory from current physics.
>--
For one, you could say that I predicted the above 20 years ago.

Regards,

New Paradigm Vergon





> //===============================\\
>||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
>||   You have to decide to live.   ||
> \\===============================//


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update (maybe a repost)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update (maybe a repost)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 10:20:48 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

I thought I posted the following on Monday, by emailing it to the Fusion
Digest list. I have not seen it appear yet, however. I hesitate to
repost it but I do it here; after so many days, I think something must have
gone wrong with it. If this appears twice, my apologies.

Starry droogs,

Here comes a small collection of stuff I have accumulated while too busy to do
an update. We have a few papers, a peripheral, a patent and a book. Jones et
al at last have their critical papers published, and while one might find some
of the points raised a trifle nit-picky, they seem pretty sound to me, and we
no longer have iron-clad cases for helium commensurate with excess heat. In
fact, I had not noticed the 10-fold increase in the amount of helium stated by
Miles et al, for the same data in two separate publications; I wonder how this
increase is explained? Similarly, there may well have been unaccounted-for
recombination in electrolytic cells where the heat of water electrolysis has
been subtracted. I do feel that there are still some results where even 100%
recombination still leaves some excess heat, or (as in Belzner et al) where
that heat never was subtracted, i.e.  100% recombination was allowed for. But
a large number of excess heat claims have now been put in doubt.

The Kuehne and Sioda is a bit amazing. I checked with a colleague to make sure
I wasn't reading the paper incorrectly, and it is true that - like a few
before them (e.g. AbuTaha), these authors invoke energetic cracks as a source
of heat, apparently unaware of the fact that these cracks need input power to
be formed in the first place. This sort of effect can only apply to
instantaneous heat, which of course is not "excess", having been swallowed at
some time before the release; in other words, if the experimenter integrates
over time, the result is zero. How did Fusion Technol.'s referees miss this
fatal weakness, and were there in fact referees? There is an all-Japanese
paper by Kunimatsu that appears to be a small review; I cite the Chem.
Abstracts abstract and what I can see in the paper in the way of figures. Pity
I don't know any Japanese. The Lipson et al's items continue the Russian
preoccupation with ferroelectrics (both theoretical and experimental, now
finding gamma rays), and Tisenko raises an interesting and audacious point: We
have, with tongue in cheek, suggested that the reason that neutron etc signals
go down with background noise, may be that it is that noise that sets 'cold
fusion' going; Tisenko suggests this in all seriousness, having some slight
results to support him. Hm.  Believe it or don't, as Ripley used to say.

We have a few patents, never really exciting. The Chikuma is amusing, though.
You have seen suggestions for varying ways to stimulate samples into fusing;
well, this patent applies the lot - electric curent, sparks, heating, laser
light, ultrasonics, you name it. I guess if this doesn't make it fuse, nothing
will.

The Czerwinski peripheral might interest a few, being a straight
electrochemical study, and there are, I believe, a few proton conduction
freaks reading the group, who will want that Russian mammoth paper translated.
At 35 pages, I didn't feel like translating it, too much work at a time when I
am very busy (I'm writing all this at home on a Sunday).

Lastly, the Kervran book. I include it under 'cold fusion' books, quite
rightly I reckon, it is no more kooky than several others already in that
list.

Journal Papers: Current count = 984
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Deryagin BV, Andriankin EI, Kutikov AA, Lipson AG, Sakov DM, Fedorovich GV;   
Dokl, Akad. Nauk 336 (1994) 753 (in Russian).
"On the initiation of the nuclear fusion reaction in deuterated ferroelectric
at its polarisation reversal induced by an electric field".  ** Theory,
ferroelectrics, polarisation reversal, fractofusion, res+ The Deryagin team
here theoretically underpins its previous experimental findings of cold fusion
in ferroelectrics due to polarisation reversal induced by an externally applied
electric field. The old standby DKDP (KD2PO4) as well as some other
ferroelectrics are taken as examples. The idea is that polarisation reversal
causes abrupt changes in the crystal ions' oscillation and thus oscillating
electric fields in the crystal. This inturn can lead to deuteron acceleration.
Energies of several hundreds eV might be achieved in DKDP and
Ba(0.4)Sr(0.6)Nb2O6 and Pb titanate, and it seems that fusion is feasible as a
result in these ferroelectrics. These results agree with experimental results
reported in previous publications from this laboratory.  Jan-94/?
#...................................................................... May-95
Jones JE, Hansen LD, Jones SE, Shelton DS, Thorne JM;
J. Phys. Chem. 99 (1995) 6973.
** Polemic and experimental, excess heat is an artifact, res-
The Jones team has been stating for some time that claims of excess heat are
due to poor calorimetry and in many cases recombination of evolved deuterium
with oxygen. If the heat of water electrolysis is then subtracted, this leads
to inflated estimates of excess heat. Here they report their own experiments,
using both Ni/light water, as well as conventionsl Pd/heavy water cells. They
find excess heat if they do not take care to separate the evolved gases; if
they do, however, or flush the cells with nitrogen, the excess heat goes to
zero, thus supporting their criticism. They do address one case of excess heat
greater than the applied cell power (by Mills et al); however, calorimetric
error is likely in this case.  Sep-94/May-95
#...................................................................... May-95
Jones SE, Hansen LD;  J. Phys. Chem. 99 (1995) 6966.
"Examination of claims of Miles et al in Pons-Fleischmann-Type cold fusion
experiments".
** Polemic, excess heat, helium correlation, res-
Reacting to criticism by Jones, Miles has challenged Jones to show why the
previous results of Miles et al, which appeared to show evidence of excess
heat/ helium correlation, are not reliable. Jones and Hansen comply here.  They
point out many weaknesses in the several reports by Miles et al, all throwing
strong doubts on the excess heat, the helium, as well as any correlation
between them. There has been data selection and overconfident conclusions from
poor data, it seems. Claims of x-rays, too, are highly doubtful. Sep-94/May-95
#....................................................................... May-95
Kuehne RW, Sioda RE;  Fusion Technol. 27 (1995) 187.
"An extended micro hot fusion model for burst activity in deuterated solids".
** Theory/speculation, fractofusion, bursts, res+
This paper describes a model that the authors believe can explain all the
disparate observations of 'cold fusion'. Cracks with up to 10 keV energies can
be formed in PdD and K&S state that 10 keV ions have been detected and d-d
fusion can occur. The cracks can become hot spots, explaining heat generation,
while some nuclear reactions are initiated simultaneously, thus explaining the
heat/nuclear products anomaly. The authors appear unaware that the hot spots
require energy input, so this model falls flat.  Feb-93/Mar-95
#...................................................................... May-95
Kunimatsu K;  Petrotech. (Tokyo) 17(12)(1994) 998 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 122:224620 (1995).
"Current status of room-temperature nuclear fusion. Excess heat measurement".
** Small review, 12 refs.
"A review with 12 refs is given on measurement of excess heat related to cold
fusion using an electrolytic method comprising open-type water electrolysis,
and fuel cell type heavy water electrolysis". (From CA).  One notes figures out
of Fleischmann & Pons's papers showing excess heat bursts, a calibration curve
of R/Ro vs loading for PdH and PdD (both extending to loading of 1), the famous
SRI figure of excess heat vs loading with many data points, showing an
exponential-like relation, a cold fusion electrolysis cell (presumably
Kunimatsu's) and (his own?) excess heat vs loading figure (much steeper
relation).
#....................................................................... May-95
Lipson AG, Sakov DM; Tech. Phys. Lett. 20 (1994) 954.
(Originally in Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 20 (1994) 46).
"Increase in the intensity of the external neutron flux in the irradiation of a
KD2PO4 crystal at the point of the ferroelectric transition".
** Ferroelectric, background effect, experimental, res+
This paper addresses the frequent observation that as the neutron background
radiation level decreases, so does the observed neutron emission level in 'cold
fusion' experiments. The authors irradiate a sample of deuterated
ferroelectric, KD2PO4, with a range of neutron flux levels and measure its
emissions. These are indeed correlated with and about 10% above, the input
fluxes, thereby confirming the proposition. Moreover, an anisotropy in the
emissions is observed, supposed to have to do with crystal axes.  Sep-94/Dec-94
#....................................................................... May-95
Lipson AG, Bardyshev II, Sakov DM; Tech. Phys. Lett. 20 (1994) 957.
(Originally in Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 20 (1994) 53).
"Generation of hard gamma-radiaiton in KD2PO4 single crystals during the
ferroelectric phase transition".
** Experimental, ferroelectrics, gamma, res+
Continuing with their study of fractofusion in ferroelectrics around the Curie
point, the team here measures gamma emissions from the title substance (called
DKDP by the authors) single crystals put through cooling/heating cycles. Gamma
ray background was measured before, between and after the experiments, and all
measurements were taken with a high-purity Ge detector calibrated with a 60Co
source. The ferroelectric phase transition has a maximum around the Curie
point, 221K, and in the range 212-222K, a clear gamma excess over the
background is reported. Previously, tritium and neutrons have been observed
with this system. After about 10 temp. cycles, the crystals deteriorated,
presumably due to cracking, and the emission curves distorted. The gamma
emissions were at 3.5-4.5 MeV, consistent with 4He formation, in its excited
state, by d-d fusion.  Sep-94/Dec-94
#...................................................................... May-95
Tisenko YuA; Russ. Phys. J. 37 (1994) 590.
(Originally in Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Fiz. (1994)(6) 90).
"Possible ways to achieve cold fusion. III".
** Theory, glow discharge, res+
Continuing his series of speculative calculations on how to bring forth 'cold
fusion', T here proposes charging small (0.1 mm) PdD particles to MV voltages,
and then exposing them to a low-pressure deuterium atmosphere. This would cause
a glow discharge and deuteron ions, which might then accelerate towards the
particle and, hitting it, lead to some d-d fusion. T then does some rough
calculations of the mimimum particle radius required for this to happen, from
several different models, which roughly agree with each other. T concludes that
the idea is feasible.  Apr-92/Jun-94
#....................................................................... May-95

Patents: Current count = 187
^^^^^^^
#
Arnaud G;  Fr. Demande FR 2,708,779, 25-Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 122:225011 (1995).
"Device for nuclear fusion of hydrogen isotopes induced by ultrasound".
** "An app. is described for the use of thermal energy released by nuclear
fusion of D when heavier nuclides are produced. The device comprises a
hydridable sonotrode, e.g. Ti. At its low extremity, the sonotrode is drilled
to make a chamber which contains an electrode. The D is fed into the device
and a dielec. coolant fluid encircles the chamber. Nuclear fusion is produced
inside the sonotrode which is penetrated by the H isotope. Two combined
effects are manifested upon fusion: the pressure and the relaxation of the
metal provoked by the propagation of ultrasound and electromagnetic induction
due to the voltage applied between the electrode and the sonotrode. The app.
is completed by a liq./gas phase separator, and exhaust vent for the escape of
the reaction gases and the liq. coolant reservoir". (Direct quote from CA).
#...................................................................... May-95
Chikuma T; Eur. Pat. Appl.  EP 645,777, 27-Sep-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 122:250505 (1995).
"Cold nuclear fusion apparatus".
** "A cold nuclear fusion app. which is high in com. value is described, where
the screening effect and a cooperative phenomenon are enhanced for a substance
undergoing nuclear fusion after being occluded into an occlusion member to
promote a nuclear fusion reaction and the time, the magnitude, etc. of the
occurrence of nuclear fusion can be controlled. An excitation app. for
promoting nuclear fusion of a substance occluded in a reactor in a reaction
vessel from the outside is provided in close contact with a portion of the
reactor. The excitation app. includes >= 1 of a battery, a magnetic flux
generator, a heating unit, an ultrasonic wave generator, a laser light irradn.
app. and a high-voltage discharge app. Also, a confinement app. for preventing
the substance, occluded in the occlusion member and undergoing fusion, from
escaping to the outside of the occlusion member is provided".  (Direct quote
from CA).
#...................................................................... May-95

Peripherals: Current count = 94
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Czerwinski A, Maruszczak G, Zelazowska M, Lancucka M, Marassi R, Zamponi S;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 386 (1995) 207.
** Another in the series of fundamental studies of the electrochemistry of the
Pd/H2O (or D2O) system. Here, the team looks at alkali metal ion effects, and
finds some, to do with underpotential deposition of these metal ions.
#...................................................................... May-95
Inozemtsev MV, Neuimin AD, Palkin AP;
Ionika Tverd. Tela 1993, 81 (in Russian).
" Solid protonic electrolytes and equilibrium potentials of hydrogen
electrodes in electrochemical cells based on them".
** 35 page long paper on solid proton conductors.
#...................................................................... May-95

Books: Current count = 12
^^^^^
#
Kervran L; "Biological Transmutations". English version by M. Abehsera.
Swan House Publishing Co., Brooklyn, NY, 1972.
** This is a condensation of several books originally written by Louis Kervran
in French. Kervran starts by pointing out the (his) experimental "observation"
that chickens not fed calcium nevertheless lay eggs with shells, and that CO
was formed in the blood of some miners although not present, and other
"observations". The Ca is formed by the addition (fusion) reaction K + H -->
Ca and the CO from proton swapping between the two atoms in dinitrogen in the
blood. Kervran in fact proposes a whole zoo of addition as well as subtraction
reactions, in blithe disregard (presumably ignorance) of the accompanying
energetic emissions that would result or energy they would require. The book
portraits Kervran as a respected and highly placed French scientist and it
seems he was invited to give lectures on his theories to many medical
students, whose (famous) professors were baffled by these effects until
Kervran explained all.
#....................................................................... May-95



How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

---  Dieter Britz   alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / John Seney /  WWW Cold Fusion Home Page
     
Originally-From: john@wd1v.mv.com (John Seney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WWW Cold Fusion Home Page
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 09:59:06 GMT
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.

If you'd like additional current data regarding Cold Fusion, try

http://www.mit.edu:8001/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/rei/WWW/CFdir/CFhome.html

Some of the articles there include:

A Cold Fusion Primer
Infinite Energy
Cold Fusion  What It Does
Cold Fusion and New Energy Technology

Best regards,

-- 

==================================================================
John D. Seney, WD1V                Internet:      john@wd1v.mv.com
144 Pepperidge Drive        America On Line:        jseney@aol.com
Manchester, NH 03103-6150         AX.25 Pkt: wd1v@wb1dsw.nh.usa.na     
(H) 603-668-1096                   Ampernet:    wd1v@wd1v.ampr.org              
(O) 603-627-6303      (F) 603-627-1623    (P) 800-SKYPAGE #5956779                    
               * Source for Digital Scope.FAQ                 
*To obtain the latest copy automatically, simply send me an EMAIL 
       with "subscribe scope.faq" in the subject field.
==================================================================


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSeney cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 06:45:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3qg40p$brp@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <D9BpFs.JzC@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)  
>writes:
>
>> 
>> There is a fair amount of evidence for the generation of ball lightnings
>> within high pressure dust vents that are associated with volcanoes
>> and also generate a significant amount of localized atmospheric electricity
>> around the vents, which is probably due to triboelectrostatic charging.  
>> 
>> In fact some of the largest balls and longest lived balls, ever formed
>> and observed, have been generated by this mechanism.  Diameters of 
>> several meters (after expansion to ambient [near STP] conditions is 
>> made)  have been observed and these have had lifetimes, at least in 
>> one case of two hours.  

>Any references for such accounts?

Ahh!! .. actually, no.  I remembered this stuff from the first International
BL meeting in Tokyo, but when I checked the proceedings, all that is
listed is E. Bach as an attendee with no inclusion of his presentation 
in the proceedings. 
He is the volcanologist that had made it a point to study atmospheric
electricity events associated with volcanoes, and carefully investigated
court records in the Russia (the Czars) and also the heavies in Japan.  
I remember he came from CA and I think had a ranch of some kind.  Anyway, 
perhaps Stan Singer may know of his whereabouts or may even have some 
of his papers.   Stan lives in LA.  

I notice that Golka's presentation also was NOT included in the proceedings,
and there may have been others.  

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 07:13:50 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3qgpsn$i1n@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <R8wfctE.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: 
>> A few years ago, a Congressman asked me if I could suggest a change to the
>> hot fusion funding bill....I suggested that they find some paying customers

>Second, Jed is essentially right that the potential customers should
>pay for the fusion R & D---and indeed they do right now. Its called
>Taxes. Of course, I suggest there should be an energy tax specifically
>that is used to fund future energy research. 1% or so would support all the
>needed energy research---even throw in cold fusion---quite nicely.

I don't think so.  They are paying for fusion research, and fusion research,
and fusion research, ... ad infinitum, and there is no incentive to 
ever get there to develop the damn promise so it seems like more bs than
a possible reality.  Besides 1% is ENTIRELY TOO MUCH considering our 
present USA pickle where we now have very little left in discretionary 
funds.  So really Barry, your 1% is effectively a considerably higher 
percentage once the mandatory bills are paid.  Besides, there is no 
threat that if you don't produce fusion you die or go out of business.  
And even if that is eventually true, the incentive is too remote to be 
felt by coddled government paid or protected employees (including non-
profit org.s' operated labs for the DoE).   

So it seems to me we have a fusion program that has been bathed in funds 
and has grown to suck the funds all up and yet the fusion machine is 
still feels hungry  " feed me"  Feed Me",  "FEED ME   NOW",  and, still,
apparently it is unable to deliver commercial fusion until the usual 
"next generation".  What is that?  -- A kind of pot at the end of the 
rainbow.  The more you think you move toward the goal the larger it 
gets or the faster it seems to move away.  

So except for the colleges and universities, I would say fusion is
out for the school boys, and it's time that private industry, farmers 
and engineers of this country have a crack at it.  

               Or as the Aggie's say "Move over, BUB!".  

Although us yankee's prefer "bud".  
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
Date: 2 Jun 1995 05:03:15 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D9Io2E.AuK@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)  
writes:
> 
>   Was this translated too?  Is it relevant where Dr. F is for the
> physics of fusion in the solid state?
> 

Presumably if you were making great progress on the 
biggest discovery since fire, you would spend a little
time in the lab...


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  What has Arnie Frisch seen?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What has Arnie Frisch seen?
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:00:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I suggested that arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) examine the scientific
literature on cold fusion. He responded:
 
    "What I've seen does not qualify as "literature" in the scientific sense."
 
Uh, huh. Sure. Tell us please, what you have "seen?" Seen in what sense? Do
you mean that you have read some crackpot comments about papers here from
other people who have not read them? Or do you mean you have actually sat
down and read the literature. If you have, please list two or three recent
papers you have read. What did you think of McKubre's paper in the J.
Electroanal. Chemistry?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Griggs test rig not available
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs test rig not available
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:01:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) writes:
 
    " . . .if memory serves me right, there was to be another visit
    (self-funded) scheduled among the newgroup participants to the
    Griggs facility. They were to actively take measurements and arrive
    at independant conclusions to be announced. Has this taken place?"
 
No. The test rig at the Hydro Dynamics factory is not available. It has
been disassembled for a few months. Part of it is in another lab, and part
is set up at a carpet and fabric industry trade show. The machines and
instruments will probably not be back in Rome, GA in one place until mid-July
at the earliest.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Potapov device costs far more than $700
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov device costs far more than $700
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:01:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

People have commented here that the Potapov device might be tested for
$700 or so. This estimate is at least one order of magnitude too low. I wrote
that the core of the machine can be purchased for $260 "in quantity." This is
a business term meaning "when you buy a lot of them at one time." That does
not mean you can buy just one machine at that price. Furthermore, I meant
F.O.B. Kishinev, Moldavia. Getting things from Moldavia costs a great deal
of money. I also said you need pumps and other hardware, all of which costs
much more than $700.
 
Some readers of this forum are not observant, and they tend to go off on a
tangent on skimpy, incomplete information and guesswork. There is no
possibility that anyone in North American could test the Potapov device for
a mere $700. Several people in N. America and Europe have tested it, and
they have found it works, but they paid a lot more than $700.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / M D /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 2 Jun 1995 14:18:10 +0100
Organization: University of Leicester, UK

In article <vergonD9HsAt.LuI@netcom.com>,
Vertner Vergon <vergon@netcom.com> wrote:
[discussing Wallaces theories]

>>Sufficient evidence to change his mind has been posted repeatedly, and
>>discarded.
>
>He could say the same about you, no?

I'm sorry? If theres been substantive evidence that I've missed, its
unfortunate - all I've seen is 'soundbyte' quotes from big name physicists and
a flat dismissal of current hypotheses without supplying grounds. The few
competent physicists that have asked questions (I'm not qualified myself) have
been totally ignored.

He posts a theory.
Data is supplied that disproves his theory.
He ignores the data and continues to promote his theory undeterred.

Should I stop regretting the fact that he conveninetly ignores data to save his
pet idea, and accept it just as he does, merely because he posts it a lot (490+
times, at last count)?

>I have received his book and have only read part of it so am at a 
>disadvantage there. Also, I have *not* been following the thread
>assiduously. But I have read enough to know that he has a very valid point.

And that point is?

>"Conspiricy" is in the eye of the beholder. There can be forces that
>individually add up to a de facto conspiricy in which the parties
>never conspired to conspire but their actions total up as though they had.
>(Idon't know whether that's clearly stated or not -- english *is* my
>first language :-)   )

Ah, *thats* the point. So, the reason he ignores the questions posed by
physicists is that they are part of this global conspiracy that is hiding 'true
physics' so they can keep their research grants in the old 'false' physics,
right? And they falsify the data from the accelerators they build based on this
'false' physics (which obviously can't work, right?) just to keep up their
champagne lifestyle...

The really clever part, outlined above, is that they are *all* doing this
independantly. Theres no global conspiracy, just a global collection of
'conspiracies of one' - every scientist is actually secretly terrified of being
found out by his peers as a fraud, and all the others are _also_ terrified.
Fortunately, until Wallace, no _honest_ men or women have ever given any
thought to physics, just this collection of neurotics, so the conspiracy has
never broken.

Errr, who is it that he quotes to support his theories? Oh yes, these
conspirators, right. I guess he must quote them from the days when they slip up
and let a little bit of the truth out, before they get the mask back in place
and hope no-one noticed...

If I've these two options - a) accept that all current science is fraud, or
b)  Wallace is paranoid, then you must excuse me if I make the choice that
seems more reasonable to me.

Of course, I'm a scientist, therefore by definition part of this conspiracy. My
payment for writing this misinformation post is even now waiting for me in the
hollow tree on Victoria Park, along with my next set of instructions from my
control at the Council for the Repression of All Physics.

>It seems to me the "conspiricy" theory is all that makes Wallace's work
>extreme -- the way you interpret it. Stated the way I interpret it, it is
>simply the truth.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not in the world I live in. It may be in yours, I can't say...

>>>And it is true that scientists are really very conservative. It will be
>>>impossible to be accepted with perpetum mobile even if you really haw one.
>>
>>Rubbish. 
>
>Double rubbish. Simply not true.

Should I say triple rubbish now?
Science has in the past said "Man would die of suffocation if he moved faster
than 20 miles an hour", "Man will never fly", "Man will never reach the moon",
"there will never be talking movies" (OK, the last was DeMille, not common
scientific thought). Did science curl up and die when these proved wrong after
further work? OK, science currently says "A perpetual motion device is not
possible". Show me why *this* assertion will still hold even if someone holds
up a device and shows it to everyone, when these others failed when the
'impossible' was done.

Of course, I think the previous 'impossibles' weren't based on rigorous science
but more on the prejudices of their promulgators. The last one is objective,
based on laws discovered so far. 

>You have to be kidding. You must be living in a different universe than I 
>do. I have presented A VERY COGENT thesis that is self consistent AND 
>consistent with empiricism. It is sraightforward and explains much that
>cannot be explained by the present model.

We werent talking about your thesis, but it had to creep in somewhere, yes?
And because it is VERY COGENT (in caps, yet), it _must_ be true.
Cogent to whom? Falsifiable?

A question occurs: Are your ideas and Wallaces consistent?

>The biggest respone? Ignore it.

i.e. read it, see what it is worth, treat it appropriately.
(but let the author think its still true)

>The second biggest respone? Ridicule it -- speciously.

i.e. read it, see what its worth, and try to convey to the author your opinion
of the sort of mental gymnastics required to beleive this kind of drivel (i.e.
start from a universal repressive conspiracy and work up)

>The third biggest respone is to ignore a superior explanation of the 
>universe and to say, "where are the predictions? A theory is no good that
>doesn't predict."

Superior to whom? 

i.e. read it, and decide to deal politely with the author and allow him to
defend his theory as any other scientific idea is tested: through predictions,
or agreements with existing repeatable results etc.

>There are predictions, you simply must look closely for them.

List 'em. Maybe someone will get funding and do the test.

>A challenge: Why don't you take a look at my thesis (ON THE QUANTUM AS A
>PHYSICAL ENTITY) "take it to pieces and see how it works"  and let's take
>it from there. (I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we have a saying in
>Colonies: "Put you money where your mouth is" :-)    )

I certainly shall - but better physicists than me (I'm a biologist) have done
so and posted their conclusions... and been ignored.

>If you're too busy for that, I have posted an out of context description
>of the mechanism of the strong force along with the natural developing
>equation. So far, every answer to that post criticised and questioned
>ALL OTHER ASPECTS of the post and did not address itself to the subject
>of the post -- the description of the force and its equation.

Again, you need physicists for this. Any takers out there?


>True -- but what's "real"?

Well, i can only provide a relative, probabilistic definition:

Results produced independantly at labs seperated by distance language and
culture are more likely to be 'real' than the assumption that these results
have been falsified toward some unspecified end by a conspiracy for which no
evidence exists other than the results themselves.

>Regards,
>
>New Paradigm Vergon

M.

-- 
.sig test
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmdo4 cudfnM cudlnD cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Richard Blue /  Re: Still more Blue comments about Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more Blue comments about Cravens demo
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:17:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If we return to the basic physics which underlies the Cravens demo, I
would described the essential calorimetry set-up as a cell that is enclosed
by a boundary and several means for energy transport across that boundary.
In essence the experiment is supposed to show that there is a net flow of
energy outward across that boundary.

Two energy transport mechanisms are considered explicitely:  Electrical
energy flows into the cell and thermal energy flows outward being transported
in the flowing electrolyte.  It is the flowing electrolyte that makes the
Cravens experiment slightly different from other CF investigations so, perhaps,
we should give that feature some special consideration.

The flowing electrolyte offers the possibility of at least two other energy
transport mechanisms that are not commonly considered in CF investigations.
I have already pointed out that the fluid flow can do mechanical work to
deposite energy within the cell boundary.  A determination of that work
requires measurements of the pressure differential at essential the same
points where the temperature difference is determined.  The volume flow
rate must also be known.  We have been assured that the mechanical
input has been considered.

I would now like to suggest the possibility of another transport mechanism
associated with the flowing electrolyte.  Suppose the chemical composition
of the fluid exiting the cell is not identical to the composition of the
fluid that reenters?  Is it possible to construct a chemical heat engine
in which reversible changes of chemical state occur at two different points
in the fluid circuit, one point inside the cell boundary and one point
outside the cell boundary?

There are two parts of the Cravens demonstration that have never been
discussed in detail.  Since the electrolyte returns to the cell cooler
than when it exited there has to be some form of heat exchanger external
to the cell.  Did anyone examine the heat exchanger, and can they say
anything about it?  There is also an 8 micron filter of some sort according
to Jed.  I wonder what purpose that filter serves and what are the materials
used in its construction.  In fact I think it is essential to know something
about all the materials exposed to the flowing electrolyte.

While we are on the subject of chemical reactions, I too find nothing
strange about the the observation of copper plating or corrosion in the
Griggs device.   Try the following little experiment.  Into a beaker of
ordinary tap water insert samples of steel, aluminum, and copper or brass.
Let it sit for a few weeks.  The mystery for me has always been how
Griggs manages to limit the corrosion in his device to acceptable levels.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Richard Blue /  Misinformation about Pd
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misinformation about Pd
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:32:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Someone trying to make a case for saying the Pd has some special
nuclear properties suggested that it has an unusual number of
stable isotopes.  That simply is untrue as a brief scan of the
available data will show.  By my count the number of stable
isotope per chemical element in the mass range of Pd reveals the
following:

Pd 6, Cd 8, Sn 10, Te 8, Xe 9

Oh shucks! I may have let the cat out of the bag.  CF experiments
should not be run on Pd.  It is obviously Sn that has the magic
numbers!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Dieter Britz /  Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 16:53:24 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 2 Jun 1995, Barry Merriman wrote:

> In article <D9Io2E.AuK@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)  
> writes:
> > 
> >   Was this translated too?  Is it relevant where Dr. F is for the
> > physics of fusion in the solid state?
> > 
> 
> Presumably if you were making great progress on the 
> biggest discovery since fire, you would spend a little
> time in the lab...
> 

While I admit that the above looks like your interpretation, Barry, let's
hold off making judgements based on this; so far, it's a rumour. It would
be embarrassing, e.g., if it turned out that F is ill again and prefers to
get treatment at home. As for Pons, we had a rumour before, i.e. he was
supposed to have "disappeared" when in fact he had resigned properly in
order to take up his job in France. Too many rumours. If we were to find
out that Pons is indeed working on something else now, that would be
significant. So far, we don't know anything.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Dieter Britz /  Buying a device
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Buying a device
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 16:59:20 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

I guess Tom wouldn't suggest himself, and so far, there has only been
mention of Scott Little as the recipient of the device (or the money to
buy it). But Tom Droege would be another person to buy and test it. How
about it, Tom, and how about it, contributor/voters? Any other suggestions?

I'd like to speed this up a bit, so I take it upon myself to give y'all
just next week to make suggestions as to:

1. what should we buy (Potapov, Patterson, ??)
2. who should get it to test and report?

Then, the week after that, we can vote on it. I reckon a week is enough.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 /  parsec@worf.ne /  Re: Potapov device costs far more than $700
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.netins.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device costs far more than $700
Date: 2 Jun 1995 09:38:31 -0500
Organization: Iowa Network Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <RU5fkh2.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

<text deleted>

>Some readers of this forum are not observant, and they tend to go off on a
>tangent on skimpy, incomplete information and guesswork.

Silly us.

>There is no
>possibility that anyone in North American could test the Potapov device for
>a mere $700. Several people in N. America and Europe have tested it, and
>they have found it works, but they paid a lot more than $700.

Would any of these several people have names, adresses, telephone numbers?





cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenparsec cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Tom Droege /  Re: Result of $700 vote
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Result of $700 vote
Date: 2 Jun 1995 17:25:58 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950602092945.23363A-100000@kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> says:

(snip)

>I don't know what an MSRP is but I have some information about the Russian
>device. It seems that the smallest costs about $260 and the biggest, $800.
>So I guess we can afford a medium sized one (adding shipping charges from
>wherever) without more money. If we're interested, I think I can get the
>necessary details from my source. I also have an enthusiastic YES from Scott
>Little; he is raring to get his hands on such a machine to test.
>Do we need to vote, or can we just go ahead and organise a Russian machine
>for Scott? Scott, how's your Russian? You know, "when in doubt, read the
>manual"... 
>
>-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk
>

MSRP is Manufactures' Suggested Retail Price.  

I think we have authorization to proceed.  No further vote seems
necessary. 

Who do I send a check for the remaining funds to?  Why not Scott 
Little and let him do the purchasing?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Robert Virzi /  Re: Result of $700 vote
     
Originally-From: rv01@roger.gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Result of $700 vote
Date: 2 Jun 1995 17:32:46 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

Dieter Britz  <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>>On 1 Jun 1995, Robert Virzi wrote:
>> So, do we have at least MSRP for the devices under consideration?  
>
>I don't know what an MSRP is 

Sorry, but it is an American term, Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price,
which is a theoretical price that no one ever pays.  It is only used for
calculating discounts and savings by salesmen..

>I also have an enthusiastic YES from Scott
>Little; he is raring to get his hands on such a machine to test.

Excellent!

>Do we need to vote, or can we just go ahead and organise a Russian machine
>for Scott? 

Seems only fair to call for a vote.  I vote yes.  

Bob Virzi

-- 

  rvirzi@gte.com            Just another ascii character...
  +1(617)466-2881           

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrv01 cudfnRobert cudlnVirzi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Aaron Levinson /  A New List of Links for Nuclear Engineering!
     
Originally-From: Aaron Levinson <alevinsn@glhpx10.cen.uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A New List of Links for Nuclear Engineering!
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 12:59:35 -0500 (CDT)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


About a week ago, I finished this list of links, and it has been available
on the WWW for about that time.  In it, there is a variety of links to
information useful to Nuclear Engineering and the nuclear sciences. 
Particularly, there is a large section devoted specifically to fusion and
its numerous approaches.  Everything is organized and easy to find.  If you'd
like to check it out, the URL is: 

http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/ans/ans_links.html

Also, if you were wondering, I created this list for the University of 
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ANS Student Chapter.  The actual homepage for 
the chapter is not finished yet, but it should be done some time soon.

			Aaron Levinson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenalevinsn cudfnAaron cudlnLevinson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Harry Conover /  Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
Date: 2 Jun 1995 19:59:06 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:

: If we were to find
: out that Pons is indeed working on something else now, that would be
: significant. So far, we don't know anything.

Rumor has it that electrochemical transmutation of Pb into Au is 
has seen some major breakthroughs, but technical details are being
delayed until patent protection is granted.  I have it on inside
authority that a major announcement is soon to be forthcoming!

My theory focuses on the interaction of neutrons (product of of 
electrochemical induced CF events of some as yet misunderstood type)
undergoing nuclear capture by the Pb nucleus.  This of course requires 
that the Pb exist as a component of and untrasound excited Pb crystaline 
lattice which has been cooled to cryogenic temperatures.

Naturally, the esoteric nature of this research makes replication difficult.

:-)

                               Harry C.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 /  BILLC /  Re: Blue comments on Crav
     
Originally-From: billc@execnet.com (BILLC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Crav
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 95 09:52:00 -0500
Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136

JL>: As for CF theories, I don't believe this is "just a strawman" as John
JL>: indicates.  I believe the lack of a theory is indicative of underlying
JL>: logical conflicts between the claims being floated for cold fusion.

JL>I think the "strawman" I was referring to was a sort of assertion that
JL>there is one common CF theory and all participants in the field agree
JL>with it and are condemned equally when inconsistent data appears.


I'd really like it if CF turned out to e for real.  I've been fascinated
ever since I saw the Fleishman-Pons interview on the McNeil-Leherer
News program.  For me the issue for theory is not important.  For me the
issue is the reproducibility of the experiments.  I don't think it
proper to dismiss experimental results out-of-hand because they don't
fit theory.  Thta's what the scientist looks for an anomloy.

Anyway the theories underlying may have mathematical rigor but
physicists can't account for 90% of the matter that's supposed to make
up the universe.

Back to the lab until people succed or they give it up.
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Old Chemists never die!  They just reach Equilibrium.

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbillc cudlnBILLC cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What has Arnie Frisch seen?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What has Arnie Frisch seen?
Date: 2 Jun 1995 21:12:30 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <R2x-M56.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>What did you think of McKubre's paper in the J.
> Electroanal. Chemistry?
>  
> - Jed

Being a great follower of the literature, I'm sure you have seen 
the recent papers by Steve Jones, deomonstrating various sorts
of errors that can arise in CF experiments. Any comment as to why they
don't apply to other CF researchers?


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / guiness att /  fusion
     
Originally-From: gfp@docunet.mv.att.com (guiness.mv.att.com!gfp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 23:21:01 GMT
Organization: ndg132d00

hhhhhhhh

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengfp cudfnguiness cudlnatt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.03 / A Plutonium /  How reliable and predictable is sonoluminescense?
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How reliable and predictable is sonoluminescense?
Date: 3 Jun 1995 01:40:25 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

  Is it more reliable and predictable than electrochemical cold fusion.
Anyway done a statistical analysis between the two phenomenon? Any news
from the Cannon patent wherein they pulse their current? It seems that
sci.physics.fusion has not discussed the Cannon work much at all. Any
comments.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.03 / A Plutonium /  Scientific American discusses neutrons as revolving like 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scientific American discusses neutrons as revolving like 
Date: 3 Jun 1995 02:00:54 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

  SA in a recent article discusses freely revolving neutrons around the
nucleus just like electrons revolving. If memory serves me, 11Li was
the isotope found to be conducive to such a strange phenomenon. 
  We are getting closer and closer everyday to the reporting of
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization from out of nowhere, a violation of
the conservation of energy/mass. This violation of energy conservation
was first predicted by Dirac as per DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS.
  I maintain we will not know the science of cold fusion until our
instrumentation and measurements of precise hadron count of a given
apparatus is precise. Once we attain the feat of getting precise hadron
counts will we be able to start writing out science laws of the process
of cold fusion. Our inability to do precise hadron counts tells us how
primitive is our physics as to doing fusion.
   Please do not misunderstand me. I am convinced that cold fusion
works but how it works can not be established until hadron count is
precise enough. What I am saying is that we will not understand how it
works until we have the tool to measure precise hadron count or atomic
mass. And until we do get a way of precisely measuring hadrons our
physics understanding of cold fusion will just be conjectural and shots
in the dark, hit and miss.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.03 / A Plutonium /  Room temperature superconductors already exist
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Room temperature superconductors already exist
Date: 3 Jun 1995 02:08:23 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

  Room temperature superconductors already exist in the bioworld, in
eyes, in plants, in cells awaiting to be discovered. I predicted that
superconductivity is the changing of photon carriers to that of
neutrino carriers.
  Any day now someone will discover some living matter which
superconducts. The nonliving and the living world move in tandem. 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.03 / A Plutonium /  Re: THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE, review of episode 13 and 14
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE, review of episode 13 and 14
Date: 3 Jun 1995 02:36:16 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3qlktn$f6b@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm) writes:

> Where can we find THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE .... ??
> 
> On which TV show.. video tape?  Distributor of video tape?
> 
> Thanks!

Call the toll free number 1-800-Learner. They will give you all the
data.

The Plutonium Atom Foundation owns the complete set on laser disc. It
is my estimation that this series, despite its many flaws, is the
highest work of art and music and science put to movie that humanity
has yet done. In other words, if I could only own or watch one show, my
pick is The Mechanical Universe. By all means this series must be
expanded and updated as science goes forward. Keep the beautiful music.

Time to pray. Play the episode of Maxwell's Equations where the
beautiful music is.

The electric flux through any closed surface 

is equal to 4 pi k sub E times q, 

or q over epsilon nought 

where q is the total charge enclosed by the surface 

And the magnetic flux through any closed surface 

is always equal to 0.

[Beautiful music in background]

These are Gauss's laws for electricity and magnetism

[Beautiful music in background]

The circulation of magnetic field around any closed path

is equal to mu nought times the electric current passing through that
path

[Beautiful music in background]

This is Ampere's law

[Beautiful music in background]

the circulation of electric field around any closed path is equal to 

minus the rate of change of magnetic flux through that path 

[Beautiful music in background]

This is Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction.

[Beautiful music in background]
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.03 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  Re: How reliable and predictable is sonoluminescense?
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How reliable and predictable is sonoluminescense?
Date: 3 Jun 1995 00:38:54 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Basic outline of Cannon patent please anyone who knows?

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.03 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  Re: Scientific American discusses neutrons as revolving like
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scientific American discusses neutrons as revolving like
Date: 3 Jun 1995 01:28:55 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am trying to find the article sounds fascinating.  Was this it?  If not
.. month or yr approximately ??  Thankx

_/  _/  _/

Halo Nuclei

Nuclei having excess neutrons or protons teeter on the edges of nuclear
stability, known as drip lines. Under this stress, some develop a halo

by Sam M. Austin and George F. Bertsch

For the past 50 years physicists have pictured the atomic nucleus--made of
protons and neutrons--as a liquid drop that has a well-defined surface.
But this is not always so. Researchers at a handful of laboratories have
now witnessed an entirely novel structure: in certain nuclei, some of the
constituent neutrons or protons will venture beyond the drop's surface and
form a misty cloud, or halo, in much the same way that electrons form
clouds around nuclei and make atoms. Not surprisingly, these extended
nuclei behave very differently from ordinary ones. Normal nuclei are
difficult to excite or break apart, but halo nuclei are fragile objects.
They are larger than normal nuclei and interact with them more easily as
well. In fact, the halo is a quantum phenomenon that does not obey the
laws of classical physics. Thus, halo nuclei may well yield fresh insight
into one of the central mysteries of physics, namely, that of nuclear
binding.

Indeed, physicists have long puzzled over the possible combinations of
neutrons and protons, or nucleons, that will stay together as a nucleus.
This balance depends in rather subtle ways on how many neutrons and
protons are involved and the forces acting among them. All nucleons
attract one another, but only protons and neutrons can bind to each other
in pairs, called deuterons. As a result, only those nuclei that contain
roughly equal numbers of neutrons and protons are stable enough to occur
naturally on the earth.

Nuclei having unequal numbers of neutrons and protons exist as well, but
their lifetimes are limited. Although they are bound--meaning it takes
energy to remove one of their nucleons--they are not stable. Beta
radioactivity can change them into a more stable species by transforming
some of their neutrons into protons, or vice versa. Some of these
transitions take place within milliseconds and others only after millions
of years. But in general, if the nuclei are displayed on a graph so that
the number of protons lies along one axis and the number of neutrons lies
along the other, those farther away from the diagonal have shorter
lifetimes [see "Plot of nuclei.GIF" in the April-June 1995 Image Library].

At a certain distance from this diagonal--both above it and below it--the
nuclei break up just as quickly as they form. No truly bound nuclei can
exist beyond these borders, termed drip lines. The most exotic nuclei are
those that lie just within the drip lines, on the edges of nuclear
stability. Such extreme systems appear only in far more hostile
environments than our own. They result from those reactions that
synthesized the heavy elements in the universe and now power stellar
explosions in novae, supernovae and x-ray bursters. Astrophysicists think
that nuclei along the lower drip line are found in the crust of neutron
stars.


Early Evidence of Neutron Halos


Until a decade ago, physicists had few means for studying such nuclei.
Then Isao Tanihata and his collaborators at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
developed a technique for observing how unstable nuclei interact with
other nuclei. This method has led to the discovery of halos in a variety
of nuclei. To date, the most scrutinized halo nucleus is an isotope of
lithium, Li-11, which has three protons and eight neutrons. Analyses of
its fleeting structure have revealed a great deal about the surprising
nature of halos in general.

Workers at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory first discovered Li-11 in 1966,
but not until more than a decade later did its unusual structure become
evident. In 1985 Tanihata tried to measure its size. He collided ordinary
nuclei at high energies to produce a beam of unstable isotopes in a
process called projectile fragmentation. Next he placed a carbon foil in
the beam. He then counted how many of the beam nuclei survived passage
through the foil. This number reflects how likely was the chance of their
interacting with nuclei in the target foil. Physicists express this
probability by a measure called the cross section. Tanihata found that
Li-11 nuclei had particularly large cross sections. The explanation that
emerged was that the nuclei bore halos. Two neutrons in the Li-11 nucleus
were bound so weakly that they roamed well beyond the core, where they
were easily stripped away by the target.

It was an astonishing find. According to the laws of classical physics, a
bound particle must stay within range of the core's forces. But in quantum
mechanics, a remarkable effect called tunneling makes halos possible. To
visualize this phenomenon, imagine a skateboarder in a trough-shaped arena
[see "Classical vs. quantum.GIF" in the April-June 1995 Image Library].
His total energy limits the distance he travels: the more energy he has,
the higher he will go. He cannot rise any higher than the amount of energy
he puts into his movement. In quantum mechanics the confinement is not so
strict; even a lazy skateboarder will occasionally pop out of the arena.
The amount of time he can spend there is limited, and it is related by
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to the extra energy he would need to
get out. The lower the energy cost, the longer he can stay outside.

For an object as large as a person on a skateboard, the probability that
tunneling will happen is unimaginably small, but on atomic and nuclear
scales the effect can be significant. As Tanihata observed, the effect in
Li-11 is dramatic. The last two neutrons are bound by only a few hundred
thousand electron volts, more than an order of magnitude smaller than
normal binding energy. Consequently, these neutrons need very little
energy to move away from the nucleus. They can remain there a relatively
long time, spreading out and forming a tenuous halo. Indeed, compared in
size with other nuclei, the average distance of Li-11's halo from its
center measures about five femtometers, or more than double the normal
distance for a nucleus of its mass [see "Halo loss.GIF" in the April-June
1995 Image Library].

Further work revealed that the Li-11 nucleus was highly unusual in other
ways. The isotope Li-10, which would contain one fewer neutron, is
unbound, meaning that its three protons and seven neutrons will not hold
together as a nucleus. If one neutron is taken away from Li-11, a second
neutron will come out immediately as well, leaving behind Li-9. Thus, Li-9
and the two neutrons are bound as a three-body system that comes apart if
any one particle is taken away. For this reason, Mikhail Zhukov of the
University of Goteborg in Sweden called Li-11 a Borromean nucleus; it
resembles the heraldic symbol of the Italian princes of Borromeo. Their
crest has three rings interlocked in such a way that if any one ring is
removed the other two separate. There are half a dozen other known
examples of Borromean nuclei.


Characterizing Halos


Rainer Neugart and his co-workers at CERN, the European laboratory for
particle physics near Geneva, investigated the interaction between Li-11's
three components (the two halo neutrons and the Li-9 core), testing
specifically whether the halo had any effect on the core. They measured
the isotope's magnetic and electrical properties in a clever way and found
they matched those of the Li-9 nucleus [see BOX II at end of article].
Because the halo neutrons carry no charge--and as a pair they have no spin
or magnetic moment--this result supported the notion that the Li-9 core
and the two-neutron halo are nearly independent objects.

Given this information, experimentalists next hoped to learn how the
individual nucleons in Li-11 nuclei were arranged. To find out, Toshio
Kobayashi and his collaborators at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory examined
the momentum distributions of Li-11 nuclei. Their motion under the laws of
quantum mechanics satisfies yet another relation that is part of
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It states that particles cannot have a
precise momentum but will have a range of momenta depending on how they
are distributed in space, as reflected by their wave function. The more
spread out and smooth the wave function, the more definite a particle's
momentum. So if a halo spans a large distance and a target breaks it away
from its core, the momenta of the separated neutrons deviate little from
their initial momenta. They will travel nearly straight forward and at
nearly the same velocity.

Kobayashi and his team took a slightly indirect approach to infer the
halo's momentum. They produced reactions in which the halo neutrons were
stripped from Li-11 and then observed the Li-9 core that traveled forward.
Because Li-11's initial momentum is fixed, the spread in the core momentum
had to match the spread in the neutron momentum. Using this relation, the
investigators found that the momentum distribution was exceedingly narrow,
about one fifth of that measured during the breakup of normal nuclei.

Later experiments at GANIL in Caen, France, led by Alex C. Mueller, gauged
the deflection of the neutrons themselves rather than the core. Under
these conditions, the neutrons from halo nuclei went forward in a cone
about two degrees wide, whereas neutrons from ordinary nuclei came out in
a cone some 10 degrees wide. Unfortunately, it was somewhat difficult to
interpret these experiments quantitatively because elastic forces from the
target had also deflected the particles.

A team at Michigan State University, consisting of Bradley M. Sherrill,
Nigel A. Orr and one of us (Austin), found a way around this limitation.
Elastic forces deflect the particles mainly sideways and hardly change the
momentum component parallel to the beam direction. We realized that the
influence of the halo would be clearest if we could measure the spread in
the parallel momentum, but the beam of Li-11 we were using already had a
momentum spread 10 times larger than the effect to be measured.
Fortunately, the fragment separator at Michigan State, the A1200, allows
an experimenter to disperse the beams and focus the particles on spots
according to how much their momenta has changed rather than on their
ultimate momenta [see BOX I at end of article]. In this way, the separator
can single out the changes in momenta caused by the breakup.

Using this so-called energy-loss mode of operation, the Michigan State
workers obtained a resolution much smaller than the width of momentum
distribution they wished to measure. A beam of Li-11 struck a variety of
targets, ranging in mass from beryllium to uranium, placed near the center
of the device one at a time. The Li-9 nuclei resulting from these breakups
showed a narrow momentum distribution; this width was nearly independent
of the target mass. Because nuclear interactions mediated the breakup for
light targets, whereas electrical, or Coulomb, forces influenced the
breakup for heavy targets, we concluded that the result was independent of
the reaction mechanism and directly reflected the structure of the halo.
These results indicated that the radius of the Li-11 halo was more than
twice that of its core.


Models and Predictions


While these experiments were going on, theorists were trying to understand
the unique behavior of Li-11. They faced two large obstacles--and still
do. First, the forces between nucleons are not known accurately enough to
predict the subtle binding properties of halo nuclei. Second, even if
those forces were known, today's computers do not have the speed or memory
needed to solve the equations of quantum mechanics for 11 interacting
nucleons. Nevertheless, physicists have developed simpler models that
exhibit the main physical attributes of halo nuclei.

One attribute they try to capture in their models is the role of pairing
in many-nucleon systems. In general, the pairing interaction is the
attraction between the least bound particles in a system; it can radically
affect the properties of that system. In metals, for example, the pairing
between electrons gives rise to superconductivity. The pairing interaction
is also of fundamental importance in almost every aspect of nuclear
structure. It determines which nuclei are stable, and its presence
promotes fluidity in such shape-changing processes as nuclear fission.
Pairing in a dilute neutron gas can influence the properties of neutron
stars, which depend on whether the neutrons act as a superfluid. And,
finally, pairing causes the Borromean behavior.

A wide range of useful models has been developed, based on very different
assumptions about pairing. P. Gregers Hansen of Aarhus University in
Denmark and Bjorn Jonson of the Chalmers University of Technology in
Sweden proposed one simple model in 1988. They assumed that the pairing
between the two last neutrons in Li-11 was so strong that these nucleons
could be treated as a single particle, named the dineutron.

The motion of this particle in the field of the Li-9 core is a two-body
problem, which is relatively easy to solve. In fact, if the binding is
weak--such that the two particles have little chance to interact--the wave
function can be looked up in a textbook. Using this approximation, Hansen
and Jonson derived formulas for the size of the halo, for the breakup
probability of the nucleus in the electric field of a highly charged
target and for the energy of the dineutron after the breakup. In such a
simple model, however, they could not calculate the binding energy of the
halo.

While an undergraduate student at Michigan State, James Foxwell
investigated another extreme model under the guidance of one of us
(Bertsch). In contrast to the dineutron picture, Foxwell's model ignores
the pairing between neutrons completely. It assumes that each of the last
two neutrons is independently bound to the core. A two-body problem is
then solved for one neutron at a time. Foxwell calculated breakup
probabilities and the energy of the excited system. Like the Hansen-Jonson
model, Foxwell's approach requires knowing the binding energy ahead of
time. Interestingly, these two very different strategies produced similar
predictions of the fragility of Li-11, differing by only a factor of two
in estimating its cross section.


Recent Work on Halos


Since then, theorists have constructed more sophisticated models,
explicitly incorporating the forces giving rise to pairing. Because the
three-body problem in quantum mechanics is now amenable to numerical
solution on large computers, it was practical to treat Li-11 as a
three-particle system. Henning Esbensen of Argonne National Laboratory
calculated the Li-11 wave function with a realistic description of the
interaction between the neutrons and the Li-9 core and a more approximate
treatment of the pairing force. His wave function showed that when the
neutrons are far out in the halo they are likely to be very close
together.

On the other hand, when the neutrons are near the core, they tend to stay
farther apart. Thus, the actual quantum mechanics of pairing describes
behavior within the limits of the two extreme models. The calculated cross
section fell midway between the predictions of those models and agreed
with experimentation. As is often the case in nuclear physics, quite
different models can be valid, and their domains of validity can even
overlap. The three-body model was also successful in predicting the
momentum spread in the Li-11 breakup measured at the Michigan State
facility.

Ian Thompson of the University of Surrey and his co-workers made similar
calculations. This group used a more realistic force between the neutrons
but treated the neutron-core interaction more approximately. It also found
that Li-11 is Borromean and has a large halo. Such consistent results have
given us confidence that we understand the pairing between neutrons in a
low-density environment, such as might be found in the crusts of neutron
stars.

Now that a new aspect of nuclear behavior has been discovered and studied,
one naturally asks the question, Where do we go from here? Clearly, halos
affect many nuclear reactions. For example, experimentalists plan to
measure reactions between Li-11 and protons to determine the probability
that a proton will pick up two neutrons and form tritium. The correlation
between the neutrons directly influences this probability, since the two
neutrons must be close together in order to combine with a bombarding
proton. By analyzing such reactions, we will be able to obtain a direct
measure of these correlations.

Experiments by Karsten Riisager and his collaborators at CERN have shown
that halo nuclei exhibit unique properties when they undergo beta decay.
They observed the Borromean nucleus helium 6, which has two protons and
four neutrons. When this nucleus undergoes beta decay, one of its halo
neutrons may turn into a proton. Normally this proton would remain bound
to the nucleus, but in He-6 it can combine with its partner neutron in the
halo and escape as a deuteron.

More important, physicists would like to study the halos of heavier
nuclei. Most work to date has focused on two nuclei, Li-11 and an isotope
of beryllium, Be-11, both of which are fairly easy to produce and isolate.
New facilities are being planned to make heavier systems. But scientists
have already begun to use their current equipment to look for halo nuclei
having masses of about 20. Some are now analyzing the Borromean nucleus
Be-14. Workers at Michigan State have measured the momentum distributions
for an isotope of carbon, C-19, which bears seven more neutrons than does
the most stable form, C-12. And researchers at GANIL have discovered C-22,
having yet three more neutrons.

Theorists are also beginning to investigate the properties of drip-line
nuclei that have more than two halo nucleons. In such systems the
many-particle aspects of pairing become especially significant. In
Borromean nuclei, these halos may be vastly larger than those seen in
Li-11. Physicist Vitaly Efimov of the University of Washington has
predicted such a phenomenon. He showed that when the interaction between
the particles in a three-body system is almost strong enough to bind them
two at a time, the system may have many extended halo states, potentially
an infinite number of them.

Finally, weakly bound protons may also give rise to nuclear halos. Perhaps
the best example is an isotope of boron, B-8, which contains one very
loosely bound proton. This proton is even less well bound than the
neutrons in Li-11, and its halo is quite possibly aspherical. To determine
the characteristics of B-8's halo, teams at several laboratories are
measuring the nucleus's parallel momentum distribution.

Astrophysicists are particularly interested in the nucleus B-8 because in
the sun it produces easily detected neutrinos. A serious anomaly has
arisen because the observed number of neutrinos from the decay of B-8 in
the sun is much less than predicted. Understanding the exact nature of
this nucleus may well provide clues to this mystery. The study of nuclei
near the drip lines will surely yield further surprises. But already halos
have taught us quite a bit about what takes place at the outer limits of
stability.


BOX I: Making Exotic Nuclei

During the past decade, experimentalists have developed two fundamentally
different approaches for studying halo nuclei. Some examine the fragments
of target nuclei, whereas others analyze the fragments of projectiles
bombarding a production target. In the first strategy, the interesting
isotopes must be extracted from the target material. If an element is
volatile, its isotopes will diffuse out of the target when it is heated.
These isotopes can then be ionized and separated. This technique is called
ISOL (isotope separation on line). The lifetime of Li-11 was first
measured using ISOLDE, the ISOL-type laboratory at CERN. New facilities
are currently under construction at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee and at several other laboratories around the world.

In the other tactic, the target breaks the projectile nuclei into
fragments that move at the same high speed as did the projectile. Those
fragments having unusual properties are then studied. Paradoxically, the
high speed of the beam makes it easier to study many nuclei, especially
short-lived isotopes such as Li-11 (its half-life is only nine
milliseconds). Laboratories known by their abbreviations--including GANIL
in Caen, France, the NSCL at Michigan State University, RIKEN near Tokyo
and the GSI near Darmstadt, Germany--have built apparatus of this kind to
work with radioactive beams and to study unstable nuclei.

In 1990 Bradley M. Sherrill and his associates built the Michigan State
fragment separator, called the A1200. It filters out exotic nuclei by
subjecting the fragment beam to various forces. Dipole magnets bend the
beam according to the momenta and charges of the beam nuclei; doublet and
triplet quadruple magnets focus the beam.

The beam can also be sent through a thin slab, which slows the nuclei by
different amounts depending on their velocities and charges. In addition,
the beam can be diverted to a Wien filter, a device that produces
perpendicular electrical and magnetic fields; only nuclei of a chosen
velocity pass through the filter. Finally, it is sometimes possible to
measure the time a nucleus takes to pass through the separator, giving yet
another measurement of its velocity. Armed with all this information,
researchers have identified the individual nuclei passing through and
measured their velocities and momenta as well.


BOX II: Measuring Electric and Magnetic Moments

Rainer Neugart and his co-workers at CERN compared the magnetic and
electrical properties of Li-11 and Li-9 in a unique apparatus. An electric
field deflected ions from the ISOLDE separator down a beam pipe and
through a gas, where they were neutralized. This beam was bathed in
polarized laser light, aligning the spins of the atoms. Next, the atoms
were stopped in a crystal. A magnetic field surrounding this part of the
apparatus caused the spin axis to precess, changing its orientation. After
a few milliseconds, the nuclei underwent beta decay, emitting electrons
preferentially along the spin axis. From the emission directions of these
decay electrons, the experimenters were able to deduce the electrical and
magnetic properties of the nucleus.


BOX III: How a Halo Is Lost

Aaron I. Galonsky and his collaborators at Michigan State University have
investigated two contrasting pictures of how a nucleus loses its halo. In
one picture, the halo neutrons are freed instantaneously when they
interact with a target. In the other, the electric, or Coulomb, field
generated by the target's charges sets the nucleus vibrating, with the
charged core moving in one direction and the halo in another. To test
these possibilities, Galonsky's group excited the Li-11 nucleus as gently
as possible, passing the beam through a lead target, which is likely to
produce Coulomb excitation. The researchers then measured the emission
angles and energies of the two neutrons and Li-9 resulting from the
breakup.

The energy absorbed was quite small and well defined. According to
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, therefore, the breakup of a vibrating
system should take a relatively long time. But the workers found that
Li-11 broke up quickly, as though the neutrons were freed instantaneously
on collision. They inferred this fact from a seemingly unrelated
observation: in comparing the velocities of the Li-9 core and the two
neutrons, the neutrons moved more slowly. At first, it was puzzling that
the neutrons should be slower if the breakup process was so gentle.

The explanation lay in the timing of the breakup itself. Because Li-11 is
charged, it decelerates as it approaches the target's Coulomb field and
then reaccelerates as it departs. In the oscillatory picture the breakup
takes such a long time that the Li-9 nucleus would travel well beyond the
target's Coulomb reach before it could occur. But in an instantaneous
breakup, Li-9 is separated near the target, where it is subject to Coulomb
reacceleration. In contrast, the uncharged neutrons are not affected by
the electric field and so move more slowly, as observed. Hence, Galonsky's
group concluded that the Li-11 nucleus had lost its halo when it passed
the target.


SAM M. AUSTIN and GEORGE F. BERTSCH have been long-term colleagues at
Michigan State University, studying nuclear physics from the complementary
points of view as experimentalist and theorist, respectively. Austin
obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in 1960 and has been
at Michigan State since 1965, where he is now Distinguished Professor of
Physics. Bertsch received his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1965 and
is now on the physics faculty at the University of Washington.


FURTHER READING

CAULDRONS IN THE COSMOS: NUCLEAR ASTROPHYSICS. Claus E. Rolfs and William
S. Rodney. University of Chicago Press, 1988.

PHYSICS WITH RADIOACTIVE BEAMS. Richard N. Boyd and Isao Tanihata in
"Physics Today," Vol. 45, No. 6, pages 44-52; June 1, 1992.

NUCLEI AT THE LIMITS OF PARTICLE STABILITY. Alex C. Mueller and Bradley M.
Sherrill in "Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science," Vol. 43,
pages 529-584; 1993.

NUCLEAR HALO STATES. K. Riisager in "Reviews of Modern Physics," Vol. 66,
No. 3, pages 1105-1116; July 1, 1994.


SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN  June 1995  Volume 272  Number 6  Pages 90-95


Scientific American (ISSN 0036-8733), published monthly by Scientific
American, Inc., 415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017-1111. Copyright
1995 by Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved. Except for one-time
personal use, no part of any issue may be reproduced by any mechanical,
photographic or electronic process, or in the form of a phonographic
recording, nor may it be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or
otherwise copied for public or private use without written permission of
the publisher. For information regarding back issues, reprints or
permissions, E-mail SCAinquiry@aol.com.




Transmitted:  95-05-19 13:37:55 EDT
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jun  3 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
