1995.09.26 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 26 Sep 1995 16:46:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Mail Server

   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit

   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
                
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.

 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)

 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.

 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html



cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / mitchell swartz /  Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pathological Skepticism!
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 14:02:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <44803v$f29@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

=rh   "I *will* admit to 
=rh  saying "tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element",
=rh  but that's an entirely different proposition, and one which
=rh  *is* grounded in facts - as everyone who read our discussion
=rh  a year ago knows well, except you." 

 The ones whom you cite as supporting you must know negligible
radiobiology.  Would they know post-pulse protein synthesis from a 
T-T dimer?   How many radiation-induced pathology slides have
you examined, Bob?   How many courses have you taken on this
subject?

  Here is some information for you.
  Tritium is of low toxicity.  It is not benign, nor relatively
benign.  Silicone -- once thought benign, or relatively
benign -- has toxicity.  Silicone.

Tritium has more, and should be handled appropriately.  

   You were previously given two references and more data showing
that you were incorrect.   Did you follow any of them up?
Probably not, or you would not be so "hot" to continue
such double-speak.


   =======================================
=rh  "As for a lack of literacy with the cold fusion field making
=rh  one "technically illiterate" - perhaps you should consult
=rh  your dictionary as to the meaning of "relatively benign
=rh  radioactive element" before criticizing anyone for "illiteracy."
=rh  That aside, I'd also like to see you show and example where 
=rh  I criticized a CF result or paper without first reading it.  
=rh  I do my homework, will you?  For the most recent example, 
=rh  look at my posting on the Kasagi paper.  Or if you want to 
=rh  dig back in time for something that new readers may not
=rh  remember, try the Kucherov or Piantelli discussions."

  Your negative comments were made worldwide against 
Representative Walker (Rep. PA) only because of his 
reasonable suggestion to move forward 
on hydrogen technology including cold fusion.  Such
a knee-jerk response is consistent
with relative technical illiteracy on this
matter.   There have been more than two thousand
papers and publications in this field, and yet not
a word of substance has made it to your 
megabyte oft-posted ubiquitous FAQ.
 
  Given your magnus opus-FAQ, given the verifications
of cold fusion [not only in the solid state, but as you note
also in the gas-phase and in glow discharge experiments]
 it would just seem quite appropriate to be more
balanced in your position because of the importance of fusion
 in the future world energy requirement. 


  If you are unable to give the cold fusion literature the
detailed survey and study which you gave to hot fusion,
then perhaps you should consider adding Jed's comments
on cold fusion to your FAQ.


  Also, the impugning which you made upon 
the Congressman's knowledge (or what
you claimed is a lack of it) is also consistent with the
double-speak biology revision discussed above.
Isn't it?    Worse, such ad hominem attack and 
revision of radiobiologic data is not a real substitute
for science.   Is it?

   Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 /   /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: 26 Sep 1995 00:36:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

DUPREE <cmd0936@omega.uta.edu> wrote:

>  Don't know where the neutron part is coming from.  However, since we 
>can't solve the S.E., a common method of finding the wave function for 
>more complicated atom is by placing the individual electrons in other 
>atoms in various hydrogen orbitals, and then superposing them.  I think 
>that is what is being said here.  That is, the 1s orbital in hydrogen is 
>a valid solution to the S.E. so the Helium atom can be described by 
>placing it's two electrons in 1s orbitals, and then linearly superposing 
>them, which would still be a valid solution, although not necessarily a 
>good description of helium.  Obviously there are better ways of doing 
>this approximating process.

I highly doubt that that is what Archie is talking about.

The technique you mentioned is certainly a fine method for producing an
approximate solution, however the use of the word "superposition" here is
probably a bit misleading, since what you're producing is not a
superposition in the common sense of a sum of wave functions - at least as
I understand your explanation. It sounds more like you are producing a
direct product state which, neglecting interactions between the electrons,
would be a valid solution.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 /   /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 26 Sep 1995 01:36:24 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

 jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:

>}rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:
>}
>}>The radial probability density for the electron in the ground state of
>}>the hydrogen atom, actually has its maximum at the Bohr radius, not at
>}>the nucleus, as you appear to be saying here (i.e. your function has a
>}>value of 1 when r = 0).
>
>In article <445j93$bg8@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
>mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:
>>
>>Not at all. Check (for one out of many sources) Quantum Mechanics by
>>Messiah (yeah I know I took this stuff a long time ago), Vol. 1 page
484.
>>The radial wave function for the n=1 (ground) state varies as exp(-r/a)
>
>Which, if you look closely, is 1 at r=0 and falls off as r increases. 
>That is what Robin is talking about. 

Actually Robin was arguing against the validity of my statement that the
wave function is max at r=0; he felt that there should be a node ar r=0.
The above was my second (and more detailed) post to clarify this.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 /   /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 26 Sep 1995 01:44:48 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

 rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

>Normally when the mass of protons and electrons are measured they are
>separate. Therefore this mass already "contains" the potential energy
>of separation. So that while the kinetic energy of the electron
>increases as it approaches the proton, this is just sufficient to
>compensate for the loss in mass of the proton electron pair (or the
>loss in mass represented by the potential field as it were). In short
>an electron and proton sitting next to one another at rest, masses
>less than the sum of the individual masses that we normally measure.
>My problem is that I am used to thinking in terms of mass being
>conserved when potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
>Consequently I would like to apologise for my sharp tong, to those of
>you who had the patience to try and explain to me. I also owe Zoltan
>an apology  for leading him astray.
>PS It looks like I'm the one with the black eye! ;-)}}}

Robin, now you've done it. You (and Zoltan) have completely blown your
crackpot credentials :-)

Maybe there is hope for this newsgroup after all :-)

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 06:06:20 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>Representative Robert Walker ... comes
>right out and says he wants to do research on cold fusion ...
>Not only that, but he professes to believe that "hydrogen" 
>represents a possible alternative energy source, better than 
>fusion or renewables!  (No, he *doesn't* seem to think that 
>you need other energy sources to make the hydrogen!!!)

>It's sad to see America's science policy establishment so
>technically illiterate.  

Congress consists mostly of lawyers.  These people usually know
little about science and may or may not have scientifically literate
staff members.  They suffer fools gladly in committee hearings, take
a vote, and thereby make policy.  You can watch them in action on
CSPAN--if you have a strong stomach and lots of time to waste.

Scientists who are busy cloning themselves (i.e., turning out new PhD's,
who all want to be professors) should consider what might be done
about the widespread scientific illiteracy in this country.
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 26 Sep 1995 02:52:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Look guys, something gotta be causing electron capture.

So far we have been wrong about what it is but it is something. Electron
capture nicely explains the light water reactions, the element
transmutations, evens brings us closer to explaining the d + d --> He4
reaction. Why don't you spend time trying to figure out what it is or if
we don't have electron capture what else could explain the phenomena. My
brain has been smoking for the past two weeks trying to figure it out. I
can't think of anything better than what I already posted:

Electron capture happens because the fusion immediatly following it
provides energy. 

This explanation is not very good because it does not explain element
transmutations. In those cases we must have the neutron floating around
for a while first before reacting with a nucleus.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Scott Little /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 26 Sep 1995 06:17:28 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <hheffner-2409951335370001@204.57.193.65>, hheffner@matsu.ak.
et (Horace Heffner) says:

>Specific heat is important because a specific heat for aqueous inorganic
>solutions can be less than .85 that of distilled water.

Horace, roughly how much "salt" do you have to put in to get it down
that low?

Do you have any data on typical specific heats of tap water?
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 26 Sep 1995 08:16:01 GMT
Organization: cea

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:

>Ah, now I see where you are confused.  You think more nuclear weapons make 
>you safer.  Think about the consequences if those weapons are used, most 
>likely on French soil against forces of an invading army, with the wind 
>blowing towards Paris.  Or would you launch a preemptive attack on the 
>capital of a threatening power?  Would that make that other country's 
>army smile and go home to smoking rubble, or would they attack?  Now 
>what if that other country has nuclear weapons also? 

 You are asking the question of nuclear deterrent. What you are saying is
that, AS A GENERAL IDEA, the principle of nuclear deterrent is flawed.
For the time being, the "equilibrium of terror" has worked. I am not
an expert so I am very careful to comment this matter: The basis of 
nuclear disuasion is the fact that an attack on frech soil would result
in mutual destruction. That is all.
 The strategy of nuclear deterrents always sounded to me (and I think to
everybody) rather crazy. But it has worked. Crisis like Berlin or the Cuba
missiles would certainly have resulted in war if nuclear deterrent had not
be available to both sides.
 But there is an important element of credibility in this scenario for the
deterrent to work: your enemy must be persuaded that you are ready to 
risk anihilation in order to defend your country. That is the reason why
Chirac cannot change his mind: if international pressure can stop nuclear
tests, what credibility is left that he will be ready to use a nuclear 
weapon in a crisis situation.

>Consider the other possible scenario.  Suppose the French tests lead to 
>the collapse of the non-proliferation treaty, and Germany and Slovakia 
>build a bomb together while the Ukraine reconsiders its decision about 
>what to do with all those f-USSR weapons.

 Sorry, but this is utter rubish. If Germany, Slovakia and Ukraine want to
have the nuclear weapon, they will build it wether the tests take place or
not. This tests do not change ANYTHING to this question. Countries do not
change their defense policy because somebody has done something everybody 
knew they could do.

>Would France feel safer?  Do 
>you think what France is doing is making those people feel safer and 
>thus less likely to pursue an independent weapons program?  Suppose the 
>Algerians figured they were the target and sought weapons from some 
>independent vendor? 

 As I said: If Algeria thought France intended to use nuclear weapons against
it (a loony idea, but lets consider it as an hypothesis), then the tests do
not change anything because France has this capability without the tests.

 That is what surprises me in this debate: The nuclear tests do not change
anything as far as the NPT or Test ban treaty are concerned. China has made
nuclear tests without any of its neighbours jumping to develop their own 
nuclear weapons. So all this anti-tests campaign must be run for very 
diferent reasons...

>
>Go back and read what Bethe wrote in 1960 about why testing should end. 
>

 I confusely remember what he said. None of the disasters he predicted
has yet taken place.

Thanks for listening


Mario Pain


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: 26 Sep 1995 04:38:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <DF9Mwt.IHr@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
>
>  Bob, if you keep talking like this, it will become transparent
>that you are the technically illiterate one based upon
>your vaporcriticisms of cold fusion, upon your lack of
>literacy with the cold fusion field, and even upon your
>past (hopefully corrected) belief that tritium is "benign".

The only vaporcriticisms here are your unsubstantiated
attacks on me.  Where's the evidence?  When have I 
"vaporcriticized" cold fusion?  Where is the quote in
which I said tritium was benign?  I *will* admit to 
saying "tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element",
but that's an entirely different proposition, and one which
*is* grounded in facts - as everyone who read our discussion
a year ago knows well, except you.  I really see no reason
why you should bring this up a year later.  It's not like I've
gone away or anything.  And it's not like you have any more
evidence to support your misunderstanding of English.

As for a lack of literacy with the cold fusion field making
one "technically illiterate" - perhaps you should consult
your dictionary as to the meaning of "relatively benign
radioactive element" before criticizing anyone for "illiteracy."
That aside, I'd also like to see you show and example where 
I criticized a CF result or paper without first reading it.  
I do my homework, will you?  For the most recent example, 
look at my posting on the Kasagi paper.  Or if you want to 
dig back in time for something that new readers may not
remember, try the Kucherov or Piantelli discussions.


 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 26 Sep 1995 08:41:57 GMT
Organization: cea

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>}I wrote, in reponse to a trivial pro-test argument by Pain:

 It is a pity to start like that: Of course nobody will remember my
original argument, but you qualify it of "trivial". Good start for a
debate.

>}
>}>Does the big bad Deutsch Mark scare the poor little old franc?  
>}>
>}>Chunnel tourists from Britain ordering boiled beef in your restautrants? 
>}>
>}>EuroDisney still open?  
>}>
>}>Nothing like a sovereign decision to make you feel better. 
>

 I leave other readers to judge if the above sentences have any other purpose
that wounding without bringing any new light to the discussion.

>Then I see that my remarks had the intended effect, since then you might 
>see just how trivial your original argument 

 No, I still do not see it. Could you please be more explicit ?

>
>was, and, since you wrote 
>
>> If the purpose of this forum is to throw 
>>insults at each other, then drop dead.

 Please read what I say: I say "IF the purpose of this forum is to throw
insults at each other, then drop dead". On the other side, IF this forum
is NOT a place to throw insults, let's hear some argument:

>perhaps you are beginning to understand why so much of the world is 
>deeply insulted by these tests and such an argument in favor of it. 
>They are rightly concerned that France might say "drop dead" and mean it 
>literally.  After all, France has made many sovereign decisions in the 
>past that are sufficiently insulting to make their threat credible.

 Like what ?

>What 
>else can one think of a nation that has acted to increase the spread of 
>nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states?  

 I would be interested to know what country are you refering to. To my
best knowledge, NONE of the countries having nuclear weapons are buyers of
french nuclear technology. Their are all buyers of either American (Israel,
Pakistan), German (Argentina ?), British (India). So your accusation is
without foundation in fact.

>Remember, the key issue behind the CTBT is that the non-proliferation 
>treaty required that the nuclear states stop testing by a date that 
>arrives quite soon in exchange for the forbearance of the non-nuclear
>states.

 To my best knowledge, this date will be respected by France. If the
signatories of the Non-proliferation Treaty wanted tests stopped immediately
they would have said so. This solution would have given the USA a sort of
laboratory test monopoly (since they are the only ones with enough information
to validate the simulation codes).

>France's actions in the past and the present undermine this 
>very important and very successful treaty. 
>

 I do not see why. Please explain what is the connection. BTW, it is interesting
to see that the chinese have tested a weapon without anybody considering this
tests as dangerous both to the NPT and the CTBT.

>> But the tests are being done "right in france", since for your information
>>tahitians are french citizens. 
>
>Odd that we saw them rioting in the streets but did not hear from their 
>representative in the current government.

 Their "representative" in what government ? Their representatives in the
french Parliament where ready to comment in french television. Perhaps
Australian television does not know who they are. Do you believe that a 
majority of the Tahiti population was against testing ?
 
>
>>                               And before you start shouting that that is
>>colonial nonsense, remember that the USA also has a few "colonies" in the 
>>region. But that is not the point.
>
>For your information, the residents of those territories vote in US 
>national elections.

 So do the tahitians.

>It is the *attitude* of France that is colonial 
>nonsense, just as the US's great-white-father activities on Bikini 
>Atoll were also.  But at least we did all of our underground tests, and 
>more than a few atmospheric ones, right on the continental US where the 
>fallout could land right in my backyard.  And, I might add, 40 years 
>later we have *learned* from our actions in the past. 

 That is too easy. Of course this "learning" has costed their health to a few
people. But that is not the question, is it not ? For your information also,
the first french nuclear tests were done at Reggane, in "continental" France,
where the fallouts could fall in "our backyard".

>
>You don't get it, do you? 

 Yes, I am very stupid. You will have to be patient...

>That is *just* what they must demonstrate [i.e. that france is ready to commit
>suicide, MP],since the actual use of those weapons would require just such an act.

 Perhaps, but then there would be a best solution: Let's bomb Paris immediately.
That would prove without the shadow of a doubt we are ready to commit suicide.
It might not be very useful, but it would have panache.

>They could start by showing some spine in the Balkans. 

 I do not see what this would prove in the matter in discussion. But if you
want to discuss global defense policies, it is OK by me.

>Since you do not seem to understand the issues, 

 As I said, I am extremely thick, so please forgive me.

>what would be your 
>thoughts if it was Germany starting a series of nuclear tests? 

 My first thought would be to try to understand WHY it is done. It would certainly
not be to feel "insulted". Contrary to you, my vision of the world is not as
a fight between "good" and "evil". I can understand that what is seen as a vital
interest from one side can be seen as an "insult" on the other. I think we cannot
ignore there are in the world opposite interests, and the best we can do is to
find ways this interests can conflict without killing too many people.
 I am not triying to convince you that my point of view is right. It is not. It
is a biaised point of view just as yours is. I am trying to understand yours, and
hope you understand mine. But your constant rambling about me "not understanding
the issues" or "not getting it" shows to me that you cannot conceive that 
your point of view is not the only reasonable one. Pity..


Regards


Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: 26 Sep 1995 04:59:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <387382490wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk> Alan M. Dunsmuir,
Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article: <43rvqs$5ee@cnn.Princeton.EDU>  Robert F. Heeter 
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>> Not only that, but he professes to believe that "hydrogen" 
>> represents a possible alternative energy source, better than 
>> fusion or renewables!  (No, he *doesn't* seem to think that 
>> you need other energy sources to make the hydrogen!!!)
>>
>Hydrogen - created by the solar-powered hydrolysis of sea water - will 
>be the 'next wave' transportation fuel, and will be the preferred method 
>for transporting energy where power grid-lines are infeasible or 
>uneconomic.

I understand the hydrogen fuel concept.  Especially with high-efficiency
low-cost fuel cells nearing marketability for autos, it's a promising 
alternative to depletable fossil fuels.  Walker didn't seem to grasp
that you need to use some other energy source to make the hydrogen though.

>Representative Walker can see much further than you give him credit for. 

You missed the last line in my paragraph above.  If you actually
read the interview it's quite clear that Walker doesn't think
you need anything to make the hydrogen.  No solar, no fusion,
no nothing.  Just plain 'ol hydrogen energy-from-nowhere.

I wish he could see further than I give him credit for, but the
evidence isn't there yet.  I did hear him speak in a radio 
discussion about fusion on the Philadelphia NPR, and I wasn't
impressed there either.  The biggest example was when he
complained that the fusion program overpromised in 1980
and then didn't deliver.  While it's true that the
Congressionally-approved fusion energy plan (they even passed a
law on it) in 1980 called for a demonstration power
plant by 2000 or so, it's also true that the same energy plan also
called for dramatic and steady increases in the program funding.
Of course, since 1980 the annual budget has actually dropped by 
over 50%.  It's pretty frustrating as a member of the fusion 
community when a Congressperson blames your group for not 
getting results after they've cut your budget to less than 25% 
of what you had planned on when they asked you to make the 
promises.  The biggest overpromising in the fusion program
has been Congressionally-approved program plans that Congress
doesn't bother to fund.

On the other hand, it no longer surprises me that Walker is out
there cutting the fusion budget by 35% right after some of the
most dramatic results in the history of fusion research have
been achieved.  There's obviously more to it, but it doesn't
look all that good here in the trenches:  last month everyone 
was celebrating the new breakthrough (see _Science_,
July 28, pp. 478-479), and next month a third of the people
here will no longer have jobs.  Go figure.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Robert Heeter /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 26 Sep 1995 05:23:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <gxZXwoOi2lVf084yn@fox.nstn.ns.ca> Dave Oldridge,
doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca writes:
>Actually, it has not, at least in the case of stars and stellar
>evolution.  What we've ended up with is stars that, according to our
>models appear to be much older than the universe.  The models do explain
>the range of stars, but there is something wrong with the time frames
>they produce.  Either that or general relativity is quite wrong.
>
>Maybe we really DON'T know all the answers about how fusion takes place.

It's a lot easier to model fusion rates in stars than it is to 
measure the age of the universe!  It's probably more correct
to say that measurements of the age of the universe are probably
off because the universe seems to be younger than the stars it
contains.  Considering that the *current* measurements
of the age of the universe vary by a factor of two amongst each
other, it's hard to believe any one of them is actually right.
The stellar evolution models explain the populations on the 
Hertzsprung-Russell luminosity-temperature diagram quite well,
showing how stars evolve from the main sequence to giant stages 
and then to dwarfs and neutrons stars.  Cosmological theories
haven't converged to an explanation of the age and large-scale 
structure of the universe yet.  You might try asking on 
sci.astro.research and see what people say there.  I bet this
is a standard topic for them.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Robert Heeter /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 26 Sep 1995 05:26:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <EACHUS.95Sep22192556@spectre.mitre.org> Robert I. Eachus,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org writes:
>  > It appears that I made a stupid mistake in my post about half an hour ago.
>  > You would need a proton to collide with Li7 to make Be8 which would fall
>  > apart to produce two alphas. Unfortunately protons will not leave the hot
>  > fusion reaction chamber due to their charge, so we need to use Be7 as a
>  > jacket. Unfortunately Be7 does not occur in nature so it must be terribly
>  > expensive. (Its half life is 53 days)
>
>    No, you were right the first time.  n + Li7 --> Be8 + e + nu works
>just fine.  

Except that the dominant reaction branch is n + Li7 --> 4He + T + n 
and is endothermic, although it does propagate the neutron.
At least, this is what the FAQ says, and I'm fairly certain it's true.
If the FAQ needs correcting, give me a reference and I'll fix it.

>However most "first wall" breeders are expected to use:
>
>    n + Be9 --> 2n + 2 He4
>    -- which only works with high energy neutrons

... and multiplies the neutrons somewhat, to make up for the
inevitable losses due to absorption by the rest of the reactor
structure.

>    n + Li6 --> H3 + He4
>    -- to produce tritium to be recycled

Right.  The actual consumables in a "D-T" fusion plant are
D and Li, with a little Be.  The T and n are essentially 
intermediaries which make it a lot easier than burning D-Li fuel 
in the plasma.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Bruce Maher /  cmsg cancel <448u60$dui@ixc.ixc.net>
     
Originally-From: bmaher@ixc.net(Bruce Maher)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.electromag,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <448u60$dui@ixc.ixc.net>
Date: 26 Sep 1995 14:06:05 GMT

Spam cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbmaher cudfnBruce cudlnMaher cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Bruce Maher /  cmsg cancel <448uff$e1u@ixc.ixc.net>
     
Originally-From: bmaher@ixc.net(Bruce Maher)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.electromag,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <448uff$e1u@ixc.ixc.net>
Date: 26 Sep 1995 14:07:09 GMT

Spam cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbmaher cudfnBruce cudlnMaher cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 11:43:41 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-1909951842490001@204.57.193.64>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1709951519560001@199.172.8.133>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > However, I also believe that a fragment of an explanation is not an
> > explanation, and that "necessary" is not the same thing as "sufficient."
> 
> Necessary means that without it, you have a problem.  Since you have
> created a list of many areas in which we have disagreed, this seems a good
> place to restate my position and disagreemnt and questions regarding those
> and some other issues you raise. By the way, isn't asking questions a form
> of contribution to the gestalt of this group?

***{Of course it is, just as long as we are in agreement that the asking
of a question is less of a contribution than is the answering of a
question. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > For example: 
> > 
> > (1) It is necessary to understand the geometry of the lattice--how the
> > atoms are arranged, and the length of the distances between them. Some of
> > the posters in these threads had such understanding; others did not. And
> > the same could be said of the lurkers. However, such an awareness, though
> > necessary, is not sufficient to explain "cold fusion," because, obviously,
> > a fragment of an explanation is not an explanation.   
> 
> Isn't it necessary to know that the geometry of Palladium is cubic, face
> centered. This means the unit cell is bounded by a cube. The centers of
> the six faces of the cube are the locations of the centers of the six Pd
> atoms bounding the octahedron. 

***{This sounds like a misconception. (It's too bad the internet hasn't
yet progressed to the point where drawings can be readily posted in
newsgroups!) If the octahedral unit cells each contain a hydrogen atom,
then those atoms will be located at the centers of the six faces of the
cubes. If the unit cells are empty, however, then the centers of the six
faces of the cubes are also empty. Remember: the palladium atoms are laid
down in square arrays on planar sheets, with adjacent layers offset so
that the atoms of one layer are lined up above (or below) the centers of
the squares of the adjacent layer. The cubes are thus formed not by the
atoms of adjacent layers, but by the atoms of every other layer. To
repeat: the centers of the octahedral unit cells coincide with the centers
of the faces of the cubes, and are unoccupied if the unit cell has not
been loaded. Each octahedral unit cell has one half of its volume inside
one cube, and the other half inside an adjacent cube. --Mitchell Jones}***

    An octahedron is symmetric about all three
> axes. It can be chopped up into pairs of tetrahedrons in three ways.
> However, you are chopping up the same volume when you do this. There is no
> tetrahedral interior, only a single octahedral interior. 

***{True. However, if we assume that the palladium layers are oriented so
that the edges of the cubes run right-left, front-back, and up-down, then
there exist three types of octahedral unit cells: those which can be
separated into two four-sided, up-down oriented pyramids (i.e., like those
in Egypt); those which can be separated into two four-sided left-right
oriented pyramids; and those which can be separated into two four-sided
front-back oriented pyramids. --Mitchell Jones}***

If you idealize
> the Pd atoms to be spheres of radius 1/2 the bond lentgh of 2.751 A, which
> they are not, the maximum sphere that can be included in the octahedral
> cell is .5697 A. Given an H covalent radius of .32 A, it is possible to
> include an H2 atom in the cell with only slight expansion of the lattice.

***{I don't know where you got this "covalent radius," but I strongly
suspect that it is the effective radius of the atom when it is covalently
bound--which means: .32 A is half the distance separating the centers of
the two protons in the covalent molecule. In that case, the long axis of
the H2 molecule would be roughly 2 x .32 + 2 x .53 = 1.7 A, rather than
.64 A as you apparently assume. (The innermost Bohr radius is .53 A.) To
satisfy yourself that this interpretation is correct, I suggest that you
look in your Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, under "bond lengths of the
elements," where you will find the H-H bond length to be .74611 A. This is
the minimal energy, equilibrium distance from the center of one nucleus to
the center of the next. The covalent radius, based on this number, would
be .373 A, which is not a bad fit to the number you found (given some
variation in the measurement conditions and assumptions). Using this
number,  the long axis of the H2 molecule would be roughly 2 x .373 + 2 x
.53 = 1.806 A. Bottom line: as I have said repeatedly, a hydrogen molecule
(H2) will *not* fit into the unit cell of this lattice, or even come
close. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> 
> Isn't it necessary to know the triangular faces of the octahedral cell,
> under the above assumptions, will permit a sphere of radius .2128 A to
> enter,  and that, this radius is far more sensitive to the erroneous
> assumption of spherical Pd atoms. With a lattice in sufficient motion, it
> is very possible .32 A diameter H2 molecules can diffuse in molecular form
> through the lattice, and also that H2 can be trapped in the facial sites,
> the making the Pd lattice expand.

***{As noted above, I believe you have misinterpreted the number you found
for "covalent radius." And here, compounding the matter, you have
substituted "diameter" for "radius." To repeat: there isn't *anywhere
near* enough room in the unit cells to accomodate an H2 molecule. It isn't
even close, Horace! --Mitchell Jones}***

> > (2) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand the nature of the
> > unit cell of the lattice--that it consists of two four-sided pyramids
> > joined base-to-base (an octohedron). 
> 
> Isn't it necessary to know that, excluding boundaries, there is the same
> number of Pd atoms as octahedral cells? 

***{I have already explained in detail my belief that there are *three*
octahedral cells per palladium atom in an infinite lattice, not one. (For
a finite lattice of the sort found in "cold fusion" electrodes, this
remains a very accurate working approximation, since (a) atoms that are
associated with less than 3 unit cells occur at the surface, and (b) for
macroscopic lattices the number of interior atoms is enormously greater
than the number of surface atoms.) In addition, I have posted this
explanation several times for the benefit of others. To repeat, in brief:
(a) if the cubes have their edges oriented up-down, left-right, and
front-back, then there are three distinct types of octahedral cell: those
which have a left-right axis connecting the tips of opposed pyramids;
those which have an up-down axis; and those which have a front-back axis.
Each palladium atom in the lattice is the rightmost tip of an octahedron
with a left-right axis, the uppermost tip of an octahedron with an up-down
axis, and the frontmost tip of an octahedron with a front-back axis.
Therefore, there are three times as many octahedral unit cells as the
number of atoms in the lattice. If you still disagree with this after
thinking about it again, please state specifically which part of the
reasoning you deny. --Mitchell Jones}***

That this is true for typical
> electrode metals Pd, Ni, Al, Pt, Cu, Au, AG, and Pb, as well as true for
> Ca, Sr, Ac, Yb, Th, Ce, and Ge? Thus doesn't a loading above 100% results
> in doubly occupied cells?

***{One H per Pd is 33% loading, in my view. See above. --Mitchell Jones}***
>   
> > 
> > (3) It is necessary to understand that the radius of a neutral hydrogen
> > atom, with its electron at the innermost Bohr orbit, is a good, snug fit
> > into the center of a unit cell. Again, however, while this fragment of
> > information is necessary, it is not sufficient to explain "cold fusion." 
> > 
> 
> The atomic radius of hydrogen is .79 A

***{I don't know where you got this number, but it probably represents an
average which includes many atoms with electrons *above* the innermost
Bohr orbit. As I have already noted, the radius of a hydrogen with its
electron at the innermost Bohr radius is about .53 A. This is the radius
with which we are concerned here. --Mitchell Jones}***

 , covalent H is .32. 

***{A bit low. It is about .373 A. See above. --MJ}***

 The separation
> of D2 nuclei is .74 A. 

***{Close enough. The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics gives a bond
length for D2 of .74164 A. Half of that gives a covalent radius of .3708
A. --MJ}***

 Molecular D2 can fit with a slight expansion of
> the Pd lattice. 

***{Again, this is absolutely false: the interior of a unit cell will
accomodate a sphere of diameter 2 x .55 = 1.1 A, based on the calculated
bond length of 2.67 A for a pair of palladium atoms. (I am not using the
published figure of 2.74 A which you found because I do not know what the
assumptions were.) Since the long axis of the D2 molecule is going to be
about 2 x .3708 + 2 x .53 = 1.7716 A, the fit is off by a country mile.
--Mitchell Jones}***

 Isn't it necessary to know expansion due to heavy loading
> has been observed?

***{In my view the observed expansion is due to the electrostatic
repulsion between the electron shells of the H atoms in the loaded cells
and the shells of the palladium atoms that surround them. No additional
assumptions are required. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > (4) It is necessary, but not sufficient, to understand that while there is
> > room in the unit cell for a neutral hydrogen atom, the opening into the
> > unit cell is too small to permit the passage of a neutral hydrogen atom. 
> > 
> 
> Isn't this debatable? There is not much difference between .2128 A and .32
> A, considering it is known the .2128 is too small.

***{My statement refers to a "neutral hydrogen atom," which is not the
same thing as a covalent hydrogen molecule. As noted above, the radius of
the innermost Bohr orbit of a hydrogen atom is about .53 A. That is more
than twice the radius of the entry hole into the unit cell. Your "covalent
radius," from whatever source, is irrelevant (a) because that is not what
I was talking about when I made the statement, and (b) because, as noted
above, a covalent molecule of hydrogen does not even come close to fitting
into a unit cell. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> > (5) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that H+ ions are
> > small enough to enter a unit cell. 
> 
> Since extensive and verified diffusion modelling has been done, isn't it
> important to find out what the established mechanism of diffusion is?

***{The only model that makes any sense, given the geometry of the
lattice, is that H+ ions drift into the cathode, following the voltage
gradient. Neutral hydrogen atoms (H) and neutral hydrogen molecules (H2)
are too large to enter the unit cells and, in addition, are not
electrically attracted to the cathode. The inescapable conclusion is that
"diffusion" involves H+ ions drifting down the voltage gradient into the
cathode, until they meet outwardly drifting electrons. When that happens,
they form a neutral hydrogen atom, and occupy the unit cell in which they
met. Such a scenario is simple, clear, and unarguable. In spite of that,
for unknown reasons, you continue to insist that neutral hydrogen
molecules, which are manifestly too large to enter the unit cells and
totally unaffected by the voltage gradient, nevertheless struggle
successfully to do so, driven by some unknown, magical force. Frankly
Horace, I have no idea why you continue to cling to this manifestly
indefensible position. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> > 
> > (6) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that there exists a
> > small voltage gradient across the cathode which is sufficient to draw H+
> > ions into the lattice.
> 
> There is a voltage gradient across the solution. There is only a nominal
> and inconsequential and transient gradient in the electrode. 

***{How can you say it is inconsequential, when the specific consequence
of it is that electrons drift up the gradient, and H+ ions drift down it?
This is the crucial fact that drives the apparatus. To claim it is
inconsequential amounts to claiming that the apparatus would work just as
well with the current turned off! --Mitchell Jones}***

Isn't it
> important that the current in the electrode is carried by the
> electromagnetic force, that the rate of travel of current is near light
> speed.

***{The time required for loading of the unit cells depends upon the drift
velocities of the electrons and protons within the cathode, and those
velocities are a tiny fraction of the speed of light. Such drift currents
depend upon the gradient (i.e., the voltage drop) and the resistance
within each circuit element, and it is a simple matter to calculate the
drift velocities of the electrons if the current, the nature of the
conductor, and the conductor cross section are all known. The formula is V
= I/(nAe), where V is the drift velocity of the electrons in m/sec, I is
the current in amps, n is the number of free electrons per cubic meter of
copper, A is the cross sectional area of the wire in square meters, and e
is the charge of an electron in coulombs. If, for example, the copper wire
leading to the cathode has a 1 square mm cross section and carries a
current of 1 amp, the formula gives and average drift velocity for the
electrons of 7.8E-5 meters per second, or .078 mm/sec. [For copper, n =
8.0E+28 free electrons per cubic meter, and e = 1.6E-19 coulombs.] Note
that these sorts of drift velocities are far, far slower than the slowest
snail ever crawled! It is precisely because this velocity is so low, and
because of the layout and internal complexities of the cathode, that H+
ions have time to disseminate into it before meeting up with an electron.
If, as you apparently believe, the electrons were to leap across the
cathode at the speed of light, then of course they would be sitting at the
surface waiting impatiently for an H+ to appear, and the possibility of an
H+ actually working its way into the interior would be zero. That,
however, is manifestly not the case. --Mitchell Jones}***  

 D+ ions in solution are subsonic. There is a few orders of magitude
> difference. Isn't it important to consider that he electrode is fully
> charge balanced to the H+ ion before it touches the lattice?

***{The electron drift velocities are also subsonic, and the charge
balance to which you refer is approximate, global, and based on an
averaging process. Such an average does not apply locally within the
lattice. There, charge imbalance is the norm. Each drifting electron is at
the center of a negative region, and each drifting proton is the center of
a positive region. They may wander in the byways of the lattice for a very
long time before they meet. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
>  
> > 
> > (7) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that when H+ ions meet
> > electrons in occupied cells, they do not have room to form neutral
> > hydrogen atoms. 
> 
> Isn't it important to figure out where the H+ ions got the 13+ volts to
> get ionized deep inside that lattice?

***{I have no idea what you mean. The overall charge of the cathode is the
result of taking into account the charges and positions of all the protons
and electrons within the lattice. It comes to nowhere near 13 volts in any
setup I have heard of. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> > 
> > (8) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that these
> > conditions, given insufficient energy for the electron to escape the H+
> > (the proton), would lead the electron to spiral down toward the nucleus
> > and would produce the unstable state that I termed a "protoneutron." 
> > 
> 
> Isn't it important that there is no experimental evidence that electrons
> spiral down to a nucleus.  

***{So you either deny that "electron capture"--i.e., the capture of an
electron by a nucleus--has ever happened, or else you claim that when it
happens, the electron performs a "quantum leap" from a position in one of
the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits down into the nucleus, without passing through
the intervening space. In the former case, you deny massive experimental
evidence; in the latter, you deny the principle of continuity and, with
it, all evidence that has ever been gathered throughout human history. So
please be specific: which do you deny? --Mitchell Jones}***
 
There is lots of evidence that slow moving
> electrons are too de-localized to "reach" a nucleus in a whole sense.

***{Not true. All of this stuff about "delocalized electrons" is an
interpretation of curve fitted mathematics. The alternative interpretation
is that limitations on our ability to measure phenomena in the microcosm
force us to rely on averages derived from aggregate behavior. Result: many
people erroneously attempt to visualize microcosmic objects as if they are
characterized by those averages, and find that the resulting images are
blurry and nonsensical. They don't stop to realize that precisely the same
outcome would result if they attempted to visualize an "average" person.
Think about it: the average person has more than one eye but less than
two, more than one arm but less than two, less than one nose, has
genitalia that are neither male nor female, etc. Get the picture? If not,
that is the point: the attempt to visualize phenomena on the basis of
averages taken from aggregate measurements doesn't work. It is hardly
surprising that the attempt leads to the same results when applied to
microcosmic phenomena that it leads to everywhere else! Bottom line: there
is no evidence that "delocalized electrons" exist. Rumors of the demise of
reason, I'm afraid, have been greatly exaggerated. --Mitchell
Jones}***      

> Consider the two slit electron interference experiment. If an electron can
> go through 2 slits simultaneously, how is it going to localise enough "get
> to" that little nucleus without a lot of accelerating, not decellerating?

***{I have a theory about the two-slit interference experiments, but it
would require an enormously lengthy digression to get into it here. (In
brief: the moving electron is accompanied by the "Biot-Savart field,"
which moves with it and consists of a complex array of what Pauli termed
"bound photons." As the electron is diffracted through one of the slits, a
portion of the accompanying cloud of "bound photons" is diffracted through
the other slit and, when the electron finally strikes the screen, the
probability of its doing so at a particular point is influenced by the
diffraction pattern of the bound photons that passed through the other
slit. The electron doesn't "interfere with itself." What happens is
analogous to the turbulence experienced by a power boat that is crossing
its own wake. And, just as the power boat isn't "delocalized," so the
electron isn't "delocalized," either.) Bottom line: "quantum mechanical"
interpretaitons aren't science, Horace. "Quantum mechanics" is purely
evil, anti-rational crap.  

Incidentally, if I did *not* have a theory to explain single-electron
interference experiments, I still would still not give a moment's
consideration to the notion that motion in the microcosm (or anywhere
else) is "quantized."  As I have noted repeatedly, if things can leap into
existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing, then the entire
structure of human knowledge collapses. (If our sensations may be leaping
into existence out of nothing, then we have not a shred of a basis for
belief in the existence of anything, including ourselves.) For that
reason, the conjecture that motion at any level of magnification entails
"quantum leaps" is total gibberish. Nothing can be "explained" by ripping
away the foundations of human knowledge. What this means in the present
context is simple: whatever form the electron has before it enters the
nucleus, each and every part of it follows a continuous spatial pathway
from its initial position to its final position in the nucleus. This must
be, because the alternative is madness, not science. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> 
> 
> > (9) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that the accumulation
> > of such entities (protoneutrons) could occur in a loaded lattice. 
> >
> 
> If such things exist, why is our sun not a neutron star? There is plenty
> of energy and much more confined conditions, and lots of gamma radiation
> of all denominations. Wouldn't the whole thing become a bunch of pn's and
> then neutrons in the core?

***{As I have repeatedly noted, if protoneutrons exist they are a
relatively low-energy state. The idea is that the electron lacks the space
needed to orbit at the innermost Bohr orbit, lacks the energy (.78 Mev)
needed to merge with the proton, and also lacks the energy necessary to
escape from it. This latter condition manifestly would *not* be met in a
high energy solar plasma at temperatures of millions of degrees Kelvin.
--Mitchell Jones}***   
>  
> > (10) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that such an entity,
> > given an appropriate dose of energy, could transform into a thermal
> > neutron. 
> 
> Wouldn't an exact coupling would be required to do this? 

***{I hesitate to speculate about what the descriptive mathematics will be
for this phenomenon, which has not yet been experimentally demonstrated to
exist. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > 
> > (11) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that thermal neutrons
> > tend to be absorbed into nuclei, and that when they are, the resulting
> > nucleus typically  emits a giant gamma and drops to ground state. 
> 
> Isn't the mean free path of thermal neutrons in Pd much farther than the
> size of a typical electrode?

***{The trivial answer, based on a total neutron cross section for
hydrogen of 38 barns, is no. [To estimate the mean free path, simply
multiply the number of hydrogen atoms per cc in loaded regions of the
cathode (.2058E+24) times 38E-24, and take the reciprocal. This gives .128
cm and is an upper bound measure, because it assumes the H atoms are not
in motion, and it ignores the influence of the total cross sections of the
palladium atoms in the lattice.  (Total cross section for Pd is 11.1
barns).] 

More important, however, is the core issue underlying your question, which
harkens back to an earlier objection raised by Zoltan. If you recall, he
claimed that the protoneutron state would not endure due to thermal
motions in the lattice, and that, as a result, we would really just have a
cloud of electrons and protons bouncing around, with no lingered pairing
condition between any of them. The obvious basis for his objection is the
same as the basis for you question about the mean free path: if the
protoneutrons, or the neutrons, partake of the average kinetic energies of
the lattice particles, problems arise. In the case of the protoneutrons,
the problem would be that the lingered pairing condition would not persist
and there would be no protoneutrons. In the case of the neutrons, the
problem would be that significant numbers of neutrons would make their way
out of the lattice before they were absorbed into nuclei--which means:
there would be no protoneutrons around them to absorb the gammas, and the
experimenters would be killed. 

The fact that, technically, the answer to your question is in the
negative, does not address this underlying objection. Moreover, when I
responded to Zoltan's objection, which was based on the same premise, I
merely said that the protoneutrons would endure only so long as they were
not subject to thermal collisions. That, obviously, was not a sufficient
answer. If it had been, you would not have raised yet another objection
based on the same premise. Your premise is that the protoneutrons, and the
neutrons which they produce, will become thermalized--i.e., that they will
partake of the average kinetic energies that are present in the lattice.
My position is that they will not. 

How is that possible, given the laws of thermodynamics? Simple:
temperature does not manifest itself in the same way in a crystal lattice
as in a gas. In a gas, there exists 3 degrees of freedom per particle, and
the result is a mass of particles flying randomly in all directions, in
accordance with the kinetic theory of gasses. But in a crystal lattice,
the motions of the atoms are constrained by the contact forces exerted by
their neighbors. The result is that they behave as harmonic oscillators,
vibrating in tiny localized domains, in synchrony with their neighbors.
Such considerations lead to the existence of the thermal "lattice wave"
described in textbooks on solid state physics. And the lattice wave,
coupled with the principles of wave mechanics, leads to the existence of
nodes--i.e., threadlike regions of quiescence penetrating throughout the
lattice, where thermal motion does not intrude. To understand this idea,
remember the experiment in high school physics where you sprinkle fine
sand on a drumhead and then strike it. Result: the vibratory pattern of
the drumhead forces the sand grains to migrate to the nodes. This happens
because displacement at a node is zero, so there are no forces acting to
bounce a grain away from a node. On the other hand, there *are* forces
acting on grains that are not on nodes, and so they keep bouncing around
until they land on a node. At the end, when the drumhead ceases vibrating,
you can see the threadlike pattern of the nodes traced in the sand. This
means that, by elementary wave mechanical principles known to apply to
wave phenomena in solids, we would expect similar threadlike thermally
undisturbed regions to penetrate throughout the loaded palladium lattice.
This means that, since protoneutrons would be destroyed by the action of
thermal collisions, it is only when proton meets electron in such a zone
of thermal quiescence--a node of the lattice wave--that protoneutrons will
form and endure. And it means that, when protoneutrons receive the .78 Mev
they need to transform into neutrons, they will receive it in such zones
of thermal quiescence. Which means: neither the protoneutrons nor the
neutrons produced from them will partake of the thermal motion in the
lattice. 

Why, then, did I myself refer to them as "thermal?" Because, in most
textbooks that I have seen, "thermal neutrons" and "slow neutrons" are
treated as being one and the same thing. However, a better term, for
present purposes, would seem to be "sub-thermal neutrons" and "sub-thermal
protoneutrons."  --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > 
> > (12) It is necessary but not sufficient to conceive of the possibility
> > that protoneutrons are characterized by a *rapacity* for the energy of
> > transformation into neutrons--that they may be incredibly efficient
> > absorbers of electromagnetic radiation at the needed frequencies, and
> > possibly at many other frequencies. 
> 
> Due to their small size, wouldn't it take a latice totally packed with
> them? In fact, wouldn't every cell have to be totally choked with them?
> Wouldn't the Pd electrode would have to have tons of them to absorb enough
> gamma radiation to prevent death of the experimenter?

***{It depends on the gamma absorption cross section of a protoneutron,
which I believe to be very large. (There is ample precedent for cross
sections that are much larger than the physical dimensions of the
particle, by the way.) In any case, if experiments support the
protoneutron theory, reasonable people will accept it, and if not, not.
The rest is just noise. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> > 
> > (13) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that gamma absorption
> > in a large accumulation of protoneutrons could trigger a chain reaction of
> > a new type, in which the event sequence was: 
> > 
> >      (a) pn (protoneutron) + gamma --> n.
> > 
> >      (b) n + nucleus --> isotope shift + gamma. 
> > 
> >      (c) Return to step (a). 
> 
> 
> Why have step (b) at all, why not just:
> 
>          pn + nucleus -> isotope shift + gamma    8^)

***{Because the step you want to skip is the one which absorbs the gammas
and, thus, explains why the experimenters aren't all dead. --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> Why not do an isotopic analysis on the glass of that bottle?

***{Because the neutrons aren't going to make it that far. See above.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > 
> > (14) It was necessary to recognize that the palladium lattice contained
> > nuclei (e.g., H, D) that upon neutron absorption emitted gammas large
> > enough to produce the formation of multiple neutrons--which means: large
> > enough to mediate an *accelerated* chain reaction. [As I have noted, p + n
> > --> d + 2.22 Mev (gamma). In addition, d + n --> t + 6.25 Mev (gamma).
> > Etc.]
> > 
> 
> If true, how does all that high energy stuff stay in one tiny bottle?

***{The absorption mechanism, as I have repeatedly noted, is the
protoneutrons themselves. I conjecture, hypothesize--however you want to
say it--that protoneutrons absorb all gammas (and possibly x-rays) that
pass anywhere near them. If the energy is above .78 Mev, slow neutrons are
produced; if below, it is absorbed as kinetic energy, and results in a
protoneutron flying through the lattice until it comes to an unoccupied
unit cell, where the energy is delivered to the lattice as heat via a
series of collisions. If such an energy absorption effect is real, then
only radiation of a frequency less than the lower limit of the absorption
range would be able to escape the lattice. You may consider this to be
implausible, but it is, in fact, one way to explain the "cold fusion"
results, and it is experimentally verifiable. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 
> > And the list goes on and on and on, Zoltan. 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > A good way to illustrate such a process is with an analogy. Suppose that
> > there exists an immense being, in whose body each galaxy is an atom. To
> > him, time runs slowly. Each rotation of a galaxy, which takes many
> > millions of human years, is in his time scale a tiny fraction of a second.
> > Thus we are part of what, to him, is the microcosm. Result: he has as much
> > trouble measuring events in his microcosm as we have measuring events in
> > ours. For example, it might be that, using his finest instruments, he can
> > only detect human beings on the earth if they do not move for at least a
> > month. Result: if he applies "quantum mechanics," he will be convinced
> > that only the dead and the dying exist on earth, because only corpses and
> > people in comas (or strapped to torture racks) remain immoble for that
> > long. If, therefore, he is a practitioner of "quantum mechanics," our
> > hypothetical being will declare that the less stable, faster moving,
> > hard-to-detect states do not exist. If he is a believer in classical
> > mechanics, on the other hand, he will simply declare that other states may
> > exist that are beyond the accuracy of his instruments. --Mitchell
> > Jones}*** 
> > 
> 
> Can you apply this analagy to the 2 (through n) slit experiment for
> electrons? When electrons are passed through through 2 or more adjacent
> slits an interference pattern develops, even when they pass through one at
> a time. Do you account for this by the little guys quickly running back
> through the holes a second time and running so fast they bump into
> themselves?  Maybe they see the n slits coming and split up into n smaller
> guys, go through the slits and then bump into themselves? This thought 
> reminds me of a Keystone Cops fire drill I saw once 8^).

***{See above. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Seriously, it seems like there are many inconsistancies and unanswered
> questions in your hypothesis, the most important being how does all that
> tiny subatomic neutral stuff, at the speed of light

***{See above. --MJ}***

, and at 2200 m/sec

***{This is the average velocity of neutrons that have been "thermalized."
Therefore, to repeat: I was using "thermal neutron" in the sense of "slow
neutron." I believe that protoneutrons form in the nodes of the lattice
wave, and that when they absorb energy to produce neutrons, the neutrons
retain the velocities of the protoneutrons from which they formed. *They
aren't moving at anywhere near 2200 m/sec, in my opinion.*  --Mitchell
Jones}***

,
> stay in the electrode or bottle long enough to be absorbed?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace
> 
> -- 
> Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.26 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:05:59 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-1909951842490001@204.57.193.64>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1709951519560001@199.172.8.133>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > However, I also believe that a fragment of an explanation is not an
> > explanation, and that "necessary" is not the same thing as "sufficient."
> 
> Necessary means that without it, you have a problem.  Since you have
> created a list of many areas in which we have disagreed, this seems a good
> place to restate my position and disagreemnt and questions regarding those
> and some other issues you raise. By the way, isn't asking questions a form
> of contribution to the gestalt of this group?

***{Of course it is, just as long as we are in agreement that the asking
of a question is less of a contribution than is the answering of a
question. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > For example: 
> > 
> > (1) It is necessary to understand the geometry of the lattice--how the
> > atoms are arranged, and the length of the distances between them. Some of
> > the posters in these threads had such understanding; others did not. And
> > the same could be said of the lurkers. However, such an awareness, though
> > necessary, is not sufficient to explain "cold fusion," because, obviously,
> > a fragment of an explanation is not an explanation.   
> 
> Isn't it necessary to know that the geometry of Palladium is cubic, face
> centered. This means the unit cell is bounded by a cube. The centers of
> the six faces of the cube are the locations of the centers of the six Pd
> atoms bounding the octahedron. 

***{This sounds like a misconception. (It's too bad the internet hasn't
yet progressed to the point where drawings can be readily posted in
newsgroups!) If the octahedral unit cells each contain a hydrogen atom,
then those atoms will be located at the centers of the six faces of the
cubes. If the unit cells are empty, however, then the centers of the six
faces of the cubes are also empty. Remember: the palladium atoms are laid
down in square arrays on planar sheets, with adjacent layers offset so
that the atoms of one layer are lined up above (or below) the centers of
the squares of the adjacent layer. The cubes are thus formed not by the
atoms of adjacent layers, but by the atoms of every other layer. To
repeat: the centers of the octahedral unit cells coincide with the centers
of the faces of the cubes, and are unoccupied if the unit cell has not
been loaded. Each octahedral unit cell has one half of its volume inside
one cube, and the other half inside an adjacent cube. --Mitchell Jones}***

    An octahedron is symmetric about all three
> axes. It can be chopped up into pairs of tetrahedrons in three ways.
> However, you are chopping up the same volume when you do this. There is no
> tetrahedral interior, only a single octahedral interior. 

***{True. However, if we assume that the palladium layers are oriented so
that the edges of the cubes run right-left, front-back, and up-down, then
there exist three types of octahedral unit cells: those which can be
separated into two four-sided, up-down oriented pyramids (i.e., like those
in Egypt); those which can be separated into two four-sided left-right
oriented pyramids; and those which can be separated into two four-sided
front-back oriented pyramids. --Mitchell Jones}***

If you idealize
> the Pd atoms to be spheres of radius 1/2 the bond lentgh of 2.751 A, which
> they are not, the maximum sphere that can be included in the octahedral
> cell is .5697 A. Given an H covalent radius of .32 A, it is possible to
> include an H2 atom in the cell with only slight expansion of the lattice.

***{I don't know where you got this "covalent radius," but I strongly
suspect that it is the effective radius of the atom when it is covalently
bound--which means: .32 A is half the distance separating the centers of
the two protons in the covalent molecule. In that case, the long axis of
the H2 molecule would be roughly 2 x .32 + 2 x .53 = 1.7 A, rather than
.64 A as you apparently assume. (The innermost Bohr radius is .53 A.) To
satisfy yourself that this interpretation is correct, I suggest that you
look in your Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, under "bond lengths of the
elements," where you will find the H-H bond length to be .74611 A. This is
the minimal energy, equilibrium distance from the center of one nucleus to
the center of the next. The covalent radius, based on this number, would
be .373 A, which is not a bad fit to the number you found (given some
variation in the measurement conditions and assumptions). Using this
number,  the long axis of the H2 molecule would be roughly 2 x .373 + 2 x
.53 = 1.806 A. Bottom line: as I have said repeatedly, a hydrogen molecule
(H2) will *not* fit into the unit cell of this lattice, or even come
close. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> 
> Isn't it necessary to know the triangular faces of the octahedral cell,
> under the above assumptions, will permit a sphere of radius .2128 A to
> enter,  and that, this radius is far more sensitive to the erroneous
> assumption of spherical Pd atoms. With a lattice in sufficient motion, it
> is very possible .32 A diameter H2 molecules can diffuse in molecular form
> through the lattice, and also that H2 can be trapped in the facial sites,
> the making the Pd lattice expand.

***{As noted above, I believe you have misinterpreted the number you found
for "covalent radius." And here, compounding the matter, you have
substituted "diameter" for "radius." To repeat: there isn't *anywhere
near* enough room in the unit cells to accomodate an H2 molecule. It isn't
even close, Horace! --Mitchell Jones}***

> > (2) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand the nature of the
> > unit cell of the lattice--that it consists of two four-sided pyramids
> > joined base-to-base (an octohedron). 
> 
> Isn't it necessary to know that, excluding boundaries, there is the same
> number of Pd atoms as octahedral cells? 

***{I have already explained in detail my belief that there are *three*
octahedral cells per palladium atom in an infinite lattice, not one. (For
a finite lattice of the sort found in "cold fusion" electrodes, this
remains a very accurate working approximation, since (a) atoms that are
associated with less than 3 unit cells occur at the surface, and (b) for
macroscopic lattices the number of interior atoms is enormously greater
than the number of surface atoms.) In addition, I have posted this
explanation several times for the benefit of others. To repeat, in brief:
(a) if the cubes have their edges oriented up-down, left-right, and
front-back, then there are three distinct types of octahedral cell: those
which have a left-right axis connecting the tips of opposed pyramids;
those which have an up-down axis; and those which have a front-back axis.
Each palladium atom in the lattice is the rightmost tip of an octahedron
with a left-right axis, the uppermost tip of an octahedron with an up-down
axis, and the frontmost tip of an octahedron with a front-back axis.
Therefore, there are three times as many octahedral unit cells as the
number of atoms in the lattice. If you still disagree with this after
thinking about it again, please state specifically which part of the
reasoning you deny. --Mitchell Jones}***

That this is true for typical
> electrode metals Pd, Ni, Al, Pt, Cu, Au, AG, and Pb, as well as true for
> Ca, Sr, Ac, Yb, Th, Ce, and Ge? Thus doesn't a loading above 100% results
> in doubly occupied cells?

***{One H per Pd is 33% loading, in my view. See above. --Mitchell Jones}***
>   
> > 
> > (3) It is necessary to understand that the radius of a neutral hydrogen
> > atom, with its electron at the innermost Bohr orbit, is a good, snug fit
> > into the center of a unit cell. Again, however, while this fragment of
> > information is necessary, it is not sufficient to explain "cold fusion." 
> > 
> 
> The atomic radius of hydrogen is .79 A

***{I don't know where you got this number, but it probably represents an
average which includes many atoms with electrons *above* the innermost
Bohr orbit. As I have already noted, the radius of a hydrogen with its
electron at the innermost Bohr radius is about .53 A. This is the radius
with which we are concerned here. --Mitchell Jones}***

 , covalent H is .32. 

***{A bit low. It is about .373 A. See above. --MJ}***

 The separation
> of D2 nuclei is .74 A. 

***{Close enough. The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics gives a bond
length for D2 of .74164 A. Half of that gives a covalent radius of .3708
A. --MJ}***

 Molecular D2 can fit with a slight expansion of
> the Pd lattice. 

***{Again, this is absolutely false: the interior of a unit cell will
accomodate a sphere of diameter 2 x .55 = 1.1 A, based on the calculated
bond length of 2.67 A for a pair of palladium atoms. (I am not using the
published figure of 2.74 A which you found because I do not know what the
assumptions were.) Since the long axis of the D2 molecule is going to be
about 2 x .3708 + 2 x .53 = 1.7716 A, the fit is off by a country mile.
--Mitchell Jones}***

 Isn't it necessary to know expansion due to heavy loading
> has been observed?

***{In my view the observed expansion is due to the electrostatic
repulsion between the electron shells of the H atoms in the loaded cells
and the shells of the palladium atoms that surround them. No additional
assumptions are required. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > (4) It is necessary, but not sufficient, to understand that while there is
> > room in the unit cell for a neutral hydrogen atom, the opening into the
> > unit cell is too small to permit the passage of a neutral hydrogen atom. 
> > 
> 
> Isn't this debatable? There is not much difference between .2128 A and .32
> A, considering it is known the .2128 is too small.

***{My statement refers to a "neutral hydrogen atom," which is not the
same thing as a covalent hydrogen molecule. As noted above, the radius of
the innermost Bohr orbit of a hydrogen atom is about .53 A. That is more
than twice the radius of the entry hole into the unit cell. Your "covalent
radius," from whatever source, is irrelevant (a) because that is not what
I was talking about when I made the statement, and (b) because, as noted
above, a covalent molecule of hydrogen does not even come close to fitting
into a unit cell. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> > (5) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that H+ ions are
> > small enough to enter a unit cell. 
> 
> Since extensive and verified diffusion modelling has been done, isn't it
> important to find out what the established mechanism of diffusion is?

***{The only model that makes any sense, given the geometry of the
lattice, is that H+ ions drift into the cathode, following the voltage
gradient. Neutral hydrogen atoms (H) and neutral hydrogen molecules (H2)
are too large to enter the unit cells and, in addition, are not
electrically attracted to the cathode. The inescapable conclusion is that
"diffusion" involves H+ ions drifting down the voltage gradient into the
cathode, until they meet outwardly drifting electrons. When that happens,
they form a neutral hydrogen atom, and occupy the unit cell in which they
met. Such a scenario is simple, clear, and unarguable. In spite of that,
for unknown reasons, you continue to insist that neutral hydrogen
molecules, which are manifestly too large to enter the unit cells and
totally unaffected by the voltage gradient, nevertheless struggle
successfully to do so, driven by some unknown, magical force. Frankly
Horace, I have no idea why you continue to cling to this manifestly
indefensible position. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> > 
> > (6) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that there exists a
> > small voltage gradient across the cathode which is sufficient to draw H+
> > ions into the lattice.
> 
> There is a voltage gradient across the solution. There is only a nominal
> and inconsequential and transient gradient in the electrode. 

***{How can you say it is inconsequential, when the specific consequence
of it is that electrons drift up the gradient, and H+ ions drift down it?
This is the crucial fact that drives the apparatus. To claim it is
inconsequential amounts to claiming that the apparatus would work just as
well with the current turned off! --Mitchell Jones}***

Isn't it
> important that the current in the electrode is carried by the
> electromagnetic force, that the rate of travel of current is near light
> speed.

***{The time required for loading of the unit cells depends upon the drift
velocities of the electrons and protons within the cathode, and those
velocities are a tiny fraction of the speed of light. Such drift currents
depend upon the gradient (i.e., the voltage drop) and the resistance
within each circuit element, and it is a simple matter to calculate the
drift velocities of the electrons if the current, the nature of the
conductor, and the conductor cross section are all known. The formula is V
= I/(nAe), where V is the drift velocity of the electrons in m/sec, I is
the current in amps, n is the number of free electrons per cubic meter of
copper, A is the cross sectional area of the wire in square meters, and e
is the charge of an electron in coulombs. If, for example, the copper wire
leading to the cathode has a 1 square mm cross section and carries a
current of 1 amp, the formula gives and average drift velocity for the
electrons of 7.8E-5 meters per second, or .078 mm/sec. [For copper, n =
8.0E+28 free electrons per cubic meter, and e = 1.6E-19 coulombs.] Note
that these sorts of drift velocities are far, far slower than the slowest
snail ever crawled! It is precisely because this velocity is so low, and
because of the layout and internal complexities of the cathode, that H+
ions have time to disseminate into it before meeting up with an electron.
If, as you apparently believe, the electrons were to leap across the
cathode at the speed of light, then of course they would be sitting at the
surface waiting impatiently for an H+ to appear, and the possibility of an
H+ actually working its way into the interior would be zero. That,
however, is manifestly not the case. --Mitchell Jones}***  

 D+ ions in solution are subsonic. There is a few orders of magitude
> difference. Isn't it important to consider that he electrode is fully
> charge balanced to the H+ ion before it touches the lattice?

***{The electron drift velocities are also subsonic, and the charge
balance to which you refer is approximate, global, and based on an
averaging process. Such an average does not apply locally within the
lattice. There, charge imbalance is the norm. Each drifting electron is at
the center of a negative region, and each drifting proton is the center of
a positive region. They may wander in the byways of the lattice for a very
long time before they meet. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
>  
> > 
> > (7) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that when H+ ions meet
> > electrons in occupied cells, they do not have room to form neutral
> > hydrogen atoms. 
> 
> Isn't it important to figure out where the H+ ions got the 13+ volts to
> get ionized deep inside that lattice?

***{I have no idea what you mean. The overall charge of the cathode is the
result of taking into account the charges and positions of all the protons
and electrons within the lattice. It comes to nowhere near 13 volts in any
setup I have heard of. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> > 
> > (8) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that these
> > conditions, given insufficient energy for the electron to escape the H+
> > (the proton), would lead the electron to spiral down toward the nucleus
> > and would produce the unstable state that I termed a "protoneutron." 
> > 
> 
> Isn't it important that there is no experimental evidence that electrons
> spiral down to a nucleus.  

***{So you either deny that "electron capture"--i.e., the capture of an
electron by a nucleus--has ever happened, or else you claim that when it
happens, the electron performs a "quantum leap" from a position in one of
the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits down into the nucleus, without passing through
the intervening space. In the former case, you deny massive experimental
evidence; in the latter, you deny the principle of continuity and, with
it, all evidence that has ever been gathered throughout human history. So
please be specific: which do you deny? --Mitchell Jones}***
 
There is lots of evidence that slow moving
> electrons are too de-localized to "reach" a nucleus in a whole sense.

***{Not true. All of this stuff about "delocalized electrons" is an
interpretation of curve fitted mathematics. The alternative interpretation
is that limitations on our ability to measure phenomena in the microcosm
force us to rely on averages derived from aggregate behavior. Result: many
people erroneously attempt to visualize microcosmic objects as if they are
characterized by those averages, and find that the resulting images are
blurry and nonsensical. They don't stop to realize that precisely the same
outcome would result if they attempted to visualize an "average" person.
Think about it: the average person has more than one eye but less than
two, more than one arm but less than two, less than one nose, has
genitalia that are neither male nor female, etc. Get the picture? If not,
that is the point: the attempt to visualize phenomena on the basis of
averages taken from aggregate measurements doesn't work. It is hardly
surprising that the attempt leads to the same results when applied to
microcosmic phenomena that it leads to everywhere else! Bottom line: there
is no evidence that "delocalized electrons" exist. Rumors of the demise of
reason, I'm afraid, have been greatly exaggerated. --Mitchell
Jones}***      

> Consider the two slit electron interference experiment. If an electron can
> go through 2 slits simultaneously, how is it going to localise enough "get
> to" that little nucleus without a lot of accelerating, not decellerating?

***{I have a theory about the two-slit interference experiments, but it
would require an enormously lengthy digression to get into it here. (In
brief: the moving electron is accompanied by the "Biot-Savart field,"
which moves with it and consists of a complex array of what Pauli termed
"bound photons." As the electron is diffracted through one of the slits, a
portion of the accompanying cloud of "bound photons" is diffracted through
the other slit and, when the electron finally strikes the screen, the
probability of its doing so at a particular point is influenced by the
diffraction pattern of the bound photons that passed through the other
slit. The electron doesn't "interfere with itself." What happens is
analogous to the turbulence experienced by a power boat that is crossing
its own wake. And, just as the power boat isn't "delocalized," so the
electron isn't "delocalized," either.) Bottom line: "quantum mechanical"
interpretaitons aren't science, Horace. "Quantum mechanics" is purely
evil, anti-rational crap.  

Incidentally, if I did *not* have a theory to explain single-electron
interference experiments, I still would still not give a moment's
consideration to the notion that motion in the microcosm (or anywhere
else) is "quantized."  As I have noted repeatedly, if things can leap into
existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing, then the entire
structure of human knowledge collapses. (If our sensations may be leaping
into existence out of nothing, then we have not a shred of a basis for
belief in the existence of anything, including ourselves.) For that
reason, the conjecture that motion at any level of magnification entails
"quantum leaps" is total gibberish. Nothing can be "explained" by ripping
away the foundations of human knowledge. What this means in the present
context is simple: whatever form the electron has before it enters the
nucleus, each and every part of it follows a continuous spatial pathway
from its initial position to its final position in the nucleus. This must
be, because the alternative is madness, not science. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> 
> 
> > (9) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that the accumulation
> > of such entities (protoneutrons) could occur in a loaded lattice. 
> >
> 
> If such things exist, why is our sun not a neutron star? There is plenty
> of energy and much more confined conditions, and lots of gamma radiation
> of all denominations. Wouldn't the whole thing become a bunch of pn's and
> then neutrons in the core?

***{As I have repeatedly noted, if protoneutrons exist they are a
relatively low-energy state. The idea is that the electron lacks the space
needed to orbit at the innermost Bohr orbit, lacks the energy (.78 Mev)
needed to merge with the proton, and also lacks the energy necessary to
escape from it. This latter condition manifestly would *not* be met in a
high energy solar plasma at temperatures of millions of degrees Kelvin.
--Mitchell Jones}***   
>  
> > (10) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that such an entity,
> > given an appropriate dose of energy, could transform into a thermal
> > neutron. 
> 
> Wouldn't an exact coupling would be required to do this? 

***{I hesitate to speculate about what the descriptive mathematics will be
for this phenomenon, which has not yet been experimentally demonstrated to
exist. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > 
> > (11) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that thermal neutrons
> > tend to be absorbed into nuclei, and that when they are, the resulting
> > nucleus typically  emits a giant gamma and drops to ground state. 
> 
> Isn't the mean free path of thermal neutrons in Pd much farther than the
> size of a typical electrode?

***{The trivial answer, based on a total neutron cross section for
hydrogen of 38 barns, is no. [To estimate the mean free path, simply
multiply the number of hydrogen atoms per cc in loaded regions of the
cathode (.2058E+24) times 38E-24, and take the reciprocal. This gives .128
cm and is an upper bound measure, because it assumes the H atoms are not
in motion, and it ignores the influence of the total cross sections of the
palladium atoms in the lattice.  (Total cross section for Pd is 11.1
barns).] 

More important, however, is the core issue underlying your question, which
harkens back to an earlier objection raised by Zoltan. If you recall, he
claimed that the protoneutron state would not endure due to thermal
motions in the lattice, and that, as a result, we would really just have a
cloud of electrons and protons bouncing around, with no lingered pairing
condition between any of them. The obvious basis for his objection is the
same as the basis for you question about the mean free path: if the
protoneutrons, or the neutrons, partake of the average kinetic energies of
the lattice particles, problems arise. In the case of the protoneutrons,
the problem would be that the lingered pairing condition would not persist
and there would be no protoneutrons. In the case of the neutrons, the
problem would be that significant numbers of neutrons would make their way
out of the lattice before they were absorbed into nuclei--which means:
there would be no protoneutrons around them to absorb the gammas, and the
experimenters would be killed. 

The fact that, technically, the answer to your question is in the
negative, does not address this underlying objection. Moreover, when I
responded to Zoltan's objection, which was based on the same premise, I
merely said that the protoneutrons would endure only so long as they were
not subject to thermal collisions. That, obviously, was not a sufficient
answer. If it had been, you would not have raised yet another objection
based on the same premise. Your premise is that the protoneutrons, and the
neutrons which they produce, will become thermalized--i.e., that they will
partake of the average kinetic energies that are present in the lattice.
My position is that they will not. 

How is that possible, given the laws of thermodynamics? Simple:
temperature does not manifest itself in the same way in a crystal lattice
as in a gas. In a gas, there exists 3 degrees of freedom per particle, and
the result is a mass of particles flying randomly in all directions, in
accordance with the kinetic theory of gasses. But in a crystal lattice,
the motions of the atoms are constrained by the contact forces exerted by
their neighbors. The result is that they behave as harmonic oscillators,
vibrating in tiny localized domains, in synchrony with their neighbors.
Such considerations lead to the existence of the thermal "lattice wave"
described in textbooks on solid state physics. And the lattice wave,
coupled with the principles of wave mechanics, leads to the existence of
nodes--i.e., threadlike regions of quiescence penetrating throughout the
lattice, where thermal motion does not intrude. To understand this idea,
remember the experiment in high school physics where you sprinkle fine
sand on a drumhead and then strike it. Result: the vibratory pattern of
the drumhead forces the sand grains to migrate to the nodes. This happens
because displacement at a node is zero, so there are no forces acting to
bounce a grain away from a node. On the other hand, there *are* forces
acting on grains that are not on nodes, and so they keep bouncing around
until they land on a node. At the end, when the drumhead ceases vibrating,
you can see the threadlike pattern of the nodes traced in the sand. This
means that, by elementary wave mechanical principles known to apply to
wave phenomena in solids, we would expect similar threadlike thermally
undisturbed regions to penetrate throughout the loaded palladium lattice.
This means that, since protoneutrons would be destroyed by the action of
thermal collisions, it is only when proton meets electron in such a zone
of thermal quiescence--a node of the lattice wave--that protoneutrons will
form and endure. And it means that, when protoneutrons receive the .78 Mev
they need to transform into neutrons, they will receive it in such zones
of thermal quiescence. Which means: neither the protoneutrons nor the
neutrons produced from them will partake of the thermal motion in the
lattice. 

Why, then, did I myself refer to them as "thermal?" Because, in most
textbooks that I have seen, "thermal neutrons" and "slow neutrons" are
treated as being one and the same thing. However, a better term, for
present purposes, would seem to be "sub-thermal neutrons" and "sub-thermal
protoneutrons."  --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > 
> > (12) It is necessary but not sufficient to conceive of the possibility
> > that protoneutrons are characterized by a *rapacity* for the energy of
> > transformation into neutrons--that they may be incredibly efficient
> > absorbers of electromagnetic radiation at the needed frequencies, and
> > possibly at many other frequencies. 
> 
> Due to their small size, wouldn't it take a latice totally packed with
> them? In fact, wouldn't every cell have to be totally choked with them?
> Wouldn't the Pd electrode would have to have tons of them to absorb enough
> gamma radiation to prevent death of the experimenter?

***{It depends on the gamma absorption cross section of a protoneutron,
which I believe to be very large. (There is ample precedent for cross
sections that are much larger than the physical dimensions of the
particle, by the way.) In any case, if experiments support the
protoneutron theory, reasonable people will accept it, and if not, not.
The rest is just noise. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> > 
> > (13) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that gamma absorption
> > in a large accumulation of protoneutrons could trigger a chain reaction of
> > a new type, in which the event sequence was: 
> > 
> >      (a) pn (protoneutron) + gamma --> n.
> > 
> >      (b) n + nucleus --> isotope shift + gamma. 
> > 
> >      (c) Return to step (a). 
> 
> 
> Why have step (b) at all, why not just:
> 
>          pn + nucleus -> isotope shift + gamma    8^)

***{Because the step you want to skip is the one which absorbs the gammas
and, thus, explains why the experimenters aren't all dead. --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> Why not do an isotopic analysis on the glass of that bottle?

***{Because the neutrons aren't going to make it that far. See above.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > 
> > (14) It was necessary to recognize that the palladium lattice contained
> > nuclei (e.g., H, D) that upon neutron absorption emitted gammas large
> > enough to produce the formation of multiple neutrons--which means: large
> > enough to mediate an *accelerated* chain reaction. [As I have noted, p + n
> > --> d + 2.22 Mev (gamma). In addition, d + n --> t + 6.25 Mev (gamma).
> > Etc.]
> > 
> 
> If true, how does all that high energy stuff stay in one tiny bottle?

***{The absorption mechanism, as I have repeatedly noted, is the
protoneutrons themselves. I conjecture, hypothesize--however you want to
say it--that protoneutrons absorb all gammas (and possibly x-rays) that
pass anywhere near them. If the energy is above .78 Mev, slow neutrons are
produced; if below, it is absorbed as kinetic energy, and results in a
protoneutron flying through the lattice until it comes to an unoccupied
unit cell, where the energy is delivered to the lattice as heat via a
series of collisions. If such an energy absorption effect is real, then
only radiation of a frequency less than the lower limit of the absorption
range would be able to escape the lattice. You may consider this to be
implausible, but it is, in fact, one way to explain the "cold fusion"
results, and it is experimentally verifiable. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 
> > And the list goes on and on and on, Zoltan. 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > A good way to illustrate such a process is with an analogy. Suppose that
> > there exists an immense being, in whose body each galaxy is an atom. To
> > him, time runs slowly. Each rotation of a galaxy, which takes many
> > millions of human years, is in his time scale a tiny fraction of a second.
> > Thus we are part of what, to him, is the microcosm. Result: he has as much
> > trouble measuring events in his microcosm as we have measuring events in
> > ours. For example, it might be that, using his finest instruments, he can
> > only detect human beings on the earth if they do not move for at least a
> > month. Result: if he applies "quantum mechanics," he will be convinced
> > that only the dead and the dying exist on earth, because only corpses and
> > people in comas (or strapped to torture racks) remain immoble for that
> > long. If, therefore, he is a practitioner of "quantum mechanics," our
> > hypothetical being will declare that the less stable, faster moving,
> > hard-to-detect states do not exist. If he is a believer in classical
> > mechanics, on the other hand, he will simply declare that other states may
> > exist that are beyond the accuracy of his instruments. --Mitchell
> > Jones}*** 
> > 
> 
> Can you apply this analagy to the 2 (through n) slit experiment for
> electrons? When electrons are passed through through 2 or more adjacent
> slits an interference pattern develops, even when they pass through one at
> a time. Do you account for this by the little guys quickly running back
> through the holes a second time and running so fast they bump into
> themselves?  Maybe they see the n slits coming and split up into n smaller
> guys, go through the slits and then bump into themselves? This thought 
> reminds me of a Keystone Cops fire drill I saw once 8^).

***{See above. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Seriously, it seems like there are many inconsistancies and unanswered
> questions in your hypothesis, the most important being how does all that
> tiny subatomic neutral stuff, at the speed of light

***{See above. --MJ}***

, and at 2200 m/sec

***{This is the average velocity of neutrons that have been "thermalized."
Therefore, to repeat: I was using "thermal neutron" in the sense of "slow
neutron." I believe that protoneutrons form in the nodes of the lattice
wave, and that when they absorb energy to produce neutrons, the neutrons
retain the velocities of the protoneutrons from which they formed. *They
aren't moving at anywhere near 2200 m/sec, in my opinion.*  --Mitchell
Jones}***

,
> stay in the electrode or bottle long enough to be absorbed?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace
> 
> -- 
> Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Sep 27 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
