1989.04.14 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: the deal - media coverage Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: the deal - media coverage Date: 14 Apr 89 17:04:00 GMT From a New York Times story in the April 14 edition: "FUSION EXPERIMENT REPORTED FLAWED ... At Georgia Tech, however, a scientific instrument that was used to measure neutrons ... apparently gave inflated readings because the liquid it was measuring became as hot as 120 degrees F. 'We're concerned about an apparent temperature dependence of the neutron probe we are using,' Dr. James Mahaffey, leader of the Georgia Tech group of researchers, said ... two graduate students [Van Eden and Wei Liu] at the University of Washington said yesterday that they had tentatively repeated the Utah experiment. ... when the experiment was done with heavy water they appeared to detect tritium ... Each time regular water was substituted, ... the signal for tritium went away. ... The signal ... indicating the possible presence of tritium was made on on a mass spectrometer ... Mr. Eden said he and his colleague had been conducting the experiment for at least 10 days, alternately using water and 'heavy water' ..." cudkeys: cuddy14 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.15 / John Moore / Fusion Calorimetry Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion Calorimetry Date: 15 Apr 89 14:48:45 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc., Phoenix AZ Is there someone out there who understands the calculations in the F&P paper that could explain them a little more clearly? The F&P paper is quite terse in the area where they describe the breakeven calculations, and a more detailed explanation, written for non-electro-chemists would be helpful. As I read it, you can compute for one experiment that it yielded better than breakeven just by comparing the watts out to the electrical energy in - IFF you use 1.54 volts as the supply voltage. However, there will be some ohmic losses in the electrode that are not accounted for by this. However, the paper doesn't say what the voltage applied TO THE ELECTRODES is. Does anyone know? -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's. :-) cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / EFH100@PSUVM.B / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: EFH100@PSUVM.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 16 Apr 89 02:35:27 GMT Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing Some additional considerations: (1) The more delivery vehicles that are used, the lower the likelyhood that a few malfunctions could cause the target to remain untouched because not enough (none?) missles get through. (2) Large numbers of delivery systems make it more difficult for a first strike to negate the retalitory action (more missles make a first strike less likely). (3) If an anti-missle system comes into use, more delivery systems will be necessary to ensure that some will get through. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenEFH100 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Henry Spencer / Re: Confirmations and the high-T-superconductivity precedent Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Confirmations and the high-T-superconductivity precedent Date: 16 Apr 89 05:50:27 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <8483@polya.Stanford.EDU> gilham@polya.Stanford.EDU (Fred Gilham) writes: >>So how do we send rockets into outer space, then? > >Multi-stage rockets, right? We don't actually lift that much weight out of >the earth's gravity well. Right stick, wrong end: most of the mass of the fuel does not get lifted out of the Earth's gravity well, regardless of whether you use multiple stages or not. The exhaust mostly stays behind! (It is possible to get into orbit with a single stage, although with current technology the payload is small, meaning that weight growth during development might wipe it out entirely. Which is why nobody's seriously tried to build one yet.) -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Ted Dunning / Re: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Originally-From: Andreas.Nowatzyk@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: He's dead Jim. Subject: Re: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed Date: 16 Apr 89 06:48:17 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI >From: jrmstrng@vax1.tcd.ie (John V. Armstrong) >Subject: Fusion in Dublin > >14th April Fusion in Dublin ! > > Prof. Michael Coey in Trinity College Physics department, today >demonstrated a possible indication of cold fusion, to about 300 people during >the course of his public lecture 'Cold Fusion - fact or fantasy'. > This demonstration consisted of two electrolysis cells wired in parallel >to 7 volt power supply. Each cell used gold/titanium electrodes one containing >ordinary water and the other with heavy water (D2O). After 40 minutes of >electrolysis the temperature of the water cell was 41 C and that of the heavy >water was 45 C !! This corresponds to roughly 250 mW power output from fusion? >Naturally there were gasps of amazement from the packed audience, but needless >to say, more controlled experiments are in progress. It is not clear from this that the same power went into both cells (we really would like to know the voltage and the amperage). So, the temperature difference could be just due to different amounts of current going into each cell given the information we have to go on. But for now let us assume that the two cells get the same power. The heavy water cell produces a little more heat than regular water. This is consistent with: "The average value for absorption of deuterium being reported as 8379 cal/mole compared with 9605 cal/mole for hydrogen." From page 125 of "The Palladium Hydrogen System" by Lewis Since absorbing hydrogen/deuterium is endothermic the cell with hydrogen absorbs 9605 cal/mole and the deuterium cell absorbs 8379 cal/mole. The net result is that the deuterium cell runs hotter. I am assuming that both cells are able to hold more hydrogen/deuterium (they should not be full in 40 minutes). Did Fleischmann and Pons overlook this heat of absorption? I did not see it mentioned in their paper. If they thought they were at 100% during the charging period (refrigerator running) and then after the palladium was full of deuterium it got hotter (refrigerator stopped) they would think they were getting extra heat out. If this is the case then the 8379 cal/mole is just right to explain the extra heat in their experiment. They got 1.11 times as much energy out in the form of heat as they put in in electricity (11% extra). It takes 68K cal/mole to electrolyze water. If we put in 68K cal/mole electricity and get out 68+8K cal/mole of heat we would be getting out exactly 111% of what we put in. The extra 8K is really due to zeroing the scale while the refrigerator was on. The fact that the numbers work out exactly makes me think they did overlook this. As for the tritium that someplace found: >From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) > ... >First, a word about this experiment. Commercially-available heavy water tends >to be contaminated, to a small degree, with tritium, and electrolysis of heavy >water could therefore be reasonably expected to produce DT in small quantities >without any fusion at all occurring. Alt.fusion was fun while it lasted, Vince Cate vac@cs.cmu.edu Below is a CMU post that I think describes what is going on: ******************************************************************************* 06-Apr-89 12:13 Andreas.Nowatzyk Fusion update Originally-From: Andreas.Nowatzyk@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU In case you are not reading the 1-2 dozen messages/day on fusion in the various news groups, I attached one to this post that has the most plausible explanation to the P&F results that I have seen so far. There are 2 parts to the P&F claims: 1. nuclear evidence (neutrons and gamma-ray observation) for cold fusion in condensed matter and 2. calorimetric evidence for same. Claim 1. is in line with the BYU results and appear to be confirmed by the Brookhaven national lab. This is certainly an interesting result which will lead to a new research field in physics. However, the observed reaction rate is way too low to be interesting as an energy source. It is about where the plasma fusion people were 20 years ago (actually even less than that). Claim 2. is far more interesting and controversial because it implies a net energy production at very significant levels (1W in --> 4W out). In a nutshell, the calorimetric experiment runs like this: The electrolysis cell is placed in a vacuum flask for good thermic insulation. A small heater is included and a sensitive thermometer that is continuously monitored (chart recorder). A little current is dumped into the heater for precisely defined period and after equilibrium is established, the observed temperature increased in the flask is used to determine the heat capacity of the apparatus. Also, the heat loss due to imperfect insulation is calibrated. Once this is done, experiment is turned on. All energy that is fed into the cell is measured (current and replacement electrolyte) as is anything that leaves the cell (D2 and O2 gas). Heat loss is determined by the temperature difference between the inside and the surrounding environment and is accounted for in the balance based on the calibration mentioned above. Any change in cell temperature that is not covered by this balance must be due to some internal process. After turning the experiment on, a certain rise in temperature is expected because of the electric energy dumped into the system. Thermal efficiency for resistive heat from a DC current is 100%. After the precharge time, P&F observed a rise in temperature corresponding to a thermal efficiency of 112%. There extra 12% are f&P's evidence for fusion. Once you recover the electrical energy that went out in from of D2 and H2 gas (say in a fuel cell), over all heat generation is 4 times (or more, depending on the amount of resistive loss and the efficiency of the recovery process) the invested electrical energy. So far, so good. The message attached below describes a more mundane explanation: During the precharge time, D is diffusing into the Pd rod. This requires heat that is taken from the cell. This is similar to what happens if you dissolve NH4NO3 in water, the principle behind instant cold packs. If P&F neglected to account for this heat loss during the precharge period, their initial 100% thermal efficiency is really only 90% due to the built in refrigerator. Once the Pd rod is saturated with D, no further heat loss occurs and the thermal efficiency jumps up. This explanation fit most known results so far (and does not require any new magic): 1. It depends on the volume of the Pd rod, as claimed by P&F 2. Heat "production" persists for as long as you care to run the experiment. The apparent energy production can be made large enough to rule out any chemical process. Again in line with P&F's claims. 3. Efficiency goes up as the current density decreases because the resistive loss is proportional to the square of the current, while the cooling effect is diffusion limited (about constant). At very low currents, it becomes proportional to the current (D production drops below diffusion limit). Hence by reducing the current, the impact of the heat loss becomes more significant. Again in line with the observed results from P&F. This explanation predicts that P&F's experiment will still show "fusion" heat if the D2O is substituted with plain H2O. I'm somewhat surprised that P&F don't mention this obvious control experiment which could be done double blind: P fills H2O and D2O in 2 identical looking bottles labeled x, y. F does the experiment twice with x and y and should have no trouble telling which was which. This would prevent any systematic error such as the one outlined. Well, maybe this wasn't quite up to the invention of fire after all... sigh. ---------------- sci.physics article follows ------------------- Article 7105 of sci.physics: Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Subject: Re: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed As an illustration of the problems in replicating the P&F experiment, here is a simple experiment: Electrolysis is performed with a platinum screen anode surrounding a cathode made by depositing an approximately 5 micron deep layer of palladium on a 5 mm molybdenum rod. The electrolyte is a 0.1 M solution of Li OD in D2O formed by solution of pure metallic lithium. The D2O is approximately 98% pure. Various current densities are used, and accurate temperature records are kept. The electrolysis cell contains approximately 50 cc of D2O and is super-insulated. After current is turned on, the cell reaches thermal equilibrium in a few minutes. After 15-20 minutes, the temperature of the cell takes a small jump. This time is consistent with the expected charge time as described by Pons and Fleischman. The temperature jump is approximately the same size as the original temperature increase. Question: What is happening? Answer: Hydrogen absorption is endothermic. The first equilibrium is due to the balance of joule heating, heat storage due to beta phase absorption, and heat loss. When the palladium saturates, a new equilibrium is reached which balances joule heating and heat loss. Question: Does this look like some amazing heat source? Answer: Yep. After 15 minutes of baseline, it looks like a heater switches on. Question: Is this what P&F found Answer: ... -- cudkeys: cuddy16 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.15 / Colin Smith / Re: Media cover of cold fusion (was Re: The deal) Originally-From: colins@idec.stc.co.uk (Colin Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media cover of cold fusion (was Re: The deal) Date: 15 Apr 89 16:02:26 GMT Organization: STC Network Systems, Stevenage, UK The British "quality" press and TV have been covering this story on a relatively regular basis (every 2 - 3 days). This might just be because Professor Fleischman is British. On the other hand giving them the benifit of the doubt they might have understood the revolutionary potential of this process should the results be reproducable and the process can be scaled. Colin S. Smith cudkeys: cuddy15 cudencolins cudfnColin cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Cary Lewis / Cold Fusion Growing Colder Originally-From: cslewis@lily.waterloo.edu (Cary Lewis) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Date: 16 Apr 89 20:13:11 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Well it appears ladies and gentlemen that the supporting evidence for the F&P cold fusion technique is rather disappointing to say the least. Even though it is still early in the ball game, the naysayers are ahead by a whole bunch of runs, and it looks the umpires are definitely not on our sides. I have very mixed emotions about all this, here I was a fourth year student just finishing off my math/computer science degree and thinking I was seeing the dawn of a new age. Now not even a month later I am not so sure. True enough I don't know enough about physics or chemistry to claim any scientific reason for feeling that this is going to turn out be nothing, and yet I don't feel nearly as optomistic about cold fusion even working (let alone being viable as an energy source) as I did two days ago. One of the positive aspects of these recent events is that people began to think about what it would be like to live in a world where the cost the energy to do something was negligible. There were all the stories of ending world hunder by irrigating deserts, reports on how the poor nations of the world would suddenly be able to afford giving their citizens an abundant source of energy. The thing that kills me about all these positive stories is that it doesn't have to take someone harnessing fusion to do all this. We spend a trillion dollars a year on arms (conventional and nuclear). Twenty percent of that on nuclear weapons, that by all rights can never be used; unless we really want to turn our planet into a cinder, a lifeless hunk of rock. I guess I'm trying to say is that if we live in a world where thousands of computers can communicate around the world, and we have amazing discoveries (even if they don't always pan out) we can make this hunk of rock we call home quite nice for everyone who lives on it. I'm sure one day fusion will become a reality (the experts say 20-50 years before hot fusion can become realistic) I hope we don't have to wait that long before some of our world problems finally are addressed. As a sidebar, the prices of palladium have gone up quite a lot, and some small Canadian mining stocks have more than doubled, I wonder how much money has been made in the Univeristy community since all this started. Anyone with any sense of economics would have to know that the markets would go crazy with the speculation (by the way I missed my chance, you still need money to make money in this world). Doubling your money in the course of a week is a pretty good return rate. I'm not suggesting anything by this comment, but it does give us something to think about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "home is where the heart lies but if the heart lies where is home, it's where the heart lies, but where is home?" - fish cudkeys: cuddy16 cudencslewis cudfnCary cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / osmigo@ut-emx. / Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 16 Apr 89 21:27:52 GMT Organization: Speech Communication UT Austin I've been discussing possible applications of fusion technology with some friends, and one idea that has come up is using cold fusion devices as a source of heat for steam engines. The cold fusion device reportedly achieved a temperature of over 5000 degrees. The major obstacle to steam power thus far has been an easily transportable and quick-starting heat source. Could it be that we now have it? Just for the record, the automobile known as the Stanley Steamer made the world's speed record (over 100mph) back around 1915 or so. The water used for the steam would be recycled, i.e., a closed system. This would produce vehicles (cars, planes, boats, etc.) with literally unlimited range, with a pollution level of zero. The impact would be pervasive. Surface warfare technology would be revolutionized. The economy would be heavily impacted, because of greatly reduced costs for operating manufacturing machinery and shipping goods. It would certainly be feasible for individuals to have small, steam-driven power generators in their back yards, or even underground, practically wiping out the power industry. Comments? Ron =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > Ron Morgan {ames, utah-cs, uunet, gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!osmigo < > Univ. of Texas {harvarly we could generate energy from fusing basketballs, ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 14:01:43 CDT Reply-To: FUSION%ZORCH@UUNET.UU.NET Sender: "Fusion - Redistribution of alt.fusion" From: fusion%zorch@UUNET.UU.NET Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Why the little schools? Date: 17 Apr 89 07:42:21 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <24201@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >In article <748@nsscb.UUCP>, det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: > >> [...] How long would it take >> a berkeley grad student to get the funds and permission to try one >> of these experiments? > >Well, I can't speak for Berkeley or some of the other places, but it took >Los Alamos three *days* to start an experiment from the first announcement >by F&P. This included getting the necessary "permission" (which could >better be described as "powerful encouragement"), rounding up apparatus, >and forming the appropriate collaborations, which don't involve grad >students as much as they do scientific professionals with from 10 to 30 years' >experience after their Ph.D.'s. > >That hardly speaks of bureaucratic inertia and conservatism to me. It does to me. Three DAYS organizing before you STARTED!? (No wonder Los Alamos hasn't announced. Fusion-in-a-drum, and you handed the rest of the world a two-and-a-half-day lead.) The approach I'm familiar with would have you in the lab within an hour of the news. You'd wake people as necessary to get access to components, or pick the lock on chem stores and/or the NMR lab and leave reciepts. Form your collaborations from those with enough interest to get to the lab, or call in. Rouse somebody if you're short a skill, or if he really should be in on it. A couple hours to design, measure and set up, and something bubbling on the bench by dawn. Straighten out the paperwork during those three days, while the experiment bubbles away. If this means you get the thing started before you realize you need to do something differently, start a second experiment later. I'll bet that's how it happened at a lot of universities, some of whose names you're now seeing posted. If an administrator gives you flack for doing it this way, FIRE him! His job is to FACILITATE your efforts, not REGULATE them. But I doubt you'd get any flack from your current administrators. If they're giving you "powerful encouragement" when you're asking for permission, and getting things started in three days despite your researchers' insistance on going through channels, I'd bet they've got the right stuff. (Bet they'd have been right beside you all night, and keys are easier than picking the locks. If you have one of that sort, put his name on the paper. He earned it.) Take this letter to them, and ask them what they think of this approach. The answer might surprise you. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenosmigo cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Michael McClary / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 17 Apr 89 08:58:46 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <29097@apple.apple.com> jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) writes: > >[] If >you are gonna talk about the work of Pons and Fleischman, that's >fine, but Pons and Fleischman are VERY unlikely to have reported >anything about anything having reached 5000 degrees! "We have to report here that under the conditions of the last experiment even using D2O alone, a substantial portion or the cathode fused (melting point 1554 degrees C) part of it vapourized and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the experiment were destroyed." (From _Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium_ by Martin Fleischmann & Stanley Pons.) They also have a table entry of "WARNING IGNITION? (see text)" for the excess rate of heating of that experiment. Since they're talking about nuclear, not chemical, processes throught the paper, I read "IGNITION" as initiation of a nuclear chain reaction, with the potential of fireball temperatures. I also presume they're not claiming this, but warning other experimenters to be careful just in case. >Moreover, that particular experiment took a long time (months? >That's about what I recall) to start. This is not my idea of >quick. Neither is it mine. On the other hand, that's the initial charging time for the metal. Once you've gotten it filled up and driven around with it a bit, is it unreasonable to expect it to start heating right away when you turn on the current after a night in the garage? (If so, why not do what the Stanley owners did: leave the "pilot light" on overnight?) cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / L Anthony / Re: May he rest in peace. Originally-From: lanthony@sunybcs.uucp (Lawrence Anthony) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: May he rest in peace. Date: 17 Apr 89 11:37:05 GMT Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science In article <4742@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: >[...] > As palladium gets hot it holds less deuterium. As it releases >deuterium it releases heat. I find it very difficult to reconcile the above two statements. As described, the system is intrinsically unstable. Whatever happened to Le Chatelier's Principle? According to D. P. Smith in the compendium "Gases in Metals" (American Society for Metals, Cleveland, 1953), the _absorption_ of hydrogen in palladium in _exothermic_. Presumably, the behavior of deuterium is similar. Will he who claims otherwise please cite chapter and verse? I have not been able to obtain a copy of F. A. Lewis, "The Pd-H System". Does he differ with Smith? bitnet: lanthony@sunybcs.bitnet internet: lanthony@cs.buffalo.edu cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenlanthony cudfnLawrence cudlnAnthony cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Ronald Mayer / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 17 Apr 89 10:36:06 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <29097@apple.Apple.COM> jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) writes: > >The experiment that blew up in the night (What was it that the >dog did in the night, Holmes?) appears to have melted some >Palladium, which requires a temperature above 1500 degrees >Celsius if I recall correctly, > I'm not sure if anyone mentioned something like this before, but I was talking to someone working on this (yes, really, but he wants to remain anonymous), who has a possible explanation. After 'charging' the palladium for a couple of days, he removed it from the water, and within a short time, it started glowing red hot!!! What happened was that the palladium was acting as a catalyst for the stored hydrogen reacting with the oxygen in the air. His guess is that sometime that night, the water level lowered, exposing part of the electrode, and this reaction caused the palladium to melt, and possibly also causing the hydrogen and oxygen created earlier that night to explode. -Ron Mayer armin@portia.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenarmin cudfnRonald cudlnMayer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / John Woods / Re: My previous comments about fusion experiments. Originally-From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: My previous comments about fusion experiments. Date: 17 Apr 89 01:15:00 GMT Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us In article <23041@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, greg@jif.berkeley.edu (Greg) writes: > But at the same time, do we really have to pretend that all schools > are equal? No, it is completely unnecessary to pretend that. However, for your statements to make sense ("Little schools announce results, Big schools say nothing, ergo nothing") it is necessary to pretend that everyone not in an Ivy League (or "Ivy Group" if you want to include MIT) school is an incompetant idiot, and I think you will find very little evidence for that point of view. I would like to note that despite no announced confirmation, MIT has announced the filing of some patents based on some theories of how cold fusion might work. What THAT says about my alma mommy I'd rather not think about... -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Healed Head BAD, Bleeding Head GOOD! cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnWoods cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / George Hagerman / CALL FOR DISCUSSION on creation of sci.energy Originally-From: george@gwusun.gwu.edu (George Hagerman) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION on creation of sci.energy Date: 17 Apr 89 02:02:29 GMT Organization: Seasun Power Systems, Alexandria Virginia This article expands on the call for discussion in news.groups by John Kelso on the creation of a newsgroup sci.energy (posted 12 Apr 89). John and I have been friends for years, and he has recently turned me on to electronic mail. In scanning through the list of active newsgroups, we noted nothing that deals with energy issues such as emerging renewable technologies (solar, wind, wave), end-use efficiency (for lighting, motors, appliances), or more conventional technologies (fossil-fuel, nuclear fission). We propose the creation of a newsgroup that would serve many types of readers: (1) Those with rural homes, boats, or RV's that are not connected to the utility grid. Despite their energy independence, many of these folks do have access to a computer and modem. (2) Those who plan to some day be in the above category, and would like to learn about the costs and operating aspects of producing your own power. (3) Researchers at utility, government, and academic institutions who wish to exchange information on the technologies they're researching. (4) Those concerned with the energy needs of developing countries. (5) Those concerned with national and state government energy policies. The greenhouse effect, nuclear waste disposal, and ocean oil spills are all problems related to energy. These issues are so emotionally charged, that there is a great deal of misinformation spread around. One goal of this newsgroup is to present information that is solidly referenced, so that interested readers can go to the original source. I would propose a well-defined method of titling articles, such that each title begins with a keyword, chosen from a specific list. This will enable readers to see immediately which unread articles are of interest to them. The proposed list of keywords is given below: KEYWORD TYPICAL SUBJECT MATTER Nuclear Nuclear fission (there is already a separate newsgroup for fusion - no need to duplicate effort) Fossil-fuel Coal, oil, natural gas, synfuels (oil shales, tar sands) Biomass fuel Wood stoves, ethanol production, agricultural wastes Waste-to-energy Mass trash burning, pelletized fuel plants Cogeneration Electrical power from industrial process heat Hydroelectric Water power from rivers, streams, creeks Thermoelectric Thermoelectric generators Solar Photovoltaics, solar thermal electric (parabolic reflector or solar pond), solar cookers, space and water heating Wind Wind turbine-generators, sail-assisted ships Ocean Power from waves, tides, currents, thermal gradient (OTEC) Hydrogen Research related to a future hydrogen energy economy Transmission Overhead lines, underground/submarine cables, home wiring Conversion Transformers, inverters, rectifiers Protection Voltage regulators, circuit breakers, fuses, safety Storage Batteries, fuel cells, pumped storage (air or water) Efficiency Super-efficient lighting, motors, appliances Architecture Building design features for natural lighting, heating, and cooling; insulation; window glazing Systems Examples of complete systems that combine several of the above categories (cost, performance, lessons learned) Vehicles MPG standards, alternative auto fuels, solar electric cars Education College and high school curricula, science fairs Infosources Bibliographies, lists of contacts Government National and state government initiatives (info only, reserve support/dissent comments for next keyword) Opinion Editorials, comments, ideas, newsgroup issues Please feel free to suggest additions or changes during the discussion. As it stands, the list contains 23 keywords. Following the keyword would be one of three designators, typed in all capital letters: ORIG, QUERY, or REPLY. ORIG designates first-time information posted on the bulletin board, and may be followed up by a QUERY, which in turn may be followed up by a REPLY from the ORIG author and from knowledgable readers. A QUERY may also originate without reference to a specific ORIG article. Example titles: Solar/ORIG/Coast Guard biggest U.S. user of photovoltaic panels Conversion/QUERY/DC-AC inverters for boats Storage/REPLY/Sources of deep-cycle lead-acid batteries Education/ORIG/Hawaii to hold solar car race for high schools Opinion/ORIG/The underlying cause of the Valdez oil spill Unless an article is "Opinion" or reports the author's own research or experience, we encourage everyone to cite a traceable reference when posting an ORIG article. Two printed publications have offered to post their articles in this newsgroup, if it's created. One is "Helio", the quarterly newsletter of the Rhode Island Solar Energy Association. Editor Domenic Bucci culls an amazing number of tidbits from a variety of energy-related newsletters, most of them concerned with issues that are international in scope. Tidbits that are not geared specifically to Rhode Island would be posted under the appropriate keywords. Example: "Vehicles/ORIG/Helio spring issue 1989" would contain two tidbits, one on GM's Sunraycer and one on the impact of a 1 MPG improvement in auto fuel efficiency. The second publication is "Home Power", a bi-monthly magazine written for and by folks who produce their own power. Their most recent issue, for example, has articles on an Oregon family's photovoltaic and gasoline powered home (Systems), the care and feeding of lead-acid batteries (Storage), and super-efficient home lighting (Efficiency). Editor Richard Perez has offered to post the text of such articles in this newsgroup. I hope this is enough to kick off the discussion. If you have questions or comments specifically for me, please reply to the address below. Per the 2nd Official Guidelines, we expect to issue a call for votes around 1 May 1989. This expanded call for discussion has been posted in five sci. newsgroups (environment, edu, misc, research, physics) and in alt.fusion, but all follow-up discussion should be posted in news.groups. Thanks for your time and thoughts. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ George Hagerman, Seasun Power Systems 124 E. Rosemont Ave., Alexandria VA 22310 (703) 549-8067 george@gwusun.gwu.edu -or- uunet!gwusun!george cudkeys: cuddy17 cudengeorge cudfnGeorge cudlnHagerman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Brad Pierce / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 17 Apr 89 02:52:09 GMT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <12105@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP writes: >I've been discussing possible applications of fusion technology with some >friends, and one idea that has come up is using cold fusion devices as a >source of heat for steam engines. > << Many interesting points omitted. >> >Ron Thus avoiding the need for improved battery technology and the cost of converting heat into elecricity into motion that are associated with exploiting a realization of cold fusion by using electric vehicles. Assuming that cold fusion were possible and practical, it does seem easier to imagine semitrucks powered by steam engines than ones powered by giant battery packs. -- Brad cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenpierce cudfnBrad cudlnPierce cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Michael Brooks / Re: He's dead Jim. Originally-From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: He's dead Jim. Date: 17 Apr 89 06:40:58 GMT Organization: Stanford University With regard to via comments of >Claim 2. is far more interesting and controversial because it implies a net >energy production at very significant levels (1W-->4W out). >2. Heat "production" persists for as long as you care to run the experiment. >The apparent energy production can be made large enough to rule out any >chemical process. Some good insight into the calorimetric aspects of the problem where posted by the authors. Many thanks, there are people here who have a long history of working on hydride batteries for energy storage, and I would welcome further comments from those folks who have some familarity with this aspect of the problem. The calorimetry aspects have always been controversial (actually less interesting to this reader) and the only strong point in F&Ps studies via calorimetry is the twice reported melting of the cathode (the 0.8cm rod and the 1x1x1cm cube). This is not to denigrate the calorimetric work done by F&P, only to say that I don`t understand it, while destruction of the cathodes is something I can understand (I realize my limitations in interpreting their work quanitatively). Back to the batteries, a question is relevant here: can energy storage be driven in such a way that the stored chemical potential is large relative to the free energy of formation of the constituents of the battery; in this case a PdHx cell? Under appropriate conditions of release perhaps melting can occur? One must bear in mind that the electrolyte solution will have been evaporated off during "storage of energy" thus limiting the transfer of D or H to Pd at some point. Normally such hydride cells can accept H via the gas phase for storage (please correct me if I am wrong). In summary, the idea is to account for destruction of the cathode ("battery") via "overcharging" through the liquid phase (or perhaps a left over, conductive solid residue) transfer of energy; this later being via charge and D(or H). Does your model entertain this possibility? And how about you battery folks, is it possible? Michael B. Brooks /Solid State Electronics Lab/Stanford University/ I like this one: (from Walter Levin, MIT astronomer): "Abscence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of abscence." cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Michael McClary / Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Date: 17 Apr 89 08:15:15 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <705400006@cdp> caulkins@cdp.UUCP writes: > >$(Canadian)425 per Kg for heavy water is pretty pricey ! > [] > >My work in computer communications hardly qualifies me as a >chemical engineer. Still, the heavy-chemicals part of the >process seems straightforward; pumping a bunch of water and gas >around at moderate pressure through a pair of heated reaction >towers, then distilling the enriched result. Where does all >the expense come from ? > Energy to heat and distill the reactants? (And if all you need is low-grade heat, and your product is duterium oxide...) cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Michael McClary / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 17 Apr 89 08:30:25 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <12105@ut-emx.uucp> osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP writes: >I've been discussing possible applications of fusion technology with some >friends, and one idea that has come up is using cold fusion devices as a >source of heat for steam engines. [] > >Just for the record, the automobile known as the Stanley Steamer made the >world's speed record (over 100mph) back around 1915 or so. I've been asking where to find a Stanley since about two days after the F&P announcement. The thought of painting a trefoil on it and driving it down the freeway gives me the giggles. (Even if it's NOT converted...) Probably can't afford it. (Yet...) >The water used for the steam would be recycled, i.e., a closed system. This >would produce vehicles (cars, planes, boats, etc.) with literally unlimited >range, with a pollution level of zero. If you're willing to accept water vapor "pollution" (exhaust) and filling up with water (working-fluid only) now and then, you can save a lot of weight by eliminating the condensor. cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Date: 16 Apr 89 03:41:00 GMT $(Canadian)425 per Kg for heavy water is pretty pricey ! Assuming my arithmetic and financial data are accurate, heavy water works out to cost $(US)0.357 per gram, about 1.7 times the price of silver. Unless large scale production of heavy water can lower the price, or unless the energy yield from the P/F process is very large, it appears the oil companies are not in for much competition. My work in computer communications hardly qualifies me as a chemical engineer. Still, the heavy-chemicals part of the process seems straightforward; pumping a bunch of water and gas around at moderate pressure through a pair of heated reaction towers, then distilling the enriched result. Where does all the expense come from ? Dave C cudkeys: cuddy16 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / bass randale / He's Still Breathing [was Re: He's dead Jim.] Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: He's Still Breathing [was Re: He's dead Jim.] Date: 16 Apr 89 13:57:20 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <4737@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: > >The heavy water cell produces a little more heat than regular water. >This is consistent with: > > "The average value for absorption of deuterium being reported > as 8379 cal/mole compared with 9605 cal/mole for hydrogen." > > From page 125 of "The Palladium Hydrogen System" by Lewis > >Since absorbing hydrogen/deuterium is endothermic the cell with hydrogen >absorbs 9605 cal/mole and the deuterium cell absorbs 8379 cal/mole. The >net result is that the deuterium cell runs hotter. I am assuming that >both cells are able to hold more hydrogen/deuterium (they should not be >full in 40 minutes). > I think that if you and I have copies of "The Palladium-Hydrogen System" by Lewis, then Pons and Fleischmann also were probably able to get copies. I will not comment on the veracity of Mr. Coey's experiment in Dublin. He has obviously not performed careful calorimetry in his experiments. If you burn paper in the second flask, the temperature will be higher than in the ordinary water flask. I do not think that his experiments have any meaning in the context of cold fusion. > > >Did Fleischmann and Pons overlook this heat of absorption? I did not see >it mentioned in their paper. If they thought they were at 100% during the >charging period (refrigerator running) and then after the palladium was >full of deuterium it got hotter (refrigerator stopped) they would think >they were getting extra heat out. > This could only happen if they calibrated their experiment during the charging period. This is highly unlikely from someone who had done calorimetry before. I think that to suggest that two groups have performed calorimetry incompetently is to suggest the improbable, to say the least. >If this is the case then the 8379 cal/mole is just right to explain the >extra heat in their experiment. They got 1.11 times as much energy out in >the form of heat as they put in in electricity (11% extra). It takes 68K >cal/mole to electrolyze water. If we put in 68K cal/mole electricity and >get out 68+8K cal/mole of heat we would be getting out exactly 111% of what >we put in. The extra 8K is really due to zeroing the scale while the >refrigerator was on. The fact that the numbers work out exactly makes >me think they did overlook this. I think current numbers are in the 1000% to 1200% range for total energy overproduction. I assume that heat generation has climbed with this. More on this "refrigeration effect" later. >Alt.fusion was fun while it lasted, > > Vince Cate > vac@cs.cmu.edu It is not this simple. Alt.fusion can continue. > > >Below is a CMU post that I think describes what is going on: > >06-Apr-89 12:13 Andreas.Nowatzyk Fusion update > >Claim 2. is far more interesting and controversial because it implies a net >energy production at very significant levels (1W in --> 4W out). > > [more calorimetry descriptions deleted] > >The message attached below describes a more mundane explanation: > >During the precharge time, D is diffusing into the Pd rod. This requires heat >that is taken from the cell. This is similar to what happens if you dissolve >NH4NO3 in water, the principle behind instant cold packs. If P&F neglected to >account for this heat loss during the precharge period, their initial 100% >thermal efficiency is really only 90% due to the built in refrigerator. Once >the Pd rod is saturated with D, no further heat loss occurs and the thermal >efficiency jumps up. > >This explanation fit most known results so far (and does not require any new >magic): > >1. It depends on the volume of the Pd rod, as claimed by P&F > >2. Heat "production" persists for as long as you care to run the experiment. > The apparent energy production can be made large enough to rule out any > chemical process. Again in line with P&F's claims. No. Even assuming an undergraduate error on the part of two well-respected scientists, the enthalpy increases associated with the heat of adsorption are only available upon desorption of the deuterium, and then only in finite quantities. This "referigeration effect" can not continue in equilibrium forever, the heat must come from somewhere. A small calculation will suffice to show that this "refrigeration effect" can not be happening, even with the postulated idiocy of Pons/Fleischmann. Nearly 5 MJ are released during the production of heat. 6 Grab 10% as the excess = 0.5 x 10 J. 3 Density of Pd = 12 gm/cm 3 Electrode volume = 1.3 cm Thus electrode weight = 15.6 gm. Thus we have ~0.15 mol of Pd. Very generously assume 3 (three) deuterons per Pd (if this is the case then the case for fusion increases dramatically). We thus have 0.45 mol of D. The heat of adsorption is ~33,600 J/mol D. Thus our "phantom heat" cannot appear to be more than about 20,000 J or 0.02 MJ even under the most ridiculous assumptions of deuterium absorption. We do not see an apparent 0.5 MJ production even assuming complete incompetence on the part of Pons/Fleischmann (note: they cannot be completely incompetent, a graduate student is working with them to check up on their errors). A few calculations go a very long way towards recognition that an extraordinary process is occurring here (either electrochemical or fusion). >This explanation predicts that P&F's experiment will still show "fusion" heat >if the D2O is substituted with plain H2O. More by your argument, significantly more. Remember, calorimetry is fairly well developed. Any 1/8 increase in heat production will be noticed. >Article 7105 of sci.physics: >From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) >Subject: Re: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed > > [arguments of the same nature by Mr. Dunning] > > Once again, Pons and Fleischmann melted an electrode.... ... A simple back of the envelope calculation shows that the exothermic reaction of the desorption of deuterium could not cause a high enough rate of heating to melt the cathode. 2 2 2 Heat of absorption of H ~ 8000 cal/mol H = 33600 J/mol H 3 density of Pd =~ 12 gm / cm 2 specific heat of Pd-D system = C = 33.6 J/deg mol H p 3 largest Pons and Fleischmann rod volume is 1.3 cm 2 If we liberally assume that the Pd lattice soaks up 2 H per Pd then the largest rod ingests ~ 0.3 mol of deuterium. Also assume for grins that the rod starts at 400K. 2 If all of the H flees the lattice simultaneously, we can determine the change in temperature via C delta T = delta Q p 2 2 delta Q = 33600 J/mol H * 0.3 mol H = 10,800 J So T - 400K = (1 / 33.6) * 10800 or T ~= 500 K Of course if we halved the specific heat we would get to 600K, which is still not enough to melt the Pd electrode. Note that we have assumed instantaneous desorption which is not realistic even for Pd-H. I think that we are going to have to be more creative than just lattice energy to explain this one.... Yours repetitively ... dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.edu cudkeys: cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / William Johnson / Re: Why the little schools? Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Why the little schools? Date: 16 Apr 89 15:14:15 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <748@nsscb.UUCP>, det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: > >I'm not going to continue with my speculations about why Texas A&M and > >Georgia Tech have gotten more press over cold fusion than MIT (and for > >that matter Los Alamos and Livermore). I find it strange. If other > >people think this is perfectly natural, I would like to hear an > >informed opinion on why exactly it is no surprise. > > Because they are on top, and have been for 30 years (you say)! [...] Gee, nice of you to say that ... :-) > [...] How long would it take > a berkeley grad student to get the funds and permission to try one > of these experiments? Well, I can't speak for Berkeley or some of the other places, but it took Los Alamos three *days* to start an experiment from the first announcement by F&P. This included getting the necessary "permission" (which could better be described as "powerful encouragement"), rounding up apparatus, and forming the appropriate collaborations, which don't involve grad students as much as they do scientific professionals with from 10 to 30 years' experience after their Ph.D.'s. That hardly speaks of bureaucratic inertia and conservatism to me. -- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Vincent Cate / May he rest in peace. :-) Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: May he rest in peace. :-) Date: 16 Apr 89 22:18:09 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI >From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) >Subject: He's Still Breathing [was Re: He's dead Jim.] > > ..... > > I think current numbers are in the 1000% to 1200% range for > total energy overproduction. I assume that heat generation > has climbed with this. More on this "refrigeration effect" later. The higher numbers were calculated based on subtracting out some of the energy that they put in. For example, it seems reasonable to subtract out the energy of electrolysis since you could get it back using a fuel cell. If there is an error of 11% of the original energy you put in, as you subtract off parts of the input energy you will make this error percentage larger. > A small calculation will suffice to show that this "refrigeration effect" > can not be happening, even with the postulated idiocy > of Pons/Fleischmann. > > Nearly 5 MJ are released during the production of heat. > 6 > Grab 10% as the excess = 0.5 x 10 J. The 4 MJ in the paper comes from 10 watts for 120 hours and my theory is that the 10 watts is not real. If they made the postulated mistake then it would look like there was more heat than there really was. If the 10 watts are not real then the 4MJ are not real and there is no extraordinary process going on. >Once again, Pons and Fleischmann melted an electrode.... > > ... A simple back of the envelope calculation shows > that the exothermic reaction of the desorption of deuterium > could not cause a high enough rate of heating to melt the > cathode. > > ... > > T ~= 500 K As palladium gets hot it holds less deuterium. As it releases deuterium it releases heat. It seems to me that under the right conditions you could get an explosion. Now maybe its not enough energy to melt 12 grams of palladium but it would not surprise me if it could make an explosion big enough to destroy the experiment. In their paper, Fleischmann and Pons say that some of the palladium was "vapourized" but later they admit that they were not there at the time of the explosion and just could not find all of the palladium after the explosion (not so hard to believe). -- Vince Cate -- cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Jan Genemans / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan Genemans) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 16 Apr 89 23:52:01 GMT Organization: U.S.M.M.A., Kings Point, NY > The speed of > light is the same regardless of your frame of reference. If you fly > towards a flashlight at half the speed of light, the light is still > coming at you at about 300,000 km/sec. If you run away from the > flashlight, then the light is still coming at you at 300,000 km/sec. > Photons' rest mass is an abstraction, because a photon can't ever be at > rest, or even slow down the tiniest fraction. The speed of light does not remain the same. It travels 299,792.5 km/sec in a vacuum and it 299,708 km/sec a difference of 84.5 km/sec. It changes speed as it travels through mediums of different densities just as sound or other forms of wave propagation. -- Jan K. Genemans, Consultant Jan.Genemans@Dartmouth.edu Engineering Department U. S. Merchant Marine Academy Kings Point, NY 11024-1699 "Live long and prosper." -Spock cudkeys: cuddy16 cudengenemans cudfnJan cudlnGenemans cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 17 Apr 89 10:47:00 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Thanks to Dale Bass (crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu) and Jon Singer (jon@Apple.COM) for their responses to my post Re: heat of absorption of H in Pd; They both quote F.A.Lewis indicating that H into Pd is actually *endo*themic, rather than exothermic, to my mortifying embarassment. Looks like I'm going to have to eat some crow on this one; serves me right for relying on my memory and logic, rather than looking it up ... < wry 1/2 :-) >. A couple of clarifications and comments: >Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) > > > > I agree strongly with Mr. Pusch on the likelihood of Pons/Fleischmann > making a silly mistake in heat balances. ... Actually, I'd didn't say that (though I may wish I had, soon...). I was agreeing with P&F that the sort of energy-releases they reported, *assuming they are correct*, were far too large to be easily explained chemically, as some posters argued. However, I will strongly agree with Mr. Bass that the P&F energy balance arguements *do* look a bit funny (yes, I *have* read the paper). In particular, the way they attempt to compensate for the difference between the actual power supplied to the cell and joule heating seems questionable. (This difference arises from the electrochemical component of the voltage drop; apparently there is some uncertainty on P&F's part as to exactly which reaction determines this drop, so they can only report upper and lower bounds on the fraction of the input power which actually goes into Joule heating.) If I were going to be on the hypothetical team of chemists *and* physicists it's going to take to properly confirm this experiment (-: I won't be; I'm a Theorist :-), I would want pay careful attention to the heat-flow's detailed time-behavior during the soi-disant ``charging'' phase, and particularly its approach to equilibrium. I would also like to see a somewhat different apparatus used. According to the preprint, the P&F apparatus uses a ``dewer'' flask immersed in a constant (300K) temperature water-bath for the cell, and two thermometers to monitor the temperatures of the cell and bath, respectively. While they are rather vague, I gather they calculate heat production by measuring the temperature difference between the cell and the bath.I would prefer an *active* approach: use a heater and feedback- system to maintain a constant *known* temperature difference across the cell wall, so that the heat production can be measured *directly*. Also, one could eliminate the unknowns in the e-chem. voltage drop by filling the space above the water with gaseous D2, putting in a Platinum catalyst unit (a-la sealed lead/acid batteries), and sealing it. Then all the oxygen evolved by electrolysis will recombine with the D2, re-releasing its heat of formation; the *total* amount of D2O in the cell will then remain constant, so that the *net* heat produced will just be that of the hypothetical fusion reaction, once the apparatus reaches equlibrium. > ... As to the heat of adsorption of deuterium ... > > ... Notice that this shows that the desorption of deuterium is > exothermic not endothermic and that energy (ie electromigration) > must be supplied in order to fill the lattice with deuterium. As I said, this came as quite a surprise to me, and I don't really understand it (but then, endothermic reactions always seemed a bit weird to me, *anyway*). If one must do work to cause the H to enter the Pd, then why does it *stay* trapped? And if it absorbs heat in the process, why would *further* heating (a-la Texas A&M) drive the H off? Paul Dietz (private communication; quoted w/out permission, and I hope you aren't mad at me, Paul) suggests to me that absorbtion is analogous to evaporation: % ... It happens because the [ D2 ] molecules get broken into ions, % which raises the entropy (the same reason liquids evaporate, even % though that is an endothermic process) ... I suppose that at high temperatures, the maximum entropy state shifts back to the gaseous phase? Maybe I got confused between ``heat'' and ``temperature'' ... Back to Dale Bass: > ... A simple back of the envelope calculation shows > that the exothermic reaction of the desorption of deuterium > could not cause a high enough rate of heating to melt the > cathode. [details of a *very* nice estimate of temperature rise due to ``catastrophic desorption'' deleted. Bass finds T(final) ~= T(initial) + 100 K ] > ... Note that > we have assumed instantaneous desorption which is not realistic > even for Pd-H. I think that we are going to have to be more creative > than just lattice energy to explain this one.... I would add that to me such a ``catastrophic desorption'' seems almost as difficult to understand as cold fusion! I know of no physical principle which would cause all the D's to want to leave at once ... 'course, I've already admitted that I don't physically understand why they go *into* the Pd endothermically *either* ... Note that endothermicity (is that a word?) makes the Texas A&M result even harder to understand; Responding to my argument that: >> ... The Texas A&M result (using a Pd rod baked out at 600 C to remove >> any initial stored hydrogen), observed heat almost immeadiately, i.e. >> without P&F's ``charging period''. Similarly, Georgia Tech, using a >> special surface treatment on their Pd electrode, observed neutron >> emission immeadiately. No ``charging period'' ==> no (or very little) >> ``stored energy'', ergo the P&F cell is not (primarily) acting as a >> battery. Jon Singer writes: > ... Various people have mentioned another interesting item, > particularly John V. Armstrong, quoted in Vincent Cate's recent > posting, <4737@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, who reports as follows: > `"The average value for [heat] absorption of deuterium being > reported as 8379 cal/mole compared with 9605 cal/mole for hydrogen." > [From page 125 of "The Palladium Hydrogen System" by Lewis] > > The claim is made in several places, at least one of them > quoted here, that when the Pd becomes largely saturated with > the gas, this refrigeration effect is markedly reduced, which > gives the unfortunate experimenter an apparent heating (if they > haven't taken the refrigeration into account.) ... > > ... To quote Armstrong again, > ... Did Fleischmann and Pons overlook this heat of absorption? > I did not see it mentioned in their paper. If they thought > they were at 100% during the charging period (refrigerator > running) and then after the palladium was full of deuterium > it got hotter (refrigerator stopped) they would think they > were getting extra heat out ... > ... The [extra heat energy] is really due > to zeroing the scale while the refrigerator was on... But as he goes on to state, this makes the recent report that Pons sees excess heat released even from H2O even to understand: > This is, of course, conceivable, but it would cause them to have > an even larger "fusion" heat output from H2 than from D2, no? I agree, on two counts: 1) The heat of absorption of H2 is lager than D2. 2) The diffusion constant of H2 is about an order of magnitude higher, leading to a much more powerful ``refrigerator''. Furthermore makes the Texas A&M experiment becomes even harder to understand; they should have seen the temperature immeadiatly *drop*, not *rise*. >** Please note: if the current is high, I would expect that a >thin layer near the surface saturates quite rapidly, and that >further absorption is dominated by the diffusion of the H or D >into the lattice (I seem to recall a rate of 10^ -7 cm/sec? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [that should be 10^(-7) cm^2/sec] >In any case, it should take some days or weeks to `charge' a 1cm >diameter object.) This points to problems with the refrigerator >notion, at least at large currents. At small currents, it may be >hard even to notice, yes? Yes, it works out to about 30 days (modulo dropped factors of 2 and/or pi; like I said, I'm a Theorist ;-). But it's hard to imagine P&F would be unaware of this; nor can I imagine that careful and well-respected Chemists working for *5 years* on an experiment of this type would assume their apparatus's calibration wouldn't drift over *30 days*. However I cheerly admit that I've probably done things at least that stupid, so maybe they did, too ... Gordon ``Dammit, Jim, I'm a Physicist, not a Chemist!'' Pusch Physics Dept., VPI&SU | Blacksburg VA 24061 | cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.11 / Sean Bossinger / Rampant speculation and betting pool Originally-From: sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Sean M. Bossinger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re:Rampant speculation and betting pool Subject: Rampant speculation and betting pool Date: 17 Apr 89 00:59:58 GMT Date: 11 Apr 89 17:44:24 GMT Organization: UF CIS Department Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, Ca. From uflorida!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!mega tek!spot!mark Sun Apr 16 19:56:05 EST 1989 Article 263 of alt.fusion: Path: uflorida!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!mega tek!spot!mark >From: mark@spot.megatek.uucp (Rocket J. Squirrel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Rampant speculation and betting pool Message-ID: <524@megatek.UUCP> Date: 11 Apr 89 17:44:24 GMT Sender: news@megatek.UUCP Reply-To: mark@megatek.UUCP () Distribution: alt Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, Ca. Lines: 20 >Ok campers, so it appears that there is SOME way, whatever the mechanism >turns out to be, to extract heat energy from seawater. It seems clear to >me that the first major use of this will be to replace nuclear and coal >fired electrical plants. >So who wants to speculate on which big industrial concern will be the first >to sell a commercial, ready to operate, fusion reactor to your friendly >local electrical company? GE? General Atomic? Westinghouse? Somebody in >France or Japan? Someone we have never heard of yet? >If you chose to speculate, please state *WHY* do you chose the company >you do. Remember, there may be a major long term investment windfall in >picking the right company now. Probably either: 1)A company we have never heard of, or 2)Westinghouse (to put themselves back in the nuclear power plant production business). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean | 33-304 Fletcher Hall M. The Univeristy of Florida | Gainesville, Florida 32612-3301 Bossinger sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu | (904) 395-7299 cudkeys: cuddy11 cudensb1 cudfnSean cudlnBossinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Joe Buck / Re: Graduate Students report Cold Fusion Originally-From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Graduate Students report Cold Fusion Date: 17 Apr 89 17:14:56 GMT Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA In article <2175@mit-caf.MIT.EDU> paul@mit-caf.UUCP (Paul Meyer) writes: > Talking to a Chemist grad student here, it appears that the >set up used by the Washington students is a known way of enriching >tritium. There is tritium in heavy water. The palladium may simply >be allowing tritium through the electrode. The reason it would not >work with plain H20 is simply because there is much less tritium in >water than in D20. I've seen this suggestion posted twice, and it seems backwards to me. Consider that one of the ways to produce deuterium is by electrolysis -- the lighter hydrogen isotope is preferentially separated, and the heavier one preferentially stays in the water. Yes, there will be a lot more tritium in the D2O than in the H2O, but if it exists in the form of DTO it shouldn't appear that much because of electrolysis. Possible control experiment: replace the palladium with a metal that doesn't absorb (or adsorb) hydrogen to any great extent and repeat. Then you'd get a good level for the amount of tritium you'd expect to be created by electrolysis alone. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjbuck cudfnJoe cudlnBuck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Doug Roberts / Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 18 Apr 89 21:10:11 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Dr. Stanley Pons gave a presentation here at Los Alamos this afternoon. I'll give a very brief summary of my impressions of the talk: He opened with a well received joke (the audience, overall, seemed politly skeptical). The joke: Prior to departing for Los Alamos this morning, the Dean of the U of U wished Dr. Pons a safe trip, and then commented: "It's hard to believe what an electro-chemist has to do to get invited to speak at Los Alamos." One other quip received a lot of yuks as well. He was showing a slide of his glass dewar electrode apparatus. The equipment was resting in a plastic K-Mart rubber dishwashing tub. "And this is the U-1 Tokomak fusion reactor," he said. It was particularly amusing to me because the director of one of the Los Alamos containment fusion projects was sitting in my row in the audience. Not being a physicist, I'll not try to recap all of the technical issues presented (many were discussed during the 45 minute questions period). Instead, I'll just repeat a few of them: 1. He did state that he has sustained a reaction now for over 800 hours, and that approximately 8 times as much energy has been released as was supplied to the system. 2. A soon to be released paper will show a strong correlation between the production of He4 and heat production. I came away from the presentation believing that the "cold fusion" phenomenon is real, not a laboratory mistake. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Peter Desnoyers / Re: Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter Originally-From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter Date: 18 Apr 89 21:20:29 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <4716@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: > >I have scanned in another paper on cold fusion: > > "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" > J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley > University of Arizona > S. E. Jones > Brigham Young University > March 27, 1989 > I got a copy of this paper and would be willing to mail it to anyone on UUCP. Although the uncompressed files total 6 meg, the compressed uuencoded files are about half a meg. You will need a unix machine with uncompress and uudecode, as well as a postscript printer, to read them. (They are postscript-format bitmaps, I think, and take forever to print.) Send me a message with the lines: REQUEST SEND ALL to desnoyer@apple.com. You will get 17 mail messages in response, with the compressed files and directions. Peter Desnoyers cudkeys: cuddy18 cudendesnoyer cudfnPeter cudlnDesnoyers cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / bass randale / Re: He4 found Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 18 Apr 89 20:33:43 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <4822@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes: > >[Copied from the Los Angeles Times April 18, 1989, without permission. >LFM] > >"Two University of Utah chemists announced Monday that they have >detected a rare form of helium ... [more press stuff deleted] > >... mainly produces a rare form of helium called helium-4." > A rare form of helium? dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: He4 found Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 18 Apr 89 18:45:26 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <4822@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes: > [Copied from the Los Angeles Times April 18, 1989, without permission. > LFM] So it's not your fault, but..... > > "One theory was advanced by Pons a few days after the controversial press > conference, and a scientist as MIT, Peter L. Hagelstein, recently > voiced the same speculation. That theory argues that the process > mainly produces a rare form of helium called helium-4." > He4 is the *usual* form of helium. By weight, it is more than a quarter of all the mass in the universe. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Ted Dunning / Pons talk at los alamos Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Pons talk at los alamos Date: 18 Apr 89 21:21:13 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science pons gave a talk at los alamos today. my spies who saw the talk mentioned the following new items: a) cast rods worked, but milled ones do NOT. this is completely new, and speaks volumes about surface problems and possible metallurgical processes. b) he has a `blank rod' which is milled palladium which does not react in any of his experiments. c) he says that he has had 60 (note sixty) confirmations that have communicated privately to him, but do not want their names mentioned yet. this is astounding news. d) the impression is that he again is very scientific and not at all selling anything. i hope to be reviewing a video tape of the talk soon to compare it with pons' utah presentation. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / J Henderson / He4 levels measured in P/F cell. Originally-From: jlh@uplherc.UUCP (Jordan Henderson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: He4 levels measured in P/F cell. Date: 18 Apr 89 00:02:56 GMT Organization: Utah Power & Light, Salt Lake City In a news conference at the University of Utah today (4/17), Drs. Simons and Walling, of the U of U Chemistry Dept., announced that they have measured He4 associated with the P/F experiment. The amounts of He4 measured can only be explained by nuclear fusion, say Drs. Simons and Walling. Simons and Walling claim they have developed a theory to explain the phenomena. Pons will be in contact with scientists from Los Alamos tonight and tomorrow to discuss joint research. Pons claims that Los Alamos researchers have duplicated the "cold fusion" experiment and is puzzled at Los Alamos' reticence with regard to public confirmation. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjlh cudfnJordan cudlnHenderson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Steve Smith / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: smith@cos.com (Steve Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 18 Apr 89 22:03:52 GMT Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA In article <12105@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP writes: |I've been discussing possible applications of fusion technology with some |friends, and one idea that has come up is using cold fusion devices as a |source of heat for steam engines. | |The cold fusion device reportedly achieved a temperature of over 5000 degrees. |The major obstacle to steam power thus far has been an easily transportable |and quick-starting heat source. Could it be that we now have it? | |Just for the record, the automobile known as the Stanley Steamer made the |world's speed record (over 100mph) back around 1915 or so. |It would certainly be feasible for individuals to have small, steam-driven |power generators in their back yards, or even underground, practically |wiping out the power industry. | |Comments? | |Ron | Nope. The problem with steam engines is that the car and small engine manufacturers use internal combustion engines, just because that's what they use. Whazisname Lear (inventor of the Learjet) got a fat gov't contract sometime in the 70's to develop a steam car. He produced an ultra high tech, turbine driven monstrosity, proving that a businessman with a gov't grant will spend it all. At the same time, Stanleys were being banned (so I heard) from classic car races. No fair to hit the Interstate at 80 mph .... As to using a F-P reactor in a car or your backyard, the No Nooks types would be after you with pitchforks and torches. Some guys ain't got no sense of humor .... -- -- Steve (smith@cos.com) ({uunet sundc decuac hqda-ai hadron}!cos!smith) "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." cudkeys: cuddy18 cudensmith cudfnSteve cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Jeanne DeVoto / Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Originally-From: jdevoto@Apple.COM (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,misc.legal Subject: Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Date: 19 Apr 89 00:19:31 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <1284@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: >Peter Hegalstein of MIT has proposed theories on the process of cold >fusion, and MIT wants to get patents for it. > >But, from what UPI is saying about his theories (basically D+D => He4 + >energy to the lattice) he is merely repeating what has already been >said on the Usenet! (probably with more quantitative analysis :) > >So the Usenet people "published" first, I say patents and Nobel medals >all around! Seriously, assuming the facts about the patent application are as stated, could this be used to deny a patent? I seem to remember something about "non-obvious to an experienced practitioner in the field" as a necessity for a patent to be granted.... Also, how can you patent a theory? I thought only a process could be patented, not the understanding of a process. So it seems Jones/Palmer and/or Pons/Fleischmann should be first in line.... Followups to misc.legal. jeanne a. e. devoto jdevoto@apple.com cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjdevoto cudfnJeanne cudlnDeVoto cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Randell Jesup / Re: At the Crossroads Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: At the Crossroads Date: 18 Apr 89 18:43:02 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <3737@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >other absorbed gasses). On the other hand, the reaction soon gets quenched >when the oxides of iron and other metals that will form by oxidation by D[2]O >cover the electrode sufficiently to prevent further electrolysis. >Incidentally, if this hypothesis is correct it would mean that at least one of >the metals in the BYU electrolyte is a suitable substitute for palladium in >the cold fusion reaction. I believe one of the metal salts included Ti, which has some hydrogen adsorbing (note: not absorbing) capabilities, and might be able to work in a similar manner to palladium. -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Randell Jesup / Re: Cold fusion with normal water Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion with normal water Date: 18 Apr 89 19:14:12 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <744@nsscb.UUCP> det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: >In article <38613@bbn.COM> syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) writes: >>Richard Harris reported on NPR this morning that Stanly Pons stated at an >>American Chemical Society meeting yesterday that he has been trying the >>cold fusion experiment with normal water during the last several weeks, and >>produced a reaction similar to, although not as strong as, that produced >>when using heavy water. Virtually no details were given. Harris also >>reported that Pons said that the normal water experiments were not very >>interesting. I think everyone is getting worked up over a misreported fact. I suspect (no certain data) that NPR misunderstood, and reported that Pons said there was some heat generated. They missed the fact that whenever you run a current through a (non-superconducting) wire, you get ohmic heating. Also energy is being added to the system in the dissociation of H2O. I assume that Pons reported the heating that occured was what was expected (and factored out of the D2O experiment), and this supports the assumption that no unexpected chemical reaction is taking place. I say interviews with the attendees of the ACS conference after the talk, and they said he had answered almost all their questions and quelled most of their scepticism with his answers. If he had made the statement that NPR says he did, they would have jumped on him like a ton of rocks. Therefor, I doubt the NPR reporting until confirmed (reliably). -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / William Johnson / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 18 Apr 89 23:32:01 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Doug Roberts has already summarized the Pons colloquium, and I will not repeat what he already said; however, a couple of other comments come to mind. Not much came out of this talk that has not already been reported elsewhere. He addressed the normal-water experiment in response to a question from the audience. The answer was somewhat garbled, but he appeared to be stating that some theorists (at Utah?) claimed that the slight excess heat could be explained by p+d fusion. (After all, normal water does contain some deuterium.) The claim, if I understood it correctly, was that the p+d->He-3 reaction would also be speeded up enormously in the palladium lattice. Take this with a grain of salt -- I'm not sure I heard his explanation correctly. Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, "never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that there is a significant amount of "magic" in the production of an electrode that works. Pons also held a press conference after the colloquium; I did not attend that, but a member of our collaboration did, and he indicates that basically the same old things were said. I pass this observation on without comment. It was interesting, however, to hear that according to Pons, something like *200* laboratories are now attempting a confirmation. -- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Donn Seeley / local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Date: 19 Apr 89 01:30:45 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept The press conference mainly revolved around the new theory proposed by Cheves Walling and Jack Simons, both professors in the Utah chemistry department. The authors are not exactly modest about their accomplishment... The Salt Lake Tribune ran an article on the announcement and had this to say about the theory: The theory devised by Drs Walling and Simons seems to support the empirical evidence of the Pons/Fleischmann experiment. In simplified form, the theory maintains that two heavy hydrogen (deuterium) atoms fuse to form a single helium-4 atom, which transfers its fusion energy to nearby electrons, which in turn give up energy as heat. The process is known as 'internal conversion'. 'This model is consistent with all of the experimental data presently available and makes predictions that can be checked in the lab,' said a press release from Drs Walling and Simons. They have submitted a paper on the theory to the Journal of Physical Chemistry. Dr Walling said Monday that the concept could be the most exciting scientific development of his lifetime, exceeding the Manhattan Project that provided the theoretical underpinnings for the atomic bomb. He said the theory he formulated with Dr Simons explains why the reaction occurs so quickly and why heat is the main byproduct. Dr Simons said the hypothesis was 'a helluva lot better than others I've heard of, including MIT's,' referring to a comparable 'quantum tunneling' theory proposed by Peter Hagelstein at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pons's group has been looking for predicted effects of the model: Dr B Stanley Pons confirmed ... that helium-4 was detected in experiments conducted at the chemistry department Thursday and Friday. ... 'The helium results are important,' said Dr Simons, adding that his original skepticism about the validity of the fusion claim was eroded by the amount of helium produced. 'How can you get helium-4 without a nuclear reaction? Chemistry doesn't make helium.' ... Dr Pons said he likes the theory because 'it's the only one I've seen that predicts and explains.' He added that amounts of helium-4 produced in experiments 'are pretty much precisely what the theory predicts.' What the article did not say about the theory was interesting too. According to tonight's evening news, Pons said that they did observe heat from an experiment involving ordinary H2O. Neither Pons, Fleischmann, Walling nor Simons have said that they have any clue about the significance of this. A nuclear engineer who understands the Walling-Simons theory says that if the model is correct, the apparatus should emit beta radiation (electrons) and should visibly glow a blue hue. He went to see the experiment and verified that neither of these side effects are observed. Other people have similar problems with the model, as the Trib article observes: U of U physicist Michael Salamon, who has expressed skepticism about the process, told The Tribune that he would prefer to reserve comment until he could study the theory and test results in detail, but added 'my initial guess is it's unlikely.' He said that if the concept is correct, light should be emitted as electrons leave the palladium bar, where the reaction is theoretically occurring, and enter the surrounding 'heavy' water. 'If that light is there, that means something is going on and we should pay attention to the Walling/Simons model. If not, something is probably wrong. As soon as Pons has the model up and running, we'll see,' Dr Salamon said. 'The nice thing about the model is that it's easily testable.' Dr Pons still reports far more optimistic confirmation results than the press does: Dr Pons told reporters he has talked to more than 60 scientific institutions which have indicated positive results in duplications of the tabletop experiment he and Dr Fleischmann set up. He said about half of those institutions confirmed privately that heat produced by the process far surpassed the amount of energy consumed, a claim that has sparked considerable doubt about the discovery. Italian scientists from the National Agency for Alternative Energy outside of Rome are expected to announce Tuesday that they have created nuclear fusion following the Pons/Fleischmann experiment. Dr Pons said other institutions probably haven't published their confirmations for legal reasons or have encountered problems because of slight differences in their experiments. Funding agencies are eager to provide cash to the U to continue research; the state has allocated a $5 million fund which will be administered by a committee that meets for the first time tomorrow. I haven't seen a list of the 9 members of the committee, but the Deseret News described them as 'scientists and business representatives' and said that the two 'academicians' on the committee were faculty from Utah State in Logan -- the state wanted the committee to be 'independent' of the U and BYU. The News quoted one of professors: 'The confirmation will have to be based on several things,' said Wilford Hansen, a Utah State University physics and chemistry professor and a member of the committee. Like other committee members contacted Monday, he was unsure how to decide when to give the all-clear signal to spend money. 'It's hard to say absolutely, unless we get one confirmation from which there is no doubt,' he said. Another funding source was observed by the Trib: [Pons] noted that the Office of Naval Research has provided a $1.2 million grant to continue the fusion studies. Some interesting trivia... The News reported that Dr Pons is familiar with the German helium-from-palladium story: [Pons] likes to tell the story of the German scientists who in the mid-1920s conducted a 'unique' experiment. The process, Pons said, included the production of helium gas by the electrochemical combination of deuterium from heavy water, using a palladium electrode. Pons said patent applications on the German project were sought but denied and [subsequently] withdrawn. And the discouraged scientists said they had made a mistake. The Trib says that Dr Fleischmann wanted to wait until 1990 before announcing the work: 'I did not want to publish anything about this for another 18 months, largely because we wanted to do another comprehensive series of experiments,' Professor Martin Fleischmann said in an interview broadcast throughout the world on Radio Netherlands ... 'We knew we wanted to write two papers on the subject covering different aspects of the work, and we knew we needed 18 months for that work,' said the scientist. 'We had a very well-defined program which we wanted to execute. If you publish early, you have to take the consequences of this, and that many other people will start doing similar experiments and therefore you cannot write what is called a definitive paper.' 'If you've kept things quiet for five years, you would like to write one definitive paper. It's not the first time this has happened to me,' he said. But the professor also said he understood why 'my colleagues in the University of Utah' decided to make the arch 23 announcement. 'It's not my normal style of operation,' he said, but 'I could see that there were reasons for holding it, there was so much information coming out already anyway all over the place, misleading information, that I could understand that they wanted to have this press conference.' Finally, the U of U student newspaper, the Daily Utah Chronicle, said that Pons has withdrawn the Nature paper: ... [F]ollowing the press conference, Pons told the Chronicle he withdrew his paper from Nature Saturday. Pons said the paper submitted to Nature was merely an abbreviated form of the full paper that was submitted to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, and was meant to be a 'professional announcement' of the project. However, the extended paper was published in the electrochemical journal April 10, and Nature had asked for a more complete paper with updated information, which Pons felt would be useless to write, since he has not had the time to gather further data than was first published. Also, Monday was the deadline to submit the complete paper and Pons said he did not have the time to write the requested response, so he withdrew the paper. Sorry about the length, but it was a busy day, Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@cs.utah.edu 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 utah-cs!donn cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / L Hutchinson / A call for cub reporters. Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: A call for cub reporters. Date: 18 Apr 89 18:28:15 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. We netters have all been following the cold fusion story with great fascination (or at least amusement) for the last few weeks. The problem is that our only sources of information are the news media and the net. The net has been really great, but it suffers from one major problem: only a very tiny subset of the physics community is represented. I would dearly love to know what the top-notch nuclear physicists and fusion researchers think of this whole mess. For this reason, I would like to call upon those of you that have the appropriate contacts (or at least chutzpah) to go out and suck a few of em' dry and then report back to the net. Ask for both information and opinions. Let them remain anonymous if they so desire, but it would be nice to have direct attributable quotes. For example I would like someone at Princeton to walk up to Harold Furth (sp?) and say "So Harry, baby: whaddaya think?" (or words to that effect). [ And I don't' want anybody complaining that Furth is from the old guard and will just try an protect his turf -- each of us can interpret the results in our own way.] Here are a few example topics and questions: What do you think P&F observed? Is there any validity at all to the current explainations for the lack of radiation relative to thermal output: a) 3-body interactions. b) MeV phonons. c) Botched calorimetry d) ___________ What do you know of attempts to replicate the P&F results? (Other suggestions?) So grab your clipboard or recorder and go!! Quickly, before P&F find their calorimetry error :-) Larry Hutchinson, Tektronix, Inc. PO Box 500, MS 50-383, Beaverton, OR 97077 UUCP: [uunet|ucbvax|decvax|hplabs]!tektronix!tekgvs!larryh ARPA: larryh%tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET CSNet: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Roger Tang / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 19 Apr 89 00:07:58 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Well, with FURTHER replications at Stanford and in Italy, if cold fusion is "dead," then it's a pretty damn lively corpse. Heat is variable to He4, hm? Interesting..... cudkeys: cuddy19 cudengwangung cudfnRoger cudlnTang cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Michael Frank / Re: May he rest in peace (D/Pd Absorption heat) Originally-From: bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: May he rest in peace (D/Pd Absorption heat) Date: 19 Apr 89 01:54:11 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <4749@pt.cs.cmu.edu> agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu (Andreas Nowatzyk) writes: >turns out that the Pd/H system is very complex. The absorption heat depends >on the H-concentration already in the Pd, the pressure, the temperature, the >surface treatment, the *history* of the Pd, ..., (the phase of the moon :-). >Hall, in his PhD. Thesis, MIT 1926, on this subject states flatly that >calorimetric measurement of the absorption heat is not possible because the >Pd/H system is so unstable (in this temperature range). Most sources derive >the absorption heat indirectly from other measures. Did it occur to anyone that maybe the *reason* the Pd/H system is so thermally complex is *because* low levels of fusion perhaps occur under certain conditions even with 1H? Instead of presuming that the calorimetry results are innaccurate because they don't take into account the weird behavior of Pd/H, we could presume that the weird behavior of Pd/H is due to fusion (or something equally interesting). Just a thought. -- ,-------M-i-c-h-a-e-l---F-r-a-n-k------------------------------------------. | AI Stanford Microsoft philosophy Alas,Babylon Chattanooga,TN | | Amiga swimming Star Trek Pink Floyd nanotechnology Gainesville,FL | `-----------b-u-g-b-o-y-@-p-o-r-t-i-a-.-s-t-a-n-f-o-r-d-.-e-d-u------------' cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbugboy cudfnMichael cudlnFrank cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Dave Remien / Re: Pons press conference today Originally-From: dave@pmafire.UUCP (Dave Remien) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pons press conference today Date: 18 Apr 89 18:11:01 GMT Organization: WINCO, INEL, Idaho In article <1602@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: >The local news tonight presented portions of a press conference by >Stanley Pons and his co-workers. [various interesting items deleted] > + They claim to have come up with a plausible nuclear physics > explanation for the reaction, and a paper submitted to the > Journal of Physical Chemistry will give details about why the > reaction produces less radiation and other reaction products > than expected -- one author of the JPC paper is Jack Simons, > another full professor in the Chemistry Dept.; I've been wondering if Jack Simons was involved in any of this; he taught "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" in a manner that one could actually understand, back in my undergrad days at the U. of U. Chem Department (no mean feat). It would be interesting to see if he cares to shed some light on the cold fusion matter (above and beyond the above mentioned paper). >Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@cs.utah.edu -- Dave Remien - WINCO Computer Eng. Group -{uunet | bigtex}!pmafire!dave- "I'm looking for the same old place. You must mean the old same place. It's right out back, sonny, here's the key." (Firesign Theater, ca. 1970) cudkeys: cuddy18 cudendave cudfnDave cudlnRemien cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / S Strassmann / Congressional Testimony by R. Ballinger, MIT Originally-From: straz@mit-amt (Steve Strassmann) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Congressional Testimony by R. Ballinger, MIT Date: 3 May 89 08:36:17 GMT Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA I asked Prof. Ballinger for a copy of his Congressional testimony, and his secretary kindly gave me a Mac disk and permission to distribute it on the net. The original is a Microsoft Word document, which I've converted to plain ascii and enclosed below. I've also sent the Mac document to Vince Cate (vac@cs.cmu.edu) in case he wants to make it publically accessible, along with the other papers (thanks, Vince!). I have two other short documents, but not in electronic form. One lists the names of 19 faculty and grad students as members of the "MIT Cold Fusion Group". The other, is Prof. Ballinger's bio, which says (in part) that has a joint appointment at MIT's Dept. of Nuclear Engineering and MIT's Dept. of Material Science and Engineering. His areas of specialization are (1) Environmental effects on material behavior, (2) Physical metallurgical and electrochemical aspects of environmentally assisted cracking in aqueous systems, (3) Stress corrosion cracking and hydrogen embrittlement in Light Water Reactor systems, (4) The effect of radiation on aqueous chemistry and stress corrosion cracking, (5) Experimental fracture mechanics techniques and analytical methodology, and (6) Materials development for cryogenic applications. Steve Strassmann grad student, MIT Media Laboratory (not a fusion researcher!) straz@media-lab.media.mit.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments on "Cold Fusion" Testimony presented to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. by Professor Ronald G. Ballinger Department of Nuclear Engineering Department of Materials Science and Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts April 26, 1989 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am Ronald Ballinger, a faculty member of the Departments of Nuclear Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I am very grateful for your invitation to convey my views related to the recent reports of the achievement of "cold fusion". I am a member of an interdisciplinary team at MIT that is involved in an attempt to reproduce the reported "Cold Fusion" results of Professors Pons and Fleischmann of the University of Utah. The teams' principals include Dr. Ronald R. Parker, Director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Center; Professor Mark S. Wrighton, Head of the Chemistry Department; and myself. (A complete list of team members and areas of expertise is included). The team is composed of experts in the fields of physical metallurgy, electrochemistry, plasma physics, instrumentation, and radiation detection. The team has been involved in attempts to reproduce the results, reported by Professors Pons and Fleischmann since shortly after their results were released to the press and for publication in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. As I am sure that you and the members of this committee are aware, any breakthrough in the area of energy production that has the potential to supply current and future energy needs in a non polluting manner must be given serious attention. Quite apart from its impact on basic science, the results recently reported by Professors Pons and Fleischmann, should they prove to be correct, represent such a breakthrough. The basic nature of their results have been described and discussed by earlier testimony before this committee. Basically, the team at the University of Utah has reported the fusion of deuterium atoms in a palladium matrix at room temperature. As evidence that "cold fusion" has taken place the production of excess heat and neutron radiation has been reported. The reported magnitude of both of these is such that their presence could be verified by other investigators. Much more modest results have been reported by a team of investigators at Brigham Young University. We feel that it is important to distinguish between the BYU results, which are of scientific interest but of limited or no practical significance and those of the University of Utah which, should they prove correct have major implications for future energy production. Since the reports of these results, a number of teams worldwide have been attempting to reproduce these results. To my knowledge, with the possible exception of the Stanford results and results from Europe and the USSR of which I have no personal knowledge, no team has been successful. As far as the results of attempts by the team at MIT are concerned, we have been thus far unable to scientifically verify any of these results. This is in spite of the fact that we are employing calorimetry and radiation detection methods of even greater sophistication and sensitivity than those of the University of Utah. Having said this I can assure you that these negative results have not been the results of a lack of effort. The MIT team has been, as I am sure is the case with other teams, laboring around the clock. However, we and the other teams have been handicapped by a lack of enough scientific detail to guarantee that we are actually duplicating these experiments. In the scientific community the soundness of experimental or theoretical research results is evaluated through peer review and duplication. For results such as those reported, whose potential impact on the scientific community and the world are so great, this review process is absolutely essential. Unfortunately, for reasons that are not clear to me, this has not happened in this case - at least so far. The level of detail concerning the experimental procedures, conditions and results necessary for verification of the Pons and Fleischmann results have not been forthcoming. At the same time, almost daily articles in the press, often in conflict with the facts, have raised the public expectations, possibly for naught, that our energy problem has been "solved". We have heard the phrase "too cheap to meter" applied to other forms of electric energy production before. And so the scientific community has been left to attempt to reproduce and verify a potentially major scientific breakthrough while getting its experimental details from the Wall Street Journal and other news publications. Experiments conducted in haste and based on insufficient detail coupled with premature release of results have often resulted in retractions and embarrassment on the part of the scientific community - caught in the heat of the moment. I guess we are all human. The result of this unsatisfactory situation has been that a healthy skepticism and, in some cases, distrust of the reported results has developed. We at MIT share this skepticism. At the risk of becoming too technical in my comments, I feel that I must be a bit more specific with regard to the source of this skepticism. As I mentioned earlier the major results, reported by the University of Utah group are that there has been a generation of excess heat and the measurement of neutron radiation. By excess heat I mean that there has been a measurement of more energy produced than has been supplied to the system. From our standpoint, the key point of verification is the detection of neutron radiation. From an engineering point of view, however, the importance of excess heat production is critical. On these two critical points we have found that the results reported in the few available published documents from the University of Utah are inconclusive or unclear. For example, with respect to the detection of neutrons, critical products of the fusion reaction, the reported results are confusing. They either do not agree with or are not presented completely enough to show that they are consistent with what one would expect from the emission of neutrons from the deuterium fusion reaction. Specifically, the gamma-ray spectrum shown in the Fleischmann/Pons paper and attributed to neutron emission does not exhibit a shape and intensity that demonstrates the increase reported in the number of detected neutrons above normal background. Further, the reported rate of neutron emission and level of tritium production are consistent with natural background. The results have nevertheless been reported as "significant". Those inconsistencies can only be resolved by a full disclosure of the details of the experimental measurements for examination by the scientific community. Until such time as this occurs we feel that the data is insufficient to demonstrate the presence of neutrons. As far as the issue of excess energy is concerned we are also faced with a confusing situation. While the presence of excess energy is documented in the Journal of Analytical Electrochemistry paper, the method by which this excess energy was determined is not clear. With metals, such as palladium, which act as hydrogen storage media and at the same time as catalysts for many chemical reactions, both situations which can result in discontinuous chemical energy releases, it is critical that a total energy balance over time be done. To us it is not clear that this has been the case. Until this issue is clarified we are unable to make a judgement concerning the excess energy issue. In conclusion I feel that it is safe to say that the scientific community is (1) excited about the possibility of a significant advance in the area of fusion energy research, (2) but is, at the same time, skeptical of results that have not been verified to this point and (3) is very frustrated at the methods by which the discovery has been handled both in the scientific and non-scientific community. Thank you. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenstraz cudfnSteve cudlnStrassmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Date: 2 May 89 20:46:00 GMT Further information about buying D2O. Ontario Hydro sells quantities at and above 50 Kg (45 L) in drums at about $(US)280 per Kg; $14,000 per drum. Kilogram amounts are available from: Cambridge Isotope Labs 30 Commerce Way Woburn, MA 01801 (1-800)322-1174 1 Kg of 99.9% D2O is $400. The tritium in this D2O is less than 0.015 microcurie/Kg. Dave C cudkeys: cuddy2 cudencaulkins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Paul Dietz / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 11:49:53 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <4052@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: >I agree wholeheartedly. I don't know whether cold fusion actually took >place in Utah or anywhere else, but I have found the public comments of >"heavyweights" at Priceton, Harvard, MIT and elsewhere repulsive. Scorn >and belittlement have no place in academic society. Nonsense. There is a big difference between being open-minded and empty-headed. F & P's errors are so grotesque that they are either incompetent (for not realizing it) or unprofessional (for misrepresenting their results). If I, as a computer scientist, could spot some of the errors, why couldn't they, experimental chemists, do likewise? F & P have caused many man-years of effort to be wasted. Scorn is an appropriate response. So is pity. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu Caption of S. Harris cartoon: "I didn't even know there *was* a Nobel Booby Prize." cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / L Eriksson / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 3 May 89 06:49:54 GMT Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Stockholm (Kista), Sweden In article <3464@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic (Dave Mack) writes: >The CO2 balance triggers the actual reflex of breathing; I'm talking >about being able to tell that there is quite literally no oxygen in the >gas you're breathing. It's really obvious. Your lungs are full, but >you're suffocating anyway. > >Try holding your breath for a minute or so. Think about how your lungs >feel at the end of that time. Then imagine that when you exhale and take >your next breath, that feeling doesn't go away. > But it does go away, doesn't it? Isn't the feeling of suffocation you describe caused precisely by high CO2 content in the blood, rather than lack of oxygen? Why else can people drop unconscious after hyperventilating? Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: lhe@sics.se Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09 Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09 S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN -- cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenlhe cudfnLars-Henrik cudlnEriksson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Jon Singer / Palladium Hydrides in air (was Re: Fusion-driven steam engines) Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Palladium Hydrides in air (was Re: Fusion-driven steam engines) Date: 19 Apr 89 04:46:15 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In his followup to my reply to Gordon Pusch, Ron Mayer says > ...a possible explanation. After 'charging' the palladium for a > couple of days, he removed it from the water, and within a short time, > it started glowing red hot!!! What happened was that the palladium > was acting as a catalyst for the stored hydrogen reacting with the > oxygen in the air. His guess is that sometime that night, the water > level lowered, exposing part of the electrode, and this reaction > caused the palladium to melt, and possibly also causing the hydrogen > and oxygen created earlier that night to explode. > -Ron Mayer > armin@portia.stanford.edu This is, of course, entirely possible. I have a few problems with it: 1) "Red hot" just ain't gonna melt the palladium. You ever see anything at 1500 degrees Celsius, it ain't red. My recollection is that P&F do claim that at least some of the Pd was melted. (Course, I could be misremembering, as could P&F...) 2) Hydrogen (presumably Deuterium also) burns very nicely, and with a fairly hot flame. When it explodes, though, things may be different. I don't know how wide a range of explosive mixtures it forms in air, and I don't know what it's like at the edges of that range. In the middle, at the stoichiometric mixture, it goes "BANG!" in any reasonable quantity, but I have seen a guy hold soap bubbles of the mix ON HIS HAND and set them off with a bunsen burner. The noise was almost deafening at a distance of 30 feet in the auditorium, and he looked at his hand to see if it was still there, but it was. He did this every year, in fact, for quite a while. A very memorable demo. Note that inside the soap bubbles, the stuff is not free to mix with the air, and will retain its stoichiometry better than loose H2 or D2 can. 3) A buddy of mine who is trying to duplicate this thing has also had occasion to pull his Pd out of the electrolyte, and he merely reported that when he put it back in, after cleaning it, it fizzed a lot until he turned the current back on. Of course, he hadn't been stuffing D into it for months. :-) It seems to me that there are likely to be conditions under which the Pd will get hot, and conditions under which it won't; I wish I could remember which posting it was, in the last day or 3, in which details of the process of stuffing H and D into Pd were discussed. (It was excellent.) ...Anyway, it's still eminently possible that the description given above is at least partly accurate. Cheers jon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Under the spreading Basil Bush | I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist. My lovely sweetheart lies | Pesto vapors on her breath | Jon Singer is jon@Apple.COM, or And Parsley in her eyes | (AppleLink) SINGER2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Doug Roberts / Re: At the Crossroads Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: At the Crossroads Date: 19 Apr 89 04:01:35 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <6618@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: I believe one of the metal salts included Ti, which has some hydrogen adsorbing (note: not absorbing) capabilities, and might be able to work in a similar manner to palladium. Dr. Pons mentiond titanium as a possible alternative candidate (to palladium) for cold fusion during his talk at Los Alamos today. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Randell Jesup / Re: He4 found Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 19 Apr 89 02:36:36 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <12171@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >> voiced the same speculation. That theory argues that the process >> mainly produces a rare form of helium called helium-4." >> >He4 is the *usual* form of helium. By weight, it is more than a quarter >of all the mass in the universe. True, but it's rare for it to come out of a D+D fusion experiment. At least until now. :-) -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Tom Frauenhofer / Pons Fusion on NPR Originally-From: tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Pons Fusion on NPR Date: 18 Apr 89 12:49:29 GMT Organization: CCI, Communications Systems Division, Rochester, NY I was listening to "Morning Edition" (the morning NPR news program) and they had a story on Pons's preliminary results using H O instead of D O. It sounds 2 2 like he got MORE energy using the regular water, which would invalidate the fusion hypothesis. Does anyone have any more information on this? Has anyone else tried the experiment with regular water? Thomas V. Frauenhofer ...!rutgers!rochester!cci632!ccird7!tvf *or* ...!rochester!cci632!ccird7!frau!tvf *or* ...!rochester!rit!anna!ma!tvf1477 FRAU BBS: (716) 227-8094 2400/1200/300 baud - log in as "new" to register cudkeys: cuddy18 cudentvf cudfnTom cudlnFrauenhofer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Samuel Fuller / Re: Thermocouples? Originally-From: sbf10@uts.amdahl.com (Samuel Fuller) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermocouples? Date: 19 Apr 89 01:45:13 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA In article <42b05990.5e96@dl5e96.engin.umich.edu>, offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) writes: > How efficiently could fusion-generated heat be turned into electricity > using thermocouples? > > Dan Offutt > offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu > > Probably about the same as the Plutonium powered ones -- about 5% Sam Fuller/ Amdahl System Performance Architecture cudkeys: cuddy19 cudensbf10 cudfnSamuel cudlnFuller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Samuel Fuller / Re: He4 found Originally-From: sbf10@uts.amdahl.com (Samuel Fuller) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 19 Apr 89 01:58:44 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA In article <4822@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes: > > "One theory was advanced by Pons a few days after the controversial press > conference, and a scientist as MIT, Peter L. Hagelstein, recently > voiced the same speculation. That theory argues that the process > mainly produces a rare form of helium called helium-4." According to my chart of the Nuclides He4 is not very rare. In fact, it has a percent abundance of ~100. Never believe anything that you read in the papers. If it turns out that the F&P mechanism favors the D + D --> He4 reaction then cheap safe energy may be around the corner. Heavy Water + Palladium = Heat + Helium. Can't beat that! > > |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA| > |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 | > |UUCP: {ames!cit-vax,psivax}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem | > |ARPA: jpl-devvax!leem!@cit-vax.ARPA -or- leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV | Sam Fuller / Amdahl System Performance Architecture cudkeys: cuddy19 cudensbf10 cudfnSamuel cudlnFuller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / EFH100@PSUVM.B / Fusion re Education Originally-From: EFH100@PSUVM.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion re Education Date: 19 Apr 89 05:16:02 GMT Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing I am writing a paper for a comp. course on how P/F's experiment and the subsequent attempts at duplication are reflective of the physics/ engineering programs at the institutions involved, their philosophies toward research of this nature and toward confirming experiments originally performed by others. (I am an undergrad in nuc. eng.) I would appreciate any comments on this matter, by E-mail, please, so that net space is not wasted. Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Ed =>The above is mine--all mine<= cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenEFH100 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / C Daffinger / Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Originally-From: cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Date: 19 Apr 89 07:35:47 GMT Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington In article <1612@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: ^| [...] The Salt Lake Tribune ran an article on the ^|announcement and had this to say about the theory: ^| ^| ^|What the article did not say about the theory was interesting too. ^|According to tonight's evening news, Pons said that they did observe ^|heat from an experiment involving ordinary H2O. Neither Pons, ^|Fleischmann, Walling nor Simons have said that they have any clue about ^|the significance of this. A nuclear engineer who understands the ^|Walling-Simons theory says that if the model is correct, the apparatus ^|should emit beta radiation (electrons) and should visibly glow a blue ^|hue. He went to see the experiment and verified that neither of these ^|side effects are observed. Other people have similar problems with the ^|model, as the Trib article observes: ^| ^|[...] ^| He said that if the concept is correct, light should be emitted ^| as electrons leave the palladium bar, where the reaction is ^| theoretically occurring, and enter the surrounding 'heavy' ^| water. ^| ^| 'If that light is there, that means something is going on and ^| we should pay attention to the Walling/Simons model. If not, ^| something is probably wrong. As soon as Pons has the model up ^| and running, we'll see,' Dr Salamon said. 'The nice thing ^| about the model is that it's easily testable.' ^| Beta particles are easily stopped, if I recall. A piece of paper can in fact stop a beta particle. Considering that this reaction is occurring within the Pd, rather than on the surface (or so the consensus is), then whatever beta particles are emitted would be stopped. The layer of Pd on the surface, since it is not participating in the reaction, would a) not emit any beta particles, and b) stop any beta particles from the core of the electrode. Or are there other suggestions? -charles -- Charles Daffinger >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water< (812) 339-7354 cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf Home of the Whitewater mailing list: whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencdaf cudfnCharles cudlnDaffinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Paul Dietz / Energy to electrons Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Energy to electrons Date: 19 Apr 89 12:10:21 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY The problem with the d+d+e- --> He4 + e- model is that the electron(s) have a lot of energy. They should produce bremmstrahlung (energetic photons) as they travel through the Pd electrode. These photons should have been easily detectable by F & P's scintillation detector; they could escape fairly easily from Pd electrodes only a few mm thick. More believable would be d + d + Pd --> He4 + Pd, with the Pd atom conserving momentum. Here the energy is taken away by the helium nucleus. Someone should try Pd with some beryllium mixed in to detect energetic alpha particles (this would make many more neutrons). Milled vs. cast electrodes: perhaps if there are too many lattice defects, D will accumulate there. It might be interesting to try a Pd alloy that does not have a miscibility gap (which also generates dislocations). Single crystal electrodes might also be interesting. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Claudio Nieder / Room-temperature fusion in Italy Originally-From: claudio@forty2.UUCP (Claudio Nieder) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Room-temperature fusion in Italy Date: 18 Apr 89 21:33:06 GMT Organization: Exp. Physics University Zuerich This evening the news program (TG1) of the italian television RAI 1 transmitted the notice, that italian scientist have discovered roomtemperature fusion in a setup which is different from that of UU or BYU. Apparently they used titanium and deuterium gas and NO electrolysis. I have written down what was said and report it here in italian, as it was transmitted. At the moment I'm preparing an english translation of this and I'll try to describe what was shown in television. Take this for the moment: Speaker Gli scienziati dell'ENEA (Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Alternativa) sono convinti di aver ottenuto un importante risultato scientifico sperimentando nel laboratorio di Frascati la fusione nucleare a freddo con un sistema del tutto diverso da quello degli scienziati americani, ma confermano che occorreranno parecchi anni perche dai successi di laboratorio si arrivi alla rivoluzione energetica attesa da tutti. Il nostro servizio sulla presentazione ufficiale dei risultati: Background Ufficio brevetti di Roma ore 11. Un rappresentante dell'ENEA sta facendo registrare il sistema per la produzione di neutroni e calore da fusione nucleare in gas assorbito su metallo. Pochi minuti e gli interessi dello stato italiano dovrebbero essere stati tutelati. Nello stesso momento in un'altra zona di Rome si sta celebrando una grande festa per l'ENEA. Sono parole del ministro per l'industria Battaglia intervenuto insieme al ministro della ricerca scientifica Ruberti, alla conferenza stampa per illustrare l'avvenuto esperimento di fusione nucleare fredda realizzato nei giorni scorsi nei laboratori di Frascati. L'attenzione e tutta per il professore Francesco Scaramuzzi, l'ideatore di un metodo che pur prendendo lo spunto dai ricercatori d'oltre oceano si discosta sensibilmente da quello utilizzato da Pons, Fleischman e Jones. Prof. Scaramuzzi: L'idea e nata col quesito, e proprio necessaria l'elettrolisi per realizzare questa interazione tra il deuterio e un metallo del tipo palladio o titanio ? E si e arrivati alla conclusione che era pensabile un esperimento relativamente semplice, per lo meno un tentativo di esperimento, ma era necessario disporre di un serio rilevamento di neutroni. E cosi e stato possibile nel giro di pochi giorni montare un semplicissimo esperimento che voleva soltanto vedere se si avevano delle indicazioni di un tipo di reazione come quello visto dagli americani. Background: Il primo esperimento e cominciato a Frascati il 7 Aprile. Due giorni dopo i primi risultati positivi, poi alcuni insuccessi, di cui presto si sono capite le cause. Infine un altro successo accompagnato da un'emissione di neutroni in quantita giudicata significativa. Niente palladio ne deuterio liquido, ne soprattutto elettrolisi, ma titanio e deuterio gassoso. Question to Prof. Scaramuzzi: Perche siete ricorsi al titanio ? Answer Prof. Scaramuzzi: Ma, avevamo analizzato un po la situazione, avevamo individuato un certo numero di metalli che sembravano interessanti e promettenti, e poi abbiamo scelto il titanio perche era disponibile, bastava prelevarlo in magazzino. Question: Pensava di avere questi risultati in cosi poco tempo ? Answer: No. Cioe quello che mi sarei aspettato ottimisticamente era di vedere dei conteggi significativi, ma non cosi elevati. Question: Quali sono le prossime tappe ? Answer: La prima tappa e completare l'esperimento come ho avuto occasione di dirle. Questo e un esperimento che e in una fase estremamente preliminare, che in condizione normali non avremmo reso pubblico a questo stadio. Background: I prossimi giorni comunque si metteranno al lavoro tre gruppi di scienziati per proseguire e approfondire la scoperta. Speaker: Il professor Umberto Colombo, presidente dell'ENEA e ospite del TG1. Abbiamo appena sentito il professore Scaramuzzi dire "Non mi aspettavo questi risultati". Quando voi avete cominciato a fare questi esperimenti, anche nel mondo accademico si e detto, va bene partecipano pure loro per stare nel gruppo. Ecco, lei se li aspettava questi risultati, voglio dire e un colpo di fortuna o e il frutto di un livello scientifico solido. Umberto Colombo: Io ricordo di essere venuto anche qua, subito dopo la scoperta di Fleischmann e Pons e avere detto, che occorreva essere prudenti, ma prendere molto sul serio questa ricerca, questa nuova strada verso la fusione nucleare. Confermo quello che ho detto allora, l'esperienza dell'ENEA ha dimostrato che si puo semplificare le condizioni sperimentali in cui hanno operato i ricercatori americani e l'inglese Fleischmann attraverso l'uso di deuterio gassoso, attraverso l'uso di un metallo in trucioli anziche attraverso il ricorso all'elettrolisi in fase liquida che poi genera problemi per i sali presenti, tutta una complicazione non necessaria. Abbiamo ottenuto un numero di neutroni molto rilevante, mille volte superiore al fondo naturale, siamo convinti che ci sia una strada da battere di estremo interesse, ma ancora non possiamo dire nulla circa le applicazioni pratiche quanto alla produzione di energia. Ecco vi voglio soprattutto dire che questo e un grande risultato scientifico, ma non e ancora un risultato che ci consente di cantare vittoria quanto alla fusione nucleare. Speaker: Professore, stamattina, come abbiamo visto prima nelle immagini, siete andati a brevettare. Questo che significa, che nessun altro, in nessun altro paese potra usare lo stesso sistema, che questo tipo di ricerca e riservato agli scienziati italiani, come funziona il brevetto di una cosa di questo genere ? Umberto Colombo: No no. La ricerca e aperta a tutti; fortunatamente ciascuno puo fare la ricerca nonostante l'esistenza di brevetti. Adesso noi cercheremo di coprire questo primo brevetto con una serie di altri brevetti mano a mano che scopriremo altre cose. Noi, e mi auguro gli altri italiani del CNR (Centro Nazionale Ricerca) dell'INFN (Istituto Nazionale per la Fisica Nucleare ?) e delle universita e dell'industria e speriamo di avere un mantello di protezione brevettuale sufficiente a batterci, perche gli altri che utilizzeranno eventualmente il processo, se mai sara applicabile, pagheranno a noi delle royalties, delle percentuali sui brevetti che abbiamo, sul costo dell'energia che avranno ci dovranno dare qualcosa se la produrranno, ammesso che questo serva per produrre energia. Speaker: Ecco: e vero professore che occorreranno, come e stato detto in questi giorni, decine di anni perche tutto questo poi possa dare dei risultati pratici sul piano energetico ? Umberto Colombo: Io ritengo che prudenza voglia che si mantenga questa asserzione. Ma io credo che sia molto diverso fare una scoperta che conduce all'osservare un flusso di neutroni. Probabilmente nelle prossime settimane osserveremo anche lo sviluppo di una quantita di energia. Ma da questo ad andare ai quantitativi di energie, alle potenze necessarie per le applicazioni industriali, c'e una strada enorme da fare e credo che la dovremo fare insieme con gli altri europei, e la dovremo fare con calma senza farci prendere da troppo facili entusiasmi e senza abbandonare le altre linee di ricerca che sono molto importanti. Speaker: Un'ultima cosa: in Italia non ci sono stati molti quattrini per la ricerca. Risultati di questo genere hanno un effetto trainante ? Umberto colombo: Io credo di si. Questa sperimentazione, ho fatto proprio il conto stamane, e costata una trentina di milioni all'ENEA. Forse qualcosa di meno. Pero sarebbe assurdo concludere che basta poco per fare la ricerca. Credo che la preparazione di questa gente, di Scaramuzzi e dei suoi colleghi, il tipo di strumentazione, il livello di sofisticazione degli strumenti di analisi, tutto richiede una mole di ricerca e di lavoro tale quale si poteva avere nel centro di Frascati e non e molto comune mettere insieme. Quindi io credo che dobbiamo tutti essere incoraggiati a favorire la ricerca in Italia. That's all for now. claudio UUCP: claudio@forty2.uucp BITNET: K538912@CZHRZU1A Mail: Claudio Nieder, Kanalweg 1, CH-8610 Uster Disclaimer: I'm not working or studying at the Physics Institute, I'm omly using their computers. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenclaudio cudfnClaudio cudlnNieder cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Paul Koloc / Re: Cold Fusion .. possible reactions Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion .. possible reactions Date: 19 Apr 89 11:21:16 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 In article <3078@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <1118@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >>A L L D + D reactions form (superscript 4)He, an alpha, in a very >>excited state.. . These >>reactions toss out either a neutron or a proton and leave behind >>a (superscript 3)He or tritium, respectively. >OK. I'm clear about this part. >> However, .. . the excited nascent alpha from the d-d reaction in >>the metal lattice gives up its energy to the surrounding medium >>by a form of viscous damping. >If the lattice gains energy, this might show up as lattice vibrations. >Since particles are waves and vice versa in the wonderful world of >quanta, this is equivalent to saying that the energy is given off as a >phonon (yes, lattice vibrations can be treated as particles bouncing >around -- I always thought this was cool). But what does a phonon >with a MeV of energy look like? This seems way above the energy that >any vibration level could have. This possible reaction seems to be: 4 * 4 D + D -> He -> He (ground state) + matrix energy (23.85Mev) but, that decay could be a cascade (series of very discreet phonons. Imagine a egg shaped superball with super fast rotation and vibration that is turned loose inside a pin ball machine. Very rapidly (but spread over numerous collisions) this energy would be coupled to translational energy and then into the "bumpers" in the machine. The classical picture is that deuterium fuse by slamming together and going "splat". That may not be the case here. The deuterium are so dense confined in the small microvolumes of the palladium metal that from the lattice point of view, it is difficult to distinguish two close deuterium from a helium (four) (within a Debye length). I'm implying that cold fusion may be quite (relatively) slow, forming several virtual He (four) like states before actually certainty of fusion is evident, (helium spectral characteristics are observable). This is the most wild of the suggestions, .. but, so far anomalous amounts He (four) have been observed at Utah, and not much evidence for copious strong x-rays. Another interesting possibility is 4 * 4 D + D -> He -> He (ground state) + Y (23.85Mev) or cascade gammas ------- where Y means gamma (lower case) A cascade of the energy (multiple soft x-rays) could be swallowed up by the palladium metal and surrounding material envelopes. And finally, a combination of these two cascade scenarios could also be happening together. In these cascade cases the lattice would be heated most efficiently. Unfortunately, the data points are seldom. So -- WHAT's to do? -- the comprehensive measurements and cut the pussy footing. At least have the results ready to announce as soon as the plasma-fusion budget is secured in appropriations.. okay?? Note: The gamma decay suggested by J. Rand McNally (retired ORNL) is possible because of a low energy mass-energy resonance at low deuterium energies of 24.4 MeV, and this was calculated by Gerry Hale at LANL using R-matrix theory. It has a width of several MeV and therefore will accommodate the rapid decay of the 23.85 MeV energy excess. P. Hagelstein at MIT and L. Whaley at LBL have theories, which seem to come to the same endpoint and have some of the same features. It will be interesting to see their papers. I may see Peter in a week or so. >But the excited He4 can't lose energy continuously. It has to lose >it as quanta. It can't damp out gradually. If there are intermediate >excited states of He4, it can lose energy in several steps. Exactly, .. but that gradually - continuously -> very many little lessening decays.. I was using a very broad pen.. .. . and if TIME is quantized then temporal continuity is just a perception of unimaginative physicists. For us analog TV viewers, it's not a problem ;-) -- we integrate. +-------------------------------------------------------************ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 ** FUSION ** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 *** this *** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ** decade ** +-------------------------------------------------------************ cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / L Eriksson / Translation of Swedish fusion patent article. Originally-From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Translation of Swedish fusion patent article. Date: 19 Apr 89 11:44:46 GMT Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Stockholm (Kista), Sweden Since several people have asked me, here is my translation of the article in the Swedish magazine "Ny Teknik" [New Technology]. Sorry for any errors in the text, I have not put down a great deal of effort to get spelling and language right, also I did not have access to a Swedish-English dictionary of chemical and physical terminology. After spending a couple of hours doing the translation, I really don't know why I made the offer in the first place. Perhaps I just enjoy seeing my name in print (on the screen, that is)... :-) Anyway, here is the translation. My own comments are within square brackets. The article is distributed with permission of the author and is copyrighted (c) 1989 by Ny Teknik, Bertil Berggren. The translation is copyrighted (c) 1989 by Lars-Henrik Eriksson [myself]. Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: lhe@sics.se Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09 Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09 S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN ----------------------------------------------------------------- HE APPLIED FOR A COLD FUSION PATENT BACK IN 1927 Nothing is new under the sun. The much noticed experiment with cold fusion at the university of Utah is very similar to experiments done in Sweden back in 1927 - more than 60 years ago. [A picture of a stern middle-aged man with small glasses and slightly unruly hair, wearing a laboratory coat. He holds up a test tube with a dark liquid in it and looks intently at it. In the background, one can see shelves with many bottles and part of some experimental apparatus. The caption reads "JOHN TANDBERG at the Electrolux laboratory 1956".] By Bertil Berggren ------------------ He has been called one of the greatest scientists of Swedish industry, John Tandberg (born in Norway 1896), professor at Lund university, chemist and physicist. During almost 40 years, 1925 - 1962 he worked at the Electrolux laboratories in Stockholm, the last years as scientific director and manager. [Electrolux is a large electrotechnical Swedish company, these days multinational. It is most well known (in Sweden at least) as a manufacturer of larger household appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines.] Today he is almost forgotten, you have to leaf through modern Swedish encyclopediae for a long time before finding his name. Still, he was a pioneer, one of the first in the world to make serious attempts to solve the riddle of nuclear fusion. Perhaps he succeeded as well, without himself or the rest of the world quite realising it. These days he is of more interest than ever. The experiment in Utah, where the american Stanley Pons and the englishman Martin Fleishmann claim to have produced nuclear fusion at room temperature in a test tube [sic!], was done under conditions that were very similar to certain experiments Tandberg did at the Electrolux laboratories at Grev [Count] Ture street in central Stockholm in the late 1920's and early 1930's. In his laboratory he became the first Swede who tried to find both a theoretical and practical solution to exploit nuclear energy by particle fusion, the fusing of atomic nuclei. In the book "Our alchemist in Tomegraend [Tome alley]", a biography of John Tandbergs life and work, the early work of Tandberg on fusion research is portrayed. The narrator is Torsten Wilner, a collaborator in Tandberg's group for several years. During the 1920's forceful efforts were made in Germany to produce large quantities of helium for airships. [After world war I, Germany was not permitted to build airplanes]. There was unrest in the world and the only large producer, the U.S., was reluctant to export helium, made from natural gas, to Germany. At the university of Berlin, the chemists Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters sought other ways to produce helium, among other by catalysis of hydrogen. The basic thought was to investigate "whether hydrogen without the supply of energy could be partially transformed to helium in the presence of a cathalyst, primarily palladium". The hypothesis of Prout - the old thought that hydrogen could be the "primordial substance" from which all other elements where constructed - had been given renewed actuality by the dawning research on radioactivity. After their studies of hydrogen absorption the the metal palladium (one volume of palladium will absorb 850 volumes of hydrogen), Paneth and Peters were of the opinion that there should be a possibility for spontaneous reactions between the hydrogen nuclei that were contained, close to each other, within the palladium atom lattice. They reasoned that perhaps some kind of "nuclear cathalysis" could be expected with helium as a result. By diffusing hydrogen through a red-hot palladium capillary, the two Berlin chemists claimed to have produced helium. The amount was small and hardly measurable. It did not suffice to fill airships. The results of Paneth and Peters soon reached Sweden and John Tandberg, who was interested in the relation of hydrogen to metals. He promptly began thinking about how an improved helium yield could be obtained in the process of Paneth and Peters. Tandberg's idea was to increase the concentration of hydrogen atoms in the cathalyst using electrolysis. He expected the hydrogen atom density within the palladium to be greater than in liquid helium. By using high pressure, about 1000 atmospheres, and starting the electolysis process at a low temperature, Tandberg believed that the process should be even more effective. The result was an application for a Swedish patent, "A way to produce helium", that was filed on february 17, 1927. The patent application also comprised a method "characterized in that the reaction vessel is put into thermal contact with a device that converts the produced heat into a technically useful form (mechanical work, electrical energy, cooling or light)". Recieved but not understood, was the reply from the patent office. The application was rejected on november 17 the same year with the reason that "the description is not complete enough that by its use an expert is likely to be able to practise the invention" [Isn't this a great way of putting it...?]. But John Tandberg was not a man who let himself be put down by an unappreciative surrounding. With the headline "A nuclear blast in 1932" (20 years before the detonation of the first american hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean in 1952), Torsten Wilner relates in his book: "The discovery by Urey in 1932 of heavy hydrogen, deuterium, meant greater possibilities for research in nuclear physics. Nuclei of heavy hydrogen, deutrons, have a greater ability to achieve nuclear reactions than the light nuclei, protons, do. John was quick to take advantage of this. At a rather early stage, he managed to obtain heavy water, containing deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen. One day after work, John told me that he intended to do an interesting experiment in the evening. He showed me a small wire of the metal palladium. By electrolysis of heavy water, using this wire as cathode, he had saturated it with deuterium in the same way he had previously done with ordinary hydrogen (1927). Consequently, it could be expected to contain very densly packed deuterium nuclei. He was now going to blast the wire by letting a condensor battery, charged with a high voltage, discharge through it. This would mean a sudden vaporization during a violent increase of pressure and temperature. The densly packed deutrons should get a high energy and there should be good conditions for violent collisions with nuclear reaction and fusion as a result. These reactions involve some loss of mass by the nuclei, so one could expect energy generation according to Einstein's theory. That sounded exciting, so I asked John how large the energy generation could be if all of the deuterium reacted. He calculated for a while, and replied: - About a million kilogramcalories [About 4.2*10^9 Joules]. - But that is equivalent to a thousand kilogrammes of dynamite! I exclaimed. - You are right about that, John replied, but added: - I think you should go home now. If anything particular happens you can tell people afterwards what it was. I went home, and when I returned the next day, everything was as before. John performed experiments repeatedly, but no disaster struck. Later the experiments become routine. I was present myself, together with John, at several occations, and certainly the experiments caused deafening bangs. The electric discharges sounded like powerful shots, but some nuclear physical effect - hard radiation or radioactive residues - could not be detected with the equipment John possessed at the time." Torsten Wilner concludes his impressions of John Tandberg: "In later years I have tried to reconstruct John's calculations. I also had opportunity to discuss the matter with the plasma and fusion researcher, professor Bo Lehnert. He pointed out the similarity between Johns experiments and later experiments that really led to fusion reactions. At the same time, he demonstrated the large energy losses that must be taken into account in experiments of Tandberg's kind. If John had succeeded in demonstrating a certain - even if very slight - effect it would have been an extraordinary remarkable discovery for its time." So far Torsten Wilner in the book "Our alchemist in Tomegraend". John Tandberg died in Lund 1968. The scientific world is now waiting with excitement for the scientific paper about the Utah fusion experiment that is said to be due for publication in the magazine Nature in May. Perhaps it turns out to be "only" a repetition of John Tandberg's experiment of more than 60 years ago. -- cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenlhe cudfnLars-Henrik cudlnEriksson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / David Singh / Abstracts of mit theory Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Abstracts of mit theory Date: 19 Apr 89 13:44:28 GMT Organization: Theory Center, Cornell U., Ithaca NY "Cold Fusion" Theory Here is some information of MIT professor' throey. Dr. Hagelstein says that the focus of his analysis has been on the exotic reaction: D + D going to He + 23.8Mev (lattice) This means that two deuterons react to form a helium-4 nuleus and an amount of energy--- 23.8Mev--that goes NOT into a dangerous gamma ray, but into energy that stays in the palladium lattice and eventually appears as heat. He has submitted 4 papers to Physics Review Letters. I have got the copies of these papers. The following are the abstracts: Paper 1: A Simple Model for Coherent DD Fusion in the Presence of a Lattice A simple model for DD--He fusion in the presence of a lattice is proposed. The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to (an expression). This effect gives much higher transiton rates at low temperature than the conventional fusion rates for DD---He +n, T+p, which are proportional to (an expression). Although this calculation illustrates that coherent effects can be important, the model cannot by itself account for the effects observed by Fleischmann and Pons. Paper 2: Dephasing in Coherent DD Fusion and the Long Chain Model We explore a simple model for dephasing in coherent DD fusion, and conclude that the fusion rate is inversely proportional to the thermal dephasing rate. we propose a long chain model in which rapid coherent fusion transition occur following an initail transition to a first fusion state. consideration of this model suggests that phononic excitation and tritium beta decay are unlikely initiators of fusion chains, but background radiation sources may be. Paper 3: Rates for Neutron and Tritium Production in Coherent DD Fusion reaction rates for production of neutrons and tritium in coherent DD fusion are given within the framework of a simple model which we have previously used to study He production. the fusion rates for neutron and tritium fusion reactions are found to be roughly equal to each other, and proportional to the square of the He rate. Paper 4: Phonon Interactions in Coherent Fusion we have examined the role played by optical phonons in coherent fusion, focusing on the primary nuclear/lattice energy transfer. We find that coherent fusion is stimulated by optical phonons which are present in the vicinity of the fusion reaction. From a simple statistical argument, we find that the coherent transition rate is boosted by a factor of (an expression) over the zero-point fusion rate. With this result, the overall mechanism for coherent fusion appears to require initiation by cosmic rays or equivalent, stimulation by optical phonons, possible stimulation by electrical current, a moderate to long thermal relaxation time, and coherent transitions between degenerate levels. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / David Singh / Re: Abstracts of mit theory Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Abstracts of mit theory Date: 19 Apr 89 14:03:26 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Sorry for the interruption, but please do not send mail to this account. I got this abstracts from my friend , but not the paper. Thanks. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 19 Apr 89 13:59:47 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24225@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > It was interesting, however, to hear that according to > Pons, something like *200* laboratories are now attempting a confirmation. Only 200? He must mean that something like 200 labs have communicated directly with him. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Paul Dietz / Eco-stupidity Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Eco-stupidity Date: 19 Apr 89 20:41:24 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Well, it looks like phase 3 of the reaction to a major breakthrough ("It's immoral") is beginning! Paul Ehrlich has said that cheap fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." And Jeremy Rifkin says "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." The argument [sic] is that by giving people cheap plantiful power, we'll be able to manipulate the planet more than we can now, which would be awful. Even worse, it could mean that larger populations could be supported (apparently, it upsets these sociopaths that so many other people exist). I am appalled, but not surprised, that the likes of Rifkin could hold such opinions. What pieces of disgusting slime they are. Fortunately, with something this important they will be ignored, and, if they interfere, steamrollered. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Chuck Karish / Re: America's Non-Existent Nuclear 'Crisis' Originally-From: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: America's Non-Existent Nuclear 'Crisis' Date: 19 Apr 89 19:47:54 GMT Organization: Mindcraft, Inc. In article <2237@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) wrote: >The fact of the matter is that tritium has a short half life, and constant >tritium production is required to maintain current weapons. If we decide >to dismantle our arsenal of h-bombs, fine - we don't need tritium any more. Even then, we'll still need tritium for watch dials that glow in the dark, and for tracers in biological research. It's been suggested that enough tritium to keep nuclear warheads usable could be produced using a particle accelerator, which might cost $300 million, as opposed to several billion for several graphite/uranium reactors. The accelerator would not produce plutonium, which has a long half-life and is available from other sources. Chuck Karish hplabs!hpda!mindcrf!karish (415) 493-7277 karish@forel.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenkarish cudfnChuck cudlnKarish cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Carl Ellison / Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Originally-From: cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Date: 19 Apr 89 20:34:04 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: > (Maybe somebody should send a copy of the alt.fusion archive to the > patent examiners? B-) ) Yup -- but it should be everyone who has saved an archive, not Someone. I've suggested various things for Someone to do in the past and I've learned that he procrastinates worse than I do. :-) --Carl cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencme cudfnCarl cudlnEllison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / John Logajan / Re: A call for cub reporters. Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A call for cub reporters. Date: 19 Apr 89 20:13:02 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN Larry Hutchinson writes: > > The problem is that our only sources of information are the > news media and the net. Yeah, a lot of this reminds me of the old story about the noon whistle blower who called the operator to find out what time it was, and the operator who set her clock by the noon whistle :) Toot toot. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Henry Spencer / Re: Thermocouples? Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermocouples? Date: 19 Apr 89 15:36:04 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <42b05990.5e96@dl5e96.engin.umich.edu> offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) writes: >How efficiently could fusion-generated heat be turned into electricity >using thermocouples? The words "efficient" and "thermocouples" do not belong in the same sentence, in general. :-) -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Mike Pelt / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 19 Apr 89 23:40:44 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <1989Apr19.164125.645@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >Well, it looks like phase 3 of the reaction to a major breakthrough >("It's immoral") is beginning! Paul Ehrlich has said that cheap >fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." And Jeremy >Rifkin says "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Well, it was only a matter of time. I expect the rest of the Luddite Chorus to start tuning up pretty quickly. Pickets set up around all University Physics and Chemistry departments suspected of delving into Things Man Was Not Meant To Know, the usual twits chaining themselves to the front doors, etc. One nice thing, the fact that the BYU group measured 100 curies/day of tritium being emitted by Mauna Ulu will make it a bit more difficult for them to use tritium to scare people with. Unfortunately, a populace which gets most of its technical information from a media which believes that 4He is "an extremely rare isotope of helium" is capable of believing absolutely anything. -- Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe, Video 7 No whimper, no blast. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp His life's goal accomplished, Zero risk at last. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Ed Nather / Re: He4 found Originally-From: nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 19 Apr 89 18:49:14 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <12171@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: > He4 is the *usual* form of helium. By weight, it is more than a quarter > of all the mass in the universe. Aw, c'mon, Tecumseh, if it aint "rare" it aint a thrilling story, either. Reporter's license. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin cudkeys: cuddy19 cudennather cudfnEd cudlnNather cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / M Gerlek / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: mikeg%watson.c3@lanl.gov (M.P.Gerlek) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 19 Apr 89 23:57:11 GMT From article , by egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf): > Doug, Please... This is a highly technical audience who might wish to > pursue the details of these experiments. I MUST correct one technical > detail in your description of the experiment. Someone may fail to > properly verify these experiments due to incorrect equipment. > >> One other quip received a lot of yuks as well. He was showing a slide >> of his glass dewar electrode apparatus. The equipment was resting in a >> plastic K-Mart rubber dishwashing tub. "And this is the U-1 Tokomak >> fusion reactor," he said. > > The dishwashing tub was by Rubbermaid. Which may go a long ways toward explaining the Tupperware Episode at Georgia Tech a couple days ago. :-) ` M.P.Gerlek (mikeg@watson.c3.lanl.gov) "To tweak, ' ` Los Alamos Nat'l Lab / Merrimack College Or not to tweak? ' ` Disclaimer: They don't tell me That is the ' ` anything worth disclaiming. Question. ' cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenc3 cudfnM cudlnGerlek cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Michael McClary / Re: Startup time for experiments Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Startup time for experiments Date: 20 Apr 89 00:00:38 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <24210@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: >[ref. my earlier posting that it took Los Alamos three days to get an F&P-like >experiment on line following F&P's announcement] >> >That hardly speaks of bureaucratic inertia and conservatism to me. >> >> It does to me. Three DAYS organizing before you STARTED!? (No wonder >> Los Alamos hasn't announced. Fusion-in-a-drum, and you handed the rest >> of the world a two-and-a-half-day lead.) > >Time out. Isn't a smiley missing here? Please? [] >But please tell me that the author just doesn't understand the smiley >conventions. Yes, I'm aware of the smileys. The above was intended to be a humorous overstatement of a serious point, so I'll give you half a smiley. :-j The serious point is the difference between the institutional and hacker approach to research. >> The approach I'm familiar with would have you in the lab within an hour >> of the news. You'd wake people as necessary to get access to components, >> or pick the lock on chem stores and/or the NMR lab and leave reciepts. > >To get access to *what* components? It took a lot longer than an hour after >the F&P announcement to gain enough information to reproduce their experiment >even in the most approximate sense. Of course. That hour is getting back to the lab, after which you try getting Pons on the phone. He invited contact, remember? >Three weeks after the announcement we are >still not sure we have the setups "right" (in the sense of including little >twists that F&P may not have mentioned in their paper), despite a face-to-face >between Pons and a Los Alamos straw boss. Are *you* willing to go out on a >limb and assert that, within an hour of the F&P announcement, you knew >enough about the experiment to do a *meaningful* attempt at confirming it? >If so, I'd like to know what your information pipeline is. Probably not as good as yours, and I bet if a big-name from Los Alamos called UofU and asked for Pons he'd have a better chance of getting him. (Especially if he let on that Los Alamos was going to start trying replication tonight, so if there's anything they should know about the risk of a fireball ... (There I go again. :-j )) No, I'm not willing to assert I'd get it right the first time. But as soon as I got hold of a preprint of the F&P paper, I'd have been willing to try. (By the way, when did you get hold of the preprint? And when did the "straw boss" get hold of Pons?) But the rest of your posting tells me we're not talking about the same experiment. There are at least three sorts available: A) Electropump deuterium into palladium, and look for neutrons, gammas, and MeV nuclear fragments (p, 3H, 3He, and/or 4He). B) Ditto, and carefully measure excess heat. C) New experiments to test new theories or look for additional phenomena. (See my previous posting "Things I'd like to see" for examples.) I'm talking "A". If you set up "B" in three days you have my applause. If you set up "C" in three days, you have my LOUD applause (provided you're going to publish the results where a security clearance isn't needed to read them, and sit on them for less time than F&P did). >[] The three days' startup time was not a >matter of "asking for permission"; it was THINKING time. Time spent first to >decide whether the F&P experiment was worth duplicating, which was (and is >still) not at all obvious; there is plenty of crackpot science that could be >"duplicated" if there was any percentage in doing so. Hold on! "Crackpot"? F&P are hardly unknown, and if you weren't sure, just ask a good electrochemist, or look them up in one of the Who's Whos, or Science Citations. (Did concern over looking gullible enter the decision-making process?) >Once the decision is >made to attempt a confirmation, figuring out just who the right >collaborators are, and enlisting them, takes time. And getting the required >apparatus together to do a *good* experiment isn't so trivial, either. THAT'S what I'm talking about. "A" requires almost nothing. D20, Pd, Li, Pt, some glassware, a power supply, radiation detectors. (Anybody thought of adding a little extra to the D2O to make a scintilation cocktail out of it?) The setup cost would be less than you're paying people to think about whether to do the experiment. If it doesn't work, salvage the Pd, Pt, and radiation counters and go back to the plasma lab. If it DOES work, you can't mistake it, and you KNOW it's worth spending some REAL money and effort on "B" and "C". When you're used to making decisions about whether to spend the M$ on a particle accellerator, plasma mag bottle, or giant laser (and you only get ONE of whichever), it takes a shift of mental gears to make the right tradeoffs on a four-figure experiment. But "figuring out just who the right collaborators are"? Because you need their skills? Fine. Because you need a big name, or to impress funding agencies, or because they've got too much pull to be left out? Not fine. "and enlisting them"? If you have to talk them into doing it, they're the wrong people. If you have to convince them to include you, it's time you found others with enough skill and smaller names. >Finally, there are real-world safety concerns that had to be addressed; to >duplicate an experiment alleged to have melted through a concrete floor is >not something one should undertake lightly. Remember the F&P claim that >residual radiation levels were tripled due (apparently) to the neutrons >produced in their "meltdown"? If that really did occur, it should give >*anyone* pause in trying to "reproduce" it. Yes, that's a very good reason for thinking it over before proceeding. On the other hand, it also makes it imperitive that the general public be confident someone is working on it, and that the results will be published rapidly and accurately. Else many are likely to try it, with less precautions than Los Alamos would use. (Two of my friends have obtained the requisite Pd, and neither is a chemist OR a physicist.) >A similar pause to reflect would probably have strengthened some of the >university-based experiments, for that matter. I have heard that the Texas >A&M experiment was offered assistance from their school's fine nuclear physics >program -- and declined it. This is incomprehensible to me. An understanding >of the nuclear physics, or at least measurements to learn the stuff we *don't* >understand about it, would be an essential part of any serious attempt at >replicating F&P, I would think; the nuclear observables are the only really >convincing means of establishing that *fusion* was going on rather than >poorly-understood electrochemistry. The nuclear folks at TAMU have a solid >reputation, and their participation in a F&P experiment would certainly have >improved that experiment's credibility in the community. By rejecting them >in the (apparent) rush to get an experiment going, the actual experimenters >weakened the impact of their work. I wondered about that too. Then I got to thinking about who would get the credit from a fusion paper with both chemists and physicists on the byline... B-) It doesn't take a physicist to operate a radiation detector, and there are plenty of chemists working regularly with radioactive material. (I agree, though, that planning for the radiation detectors' flaws cuts the chance you'll have to retract and rerun. And I'd expect radiation physicists, such as yourselves, to already know the characteristics of your equipment.) >Yes, a (bad) experiment could have been mounted almost immediately. But >there are plenty of bad experiments being mounted anyway; we want to do a >good one. Please, let's not mistake "fast" or "inexpensive" for "bad". Feynman did some very good (AND very showy) science with a C-clamp, a pair of pliers, and a cup of ice water. Darn. I'm really not after a flame war between chemists and physists, or institutions and garage mechanics, or me and Los Alamos. I'm after answers to a series of questions - answers that might lead to cheap, clean, safe fusion power. I've already thought of five processes that MIGHT get fusion power converted to usable forms more efficiently than by dumping it into a heat engine, IF it is there to get and IF the reaction has some of the right characteristics. And four ways to try to coerce it if the characteristics aren't quite right. The equipment for some of these is garage-machine-shop stuff. But finding out those characteristics is a set of "C" experiments. And some of them are much easier to conduct with a radiation laboratory and a particle accellerator than with a beaker and reagents, or with a lathe. So there's plenty for physicists to do, and lots of credit for them to collect. IF they have the will to do the work, and IF the have the will, and the ability, to publish the results. A radiation laboratory full of physicists is of no use to me if it can't publish because of government secrecy, if it can't muster the will to do the experiment, or if it won't publish for five years, while it tries to fit a theory to all the data. And what chance does a computer programmer have to get his questions examined if professors of electrochemistry are considered possibly too "crackpot" for their experiments to be worth replicating, or too slipshod to measure heat? But a lot answers you could get in a week with your lab could be obtained in a month with a garage shop. So if you don't want a thousand backyard nuclear fusion projects going, you need to convince a thousand garage hackers that they'll get their answers, and get them faster, by waiting for you to announce. You won't do it by debunking F&P without publishing any data of your own. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Henry Spencer / Re: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Date: 19 Apr 89 19:34:44 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <2593@cps3xx.UUCP> porkka@frith.UUCP (Joe Porkka) writes: >If life is so 'easy', why are there still so many people ( in the >same industrialized countries) homeless+hungary? Also, why is >there so much crime? The number of homeless is vastly exaggerated by media coverage; there is a real problem there, but not of the size you'd think. And although a substantial number of people have trouble making ends meet, serious malnutrition or starvation is most uncommon in said countries. There is a lot of crime because it is profitable, the risks are low, and social inhibitions against it have diminished. The reasons can (and should) be debated elsewhere, not here. >If we suddenly get free energy, will these ills go away, or will >the rich get richer.... The most likely effect, in the industrialized countries, is the same one that's been happening for a long time: the rich get richer... *and* the poor get richer, just not as quickly. Comparing the poor to the rich will always make the present day look bad; try comparing the poor today to the poor a few centuries ago. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Joe Buck / Re: Contaminated heavy water and the U of Washington announcement Originally-From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Contaminated heavy water and the U of Washington announcement Date: 19 Apr 89 22:54:26 GMT Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA In article <24212@beta.lanl.gov > mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >If one assumes that the heavy water used in the U of W experiment was of >similar composition, it follows immediately that the reported 10**10 mass-5 >molecules would be produced in the electrolysis of about 0.01 mole of heavy >water -- "about" because, as has been pointed out by several people, there >is experimental evidence that the heavier hydrogen isotopes are emitted >preferentially in electrolysis of water. A smaller amount of electrolysis >might suffice. There is no such experimental evidence. You've got it backwards. Electrolysis is one of the methods used to produce deuterium. 1H is preferentially emitted. The D stays in the water. Sorry. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjbuck cudfnJoe cudlnBuck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / The Ick / Another twist in the Fusion Confusion! Originally-From: cs211s66@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (The Ick ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Another twist in the Fusion Confusion! Date: 19 Apr 89 21:44:53 GMT Organization: University of Hawaii Say...I hear that the Georgia Tech team renounced their claim of neutron detection. Something about detecting heat or somthing instead? Anyone know anything about this? If true, then what may be the possible implications? Thanks in advance, cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencs211s66 cudfnThe cudlnIck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Edward Celarier / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: eacelari@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward A Celarier) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 20 Apr 89 01:59:30 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <24225@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > >Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, >"never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that >that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that there is a >significant amount of "magic" in the production of an electrode that >works. > Not at all uncommon in electrochemistry (one of the things that makes it so tricky), and other surface-dependent physical phenomena, such as catalysis, that the surface preparation is the most important factor in whether it works or not. Edward A. Celarier Department of chemistry Princeton University. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudeneacelari cudfnEdward cudlnCelarier cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / hbo@nobbs.ucsb / Re: He4 found Originally-From: hbo@nobbs.ucsb.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 20 Apr 89 02:44:28 GMT Organization: UC, Santa Barbara. Physics Computer Services In article <12212@ut-emx.UUCP>, nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes... >In article <12171@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >> He4 is the *usual* form of helium. By weight, it is more than a quarter >> of all the mass in the universe. > >Aw, c'mon, Tecumseh, if it aint "rare" it aint a thrilling story, either. > >Reporter's license. > Another article on cold fusion appeared in today's (4-19) LA Times. Roughly quoting, the reporter wrote "Helium-4, while the most abundant isotope of the element in nature, is extremely rare as the product of fusion reactions." If this isn't what he meant yesterday, the clarification is at least a nice recovery. 8-) -- Howard Owen, Computer Systems Manager internet: hbo@nobbs.ucsb.edu Physics Computer Services BITNET: HBO@SBITP.BITNET University of California, Santa Barbara HEPNET/SPAN: SBPHY::HBO "I am not a pay TV service!" 805-961-8366 (work) cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenhbo cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / C Fogg / The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 04:21:54 GMT Organization: Univ of Washington, Seattle [line eater] From a Seattle Time's cover story: (w/o permission) "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich. Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would let the planet support many more people than the current population of 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. What would the planet be like without "psychological space?" asks Richard Charter, a coastal lobbyist and environmentalist who notes that many of the aberrations and turmoil of inner cities can be blamed on "just plain crowding without hope." In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for that." ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) ------------ Are their concerns reasnable? --CF cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencfogg cudfnC cudlnFogg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Date: 19 Apr 89 00:00:00 GMT Following up on John Nickerson's leads to Canadian heavy water production by Ontario Hydro, I've come up with the following estimates for the production of heavy water, made by people in the business. A plant of the same size and type as Ontario Hydro's Bruce B type (800 tons of HW per year) would cost about $(US)1.1 billion and take 3 years to build. The plants are not small - each has four 8 meter diameter 90 meter high towers made from 80 mm steel. Each month a Bruce B type plant will require 100 MW of thermal energy (in the form of steam) and 30 MW of electricity to operate. Compared to these energy costs, other costs (like the H2S) are small. Any such plant should be sited near a source of water AND a source of steam. Ontario Hydro's Bruce plants are near a fission reactor. If someone more knowledgeable than I will hazard a guess as to how many mega-joules can be gotten from a kilogram of D2O in industrial-size Pons/Fleischmann cells, and how many kilowatt-hours would be needed to carry on the electorysis required, I'll run up a little economic model and report here on the results. One of the HW experts to whom I spoke said that cold fusion experimenters must be very careful to know the history of their HW. If it has been used as the moderator in a fission reactor, the amount of tritium in it will be misleadingly large. Only 'virgin' HW straight from the H2S/water enrichment process should be used. Dave C cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Paul Chisholm / "free" energy (was: Cold Fusion Growing Colder) Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: "free" energy (was: Cold Fusion Growing Colder) Date: 20 Apr 89 01:53:37 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article <2593@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: > Hmmmm. I wonder... If we get 'free' energy, will the world become > a blissfull place, where deserts get irrigated + government > decide to be nice to the people? >... > If we suddenly get free energy, will these ills go away, or will > the rich get richer.... I expect that this will be like any other technological advance: it will make the rich richer; it will widen the gap between the rich and the poor; and it will *still* improve the lot of the poor, though not as much as we'd like. An environment which offers little or no chances for advancement won't start creating openings just because electricity is much cheaper. But the effort to use fusion will create new jobs (more than it'll destroy, if I read this one right). For the "unemployable" (if there is such a creature), no. For the entry-level worker, maybe; but some experienced, previously entry-level folks will get shots at some of the new jobs, leaving entry-level slots in their place. And the fusion generator that powers a millionaire's mansion can cut the heat and light bills at a non-profit hospital, too. Assuming, of course, that all this works out. Looks good to me! Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Paul Chisholm / Re: Thermal efficiency Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermal efficiency Date: 20 Apr 89 02:09:40 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article , ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > > it is important to note among all of these calculations of thermal > efficiency that a considerable amount of the energy put into an F&P > cell comes right back out in the form of O2 and D2 gas. You're saying that the energy is used to disassociate hydrogen and oxygen, right? I'm with you so far. > these can be recombined in a fuel cell with very good efficiency to > generate electricity directly. Whoa, there. You're right, of course; but the implication seems to be that you can split water into two gasses, burn the gasses, and end up with more energy that you started off with. Both of those reactions are well-understood, and the energy out is the energy in (less waste). Fuel cells are wonderful if you've got a cheap source of electricity in one place, and need it in another. Spacecraft and hydrogen-powered cars are hard to operate with a sufficiently long extension cord, so fuel cells work there. But if you burn the hydrogen right where you created it, all you get is heat. Why not use a heat pump (or an electric heater) instead? > and the actual mysterious (possibly fictional, even) `fusion' output We have some seemingly reliable confirmation of some of the experimental results (pretty remarkable, considering how little time there's been), and some believable theory on what's happening. You're free to be skeptical, of course, but it might be time to turn it down an iota. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Roger Tang / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 06:11:06 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > > "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing > technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is > 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul > Ehrlich. > > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, > he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile > balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. > > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. > > ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would > let the planet support many more people than the current population of > 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without > forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. What would > the planet be like without "psychological space?" asks Richard Charter, > a coastal lobbyist and environmentalist who notes that many of the > aberrations and turmoil of inner cities can be blamed on "just plain > crowding without hope." > > In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura > Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy > will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for > that." > > ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political > or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) > >------------ >Are their concerns reasnable? >--CF Some are, some aren't. In particular, Ehrlich's comments on Third World problems are pretty much dead on. Applying technological solutions to social and political problems is almost guarunteed not to solve them. Dreams of an energy rich utopia are just that--pipe dreams. What will probably occur is th same dreary problems of the haves vs. havenots that has been playing out on the world stage for the last few decades. The situation is not going to change until changes permeates the bottom through top layers. Trickle- down, top-down, marxist, what have you solutions have not worked too well in the past; there's not much hope they're going to work in the future. Long as we understand controlled fusion is a tool, not a solution, then we'll avoid most of the problems the naysayers are mumbling about (even at that, it's a tool that isn't even in existence; practical applications are decades off). On the other hand, you have to note that the doomsayers are taking the view that use of fusion will take into account the short term only. I'd have to say that short-termed/short-minded thinking can easily produce the gloom and doom scenarios they've predicted. For examples of that, we need only look to Valdez, Alask and Exxon for prime examples of greedy, short-sided thinking where the bottom line overules common sense. So how's that for a useful answer? It just depends......8) cudkeys: cuddy20 cudengwangung cudfnRoger cudlnTang cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Tim Maroney / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 20 Apr 89 05:42:11 GMT Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco In article egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) writes: > >Doug, Please... This is a highly technical audience who might wish to >pursue the details of these experiments. I MUST correct one technical >detail in your description of the experiment. Someone may fail to >properly verify these experiments due to incorrect equipment. > >> One other quip received a lot of yuks as well. He was showing a slide >> of his glass dewar electrode apparatus. The equipment was resting in a >> plastic K-Mart rubber dishwashing tub. "And this is the U-1 Tokomak >> fusion reactor," he said. > >The dishwashing tub was by Rubbermaid. Well, Skip, that's true as far as it goes, but I have to say you put it rather badly. Anyone reading your message would think the tub was actually made of rubber. In fact, it was made of a synthetic polymer. Not only that, but you completely failed to mention that because of the lowered speed of light when passing through such a medium, any emitted neutrons travelling at faster than the localized speed of light through its walls would be expected to emit radiation. -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" cudkeys: cuddy20 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMaroney cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Paul Dietz / Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Date: 20 Apr 89 13:07:00 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <705400007@cdp> caulkins@cdp.UUCP writes: >A plant of the same size and type as Ontario Hydro's Bruce B >type (800 tons of HW per year) would cost about $(US)1.1 >billion and take 3 years to build. ... > Each month a Bruce B type plant will require 100 >MW of thermal energy (in the form of steam) and 30 MW of >electricity to operate. ... >If someone more knowledgeable than I will hazard a guess as to >how many mega-joules can be gotten from a kilogram of D2O in >industrial-size Pons/Fleischmann cells, and how many >kilowatt-hours would be needed to carry on the electorysis >required, I'll run up a little economic model and report here >on the results. It would be inappropriate to use the efficiency of F&P's experiment in economic calculations -- the system is not optimized; hell, we don't even understand the physics yet. However... 800 tons of heavy water, if fused as D+D-->He4, yields 8e19 joules of heat (about 2.5 terawatt-years). Clearly, the energy required to separate the heavy water is negligible. Capital cost of the fusion plant would dominate. If, as Pons said, 1000 W/cc of Pd is a reasonable goal, the amortized cost of Pd would be minor, at current prices. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Steven E / Re: Thermocouples? Originally-From: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermocouples? Date: 19 Apr 89 17:52:40 GMT Organization: Tektronix TV Measurement Systems, Beaverton OR In article <42b05990.5e96@dl5e96.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel M. Offutt (offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu) writes: > How efficiently could fusion-generated heat be turned into electricity > using thermocouples? In the late 1960s, I worked for the Earth Sciences Department of Montana State University, maintaining a weather radar and other electronic goodies. Some of our remote sites were powered by thermal generators built by Telan. These generators used a constant propane flame on one side of a Peltier stack, with a heat-sink on the other side. Efficiency of the Peltier devices was claimed to be about 6%. This is probably an order of magnitude (maybe two orders of magnitude!) higher than the efficiency of thermocouples. Because the output voltage was very low (even though several Peltier devices were electrically in series), a dc-to-dc converter built with germanium power transistors (for low base-emitter and saturation voltages) stepped the output up to 12 volts. Overall efficiency was probably around 2 percent. Steve Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! * new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com [phone (503) 627-1320] old: {decvax | hplabs | uunet | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenstever cudfnSteven cudlnE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Claudio Nieder / Room-tempreature fusion in Italy Originally-From: claudio@forty2.UUCP (Claudio Nieder) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Room-tempreature fusion in Italy Date: 19 Apr 89 01:41:07 GMT Organization: Exp. Physics University Zuerich This evening the news program (TG1) of the italian television RAI 1 transmitted the notice, that italian scientist have discovered roomtemperature fusion in a setup which is different from that of UU or BYU. Apparently they used titanium and deuterium gas and NO electrolysis. I have written down what was said and reported it in italian, in an earlier posting. I have tried to translate it into english. Maybe somebody else should try to do a better translation. Anyway here is what I got: Speaker Scientists at ENEA are convinced of having obtained an important scientific result by getting in their laboratories in Frascati roomtemperature fusion using a method different of the one used by the american scientists. They confirm that several years are needed to turn the laboratory sucess into the energetic revolution everybody waits for. Background voice: Rome patent office 11: 00 MET. A representativ of ENEA applies for a patent for a method to produce neutrons and heat of nuclear fusion in a gas aborbed on a metal. [ On the papers which are handed over you see can see a diagram of the setup looking like: _ / \ | | \_/ +---+ | +--+ +--[X]--+---+-----[X]-----+ | +---+ | | | [X] | | | | [X] V | | | +------+------+ +-----+-----+ | | | | | | | | +---+---+ | | | | |#######| | | | | +-+###+-+ | | | | |###| | | | | |###| | | | | |###| | +-------------+ | +---+ | \_________/ Unfortunatly I was not able to read any of the annotations to this diagram. ] At the same moment, in another part of Rome, a press conference is hold. Industry minister Battaglia and Research and Science minister Ruberti illustrated the experiment which was realized during the last few days in the laboratoried in Frascati. The atttention is directed to professor Francesco Scaramuzzi who developed the methode which takes the american experiments as starting point, but which is quite different from the on used by Pons, Fleischmann and Jones. Prof. Scaramuzzi: The idea arised from the question: "Is electrolyse really necessary to produce this interaction between the deuterium and the palladium or titanium ?" And so we arrived to the conclusion, that a relativly simple experiment could be envisaged, but you had to have a serios detection of neutrons. And so it was possible to set up a simple experiment within a few days, with which we simply waned to see if there were any indications of the reaction observed by the american scientists. [ During the explanations of prof. Scaramuzzi a slightly different drawing of the setup is shown: _ / \ | | \_/ | +--+------[X]--+------[X]-----+ | | | valve | [X] [X] | | _ | +--+ Temperature [X] |/ \ | | | measurement | | | | +--+ -+- \_/ + | / \ vacuum pump | | | | +---+---+ | | ______ |#titan#| | | / \ +-+###+-+ | | |neutron | |###| cooled with | | |detector| |###| <------------ | | \______/ |###| liquid nitrogen +-------+ +---+ When the whole drawing was shown, it was not possible to read any of the text on it. Then they showed the lower right corn er of it and then the labelin of those parts was readable. Background voice: The first experiment was started in Frascati the 7th april. Two days later the first positiv results, then some failures, wher the causes were soon understood. Finally another success which showed a significant amount of neutrons. No palladium and no heavy water and especially no electrolysis, but titanium and deuterium gas. Question to Prof. Scaramuzzi: Why did you choose titanium ? Answer Prof. Scaramuzzi: We had individuated several metals which we considerd interesting and then choosed titanium because it was available. Question: Did you expect these results in such a short time ? Answer: No. What I had, optimistically, expected was some neutron count, but not so high. Question: Which are the next steps ? Answer: The first step will be to complete the experiment. This experiment is in a very preliminary phase and under normal conditions we wouldn't have made it public at this early stage. Background: The following days three groups of scientists will start their work to continue and further explore these new reults. Speaker: (To prof. Umberto Colombo president of ENEA) We have just heard prof. Scaramuzzi say "We didn't expect these results. " When you started working on these experiments some people said "so they also do some research in fusion. ." Did you expect these results, where you just lucky or does this result from sound scientific work ? Umberto colombo: I remember that I came here just after the discovery of Fleischmann and Pons and I then said, that we had to be cautious, but we have to take this research, this new way to nuclar fusion, very seriously. I confirm what I said last time, this new experiment at ENEA has showed that you can simplify the condition of the fusion experiment by use of deuterium gas and by use of a metal in chip form instead of using electolysis in a liquid which then causes problems because of the salts present in it. Alot of complications which are not necessary. We have obtained a very remarkable neutron count, thousend times background, and we are convinced that there is an interesting way to follow, but we cannot yet say which will be the pratical application especially for the generation of energy. I want to point out that this is a great scientific discovery, but we shouldn't think that we have the solution to nuclear fusion. Speaker: We have seen, that tomorrow you have patented your experiment. does this mean that nobody else in no other country can use this system, that this kind of research is reserved to the italian scientists ? Umberto Colombo: No, no research is open to everybody. Now we wil try to support this first patent with a series of other patents as soon as we discover other things. We, and I hope the other italians in the CMR, INFN and the universities and industry hope to get a protectiv coat through patents, so that others who eventually want to use this process, if it ever becomes useful, will have to pay us royalties for our patents. Speaker: Is it true, that as it was said these last days, it will take some decades until all these deiscoveries will give useful results for energy production ? Umberto Colombo: I think that we must be cautious and keep up this assertion. It is quite a difference to dicover a process which produces neutrons or even some energy from brinign this to the scale needed for industrial energy production. There is a long way we will have to go together with other europeans and we should not abandon other lines of research which are also very important. Speaker: A last question: in italy there have never been much money available for research. Do such results as this one have some pulling effect ? Umberto colombo: I think it will. This experiment costed ENEA 30 million lire (approx 20 thousand US dollar). But it would be absurd to conclude that it takes such small amounts to do research. I think that the type of instruments, the quality of the analysis instruments that all needs the volume of research and work which were available at the center in Frascati. Therefor I think we should all be encouraged to support research in italy. claudio UUCP: claudio@forty2.uucp BITNET: K538912@CZHRZU1A Mail: Claudio Nieder, Kanalweg 1, CH-8610 Uster Disclaimer: I don't work or study at the Physics intitute, I'm only using their computers. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenclaudio cudfnClaudio cudlnNieder cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Dave Newman / Energy cost of Heavy Water? Originally-From: newman@ut-emx.UUCP (Dave Newman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Energy cost of Heavy Water? Date: 20 Apr 89 05:29:03 GMT Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas A quick question from an educated layman who's been following as closely as he can: Is this process economical given the energy cost of making heavy water? I remember seeing some calculations on the breakeven cost of the process, but I don't remember whether they included the cost of the heavy water. I guess it really comes down to the speed with which the heavy water is consumed? Obviously, noone knows the real answer yet, so educated guesses are OK! >>Dave Disclaimer: A Thousand Pardons! I'm only a philosopher! cudkeys: cuddy20 cudennewman cudfnDave cudlnNewman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Mike APD / Re: Fusion in Portland / Poor Reporting Originally-From: mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts @ APD x1302) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Fusion in Portland / Poor Reporting Date: 1 May 89 20:30:26 GMT Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation, Beaverton Oregon From article <5018@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, by arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch): > In article <545@gandalf.littlei.UUCP>, writes: >> The following is a full reprint (without permission) from The Oregonian, >> Portland, Oregon, Science Section, Thursday, April 27, 1989. >> >> ============== >> >> "Cold-fusion experiment energizes PSU scientists" >> 'Researchers report brief energy burst in table-top lab test' > > This is, by far, the most absurd report yet. It is representative > of the worst experimental technique, including an almost total > lack of experimental design. What they basically said was, "we > threw this thing together and we almost sort of had an explosion, so > we shut it down. Then we looked at it under a scanning microscope > and it sort of looked funny, so we decided to publish." That was my reaction, too, until I happened to get some better information. It appears the Oregonian got it wrong, as newspapers often seem to do. This looks to me like a good example of the difference between a newspaper report and a proper scientific paper. On Saturday, I spoke with someone who works with Patrick Keefe, the grad student who works with Prof. Dash at Portland State. I'm told the reason the energy burst was brief is that as soon as they saw a six degree C temperature rise in one second, they dropped the current, so as to avoid violent results. At a lower current level, they observed heat output of 4 times the electrical input, continuously for the rest of the experiment, and then they shut it down to do the electron microscopy on the electrode. They told the Oregonian reporter all this, but the article only reported on the 'burst'. They used an undisclosed electrode treatment which shortened the precharge time, and there are undisclosed aspects of the electrolyte. They are setting up another experiment, and I assume they will report on their work properly when they are ready. The above is hearsay, based on third hand information, and is quite possibly incorrect. I write this mainly to make a point that an experiment that sounds flaky in the newspaper isn't necessarily flaky. Maybe it's the newspaper that's flaky. Nor is work that sounds good in the paper necessarily good. This episode looks to me a good example of what may happen when a dim-witted local newspaper reports on scientific work, especially when they are breathlessly describing the brilliant successes of Local U. I'm sure our local daily is no better or worse in this regard than most others. Very few newspaper reporters have had any scientific training. Even if the author gets it all straight, who's to say what the editor will do to the piece. A newspaper is just not a good medium for scientific reporting. Irregardless of whether Dash and Keefe's work is good or bad, it reminds me that I need to keep in mind the fact that it's unwise to jump to conclusions, positive or otherwise, based on anything I read in the newspapers. Indeed, if I were a scientist with fusion results, I might just not let the media mess it up, and patiently send a paper to a journal instead. I suspect this fact is behind some of the lack of news on results + or - so far, given the 100's of experiments going on. -- Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005 ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts OR mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmbutts cudfnMike cudlnAPD cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 13:54:53 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Dave Skinner deplores "the repugnant behavior of [some] physicists" when dealing with F&P. He writes: > > I always felt that physcists (like all scientists) were, or at > least should be, careful to give their colleagues the benefit > of the doubt on any scientific claim that their colleagues > might make until after the verdict was in. Even then, > scientists would usually let the stigma of going public and > being wrong be sufficient punishment for the guilty. > This is because the researchers suffer not only the > embarrassment of the moment, but are undoubtedly haunted by > their mistake throughout the remainder of their careers. > All of this seems fitting and proper; the punishment fits the > crime, so to speak. That is fine as long as the "crime" is limited to journals, conferences, and lab benches, and the only thing that is in jeopardy is the reputation of the scientists making the claim. However, when a dubious claim threatens to disrupt the life and work of hundreds of thousands of people and cause huge piles of money (public and private) to change hands, then I think scientists who disbelieve the claim have not only the right to voice their opinion, but indeed the DUTY to do so, without regard for academic comraderie. Paul F Dietz asks: > > Is it my imagination, or did the critics' kid gloves come off > after Pons and Fleischmann asked congress for $25 M (which > would come from the hot fusion program)? Yes, and what is wrong with that? If it is fine and proper for F&P and UU to junk the rules of scientific debate in order to maximize their slice of the pie, then why is it wrong for hot fusion scientists to fight their jobs and lifetime work by stating their opinion loud and clear? Or should they just sit there and watch, while their research programs are cut and their money is diverted to UU, just because two guys there *said* they got this fantastic result, that is inconsistent with the physics that they know? Dave Skinner writes: > > The repugnant behavior of physicists, and apparently physicists > alone, has entered a new even more repugnant phase. > These guys have a lot to lose monetarily if F&P are right, but > do they have to lose their self respect as well? [...] > > How many physicists will have to "eat crow" if cold fusion > (with energy levels in excess of breakeven) is actually > occurring like F&P claim? More important, how much damage will > be done in the mean time to the reputation of all physicists in > the eyes of John Q. Public, in the eyes of their funding > sources (usually the U. S. Government), and in the eyes of > the rest of the science community if this behavior continues? *IF* F&P's claims are actually true, any damage caused by the physicists' skepticism will fall (very hard) mostly on the physicists themselves. Why does this possibility bother you so much? Wouldn't you consider it a fitting punishment? If anything, those physicists should be admired for their courage in stating their disbelief loud and clear, when it would be much smarter for them to keep quiet or make some encouraging noises. (Obviously, if cold fusion is real, no amount of disbelief will make it go away.) On the other hand, *IF* F&P's claims are false, the damage they have done so far is already HUGE. For starters, there is the time wasted by scientists around the world trying to replicat the experiment (this item alone can easily be in the tens of millions of dollars). Add to that the cost of equipment, lab space, phone and fax bills, travel, media coverage, USENET traffic, etc. All this because the physicists did exactly what good scientists are supposed to do: rushed out to the lab and tried to replicate the claimed results. I am neither a physicist nor a chemist, and the little I know about the F&P claim comes mainly from reading their paper and the postings on these newsgroups. From this limited perspective I got the impression that as far as bad science is concerned, F&P are more guilty than the physicists that criticize them. Their paper was quite obscure and ambiguous, and over the past month they seem to have done precious little to fill in its gaps, even on basic questions of measurement methods and control experiments that couldn't possibly affect their patent plans. Of course, there is still the possibility that F&P are right. Even if they are wrong, they may have had plenty of good excuses. However, ther is no question that the ball is now on their court. The physicists did their homework, much better (on the whole) than F&P did theirs. Those who disbelieve F&P's claims and accuse them of serious methodological errors seem to have very good reasons to do so. Self-interest has certainly influenced the tone of the their comments, but when Dave says that that "money, rather than common sense, is directing the mouths of these physicists", he seems to be commiting the same "repugnant" slandering that he so deplores, only multiplied a thousandfold. Why are F&P more respectable, honest, and incorruptible _a priori_ than all their critics put together? Why should untold millions in potential royalies leave a chemist cool and objective, whereas the prospect of a mere principal investigator's salary is enough to make a physicist lie and cheat? Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi) DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / M Russotto / Re: Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Originally-From: res12@snoopy.UMD.EDU (Matthew T. Russotto) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Date: 3 May 89 14:44:36 GMT Organization: University of Maryland, College Park In article <13328@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan Genemans) writes: > >IF the cold fusion phenomena is real and P & F are applying for patents -- One >must assume that they are doing this for monetary gain, thus hindering the >advancement of science by keeping it a secret. The question of scientific >morality to the hinderance of the advancement of the human race toward a energy >abundant and pollution free global society must be asked??? Is it morally >correct for a scientist to retain scientific knowlege for personal gain??? >(apparantly what P & F are doing...) I think it can be summed up in one simple >statement: "Absolute power breeds absolute corruption" > >Any comments reply via e-mail or post it. > > > > / Jan Genemans, Consultant USENET: Jan.Genemans@Dartmouth.edu \ >/ Engineering Deptartment UUCP: dartvax!mac.dartmouth.edu!Jan.Genemans \ >\ U.S. Merchant Marine Academy / > \ Kings Point, NY 11024-1699 "Live long and prosper" -Spock / The idea of a patent is to allow the free release of the information while ensuring the inventor reaps a benefit from his discovery. It's too bad that some countries laws make it impossible to disclose any information before a patent is filed in their country, but if F&P have something, they will, with patents, eventually release it. If there were no patents, they would have to keep it a secret FOREVER, in order to gain anything from it. As you may have guessed, I don't see anything morally wrong about a scientist using scientific knowledge for his own personal gain. If F&P have something, and they chose not to release it, they have not hindered world progress, they have only refused to help it. -- DISCLAIMER: Not only does the University not share my opinions, they don't want me sharing my opinions. "This 'Pnews', what does it do?" Matthew T. Russotto res12@snoopy.umd.edu (this semester only) cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenres12 cudfnMatthew cudlnRussotto cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Paul Dietz / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 15:08:03 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <13714@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >Paul F Dietz asks: >> Is it my imagination, or did the critics' kid gloves come off >> after Pons and Fleischmann asked congress for $25 M (which >> would come from the hot fusion program)? >Yes, and what is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. F & P's congressional shenanigans were despicable. I was not criticizing the critics. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Roger Nelson / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 05:32:09 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ At breakfast this morning, my wife and I shared amazement and some dismay over the reports, including recorded quotes from speakers, of the American Physical Society meeting in Baltimore. It was disturbing to hear the tones of litany in the speakers' entertainments and their fellow scientists' eager resopnses. The posting to which I am responding says elegantly most of what needs to be said, but because science is the best means we have of exploring the unknown, I want to add encouragement to the independent voices raised at the APS meeting, and elsewhere, counseling respectful attention and decrying the arrogance that alone can underlie such grating derision and laughter as was heard in Baltimore. The only other time I heard the like was a few years back at a AAAS meeting when The Amazing Randi -- a fine entertainer, but no scientist -- spoke at a session on the frontiers of science. I guess those frontiers do need to be defended. Roger Nelson rdnelson@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenrdnelson cudfnRoger cudlnNelson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / John Robinson / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 14:20:31 GMT Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge MA In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu>, cfogg@blake (C.E. Fogg) writes: [the story about Ehrlich and Rifkin's dire warnings] While I am sympathetic to these guys in a lot of respects, I find these quotes pretty unjustified. My first reaction was to think that maybe they are about where most physicists and chemists were on March 25 with respect to getting their stories in place. Maybe they thought they couldn't be heard above the clamor without making really inflammatory remarks. > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. Jeesh! If they are going to gouge the land, is it better that they pollute the air while they are at it? > They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without > forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. The birth rate slows with industrialization to near or below replacement. Will the industrialized countries start having babies again because power got cheaper? It seems as likely to me that ZPG will occur sooner rather than later. If I don't need 9 kids to scour the landscape every day for firewood, maybe I'll stop at 8. If my clean tractor refills its own fuel tanks each night over at the stream, I could get by with 7 or 6... (is D2O as plentiful in surface water as oceans?) > ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political > or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) By far the most important aspect of the cold fusion work is its economics, not its technology. Clearly the raw materials are legally and (relatively) economically available to third world countries *now*, unlike things like plutonium. This presents a situation far different than other advanced technologies. Finding a weapons application for cold fusion could of course blow this. If I were a terrorist or non-nuclear club country, I would probably be laying in a big store of palladiuim and ordering a D2O plant right now (oops, does the NNPT forbid the latter?). One sad scenario is the creation of a new club of haves, and poorer-still have-nots. The gap between rich and poor in a given country may be reflected in the gaps between countries. Did I hear correctly that Brazil announced a F&P confirmation? That is encouraging, in my view. Awaiting the first economic models with interest... -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr C'mon big money! cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjr cudfnJohn cudlnRobinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Brian Yamauchi / Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Originally-From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 14:52:16 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: >[line eater] > > > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > (w/o permission) > > "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing > technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is > 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul > Ehrlich. > > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, > he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile > balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. > > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. So at last the truth comes out. These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't like mankind. Read the passages quoted above. Do Ehrlich and Rivkin advocate safety regulations or cautious development of fusion? No (but they will once they realize that they have overstepped the bounds of public opinion -- then they'll try to make the regulations as Byzantine and restrictive as possible). They are inherently opposed to giving mankind power. Remember these quotes the next time they say that all they want is caution. (Building houses is evil? Are these the same people who blame homelessness on capitalism?) > ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would > let the planet support many more people than the current population of > 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without > forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. What would > the planet be like without "psychological space?" asks Richard Charter, > a coastal lobbyist and environmentalist who notes that many of the > aberrations and turmoil of inner cities can be blamed on "just plain > crowding without hope." So what's the point? Birth control is an issue that is orthogonal to fusion power. It's the underdeveloped nations which have a problem with too many people being born. Changing this will require basic changes in the social (and possibly religious) structures in those nations. Cold fusion will neither help nor hinder this. The population levels in the U.S. and Europe are at zero (possibly negative) population growth, and it's the developed nations who will be the primary beneficiaries of fusion. > In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura > Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy > will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for > that." Not all mankind will be better off, but a large segment will. > ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political > or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) This is true but irrelevant. Cold fusion won't solve all of the world's problems. It will only (!) solve the energy shortage and eliminate energy-related pollution. >------------ >Are their concerns reasnable? >--CF In a word, no. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenyamauchi cudfnBrian cudlnYamauchi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Chuck Karish / Palladium producers Originally-From: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Palladium producers Date: 20 Apr 89 14:58:22 GMT Organization: Mindcraft, Inc. In article <1989Apr19.154146.25338@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) wrote: >At 1000 w/cc it would be economical to build powerplants using Pd, at >current prices, modulo all the engineering details. No doubt Pd would >get very expensive if no substitutes are found. > >What companies mine palladium? North American producers: Sudbury, Ontario: International Nickel (I think) Stillwater, Montana: Chevron Resources Johns-Manville Sudbury produces platinum group elements as byproducts of nickel-copper mining. The Stillwater mine is a platinum play, but it produces four to five times as much palladium as platinum. The producers have been at a loss as to how to sell the palladium without flooding the world market. If actual sales prices catch up to the options market, they may now have a way. As of 1979, the US was using 65 metric tons a year of PGEs, of which most was imported from South Africa (74%) and the Soviet Union (8%). Presumably, this has changed as the Stillwater operation has been expanded. I don't think any of the North American producers make a significant portion of their income from palladium. It would take a very large demand for Pd to have much impact on their earnings. Chuck Karish hplabs!hpda!mindcrf!karish (415) 493-7277 karish@forel.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenkarish cudfnChuck cudlnKarish cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Bernie Cosell / Re: P + F RTF Paper -- WITHDRAWN -- WSJ Originally-From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: P + F RTF Paper -- WITHDRAWN -- WSJ Date: 20 Apr 89 15:42:30 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA In article <1123@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: }According to this mornings Wall Street Journal, Pons and Fleischmann }withdrew their paper from Nature. It speculated that compliance }with issues raised would further handicap the time the researchers }need for current studies and it wasn't worth the effort. Not to mention that with the FAXes humming for the past couple of weeks virtually everyone already HAS a copy of the paper :-) __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencosell cudfnBernie cudlnCosell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: Media cover of cold fusion (was Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media cover of cold fusion (was Date: 19 Apr 89 18:01:00 GMT Extracts from fusion stories in the New York Times of 19 April (Page A4): "... Dr. Francesco Scaramuzzi, a mathematician and physicist at the [Italian] National Agency for Nuclear and Alternative Energy ... said that he had exposed titanium scraps to deuterium gas. ... the Italian researchers ... did not conduct an electrochemical experiment and used no electrolytic cell and no electricity. Instead, the Italian scientists said that they had changed temperatures and pressures to achieve fusion. In one experiment, the pressure was kept high while the temperature drifted up and down, with the lowest temperature being 200 degrees C below zero ... In a second experiment, the liquid nitrogen was removed so that the temperature rose toward room temperature, and the deuterium gas was also removed. ... 'We believe it was the dynamic condition that was more important than the precise point of the pressure or of the temperature,' [Dr. Umberto Colombo] said. ... Dr. Scaramuzzi said: 'Our interpretation is that in the first experiment there was absorption of deuterium. In the second test the metal was getting rid of the deuterium.' The second test produced the most neutrons. ... in the first experiment 20 to 40 neutrons were measured in successive 10-minute periods. ... In the second experiment researchers measured flows of 200 to 300 neutrons every 10 minutes for 12 hours, which was more than 100 times the background level, he said. Despite the high neutron yield, the team members said they had obtained virtually no energy." On the same page there was a report of a successful Stanford experiment: "... [Dr. Robert A. Huggins] and his six-member team began their experiment on April 5, and it eventually included five separate electrolytic cells. ... the experiment included not only cells filled with heavy water but also ones filled with regular water ... The results ... were an excessive heat production in the flasks containing heavy water, but nothing like that in the ones filled with regular water. 'As fas as we can tell, we've got a direct comparison,' Dr. Huggins said. 'This negates any possible chemical effects,' adding that 'this is the comparison that the physics community insisted upon.' He said the amount of heat energy produced was 'in the general range' of that reported by Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann. ... cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Prem Sobel / Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Originally-From: prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Date: 20 Apr 89 15:01:21 GMT Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA In article <4871@cloud9.Stratus.COM> cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison) writes: >In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: >> (Maybe somebody should send a copy of the alt.fusion archive to the >> patent examiners? B-) ) > > > >Yup -- but it should be everyone who has saved an archive, not Someone. >I've suggested various things for Someone to do in the past and I've learned >that he procrastinates worse than I do. :-) Anyone know if there is a FAX number in trhe patent office or any way to find out? Otherwise it is easy (in the system here) to get our selected archive onto a DOS floppy disk. Prem [munchies for the line eater .....] cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Mike Pelt / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 18:09:45 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: [Erlich & Rifkin "Fusion is Awful" quotes from Seattle Times deleted] #So at last the truth comes out. # #These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people #who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always #claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. #was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical #and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the #real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't #like mankind. I would like to quit using the term "environmentalist" to describe these people. Obviously, they are far more concerned about their other agenda than they are about the environment. How about "Granola Fascist"? I heard this at SDC in Denver last year, and it's the most fitting description I've heard yet. #Read the passages quoted above. Do Ehrlich and Rivkin advocate safety #regulations or cautious development of fusion? No (but they will once #they realize that they have overstepped the bounds of public opinion #-- then they'll try to make the regulations as Byzantine and #restrictive as possible). They are inherently opposed to giving #mankind power. Remember these quotes the next time they #say that all they want is caution. This is what I'm really afraid of. By the time the Granola Fascists and the empire-building bureacrats get finished with us, you'd be able to get more power by burning the paperwork than from fusion. One of the scariest aspects is if you consider the implications of the Drexler quote in my .signature... If democracy is to survive, we must find some way of bypassing the obstructionism of an anti-democratic minority who uses fear-mongering and sabotage-by-lawyer to halt all progress. -- Mike Van Pelt Video 7 ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp "... Local prohibitions cannot block advances in military and commercial technology.... Democratic movements for local restraint can only restrain the world's democracies, not the world as a whole." -- K. Eric Drexler cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Perry Metzger / Fusion: Panacea or Problem Originally-From: perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion: Panacea or Problem Date: 20 Apr 89 15:31:54 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ What annoys me about Rifkin and Company is that they don't seem to realize that, in spite of everything, modern technology HAS made the lives of millions far better. Anyone who wants to go back to, say, the good old days of the early 19th century, when people died of simple infections, thousands died in cholera epidemics, there was no indoor plumbing or central heat, thousands died in "developed" countries from famines, etc, is more than welcome to. No, cold fusion won't, for instance, cure homelessness. But it does give us a fighting chance to cure the greehouse effect and several forms of polution. It might not mean that a poor family will be able to afford a bigger house, but it might mean that they would be able to heat the one they have. It might not cure starvation in africa, but it could mean that it would be practical to irrigate the sahara. With distiled water so that there won't be long-term residue build up. And even if we DON'T irrigate the sahara, we could still ship food to the starving more cheaply. As for overpopulation destroying countries where technology is too advanced, this seems to be the plague of countries where the technology isn't advanced enough! The US has a population that is nearing stability (although it is still growing). India has an exploding population. Raising people's standards of living traditionally lowers the birthrate dramatically. Lastly, even if we can't control the population, cold fusion would allow us to build cities in space and on other planets in the system, thus giving the billions of people who look like they will be born (even if his Highness, Jeremy Rifkin, does not give them permission) someplace to go. Its not going to be a panacea, no. But it doesn't look like the costs will outweigh the benefits. Perry cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenperry cudfnPerry cudlnMetzger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / V Lakshmanan / Re: Room-tempreature fusion in India Originally-From: vlak_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Venugopal Lakshmanan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Room-tempreature fusion in India Date: 20 Apr 89 16:03:11 GMT Organization: University of Rochester Today's New York Times, April 20, 1989 reports: Fusion Repetition reported in India. The Indian scientists used the same technique as P&F but "slightly different materials". The experiment used heavy water, and titanium and platinum electrodes. C.V. Sundaram, director of the Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research near Madras, reported a "30 percent increase in neutrons over the background level, but that the energy produced had not been measured". The heavy water also contained 0.2percent Ni and Pd Chlorides in place of the Lithium salts used by P&F. Brazilians also report replication of the Utah expt, at Sao Paulo. -Venu Lakshmanan cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenvlak_ltd cudfnVenugopal cudlnLakshmanan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Jim Meritt / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 15:56:48 GMT Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: } From a Seattle Time's cover story: } (w/o permission) } } ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would } let the planet support many more people than the current population of } 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without } forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. What would } the planet be like without "psychological space?" asks Richard Charter, } a coastal lobbyist and environmentalist who notes that many of the } aberrations and turmoil of inner cities can be blamed on "just plain } crowding without hope." } }Are their concerns reasnable? Absolutely! The best thing that could happen for this world is to have WWIII fought with megaton warheads and asteroid bombardments to clean the scum of mankind off the earth so the planet could be that wonderful pristine beauty it is meant to be! ;-) :-) ;-) Complete with methane-ammonia atmosphere, thermal extremes, and everything shaded varying shades of gray... Disclaimer: "It's mine! All mine!!!" - D. Duck cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjwm cudfnJim cudlnMeritt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / William Johnson / Re: Startup time for experiments Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Startup time for experiments Date: 20 Apr 89 15:38:29 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: > In article <24210@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > >In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: > >[ref. my earlier posting that it took Los Alamos three days to get an F&P-like > >experiment on line following F&P's announcement] > >> >That hardly speaks of bureaucratic inertia and conservatism to me. > >> > >> It does to me. Three DAYS organizing before you STARTED!? (No wonder > >> Los Alamos hasn't announced. Fusion-in-a-drum, and you handed the rest > >> of the world a two-and-a-half-day lead.) > > > >Time out. Isn't a smiley missing here? Please? [] > >But please tell me that the author just doesn't understand the smiley > >conventions. > > Yes, I'm aware of the smileys. The above was intended to be a > humorous overstatement of a serious point, so I'll give you half a > smiley. :-j Thanks ... I needed that. The rest of this posting is excellent, and I only want to make a couple of points about it: > Hold on! "Crackpot"? F&P are hardly unknown, and if you weren't sure, > just ask a good electrochemist, or look them up in one of the Who's Whos, > or Science Citations. (Did concern over looking gullible enter the > decision-making process?) No implication that F&P are either "crackpots" or "unknown" was intended; they are neither. However, even some very big names sometimes come up with some very bad science, and even though F&P have solid reputations in their field, those of us working in fields relevant to their experiment *other* than electrochemistry -- specifically, us nuclear guys -- take a little more convincing that the science is worth while. > [The safety issue] also makes it imperitive that the general public > be confident someone is working on it, and that the results will be > published rapidly and accurately. Else many are likely to try it, with > less precautions than Los Alamos would use. (Two of my friends have > obtained the requisite Pd, and neither is a chemist OR a physicist.) Thank you; a good point. Let it be known that Los Alamos IS working on F&P-like experiments (at least six different ones, in fact); I'll pass reports on them along as they are released, but not before. [ref. my wonder why Texas A&M's nuclear people weren't involved in the A&M experiment] > I wondered about that too. Then I got to thinking about who would get > the credit from a fusion paper with both chemists and physicists on > the byline... B-) Sad but true, and no smiley need be attached. One of the unfortunate aspects of the F&P work is that it has led, to some extent, to a tendency to conduct science through press releases. This is bad for several reasons. First, the experiments that get the press are the "loudest" and not necessarily "best". (Note that the two may overlap -- maybe.) This creates animosities within the research community that aren't helpful in getting the real objective -- proof that the science works, and if so, conversion into something useful -- worked on. Second, it encourages a "Ready ... fire ... aim" approach to doing the work. Retractions, after all, are cheap, and a lot of people don't read them anyway. Consequently, a lot of ill-conceived and therefore inconclusive experiments get rushed into production, and when they don't turn anything up (or when they *do* come up with something but it is scoffed at), they don't prove anything after all. Finally, if this all pans out there will be PLENTY of research bucks to go around, I confidently predict. Emphasis on the press rather than on the science is setting the experimenters up for a fall during the longer, post-excitement stage of doing grunt science to really figure out what's going on. > It doesn't take a physicist to operate a radiation detector, and there > are plenty of chemists working regularly with radioactive material. Yes and no. IMHO, it *does* take a physicist to operate a detector AND be aware of all the experimental pitfalls. The people at Georgia Tech, notwithstanding a relatively high degree of expertise, did wander into one of those pitfalls, and got egg on their faces as a result. > (I agree, though, that planning for the radiation detectors' flaws > cuts the chance you'll have to retract and rerun. And I'd expect > radiation physicists, such as yourselves, to already know the > characteristics of your equipment.) Thank you. That's my point. > Darn. I'm really not after a flame war between chemists and physists, > or institutions and garage mechanics, or me and Los Alamos. I'm after > answers to a series of questions - answers that might lead to cheap, > clean, safe fusion power. No flame war was assumed, nor did my posting intend to incite one; if that was the effect, excuse me. Your points, in general, are well taken, and I only want to point out that there are some valid reasons for moving slowly and carefully as well as quickly and aggressively. -- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Doug Roberts / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 16:28:11 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: >[line eater] > > > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > (w/o permission) > > "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing > technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is > 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul > Ehrlich. > > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, > he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile > balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. > > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. So at last the truth comes out. These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't like mankind. I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population growth trend. The solution, though, is _not_ to suppress the new emerging technology. The realistic approach is to address the problem of controlling the global population's tendency to grow past the bounds of society's ability to adequately support it. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Peter Desnoyers / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 18:22:30 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >So at last the truth comes out. > >These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people >who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always >claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. >was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical >and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the >real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't >like mankind. > No. They raised a valid point - cheap, clean energy will only eliminate one main pollution source among many. It probably won't even eliminate pollution from cars. (It hasn't in the Pacific Northwest, which has had cheap hydro-power since WWII.) At the same time, it will allow other pollution sources and environmentally destructive activities to be carried out at an accelerated pace. Our society is addicted to activities which destroy the environment. Giving it cheap energy may be like giving a drug addict money - he may use it for treatment, but will probably use it to continue his habit. Peter Desnoyers cudkeys: cuddy20 cudendesnoyer cudfnPeter cudlnDesnoyers cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / C Hayes / Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Originally-From: cjh@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Christopher J. Hayes) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,su.etc Subject: Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Date: 20 Apr 89 17:41:56 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1708@Portia.Stanford.EDU> brooks@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Brooks) writes: >An authorized quote or two from the Stanford Campus Report follows: > >The experiment was done by Prof. R.A. Huggins (Dept. of Materials >Science and Engineering) as previously mentioned: >"Huggins` team ran two experiments simultaneously in a red picnic >cooler for more than two weeks and found that the experiment ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >involving heavy water produced 50 percent more heat than the same ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >experiment using ordinary water, even though the amount of electricity ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >going in was the same." The reporter made a slight error here. The heavy water experiment produced 50% more energy (in the form of heat) than was put in (in the form of electricity), while the ordinary water experiment produced no more energy than was put in, according to the article in the Stanford Daily. I would tend to trust the Daily writer, because he's a physics major (and a friend of mine :-). (Non-Stanford people on alt.fusion: the Campus Report is the University's official newspaper; the Daily is the student newspaper.) ---cjh -- Christopher J. Hayes (Chris) | Internet: cjh@portia.stanford.edu Snail Mail: 620 Mayfield Ave. | Bitnet: as Internet, or cjh%portia@stanford Stanford, CA 94305-8466 USA | UUCP: decwrl!portia.stanford.edu!cjh AT&T: +1 (415) 322 1528 | or uunet!portia.stanford.edu!cjh cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencjh cudfnChristopher cudlnHayes cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Ed Nather / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 20 Apr 89 14:14:48 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <12205@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: > > In view of the fact that Georgia Tech withdrew their results following > reports of the extreme temperature sensitivity of their neutron detector > one wonders what the details of the Italian experimental setup were. > I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, each in its own way, or that cold fusion is real? [I *love* ex-post-facto statistical calculations!] -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin cudkeys: cuddy20 cudennather cudfnEd cudlnNather cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Paul Dietz / Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 20 Apr 89 18:38:00 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY The Italian result is interesting. They seem to get fusion when there is a net movement of deuterium through the titanium, rather than when it is stationary in the metal. Also, Steve Koonin sent me a preprint that (among other things) speculates that gross movement of hydrogen through the metal may be important in increasing the fusion rate. So, in the F&P type electrolytic experiments, I wonder whether it is important to not fully immerse the cathode in the heavy water. That way, deuterium will be pumped into the bottom of the cathode, diffuse upwards, and be released out the top. If the cathode is fully immersed then there will be less net motion, so perhaps no fusion. This might also explain F & P's melted cube: when they cut the current, perhaps deuterium started rapidly flowing out. This motion (not some "shock wave") perhaps made fusion occur. It might also explain cathodes that become red hot when removed from the heavy water. This line of reasoning also suggests the use of higher temperatures or ultrasound to increase the mobility of deuterium in the metal. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Gordon Banks / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 16:44:54 GMT Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA. In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > > ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would > let the planet support many more people than the current population of > 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without > forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. It also might allow us to build habitats in space and preserve the earth as a gigantic nature park. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudengeb cudfnGordon cudlnBanks cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: political/ecological (was Re: Eco-stupidity) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: political/ecological (was Re: Eco-stupidity) Date: 20 Apr 89 16:21:35 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas I am no closer than I was 4 weeks ago to deciding whether or not cold fusion is a reality and economically interesting, but I will assume (for the sake of argument) that it is both. Folks, this is a tool. If you are firmly convinced that the human race is inherently incapable of treating this planet with respect then it is a tool that we will be used to destroy ourselves. Of course, without it we'd just use alternative methods. In the long run it won't make a bit of difference. If you believe that the human race has the capacity to act in its own long term interests then cold fusion will be used to confer on our descendants a much richer life, with a greatly reduced amount of environmental stress, then would be otherwise achievable. Obviously, the existence of cold fusion is not going to make the second choice inevitable. It is just possible that by making the short term less painful it could make an environmentally sane future more likely. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Thomas Wang / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 20 Apr 89 21:20:04 GMT Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo In article <1989Apr20.143800.14572@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >The Italian result is interesting. They seem to get fusion when there >is a net movement of deuterium through the titanium, rather than when >it is stationary in the metal. Also, Steve Koonin sent me a preprint >that (among other things) speculates that gross movement of hydrogen >through the metal may be important in increasing the fusion >rate. This might be an interesting experiment to do in light of the above hypothesis: Basically two flasks of P & F experiment setups. One flask has contineous 7.5 volts flowing throught it. The other has the voltage altering between 5 volts and 10 volts hourly. When the voltage is changed, presumely the concentation of D ions in palladium will shift. One can measure the neutron production difference of the two setups, and come to some interesting conclusions. -Thomas Wang ("I am, therefore I am." - Akira ) ttwang@polyslo.calpoly.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenttwang cudfnThomas cudlnWang cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Ted Dunning / Re: He4 levels measured in P/F cell. Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: He4 levels measured in P/F cell. Date: 19 Apr 89 03:45:59 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <182@uplherc.UUCP> jlh@uplherc.UUCP (Jordan Henderson) writes: Pons will be in contact with scientists from Los Alamos tonight and tomorrow to discuss joint research. Pons claims that Los Alamos researchers have duplicated the "cold fusion" experiment and is puzzled at Los Alamos' reticence with regard to public confirmation. of course!!! he must have gone there to tell them that they had succeeded, since they apparently haven't figured it out themselves. this sort of comment kind of puts a damper on the figure of 60 confirmations doesn't it. (damn, depressive cycle is back. and i thought the manic phase was permanent this time). cudkeys: cuddy19 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / John Campbell / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 20 Apr 89 16:15:16 GMT Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ From article <1989Apr19.164125.645@cs.rochester.edu>, by dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz): > Well, it looks like phase 3 of the reaction to a major breakthrough > ("It's immoral") is beginning! Paul Ehrlich has said that cheap > fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." And Jeremy > Rifkin says "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." I trust Ehrlich knows more about the issues than I do, but as a self-proclaimed (albiet unpublished) environmentalist I find the prospect of turning off those coal and fission plants pretty exciting. Seems to me this should be the best thing to happen to our planet. After all, the appetite for energy is directly responsible for North Slope oil research, Brazilian rain forest destruction and a host of other things I'd rather see stopped. > > The argument [sic] is that by giving people cheap plantiful power, > we'll be able to manipulate the planet more than we can now, which > would be awful. Even worse, it could mean that larger populations > could be supported (apparently, it upsets these sociopaths that so > many other people exist). And I'm a sociapath also (by your definition). The planet seems overcrowded to my backcountry mentality as it is. Perhaps Ehrlich is right and population is our greatest "bomb" after all. As a young anthro student I calculated the % of arable land and used a figure that I read about for the amount of space a bushman needed (they don't farm, but maybe their population density is more our "norm") to come up with a 90% reduction in population. Sure, which 9 out of 10 people do I want to kill off? Can't answer that, but next time you're in a traffic jam, ask yourself, wouldn't it be better if 9 out of 10 of those cars weren't there? > > I am appalled, but not surprised, that the likes of Rifkin could > hold such opinions. What pieces of disgusting slime they are. > Fortunately, with something this important they will be ignored, > and, if they interfere, steamrollered. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu I am appalled that you want to create such a schism between cold-fusion enthusiasts and environmentalists. Hopefully there are a few, like me, who can enjoy/appreciate both technologies. (Never thought of environmentalism as a technology? For shame.) -- John Campbell ...!arizona!naucse!jdc CAMPBELL@NAUVAX.bitnet unix? Sure send me a dozen, all different colors. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjdc cudfnJohn cudlnCampbell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Ted Dunning / lanl talk yesterday Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: lanl talk yesterday Date: 19 Apr 89 16:22:56 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science in their coverage of yesterday's talk at lanl by pons, the albuquerque journal reported that pons said that the light water version of the experiment produced no excess heat. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Ted Dunning / Re: Thermal efficiency Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermal efficiency Date: 20 Apr 89 15:33:47 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science your perpetual motion detector is set too low. read on. In article <2806@pegasus.ATT.COM> psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: > > it is important to note among all of these calculations of thermal > efficiency that a considerable amount of the energy put into an F&P > cell comes right back out in the form of O2 and D2 gas. You're saying that the energy is used to disassociate hydrogen and oxygen, right? I'm with you so far. right... but this is a side effect of the apparatus. the primary effect is putting D into Pd. > these can be recombined in a fuel cell with very good efficiency to > generate electricity directly. Whoa, there. You're right, of course; but the implication seems to be that you can split water into two gasses, burn the gasses, and end up with more energy that you started off with. Both of those reactions are well-understood, and the energy out is the energy in (less waste). this is NOT the implication here. the point being made is that to have an effective fusion generator based on P&F's experiment, you have to generate the electricity to power the electrolytic packing. if you can recover most of the power wasted in electrolysizing water by using a fuel cell, you avoid the wasteful side trip to heat and back. this considerably impacts the total useable power output of the generator. for concrete example sake: assume that pons figure of fusion output equal 800% of waste heat is correct, and that total heat output without reconverting the d2 and o2 is 1.11 times electric input. waste heat is thus .11 of input, and fusion heat is 1.0 of input. electrolytic output is .89 of input (in the form of d2 and o2. with fuel cell recycling: convert the 0.89 of input back to electric power 0.8*0.89 = .71. convert the 1.11 to electricity at 30%, and get 0.33. thus we have our original input generated via recycling and fusion, plus useable output of 0.04. not real good, but kind of neat. this means that we are roughly at economic breakeven. now without fuel cell recycling: convert the 0.89 chemical energy to heat at 100% efficiency and get a total of 2.0 in terms of total heat output. now convert back to electricity to drive the reaction, and get 0.6. the generator is well below breakeven. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Chris Phoenix / More possible environmental objections Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: More possible environmental objections Date: 20 Apr 89 21:43:05 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. "Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. 1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. What right do we have to do that? 2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty ridiculous), people will be giving them. Anyone want to have some facts ready for them? (Note: Read "The Sahara" as "Any significant land mass that we'd irrigate more if we had cheap distilled water.") -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 21:19:58 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <330@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: ..speaking of Rifkin et al. > > How about "Granola Fascist"? I heard this at SDC in Denver last > year, and it's the most fitting description I've heard yet. I read a review of "Entropy" in Nature in which the reviewer took Rifkin to task for a number of amazing misrepresentations of science. For me the most disturbing accusation was the reviewer's claim that Rifkin indulges in the speculation that too much knowledge circulating in the general population is a form of "entropy" which should be minimized. Evidently in his utopia a small elite of environmentally and politically correct people manage knowledge as a sort of priestly elite. Presumably this would take care of the dangers of fusion power. I've never felt interested enough to actually read the book and see if this accusation was fair. (I also have no wish to contribute money to his activities by buying the book.) Has anyone actually *read* this book, and is he the shithead that this makes him out to be? -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / John Mundt / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: john@chinet.chi.il.us (John Mundt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 18:16:57 GMT Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > From a Seattle Time's cover story: (w/o permission) > > In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura > Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy > will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for > that." > > ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political > or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) > >------------ >Are their concerns reasnable? No problem!! We simply deny the Third World this potentially detrimental new form of energy! They will then be surely no worse off, according to the two people quoted above, and it will provide a boon for sociological research as a side benefit. :-) Several comments have derided the "Luddites" and dismissed them as being on the fringe -- which they might well be. However, they do sway public opinion in our democratic system where votes are not weighted by their enlightened value. Fusion has come just in time, now that the North Slope will be shut down shortly! Jefferson did warn about the tyranny of the majority, not to mention the necessity of an enlightened electorate... -- -------------------- John Mundt Teachers' Aide, Inc. P.O. Box 1666 Highland Park, IL john@chinet.chi.il.us (312) 998-5007 (Day voice) || -432-8860 (Answer Mach) && -432-5386 Modem cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMundt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Henry Spencer / Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Date: 20 Apr 89 19:56:14 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <19819@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes: >Beta particles are easily stopped, if I recall. A piece of paper >can in fact stop a beta particle... You're thinking of alphas; betas are somewhat more penetrating. Not enormously so, mind you. If beta particles were being emitted, you'd have to explain why at least the outer millimeter or two of Pd wasn't doing it. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / William Johnson / Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 20 Apr 89 20:58:59 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article , ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > > in their coverage of yesterday's talk at lanl by pons, the albuquerque > journal reported that pons said that the light water version of the > experiment produced no excess heat. What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. You may infer from this what you will regarding the mechanism of heat production, but the inference regarding press coverage is much more obvious, I think. The Albuquerque Journal is certainly not a newspaper in the class of the New York Times, but based on some other projects I've worked on that have seen print there, they also are used to presenting technical things and do a better job at it than most papers I read. If they can't quote Pons straight, I seriously wonder about some of the other articles that are coming out. -- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Mary Holstege / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 20 Apr 89 23:37:57 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1363@naucse.UUCP> John Campbell responds to Paul Dietz calling those concerned about the environment in general and human overpopulation in particular "sociopaths": >I trust Ehrlich knows more about the issues than I do, but as a >self-proclaimed (albiet unpublished) environmentalist I find the >prospect of turning off those coal and fission plants pretty exciting. >Seems to me this should be the best thing to happen to our planet. >After all, the appetite for energy is directly responsible for North >Slope oil research, Brazilian rain forest destruction and a host of >other things I'd rather see stopped. I'm with John, here. I don't think it is particularly sociopathic to want a future for our grandchildren that includes more than just humans, human food, and vermin. I don't find it particularly sociopathic to want a population level that would permit me to live like a human being instead of a battery hen. Where I part company with Erlich is that I think cheap power, particularly a technology that looks like it might well work well on a small-scale local level, might be just the ticket to bring up development around the world. (And consequently bring population down; it seems to work that way.) I also find the prospect of better energy sources than coal, oil, and fission reactors in the hands of the irresponsible exciting. I have a great deal of respect for Erlich, despite his tendency to overstate his case at times. I don't think there needs to be an environmentalist/fusionaut rift; quite the contrary. Now Rifkin... the respect I have for Rifkin is contained in the nail parings of my little finger. Calling him a Luddite demeans the original Luddites, who were at least fighting for their livelihood. So far as I can tell, Rifkin fights for interviews. Every time I hear him open his mouth he misrepresents facts. He is either a fool or a scoundrel. He sure ain't no environmentalist. -- Mary Holstege@polya.stanford.edu ARPA: holstege%polya@score.stanford.edu BITNET: holstege%polya@STANFORD.BITNET UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!holstege cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenholstege cudfnMary cudlnHolstege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Brian Sturgill / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: brian@ms.uky.edu (Brian Sturgill) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 21 Apr 89 01:57:52 GMT Organization: U of Ky, Math. Sciences, Lexington KY In article , roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: .... > I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we > have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for > that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite > philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy > source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population > growth trend. .... While I in general believe it is possible that cheap energy would cause as much or more problems than it would solve, one problem that might be solved is the problem of too many people congregated in one place. Why do people congregate in cities? They find more things of value there (jobs, etc). Why are there more things in a city? It is more economical to have them there (other factories nearby, more resources readily available). With cheap energy and our advances in modern communications networks, it might be feasible for people to live spread out. Brian ---------- Brian Sturgill System Manager University of Kentucky Departments of Mathematical Sciences {uunet,rutgers}!ukma!brian brian@ms.uky.edu brian@UKMA.BITNET cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnSturgill cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / S Chandrashekha / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: chandy@brand.usc.edu (Sundaresan Chandrashekhar) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 02:26:49 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article <1989Apr19.164125.645@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: }:Well, it looks like phase 3 of the reaction to a major breakthrough }:("It's immoral") is beginning! Paul Ehrlich has said that cheap }:fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." And Jeremy }:Rifkin says "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." }: }:The argument [sic] is that by giving people cheap plantiful power, }:we'll be able to manipulate the planet more than we can now, which }:would be awful. Even worse, it could mean that larger populations }:could be supported (apparently, it upsets these sociopaths that so }:many other people exist). }: }:I am appalled, but not surprised, that the likes of Rifkin could }:hold such opinions. What pieces of disgusting slime they are. }:Fortunately, with something this important they will be ignored, }:and, if they interfere, steamrollered. }: }: Paul F. Dietz }: dietz@cs.rochester.edu I think you are missing the point these guys are trying to make. What they are saying, in essence, is that the problems of the world(overpopulation, pollution, ecological damage, etc.) cannot be solved by advances in science and technology alone. If we continue to treat the Earth as something meant for the explicit enjoyment of mankind, instead realising that we are just one of two million species in an extremely complex ecosystem, we will sooner or later destroy our fragile environment, and with it our chances of survival. We have a tendency to get carried away by our scientific achievements, often ignoring the heavy responsibility that comes along with them. We learned how to burn fossil fuels for energy, and it is causing the `greenhouse effect'. We learned how to manufacture and use CFCs, and are screwing up the ozone layer in the process. We learned how to make paper from wood, and are rapidly destroying our forests. And the list of our ecological misdeeds goes on. So, given our poor environmental record, one has every reason to be pessimistic about the eventual outcome of any scientific discovery. Which is not equivalent to saying that scientific research has to cease immediately - it only means that we have to analyse carefully the environmental effects of any new technology. In the past this analysis has almost always been ignored in the euphoria following new discoveries and inventions. -------------- chandra. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenchandy cudfnSundaresan cudlnChandrashekhar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Rob Warnock / Re: Abstracts of mit theory Originally-From: rpw3@amdcad.AMD.COM (Rob Warnock) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Abstracts of mit theory Date: 21 Apr 89 04:52:43 GMT Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA +--------------- | Paper 2: | consideration of this model suggests that phononic excitation and tritium | beta decay are unlikely initiators of fusion chains, but background radiation | sources may be. +--------------- So all we need to do is back a muon generator up to an F&P cell, and let a *few* muons kick off a lot of "fusion chains"??? Wouldn't be the first power plant that had a fairly hefty "exciter" stage... Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403 cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenrpw3 cudfnRob cudlnWarnock cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Brad Pierce / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 06:20:36 GMT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <16680@usc.edu> chandy@brand.usc.edu (Sundaresan Chandrashekhar) writes: > I think you are missing the point these guys are trying >to make. What they are saying, in essence, is that the problems >of the world(overpopulation, pollution, ecological damage, etc.) >cannot be solved by advances in science and technology alone. >If we continue to treat the Earth as something meant for the explicit >enjoyment of mankind, instead realising that we are just one of >two million species in an extremely complex ecosystem, we will sooner >or later destroy our fragile environment, and with it our chances of >survival. I don't know if that's really what these guys are trying to say, but I'd agree with it. << Examples of ecological misdeeds omitted. >> >Which is not equivalent to saying that scientific research has to cease >immediately - it only means that we have to analyse carefully the >environmental effects of any new technology. In the past this analysis >has almost always been ignored in the euphoria following new >discoveries and inventions. >-------------- >chandra. No, it means that humans must change their exploitative attitude towards the world. The proverbial "long run" always exacts a high price from the immoral. Technology just amplifies these consequences (or shortens the length of the long run). Our illusory "dominion" over this living planet blinds us to the real riches it can provide. Technology is good and so are people, but our philosophy of living is something else entirely. -- Brad cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpierce cudfnBrad cudlnPierce cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Donald Geddis / Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Originally-From: geddis@polya.Stanford.EDU (Donald F. Geddis) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,su.etc Subject: Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Date: 21 Apr 89 06:36:46 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1713@Portia.Stanford.EDU> cjh@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Christopher J. Hayes) writes: >>[Stanford Campus Report] the experiment >>involving heavy water produced 50 percent more heat than the same >>experiment using ordinary water > > The reporter made a slight error here. The heavy water >experiment produced 50% more energy (in the form of heat) than was put >in (in the form of electricity), while the ordinary water experiment >produced no more energy than was put in, according to the article in >the Stanford Daily. Assuming both experiments had the same amount of electricity put into them, we would have: Heavy water (out:in) 1.5 : 1 (50% more) Ordinary water (out:in) 1 : 1 which coincidentally yields [Heavy water out] : [Ordinary out] 1.5 : 1 (50% more) So both formulations of the experiment are correct. -- Don -- Geddis@Polya.Stanford.Edu "Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day..." -- Pink Floyd cudkeys: cuddy21 cudengeddis cudfnDonald cudlnGeddis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Stanley Kameny / Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Originally-From: stan@valley.UUCP (Stanley L. Kameny) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Date: 19 Apr 89 00:13:56 GMT The hot news in today's LA Times is that two chemists, Cheves Walling and John Simons at the University of Utah, using a mass spectrometer, have detected from one of the fusion experiments enough He4 output to account for all of the excess heat produced in the reaction. [Apparently, if you use a thin Pd cathode, you can see a small quantity of n + He3 and p + T reactions occurring, but not much heat; but if you use a massive Pd cathode, you get mainly He4 + heat. This explains the F + P results and also, by a similar mechanism, explains the deficiency of production of n and neutrinos by the Sun and other stars. -- my speculation (Stan Kameny)] stan_kameny@rand.org cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenstan cudfnStanley cudlnKameny cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / EFH100@PSUVM.B / Re: Startup time for experiments Originally-From: EFH100@PSUVM.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Startup time for experiments Date: 21 Apr 89 04:11:41 GMT Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing In article , (Michael McClary) writes: >...Please, let's not mistake "fast" or "inexpensive" for "bad." >Feynman did some very good (AND very showy) science with a C-clamp, a >pair of pliers, and a cup of ice water"... Yes, but recall that Feynman took the time to investigate the problem rather deeply AND perform his experiment ahead of time before he put his reputation on the line in front of everyone. He did not just "jump in head first." --Ed cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenEFH100 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Chuck Karish / Re: He4 found Originally-From: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 21 Apr 89 05:36:28 GMT Organization: Mindcraft, Inc. In article <1495@hub.ucsb.edu> hbo@nobbs.ucsb.edu wrote: > Another article on cold fusion appeared in today's (4-19) LA Times. Roughly >quoting, the reporter wrote "Helium-4, while the most abundant isotope of the >element in nature, is extremely rare as the product of fusion reactions." How does the reporter think the helium in stars formed? Spontaneous generation? Chuck Karish hplabs!hpda!mindcrf!karish (415) 493-7277 karish@forel.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenkarish cudfnChuck cudlnKarish cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Avatar / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 21 Apr 89 01:18:01 GMT Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: + 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul + Ehrlich. + Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's + the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, + In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura + Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy + will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for + that." + ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political + or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) + +------------ +Are their concerns reasnable? +--CF Will you please get real? None of these people are in a position to judge something like this, their concerns mirror their anti-technology mindset! NONE OF WHICH HAS A DAMN THING TO DO WITH 'SCI-PHYSICS' !!! Please, please...post this kind of garbage to alt.fusion, or talk.bs, or alt.religion.luddites or wherever..but please not here...here we are concerned with physics, not the sniveling babble of a bunch of cowardly idiots, most of whom have been quite vocal about their childish fears. To confound the issue, these people would object to the discovery of damn near anything that they feel Mankind does not "deserve"! Screw 'em! ..And you can quote me on that! (enough!) ;-) -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz ** cudkeys: cuddy21 cudensorgatz cudlnAvatar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Robert Woodhead / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 04:49:18 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? A good point, but man, by definition, is that animal that purposefully changes his environment to suit himself. The questions is not whether we have the right to do it, but _is it a change for the better?_ >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" Ok, you dump the salt back into the ocean (the ocean, btw, is VERY BIG AND VERY DEEP), and the water onto the land. Where does the water go? Think about it. Some gets evaporated and comes out as rain again (mostly over the ocean, as there is more ocean than land), some goes down and replenishes the water table, and most just runs off into rivers and goes back to the sea. Net effect : close to zero in the long term. If you desalinized enough water to cover the earth's surface chest deep, you would probably change the salinity of the oceans by 1/100th of 1%, if that. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. ...!uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The NY Times is read by the people who run the country. The Washington Post is read by the people who think they run the country. The National Enquirer is read by the people who think Elvis is alive and running the country..." cudkeys: cuddy21 cudentrebor cudfnRobert cudlnWoodhead cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / T Wells / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 21 Apr 89 04:39:57 GMT Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale In article roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: : In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: : : So at last the truth comes out. : : These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people : who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always : claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. : was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical : and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the : real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't : like mankind. : : I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we : have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for : that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite : philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy : source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population : growth trend. You may like technology, the environment, and mankind. However, you would benefit by getting some of your notions about them clearer. In most industrialized countries, it is not the case that there are too many people. In fact, in many of them, if it were not for immigration, their populations would decrease. And this trend is growing stronger. It is only in the *nonindustrialized* world, the world where technology is a distant dream, that population is out of control. There is plenty of room in the US. Cities exist, not because there is not enough room for the people, but because it is more economic for people to crowd together than to spread out. Fortunately for those of us who don't really like crowds, technology is changing the economics of cities; some day there may not even *be* large cities. --- Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill (BTW, I'm may be looking for a new job sometime in the next few months. If you know of a good one where I can be based in South Florida do send me e-mail.) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenbill cudfnT cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / cscmrs@csun.edu / Withdrawn... Originally-From: mx!cbcscmrs@csun.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Withdrawn... Date: 21 Apr 89 10:45:35 GMT Organization: CSU, Northridge School of Engineering & Computer Science The original paper has been withdrawn. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudencbcscmrs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Paul Dietz / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 11:42:30 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <1363@naucse.UUCP> jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) writes: > I find the >prospect of turning off those coal and fission plants pretty exciting. >Seems to me this should be the best thing to happen to our planet. Absolutely. Even more important, cheap clean energy is probably a prerequisite for world-wide industrialization, which is the only known way to reduce the birth rate. Ehrlich should have known better -- if the birth rate is not reduced, the death rate must eventually increase. What would *you* call a person who in effect advocates gigacide? > As a >young anthro student I calculated the % of arable land and used >a figure that I read about for the amount of space a bushman needed > ... to come up with a 90% reduction in population. Sure, which >9 out of 10 people do I want to kill off? Can't answer that, but >next time you're in a traffic jam, ask yourself, wouldn't it be >better if 9 out of 10 of those cars weren't there? Why should the population density of bushmen have any relevance to a modern society? I don't think I'd be better off if the world's population was 90% smaller. Large affluent populations mean scientific and technical progress occurs faster. Economies of scale reduce costs of production, and make a wider variety of goods and services available. And, frankly, I *like* people. >I am appalled that you want to create such a schism between cold-fusion >enthusiasts and environmentalists. Hopefully there are a few, like me, >who can enjoy/appreciate both technologies. I hope environmentalists see the benefits of cold fusion, and do not agree with the malignant misanthropy of Rifkin and Ehrlich. I do see a schism between "selfish environmentalism" (my view), which holds that we should be careful to avoid environmental damage that could harm us, and "Earth Mother environmentalism", a quasi-religion that gives nature moral precedence over mankind, even if that means mankind must suffer. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Bob Gray / Re: He4 found Originally-From: bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 20 Apr 89 14:10:28 GMT Organization: Edinburgh Concurrent Supercomputer Project In article <4822@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes: >"(A) claim came Monday from Italy. The National Agency for >Alternative Energy in Frascati, just outside Rome, said it has verifed >the experiment. It announced a press conference for today." Just to make things even more confused, if that is possible. According to a report on the BBC's "Tomorrow's World" on Tuesday evening, an Italian group had confirmed the experiment but using Duterium gas and a special electrode arrangement. Has anyone else heard of this report? Anyone in Italy reading this who would have presumably heard more about this? Bob. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenbob cudfnBob cudlnGray cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Svante Lindahl / Palladium - the bubble that burst Originally-From: zap@front.se (Svante Lindahl) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Palladium - the bubble that burst Date: 20 Apr 89 23:25:39 GMT Organization: Front Capital Systems, Stockholm, Sweden This is based on an article in the Swedish business daily "Dagens Industri", Thursday. The headline was "Palladium - the bubble that burst". The article states that the Italians have cold fusion using titan instead of palladium. Price of palladium is now going down sharply. From an all-time high of $180 per ounce it is now down to just above $160/ounce. Platinum, that also went up when Pd did, is now [Wednesday] $543.10/ounce, down $4 since Monday. The palladium market has been pretty dormant until the recent announcments of cold fusion. The price has been between $100 and $125 per ounce during most of the eighties. [A graph shows the price from January this year until now: $125 at new years, going up to $145 by March first, and stayin at $145 until late March, then quickly rising to $180, and finally going down even sharper than it went up.] Pd is used for electronics (50% in 1987), dental industry (31%), car industry (6%) and jewelry (5%). The main producers are Soviet Union and South Africa. SU produced 56%, or 1.8 million ounces, of the total 3 million ounces produced in 1987. SA produced about 1 million ounces. Supply has been following demand, and risen somewhat during the last two years, because of increased use in electronics. Even if cold fusion were to develop in such a way that demand would increase dramatically, there is no reason to worry about a shortage of palladium, says the analyst Johnsson Matthey. It will likely be at least ten years before commercial use of the new fusion process. By then, South Africa will have increased their production enough to meet demand. Should the price remain at todays high levels, new producers will emerge, and demand from todays large consumers would decrease. There are alternative materials that could be used both by the electronics industry and the dental industry. According to the very latest reports from researchers, it will be possible to use other materials than palladium for the new fusion process. Italian researchers reported Tuesday that they had conducted successful experiments with titan instead of palladium. Todays price of titan is $13 per kilogram, i.e. less than $0.50/ounce. Palladium is to a great extent a secondary product when mining platinum and nickel. If production of palladium was to rise, then the markets for platinum and nickel would not go unaffected, the metal analysts in London the predicts. -- Svante cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenzap cudfnSvante cudlnLindahl cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Donald Benson / Re: Thermal efficiency Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermal efficiency Date: 21 Apr 89 01:48:32 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > Whoa, there. You're right, of course; but the implication seems to be > that you can split water into two gasses, burn the gasses, and end up > with more energy that you started off with. Both of those reactions > are well-understood, and the energy out is the energy in (less waste). I doubt he meant to imply that. If a small percentage of the H fuses (I hope its small, or the experiments which melted down would have done a lot more!), then much of the electrical energy in was wasted by conversion to chemical energy. With fuel cells, it can be recovered. Was the experimental result something like: 1 unit electrical energy + heavy water -> more than 1 unit heat energy + O + H + He ? If so, they seem to be way ahead of the game. However, I wonder if they counted *all* the electrical energy put in over time, or just what was put in when the reaction took place. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Paul Dietz / Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Date: 21 Apr 89 12:43:58 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <56.UUL1.2#239@valley.UUCP> stan@valley.UUCP (Stanley L. Kameny) writes: >The hot news in today's LA Times is that two chemists, Cheves Walling >and John Simons at the University of Utah, using a mass spectrometer, >have detected from one of the fusion experiments enough He4 output to >account for all of the excess heat produced in the reaction. If d+d-->He4 is the fusion mechanism, then Pons' claims of 67 W/cc & 800 hours (not clear if this is at the same time) --> 200 MJ/cc --> 5e19 helium atoms/cc (about 300 micrograms), or about one helium atom per thousand palladium atoms. If the alpha particles carry the energy, this should cause massive damage to the metal lattice, which should be readily apparent. I do read that the Pd cathode becomes hardened after prolonged operation. I am told that He4 down to about 1e10 atoms can be detected by mass spec (1e4 atoms for He3). It is interesting that they did not report detection of He3. They should also look in control cathodes from H2O experiments and in virgin cathodes, to be sure this is no artifact, and test D2O cathodes to confirm that He4 levels increase with time. >[Apparently, if you use a thin Pd cathode, you can see a small quantity >of n + He3 and p + T reactions occurring, but not much heat; but if you >use a massive Pd cathode, you get mainly He4 + heat. Must we infer that d+d-->n+He3 or p+t reactions in fact occur? d+d-->He4 might make an energetic alpha particle that could make neutrons and tritium by reaction with lithium-7. Also, I wonder what the reaction rates for the (alpha,n), (alpha,t), (alpha,He3) reactions on palladium are, for E(alpha) = 23 MeV. These reactions should be faster in titanium (lower atomic number). Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Sean Bossinger / P&F replicated at the University of Florida Originally-From: sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Sean M. Bossinger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: P&F replicated at the University of Florida Date: 21 Apr 89 13:54:40 GMT Organization: UF CIS Department University of Florida researchers said Thursday [20-April-1989], that they have produced radioactive material in an experiment that lends further support to Utah scientists' claims of room-temperature nuclear fusion. University of Utah researchers last month rocked the scientific community by announcing they had created nuclear fusion in a glass jar at room temperature. Since then, researchers from around the world have been trying to duplicte their efforts and study the phenomenon. --The Alligator, Campus Newspaper, Friday April 21, 1989. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean M. Bossinger | USnail: 16220 s.w. 282 st | Dave, I think I Internet:sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu | Homestead, Fl 33033 | am okay now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudensb1 cudfnSean cudlnBossinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, >"never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that >that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that there is a >significant amount of "magic" in the production of an electrode that >works. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, >"never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that >that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that between a home cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, >"never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that >that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that there is a >significant amount of "magic" in the production of an electrode that >works. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, >"never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that >that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that there is a >significant amount of "magic" in the production of an electrode that >works. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, >"never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that >that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that there is a >significant amount of "magic" in the production of an electrode that >works. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad ------------------- ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, >"never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that >that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that there is a >significant amount of "magic" in the production of an electrode that >works. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, >"never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that >that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that there is a >significant amount of "magic" in the production of an electrode that >works. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Frans Otten / Limits on Cold Fusion paper Originally-From: fransvo@htsa.uucp (Frans van Otten) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Limits on Cold Fusion paper Date: 21 Apr 89 14:21:33 GMT Organization: AHA-TMF (Technical Institute), Amsterdam, The Netherlands Yesterday the FOM (Dutch research institute) gave a talk about hot fusion in tokamaks. Cold fusion was mentioned, but the tone was very sceptical. In their cold fusion experiment, all they have observed are bubbles (oxygen and D2). Anyway, I got a copy of the paper "Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter: A Parametric Study". As I haven't seen this one in ascii yet, I decided to type it out. The paper I got is a copy of a fax of a fax of a ... so there might be errors. Also, as ascii doesn't support Greek characters, I wrote them (where used) fully out (like sigma, beta etc). Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter: a Parametric Study J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley Department of Physics University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 and S. E. Jones Department of Physics Brigham Young University Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602 March 27, 1989 The rate of nuclear fusion of d-d hydrogen isotopes is established quantitatively as function of relative energy in the range of 500 eV; as function of maximum allowed hydrogen separation; as function of the effective mass of the electron and as function of the effective charge of the electron. It is shown that a neutron rate of 10E-33 /s/atom can arise from a combination of these effects within a perhaps plausible range of parameters. 1. Introduction In view of the recent interest generated within the scientific community regarding the possibility of cold fusion of hydrogen nuclei within metallic hydrides [1], we wish to present along with our experimental results, a few theoretical observations arising in part from our work in muon catalyzed fusion. It is well known that the fusion of hydrogen isotopes can be made to occur within 10E-8 to 10E-11 s at room temperature, in the presence of a muon [2]. Together with two hydrogen nuclei, the muon forms a muo-molecule of about 250 fm in size, squeezing the hydrogen nuclei together and allowing them to penetrate the Coulomb barrier that usually strongly inhibits their fusion. In an ordinary hydrogen molecule, which is about 0.74 angstrom in size, the fusion rate resulting from the electron binding is expected to be in the order of 10E-74 /s [3], or about 85 orders of magnitude less than in the case of the muomolecule. This extraordinary variation in magnitude, resulting from a decrease in the molecular size by a factor of 2000, leads one to suspect that even a small pertuberation of the hydrogen molecule's wavefunction could result in a dramatic change in the spontaneous fusion rate. This was the motivation leading to the first theoretical study undertaken [3] and to the experimental work [1] to which this note directly refers. We report here on the detailed but schematic results arising from variation of a few of the physical conditions arising in solid state, hydride environment, that could lead to an observable fusion rate of about 10E-23 /s. Our results are consistent with the experimental finding [1] of cold fusion in metal hydrides. In the next section, we examine a nuclear reaction picture of fusion resulting from a current of deuterons passing through a hydride and establish the values of the nuclear reaction constant. In section three, we examine the consequences of imposing boundary conditions on the hydrogen molecule's nuclear wave function, hoping to simulate in this way the confinement of nuclei within a lattice cell. In section four, we examine in turn the effect of introducing a "pseudo-mass", and "pseudo-charge", that would form a more tightly bound hydrogen molecule. We should mention here that none of this discussion in intended to form the basis of a realistic model for cold fusion; instead, we intend to provide an order of magnitude lesson for ourselves and to demonstrate the surprising sensitivity of the fusion rate to external conditions. In the theoretical methods employed we follow closely the established techniques developed for muon catalyzed fusion research. 2. A reaction description of dd fusion in a hydride The first analysis one might perform of fusion at low relative deuteron energy, is to simply compute the event rate resulting from a current of deuterons I, passing through a hydride containing a density of deuterons ro. The event rate resulting from such a system would the be: dN/dT = I/I0 * ro*v*sigma (1) Here, I0 is the current of a single particle, v is the velocity of the incident current, and sigma id the energy dependant cross section for dd-fusion. s can be easily computed from the S function, which is a slowly varying function of energy and is related to the fusion cross section by: 2S(E) -beta/sqrt(E) s(E) = ----- e (2) E For energies less than a few keV, the fusion neutron S-function is expected to be about 53 keV barn, and beta = 44.4021 sqrt(keV) [4]. The resulting event rate for an incident current of 1 ampere impinging on a hydride of hydrogen density 4*10E22 atoms/cm3 is given in figure 1, as a function of energy. One finds that it is possible to obtain an event rate of one fusion per second, if the incident current of deuterons has an energy of about 380 eV. It is unlikely that any mechanism for the generation of such energies can be found in a cold solid exposed to potentials of O(10 V). We can therefore conclude that any standard d-d collision description of an observable nuclear fusion process is unlikely to succeed. At this point let us introduce the reaction constant K0 related to the S function by: 2S K0 = lim ---------- (3) E->0 pi*alfa*mu where alfa is the file structure constant (=1/137), mu is the nuclear reduced mass. K0 is defined in such a way, that the fusion rate in a static environment where the relative wave function of two deuterons is PSI, is given by: 2 labda = K0 |PSI(0)| (4) K0 is the fusion constant describing the fusion from the l = 0 partial wave as the relative nuclear velocity goes to zero. For the d(d,n)3He reaction, of particular interest to us here, 2 K0 is found to be 1.48*10E-16 cm3/s. |PSI(0)| is the probability amplitude that the two hydrogen nuclei come close together; in the following calculations we shall use a nuclear interaction range of 3 fm for the d-d nuclear fusion. 3. The effect of boundary conditions on the (dde)+ ion In this section, we confine two hydrogen nuclei to be a sphere, on which we impose the condition that the nuclear wavefunction be zero on the boundary. As the sphere is decreased in size, the nuclei are squeezed together and the ground state energy is raised, as the amplitude of the wave function increases at the origin. In our calculation, we included the electron binding by obtaining the adiabatic effective ground state energy of a single electron as a function of the nuclear separation, and including it as an addition to the Coulomb repulsion in the calculation of the relative nuclear wavefunction. The Schrodinger equation for the nuclear wave function was solved numerically subject to the boundary conditions that the wavefunction be zero at some finite radius Rmax, and be regular near the origin. The result, presented as the fusion rate against the boundary size Rmax, is presented in fig. 2. The boundary size is given in units of electronic Bohr radius a0, which is equal to 0.529 angstrom. This can be compared to the equilibrium nuclear separation in a D2 molecule, which is 0.74 angstrom, and the lattice spacing in metallic hydrides, which is about 2.5 angstrom. Through this presentation we do not wish to imply that such "confined" hydrogen structures are actually present as static objects in hydrides, indeed our calculations show that such systems are typically unbound, thus allowing the hydrogens to move freely. When the d-d system is confined to regions of about 0.3 a0, we find that the fusion rate is of the order of 10E-24 /s. Although this is somewhat smaller than the lattice cell size, one should note that Coulomb forces between the deuterons and ionic centers in the metallic lattice could lead to such a configuration in a _dynamical_ process of hydrogen flow, leading to a change in the fusion rate by fifty orders of magnitude. The confinement of the d-d motion is of course only achieved at the cost of raising the system energy. The total energy cost of achieving a fusion rate of 10E-24 by confinement turns out to be about 70 eV in our schematic approach, consisting of relative nuclear energy of about 150 eV, less the electron binding. The relative nuclear energy is considered less than the estimate of about 400 eV in the previous section, _and_some_of_this_energy_ can_be_provided_by_the_electron_binding_to_the_confined_d-d_system. The exact amount would depend on the details of the hydride environment, a point we have not considered in this first calculation. 4. The effect of the electron mass and charge on the fusion rate It is interesting to speculate what the effect of a larger electronic mass and charge would be on the fusion rate in a true (dd-mu)+ molecule. It is known, from theory and experiment, that the fusion rate in a (dde)+ ion is about 10E11 /s, an increase of 85 orders of magnitude as compared to the fusion rate in the (dde)+ ion [3]. What is perhaps not so widely realized is that the last 33 orders of magnitude in the fusion rate are achieved at a cost of 103 MeV in the binding particle's mass; simply increasing the mass of the electron from 0.5 to 3.0 MeV results in an increase in the fusion rate by 52 orders of magnitude ! This is illustrated in fig. 3, which gives the fusion rate in a (dd-emeff)+ ion, "emeff" being at present a particle of charge -e and mass meff. As one can see, a fusion rate of 10E-23 /s is achieved for an effective mass of about 2.6 MeV, that is 5 times the regular electron mass. This result can be understood theoretically quite easily: the penetration probability (the Gamov factor) below the Coulombic barrier scales as sqrt(mu/m). Thus a change by factor 5 in the electron mass changes the suppressing exponent by more than a factor 2, resulting in the fusion rate quoted. Changing the mass by a factor 200 then makes the penetration integral much smaller, but other factors of the exact wavefunction lead to the fusion rates found in the field of muon catalyzed fusion, which are of the magnitude 10E11 /s. We have verified our calculations, that when the mass of the "effective" electron reaches that of the muon, we recover the expected result. At this point it should be noted that a similar gain in the fusion rate as due to the electron mass can be accomplished by reducing the relative nuclear reduced mass mu, e.g. by using the proton as one of the nuclear fusion particles. A second quantum mechanics exercise in playing with the fundamental constants is to vary the electron's charge. This was achieved by computing the effective potential between two d nuclei resulting from the presence of the electron, and then multiplying this potential by a factor eeff/e. The resulting fusion rate in a (dd-eeeff) ion is presented in fig. 4, as a function of the effective charge, where the mass is that of the electron's. The effective charge is varied between e and 2e, resulting in a variation in the fusion rate by 22 orders of magnitude. It is worth noting that an effective charge of eeff = 1.06 used in the (dde)+ ion reproduces the D2 molecules binding energy of -4.6 eV, with a corresponding fusion rate of 2*10E-73 /s. We therefore do not expect the addition of a second electron to a (dde)+ ion to significantly influence the fusion rate. This conclusion has also been reached in ref. [3]. The effect of the increased effective electron mass and charge is to bring the (dd-eeff) system closer together; again we see the high sensitivity of the response to the precise nature of the physical parameters governing the inter-nuclear properties. 5. The combined effects of confinement, mass and charge The final question we wish to address is what the combination of all of the above effects has on the fusion rate. To illustrate that the above effects are _cumulative_, we have selected particular combinations of Rmax, meff and eeff and computed the resulting fusion rates. These we then compare to the individual contributions, which are collected in table 1. We fist note that fpr Rmax = 6 a0 we recover the spontaneous fusion rate of the regular molecular ion, with meff/me = 1, and eeff/e = 1. For the set of parameters Rmax = 0.5 a0, meff = 2 me, and eeff = 1.5 e, we find the combined effect is to increase the fusion rate by no less than 16 orders of magnitude over and above any of the _individual_ contributions, as shown in table 1. meff/me efff/e Rmax (a0) labda fus /s 1 1.0 6.0 8.3*10E-77 1 1.5 6.0 2.3*10E-61 2 1.0 6.0 1.1*10E-47 1 1.0 0.5 5.7*10E-37 1 1.5 0.5 1.4*10E-36 2 1.5 1.0 2.8*10E-33 2 1.0 0.5 7.1*10E-21 2 1.5 0.5 1.4*10E-20 2 1.2 0.4 2.4*10E-16 2 1.5 0.3 1.6*10E-12 Table 1: The fusion rate resulting from the simultaneous variation of boundary conditions, effective electronic mass and charge, as compared to the fusion rate resulting from the individual variations of these parameters. [ Note: the exponents are hard to read, some might be wrong. ] 6. Conclusion While it is difficult to imagine how a collective effect in a metallic hydride could confine a d-d system to 0.5 angstrom, or/and increase the electron's effective mass to 1 MeV or effective charge to 1.5 it's [sic] usual value, the foregoing experimental result [1] and the encouraging order of magnitude considerations presented in this work suggest that one should investigate with great care the various systems of interest. Our numerical exercises have highlighted the extraordinary sensitivity of the (dde)+ fusion rate to pertuberations in the constants and the enviroment that determine the fusion rate. We wish to emphasize that the actual physical explanation of the experimental results of ref. [1] must account for the dynamical effect associated with the infusion of hydrogen isotopes into metal lattices, a point that has been nearly totally ignored in this work. Furthermore, our free use of the mass and charge of the electron as parameters in our calculations should not be construed to imply that we know of any means by which such changes can be arrived at in our context. Acknowledgements: We thank M. Danos, B. Muller and H. Rafelski for stimulating and interesting comments. This work was supported by the Advanced Energy Projects Division of the US Department of Energy. Figures (approximate). | Event rate for 1 ampere dN 10E9 + -- (/s) | * dt | * 10E6 + * | * | * 10E3 + * | * | * 10E0 + * | * | * 10E-3 + * | * +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--- 0.5 1.0 E (KeV) Figure 1: The neutron fusion event rate dN/dt for 1 ampere of deuterons impinging on a deuteron sample at density 4*10E22 /cc at energy E. | log (labda fus) | * Fusion rate vs. box size (labda fus in /s) -20 + * | * | * -30 + * | * | * -40 + * | * | * -50 + * | -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+- 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Rmax (a0) Figure 2: Neutron fusion rate as function of maximum allowable separation Rmax (a0) between two deuterons. | log (labda fus) | Fusion rate vs. effective mass (labda fus in /s) -20 + * | * | * | * -40 + * | * | * | * -60 + * | * | * |* -80 +--+----+---+--+--+--+-+-+-+-+++++ 1 2 3 meff (MeV) Figure 3: Neutron fusion rate as function of the electron effective mass in the (dde)+ structure. -50 + Fusion rate vs. effective charge log (labda fus) | * (labda fus in /s) | * | * | * -60 + * | * | * | * | * -70 + * | * | * | * --+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+- 1.0 1.5 2.0 theta eff / e Figure 4: Neutron fusion rate as function of the electron effective charge in the (dde)+ structure. References. [1] Jones, S.E., Palmer, E.P., Czirr, J.B., Decker, D.L., Jensen, G.L., Thorne, J.M., Taylor, S.F. and Rafelski, J. "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter", submitted to Nature. [2] Jones, S.E. Nature 321, 127-133 (1986); Rafelski, J. and Jones, S.E., Scientific American 257, 84-89 (July 1987). [3] Van Siclen, C.D. and Jones, S.E., Journal of Physics G, Nucl. Phys. 12, 213-221 (1986). [4] Jarmie, N. and Brown, R.E., Nuc. Inst. Meth. b10/11, 405- 410 (1985), and private communication. -- Frans van Otten Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam Technische en Maritieme Faculteit fransvo@htsa.uucp cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenfransvo cudfnFrans cudlnOtten cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Sean Bossinger / More information on Fusion at the Uni. of Fla. Originally-From: sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Sean M. Bossinger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: More information on Fusion at the Uni. of Fla. Date: 21 Apr 89 19:23:19 GMT Organization: UF CIS Department This reported from the Gainesville Sun, Friday 21 April 1989 Two University of Florida researchers say they have produced a radioactive isotope in an experiment that may partially confirm the claims of scientists who say they have achieved fusion at room temperature. Glen J. Scoessow and John A. Wethington Jr. of UF's nuclear engineering sciences department say their work with an electrochemical-nuclear cell resulted in the production of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. While the UF researchers do not claim to have achieved fusion, fusion of deuterium is the only known process that could produce tritium in such a cell. "Our conclusion from this experiment is that it has independently confirmed that an electrochemical-nuclear reaction is taking place, with tritium as a major product," Schoessow said. The UF cell uses the same materials as those employed by researchers at the University of Utah (palladium, platinum, heavy water, and lithium) who claim to have achieved fusion at room temperatures. And, while they did not set out to duplicate the Utah experiment, the UF team said their findings "partially confirm" the claims of Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton. "The point is that radioactivity was created with an electrochemical-nuclear reaction," Wethington said. "Supposedly, it is impossible for this to occur without fusion or some other nuclear reaction taking place." The UF team detected a tritium buildup of approximately one trillion atoms after 48 hours of electrolysis. After 100 hours, the buildup was almost 20 times greater. The researchers ran control experiments using heavy water without electrolysis, and the difference in tritium content between the treated cells was statistically so high that the margin of error is negligible, they said. Heavy water contains a type of hydrogen called deuterium, which is heavier than the more common hydrogen atoms. Heavy Water would provide an unlimited supply of fuel if the elusive goal of controlled fusion is ever achieved. Schoessow said they used the presence of tritium to test the results of the reaction because the substance can be measured with great accuracy. The UF researchers also subjected the palladium metal to a special treatment before the experiment, but they said that they were uncertain which of their adaptations may have contributed to their findings. ---John Gibbs, The Gainesville Sun (Friday, April 21, 1989) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean M. Bossinger | USnail: 16220 s.w. 282 st | Dave, I think I Internet:sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu | Homestead, Fl 33033 | am okay now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudensb1 cudfnSean cudlnBossinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / James Propp / Re: Cold fusion: an otherworldly explanation Originally-From: propp@cartan.berkeley.edu (James Propp) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion,rec.arts.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Cold fusion: an otherworldly explanation Date: 21 Apr 89 20:25:15 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <22974@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> I wrote: >Think about it. Isn't test-tube fusion EXACTLY the sort of joke you'd >expect from the guy who disgraced Morton Thiokol using just an O-ring >and a glass of ice-water? A couple of people have written to me asking for more details about this incident (which relates to Feynman's participation in the committee to investigate the explosion of the space-shuttle Challenger). Rather than tell the story, I'll tell you where to find the definitive account: in Feynman's recent (and, unfortunately, last) book, "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" Jim Propp cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpropp cudfnJames cudlnPropp cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Mike Pelt / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 20:20:02 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <1363@naucse.UUCP> jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) writes: *And I'm a sociapath also (by your definition). The planet seems *overcrowded to my backcountry mentality as it is. Perhaps Ehrlich *is right and population is our greatest "bomb" after all. As a *young anthro student I calculated the % of arable land and used *a figure that I read about for the amount of space a bushman needed *(they don't farm, but maybe their population density is more our *"norm") to come up with a 90% reduction in population. Sure, which *9 out of 10 people do I want to kill off? Can't answer that, but *next time you're in a traffic jam, ask yourself, wouldn't it be *better if 9 out of 10 of those cars weren't there? I rest my case. -- Mike Van Pelt "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in Video Seven front of Congressional hearings." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Meryl Streep cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Mike Pelt / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 20:31:25 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? Why not? The Sahara is the way it is (a parched wasteland) because humans chopped down all the trees for fuel. Using fusion for fuel, planting trees, and irrigating will put things back the way they were before. -- Mike Van Pelt "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in Video Seven front of Congressional hearings." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Meryl Streep cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / John Logajan / Rifkin suicide would set example Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Rifkin suicide would set example Date: 21 Apr 89 17:21:22 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN When Jeremy Rifkin, Paul Ehrlich, Richard Charter and Laura Nader (all quoted in the controversial article) voluntarily report to the gas chambers, I will begin to believe that they take their own arguments about over-crowding seriously. Until then I have to assume that they merely want to keep others unsuccessful so that they can better enjoy the advantages they have over those in less fortunate circumstances. Harsh? Perhaps, but upon who do present energy costs weigh most heavily, Rifkin and company, or third world children? That he would deny them this energy source in hopes that their numbers will decrease speaks volumes about the values this man places on lives other than his own. He truly is disgusting. To assume that this man holds the moral high ground is tragic. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / John Logajan / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 21 Apr 89 19:39:10 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN In article <838@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: > You may like technology, the environment, and mankind. However, you > would benefit by getting some of your notions about them clearer. Amen. > It is only in the *nonindustrialized* world, the world where > technology is a distant dream, that population is out of control. And, for those who care to investigate the matter, it is known why populations in non-industrialized countries are large. It has been found that the largest families are the most successful -- not the least successful, as might be assumed by not-so-carefull researchers. So population is not "out of control" in these countries -- it is a direct result of these people realizing what actions to take to insure their personal survival!!!!!!! As soon as it makes survival sense for them to reduce family size, THEY DO! In all cases where industrialization has been introduced, family size has rapidly dcreased. So the statement that industrialization will not solve the over- crowding problem is contrary to known evidence!!!!!! Humans the world round take actions to insure their personal survival -- including the reduction of pollution as soon as it becomes evident that it has harmful effects. Our difficulties with pollution is not because technology is out of control or capitalism is evil or man is basically evil. The problem with pollution is that it is a recently "discovered" problem. There was a very short period of time between the ozone/fluorocarbon link and efforts to reduce such emissions. So again, the problem is not EVILNESS or GREED, the problem was a lack of pertinent INFORMATION! -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Mike APD / Thermoelectric power Originally-From: mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts @ APD x1302) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Thermoelectric power Date: 20 Apr 89 22:21:22 GMT Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation, Beaverton Oregon Here's some info on the direct conversion of heat into electricity using a thermocouple, based on a detailed article in the McGraw- Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. A theromelectric generator consists of two dissimilar materials, one junction of which is in contact with a heat source, the other junction of which is in contact with a heat sink, generating electricity according to the Seebeck effect. Lead telluride is most widely used, doped to produce p-type and n-type material, and useful over a range of 80 to 800 degrees F. The maximum theoretical efficiency is approximately 18%. The best actual thermal efficiency of a real device is between 6% and 10%, obtained by operation between 80 and 1250 degrees F. The overall efficiency of radioisotope generators is about 5%. Specific powers of 12 watts/lb have been obtained. There are major problems blocking improvement and severe engineering problems involving low contact resistances, mechanical and thermal shock resistance, heat transfer, packaging, and long-term contamination of thermoelements by diffusion. Thermoelectric generators have been built and are used for many special applications, but are not used widely for these reasons. My comments: It looks to me heat engines would be preferred for fusion power plants, such as a Stirling engine or a steam turbine at 30 to 40% efficiency driving a conventional generator. Thermoelectric generation may be restricted to very small applications (like portable equipment) or very reliable, 'no-moving-part' requirements, like space missions. All of this assumes that cold fusion can be made to generate heat reliably and economically at temperatures high enough for decent thermal efficiency. On a related note, a recent theory has the fusion energy ending up in energetic electrons. If this is true, could a potential difference be arranged so we could draw off electric power directly? -- Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005 ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts OR mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenmbutts cudfnMike cudlnAPD cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Daniel Fuchs / Re: Cold fusion and Japan Originally-From: dmf@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Daniel Fuchs) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Japan Date: 21 Apr 89 21:44:18 GMT Organization: Stanford University I'd like to think the whole thing is legit, but one small point gives me pause: Why no positive results reported from Japan? The skills certainly exist in many government-run and private sector labs, yet nothing from Japan has yet shown up on alt.fusion or in any of the more mainstream media. What's going on -- do researchers in Japan not have access to D2O? -- Dan Fuchs My opinions are irrelevant anyway, so why bother reading them? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmf cudfnDaniel cudlnFuchs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Jonathan Quist / The Colonial Side (was: Re: The dark...) Originally-From: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: The Colonial Side (was: Re: The dark...) Date: 21 Apr 89 19:05:52 GMT Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, Il. In article <2662@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: >> >> ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would >> let the planet support many more people than the current population of ... >It also might allow us to build habitats in space and >preserve the earth as a gigantic nature park. Then instead of riding "Space Mountain" at Walt Disney World, we could ride "Earth Mountain" on Walt Disney Satellite! :') But seriously. Does anyone know the geological details we got from the Mars probes? Assuming a suitable composition, with sufficient native water, could a low-radiation heat source be used for the terraforming of Mars over a short (50-100 year) period? (Please, no computations of the heat capacity of a planet vs. the heat output of a tabletop F-P reactor. I'm just wondering if large amounts of heat could do nice things like put free water in the atmosphere, start Earth-like weather cycles going, or whatever.) Time to brush up on my Esperanto for The Expansion... Jonathan E. Quist Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, IL Sol-3-60540-1031 Now, where's the tech manual for the Eludium Pu-38 Explosive Space Modulator? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenjeq cudfnJonathan cudlnQuist cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 21:53:13 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > Long as we understand controlled fusion is a tool, not a solution, >then we'll avoid most of the problems the naysayers are mumbling about (even >at that, it's a tool that isn't even in existence; practical applications are >decades off). Who necessarily needs a "solution"? Let's use it as a tool to leave this gravity well and START OVER FROM SCRATCH. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!pwh ......cepu/ INTERNET: bradley!pwh@a.cs.uiuc.edu ARPA: cepu!bradley!pwh@seas.ucla.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Kevin Scott / Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Originally-From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups Subject: Cross Posting from sci.physics Subject: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 22 Apr 89 01:47:20 GMT Date: 21 Apr 89 00:46:42 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Organization: Computer Center, UCSF Originally-From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups Subject: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 21 Apr 89 00:46:42 GMT Reply-To: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Organization: Computer Center, UCSF Could someone crosspost this to alt.fusion? This is a call to vote for the newsgroup sci.physics.fusion as per the news.groups guidelines. A discussion period of more than two weeks has passed since <910@zorch.UU.NET>. Sci.physics.fusion is for discussing fusion and fusion related topics. Technicly this is a movement of a newsgroup alt.fusion to an area of wider distribution. The goal is to make fusion related articles available to everyone and to curtail the crossposting to sci.physics. The group is to be unmoderated. Note: The voting period will be 30 days. Votes must arrive at kscott@cca.ucsf.edu before midnight May 20 to be counted. Votes must be mailed, not posted to the net. Votes must unambiguously state yes or no and state the name of the newsgroup. ______ Thank you, Kevin Scott kscott@cca.ucsf.edu If you want to vote, try hitting the F key and checking one of these boxes or deleting the unwanted line. [ ] I vote for moving alt.fusion to sci.physics.fusion [ ] I vote against moving alt.fusion to sci.physics.fusion -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenkscott cudfnKevin cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Perry Metzger / Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 22 Apr 89 02:46:35 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ According to some people I have spoken to, milled metals generally have had the crystaline structure of the metal disrupted near the surface by the milling process, and are thus not suitable for use in many chemical processes. This would appear to be something that an electrochemist trying to reproduce the experiment would take for granted, but a nuclear physics expert might not. Reportedly, Pons has stated that the experiment does not run with a milled palladium electrode he has been using as a "blank" in setups. Could someone from LANL confirm or deny the rumor that the initial work at LANL was being done with milled palladium electrodes? Perry cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenperry cudfnPerry cudlnMetzger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / w25y@vax5.CIT. / Irrigating the Sahara Originally-From: w25y@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Irrigating the Sahara Date: 22 Apr 89 03:21:55 GMT Organization: Cornell Information Technologies, Ithaca NY I have seen people raise various objections to using fusion to distill seawater and "irrigate the Sahara". Two observations: a) Why waste time and money irrigating the Sahara when there is plenty of INHABITED farmland, with inhabitants who would pay dearly for the water? b) The Sahara is a MAN-MADE desert. Would irrigating it necessarily be worse than overgrazing it in the first place? -- Paul Ciszek W25Y@CRNLVAX5 Bitnet W25Y@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Internet "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse." --Bruce Cockburn cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenw25y cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / L Hutchinson / Any CNFers going to CLEO? Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Any CNFers going to CLEO? Date: 21 Apr 89 20:21:44 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. Are any of you CNF news junkies going to CLEO next week? I would like to get a group together over lunch or dinner to have a gossip session on the technical/scientific aspects of P&F's work. If you are interested, take a look at the messages bulletin board from time to time. I will put up a note describing where and when to meet. I just wish I had thought of this a little earlier -- I apologize if you read this _after_ you return from CLEO. I wonder if the subject might come up during the "Progress in Inertial Confinement Fusion" sessions (room 309, Monday)? I suspect that they will have a policy of not talking about CNF. Otherwise I would think the seminars might stray just a tad from the anounced topic! P.S. CLEO => Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics Baltimore Convention Center Larry Hutchinson, Tektronix, Inc. PO Box 500, MS 50-383, Beaverton, OR 97077 UUCP: [uunet|ucbvax|decvax|hplabs]!tektronix!tekgvs!larryh ARPA: larryh%tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET CSNet: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Thant Tessman / Re: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Originally-From: thant@horus.SGI.COM (Thant Tessman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Date: 20 Apr 89 16:09:01 GMT Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <1989Apr19.193444.5162@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <2593@cps3xx.UUCP> porkka@frith.UUCP (Joe Porkka) writes: > > >If we suddenly get free energy, will these ills go away, or will > >the rich get richer.... > > The most likely effect, in the industrialized countries, is the same one > that's been happening for a long time: the rich get richer... *and* the > poor get richer, just not as quickly. Comparing the poor to the rich > will always make the present day look bad; try comparing the poor today > to the poor a few centuries ago. Hear hear! (Although there is definately a diversion of funds (read: taxes, trade restrictions, unions, etc.) that keep the poor poorer than they would otherwise be.) It's also worth noting that it's in the poorer countries that the population is growing the fastest. In poor countries, childeren are considered a resource, and people *try* to have as many as possible. How do you cure this? A thought that keeps me less woried is that the military-industrial complex makes money off the threat of nuclear war, not nuclear war itself. The world already produces enough food to feed everyone. Cures have been found for most the world's (previously) major diseases. The problem is one of distribution. If someone builds a fusion powered, self contained, inexpensive food machine that you dump rocks and garbage in on one side and out comes food on the other, it will be outlawed, and only people with 'liscences' will be allowed to have them. thant@sgi.com cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenthant cudfnThant cudlnTessman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / L Hutchinson / Inside story. Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Inside story. Date: 21 Apr 89 20:45:42 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. An informant tells me that Pons and Jones colaborated early on. At some point they decided they were not talking the same language (physics vs electro-chem) and they decided to sever communications. Pons submitted a paper to Nature and they chose Jones as a referee. At this point Pons went to the head of the department who went to the head of the university. They brought in Edward Teller who stated that their results could not be explained with classical physics. They then decided to go public. And the rest is chaos. Any confirmation/refutation? Also, I hear that Fort Monmouth in NJ has had 10 people working for 3 weeks with no success. Larry Hutchinson, Tektronix, Inc. PO Box 500, MS 50-383, Beaverton, OR 97077 UUCP: [uunet|ucbvax|decvax|hplabs]!tektronix!tekgvs!larryh ARPA: larryh%tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET CSNet: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Abhay Sawant / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 21 Apr 89 21:30:31 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I think both extreme positions (1. that fusion promises a solution to all the ills of mankind and 2. that if anything, it's going to make the planet a more miserable place than where we started out) are pretty unwarranted. It's pretty obvious that a wide variety of human ills aren't really prone to technological fixes. A little of Genghis Khan popped up in Hitler and Stalin, and i have every confidence in our ability to go through such episodes (witness Cambodia) again. At the same time, if the *well-being* of an average human is considered, i think there is a very clear feedback from progress in science to enchanced wellbeing. From the Industrial Revolution to the age of electricity and automobiles to electronics and communication, advances in science and technology have finally impinged upon the existence of ordinary people on a massive scale. I'm pretty optimistic that cold fusion technology would do the same. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You're never too old to have a happy childhood. ajay shah (213)745-2923 or sawant@nunki.usc.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudensawant cudfnAbhay cudlnSawant cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 21 Apr 89 22:32:00 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway COLLOQUIUM Tuesday, 25 April Fermilab Auditorium 4 PM "Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter" Prof. Bart Czirr (one of Steve Jones's gang) Brigham Young University Coffee and cookies at 3:30 in the 2nd-floor lounge. ------------------------------------------------------- Hmm, what should I say for global distribution? Fermilab is about 40 miles due west of downtown Chicago. Look for a lone 17-story building sticking out of a flat prairie. Get off Interstate 88 and head north on Illinois 59, turn left at Batavia Road, and head for Wilson Hall (the big building). Swithchboard is 840-3000, Public Information is 3351. ______meson Bill Higgins _-~ ____________-~______neutrino Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory - - ~-_ / \ ~----- proton Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET | | \ / NEW! IMPROVED! SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS - - Now comes with Free ~ Nobel Prizewinner Inside! Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Mark Brader / Re: Translation of Swedish fusion patent article. Originally-From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Translation of Swedish fusion patent article. Date: 22 Apr 89 00:34:34 GMT Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto I can't resist (as the superconductor said). Lars-Henrik Eriksson translates: > Today he is almost forgotten, you have to leaf through modern Swedish > encyclopediae for a long time before finding his name. ... Someone really should tell the Swedes about alphabetical order. Thanks very much, Lars-Henrik, for posting this fascinating article in English. -- Mark Brader "... there is no such word as 'impossible' in SoftQuad Inc., Toronto my dictionary. In fact, everything between utzoo!sq!msb 'herring' and 'marmalade' appears to be missing." msb@sq.com -- Douglas Adams: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency This article is in the public domain. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmsb cudfnMark cudlnBrader cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ted Dunning / Experimenters note pad Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Experimenters note pad Date: 21 Apr 89 23:46:02 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science I am interested in starting a mailing list for people active in cold fusion experiments to trade tips, techniques and suggestions. Unfortunately, I can know of only three regular net contributors who are actually involved in replication work, and would really think that there need to be more people in the group if it is to be of much help. It would be nice to moderately restrict the distribution of this group to improve the signal to noise ratio, and, at the discretion of the actual experimenters, to restrict redistribution and poor quoting of partial results. This is not intended to abnormally restrict information flow, but to provide a forum for experimenters to exchange information without the worry that they will see their partial (and potentially very misleading) results in the morning paper. In particular, I have been very happy with the accuracy and timeliness of the networkers and applaud the extraordinary efforts of those who have provided translations or who have manually keyed in article preprints. Could people who are interested in being on such a mailing list send email to me? People who just have comments are also welcome to send them to me as well. ted@nmsu.edu ted at nmsu should work as a bitnet address cudkeys: cuddy21 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Donald Benson / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 21 Apr 89 15:42:34 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > (not some "shock wave") perhaps made fusion occur. It might also > explain cathodes that become red hot when removed from the heavy > water. Another explanation would be that absorbed hydrogen catalytically combines with oxygen. You would have to repeat this experiment while testing for alpha, beta, neutrons, He, or whatever. I don't have my books handy. How much energy is released in fusing enough H to produce some quantity, say, 1cc @ ambient pressure, of helium? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Tim Maroney / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 17:41:26 GMT Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco Geez Louise, let's invite all the hard-liners out to a picnic and bury them in radioactive waste. Point one: Low-radiation fusion (like the P&F experiment seems to show) could theoretically eliminate many of the more destructive forms of power generation, especially fossil fuels and nuclear fission. An end to oil spills and partial meltdowns is a wonderful thing, and of course coal and oil burning and nuclear fission also have hundreds of other waste products which we could stop dealing with. Point two: Cheap energy can be used to disrupt the environment, and will be used to such purposes as long as there's a buck in it. The projections about increased reduction of rainforests, increased strip mining, and so forth, are hard to refute. If there really is a cheap energy breakthrough, these seem inevitable consequences. Governments are going to have to start treating the environment as a serious issue, or the costs of fusion could easily outweigh the benefits. Point three: The costs can be minimized through government action to protect the rain forests, limit strip mining, and so forth. Point four and final: There is no such thing as an unmixed blessing. Anyone who thinks there is, especially from technology, is an idiot; far more of an idiot than those who subject each technological innovation to a round of adversarial criticism. We may not always agree with technology critics, any more than we always agree with defense attorneys, but we ought to be glad there's an adversarial system in place. The same cannot be said for the nearly mindless technology boosters. Criticism always serves a useful purpose, but cheerleading does not. -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "Do what you wanna, do what you will; Just don't mess up your neighbor's thrill. And when you pay the bill, kindly leave a little tip To help the next poor sucker on his one-way trip." - Frank Zappa, "You Are What You Is" cudkeys: cuddy21 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMaroney cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Tim Maroney / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:49:53 GMT Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? With due respect to Chris, I should point out that his presentation of this idea was in the capacity of devils advocate. The answer is easy enough. The Sahara Desert is not a naturally ocurring feature. It is former grassland that was massively overgrazed by nomads in prehistory. It is one of the greatest ecological disasters created by humanity, a result of the technology of animal herding, and it is incumbent on us to repair it if at all possible. I suspect most environmental activists who would be inclined to make Chris's point are already cognizant of this fact. -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." -- Thomas Jefferson cudkeys: cuddy21 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMaroney cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Samuel Fuller / Population Explosion and Cold Fusion Originally-From: sbf10@uts.amdahl.com (Samuel Fuller) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Population Explosion and Cold Fusion Date: 22 Apr 89 02:54:50 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Are they still teaching that population explosion garbage? How can cheap energy make more babies? 'Honey, this fusion heater in the house sure makes me horny!' If cheap energy increases the rate of population growth on the Earth, it is only because it increases the Earth's capacity to support us. Most likely, the status quo will be maintained. There aren't too many people. There are too many hungry people and there are too many fat people. Fusion promises heat and power without pollution. I find it hard to believe that people can find fault with it. Sam Fuller / Amdahl System Performance Architecture cudkeys: cuddy22 cudensbf10 cudfnSamuel cudlnFuller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Perry Metzger / Irrigating the Sahara Originally-From: perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Irrigating the Sahara Date: 22 Apr 89 04:29:49 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ I was the person who first mentioned irrigating the sahara with distilled water, and I haven't seen so much as one acknowledgement. :-) Perry PS On the topic of Rifkin and company slowing research, let me only remind people of something K. Eric Drexler has often said about the possibility of slowing technological progress. People in certain democratic countries may be able to stop research within their own borders, but no such restraints every apply to totalitarian regimes. Trying to stop a technology whos time has come is impossible. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenperry cudfnPerry cudlnMetzger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Michael Nolan / Re: H/D fraction. Originally-From: nolan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael C Nolan) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: Re: H/D fraction. Date: 22 Apr 89 04:58:38 GMT Organization: University of Arizona, Lunar and Planetary Laboratory In article <8036@boring.cwi.nl> jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: >Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to >earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the >whole universe? > The D/H ratio varies widely even in our own solar system. Standard Mean Ocean Water (SMOW) : 156 ppm (parts / 10^6): the ``standard'' D/H ratio primordial solar nebula: about 1/8 of that carbonacious meteorites: up to 30-100 times that Giant Planets: varying from 20 to 170 ppm Comet P/Halley: 60 ppm < D/H < 480 ppm Venus: 20 to 200 ppm depending upon altitude (increasing with altitude) The error bars on these tend to be large, but the range is probably indicative of the truth. I have references for many of these, if anyone cares, but the collection is from a Ph. D. dissertation (D. H. Grinspoon, 1989 (fitting, isn't it.)). -- nolan@hiips.lpl.arizona.edu; ...!noao!solpl!hiips cudkeys: cuddy22 cudennolan cudfnMichael cudlnNolan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Doug Roberts / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 22 Apr 89 01:38:52 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <838@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: > In article roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: > : In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > : > : So at last the truth comes out. > : > : These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people > : who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always > : claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. > : was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical > : and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the > : real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't > : like mankind. > : > : I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we > : have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for > : that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite > : philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy > : source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population > : growth trend. > > You may like technology, the environment, and mankind. However, you > would benefit by getting some of your notions about them clearer. > > In most industrialized countries, it is not the case that there are > too many people. In fact, in many of them, if it were not for > immigration, their populations would decrease. And this trend is > growing stronger. > > It is only in the *nonindustrialized* world, the world where > technology is a distant dream, that population is out of control. > I repeat: go visit Mexico City or Los Angeles for examples of population out of control. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Donn Seeley / alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: alt.fusion in the news Date: 22 Apr 89 05:56:27 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept I achieved my allotted minutes of fame on Wednesday, although it was only two or three minutes total and it went on display in the local village rather than in the global village. Alt.fusion received its first and hopefully only exposure to the regular media. I don't know if we need help from local TV news to make alt.fusion seem inane or banal: ======================================================================== Nourse: ... spreading all the chitchat around. News Specialist John Hollenhorst explains that. [Cut to CS staff lab, where Seeley walks over to a color HP 9000/370 monitor and sits down. A pile of HP disks marked with blue Post-It notes sits next to the monitor; on the wall is the 'Explanation for Geologic Map of Wyoming', by J D Love and Ann Coe Christiansen.] Hollenhorst: If you're a scientist, you have a computer, right? And so do thousands of other scientists around the world. And many of them are tied together by something called 'Net News', a sort of electronic 'bulletin board'. [Close-up of subject lines from alt.fusion.] Lately, Net News has been jammed with news about the hottest story in science, 'cold fusion'. [Caption: Donn Seeley, U of U Computer Sciences [sic] Dept.] Seeley: Oh, there's incredible excitement, people are starving for information here. And one of the reasons why they pay a lot of attention to this is because the information gets to them fast. [Close-up of text from an alt.fusion article.] H: Some of the computer chitchat is serious, news about the hundreds of experiments under way around the world, the latest theories on what's really happening. [Close-up of Woody Allen quote in Ethan Vishniac's .signature.] But this hi-tech rumor mill also carries gossip, jokes and wild speculation about fusion. [Cut to Seeley, gesturing fatuously.] S: Anybody can send anything they want to this and so the actual value of the article depends on who it came from. H: Is some of it not very useful? S: A lot of it is not very useful. A lot of it is very entertaining. [Caption: John Hollenhorst, Eyewitness News; he sits in Seeley's chair and points at the screen; cut to close-up of sci.physics article by Frank Reid.] H: Here's an example: The computer wizards are trying to figure out what the fusion process should be called once it goes commercial. This writer proposes calling it 'Mr Fusion' but he says Pons and Fleischmann better hurry before they're beaten by Fusion-san, Herr Fuzion or Comrade Fusion. [Scene from BACK TO THE FUTURE -- voice-over:] H: 'Mr Fusion.' Get it? You remember, in BACK TO THE FUTURE. ['Wait a minute. What are you doing, Doc?' 'I need fuel!' Close-up of Mr Fusion.] H: So now cold fusion has a nickname, borrowed from a movie. [Cut back to Seeley; close-up of Howard Owen's sci.physics article touting Mr Fusion as the fair alternative to the P/F vs. F/P Process.] It also has a fan club of optimistic scientists around the world and a legion of skeptics, all gossiping up a storm on a world-wide electronic chatterbox. John Hollenhorst, Eyewitness News at the University of Utah. ======================================================================== I haven't the faintest idea who clued Channel 5 in about alt.fusion or gave them my phone number. My boss wasn't too happy to see them but we got away in reasonable shape and with some free publicity besides. On Thursday night Channel 5 aired a 1-hour fusion special. This was remarkably information-free, but it did contain some interesting non-technical tidbits. A wonderful quote at the beginning helped to set the tone: 'Stan and I thought that this experiment was so stupid, we decided to finance it ourselves,' said Martin Fleischmann. You'll never guess whom Channel 5 selected as their noted fusion futurist -- none other than Dr Jerry Pournelle, interviewed live, who gave us another great quote: 'I have more information in one place than anybody in the world.' He came up with at least one wonderfully brainless bit of bragging: he claimed that cold fusion solves the pollution problem, because given the energy, he will be able to reduce the waste to its constituent elements. No one suggested reducing Jerry to his constituent elements, however. The show went on to look at the competition between the (state-owned) University of Utah and (church-owned) Brigham Young University. It seems that a week or so before the fateful press conference, U of U president Chase Peterson visited BYU to discuss the rival fusion projects. According to (church-owned) Channel 5, Peterson suggested that the two universities both sit on their discoveries until Nature published their respective landmark papers in the same issue. BYU officials supposedly agreed, and hence they were rather disturbed when the U conducted a press conference to claim all the glory. When Channel 5 interviewed the BYU officials for the show, they were quite cynical -- they were sure that money was the main motivation for the early U of U announcement. Chase Peterson of course denies that any deal was struck. Next came a profile of Stanley Pons. Pons grew up in North Carolina, did his undergraduate work at Wake Forest University, then went off to work for his father's textile company. Eight years later he decided to return for an advanced degree and enrolled at the University of Southampton in the UK, where he studied under Martin Fleischmann. Pons and Fleischmann became good friends, and when Pons moved to Utah, Fleischmann came to visit two or three times each year. The idea for cold fusion started during one of these visits; Channel 5 showed tape of Mill Creek Canyon, one of my own favorite hiking places, and gave us a tour of Pons's kitchen. Pons enjoys cooking, and he and Fleischmann would often spend an evening chopping vegetables and scribbling formulae on a convenient white board. Pons has two pre-teen kids -- I think their names are John and Joyce. (This makes the rumors about Pons's son and the hole in the concrete rather difficult to believe...) Pons likes to work on his PC and listen to rock music -- we are told that his favorite band is Dire Straits. Pons's wife says that Pons and Fleischmann discussed the concept of cold fusion for a long time before actually trying an experiment... The show went on to interview Utah legislators about the prospects for the economy in the advent of commercial cold fusion. It was not a pretty sight. Some sample (slightly paraphrased) quotes: 'We wouldn't have to worry about taxes,' the idea perhaps being that Utah would turn into another Saudi Arabia with a guaranteed income for all citizens; 'we could fund our whole education system,' as though we won't want to if cold fusion doesn't work out; 'we can extract all the heavy water we need from the Salt Lake,' and get free minerals besides, not taking into account just how corrosive Salt Lake 'water' is to almost all materials. You could almost see university and state officials drooling; it reminded me of a sight I encountered last weekend on my bike -- two large dogs standing rigidly at attention next to a woman barbecuing dinner on a hibachi. Next week Pons and Fleischmann will testify before Congress on behalf of Rep. Wayne Owens's bill to establish a fusion technology center in Utah. Almost makes you forget about the suggestion made by tax protesters last year that the University stop doing research and fire redundant faculty to save money; or for that matter the budget cuts a couple years ago that called for almost 100 faculty and 200 staff to be laid off. Gotta run, the Mr Fusion just pinged, Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@cs.utah.edu 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 utah-cs!donn PS -- Except for the Hollenhorst transcript, which came directly from the videotape, everything is based on my usual vague and inaccurate notes, so take it all with a few milligrams of lithium. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Dennis Thurlow / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 21 Apr 89 21:04:55 GMT Organization: AT&T NSSC S. Plainfield, NJ >>Just for the record, the automobile known as the Stanley Steamer made the >>world's speed record (over 100mph) back around 1915 or so. The 1910 model of this car was probably the best automobile ever made. Henry Ford exploited the fear of boiler explosion (actually impossible, as there was a release valve) to promote his car. The Stanley brothers did not belive in advertising, and their market dried up. There are a few of these cars around with over 600,000 miles on them, that have never had a major overhaul. -nsscb!det cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendet cudfnDennis cudlnThurlow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Mark Zenier / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 21 Apr 89 23:55:40 GMT Organization: SSC, Inc., Seattle, WA In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu>, cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > (w/o permission) > > "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing > technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is > 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul > Ehrlich. The byline for this article is actually "Paul Ciotti, Los Angeles Times". Mark Zenier uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz markz@ssc.uucp uunet!amc! uw-beaver!tikal! cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenmarkz cudfnMark cudlnZenier cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Bob Pendleton / Re: "Places that *don't* confirm cold fusion" and a request. Originally-From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: "Places that *don't* confirm cold fusion" and a request. Date: 19 Apr 89 16:53:21 GMT Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah From article <7756@fluke.COM>, by blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski): > I concur that there may be a pattern, but I'm not sure the pattern that I > observe is the same as the one the author comments on. In yesterdays (April 18, 1989) Salt Lake Tribune Dr. Pons was quoted as saying that he has recieved private confirmation of the P&F results from over 60 instituions. People aren't taking a stand on this. I think everyone is trying to be the first to explain it or to find something unique and patentable about it. Not to mention security restrictions at the national labs. A request: I'm sitting about a mile from Dr. Pons's office. The local papers, T.V., even the rock'n roll radio stations, are full of coverage of fusion. What is the local coverage like in the rest of the world? I'd appreciate it if people could send me a very short note describing local coverage in your area. I know I'm taking a chance on getting swamped, but my curiosity on this subject is driving me nuts. Thanks Bob P. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Paul Hudson / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: paul@moncam.co.uk (Paul Hudson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 21 Apr 89 11:33:20 GMT Organization: Monotype ADG, Cambridge, UK In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu>, cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > .... > > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, ... > > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. > > ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would > let the planet support many more people than the current population of > Are their concerns reasnable? > --CF Nope. Just as bad as the people who say "We should determine what you read, see ...". "Energy censorship"? You may only use energy for what we say you can. Paul Hudson Snail mail: Monotype ADG Email: ...!ukc!acorn!moncam!paul Science Park, paul@moncam.co.uk Milton Road, "Sun Microsysytems: Cambridge, The Company is Arrogant (TM)" CB4 4FQ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnHudson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Paul Hudson / Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Originally-From: paul@moncam.co.uk (Paul Hudson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Date: 21 Apr 89 13:15:26 GMT Organization: Monotype ADG, Cambridge, UK References: <18284@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <8593@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <1708@Portia.Stanford.EDU> In article <1708@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, brooks@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Brooks) writes: > An authorized quote or two from the Stanford Campus Report follows: > > The experiment was done by Prof. R.A. Huggins (Dept. of Materials > Science and Engineering) as previously mentioned: > "Huggins` team ran two experiments simultaneously in a red picnic ^^^^^^^^^ > cooler for more than two weeks and found that the experiment ^^^^^^ That's two brands of (artificial) rubber mat and now a picnic cooler. Forget palladium, it's the polymerised hydrocarbon derivatives. Paul Hudson Snail mail: Monotype ADG Email: ...!ukc!acorn!moncam!paul Science Park, paul@moncam.co.uk Milton Road, "Sun Microsysytems: Cambridge, The Company is Arrogant (TM)" CB4 4FQ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnHudson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Marc Rassbach / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: marc@lakesys.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 22 Apr 89 14:18:22 GMT Organization: Lake Systems - Milwaukee, Wisconsin In article <8904201653.AA24944@bradley.UUCP> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: >Let's use it as a tool to leave this gravity well and START OVER FROM >SCRATCH. That have been my idea for years. Let's find another planet, kick off the present life forms, and screw it up like we have done here. Anyone care to start Alt.I'm.outta.here ???? -- Marc Rassbach marc@lakesys If you take my advice, that "I can't C with my AI closed" is your problem, not mine! If it was said on UseNet, it must be true. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmarc cudfnMarc cudlnRassbach cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Jay Hinkelman / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: akf@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jay Hinkelman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 22 Apr 89 15:04:53 GMT Organization: Purdue University Computing Center In article <838@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >Fortunately for those of us who don't really like crowds, technology >is changing the economics of cities; some day there may not even *be* >large cities. Kind of funny you should put it that way. I live about half an hour south west of Chicago and, considering the amount of development that's going on in our neighborhood, if large cities disappear it will be because the entire country will be one big city. 8-( -- Jay Hinkelman, Raving-Egotist-in-Remission, akf@mentor.cc.purdue.edu cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenakf cudfnJay cudlnHinkelman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Gordon Banks / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 21:10:03 GMT Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA. In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? We should certainly be careful of changing climates. However, climatic change occurs naturally and we are natural beings. The earth is not a static or equilibrium system (otherwise we'd still have dinosaurs stomping around) and there can be good changes and bad changes. >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > Some leaching may occur, but I doubt if you could change the salt content of the oceans much over the short term without truly massive amounts of leaching. Jus taking water out of the ocean won't change the salt content unless it isn't allowed to flow back in (such as being locked up in ice caps or some such). Such wouldn't be the case with irrigation. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudengeb cudfnGordon cudlnBanks cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Jon Singer / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 22 Apr 89 21:03:06 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Just a quick note about Stanley Steamers - my understanding is that the impossibility of a boiler explosion did not derive from the presence of a relief valve (relief valves have jammed many times) but from the construction of the boiler itself - it was not a mono- lithic device made in the shape of a steel box, but was an entirely different type of design, and could spring leaks but could not blow up. (I forget the exact details, but this is what I remember reading.) Cheers jon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Under the spreading Basil Bush | I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist. My lovely sweetheart lies | Pesto vapors on her breath | Jon Singer is jon@Apple.COM, or And Parsley in her eyes | (AppleLink) SINGER2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Chris Phoenix / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 22 Apr 89 21:10:45 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. In article <7059@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >[stuff deleted] >Point two: Cheap energy can be used to disrupt the environment, and >will be used to such purposes as long as there's a buck in it. The >projections about increased reduction of rainforests, increased strip >mining, and so forth, are hard to refute. If there really is a cheap >energy breakthrough, these seem inevitable consequences. Governments >are going to have to start treating the environment as a serious issue, >or the costs of fusion could easily outweigh the benefits. Things such as mining take much more than energy to do. They take machinery, and time, and it has to be worthwhile. A lot of strip mining today is for coal. (Figures, anyone?) Without an energy need, coal will probably not be worth mining a lot of--we can get lots of petrochemicals from oil. As far as I know, rain forests are mainly stripped for lumber and agriculture. With cheaper energy, metals will be cheaper to produce and so wood will not be needed as much. Agriculture could be revolutionized by an inexpensive indoor light source. We might be able to grow our plants in factories, and not have to clear as much forest. I'm not saying that we don't have to worry about such issues--we do, of course. But there will probably be solutions provided by the energy, that can remove the problems if properly applied. Some people are claiming that fusion will hurt the earth/the people/the environment/ the cause. This is false. It will, unless we act sensibly. >Point three: The costs can be minimized through government action to >protect the rain forests, limit strip mining, and so forth. > >Point four and final: There is no such thing as an unmixed blessing. >[more stuff deleted] I think all of us agree on this. From what I've read, it looks like some people are saying, "If we aren't very careful, we could get really hurt by this." And others say, "Yes, but it's not necessarily harmful." "You aren't worried enough about the environment." "You're not looking at the potential benefits." "Environmental rapist!" "Luddite!" "Tastes great!" "Less filling!" Before you reply to an environmental question article, sit back and think about whether you really disagree with what the author is saying. -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy22 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / A Palfreyman / Re: Cold fusion and Japan Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Japan Date: 22 Apr 89 23:05:43 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <1749@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, dmf@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Daniel Fuchs) writes: > Why no positive results reported from Japan? The skills certainly exist in > many government-run and private sector labs, yet nothing from Japan has > yet shown up on alt.fusion or in any of the more mainstream media. What's > going on -- do researchers in Japan not have access to D2O? The Economist, April 15th, reports that Showa Denwa, Japan's sole supplier of D2O, has had its entire 6-month inventory snapped up, at Y 70,000/ litre, by Japanese scientists. So, as you can see, much is at least bubbling under....if you're travelling to Japan, don't forget the D2O! [[ This has been unfortunate for the fusion speculative frenzy in Japan, since many invested in Showa Denwa, only to find the cupboard bare! Big investing institutions grabbed stock from Mitsubishi Metal, Nippon Mining and Sumimoto Metal Mining. Next target for the frenzy has been Toho Titanium and Osaka Titanium, then turning to Toshiba and Fuji Electric (because of their backgrounds in electrical generating equipment). In all, six of the ten most actively traded issues were fusion-related.]] ===== Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Chris Phoenix / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 22 Apr 89 21:33:24 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. In article <1636@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: [stuff deleted] >... You'll never guess whom Channel 5 >selected as their noted fusion futurist -- none other than Dr Jerry >Pournelle, interviewed live, who gave us another great quote: 'I have >more information in one place than anybody in the world.' He came up >with at least one wonderfully brainless bit of bragging: he claimed >that cold fusion solves the pollution problem, because given the >energy, he will be able to reduce the waste to its constituent elements. >No one suggested reducing Jerry to his constituent elements, however. I thought someone else suggested disposing of highly toxic stuff by breaking it down with a fusion torch. Obviously, pollution in the ecosphere is a lot harder to handle, but it could sure help the disposal problem, couldn't it? Could this be what Jerry was talking about? How much energy would it take to break down all the waste we produce that is illegal to put into landfills? I know, I know... Our landfills are filling up already. I also know that this wouldn't help with radioactives. A thought: What happens after stuff is broken down by the torch? Does it recombine into something worse than before unless you take extreme measures to prevent it? Would it be possible to actually use the by-products as a source of pure(?) elements? -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy22 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Matthew Walsh / Re: "Places that *don't* confirm cold fusion" and a request. Originally-From: walshm@sun.soe!clutx.clarkson.edu (Matthew S. Walsh) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: "Places that *don't* confirm cold fusion" and a request. Date: 22 Apr 89 22:50:09 GMT From article <1284@esunix.UUCP>, by bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton): > I'm sitting about a mile from Dr. Pons's office. The local papers, > T.V., even the rock'n roll radio stations, are full of coverage of > fusion. What is the local coverage like in the rest of the world? I'd > appreciate it if people could send me a very short note describing > local coverage in your area. I know I'm taking a chance on getting > swamped, but my curiosity on this subject is driving me nuts. > Up here in Potsdam, NY, I listen to the radio every day and have heard no mention of Fusion. Nor have I seen reports on TV, though I am an infrequent viewer. It was alt.fusion and my Physics V course that gave me the information about the discovery. I'm sure all of the faculty and most of the students know about the discovery, but few know who F&P , U of U, or BYU are or their significance. I think its Mario Cuomo banning the discussion of developments that aren't in his state. He'll probabally ban fusion to people under 21 or make a restriction of 55 kwh. __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ 209 Olson Aint' seen nothing like him / / \ |\/| | / \ | | | |\ Clarkson U in any amusement hall, | | |-| | | |- | | \ / |- |/ Potsdam,NY he is the master MATT WALSH `-| | | | | |_ \_/ \/ |_ |\ 315-268-2052 AKA KING OF PINBALL cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenwalshm cudfnMatthew cudlnWalsh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Matthew Walsh / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: walshm@sun.soe!clutx.clarkson.edu (Matthew S. Walsh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 22 Apr 89 23:06:12 GMT From article <8640@csli.Stanford.EDU>, by cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix): > In article <7059@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >>[stuff deleted] >>Point two: Cheap energy can be used to disrupt the environment, and >>will be used to such purposes as long as there's a buck in it. The >>projections about increased reduction of rainforests, increased strip >>mining, and so forth, are hard to refute. If there really is a cheap >>energy breakthrough, these seem inevitable consequences. Governments >>are going to have to start treating the environment as a serious issue, >>or the costs of fusion could easily outweigh the benefits. > The current expensive energy puts a considerable drain on the ecosystem now. Oil spills at sea kill plant life and fish, and petroleum emmissions cause smog and deterieration of the protective ozone layer. Then there is the perpetual waste of fusion reactors which has no place to go. If fusion is possible in automobiles, a great deal of pollution will be eliminated. And I'm sure that people will readily switch to fusion cars if the power cost is as cheap as speculators say, provided they have decent performance capabilities. The same will be true for factories. The ecology problem will improve, not decline. It is unfortunate that a fusion powered bulldozer will make rain forest destruct easier, but the solution to this problem should not be technological restriction, rather it should be political enforcement and social compliance. __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ 209 Olson Aint' seen nothing like him / / \ |\/| | / \ | | | |\ Clarkson U in any amusement hall, | | |-| | | |- | | \ / |- |/ Potsdam,NY he is the master MATT WALSH `-| | | | | |_ \_/ \/ |_ |\ 315-268-2052 AKA KING OF PINBALL cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenwalshm cudfnMatthew cudlnWalsh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Philip Stephens / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: prs@oliven.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 23 Apr 89 00:33:13 GMT Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca In article <1989Apr20.143800.14572@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >The Italian result is interesting. They seem to get fusion when there >is a net movement of deuterium through the titanium, rather than when >it is stationary in the metal. Also, Steve Koonin sent me a preprint >that (among other things) speculates that gross movement of hydrogen >through the metal may be important in increasing the fusion >rate. > >This line of reasoning also suggests the use of higher temperatures >or ultrasound to increase the mobility of deuterium in the metal. I would suggest (I forget whether I posted this before) using electrical ocsilation, probably biased by a DC component for electrolysis (but maybe not!). I have no idea what frequency will be best; this will be determined by experiments, whenever someone decides to try it. Note that this is not the same as the suggestion by someone else to do an hourly step-change between 5 and 10 volts; that is a good suggestion for basic research, while I suspect mine is a good lead for practical application (then again, maybe not!!!) Could be that the very things P&F say to avoid, especially sintered or powdered Pd, would work with little or no DC current under the influence of moderate (??) AC current *or AC field* (possibly radio or microwave frequency, but audio or even 60Hz would be worth trying). At lower frequencies, one can choose the waveform, and a square-wave would indeed give the greatest Pd motion for any given *peak* voltage. The resulting advantage may not be great enough to be worth the extra trouble when scaling it up, but that's a problem for later... say 1990! (Of course, I barely know what I'm talking about, so take with the usual grain of salt. But I can follow the clues in what's been posted, and this seems to follow). - Phil prs@oliven (Phil Stephens) or: (hplabs,ihnp4,sun,allegra,amdahl)oliveb!oliven!prs Can I have my Nobel Prize now, please? B-) PS, I think I was first to mention "coherant" other than in jest, so do I get to contest with that thar MIT fellar????? (Nawww.... I think I phrased it as a question; the guy at MIT phrased it as a THEORY complete with sophisticated justification. Plus he has credentials. Guess I'll have to settle for patting myself on the back for the FASER joke). cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenprs cudfnPhilip cudlnStephens cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / T Wells / Industry and population Originally-From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Industry and population Date: 22 Apr 89 21:13:45 GMT Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale In article roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: : In article <838@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: : : > In article roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: : > : I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we : > : have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for : > : that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite : > : philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy : > : source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population : > : growth trend. : > : > You may like technology, the environment, and mankind. However, you : > would benefit by getting some of your notions about them clearer. : > : > In most industrialized countries, it is not the case that there are : > too many people. In fact, in many of them, if it were not for : > immigration, their populations would decrease. And this trend is : > growing stronger. : > : > It is only in the *nonindustrialized* world, the world where : > technology is a distant dream, that population is out of control. : > : I repeat: go visit Mexico City or Los Angeles for examples of : population out of control. Repeating a non-germane and even false statement does not make it germane or true. In both cities, and in fact in all large congregations of people, it is *economic* forces, not population pressure, that brings people to the city and results in the unpleasant aspects of the conditions there. If nothing else, you are using local phenomena to judge global phenomena, and the reality is that this is a situation where doing that is not justifiable. Read the following to see why I think your notion of "out of control" is irrelevant. --- Copyright 1989 by T. William Wells. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted for electronic distribution of this work on Usenet and other networks attached to it provided that this copyright notice is retained and unaltered. People move to already crowded places like LA and Mexico City because they believe that there is a better chance for their personal or familial advancement at those places. On a micro-scale, the phenomenon looks like this: a person looks at where he is now, and finds himself dissatisfied. In Mexico, his dissatisfaction might be with a starvation-level diet; in the US, his dissatisfaction might be with the local area's job prospects. Anyway, he looks around. He often discovers that whatever it is that he's looking for can be found where other people are, since it is other people who create it. So he moves there. On the macro-scale we see big cities springing up. It is not usually the case, except in *industrialized* countries, that people move from overpopulated areas *because* they are overpopulated. [As a side note, one might define "overpopulated" as having more people than can be supported, given the economic circumstances of the region; in that case, one measures overpopulation by the starvation rate. On that scale, one might call a howling wilderness overpopulated if it had more than a few dozen people inhabiting it. Of course, what we usually mean by overpopulated is just that there are more people than we'd like to see in a given area. If we were to use the starvation rate as a measure, then there is an obvious and unarguable correlation between industrialization and overpopulation: industrialized societies have less overpopulation.] In industrial countries, birth rates go *down* in comparison with nonindustrial countries. Why? Economics: in nonindustrial countries, the bigger families do better. In industrial countries, a smaller family is more economic. Consider the differential pressure here: in a nonindustrial country, the more people you have supporting your family, the more economic power you have, since economic power is largely directly related to the amount of muscle you can apply. In industrial countries, on the other hand, the benefits of extra individuals is much smaller: one has basically the same investment of time (or more, as we come to believe that parents should put more effort into childrearing) but the return is, relatively speaking, much smaller. In nonindustrial countries, people move to the cities, by and large, because their underpopulated homes are not economically viable; in other times the Four Horsemen would simply have killed off the excess people, but now there are cities where there seems to be the possibility, however remote, of simple survival. So people move to the cities. And of course, many people also move to the cities out of the simple desire to improve themselves, even when not goaded by starvation. In industrial countries, this trend is largely complete. Not only did people move to the cities, but the rate of industrialization turned out to be sufficient to keep most of them from starving. (You can ask why this hasn't been true for many of the cities in today's nonindustrial countries. Looking to government policies will prove enlightening.) So here are how things work: 1) Completely nonindustrialized (but agricultural) countries (very few of which exist today) tend to have only villages; larger cities don't work. There is no real advantage to bringing people together because most activity is farm-related and requires that people spread out in order to be near the land they work on. Life in this kind of society tends to be nasty, brutish, and short. Economic power is dominated by the amount of land you control; families tend to be large, most children die. 2) You can attempt to fix the above by improving the efficiency of the farms or by improving medical care. The former merely leads to a different population plateau. The latter merely leads to a greater starvation rates. 3) You can attempt to fix the above by introducing significant industry. (Industry being loosely defined as a system of making and using artifacts to increase the productiveness of human effort.) However, since we know of no way to uniformly introduce both the industry and the attitudes needed to make it work over a large area, we must do so in limited areas. This is guaranteed to result in immigration into the newly industrialized area. In fact, it is guaranteed to result in too many people immigrating to the newly industrialized area. Why? Each potential immigrant sees the same data: that there is this city, where life is better, starvation is less rampant, their children have a better chance to live to adulthood, whatever. Each immigrant makes the same choice: to move himself and maybe his family to the city. Each, unfortunately, is unable to take into account the choices of his fellow immigrants. Thus too many people flock to the cities. The problem is that the immigration rate is determined by the information flow and physical transport rates which permit a much larger flow of people than the rate of industrialization can support. (The former has time constants of the order of days or weeks, the latter, because of the necessity of education, generations.) The result of this is the state of most of today's nonindustrialized countries: a few partly industrialized and overpopulated cities surrounded by lots of farms and villages. 4) As time goes on, the rate of population growth is overtaken by the productivity of industrialization. The reason is this: the rate of immigration has a fixed upper bound: the nonindustrialized areas can only provide people at a fixed rate, bounded by, among other things, the capacity of the land to provide food to its population. The population growth in the cities, on the other hand, is initially exponential, as the limits to growth on the family size are suddenly relaxed, but this eventually slows down as the economics of the situation become apparent to the cities inhabitants or as people starve from lack of food. Industry, too, grows at an exponential rate. The best case is that industry grows fast enough to provide for all the people in the city, but even if it doesn't, the population growth eventually slows to a sub-exponential rate and industry then catches up. Now, every sentence above was laden with assumptions about people's choices, government action, accidents, plagues, rates of industrialization, etc. I'll leave it to the reader to examine the effects of changing each of the assumptions. [You may wonder where the food to support the cities comes from. If the farms are living at capacity, you'd think there's be no food left over for the cities. And you'd be almost right. What happens is this: first, cities account for a small percent of the population. Even at the beginning of this century, the rural populace accounted for well over half the people in the US. Second, they do get their food from the farms, who (ideally) trade some of their food for efficiency enhancing products from the cities. Cities can grow when marginal value of this efficiency exceeds the marginal cost of loosing the food. Or when there is a big and nasty force which takes the food regardless of cost.] 5) Once this stage has been reached, it is possible for the rural population to shrink dramatically, with most people moving into cities. The controlling factor is this: the results of industry can increase dramatically the efficiency of the rural areas. Once that happens, many rural inhabitants have to go, since they no longer have a place. Of course, they move to the cities, but they don't have to overload the city's systems. Oddly enough, it is another technological effect that makes the overloading that we do see possible: the increase in efficiency of transportation! It brings in immigrants from much further away than would otherwise have occured. Once people move to the cities, they tend to stay in cities. And, with today's technology, larger cities are often more attractive than smaller cities. Thus we see the various cities which have become uncomfortably crowded at the expense of other cities which loose population or grow more slowly. This state, one in which the bulk of the people live in cities and move from city to city, with a trickle from the associated rural areas and a maybe flood from more distant areas (thus repeating, somewhat, stage 4), is the one which most industrial countries find themselves today. 6) ????? :-) Seriously, though, this process certainly hasn't run to completion. The short of it is that people make choices between the alternatives open to them, this is what economics is all about. In this sense, the future is determined by the economic effects of technology; will technology make it more or less economical to crowd together in cities? Will people be in a position to recognize and act on the differential advantage? Will governments distort the effects of technology and produce a result diametrically opposed to what I'm going to predict? Will future archaeologists discover another Iridium anomaly dated somewhere between 10,000BC and 10,000AD? Short term predictions are impossible, and all prediction must ignore the blind-alley effect and the unpredictable, but one can investigate the long term effects by considering the economic equilibrum that would result. In that case, enabling technology, that which makes the individual effort have greater economic results, is likely to *decrease* the size of cities and *increase* the size of families in industrialized countries. It is likely to decrease the size of cities by making it less valuable to be congregated in one place. As long distance transportation costs go down, as more technology exists in the form of information, as efficiency eliminates economies of scale, we can expect that the costs of crowding will become large enough that people want to *get away*. As evidence for this, consider the concern that people show for pollution and for too many people in their neighborhoods, and their efforts to improve this aspect of their lives. That is clear evidence that people are beginning to see the costs of cities and are wanting to do something about it. I seem to recall seeing a study that shows that, if one discounts immigration into the US, there is a net decrease in the population density. As for why I predict an increase in the size of families: there are two factors limiting the family size, one being simple pragmatics and the other being the cost of the time that has to be devoted to raising the family. Right now, it is the latter which dominates in industrial countries, thus an increase in leisure time should decrease the cost of childrearing, with the expected effect of increasing the family size. This should happen till the marginal costs again balance or till pragmatic reasons again dominate. --- Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill (BTW, I'm may be looking for a new job sometime in the next few months. If you know of a good one where I can be based in South Florida do send me e-mail.) cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbill cudfnT cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / A Palfreyman / Re: Cold fusion and Japan Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Japan Date: 23 Apr 89 00:06:39 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara "Showa Denwa" should have been "Showa Denko" - apologies. -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / A Palfreyman / Lotza ergs Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Lotza ergs Date: 23 Apr 89 00:12:25 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Given the assumedly unlimited etc. energy supply we are about to enjoy, looks like no-one will bother with CMOS anymore - back to bipolar and ECL! Sell your stocks NOW! -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Philip Stephens / Re: Experimenters note pad Originally-From: prs@oliven.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Experimenters note pad Date: 23 Apr 89 01:35:33 GMT Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 10:18:27 CDT Reply-To: FUSION%ZORCH@UUNET.UU.NET Sender: "Fusion - Redistribution of alt.fusion" From: fusion%zorch@UUNET.UU.NET Originally-From: martinb@inteloa.intel.com (Martin L. Buchanan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 23 Apr 89 04:06:42 GMT Organization: BiiN Corp., Hillsboro, OR THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLEAN COLD FUSION Copyright (c) 1989 by Martin L. Buchanan. Permission to reproduce this entire article in free publications or postings is granted. This posting predicts the economic, political, and social consequences of clean cold fusion. It predicts dates for particular consequences and gives free investment advice. This article refers to a Fleischmann-Pons fusion reactor as a "Puff" reactor (Pons/Utah/Fleischmann/fusion). The associated process is the Puff process. PREMISES 1. The Puff process works as claimed. 2. The amount of ionizing radiation produced can be made low enough that use in vehicles, homes, and offices is practical. PREDICTION #1: RAPID DEVELOPMENT Puff experiments can and will be done by garage shop operations. The Puff process will be well-characterized in a few months. Experimental Puff engines will be constructed this year. An experimental Puff vehicle will be constructed by the end of '89. By the end of 1990 there will be working prototypes of Puff cars, trucks, light aircraft, and home heating/electrical plants. PREDICTION #2: POLITICAL OPPOSITION THAT FAILS Threatened economic interests will wage fierce battles to restrict use of Puff technology. The first U.S. battles will be in federal regulatory agencies and then the Congress: * Appeals for the federal government to restrict experimentation and access to deuterium and certain metals. * Proposed federal laws that would forbid the use of Puff in vehicles or homes, or that would impose such stringent radiation limits that shielding makes Puff impractical. Supporting restrictions will be oil companies, electric utilities, some environmentalists, and Congress-critters from oil- and coal-producing states. Opposing restrictions will be auto manufacturers, airplane manufacturers, general business lobbies, businesses with high energy costs, and advocates of the free market, such as the Libertarian Party. The public will decide with a deluge of mail and phone calls supporting Puff 10:1. When the battle to forbid Puff fails in Congress, there will be these new federal legislative ideas: * Federal tax/license fees on Puff reactors to reduce the defici