1990.12.24 / Jim Bowery /  Plasmak(TM) Disproven?
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmak(TM) Disproven?
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 1990 18:11:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In Finkelstein, D., and J.Rubinstein: Ball Lightning, Phys. Rev.,
135:A390-A396 (1964) there is supposedly a proof that plasma confinement
is not possible under normal conditions in air if maintained under
its own closed-loop current flow/magnetic field.  I got this from
the book "Lightning" (don't recall the author right now).
 
Anyone have the article?  Paul, do you have any comment on their "proof"?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-8868              Income != Wealth
PO Box 1981                                   Tax Wealth
La Jolla, CA 92038                            Not Income
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1990 
------------------------------
1990.12.28 / Jim Bowery /  "Energy from the Sun"
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Energy from the Sun"
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 1990 23:01:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Did anyone see the public television broadcast of "Energy from the Sun" --
a supposed documentary on fusion energy?
 
I found it virtually impossible to sit through the entire show.  It was
even more obnoxious than the NASA propoganda that I've seen broadcast as
"education".
 
The list of sponsors alone was virtually a who's who of corporate parasites.
 
In fact, this is the way the propoganda about NASA's shuttle program sounded in
the late 1970's which means we will have to wait another ten years before we
recognize that our "fusion program" is a sham, if fusion follows the same
political evolution as space.
 
Unfortunately, there are no "Challenger" type events that can happen with
fusion to wake up the public to its bankruptcy.  Fission power plant
accidents will only be used by Tokamak/Inertial Confinement parasites
to further their political agenda (which I've been hearing from them my
entire life).
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-8868              Income != Wealth
PO Box 1981                                   Tax Wealth
La Jolla, CA 92038                            Not Income
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1990 
------------------------------
1991.01.07 / Les Earnest /  Pons Negotiating Future at University of Utah
     
Originally-From: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pons Negotiating Future at University of Utah
Date: 7 Jan 91 09:28:00 GMT

[From Associated Press]
   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A University of Utah cold fusion
reseshow up to teach a class that starts
Monday.
   Neither lawyers for the electrochemist, B. Stanley Pons, nor
school officials would disclose details of the talks, except to say
he was more interested in research than teaching.
   ``The question has been that he obviously can't do his teaching
duties and his research at the same time,'' said Pons' lawyer, C.
Gary Triggs.
   Pons' relationship with Fritz Will, director of the National
Cold Fusion Institute at the university, is strained.
   Pons and British colleague Martin Fleischmann shocked the
scientific community in 1989 when they announced they had achieved
cold fusion in a table-top experiment with a car battery.
   Their experiment proved difficult to duplicate and led to wide
skepticism.
   Pons added to tension in October, when he skipped a meeting of
the state oversight committee that keeps track of $5 million in
state funds given the university to set up the fusion institute.
   Pons sold his Salt Lake City home and asked the university in
November for a year's sabbatical. Administrators were considering
the request.
   In doing his research, Pons has insisted that Will communicate
with him through Triggs to protect his rights to potential patents,
Triggs said. The tactic has contributed to the strained
relationship between Pons and Will, Triggs said.
   Pons agreed to appear Tuesday at a meeting of a state-appointed
panel of scientists looking into cold fusion as a science, said
Triggs.
   Triggs would not discuss the school's negotiations with Pons,
other than to say they would be settled this week. He also said
Pons will remain affiliated with the school.
   Pons was scheduled to teach a class Monday. Professor Peter
Stang, chairman of the Chemistry Department, said nine students
have signed up for the class.
   ``As far as I know, that class has not been canceled,'' Stang
said.
   Fusion is the nuclear reaction that powers the sun and
thermonuclear weapons. It was generally believed achievable only at
extremely high temperatures until Pons and Fleischmann disclosed
their cold fusion experiment.
 
AP-NY-01-05-91 1800EST+
**********
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenLES cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.07 / Steven Finberg /  Whats Up ??
     
Originally-From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Whats Up ??
Date: 7 Jan 91 07:19:15 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 
Has someone unpluged this group?
 
I've been on vacation since just before Xmass and now find no postings
queued up since then, compared to about a dozen the week before.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenw1gsl cudfnSteven cudlnFinberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.09 / Les Earnest /  Panel questions "cold fusion" claims
     
Originally-From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Panel questions "cold fusion" claims
Date: 9 Jan 91 01:32:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

[From UPI]
	SALT LAKE CITY (UPI) -- University of Utah scientists have failed to
prove the existence of ``cold fusion'' and have been working in a
``siege atmosphere'' that could taint their controversial work, an
independent panel said Tuesday.
	While researchers at the National Cold Fusion Institute generally
have been doing good work and have produced interesting results, they
had not provided definitive evidence confirming their claims, the panel
said.
	``The present ... program is directed toward a direction that could
result in such proof, if indeed, cold fusion is real,'' said Robert
Adair, a Yale University nuclear physicist. ``(But) ... the results they
have achieved up to this time fall short of proving the reality of cold
fusion.''
	Adair is one of four researchers who examined work started by B.
Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the
University of Cambridge in England at the request of the state's Fusion-
Energy Advisory Council, which has been monitoring the research.
	In a report presented to the advisory council Tuesday, the panel said
institute researchers' belief in cold fusion stands in stark contrast
with the rest of the scientific community.
	``This cleavage has consequences in creating a level of siege
atmosphere at the (institute) that may result in a science that is less
critical than it might be,'' Adair wrote.
	``I felt that very marginal positive results were taken far too
seriously by a community -- and a director -- who want very much to prove
their faith justified. None of the institute programs has succeeded in
establishing the existence of cold fusion,'' he said.
	Fritz Will, institute director, said he was pleased the panel's
``technical review was positive.''
	He added that ``while it is agreed that the scientific reality of
cold fusion has not been established here or elsewhere, there is strong
and growing evidence for the occurrence of nuclear reactions at room
temperature.''
	Pons and Fleischmann sparked a scientific controversy nearly two
years ago when they announced they had produced nuclear fusion in a
relatively simple tabletop experiment at room temperature.
	If true, the reaction could provide the world with a plentiful source
of relatively inexpensive and safe power. Previous work to produce
fusion -- the fusing of atoms -- had involved powerful and expensive
machines.
	Stunned scientists around the globe tried to reproduce the
experiment, and state officials set aside $5 million to establish the
institute to investigate the findings.
	Despite early reports by other scientists that they had produced
evidence that appeared to support the Utah claims, most of those reports
were later withdrawn and the claims have been largely discredited.
	Pons has since abruptly left the country, demanded a sabbatical and
is believed to be working in France. Fleischmann is believed to have
returned to England.
	When the panel conducted a one-day tour of the institute in November,
Pons refused to reveal a ``special trick'' he said would help other
researchers reproduce his results, said panel member Stanley Bruckstein,
a chemistry professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo.
	The state panel has not said if it plans to fund the institute past
June. But panel chairman Raymond Hixson questioned Pons's withholding
information, saying full disclosure ``would be a main condition'' for
continued funding.
	The overall mission of the institute was marred by a lack of a clear
mission, Adair said.
	``Too often I felt the scientists conducting a program had no clear
concept of the goal of their search,'' Adair said. ``Some of that
diffuseness of goal appeared to stem from a lack of understanding of
nuclear physics.''
 
--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@Go4.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Dr.
UUCP: . . . decwrl!Go4.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.09 / Les Earnest /  Cold Fusion Pioneer Leaves Teaching for Research
     
Originally-From: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Pioneer Leaves Teaching for Research
Date: 9 Jan 91 03:39:00 GMT

By PEG McENTEE
Associated Press Writer
   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - B. Stanley Pons, one of two scientists who
claimed to have discovered cold fusion, will stop teaching at the
University of Utah so he can devote all his time to research the
phenomenon, the school said Tuesday.
   Hours earlier, a state council tentatively agreed to continue
funding the controversial work of Pons and his British colleague,
Martin Fleischmann, but only after warning Pons that any further
reluctance to provide details of his research could cost him future
funding.
   The council also tentatively approved a plan to sever Pons and
Fleischmann from the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was
established to carry on their work.
   Pons, an electrochemist and former head of the University of
Utah's chemistry department, resigned his regular faculty
appointment Jan. 1, school President Chase N. Peterson said in a
statement. Pons will remain at the university as a research
professor.
   Pons said in the statement: ``The developments in our present
lines of research are rapidly unfolding and require an even greater
commitment of time on my part to explore and develop the technology
associated with the research.''
   Pons will be able to use space in the chemistry department,
where he has done much of his research for several years.
   Negotiations on Pons' job change began some time ago, university
officials said. Pons has been at odds for some time with state
officials who complain he hasn't cooperated with the council
overseeing his work.
   Pons and Fleischmann, of England's University of Southampton,
announced in March 1989 they had achieved a sustained nuclear
reaction in a tabletop experiment that produced more energy in the
form of heat than was used to run it.
   Scientists long have sought the key to producing controllable,
sustained nuclear fusion, which powers the sun and stars, as a
energy source. But they have concentrated on massive heat and
pressure to generate such results.
   The cold fusion claim was met with skepticism.
   Members of the University of Utah's scientific community,
meanwhile, had urged state officials to review state funding for
the cold fusion institute. The scientists were angered by school
President Chase Peterson's attempt to quietly transfer $500,000 in
University Foundation money to the institute.
   The Fusion Energy Advisory Council, which oversees the Utah
Legislature's $5 million appropriation for cold fusion research and
patent applications, tentatively agreed Tuesday to continue funding
after warning Pons to be more forthcoming with results of his work.
   ``Future funding of his research is contingent on his
cooperation,'' said council chairman Raymond Hixson. ``All of us
are strong supporters, but can we go on?''
   Fritz Will, director of the cold fusion institute, couldn't
provide details of how much money Pons and Fleischmann could
receive from the $922,000 still remaining of the $4.5 million the
Legislature has allotted to research.
   Pons has agreed to let council member Wilford Hansen, a Utah
State University physicist, observe a cold fusion experiment to
provide the panel with corroboration of Pons' claims, said John
Morris, an associate university vice president for academic
affairs.
   Pons must provide part of the data by Jan. 15 and the rest by
Feb. 1.
   ``It's been made clear that further funding of his research
depends on keeping the deadline. It's that simple,'' Morris said.
   Earlier, the council gave tentative approval to sever Pons and
Fleishmann from the cold fusion institute.
   In late October, the two scientists angered Will and members of
the council when they failed to show up for a council meeting.
Fleichmann later maintained he hadn't been told about the meeting.
   On Tuesday, Will assured the council that the institute wouldn't
suffer with Pons and Fleischmann. He said the two scientists'
reluctance to share their findings with the institute staff and
council members strained his own ability to shoulder the burden
``of accountability, claims and so on.''
   Neither scientist was present at Tuesday's meeting, although
both were aware it was taking place. Will said Pons was believed to
be in Nice, France, while Fleischmann remained in England,
apparently ill.
 
AP-NY-01-08-91 2151EST+
**********
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenLES cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.10 / Les Earnest /  Pons Advised to Provide Research Data or Lose Funds
     
Originally-From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pons Advised to Provide Research Data or Lose Funds
Date: 10 Jan 91 02:06:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

[Associated Press update]
By PEG McENTEE
Associated Press Writer
   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The Utah scientist who claims to have
achieved cold fusion faces a deadline for sharing some results of
his work or risk losing state money for research.
   The state Fusion Energy Council wants B. Stanley Pons to produce
part of his research data next week and the rest by Feb. 1.
   ``Future funding of his research is contingent on his
cooperation,'' said council chairman Raymond Hixson. ``All of us
are strong supporters, but can we go on?''
   A University of Utah official said Pons has agreed to allow a
council member who is a physicist observe a cold fusion experiment.
   The council Tuesday also tentatively approved the voluntary
departure of Pons and fellow scientist Martin Fleischmann of
England's University of Southampton from the National Cold Fusion
Institute. The council holds the institute's purse strings and also
gives research money to the scientists.
   Fritz Will, who heads the institute, complained to the council
that Pons was ``not a team player.''
   Pons, meanwhile, said in a statement he was resigning his
teaching position at the University of Utah to work on his
cold-fusion studies full time at the school.
   Pons, former head of the university's chemistry department, and
Fleischmann announced in March 1989 that they had achieved nuclear
fusion in a jar at room temperature.
   Efforts to duplicate the findings have had varied success and
many scientists are skeptical of the claim that the heat reported
by the two scientists is due to fusion.
   The state provided $5 million in research funds and the National
Cold Fusion Institute was created at the university to help carry
on the experiments.
   Will said Pons' and Fleischmann's departure from the institute
would cause no problems because others had done 90 percent of the
institute's work.
   John Morris, university associate vice president for academic
affairs, said Pons has agreed to permit a council member who is a
physicist to observe a cold fusion experiment to provide the panel
with corroboration of Pons' claims.
   Neither scientist was present nor expected at Tuesday's council
meeting. Will said Fleischmann is in Enland and Pons is believed
to be in France.
   Their attorney, C. Gary Triggs, refused to confirm Pons'
whereabouts. He said Fleischmann is recovering from an undisclosed
illness and continuing his research.
   Triggs indicated the two have been reluctant to share their
information because of a concern over patent rights to cold fusion.
   ``I don't intend to get into a debate with Dr. Will on who is a
team player,'' Triggs said. ``Naturally there is certain patent
considerations and other considerations such as maintaining
confidentiality that are important.''
   He described the deadlines as ``dates agreed upon, not forced on
anybody,'' and having been arrived at in ``friendly discussions.''
   Fusion, the reaction that powers the sun and stars by fusing two
hydrogen atoms into a helium atom, has long been sought as a source
of cheap energy.
   Other scientists have produced fusion at high temperatures, but
Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have created a cheap
low-temperature process that required the expenditure of little
energy.
   A report by four independent scientists that the council
released Tuesday said the process remains unproven.
   One of the reviewers, electrochemist Stanley Bruckenstein of
State University of New York at Buffalo, said Pons had alluded to a
``key'' to reproducing the experiment's production of excess heat.
   But Bruckenstein said he did not pursue the matter ``because of
issues raised by the patent attorney at the start of the session.''
 
AP-NY-01-09-91 1338EST+
**********
--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@Go4.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Dr.
UUCP: . . . decwrl!Go4.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.09 / Patrick Smith /  Report of Adair et al.
     
Originally-From: p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Report of Adair et al.
Date: 9 Jan 91 18:21:31 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
 
 
COOPERATE OR LOSE STATE FUNDS, COUNCIL TELLS PONS.  Salt Lake City
Tribune; Wednesday Morning; Januray 9, 1991.  by Tim Fitzpatrick.
 
The State F/EAC Tuesday issued what the chairman said was the
council's final ultimatum to Stanley Pons to begin cooperating or lose
his research funding.
 
Dr. Pons, who has resigned as a tenured professor at the U of U to
take an 18-month appointment as a research professor under a deal
worked out with U. administrators, could not be reached tuesday to
respond to the state council's request.
 
State council members, meeting in a marathon session at the state
Capitol Tuesday, still held considerable hope for cold fusion's
potential despite the release of an independent scientific review that
said that no experiment in the 1 1/2-year history of the U of U's
National Cold Fusion Institute had proven cold fusion even exists.
 
Several members of the council, charged with overseeing the state's $5
million commitment to cold fusion, said they were losing patience with
Dr. Pons after he had failed to reveal his data to the independent
panel, which was supposed to bring credibility to the cash-starved
institute.
 
Approximately $1 million in state funding remains, and that is due to
run out by June 30.
 
"We had to have independent verification of his results," said council
chairman Raymond L. Hixson.  "Frankly, I'm a little troubled and
upset."
 
"Our problem is we're going to be postponed until after the funds run
out," said council member and state science advisor Randy Moon.
 
Despite earlier statements that he would cooperate fully with the
review, Dr. Pons witheld information for patent reasons, the
independent reviewers said.  One reviewer, State University of New
York at Buffalo electrochemist Stanley Bruckenstein, said that during
the review Dr. Pons alluded to a special "trick" for making the
experiment work, but he refused to reveal it.
 
As a result, institute director Fritz Will, who two months ago called
the review crucial to the institute's future funding, now says any
funding will likely have to wait until another scientific review can
be undertaken.
 
This latest scientific review will be in the hands of Utah State
University physicist/chemist Wilford Hansen, a member of the state
advisory council.  Under an agreement between the U. of U. and Dr.
Pons, Dr. Hansen, along with U. College of Mines and Earth Sciences
Dean Milton Wadsworth and others, will review Pons data and attempt to
independently verify his work.
 
The university had to promise to indemnify the scientists against
possible lawsuits from Dr. Pons before the review could go forward,
according to John Morris, the U. associate vice president for academic
affairs who negotiated the agreement with Dr. Pons' attorney.
 
Last year an attempt to independently verify some of Dr. Pons' claims
by a group of U. physicists ended with Dr. Pons' attorney raising the
possibility of legal action if they published their results, in which
they found no evidence of fusion in Dr. Pons' own experiments.  The
results were published anyway.
 
Dr. Pons will be required to turn over his experimental data in two
stages, the first due Jan. 15 and the second Feb. 1.  If those
deadlines are not met, state funding of Dr. Pons' research will be
withdrawn, Mr. Hixson said.
 
Dr. Pons is not in town and his attorney was unavailable for comment
Tuesday.  Even U. President Chase N. Peterson said he did not know if
Dr. Pons would cooperate with the latest review.
 
The independent scientific report released Tuesday gave the institute
scientists high praise for their investigation of cold fusion
phenomena, but said their results were not conclusive.
 
"No committee member holds that cold fusion has been firmly
established by the NCFI or by others," stated the cover letter
accompanying the independent review, which took place last Nov. 7.
 
The four review committee members issued individual reports in their
own areas of expertise.
 
The strongest suspicions came from Yale University physicist Robert K.
Adair, who noted that most in the scientific community do not join
institute scientists in their belief in cold fusion.
 
"This cleavage has consequences in creating a level of siege
atmosphere at the NCFI that may result in science that is less
critical than it might be," Dr. Adair wrote.  "I felt that very
marginal positive results were taken far too seriously by a community
- and a director - who want very much to prove their faith justified."
 
Dr. Adair also noted a "too-casual disregard" for existing nuclear
theory.
 
The outside expert in heat measurement, University of Alberta chemist
Loren G. Hepler, said in his report: "Calorimetric measurements at the
NCFI have not yet established definitively that excess heat is
produced or not produced."
 
Such excess heat is considered key to cold fusion's exploitation as an
energy source, assuming its existence can be established and its
source is found to be nuclear.
 
Mr Hixson, the state council chairman, said the council originally
released the state money on the belief that verification of the
Pons-Fleischmann work had been obtained.  "Since that time there have
been serious questions as to whether that is true."
 
State council member and USU Provost Karen Morse said the review
"accomplished what was needed in terms of having a high-quality
review...  Work at the institute is valid."
 
But Dr. Morse said the reviewers "again and again" mentioned the
importance of verifying the work of Dr. Pons, who has claimed energy
production far above the scant reports from other institute
researchers.
 
"Overall, the outcome of the review by the external panel was very
positive," said Dr. Will, who noted that all four reviewers were
complimentary about the degree of professionalism among institute
scientists.
 
Still, Dr. Will acknowledged that attracting money from private
industry or the U.S. Department of Energy will require independent
verification of the work of Dr. Pons and his British colleague, Martin
Fleischmann.
 
Members of the state advisory council complained that the university
and the institute had promised them a thorough plan for what may be
the cold fusion effort's last six months.  That plan was never made
available until Wednesday, and then it was not in sufficient detail,
council members said.
 
"I feel like we've had promises made that haven't been met,"  Mr.
Hixson said, noting that the council members have spent substantial
amounts of their time on the project with no compensation.
 
Another council member, Mitchell Melich, said the phenomena are well
worth studying, but it will require far more funds than the state can
provide.  He said that since the institute had been thus far
unsuccessful in attracting outside money, "we should seriously
consider stopping cold fusion funding."
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.10 / Carl Kadie /  NOVA
     
Originally-From: kadie@thucydides.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NOVA
Date: 10 Jan 91 03:55:44 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Next Tuesday, PBS's NOVA be about cold fusion.
 
 
 
 
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Fourth Amendment (War-on-Drugs version): The right of the people to be secure
in their persons shall not be violated but upon probable cause
*or for random urine tests*
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenkadie cudfnCarl cudlnKadie cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.10 / Mike Pelt /  But what about AbuTaha's theory?
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: But what about AbuTaha's theory?
Date: 10 Jan 91 08:37:34 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

I read in the December issue of "Access to Energy" that Ali AbuTaha had
proved that the heat of crystallization of the palladium rods was
sufficient to explain all of P&F's results -- and also explained other
odd features, such as why cast Pd works, but drawn or foil doesn't.
Breaking of the "spring" of the crystal structure provides the heat,
and real Jones-style fusion provides the occasional traces of nuclear
observables.  But none of these recent reports mentions AbuTaha's
paper, which was published in MIT's "Journal of Fusion Technology."
Has Pons made any kind of reply to AbuTaha's findings?
--
Mike Van Pelt                     Will your long-winded speeches never
Headland Technology/Video 7       end?  What ails you that you keep on
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp            arguing?    --    Job 16:3
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
  Jan. 8, 19 / Michael Attas /   AbuTaha's theory of heat production via crack propagation
     
Originally-From: Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:  sci.physics.fusion
Subject: AbuTaha's cold-fusion heat theory
Subject:  AbuTaha's theory of heat production via crack propagation
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 15:37:15 GMT
Date:  Jan. 8, 1991
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My colleague here at AECL Research, Dr. Roger Dutton, is the metallurgist
in our "cold fusion" research team.  He has studied the proposal regarding
heat production published by AbuTaha and has some comments on it.  I have
his permission to post his comments, and we would both be happy to hear
some of your opinions on them.  Best for 1991!
 
==================
       Michael Attas          Analytical Science Branch
       Pinawa, Manitoba       AECL Research, Whiteshell Laboratories
       Canada  R0E 1L0        (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited)
                                     (204) 753-2311 Ext. 2796
       attasm@wnre.aecl.ca (or .cdn)
 
==================
 
Newsgroups:  sci.physics.fusion
 
Subject:  AbuTaha's theory of heat production via crack propagation
 
Date:  Jan. 8, 1991
 
In late November, there were several postings on Ali AbuTaha's explanation
for "excess heat" in cold fusion cells.  This explanation was highlighted in
Petr Beckmann's enthusiastic article (Access To Energy, December 1990) based
on AbuTaha's paper published in the Journal of Fusion Energy (N.B. not
Technology), Vol. 9, No. 3, 1990, p. 345.  His central idea is that the high
internal (elastic) stress generated in palladium cathodes as a result of the
deuterium charging process causes the formation of internal microcracks.
When a crack is formed, energy must be supplied to create the new surface
area of the crack.  However, only a small fraction of this energy is
absorbed as surface energy.  The remainder of the fracture energy is
dissipated in the form of local plastic deformation of the matrix associated
with the formation of the crack.  (This energy is quite high in ductile
metals and is the reason why metals have high fracture toughness, compared
with ceramics which undergo negligible plastic deformation.)  The energy
associated with the plastic deformation process is largely dissipated as
heat.  (A minor fraction is stored in the elastic strain energy of the
dislocations formed).  AbuTaha estimates this energy release and proposes
that it is sufficient to explain the purported heat liberated in the P-F
experiments (4 mega Joules per cubic metre).
 
This appealing explanation, however, seems to be seriously flawed in its
quantitative assessment.  AbuTaha's fracture energy (or work of fracture) is
calculated to be 1.24 mega Joules per square metre of crack area.  This
compares to measured values of about 50 Joules per square metre for typical
hydrides (i.e., hydrides are generally rather brittle).  AbuTaha's
overestimate results from an incorrect use of the classical Griffith
equation, used as a fracture criterion for many materials.  In particular,
he has incorporated a "stress concentration factor" of 200 (which gets
squared to calculate the fracture energy).  The inclusion of this factor is
erroneous and does not appear in the Griffith equation.  AbuTaha has
confused the global-energy-related Griffith criterion for fracture with a
local crack-tip stress criterion.  If his figures are reworked, omitting the
200 factor, the fracture energy of the deuterated palladium is 58 Joules per
square metre.  Thus, the total energy released calculated by AbuTaha, based
on some estimate of the micro-crack density, must be reduced by a factor of
about four orders of magnitude.
 
Another approach is available to calculate the total possible energy
release.  The fracture energy must be supplied by the total elastic strain
energy stored in the palladium cathode.  This is given simply by the square
of the maximum internal elastic stress divided by two times the elastic
modulus.  The maximum strain energy is limited by the maximum elastic stress
that can be realised.  This is usually the yield stress of the material,
where continued deformation beyond the elastic limit becomes plastic.
(Plastic strain energy cannot be stored.)  Based on AbuTaha's figures, the
maximum stored elastic strain energy can be calculated to be 0.06 Joules per
cubic centimetre.  This is the MAXIMUM amount of heat which can be released
BY WHATEVER MECHANISM.  Release by fracture is one such mechanism.  This
puts an absolute maximum on the spontaneous generation of heat stored
mechanically as elastic strain energy.
 
All of the above is written up in more detail in a paper which is about to
be published in the Journal of Fusion Energy.  This was submitted in
September 1989, at which time a copy was sent to AbuTaha.  If anyone wants a
preprint, please contact me:  (Telephone) 204-753-2311, (FAX) 204-753-2455.
 
Roger Dutton
AECL Research, Whiteshell Laboratories
Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada
 
cudkeys:
cudenattasm cudfnMichael cudlnAttas cudszM 
------------------------------
1991.01.10 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Cold Fusion Pioneer Leaves Teaching for Research
     
Originally-From: greg@garnet.berkeley.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Pioneer Leaves Teaching for Research
Date: 10 Jan 91 18:11:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley

In article <BQaAa@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest) writes:
}   Pons must provide part of the data by Jan. 15 and the rest by
}Feb. 1.
}   ``It's been made clear that further funding of his research
}depends on keeping the deadline. It's that simple,'' Morris said.
 
Perhaps Pons can find some comfort in the fact that he isn't the
only person with a Jan. 15 deadline.
----
Greg Kuperberg
greg@math.berkeley.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.10 / Don Gentner /  Re: Report of Adair et al.
     
Originally-From: gentner@Apple.COM (Don Gentner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Report of Adair et al.
Date: 10 Jan 91 17:14:48 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <825@giga.slc.unisys.com> p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J.
 Smith) writes:
>Dr. Pons, who has resigned as a tenured professor at the U of U to
>take an 18-month appointment as a research professor under a deal
>worked out with U. administrators, ...
 
Does this mean that Pons has lost tenure?
                        Don
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don Gentner			email: gentner@apple.com
Apple Computer			telephone: 408 974-5198
10440 Bubb Rd, MS: 58A		fax: 408 974-0892
Cupertino, CA 95014		AppleLink: GENTNER
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengentner cudfnDon cudlnGentner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.11 / Les Earnest /  Pons Says His Motives Are Misunderstood
     
Originally-From: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pons Says His Motives Are Misunderstood
Date: 11 Jan 91 12:10:00 GMT

[From Associated Press]
   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A Utah scientist denied that he hasn't
been forthcoming with university and state officials about his cold
fusion research.
   B. Stanley Pons, who resigned his teaching position at the
University of Utah to concentrate on research, won tentative
approval Tuesday for continued funding from the state Fusion Energy
Council.
   The council wants Pons to produce part of his data next week and
the rest by Feb. 1.
   In Thursday's Deseret News, Pons said criticism that he has not
been forthcoming about his research was ``unfair, misleading,
unjustified, disruptive and politically motivated.''
   ``It's a gross misinterpretation to say I am uncooperative or
not a team player,'' he said by telephone from an undisclosed
location. ``The cooperation between the university and me is better
than ever. Everyone has been working toward a good resolution to
complicated problems.''
   Pons, former head of the university's Chemistry Department, and
fellow scientist Martin Fleischmann announced in March 1989 that
they achieved nuclear fusion in a jar at room temperature.
   Efforts to duplicate the findings have had varied success and
many scientists are skeptical of the claim that heat reported by
the two scientists is due to fusion.
   The council, which holds the institute's purse strings and gives
research money to the scientists, sharply criticized the university
for not providing a promised research plan and budget for what's
left of the state's $5 million fusion investment.
   About $922,000 million [sic] remains and is due to be spent by June
30, officials said.
   ``To say that I have not been cooperative and have withheld data
is inaccurate,'' Pons said. ``I have always agreed to release any
data - provided that patent attorneys consented to the release,
that reviewers signed confidential agreements and that it didn't
violate any contractual agreement with the university or violate
any federal law.''
   Neither scientist was present nor expected at Tuesday's meeting.
   Fritz Will, director of the school's cold fusion institute, said
Pons was believed to be in Nice, France, while Fleischmann remained
in England, apparently ill.
 
AP-NY-01-10-91 2114EST+
**********
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenLES cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.11 / Terry Bollinger /  Ali AbuTaha's ideas
     
Originally-From: terry@ctc.contel.com (Terry Bollinger  x4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ali AbuTaha's ideas
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1991 18:46:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
I have not yet read Ali AbuTaha's paper, but I think the basic concept
has a great deal of merit as a route for explaining moderate levels of
inexplicable heat production in palladium hydride systems.  The alpha-beta
phase transition involves a large, rather abrupt (several percent) increase
in the lattice constant, which clearly does result in some level of strain
on the lattice structure.  A "snap back" effect in which the more-or-less
original (alpha) lattice is obtained might convert such static strains into
heat.  Hydrogen over about 0.65 or somewhere in that range amounts to a type
of supersaturation, so such a "snap back" might be possible simply by the
reformation of molecular H2 within the material.  The formation of very fine
fractures would encourage such an event by allowing release of the H2.  (I'm
pretty sure that some studies, including some rather old ones, have shown an
increase in H2 levels in highly saturated PdH systems.)
 
You will not easily be able to obtain melting with such a mechanism, though,
because simple lattice strain can always be equivalenced to a strains on
individual lattice bonds -- and bond strains cannot store enough energy
to break those same bonds, or they would have already done so.  Significant
melting would require a more complex energy storage mechanism that would
more properly be described as chemical (e.g., phase change) or electrostatic
in nature, rather than as lattice strain.  I do not know if AbuTaha's paper
discusses such issues.
 
.....
 
Anyone curious about what Yours Truly does for his real work might take a
look at the first article in the January 1991 issue of IEEE Software, where
you will find an article co-authored by an NSF friend and myself.  I also
co-authored the first article in the December 1990 issue of Information and
Software Technology, for those of you who prefer British journals.
 
.....
 
Anyone watch The Simpsons last night?  A marvelous episode about a shyster
lawyer who very nearly succeeded in wheedling a million bucks from Mr. Burns
by making it look as though a small bump on Bart's head had more-or-less
crippled Bart for life.  Marge blew it by simply telling the full story
without any obfuscation or dissembling of the facts.
 
I sort of like Marge's simple honesty.  Don't you?
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.13 / Patrick Smith /  Interview with Triggs
     
Originally-From: p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Interview with Triggs
Date: 13 Jan 91 00:45:32 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
 
 
ATTORNEY DEFENDS ACTIONS OF PONS, FLEISCHMANN (Says Clients have been
made Scapegoats); by Tim Fitzpatrick.  Salt Lake City Tribune,
Thursday Morning--January 10, 1991.
 
The lawyer for Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann responded angrily
Wednesday to reports that his clients are not cooperating with state
and university officials.
 
C. Gary Triggs also said National Cold Fusion Institute Director Fritz
Will refused to communicate with his clients and had "previously
breached confidences."
 
Dr. Will adamantly denied those criticisms and others.
 
"It has become fashionable to bash Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann," said
Mr. Triggs, "and the criticism is both unfair and unfounded."
 
Members of the State Fusion/Energy Advisory Council Tuesday expressed
impatience with Dr. Pons, saying he has not met promises to cooperate
with attempts to independently verify his cold-fusion work.
 
"It is our position that Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann have cooperated
fully and openly," said Mr. Triggs in a telephone interview from his
North Carolina office.
 
Mr. Triggs said he sympathized with the frustrations confronting state
fusion officials, but said his clients have been made the scapegoats
for cooperating with the state's own lawyers.
 
He also noted that Dr. Pons "gave up Christmas with his family" to
discuss the upcoming scientific review with stste council member and
Utah State University scientist Wilford Hansen and others.
 
He said his clients withheld some information from the independent
reviewers who met at the Institute last November because he was
advised by the state's patent attorney that it would be a possible
violation of the atomic energy act.
 
Dr. Will said Wednesday that he has had written communications with
the U.S. Department of Energy indicating cold-fusion research is not
affected by the atomic energy act, under which certain nuclear
research can be declared classified.
 
Mr. Triggs said his client necessarily withheld information from the
independent reviewers for patent reasons, too.  He said other people
could exploit cold fusion "unless those patents are protected
zealously."
 
"Because of the patent restraints, they have had to sit on the
sidelines and take these pressures," Mr. Triggs said.
 
Dr. Will said he had a four-hour meeting with Mr. Triggs and Dr. Pons
last June, shortly after U. Science faculty members called for the
independent review, in which there was "full agreement as to the items
that had to be disclosed."
 
"This agreement was not kept at all," Dr. Will said.  "It became more
and more obvious they were unwilling to cooperate in the sense of
providing information complete enough for an independent verification
of their claims."
 
He also noted the outside scientists had signed "confidentiality
agreements" to protect any proprietary rights.
 
Mr. Triggs said his clients, contrary to published reports, were
sharing their data with other institute scientists.  "They don't share
some of the data with Fritz Will because he has previously breached
confidences."
 
Dr. Will called that accusation a "devious, unjustified act."
 
He guessed the charge was related to his sharing some of Dr. Pons'
data with University of Utah chemist Cheves Walling, who works as a
consultant to the fusion institute and who has signed a
confidentiality agreement.
 
He said Dr. Walling is "a very recognized scientist and member of the
National Academy of Sciences.  We are fortunate to have him as a
consultant... I gave the data and discussed it with Dr. Walling to get
his assessment.  That's what one uses a consultant for."
 
Mr. Triggs blamed Dr. Will for the deterioration in communication,
saying he had refused to answer his clients questions and sent only
"terse messages" to them.
 
"It's obvious Dr. Fritz Will has his own motivations of which we are
suspicious," Mr. Triggs said.  "...He is using personal dislike for
what is not a personal situation.  These are serious, contractual
matters."
 
Dr. Will reiterated his earlier insistence that scientific matters not
be carried out through a lawyer, as Dr. Pons has required.  He also
noted that a similar communications gap emerged with the previous
institute director, U. College of Science Dean Hugo Rossi.
 
Dr. Will said he harbors no animosity toward Drs. Pons and Fleischmann
"and I still express hope they will have others verify the claims they
have made."
 
The poor relationship between the two chemists and Dr. Will has
resulted in a reorganization of cold-fusion research that has Drs.
Pons and Fleischmann answering to the university directly instead of
the National Cold Fusion Institute.
 
Mr. Triggs also complained that press reports of Tuesdays meeting,
including that in The Tribune, failed to mention statements made in
support of his clients.
 
Dr. Hansen told the meeting that Dr. Pons was cooperating with the
recently-begun attempt to independently verify Dr. Pons' work.  At one
point Dr. Hansen told council members they were "being a little harsh"
on Dr. Pons.
 
John Morris, the U. associate vice president for academic affairs and
negotiator of the university's agreement with Dr. Pons, also indicated
in Tuesday's meeting that Dr. Pons was meeting the terms of the
agreement, which includes Dr. Hansen's verification of the work.
 
Under that agreement, Dr. Pons resigned his tenured professorship in
the Chemistry Department.  According to Mr. Morris, the chemistry
department has approved his appointment as a research professor
effective until June 30, 1992.  Final approval must still be made by
the U. Institutional Council at its February meeting.
 
Dr. Pons position can be renegotiated after the 18 months.
 
Dr. Pons will receive the same salary and still be eligible for
raises, Mr. Morris said.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.13 / Kent Hoult /  Nova program on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: khoult@bbn.com (Kent Hoult)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nova program on cold fusion
Date: 13 Jan 91 16:43:53 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.

 
 For those of you that have been watching this board for awhile, it
looks like PBS will try to summarize the whole cold fusion affair.
 
 This weeks NOVA program is called "ConFusion in a Jar". Sounds like
it might be fun to watch.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Hoult, BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge, MA
khoult@bbn.com  TEL: (617) 873-4385
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenkhoult cudfnKent cudlnHoult cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.14 / Terry Bollinger /  Dr. Dutton's analysis
     
Originally-From: terry@ctc.contel.com (Terry Bollinger  x4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dr. Dutton's analysis
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1991 16:41:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On 10 Jan 1991 15:37:15 GMT Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca> wrote
regarding Dr. Roger Dutton's upcoming paper:
 
> The maximum strain energy is limited by the maximum elastic stress
> that can be realised.  This is usually the yield stress of the material,
> where continued deformation beyond the elastic limit becomes plastic.
> (Plastic strain energy cannot be stored.)  Based on AbuTaha's figures, the
> maximum stored elastic strain energy can be calculated to be 0.06 Joules per
> cubic centimetre.  This is the MAXIMUM amount of heat which can be released
> BY WHATEVER MECHANISM.
 
Alas, due to batching delays I did not see these very interesting figures
before sending out my own off-hand comments.  Plastic deformation in metals
-- which reflects the fact that metallic bonds are far less directional in
nature than the predominantly covalent bonds of ceramics -- places a much
stricter limit on the maximum energy that can be stored by lattice strain
than does the "bond breaking" limit at which I was looking.  Dr. Dutton's
reasoning sounds very plausible, and I look forward to getting a copy of
his paper and going over his mathematical analysis in detail.
 
For those of you who have not yet tried playing around with Joule/cm3 figures,
0.06 J/cm3 is *not*, repeat *not* what one would normally call a significant
figure.  Some of the earlier (Stanford) figures bandied about were in the
range of 10 megajoules/mole of PdH, or roughtly *1,000,000* Joules/cm3 --
off by seven or eight orders of magnitude!  It would be difficult to explain
even very modest heat anomolies with 0.06 J/cm3, since such a low figure is
pretty well at the noise level.
 
Sigh.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.14 / Marty Hoag /       PBS Nova Program
     
Originally-From: Marty Hoag <ames!VM1.NoDak.EDU!NU021172>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      PBS Nova Program
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1991 18:41:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

   I don't generally read this list but we do host a redistribution of it
to some sites.  I noticed in the TV schedule for this week that our local
PBS outlet is airing "Confusion in a Jar" on NOVA.  It airs here Tuesday
evening.
             Marty Hoag   nu021172@vm1.nodak.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfnMarty cudlnHoag cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.12 / A Beveridge /  Re: Pons Says His Motives Are Misunderstood
     
Originally-From: ANDQC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Andrew A. Beveridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons Says His Motives Are Misunderstood
Date: 12 Jan 91 18:15:12 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

This week's NOVA is about Fusion in a jar.  Its title indicates some skepticism
 in Cold Fusion.
-------
                        Andrew A. Beveridge
                        Department of Sociology
                        Queens College and Graduate Center
                        City University of New York
                        209 Kissena Hall
                        Flushing, NY 11367  718-520-7093
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenANDQC cudfnAndrew cudlnBeveridge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.14 / Patrick Smith /  Fleischmann's response to F. Close
     
Originally-From: p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fleischmann's response to F. Close
Date: 14 Jan 91 17:00:48 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
 
 
FEAR BEHIND A NUCLEAR MIRACLE by Christopher Ward and Tim Rayment.
--from the London SUNDAY TIMES, 6 Jan.
 
A British professor who is to publish the first full account of the
most controversial scientific "discovery" this century says that two
eminent scientists were driven by academic jealousy and dreams of fame
to claim that they had achieved nuclear fusion in a test tube.
 
[.....]
 
They were rushed into a premature announcement by fear that rivals
would beat them to patent rights. Crucial figures were inexplicably
revised hours after other scientists challenged them. The pair said
the discovery was the result of five years effort but it had occupied
them full-time for less than a year, and the work remained incomplete.
 
These are the findings of a 20-month investigation by Professor Frank
Close, an international authority on nuclear physics, in a book to be
released next week. [Too Hot to Handle, reviewed on the net earlier]
 
"Secrecy was their downfall" said Close this weekend.  "They had made
a discovery that would win them the Nobel Prize and make them
zillionaires. It was like discovering oil in 1850 and having the
rights to the lot. They were terrified, and still are, that someone
else would develop it before they did."
 
[Material omitted about CNF]
 
Now almost all believe they were wrong. According to Close, the two
chemists were persuaded by the authorities at Utah University [sic] to
go public before their experiments were complete.
 
On March 23....F and P were portrayed as saviours of the human race.
They were already in trouble, however. Fleischmann had given
government scientists at Harwell, the British nuclear research
laboratory, notice of his results. They failed to repeat the findings
and told him so on March 21.
 
Growing nervous Fleischmann told some colleagues that the news
conference should be stopped "But apparently it was all out of the
scientists control" Close says.
 
The real shock came a week later when Fleischmann visited Harwell and
presented the evidence to an audience of nuclear experts for the first
time.  His chart proving fusion met an immediate response: "That's
wrong. The peak has the wrong shape and it has the wrong energy."
 
When Fleischmann gave a presentation in Switzerland two days later,
and Pons one in Utah, their figures tallied with what the Harwell
scientists had said the results should be.  By April there was a cold
fusion bandwaggon. [material omitted on known history]
 
This weekend the men who used the World's media to disclose a great
discovery are reluctant to discuss the affair. Pons is in hiding.
Fleischmann...still believes in cold fusion, claiming that Close's
book is part of an international plot [!] to deprive him of patent
rights.
 
"I think he's a very opinionated man who takes his line and fits all
the facts around it," Fleischmann said.  "He's not really an objective
person. All these people are in cahoots with one another.  There may
be mistakes in our work, but that is the whole point of science.  It
may be that one day we will have to write this up in a more coherent
account".
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.14 / A Beveridge /  Re: Nova program on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Andrew A. Beveridge <ANDQC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nova program on cold fusion
Date: Monday, 14 Jan 1991 09:45:00 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <62063@bbn.BBN.COM>, khoult@bbn.com (Kent Hoult) says:
>
> For those of you that have been watching this board for awhile, it
>looks like PBS will try to summarize the whole cold fusion affair.
>
> This weeks NOVA program is called "ConFusion in a Jar". Sounds like
>it might be fun to watch.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kent Hoult, BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge, MA
>khoult@bbn.com  TEL: (617) 873-4385
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The program is reviewed in today's (Monday, January 13, 1991) New York Times.
 
-------
                        Andrew A. Beveridge
                        Department of Sociology
                        Queens College and Graduate Center
                        City University of New York
                        209 Kissena Hall
                        Flushing, NY 11367  718-520-7093
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenANDQC cudfnAndrew cudlnBeveridge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.15 / Patrick Smith /  Cold Fusion and the Gulf Crisis
     
Originally-From: p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion and the Gulf Crisis
Date: 15 Jan 91 18:02:22 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
 
I'm forwarding the following message from Frank Close, author
of `Too Hot to Handle':
 
 
Here is an amusing, true story that might interest the net.
 
In connection with the appearance of the book, and helped by Fleischmann's
free publicity, there is much interest in the media here. I had been asked
to appear on a popular radio show on the BBC. But this morning came a message:
"Sorry. Cold Fusion - that is nuclear; we can't have anything that bears even
remotely on nuclear  weapons during the Gulf crisis". So the BBC have censored
it. I  suspect that there is an INTERNATIONAL PLOT here. Fleischmann told me
last year that he was convinced that Sadam Hussein is developing cold fusion
weapons; MI5 and the CIA are concerned lest Sadam learn that his secret weapon
is useless. This is another example of the bad press that nuclear gets; NMR
has become MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) because the word "Nuclear" in NMR
"made the public concerned".
 
          -Yours, in amused amazement, Frank
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.16 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 416 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 416 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 1991 15:29:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Ten more papers, in part from Chem. Abstr. 113 nos. 24 and 26. There was also
a largish number of "papers" in these issues that I ignored, since they were
all "Conf. Proc.-Annu. Conf. Cold Fusion, 1st, 1990" in Utah. If you must have
them, look up Chem. Abstr., keywords "cold fusion" and "deuterium", and you'll
find 'em all. My policy has been and is, to include in this bibliography only
paper published in journals. I feel vindicated when I see stuff given at
conferences later appearing in journals. I'll admit I have my doubts when I
see, e.g., an item by Hagelstein or McKubre in that conference; on the other
hand, if it's hot stuff, why is it not published in the usual way? Conference
contributions are not refereed as carefully as journal papers.
 Journal papers are not always refereed all that well either, though. It
appears that all four recent papers on the use of the quartz crystal
microbalance, to elucidate what is happening when hydrogen or deuterium is
absorbed into Pd, have found the same thing; there are two of these in this
update (Graesjo + Seo; Yamamoto et al); previous papers were by Cheek and
O'Grady (1990) (see below), and Oyama et al (1990). What they find is that,
yes, the resonance frequency of the crystal changes, probably in a linear
manner with H or D loading (though I have my doubts about their loading
measurements), but about twice as much as predicted by theory (the Sauerbrey
equation). The interesting thing is that all this was found already in 1974 by
Buccur and Flanagan, cited in the Graesjo et al paper. So the referees for all
four papers were asleep; certainly the one reviewing the Graesjo et al one
should have picked it up. This is how the scientific literature gets fluffed
up, and we spend a lot of time reading redundant stuff. But back to the
subject at hand. I previously had the Cheek + O'Grady paper under "Papers
peripheral to cold fusion"; in fact, these quartz crystal papers only mention
cold fusion incidentally, if at all. However, since they clearly seem to be
motivated by cnf, I'll move them into the main body. In fact, the Oyama et al
(1990) was already there.
 Arata and Zhang continue to find large neutron bursts (some fluffing here, I
feel); Durup, Mas et al and Morgan The Third all find Rosen's earlier paper
faulty; Parmenter corrects himself and now lines up with Jones+ instead of
FPH; Miles et al, using rather crude gear and not telling us very much, find
statistically significant excess heat around 10%; Mukhopadhyay et al confirm,
using neutron diffraction, that indeed the lattice expands when Pd absorbs D;
Roberts et al find no neutrons at claimed levels.
 Pool reports in Science on the Texas A&M internal check-up.
 Aaaah, the excitement.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 16-Jan. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arata Y, Zhang Y-C;                        Proc. Japan Acad. 66(B) (1990) 33.
"'Cold' fusion caused by a weak 'on-off effect'".
** If the temperature build-up in palladium under deuteration is high, a
temperature can be reached where an explosive release of deuterium occurs;
this is called the strong on-off effect, and A&Z ascribe a cold fusion
reaction to it. In this paper they state that the "weak" on-off effect, where
decomposition occurs at lower temperatures, also causes cold fusion. Neutron
detection appeared to coincide with on-off effects.                 Feb-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durup J;                                        J. Chem. Phys. 93 (1990) 6120.
"Comment on: Deuterium nuclear fusion at room temperature: a pertinent
inequality on barrier penetration".
** Comment on named paper by G Rosen (1989), who found theoretical grounds for
support of cold fusion claims. Like Morgan III (1990) and Mas et al (1990),
Durup points out that there are serious flaws in Rosen's treatment of the
potential well (d-d interaction), and the calculations are therefore out by
tens of orders of magnitude.                                     Dec-89/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graesjo L, Seo M;                        J. Electroanal. Chem. 296 (1990) 233.
"Measurement of absorption of hydrogen and deuterium into palladium during
electrolysis by a quartz crystal microbalance".
** The aim was to examine the quartz crystal resonance frequency change, in
response to stress induced by absorption of hydrogen/deuterium into palladium.
A 200 nm thick Pd film was electroplated onto the base gold film on the
crystal. H/Pd or D/Pd ratios were calibrated by both electrode potential
measurement and coulometry (current integration) and agreed within a few % for
higher loadings around 0.6, but not for alpha-phase loadings, probably due to
surface impurities taking part in electron transfer in the early stages. There
was a linear relation between df (change in resonance frequency) and H or D
loading, but this did not conform to theory; stress effects are blamed, and
cause an approximate doubling of df with respect to the expected value, as has
been found by others.                                            Jul-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mas F, Paniagua JC, Puy J, Salvador J, Vilaseca E;
J. Chem. Phys. 93 (1990) 6118.
"Comment on: Deuterium nuclear fusion at room temperature: a pertinent
inequality on barrier penetration".
** Comment on named paper by G Rosen (1989), who found theoretical grounds for
support of cold fusion claims. The authors, like Morgan III (1990), point out
the inappropriateness of the straight use of the WKB method; the Langer
adaptation should be used, and gives results different by 4 orders of
magnitude. Also, the potential energy curve for a pair of deuterons, as used
by Rosen, is too rough. Fusion rates from the better approximations are vastly
smaller than Rosen's.                                            Dec-89/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles MH, Park KH, Stilwell DE;          J. Electroanal. Chem. 296 (1990) 241.
"Electrochemical calorimetric evidence for cold fusion in the
palladium-deuterium system".
** Measured excess heat during electrolysis at Pd in 0.1 M LiOD; at the same
time, radiation levels were (crudely) monitored near the cell (nothing was
found). There were control electrolyses with light water cells. The
calorimetry consisted of a prior calibration using electrical heating, and
thermistors in a water jacket around the cell. Thus, temperature in this
jacket could be related to the amount of heat given off inside the cells.
Excess heat was calculated by simple subtraction of the thermoneutral
potential from the total cell voltage. Averaging over 11-33 days, several
cells containing heavy water showed a mean excess heat of 4-17%, with error
limits, in some cases, below these levels. The light water control runs showed
no excess heat. As no recombination was used, periodic water additions were
required, and contributed to temperature fluctuations. However, some excess
heat excursions are clearly uncorrelated with such additions.    Jun-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan III JD;                                  J. Chem. Phys. 93 (1990) 6115.
"Comment on: Deuterium nuclear fusion at room temperature: a pertinent
inequality on barrier penetration".
** Comment on named paper by G Rosen (1989), who found theoretical grounds for
support of cold fusion claims. Morgan III points out that Rosen makes a
crucial error, arising from his qualitative sketch of the potential energy
curve for the interaction of two deuterons. Also, the ordinary WKB barrier
penetration is not suitable here; its Langer modification should be used, and
gives results within 25% of those from numerical integration of the
Schroedinger equation, whereas straight WKB is out by 4 orders of magnitude.
Fusion rates such as claimed by FPH or Jones, and apparently supported by
Rosen, are extremely unlikely.                                   Oct-89/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukhopadhyay R, Dasannacharya BA, Nandan D, Singh AJ, Iyer RM;
Solid State Commun. 75 (1990) 359.
"Real time deuterium loading investigation in palladium using neutron
diffraction".
** They had an electrolysis cell (0.2 M LiOD) and the Pd was a cylinder at its
bottom; it also stuck out below the bottom, where it was in the path of a
neutron beam for diffraction measurements, which were conducted continuously
(with a break due to a breakdown, between 5.1 and 10.2 Ah). Current was 100 mA
or about 200 mA/cm**2. Initially, a clear pattern was seen, with a lattice
constant of 3.89 Aangstroms; this persisted through the low-load alpha phase.
After the breakdown, from 10.2 Ah, another pattern was seen, with lc 4.02,
corresponding to the beta phase. It was possible to measure the loading by an
indirect method; it reached 0.55 and did not exceed this value. Also, the
diffusion coefficient of deuterium in the Pd lattice could be estimated, and
was about 5E-07 cm**2/s.                                         Mar-90/Jul-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parmenter RH, Lamb Jr WE;           Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87 (1990) 8652.
"Cold fusion in palladium: a more realistic calculation".
** Following these authors' previous two papers (1989, 1990), this paper
recalculates expected fusion rates, now employing the modified, rather than
the straight, Thomas-Fermi-Mott equation. The modification lies in the model
for the conduction electrons, and their assumed effective mass. The resulting
fusion rate, around 1E-23 fusions/s/d-d pair, is more in line with those
reported by Jones et al (1989), and some orders of magnitude smaller than
those previously calculated. The new numbers suggest that the Jones et al
results can be explained by conventional physics, as used here.  Jul-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roberts DA, Becchetti FD, Ben-Jacob E, Garik P, Musser J, Orr B, Tarle G,
Tomasch A, Holder JS, Redina D, Heuser B, Wicker G;
Phys. Rev. C42 (1990) R1809.
"Energy and flux limits of cold fusion neutrons using a deuterated liquid
scintillator".
** The team used two deuterated liquid scintillator neutron detectors NE230;
these provide good neutron/gamma discrimination, state the authors. One was
placed inside a glass tube, surrounded by the Pd cathode in an electrolytic
cell containing 0.1 M LiOD. Clean spectra could only be obtained on weekends
or evenings, due to interference, and pulse shape discrimination (PSD)
eliminated remaining spurious events; PSD was found to be essential. Neutron
flux limits were 1000 n/s/g Pd or < 7E-24 fusions/s/d-d pair, averaged over
200 hours. Conclusion: a tentative "no" to cold fusion.          Dec-89/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamamoto N, Ohsaka T, Terashima T, Oyama N;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 296 (1990) 463.
"In situ electrochemical quartz crystal microbalance studies of water
electrolysis at a palladium cathode in acidic aqueous media".
** Another go at following the crystal oscillation frequency as a result of
electrolysis under various conditions. As expected, the frequency decreases
as hydrogen is loaded into the Pd film, but not (as others have found) in the
way expected for simple loading; there are (not unexpectedly) structural
changes in the film, affecting the frequency. There is some irreversible
change, possibly due to surface roughening upon electrolysis. Future work,
using D2O electrolytes, is planned.                              Jul-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Comment, news
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pool R;                                      Science 250 (1990) 1507, Dec. 14.
"Cold fusion at Texas A&M: problems, but no fraud".
** "A 4-month-long internal review of cold fusion research at Texas A&M
University has resulted in a report critical of the way many of the scientists
involved in that research behaved, but it found no direct evidence of
scientific fraud". Carelessness, lack of objectivity, personal frictions and
unusual treatments of a dissertation (Packham's) were charged. Smiles all
round, as the message appears to be "science takes care of itself", and no
fraud is found.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.16 / Jeff Leavey /  NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
     
Originally-From: leavey@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Jeff Leavey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
Date: 16 Jan 91 14:45:03 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA

 
I eagerly awaited NOVA last night (on two PBS stations carried by my
cable company, one from NY and one from NJ. The appointed 8:00 pm
came by and my VCR started up OK. I checked the program shortly after
8 and the NY station had a NOVA about smart weapons while the NJ
station had Gulf news.
 
 Did anyone see the fusion program?  Anyone know why PBS canceled out?
 Has a law suit against PBS be filed somewhere to not show it?
 Answers please.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenleavey cudfnJeff cudlnLeavey cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.16 / Mark Spector /  Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
     
Originally-From: mark@photon.mit.edu (Mark Spector)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
Date: 16 Jan 91 16:19:06 GMT
Organization: The Building 13 Guys

In article <1246@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> leavey@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Jeff Leavey)
 writes:
>
>I eagerly awaited NOVA last night (on two PBS stations carried by my
>cable company, one from NY and one from NJ. The appointed 8:00 pm
>came by and my VCR started up OK. I checked the program shortly after
>8 and the NY station had a NOVA about smart weapons while the NJ
>station had Gulf news.
>
> Did anyone see the fusion program?  Anyone know why PBS canceled out?
> Has a law suit against PBS be filed somewhere to not show it?
> Answers please.
 
Just before the show came on last night there was an anouncement
which basically said something like: "The show originally scheduled
for tonight, Fusion in a Jar, has been postponed so we can bring you
this timely program.  It will be rescheduled for a future date."
They then showed a program on smart weapons.
No law suit to my knowledge.
 
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark S. Spector            Internet  : mark@photon.mit.edu
M.I.T.  Room 13-2025       BITNET    : mark%photon.mit.edu@MITVMA
Cambridge, MA  02139       Telephone : (617)253-6803
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmark cudfnMark cudlnSpector cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.16 / Daan Sandee /  Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
     
Originally-From: sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
Date: 16 Jan 91 16:36:09 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1246@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> leavey@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Jeff Leavey)
 writes:
>
>I eagerly awaited NOVA last night ....
>
> Did anyone see the fusion program?  Anyone know why PBS canceled out?
> Has a law suit against PBS be filed somewhere to not show it?
 
PBS started with an announcement to the effect that " the program originally
scheduled for this time will be broadcast at a later time and has been replaced
by a program which is more appropriate at this time". Sorry I can't remember
the wording ; I had no problem with the justification, but regret the
decision.
I saw a small piece of the program and I think it was taped about six weeks
ago. They said there were 260,000 U.S. troops in the region, for one thing.
 
Daan Sandee                                           sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052  (904) 644-7045
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensandee cudfnDaan cudlnSandee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.16 / Ed Prochak /  Re: Pons Says His Motives Are Misunderstood
     
Originally-From: ejp@icd.ab.com (Ed Prochak)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons Says His Motives Are Misunderstood
Date: 16 Jan 91 18:07:09 GMT
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company; Industrial Computer & Communications Group

In article <91012.131512ANDQC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, ANDQC@CUNYVM.BITNET
(Andrew A. Beveridge) writes:
|> This week's NOVA is about Fusion in a jar.  Its title indicates some
skepticism
|>  in Cold Fusion.
|> -------
|>                         Andrew A. Beveridge
|>                         Department of Sociology
|>                         Queens College and Graduate Center
|>                         City University of New York
|>                         209 Kissena Hall
|>                         Flushing, NY 11367  718-520-7093
 
The Ides of January has delayed the broadcast, at least here in
the Cleveland area. I tried to tape the show last night and got a
rebroadcast of a NOVA episode on smart weapons. (good, scary show
but not what I had hoped for)
 
The Fusion episode will be broadcast at a later date.
 
I'll be waiting.
 
Edward J. Prochak   Voice: w(216)646-4663  h(216)349-1821
               Email: {cwjcc,pyramid,decvax,uunet}!ejp@icd.ab.com
USmail: Allen-Bradley, 747 Alpha Drive, Highland Heights,OH 44143
Wellington: ENGINEERING is "the ability to do for one dollar,
                            what any damn fool can do for two."
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenejp cudfnEd cudlnProchak cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.16 / Swanlund L /  Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
     
Originally-From: eatme@iastate.edu (Swanlund David L)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
Date: 16 Jan 91 20:53:30 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1246@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> leavey@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Jeff Leavey) writes:
 
 
>I eagerly awaited NOVA last night (on two PBS stations carried by my
>cable company, one from NY and one from NJ. The appointed 8:00 pm
>came by and my VCR started up OK. I checked the program shortly after
>8 and the NY station had a NOVA about smart weapons while the NJ
>station had Gulf news.
>
> Did anyone see the fusion program?  Anyone know why PBS canceled out?
> Has a law suit against PBS be filed somewhere to not show it?
> Answers please.
 
The PBS station here in central Iowa said they were postponing the
cold fusion show until next week because the smart weapons show
was of a more "timely" nature.
 
Dave
--
"You say I'm dumb and scraggy, but man this dumb and scraggy is your
	daughter's baby's daddy"
				-Deep Purple
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudeneatme cudfnSwanlund cudlnL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.16 / Dr Smith /  Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
     
Originally-From: smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Dr. William V. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
Date: 16 Jan 91 23:25:17 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

leavey@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Jeff Leavey) writes:
 
>I eagerly awaited NOVA last night (on two PBS stations carried by my
>cable company, one from NY and one from NJ. The appointed 8:00 pm
>came by and my VCR started up OK. I checked the program shortly after
>8 and the NY station had a NOVA about smart weapons while the NJ
>station had Gulf news.
 
 >Did anyone see the fusion program?  Anyone know why PBS canceled out?
 >Has a law suit against PBS be filed somewhere to not show it?
 >Answers please.
 
No lawsuit.  Most PBS stations pre-empted for news and info on the
Persian Gulf.  One of our local stations rescheduled for Thursday
I believe.
-Bill
--
            __________________Prof. William V. Smith____________________
EMail:  smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu  or  uunet!hamblin.math.byu.edu!smithw
SMail:          Math Dept. -- 314 TMCB; BYU; Provo, UT 84602 (USA)
NeXTmail:                   smithw@mathnx.math.byu.edu
Phone:            +1 801 378 2061         FAX:  +1 801 378 2800
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensmithw cudfnDr cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.16 / S Organization /  Re: Pons Says His Motives Are Misunderstood
     
Originally-From: UD186413@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Space Studies Student Organization)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons Says His Motives Are Misunderstood
Date: 16 Jan 91 22:52:54 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network

Anyone have any info as to when the cold fusion episode of Nova will
be rebroadcast?
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenUD186413 cudfnSpace cudlnOrganization cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.17 / A Beveridge /  Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
     
Originally-From: ANDQC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Andrew A. Beveridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
Date: 17 Jan 91 21:58:32 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

I think this show was pre-empted throughout the U.S.  My guess is that it
will be rescheduled when things quiet down.
-------
                        Andrew A. Beveridge
                        Department of Sociology
                        Queens College and Graduate Center
                        City University of New York
                        209 Kissena Hall
                        Flushing, NY 11367  718-520-7093
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenANDQC cudfnAndrew cudlnBeveridge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.18 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 420 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 420 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 1991 17:36:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A small update; you can see I have more time just now. Bockris defends cold
fusion; Hora and Miley patent it, and add the new twist of using it to start
a fission explosion (do we need this?). Degweker+ write some theory for better
neutron bunch resolution, and Russel Jr tells about virtual dineutrons, which
can explain why we find tritium but no heat - for those who find that. I seem
to recall that one cnf experiment was run inside a neutrino detector, no doubt
assuming that this would not disturb the neutrino monitoring; maybe they
should reconsider this.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 18-Jan. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bockris J, Hodko D;                                Chem. & Ind. 22 (1990) 689.
"Is there evidence for cold fusion?"
** A summary of the case for cold fusion, which is a clear "yes" for the
authors. In particular, they emphasise the burst-like nature of cold fusion,
and say that there have been observations of correlated events like tritium
with heat or neutrons or gammas. 77 references are given, many of them of
conference talks, reports, and private communications.               ?/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degweker SB, Srinivasan M;                    Ann. Nucl. Energy 17 (1990) 583.
"A simple dead time method for measuring the fraction of bunched neutronic
emission in cold fusion experiments".
** Previous work in India indicates that when there is neutron emission from
cold fusion, some of it (10-20%) comes in about 20 ms bunches of 400-600.
This paper suggests and provides theory for a dead time technique for
obtaining better resolution in such measurements, using a PC based data
acquisition system.                                             Apr-90/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hora H, Miley GH;         Ger. Offenl. DE 3810806 A1, 11.10.1990 (in German).
"Verfahren und Anordnung zu Kernverschmelzungsreaktionen bei tiefen
Temperaturen" (Method and apparatus for nuclear fusion reactions at low
temperatures).
** Professors Hora and Miley (editor of Fusion Technology) write that the
electrolytic charging of Pd or Ti with deuterium leads to surface
contamination. This is avoided by charging with deuterium gas under pressure,
which is one of their inventions here laid bare. The 9 claims widen this
concept to include any metallic element in "the eighth group of the periodic
table" being exposed to H2, D2 or T2 gas, temperature control during such a
process, absorption of neutrons, alpha or beta emission, the admixture of such
isotopes as (11)B, (6)Li and (7)Li to the metals, attainment of high hydrogen
isotope concentration in the metal, the use of electric discharge towards this
end, the use of high-surface forms of the metals or mixtures thereof, control
of the metal hydrides' compressibility and finally, the use of these processes
for initiating an explosive nuclear fission [sic] reaction. Since this is an
Offenlegungsschrift and not (yet) a full patent, no details are given of how
all this is implemented.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Jr JL;                                Ann. Nucl. Energy 17 (1990) 545.
"Plausibility argument for a suggested mechanism for cold fusion".
** While others (e.g. Schwinger) can explain why cold fusion researchers find
heat but no neutrons or tritium, Russell Jr here explains why they find
tritium but no heat or neutrons or gamma emission. He invokes virtual
dineutrons: a deuteron sits in its place in the palladium lattice, with a
proton hovering nearby. The deuteron briefly captures an electron, becoming a
neutral dineutron, the proton speeds towards the hole thus created, fuses with
the dineutron to become a triton, and the excess energy is carried off by a
neutrino, which nobody sees. Some rough calculations make this plausible; e.g.
the expected lifetime of such a dineutron is long enough for the proton to get
there, etc. The reaction is called dep and is similar to the pep reaction
running in the Sun. Other possible reactions of this sort are considered, but
dep is the most likely one.                                      Apr-90/Oct-90
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Cold Fusion and the Gulf Crisis
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion and the Gulf Crisis
Date: 19 Jan 91 04:55:25 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <828@giga.slc.unisys.com> p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J.
 Smith) writes:
>I'm forwarding the following message from Frank Close, author
>of `Too Hot to Handle':
 
>Here is an amusing, true story that might interest the net.
> .. .
"Sorry. Cold Fusion - that is nuclear; we can't have anything that bears even
>remotely on nuclear  weapons during the Gulf crisis". So the BBC have censored
>it. I  suspect that there is an INTERNATIONAL PLOT here. Fleischmann told me
>last year that he was convinced that Sadam Hussein is developing cold fusion
>weapons; MI5 and the CIA are concerned lest Sadam learn that his secret weapon
>is useless.
 
Sadam Hussein Institiute of Technology is his cold fusion research
organization.  Like every place else the experiments at SHIT run
hot and cold.
                             :-)
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.19 / Paul Houle /  Re: Cold Fusion and the Gulf Crisis
     
Originally-From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion and the Gulf Crisis
Date: 19 Jan 91 18:41:15 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

 
      Lyndon LaRouche's political machine includes two science magazines,
a scientific journal titled 'The International Journal of Fusion Energy" and
a popular magazine titled "21st Century Science and Technology";  They also
print a weekly news magazine called "EIR: Executive Intellegence Review".
Anyway,  I'm a watcher of far-out politcal groups,  especially the LaRouche
organization,  so I used to beg,  borrow and steal copies of these magazines,
and when the cold fusion flap began,  they published quite a few articles
talking about the potential of a cold fusion bomb.  Remember the palladium
cube that 'blew up' <Well,  overheated,  partially melted and vaporized,  and
burned a hole in a concrete floor>?  Anyway,  the LaRouche people seemed to
think that this kind of burst reaction could be used as the trigger for a
themonuclear bomb.
 
	LaRouche's science writers are usually very conversant with the
principles of the thermonuclear bomb,  but they seemed to ignore entirely that
existing thermonuclear bombs require not only high temperatures but also a
high neutron flux for detonation.  Even at that time,  the concensus seemed to
be that cold fusion didn't produce large quantities of neutrons.  Anyway,  I
was thinking the other day that the PLASMAK concept could be used to construct
a thermonuclear bomb.  I'm probably wrong,  but I suspect that Paul Koloc's
PLASMAK generator has most of it's equipment aligned on one axis.  In any
case,  we'd form a plasmoid inside a spherical shell and surround it with a
powerful explosive charge.  If we can get high enough instaneous pressures
and temperatures,  reaction rates should be high enough to produce the
neutron and radiation fluxes needed to ignite a LiD charge.  Seems to me that
a D/T fuel mix might work in the plasmoid,  although the design of the bomb
would probably have to modified to account for the different distribution of
gamma rays from the igniter.
 
	If this line of development is being worked on by the DOD/DOE,  I'd
tend to think it is highly secret.  Examination of projects being worked on
at the national laboratories seem to show that there is a definate effort
towards the development of pure fusion nuclear explosives.  Except for the
fact that such bombs could be made "cleaner" and possibly "smaller" than
existing TN bombs,  it's hard to see why this line of development would be
useful to existing TN powers,  except to establish that such a device can
be constructed,  because it's conceivible that pure fusion weapons could
proliferate more easily than weapons based on high-grade fissionables.
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpahsnsr cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.17 / Rick Ellis /  NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
     
Originally-From: rick@ofa123.fidonet.org (Rick Ellis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
Date: 17 Jan 91 22:20:39 GMT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc.

On <Jan 16 14:45> Jeff Leavey writes:
 
 JL>  Did anyone see the fusion program?  Anyone know why PBS canceled out?
 
In the Los Angeles area both PBS stations were running a special about the
problems in the Gulf.  I assume PBS decided not to feed Nova this week.
 
 
--
Rick Ellis
Internet: rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
BBS: 714 939-1041
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrick cudfnRick cudlnEllis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.21 / Paul Shawcroft /  Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
     
Originally-From: paul@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Paul Shawcroft)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
Date: 21 Jan 91 17:36:50 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University -- Mathematics Department

In article <2204.27962456@ofa123.fidonet.org>, rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
(Rick Ellis) writes:
> On <Jan 16 14:45> Jeff Leavey writes:
>
>  JL>  Did anyone see the fusion program?  Anyone know why PBS canceled out?
>
> In the Los Angeles area both PBS stations were running a special about the
> problems in the Gulf.  I assume PBS decided not to feed Nova this week.
 
The PBS station in Utah is carrying the fusion program Monday evening
at 10:30.  Other stations might be carrying it at that time as well.
 
Paul Shawcroft
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnShawcroft cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.24 / Jon Webb /  New Scientist Article on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Scientist Article on Cold Fusion
Date: 24 Jan 91 22:53:41 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

There a couple of interesting articles in the 19 January 1991 New
Scientist on Cold Fusion.  They have a con article by Frank Close,
followed by a pro article by John Bockris.  Both seem completely firm in
their opinions.  Bockris refers to the various evidence he claims has
accumulated that cold fusion is real.  He also cites a couple of
personal incidents where his laboratory was accused of lax security or
forgery by the anti-cold fusion people (without mentioning he's talking
about himself).
 
There's also a brief piece in the same issue about the rift between Pons
and Fleischmann and the Cold Fusion Institute.  They've been instructed
to turn their laboratory notebooks over for review, etc.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenwebb cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.25 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 422 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 422 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 1991 15:26:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Another small update, including a couple of old items previously booked: I
have finally received the Zelentsov and translated it, and found that I had
not actually seen the Cribier until now (the volume was with the binders at
the time). Zelentsov interests me because he gives more detail about Paneth's
life, and casually mentions that cold fusion was confirmed at Kharkov in early
1989. He also calls Fleischmann one-time Czech, which is true but goes back
rather a long way. The Azbel item tells us that we are looking at the wrong
materials but not what the right ones are; it may stimulate a search for them,
if any.
 I have received Frank Close's book and am reading it as fast as is compatible
with a thorough reading and family demands... I'll report as soon as. Anyone
out there have his email address? You could let me know directly, instead of
via this news group, if he doesn't want to be swamped? Thanks.
 Close has also boiled the book down to article-size for New Scientist, see
below; he pronounces cold fusion dead. On the other hand, in Part II, Bockris
stands the corpse on its feet and says it lives. Decide for yourselves.
 Somewhere I read recently that Wilner had anticipated the self-targeting
experiments of the '50's, already in the '40's, and indeed he had, as his
paper shows, see below. Interesting reading, good old string and sealing wax
stuff. The paper has little relevance to cold fusion but some to cluster
impact fusion, in the way of background (cif must explain itself in terms of
well known self targeting conditions).
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 25-Jan. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azbel MYa;                                 Solid State Commun. 76 (1990) 127.
"Possibility of cold fusion".
** Having stated that cold fusion - as practised until now - has been
disproved, A looks at the theory of Leggett and Baym, which showed that it
is indeed not on. A asks, what conditions might make it possible? They are:
a material in which high deuterium concentrations can be achieved, in which
there are narrow electron bands and wide electron gaps and in which there is
a highly energetic metastable state with d-d distances of around 0.1
Aangstroms. Pd and Ti are not suitable.                         May-90/Oct-90
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cribier M, Spiro M, Favier J;                 Phys. Lett. B 228 (1989) 163.
"Conventional sources of fast neutrons in cold fusion experiments".
** A source of n is the dissociation of D by alpha particles from naturally
occurring radioisotopes such as U and Th, present as impurities in most
materials. These decay to radon, which is not removed from Pd or Ti simply by
heating, and will perhaps desorb under electrolysis and cause neutron emission
by alpha particles' reaction with the D2O in the electrolyte. The electrolyte
should be gas flushed to prevent this artifact. Some preliminary calculations
show that about 50000 Bq of impurities are needed, or three times this if the
reaction takes place inside the metal, for Jones+ neutron levels. This is a
little high. Adsorbed radon on the metal surface, however, might help. Look
out for this effect if you are measuring cold fusion neutrons.
                                                             19-May-89/Sep-89
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zelentsov VV;                     Koord. Khim. 19 (1989) 1296 (in Russian).
"New but well forgotten [matters]"
** Submitted on April 27, 1989, this is a report of the paper by Fleischmann
and Pons (and Hawkins). As with the ceramic superconductivity sensation, cold
fusion led to many labs around the world trying to reproduce the results;
At the Kharkov Physico-technical Institute, cold fusion was confirmed; they
found tritium and helium (3) by deuterium ion implantation into Pd at -130
to -150 degC (no further details given). Z calls Fleischmann the erstwhile
Czech scientist. He then goes on to point out that this sensation is not new,
and describes the work of Paneth and Peters of 1926 (Z's only reference).
Paneth apparently left for Britain in 1933, returned to Germany in 1953 but
apparently never returned to his cold fusion work of the '20's. Z then
muses that Nature does not distinguish between physics and chemistry, and
so the future of scientific endeavour lies in a unified approach.  27-Apr-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Comment, news
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bockris J;                         New Scientist 129 (1990)(1752) 50 (19 Jan).
"Cold fusion II: the story continues".
** Unlike Frank Close, who writes Part I, p.46, in the same issue, JB is
convinced that cold fusion takes place. He concentrates on the technical
evidence, and points out some strong results, such as neutron bursts correlated
with a rise in tritium level. He summarises the pros and cons in a table.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close F;                           New Scientist 129 (1990)(1752) 46 (19 Jan).
"Cold fusion I: the discovery that never was".
** A condensate of Close's book, which has just appeared. Close pronounces
cold fusion dead, and goes behind the scenes to prove it. According to him,
the prominent figures in this field have been less than honest on some crucial
points. He dismisses the persistent small group of researchers with positive
results with "... though it is still being pursued in isolated pockets around
the globe". See also Part II, by Bockris.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Published articles peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilner T;                                  Elementa 31 (1948) 13 (in Swedish).
"Nuclear-physical experiments with simple means".
** TW, in his spare time, put together an ion beam setup, constructed from
obsolete lab gear and some common household items such as a cycle frame tube,
a kitchen heating plate and a football bladder ("used much like a bagpipe").
As a warm-up, he bombarded a Li target with protons at 13 kV (keV?), and
detected the alpha particles with a scintillation layer of a mineral
containing ZnS (using a watchmakers' loup). He then made deuterium by
electrolysing heavy water and used this for a deuterium beam, which he aimed
at a heavy water target mixed with P2O5 (in order to keep down the pressure),
and detected the ensuing neutrons with a LiF detector. He also tried
activation of In by the neutrons, which produces the isotope (116)In, decaying
to tin. The deuterium beam experiment foreshadows the "self-targeting"
experiments of the 1950's, and the indium attempt reminds of the modern
technique of neutron activation analysis.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.26 / Mark Perew /  Bomb Damage Effects Computer
     
Originally-From: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org (Mark Perew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bomb Damage Effects Computer
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 16:38:27 PST
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc.

Several years ago I purchased a "Bomb Damage Effects Computer"
from the Rand Corporation.  Unfortunately I seem to have lost
it and Rand no longer sells them.
 
Can someone tell me where I could find a similar device?
 
In case you are not familiar with the item to which I refer
it is a small circular sliderule-type device that if given
the megatonnage and altitude of a device it will provide
the resultant fireball radius (or crater size for ground
burst).  I have found it useful in providing information
on just how much damage a <N> megaton bomb does.
 
If there are relatively straightforward formulae for computing
this type of information I would be interested in looking at them.
 
I do not normally read this newsgroup so please respond by e-mail.
 
Thank you.
 
 
 
--
Mark Perew
Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPerew cudfnMark cudlnPerew cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.28 / John McCauley /  Re: Bomb Damage Effects Computer
     
Originally-From: jsm@lyman.pppl.gov (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bomb Damage Effects Computer
Date: 28 Jan 91 15:28:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

In article <2305.27A2FA28@ofa123.fidonet.org> Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
 (Mark Perew) writes:
>Several years ago I purchased a "Bomb Damage Effects Computer"
>from the Rand Corporation.  Unfortunately I seem to have lost
>it and Rand no longer sells them.
>
>Can someone tell me where I could find a similar device?
>
One source of information:
 
"The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan.
The Third edition is dated 1977. It is published by DoD and ERDA (DoE).
You should be able to order through a bookstore, though you might have to
go to a government bookstore. I don't have an ISBN, but the Library of
Congress catalog number is UF767.E33 1977.
 
Included at the back is the "death wheel" aka the "Nuclear Bomb Effects
Computer", Revised Edition, 1977, developed by The Lovelace Biomedical
and Environmental Research Institue, Inc.
 
I've never heard of the Rand wheel -- does anyone know if the Lovelace and
the Rand wheel are similar?
 
In addition to discussing one form of fusion that seems to work, the H-bomb,
this book also has useful information that can be applied somewhat to other
forms of fusion.
 
	    Hope this helps,
 
		   Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.29 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 422 papers on cnf) THE
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 422 papers on cnf) THE
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 1991 19:26:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I bring you Frank Close's book, with a short comment on it. I have, in fact,
two pages of notes from it but the reference is not the place to go into them.
It is a marvellous account of The Affair. I used to be neutral on the issue,
but have to say that after reading in the book about the extent of the evasions
by the big players, their misleading statements and the way they have ignored
technical issues that they must either have known or should have known, I am,
to say the least, extremely skeptical.
 None of the claims stand up to close examination. I guess we all know that
the FPH paper, which started it all, is flawed and wrong on all counts; one
has had to retreat to saying, OK, that was wrong but lots of people have, in
the meantime, had definite positive results, and even theories of cold fusion.
It seems that this is not so. FC gives very cogent arguments that the famous
anomalous branching ratio cannot be different (as Terry Bollinger has done);
that the He branch(es) would also lead to measurable radiation; that you
cannot get tritium without also seeing (secondary) neutrons; that the
early claim of p-d fusion - thought for a while to explain reports of excess
heat in light water as well - will not do; that Bockris' favourite theory -
that there be dendrites accelerating deuterons with their high voltage fields
- does not hold water (presumably a similar argument can demolish
fractofusion theories). Knowing some of Bockris' excellent electrochemistry
texts, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know this already. So why
propound the theory? This, in fact, is the big question: how come these
scientists, some of whom are eminences from way back, can have been led astray
to this extent? Why did they not jump off at some point when the jumping was
still good (as I take it Kevin Wolf did)?
 What is left? I have yet to find a flaw (the flaw) in the FPALH (1990) paper,
and FC reports excess heat results by Hutchinson, which we'll have to wait for
to be published. Everyone (i.e. believers) quotes Huggins for heat but where
is the publication? In fact, FC argues that it was shoddy work.
 There are a few small bugs in the book but these are minor. I was irritated
to see John Tandberg spelled "Tanberg" consistently, including in the index,
and I think Hegelstein is a reference to Hagelstein. FPH's "0.8eV" is known to
be an error, and should have been 0.8V; FC has eV. FPH do not actually say
that this means a pressure of 10**27 atmospheres inside the PdD lattice, it is
in fact the fugacity of deuterium gas that would be in equilibrium with a
loading giving this 0.8V figure, and they leave us to draw our own
conclusions. These are small quibbles and the errors not get between the
message and the reader. As FC says in the beginning: "A modern parable of the
King and the Invisible Raiment".
                   ------------------------------------
  Talking of errors: Todd Greene pointed out to me politely, that I have
goofed once more. My interpretation of the paper by Wagner, Moylan et al
(1990) was wrong in part. I thought they were talking about the thermoneutral
potential's (the 1.54 V's) temperature dependence as a possible artifact,
leading to a falsely calculated excess heat. On careful re-reading I find Todd
is correct, that they are in fact talking about the cell resistance. As a
teacher of electrochemistry I should be ashamed of myself (and I am); I didn't
bother to look up the numbers, which come to only a few mV from room
temperature to boiling, Todd tells me (I still haven't looked it up). Sorry,
good people.
  This means that what Wagner et al are pointing out would be eliminated by
conscientious monitoring or control of both cell current and voltage. This has
to be done with the Nyquist criterion in mind, i.e. sampling at a rate at
least twice the highest-frequency component of the signal or conversely,
low-pass filtering the measured signal with a cut-off at half the sampling
frequency. I have one foot in signal processing, and find that few
electrochemists are aware of this, although I expect Fleischmann to be; he IS
a great scientist.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 29-Jan. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close F;
"Too Hot to Handle"
WH Allen,   London 1990;   ISBN 1 85227 206 6.
** The whole story of cold fusion, warts and all (mostly warts in fact). FC
gets behind the scenes and reveals an amazing web of intrigue, suspicion,
evasion and downright deceit, all in the area of scientific research, thought
by many to be practiced in a cool and thoughtful manner. As well as the more
personal (but nevertheless important) matters, FC also examines all the
technical issues, and demolishes almost all claims of cold fusion and
explanations put forward for them, often in an enviably lucid way. There
remain only a few isolated positive results for which we as yet do not have
an explanation, due to the lack of data.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.18 / S Organization /  Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
     
Originally-From: UD186413@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Space Studies Student Organization)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA program on cold fusion 1/15/91
Date: 18 Jan 91 20:27:21 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network

I called our local public TV station today and asked them when the
episode in question would be shown.  They said they did not know
exactly, but it would be some time in the summer, and to watch the
listings in the paper.
 
I don't know if this rescheduling is on a national level, or is local.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenUD186413 cudfnSpace cudlnOrganization cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.19 / S Organization /  Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: UD186413@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Space Studies Student Organization)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 19 Jan 91 20:37:47 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network

I read in this news group that Dr. Pons claimed to use a "special
trick" to get his cold fusion expiriment to work correctly, but he
refused to reveal the nature of this trick.
 
My background in chemistry and physics is a little shakey, but
consider this theory:  the trick is tilting the cell (perhaps
about 45 degrees).  If the cell were tilted, the oxygen and
heavy hydrogen would mix and flow over one of the electrodes as
they bubbled to the surface.  Since both gasses would be present
at the platinum electrode, maybe the platinum is acting as a
catalyst.  The catalytic reaction between heavy hydrogen and oxygen
would produce heavy water, so no new substances would be present,
as well as releasing large amounts of heat.
 
I am not suggesting that Dr. Pons is trying to trick the public
with false claims using this method (or even that this is the
trick he is alluding to).  I also realize that this hypothesis
does not account for the radiation measured in the experiment,
but merely state the possibility for the sake of argument.
 
The paper published by Pons and Fleischmann also mentioned one
experiment that melted part of their apparatus.  They described
this as "ignition".  Could this have been caused by the temperature
of the platinum electrode becoming so high as to ignite the
heavy hydrogen/oxygen mix (assuming the setup I described above)?
 
Comments/criticisms welcome!
 
 
=======================================================================
John Nordlie   |   "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
University     |    The Shadow knows! Ha Ha Ha Ha!"
of             |               - 'The Shadow' : Old time radio show
North Dakota   |
=======================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenUD186413 cudfnSpace cudlnOrganization cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.30 / Patrick Smith /  NOVA program
     
Originally-From: p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NOVA program
Date: 30 Jan 91 18:28:54 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
 
The NOVA program on Cold Fusion did finally air in the Utah area, and,
I understand, has not aired elsewhere.  It seems to be an altered
version of the BBC Horizon documentary that was shown in March, 1990.
More recent information was added, such as the resignation of U of U
President Chase N. Peterson, and the disappearance of Pons from the
Salt Lake City area, and his reappearance in France.  The formation of
the independent review committee (Adair et al.) is mentioned, but the
results of that review are not.
 
The Petrasso et al. criticism of the gamma spectra is described, but
they do not include the (very recently released) information in Frank
Close's book `Too Hot to Handle,' regarding Pons' unexplained shift of
the gamma peak data from its measured energy of 2.5 MeV to 2.2 MeV
(also see the recent New Scientist article).
 
Douglas Morrison describes the regionalization of results; e.g.,
Southern Europe vs. Northern Europe, and the similarity to examples of
"Pathological Science."
 
Steven Jones' work is described briefly, along with its proposed
relationship to the heat in the Earth's core.  He describes a meeting
with Pons and Fleischmann in which he showed them his neutron data,
which excited them.  He said that at that time he didn't realize what
grandiose ideas they had, and that their nuclear physics "wasn't too
solid."  (This meeting is a key to understanding the sequence of events
that followed.)
 
Moshe Gai of Yale claimed that following his announcement of severe
upper limits on fusion, he had received a lot of mail accusing him of
trying to destroy something of immense value to society, etc.  He said
that all he wanted to do was just perform "one clean experiment."
 
John Maddox explained that, in his view, the whole thing had resulted
from Pons and Fleischmann's self imposed secrecy, and the consequent
isolation from the rest of the scientific community.
 
Fleischmann claimed that with the results they had by the beginning of
March (1989), there was no way they could keep it quiet.  A number of
patents had been filed by that time, and "it was the patents which
were driving" the announcement.  He said that he still believes that
there are a set of nuclear processes responsible for the reported
phenomena.  But again, these interviews are now more than a year old.
 
Anyway, it's a worthwhile program for those interested in cold
fusion, just for the interviews with key investigators if not
otherwise.  I have the following number for those who wish to order
the tape:  212-227-READ
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.31 /   /   Ancient History
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Ancient History
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 17:56:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>With reference to T. Vilner  in Elementa 31(1948)13 Dieter says:
>The deuteron beam experiment foreshadows the "self-targeting" experiments
>of the 1950's, and the indium attempt reminds of the modern technique of
>neutron activation analysis.
 
Not to discount what Vilner did, I think Dieter has perhaps given Vilner
too much credit for originallity.  Vilner's method for inducing the d-d
reaction seems to be pretty much the same as that employed by others
10-15 years earlier, and successful neutron activation experiments date
back to the work of Fermi published in 1934.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.01 /  D_BROADHURST@v /         chance meeting
     
Originally-From: D_BROADHURST@vax.acs.open.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:        chance meeting
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 1991 05:30:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I met Martin Fleischmann and Guliano Preparata at the LEP discussion meeting
at the Royal Society, in London, yesterday and today. I hope that Fleischmann
enjoyed a break from CNF controversy listening to the talks on how well the
Standard Model of particle physics has fared now the 10^6 or so Z_0 events at
CERN have been analyzed. I know that Guliano feels that the lack of challenge
to the standard model parallels an orthodoxy of the scientific community in
largely disregarding CNF, which is not a view I share (as it seems to me that
the standard model gave lots of opportunity for falsification, and has
survived intact).
 
At coffee I asked Fleischmann if he still felt that there were worthwhile CNF
experiments being done and got the impression that he did. I did not press
for details, but India was mentioned. It was good to see that he seemed
cheerful. Personally I like people to stick to their guns, even when I am
skeptical. I was struck by two things he said. Apologies in advance if I have
not got them quite right; some of it was outside my competence, as a field
theorist.
 
First, he said that perhaps tritium and nuclear radiation are an
'aberration'. I asked him to elaborate and as far as I could understand he
meant not that they weren't there, but rather that they were not 'central'.
In general terms the picture I got was that he felt that spectacular heat
production and low level nuclear activity share some common and unknown
cause. It was clear that he did not expect them to be in any way
commensurable, nor necessarily always associated.
 
Second, he said that at an early stage he expected that the heat production
was signalling something that would take a lot of time, expertise and
research money to unravel and that the failure of a big established lab to
take this job on has been a frustration to his work.
 
I also gathered that he may be talking about his work soon, but would like a
bit of quiet before bracing himself for the next bout of public attention.
 
Sorry that this is rather impressionistic reporting. I did not want to press
matters, being more concerned to wish him well, as a stranger and
non-combatant.  It felt much better to be chatting as scientists from
different fields at a meeting, instead of reading press reports about dubious
goings on. Looking up at the paintings I was reminded of past controversy
between Newton and Hooke and comforted myself with the thought that whilst
personalities are important in physics, they are not of the essence.
 
Speaking entirely for myself,
 
David Broadhurst
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Dr D J Broadhurst      ! Janet:            d_broadhurst@uk.ac.open.acs.vax !
! Physics Department     ! Bitnet/Earn/Uucp: d_broadhurst@vax.acs.open.ac.uk !
! The Open University    ! Telephone:        (+44) 908 653873                !
! Milton Keynes MK7 6AA  ! T'fax:            (+44) 908 653744                !
! UK                     ! Telex:            825061 ouwalt g                 !
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenD_BROADHURST cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.01.30 / Patrick Smith /  Signing off
     
Originally-From: p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Signing off
Date: 30 Jan 91 22:55:56 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
 
I'm leaving the country for a while, so perhaps someone else in the
Salt Lake City area can send out the local news.
 
Adios.
 
-Patrick
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.01 / Kevin Ryan /  Is a fusion plasma chaotic?
     
Originally-From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is a fusion plasma chaotic?
Date: 1 Feb 91 20:42:22 GMT
Organization: Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

 
    I've heard a bit about how difficult it is to control a plasma in a
tokomak or other **mak fusion device. Does the plasma exhibit chaotic
behavior, in the physical sense, or is it just plain difficult to
contain?
 
    My question is motivated by an article in the most recent Science
News, where a group of Navy scientists have succeeded in containing a
chaotic system to a single point on its chaotic attractor by modulating
just one of any number of possible disturbances. This control seems
capable of working even in the presence of noise and measurement error.
In this fashion they can force the system to exhibit only _one_ form of
oscillation, one resonance, rather than drifting through its attractor.
This control does not require accurate knowledge of the system, either,
just some observations on the chaotic attractor and how it changes under
modulation of system factors.
 
    It occurred to me that _if_ a plasma was difficult to contain due to
chaotic behavior, then this might be a useful approach to investigate.
 
                                                    kwr
 
Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudfnKevin cudlnRyan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.02 / Mike Butts /  Patents published in Europe yet?
     
Originally-From: mbutts@mentorg.com (Mike Butts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patents published in Europe yet?
Date: 2 Feb 91 00:43:15 GMT
Organization: engr

>Fleischmann claimed that with the results they had by the beginning of
>March (1989), there was no way they could keep it quiet.  A number of
>patents had been filed by that time, and "it was the patents which
>were driving" the announcement.
 
While patents filed in the US are kept secret by the patent office until they
are issued, this is not always the case elsewhere.  While the possibilities are
complex, and I'm no attorney, it is often the case that patent applications
which are filed in Europe are published by the World Intellectual Property
Organization in Geneva 18 months after they were filed, whether they have
issued, are going to issue, or not.  Patent attorneys, and I believe also those
with access to DIALOG or the like, can make searches by inventor's name,
subject, etc., to identify them.
 
It seems likely that P&F filed worldwide if they have filed in the US, and it's
been more than 18 months since March 1989...has anyone with the ability run a
check lately on the major players?
--
Michael Butts, Research Engineer          KC7IT          503-626-1302(fax:1282)
Mentor Graphics Corporation, 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, Oregon   97005
...tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts    uunet!mntgfx!mbutts     mbutts@mentor.com
Any opinions are my own, and aren't necessarily shared by Mentor Graphics Corp.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmbutts cudfnMike cudlnButts cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.02 / David Basiji /  NeXT computer WANTED
     
Originally-From: basiji@milton.u.washington.edu (David Basiji)
Newsgroups:
 misc.forsale.computers,misc.forsale,misc.wanted,uw.forsale,pnw.forsale,na.forsa
 le
Subject: NeXT computer WANTED
Date: 2 Feb 91 09:04:41 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

 
You gotta Next?  You wanna sell?  Please e-mail basiji@u.washington.edu
with a description of the system, condition, and asking price (including
shipping).  Thanks,
	David Basiji
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbasiji cudfnDavid cudlnBasiji cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Is a fusion plasma chaotic?
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is a fusion plasma chaotic?
Date: 3 Feb 91 05:51:27 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <YbeR_iK00Uh7Q2vHMN@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin
 William Ryan) writes:
>
>    I've heard a bit about how difficult it is to control a plasma in a
>tokomak or other **mak fusion device. Does the plasma exhibit chaotic
>behavior, in the physical sense, or is it just plain difficult to
>contain?
 
Well, its often described as ``turbulent'', but thats just a catch-all
phrase that means it transports heat to the walls much faster than
expected. ``Turbulent'' is essentially synonymous with ``lots of
transport that we don't understand''.
 
Whether turbulence is chaos, in the sense that a system is traversing
a strange attractor (the Ruelle-Tokens notion of turbulence) is not
clear. Thats the image often evoked in fluid dynamics, but it may
not be the same for plasma turbulence (= abundant transport),
which may be something
quite specific like enhanced heat flux due to correlations between
ion gyration and small scale electric field fluctuations.
 
>
>    My question is motivated by an article in the most recent Science
>News, where a group of Navy scientists have succeeded in containing a
>chaotic system to a single point on its chaotic attractor by modulating
>just one of any number of possible disturbances.
 
>This control does not require accurate knowledge of the system, either,
>just some observations on the chaotic attractor and how it changes under
>modulation of system factors.
>
 
>    It occurred to me that _if_ a plasma was difficult to contain due to
>chaotic behavior, then this might be a useful approach to investigate.
>
 
Some differences:
 
 
(1) The Tokamak plasma does not have a chaotic attractor---the terminal state
is for the plasma to disperse (hitting the walls in reality).
So the problem is more one of confinement than chaos. (Though
of course these could be related.)
 
(2) If a magnetized fusion plasma did have a chaotic attractor,
it would be very high dimensional (dimension on the order
billions, at least) due to the number of degrees of freedom in the system.
The navy guys apparently had a 1 dimensional
attractor. Big difference. Essentially, The plasma is like a
field of billions of their
metal wires, coupled together and vibrating. Much more challenging
to control. Remember you have only a very coarse knob to turn---the
large scale applied magnetic fields (whereas they controled
the applied field on their single strand). And what you do to this knob
is constrained by other confinment issues, too.
 
(3) They seemed overly optimistic in their article---they were already
fantasizing about controlling virtually every kind of chaotic system.
But their method is to repeatedly nudge the system back towards
a desired state, using computed values for the requisite nudges.
Imagine trying to do this on a spatially distributed system without
a global force as a knob (they used Electromagnetic fields), like
say a turbulent fluid in a pipe. Even describing the state you
want it in could be quite difficult, since the states are
very complicated. And focusing on one small portion of the system
simply isn't going to control the whole thing, since the coupling
is not that strong (Lack of global force).
What they did is neat, but they have a long
way to go to show they can control chaos in a huge variety of systems.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.03 / Mark Thorson /  Re: But what about AbuTaha's theory?
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: But what about AbuTaha's theory?
Date: 3 Feb 91 23:39:53 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Who is Ali AbuTaha?  He's also got a theory about the Challenger disaster
(see my posting in sci.space.shuttle).
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.04 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 424 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 424 papers on cnf)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 1991 15:20:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Koonin has previously thrown cold water on sufficiently enhanced cold fusion
rates in the Pd lattice, now he and Mukerjee do the same for the anomalous
branching ratios, by actually calculating them under various conditions. There
is not much in it, certainly not the 7 orders of magnitude claimed by those
who try to explain the absence of (variously) tritium or neutrons in this way.
In any case, Close has closed off :) even that avenue.
Having read Barry Fox's report of the world patent application, I got myself
a copy of it; it's fat (about 100 pp) and covers a lot of ground. The basis
seems to be partly the FPALH paper, but neutron bursts are claimed, as well
as tritium, and what to do with these lovelies when you've got them.
 One small point of note, for me particularly: the text names a chemical
potential of 0.5eV, possibly as much as 2eV, and that a skilled person will
recognise that this is equivalent to 0.5V etc. So I seem to be wrong about the
original FPH (1989) paper being wrong with that 0.8eV, as quoted by Close. I
must read some basic physics, I really must, to become one of those skilled
persons.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 4-Feb. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koonin SE, Mukerjee M;                             Phys. Rev. C42 (1990) 1639.
"Branching ratios in low-energy deuteron-induced reactions".
** Using a second-order Born approximation to the Schroedinger equation, K&M
arrive at an expression for the branching ratio which turns out to vary by at
most 10% from unity. This is at variance with earlier work by others on the
d+(6)Li reaction, as well as with cold fusion claims, who all come in for
criticism here. It is pointed out that low-energy beam fusion and muon
catalysed fusion all have about unity branching ratio, which nullifies
statements about cluster impact, fracto- or dendrite fusion branching ratio
anomalies.                                                       Mar-90/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pons S, Fleischmann M, Walling CT, Simons JP;
World Pat. Appl. WO 90/10935.  12 March 1990.
"Method and apparatus for power generation".
** about 100 pp.; it starts off by naming 7 earlier US pat. applications,
going back to March 13, 1989, of specific claims such as heat generation,
neutron beam method, power generation. This one combines all of these, and
"relates to methods and apparatuses for generating heat, neutrons, tritium or
electrical power, and in one illustration, to an apparatus which utilises heat
produced by compressing low atomic weight nuclei in a metal lattice under
conditions which produce excess heat, possibly involving nuclear fusion".
A number of materials, preferably palladium or other metals, are suggested,
as well as deuterium, to produce heat, tritium and "neutron beams" by
collimation; these can then be used for neutron radiography, - diffraction,
- activation, etc. In all, 50 claims are made. New ideas, not previously
exposed in the authors' publications, are the formation of the isotopic
hydride by transfer from another hydride (LiD etc) to the metal; and the use
of radioactive dopants in order to knock the PdD lattice with neutrons, alpha
or beta particles.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Comment, news
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waanders FB, Smit JJA;     Spectrum (Pretoria) 28(3) (1990) 46 (in Afrikaans).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:12958 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion".
** "A review with 4 refs. on the controversy surrounding cold fusion claims of
M. Fleischmann et al (1989)".
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.04 / C Goedde /  Re: Is a fusion plasma chaotic?
     
Originally-From: goedde@shape.mps.ohio-state.edu (Christopher G. Goedde)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is a fusion plasma chaotic?
Date: 4 Feb 91 17:24:53 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University

In article <1036@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
 writes:
 
>(2) If a magnetized fusion plasma did have a chaotic attractor,
>it would be very high dimensional (dimension on the order
>billions, at least) due to the number of degrees of freedom in the system.
 
 
 
Minor nit:  This is not true.  Such an attractor (if it existed) could
be very low dimensional.
 
Chris Goedde
goedde@shape.mps.ohio-state.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengoedde cudfnChristopher cudlnGoedde cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.05 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Is a fusion plasma chaotic?
     
Originally-From: mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is a fusion plasma chaotic?
Date: 5 Feb 91 00:57:26 GMT
Organization: Intstitute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD

In article <YbeR_iK00Uh7Q2vHMN@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin
 William Ryan) writes:
>
>    I've heard a bit about how difficult it is to control a plasma in a
>tokomak or other **mak fusion device. Does the plasma exhibit chaotic
>behavior, in the physical sense, or is it just plain difficult to
>contain?
 
Yes.  I'm not an expert on this matter, but I believe that
non-classical turbulent phenomena are responsible for "anomalous cooling", i.e.
a faster cooling rate than one would ordinarily expect through 2-body
collisions & kinetic theory.
 
Note that strong "turbulence" is even more complicated than what's
ordinarily meant as "chaos".
 
>
>    My question is motivated by an article in the most recent Science
>News, where a group of Navy scientists have succeeded in containing a
>chaotic system to a single point on its chaotic attractor by modulating
>just one of any number of possible disturbances.
 
>
>    It occurred to me that _if_ a plasma was difficult to contain due to
>chaotic behavior, then this might be a useful approach to investigate.
 
Perhaps.  My personal out-of-left-field idea is to use chaos to in fact
create a non-thermal energy distribution---i.e. increase the population of
particles at the high energy-tail, which are responsible for all the
fusion anyway.  Fusion rate is very sensitive to particle energy, so a little
bit may go a long way.  (This idea is inspired by recent Soviet work
that showed how in some model nonlinear dynamical system charged particles
can get 'stochastically accelerated' to high energies.)
 
>                                                    kwr
>Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
 
Matt K
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.08 / D Danforth /  'Cold Fusion' verdict may be delivered soon
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 'Cold Fusion' verdict may be delivered soon
Date: 8 Feb 91 01:03:50 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, February 7, 1991
 
		 'COLD FUSION' VERDICT MAY BE DELIVERED SOON
			     by Jerry E. Bishop
		  Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal
 
A showdown on "cold fusion" is in the making.
 
The two chemists who claim to have discovered "cold fusion" have opened their
latest experiments to a team of University of Utah scientists to check the
chemists' claim that the trials yield excess heat.
 
At the same time, lawyers have applied for the last of nine "cold fusion"
patents covering the two chemists' work. This opens the way for the chemists
to fulfill a promise to disclose a recent discovery that, they say, allows
them to reproduce their heat-making "cold fusion" experiments.
 
The two chemists startled the wold in March 1989 by claiming that their
simple table-top experiment, conducted at room temperature, was producing
more energy than it was consuming. They said that the excess energy, produced
as heat, was coming from the fusion of hydrogen atoms, a phenomenon that was
thought to occur only under conditions comparable to those inside the sun.
The inability of hundreds of other researchers to duplicate the results has
led most scientists to dismiss the "cold fusion" claims as spurious.
 
The supposed key to reproducing active "cold fusion" experiments will
probably be disclosed in two scientific papers being prepared for
publication, says one of the chemists, Martin Fleischmann of the University
of Southampton in England.
 
The papers "are very, very important; they have some very exciting stuff in
them," says C. Gary Triggs, a Morganton, N. C., lawyer who has become the
spokesman for Mr. Fleischmann's partner in the experiments, University of
Utah chemist B. Stanley Pons.
 
So, by the end of February or March, the fate of "cold fusion" research may
well be decided - as will the scientific reputations of Messrs. Pons and
Fleischmann.
 
"The issue is being forced," says Fritz G. Will, director of the National
Cold Fusion Institute, the University of Utah research center set up in Salt
Lake City by the state of Utah in the afterglow of Messrs. Pons' and
Fleischmann's dramatic claim of "cold fusion" in March 1989.
 
Mr. Will has good reason to want verification of Messrs. Pons and
Fleischmann's claims: His institute may lose its state funding unless there
is new evidence that "cold fusion" isn't a dead end.
 
Though the pair continues to provide few specifics, they claim major
progress. Reached by telephone at his home in England Mr. Fleischmann says,
"Every time we do more experiments, we go slightly farther down the road." He
denies a rumor that one of their experiments has be producing a kilowatt of
excess heat. If true, that would leave little question that a new energy
source had been found, but Mr. Fleischmann says it is far too much heat to
handle in a laboratory experiment.
 
Mr. Fleischmann adds, however, that the experiments are producing increasing
amounts of heat. In their original report in 1989, Mr. Fleischmann says, the
chemists claimed that for limited and unpredictable periods their experiments
produced excess heat equivalent to about 100 Watts for each cubic centimeter
of palladium used in the experimental apparatus.
 
"We now have more [heat] than that," Mr. Fleischmann says. Asked how much
more, he says, "We've always been aiming toward a demonstration cell of
several hundred Watts" of excess heat per cubic centimeter of palladium.
 
The much-publicized "cold fusion" experiment applies an electric current to a
palladium metal rod and an encircling platinum wire that are immersed in a
laboratory bottle of "heavy" water. The apparatus is essentially an
electrolysis-of-water "cell" common in high school chemistry classrooms,
except that the electrodes are precious metals and the electrolyte is heavy
water, in which the hydrogen atoms are the doubly heavy kind known as
deuterium. The controversy rages over claims that the fusion of deuterium
atoms inside the palladium rod releases excess energy.
 
Mr. Pons made his claim that he and Mr. Fleischmann had found a key to the
"reproducibility" of excess heat experiments to a closed session of a
committee of four non-Utah scientists last November. The ad-hoc review
committee was set up by a state panel charged with supervising the
disbursement of $5 million voted by the Utah legislature for "cold fusion"
research. After interviewing the "cold fusion" researchers, each of the four
scientists wrote a report, copies of which are now circulating among
scientists.
 
The four outside scientists agree in their reports that Mr. Pons said "he can
now reproduce an 'excess heat' event," in the words of Stanley Bruckenstein
of the State University of New York at Buffalo, who was the ad hoc
committee's electrochemistry expert.
 
Mr. Pons "stated that after about nine to 10 days of electrolysis, a large
'excess heat' event occurs," Mr. Bruckenstein's report says. Mr. Pons "stated
that the reproducible 'excess heat event' experiment created so much excess
heat" that there was no longer any question that it was producing more energy
as heat than it was consuming electrically, the report adds.
 
Mr. Pons was closemouthed, however, on how to reproduce an excess heat
experiment, reports chemist Loren G. Hepler of the University of Alberta in
Edmonton, the committee's expert on measuring heat output. Mr. Hepler's
report adds: "This reviewer had the feeling that Pons was willing to tell
all, but the patent lawyer restrained him. In any case, Pons did tell us very
clearly that he will (later, after the patent application is filed) be
willing to explain to others his new and better procedure so that his results
can be checked by 'outsiders.'"
 
Caution was urged by the physicist member of the committee, Robert K. Adair
of Yale University. He notes that since there was a lack of evidence of
radiations that true fusion would produce, Mr. Pons' clam, "though puzzling
and perhaps interesting, should not be placed under the rubric of cold
fusion." In fact, he adds, until the claim is confirmed independently "no
scientific weight can be given to the purported results of this work."
 
The two "cold fusion" chemists apparently aren't restrained any longer by
patent problems from disclosing their new findings. In Houston, Richard C.
Auchterlonie of the law firm of Arnold, White & Durkee, which represents the
University of Utah, says there are nine patent applications involved.
 
The first seven of these, filed in the U.S. in early 1989, have now been
filed internationally as well. As for the remaining two patent applications,
"we've had one filed and reviewed for security clearance," Mr. Auchterlonie
says. "We've recently filed the ninth, but we haven't yet received a
confirmation [from the patent office] or a serial number," he adds.
 
Meanwhile, a team of scientists from the University of Utah is now examining
the 40 or so "cold fusion" cells that Messrs. Pons and Fleischmann have set
up at the National Cold Fusion Institute, say Mr. Will of the Institute and
Mr. Triggs, the two chemists' attorney. The team was set up on behalf of the
state's supervisory committee, the Fusion/Energy Advisory Council.
 
The team's first priority is to verify that some of the cells are, in fact,
producing excess heat, Mr. Will says. After that, they will tackle the issue
of reproducibility. Whether the excess heat, if it exists, is coming form
deuterium fusion is a question that will be taken up separately.
 
--
Douglas G. Danforth   		    (danforth@riacs.edu)
Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS)
M/S 230-5, NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.09 /   /   Gai says Menlove and Jones Wrong Again
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Gai says Menlove and Jones Wrong Again
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 1991 00:07:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

According to the abstract of a paper to appear in the March issue of Phys.
Rev. C, Rugari, Gai, et al. have attempted to reproduce the Menlove-Jones
result that had been reported at the Brigham Young Conference.  To quote
the beginning of the abstract: "We have used a low background detector with
high efficiency for the detection of bursts to search for the emission of
neutrons from Ti alloy in pressurized D2 gas cells (cooled to 77K in liquid
nitrogen).  Each cell contained between 16 and 67 gm of Ti alloy chips and
was prepared by methods identical to those used in a recent Los Alamos-
Brigham Young University collaboration of Menlove et al."  The rest
of the abstract says they observed nothing above background and set
upper limits no neutron emission rates which are factors of 6 to 25
lower than what Menlove, et al. had reported.  No matter what flavor
of "cold fusion" experiment you want to consider, the positive results
seem to fade away.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.08 / William Johnson /  Re: 'Cold Fusion' verdict may be delivered soon
     
Originally-From: mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 'Cold Fusion' verdict may be delivered soon
Date: 8 Feb 91 21:15:42 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.

In article <1991Feb8.010350.3792@riacs.edu>, danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G.
 Danforth) writes:
[citing a _Wall Street Journal_ article]
> The Wall Street Journal
> Thursday, February 7, 1991
> Though the pair continues to provide few specifics, they claim major
> progress. Reached by telephone at his home in England Mr. Fleischmann says,
> "Every time we do more experiments, we go slightly farther down the road."
 
Fleischmann, it is to be noted, emigrated many years ago from an Eastern-bloc
country (Czechoslovakia, I think).  His English is very good, but not perfect.
Therefore it is reasonable to speculate as to whether this quote may be based
on mistaken use of an idiomatic English phrase, and whether instead of "down
the road" he may have meant "around the bend"...
 
--
Bill Johnson			| "A man should never be ashamed to own he
Los Alamos National Laboratory	| has been in the wrong, which is but saying,
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA	| in other words, that he is wiser to-day
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)	| than he was yesterday."  (A. Pope)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.09 / richard wyckoff /  Re: Fusion for Power
     
Originally-From: rwyckoff@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (richard wyckoff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for Power
Date: 9 Feb 91 20:01:50 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

 
 
   The U of R facility is the "Laboratory for Laser Energetics",
and uses 24 simultaneous beams useing some 13 terrawatts for only
a few picoseconds to implode a small pellet suspended (as lore had it)
by a small lenth of spider-web.
   It's been years since I was there.  What's happening currently?
 
   ...Rich
 
   (rwyckoff@copper.ucs.indiana.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrwyckoff cudfnrichard cudlnwyckoff cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.09 / Mark North /  Re: 'Cold Fusion' verdict may be delivered soon
     
Originally-From: north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 'Cold Fusion' verdict may be delivered soon
Date: 9 Feb 91 20:14:47 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <14067@lanl.gov> mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
>
>Fleischmann, it is to be noted, emigrated many years ago from an Eastern-bloc
>country (Czechoslovakia, I think).  His English is very good, but not perfect.
>Therefore it is reasonable to speculate as to whether this quote may be based
>on mistaken use of an idiomatic English phrase, and whether instead of "down
>the road" he may have meant "around the bend"...
>
Could be. The correct phrase, however, is 'round the bend. As in:
Crikey, Gov, 'aven't you 'eard -- 'e's gone 'round the bend!
 
That puts me in mind of an old joke about the Englishwoman who was coming down
the stairs of an airplane in New York when a gust of wind blew her dress
up. The ground attendent looking up said cheerfully, "Airey ain't it" to
which the lady replied "What did you expect, feathers?"
 
Sorry, I thought this group might need some humour about now. 8^)
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.11 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Fusion for Power
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for Power
Date: 11 Feb 91 00:04:23 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <1991Feb9.200201.15106@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, rwyckoff@copper.
ucs.indiana.edu (richard wyckoff) writes...
 
>   The U of R facility is the "Laboratory for Laser Energetics",
>and uses 24 simultaneous beams useing some 13 terrawatts for only
>a few picoseconds to implode a small pellet suspended (as lore had it)
>by a small lenth of spider-web.
 
"Spider-web" is only figurative.  It's a quartz fiber a few hundred um long
and  less than 1 um diameter.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.11 / Marcos Ortiz /  ANS91 Call for Papers
     
Originally-From: mgo@gemstone.inel.gov (Marcos Ortiz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ANS91 Call for Papers
Date: 11 Feb 91 16:10:24 GMT
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho

==================================================
 
                AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY WINTER MEETING
 
                  SAN FRANCISCO, NOVEMBER 10-15, 1991
 
 
                THERMAL HYDRAULICS OF REACTOR SYSTEMS
                        AND PLANT COMPONENTS
 
                         CALL FOR PAPERS
 
 
 Authors are invited to submit their work, computer simulations,
 theoretical analyses, or experiments, in the area of Thermal Hydraulics of
 reactor systems and plant components, to the session organizer by March
 15, 1991.  The ANS requires that a 900-word summary be submitted for
 publication in the ANS Transactions volume.  The Thermal Hydraulic
 Division encourages authors to submit the complete paper for its
 publication in the Division Proceedings.  The papers submitted for the
 Proceedings will undergo a full review process.  Authors will be informed
 of their summary acceptance on April 1, 1991. Manuscripts are due May,
 15 1991.
 
 Marcos G. Ortiz, Ph.D.
 Session Organizer
 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
 EG&G Idaho, Inc.
 P. O. Box 1625
 Idaho Falls, ID 83415
 
 Telephone: (208) 526-9488
 Fax: (208) 526-6970
 e-mail: mgo@inel.gov
 
 ==================================================================
 
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
 
Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmgo cudfnMarcos cudlnOrtiz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.12 / Dieter Britz /  'round the bend?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 'round the bend?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 1991 20:58:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson)
 
>In article <1991Feb8.010350.3792@riacs.edu>, danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G.
> Danforth) writes:
>[citing a _Wall Street Journal_ article]
>> The Wall Street Journal
>> Thursday, February 7, 1991
>> Though the pair continues to provide few specifics, they claim major
>> progress. Reached by telephone at his home in England Mr. Fleischmann says,
>> "Every time we do more experiments, we go slightly farther down the road."
 
>Fleischmann, it is to be noted, emigrated many years ago from an Eastern-bloc
>country (Czechoslovakia, I think).  His English is very good, but not perfect.
>Therefore it is reasonable to speculate as to whether this quote may be based
>on mistaken use of an idiomatic English phrase, and whether instead of "down
>the road" he may have meant "around the bend"...
 
Now, now, Bill: Fleischmann "emigrated" from Czechoslovakia as a small child,
and his English is as English as can be (I have met the man). I know you're
kidding but let's keep this non-personal. Cold fusion won't go away by
denigration of the players. Fleischmann, let me say once again, is a Grand Old
Man of electrochemistry and a first-rate scientist. I can't explain all the
things he has said and done about cold fusion but let's not make fun of his
person.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.13 / William Johnson /  More on "Too Hot To Handle," by Frank Close
     
Originally-From: mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on "Too Hot To Handle," by Frank Close
Date: 13 Feb 91 16:43:03 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.

Frank Close, author of "Too Hot To Handle" (the book describing the cold-fusion
fracas from the standpoint of a highly skeptical and knowledgable physicist),
asked me to post the following information on obtaining the "North American"
edition of the book, which is due out next month.  (The UK edition hit the
streets in January; Patrick Smith and others have reviewed it briefly on the
net.)  Relevant particulars:
 
Too Hot to Handle; Princeton Univ Press. $24.95, post/handling $1.50; NJ and
CA residents add tax (7% and 7.25% resp.)
3175 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville NJ 08648
ISBN 0-691-08591-9.
 
He also mentions reviews in a few UK newspapers (mostly, though not uniformly,
quite favorable) and spins an anecdote about a radio station presenting him as
the Grinch that stole cold fusion!  The perils of being a Celebrity...
 
I'm looking forward to this book, for reasons going beyond the fact that I
appear in it! :-)  BTW, John Huizenga (co-chair of the Department of Energy
committee that investigated cold fusion and found it wanting, and also my Ph.D.
thesis advisor lo these many years ago) tells me that he too is writing a book
on the subject.  His position is very similar to Frank's -- a thoroughly
reputable scientist whose initial skepticism on physics-principles grounds grew
as the saga unfolded.  Like Frank, he's also a skilled communicator, and it
will be interesting to see how the two books compare.  Don't know anything
about expected publication date for John's book, though; anybody at Rochester
(Paul Dietz?) know more?
 
--
Bill Johnson			| "A man should never be ashamed to own he
Los Alamos National Laboratory	| has been in the wrong, which is but saying,
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA	| in other words, that he is wiser to-day
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)	| than he was yesterday."  (A. Pope)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.02.15 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 429 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 429 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 1991 19:15:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I'm a bit rushed, but here are a few more items. I hope some theoreticians
have a look at the Nimtz+ and Jorne ones; I am doubtful. I feel that, at the
close approach required for fusion, surely it doesn't matter whether the D is
charged or not, since these elelctrons are a long way off (this is also my
feeling about arguments based on high-dielectric screening aiding fusion).
I could be way off. For the rest, no startling claims. Note how Bockris evades
Pool's charge that Bockris hasn't seen tritium for a year; Bockris says that
37 groups have seen it but doesn't say that he has.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 15-Feb. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bockris JO'M;                                   Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 523.
"Addition to 'A review of the investigations of the Fleischmann-Pons
phenomena'".
** Since the printing of the review, more evidence has come to light. Bockris
says that Kevin Wolf's tritium could not have been in the palladium beforehand
and even if it was, it would have been driven out during electrolysis. So the
results of Bockris' school, and those of Wolf himself, are not in doubt.
                                                                      ?/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handel P;                                       Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 512.
"Intermittency, irreproducibility, and the main physical effects in cold
fusion".
** Starts by citing supercooling as a phenomenon difficult to reproduce
because of the uncertainty of nucleation; yet we believe it. Cold fusion could
in fact be related to the nucleation of deuterium gas bubble formation at the
electrode surface: if inhibited, this leaves atomic deuterium at very high
energies and this, together with high effective electron mass, may be
responsible for cold fusion. The theory can also explain anomalous branching
ratios for fusion.                                               Mar-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilic R, Rant J, Sutej T, Dobersek M, Kristov E, Skvarc J, Kozelj M;
Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 505.
"Investigation of the deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction in cast, annealed,
and cold-rolled palladium".
** Another thorough experiment in which there were several different neutron
monitors as well as detectors for protons, gamma and x-radiation. The aim was
to see whether palladium pretreatment would make a difference. The result is
that it largely didn't, and the limits for cold fusion rates, determined by
the background levels, are at around 1E-21/s/pair or so. No thermal
excursions were observed in any run.                             Dec-89/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorne J;                                        Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 519.
"Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium: the existence of
negatively charged deuteride ions".
** Contrary to almost everyone else, Jorne states that deuterium in PdD(x) is
largely in the form of D- anions and that a minute fraction exists as
deuterons, assumed to be dominant by others. He marshalls a lot of previous
evidence for this. The tiny fraction of deuterons can easily fuse with the D-,
as there is a small Coulomb barrier. Furthermore, Li will be deposited in the
electrolysis in LiOD electrolyte, and LiD certainly has negative deuterium.
                                                                 Mar-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nimtz G, Marquardt P;                           Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 518.
"A proposal for a lukewarm nuclear fusion".
** N & M have, in their previous work, found that small metal particles can
have a large dielectric constant, perhaps as high as 1E05. Such a medium -
e.g. a network of Ag - would require only about 5600 K for fusion between
deuterons to take place, instead of the usual enormously high temperatures.
This suggests some simple and cheap experiments.                 Jun-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Comment, news
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bockris JO'M;                               Science 251 (1991) 499 (1-Feb-91).
"Cold fusion results".
** A letter rebutting R. Pool's claims that the Bockris school has not found
tritium for a year. On the contrary, says Bockris, 37 groups have found it
and Thomas Claytor of LANL can produce it at will. Also, Bockris says that
there were no irregularities in the oral examination of Packham.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dagani R;                                        C&EN News Jan. 14, 1991, p.4.
"Cold fusion: Utah pressures Pons, Fleischmann".
** Fritz Will, the director of the Cold Fusion Institute at Utah, tells C&EN
that have been severed from it and that their funding will be cut off unless
they disclose certain data and fully cooperate with a new review committee.
The council has, however, approved the release of the remaining 0.9E06 $ to
the CNFI.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pool R;                                     Science 251 (1991) 371 (25-Jan).
"High noon in Utah".
** Pons has to deliver half of his data to Wilford Hansen of the review
committee, by Jan 15, and the rest by Feb 1. If the data is not convincing,
the 20% funding of the CNFI going to Pons, will be cut off.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pool R;                                     Science 251 (1991) 499 (1-Feb-91).
(No title).
Response to Bockris' response on the same page. Pool points out that the
report of TAM itself states that no tritium has been found there for some
time, and that a review panel found that serious breaches occurred, concerning
Packham's examination.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Published articles peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.01 / paul nelson /  National Fusion programs
     
Originally-From: pauln@cbnewsd.att.com (paul.h.nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: National Fusion programs
Date: 1 Mar 91 15:33:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Could someone on the net supply sources of information of any national
programs on fusion research, e.g. laser fusion program at LLL or Tokamak
at Princeton, etc.
 
Most useful would be phone numbers to PR offices where one can get put on
a mailing list.
 
I will summarize and re-post, if interest.
 
Thanks,
 
Paul Nelson
Bell Labs
Naperville, IL
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpauln cudfnpaul cudlnnelson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.01 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: National Fusion programs
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: National Fusion programs
Date: 1 Mar 91 16:29:01 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

{Request for addresses to get put onto fusion-info mailing lists}
 
For information on the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory programs in MFE
(mostly ion-source and neutral-beam-systems development) or heavy-
ion fusion accelerator research, try these specific addresses (all
at 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720):
 
MFE technical info:  MFE Group, Building 4, Attn: T. Aitkens.
 
HIFAR technical:  HIFAR Group, Building 47, Att'n: O. Wong.
 
AFRD Summary of Activities from Accelerator and Fusion Research Division
(annual synopses of the above and other nonfusion activities, written by
yrs truly): AFRD Division Office, Building 50, Room 149, Att'n: I. Perry.
 
PR-type information, including quarterly magazine LBL Research Review:
Public Information Dep't, Building 50C.
 
***
 
Here is a scattershot mailing list for some other programs (i.e., those
whose publications are within a short walk of my desk).  Any number of
worthy programs are neglected -- in particular those at Los Alamos and
Rochester, which can be better addressed by others on the net.
 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: 7000 East Avenue, Box 808,
Livermore, CA 94550.  Of interest:  M Division (MFE) at L-640;
L Division (lasers) at L-047; National MFE Computing Center at L-561;
and Communication and Public Information Office at L-404.
 
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185.  Main fusion
program is a light-ion ICF driver experiment called PBFA II.
 
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory: Princeton University, P.O.  Box 451,
Princeton, NJ 08543.
 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Program Planning and Analysis Office,
ORNL, Building 4500-N, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6251.
 
General Atomics, 10955 John J. Hopkins Drive, Box 85608, San Diego,
CA 92138.  They run the Doublet tokamak.
 
U.S.  Department of Energy, Office of Fusion Energy, ER-53, GTN,
Washington, DC 20545.
 
Max-Planck-Institut fur Plasmaphysik (IPP), 8046 Garching bei Munchen,
Germany.
 
GSI (Gesellschaft fur Schwerionenforschung), Postfach 11 05 41 6100,
Darmstadt 11, Germany.  They're investigating a synchrotron-based
heavy-ion ICF driver.
 
JET (Joint European Torus): The Information Officer, JET Joint Undertaking,
Abingdon, Oxon. OX14 3EA, United Kingdom.
 
ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor): ITER Council,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.01 / Mark Thorson /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: Fri,  1 Mar 91 19:11:17 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

UD186413@NDSUVM1.BITNET says:
 
> I read in this news group that Dr. Pons claimed to use a "special
> trick" to get his cold fusion expiriment to work correctly, but he
> refused to reveal the nature of this trick.
 
If there is a trick (i.e. if the world is flat, if pigs can fly),
I would guess that he's using vacuum-cast palladium.  Casting under
vacuum is an old technique, commonly used for making turbine blades.
It normally is used to impart strength to metals -- they get _much_
stronger when the dissolved gases are sucked out.  And hydrogen
is dissolved in greater abundance than other gases, with the possible
exception of nitrogen.  Of course, steels will out-gas significant
amounts of carbon monoxide, too.
 
I got this idea from a comment Pons made, to the effect that he thought
it might be profitable to put the deuterium in the palladium when it
is cast.  Why would he think of such a thing, unless he was already
using vacuum-cast metals?
 
If true, this would render irrelevant all the findings of negative
results using ordinary air-cast palladium.  It's possible that the
normal hydrogen dissolved in air-cast palladium is preventing a
sufficient density of deuterium from being achieved in the rod.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.02 / Mark Thorson /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 2 Mar 91 04:40:26 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Correction to previous post:  hydrogen is usually less common than
oxygen or nitrogen in metals.  The data I was looking at when I
wrote the previous post showed the composition of gases extracted
in a vacuum arc furnace for a steel alloy.  Oxygen was underrepresented
because it does not out-gas as readily as nitrogen and hydrogen.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.02 / Jeff Shapiro /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: jshapiro@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Jeff Shapiro)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 2 Mar 91 19:31:26 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

>I got this idea from a comment Pons made, to the effect that he thought
>it might be profitable to put the deuterium in the palladium when it
>is cast.  Why would he think of such a thing, unless he was already
>using vacuum-cast metals?
>
>If true, this would render irrelevant all the findings of negative
>results using ordinary air-cast palladium.  It's possible that the
>normal hydrogen dissolved in air-cast palladium is preventing a
>sufficient density of deuterium from being achieved in the rod.
 
 
If they did indeed use vacuum-cast paladium, why didn't they tell anyone?
 
When hydrogen is adsorbed into a hydride it gives off excess heat, does
anyone know if Pons or any other scientist claiming excess heat took
this into account?
 
Jeff Shapiro
r103336@apollo.physics.umr.edu
jshapiro.cs.umr.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjshapiro cudfnJeff cudlnShapiro cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.03 / Steve Fairfax /  RE: National Fusion Labs
     
Originally-From: fairfax@alcvax.pfc.mit.edu (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: National Fusion Labs
Date: 3 Mar 91 06:15:12 GMT
Organization: MIT Plasma Fusion Center

You can get information on the fusion research program at MIT by contacting
 
Paul Rivenberg
Plasma Fusion Center
173 Albany Street NW16-289
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-8101
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenfairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.03 / Mark North /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 3 Mar 91 21:35:06 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <39707@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
 writes:
>UD186413@NDSUVM1.BITNET says:
>
>> I read in this news group that Dr. Pons claimed to use a "special
>> trick" to get his cold fusion expiriment to work correctly, but he
>> refused to reveal the nature of this trick.
>
>If there is a trick (i.e. if the world is flat, if pigs can fly),
>I would guess that he's using vacuum-cast palladium.  Casting under
>vacuum is an old technique, commonly used for making turbine blades.
>It normally is used to impart strength to metals -- they get _much_
>stronger when the dissolved gases are sucked out.  And hydrogen
>is dissolved in greater abundance than other gases, with the possible
>exception of nitrogen.  Of course, steels will out-gas significant
>amounts of carbon monoxide, too.
>
>I got this idea from a comment Pons made, to the effect that he thought
>it might be profitable to put the deuterium in the palladium when it
>is cast.  Why would he think of such a thing, unless he was already
>using vacuum-cast metals?
>
>If true, this would render irrelevant all the findings of negative
>results using ordinary air-cast palladium.  It's possible that the
>normal hydrogen dissolved in air-cast palladium is preventing a
>sufficient density of deuterium from being achieved in the rod.
 
Sorry, we baked our Pd at 600 deg C for many hours before the experiment.
Results -- negative.
 
Mark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.06 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 433 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 433 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1991 04:09:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I understand that this list (I get it via LISTSERV) waits until a certain
number of kb of NEWS has accumulated; hence the recent drought. Here's my
contribution to another drought breaking.
 The Alessandrello et al, the Belov et al and the Saito et al show that not
all Italian, Soviet and Japanese cold fusion work comes up positive. People on
this group will be interested that Bill Johnson is hidden among the many
authors of the Gottesfeld et al paper - also negative. I am told that more
papers are in the pipeline. The paper by Silvera and Moshari is likewise
negative. However, theory by Ichimaru (barely) seems to support cold fusion,
while the experimental paper by the Indian team (Palamalai et al) is weakly
positive, and offers a somewhat doubtful theory, pointing to a volume effect -
which has now been discarded by FPALH. That's one of the troubles in this
field: there is even disagreement about just what is known from experiments.
More patents, people getting in on the act (Dies, and Martin) with obvious
variants. They'll no doubt all become immensely rich.
The Krapivnyi I include for your benefit, if you are one of the people seeking
an in-situ loading measure. The paper has been quoted for this but it's an
error, I am sure. It remains a problem. Gottesfeld et al do it by monitoring
the Pd electrode resistivity, which - within a certain loading range anyway -
is a known function of x. A nice way (the only way?) to do it, provided you
believe that known function. Certainly the authors' figure of max 0.8 seems
reasonable (and lies within the function's known range).
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 5-Mar. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alessandrello A, Bellotti E, Cattadori C, Antonione C, Bianchi G, Rondinini S,
Torchio S, Fiorini E, Guiliani A, Ragazzi S, Zanotti L, Gatti C;
Il Nuovo Cimento A103 (1990) 1617.
"Search for cold fusion induced by electrolysis in palladium".
** The aim was here to search for signals from d-p and d-d fusion during the
electrolysis at palladium, as well as to possibly induce fusion by
mechanically straining the electrode, so as to initiate crack formation.
Gamma, neutron, helium and tritium emissions were all monitored as well as
heat, in a low-background environment, under the Gran Sasso massif. Heat
effects were measured by means of several thermocouples in the cells, with
resistor calibration. Four radiation detectors were used: two (3)He detectors,
one NaI detector and one intrinsic Ge diode, with appropriate shielding and
calibrations.
In none of the experiments, radiation emissions beyond the background, were
detected. The upper limit then becomes around 6 orders of magnitude lower than
the fusion rates claimed by FPH. Mechanical strain - i.e. microcracks - made
no difference. Tritium analysis showed only the normal electrolytic
enrichment. No helium was found, and no excess heat outside error limits. This
extensive experiment does not support cold fusion.              Jul-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belov AS, Kusik VE, Ryabov YuV;             Il Nuovo Cimento A103 (1990) 1647.
"The nuclear fusion for the reactions (2)H(d,n)(3)He,(2)H(d,gamma)(4)He at low
deuterons energy and 'cold' nuclear fusion".
** First, the team shoots a deuteron beam at a range of energies at a PdDx
target, measuring the neutrons emitted as a result. These agree with (much)
earlier work. Even at the lowest energies - which might approach cold fusion
conditions - no anomalies were found. Subsequent neutron emission measurements
made with the beam turned off set the upper limit for cold fusion at 7E-24
fusions/pair/s. The authors conclude that cold fusion, if it happens at all,
has an unmeasurably low intensity and there is no basis for assuming any
anomalies such as in branching ratios.                           Jul-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dies KF;                                Ger. Offen. DE 3,913,002 25 Oct. 1990.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:51752 (1991).
"Fusion energy production by using iron-group metals as electrodes".
** "Fe, Ni and Co rods are used as electrodes (cathodes) in electrolysis of
D2O for energy production by cold fusion, or these rods are pickled in DCl,
DF, DBr, D2SO4 or DNO3 for energy production by cold fusion".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gottesfeld S, Anderson RE, Baker DA, Bolton RD, Butterfield KB, Garzon FH,
Goulding CA, Johnson MW, Leonard EM, Springer TE, Zawodzinski T;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 287.
"Experiments and nuclear measurements in search of cold fusion processes".
** The Los Alamos team (one of several to have a go) comprised electronics
and various nuclear expertise, as well as electrochemical. Four separate
electrochemical cells were used. Deuterium loading was monitored by continuous
monitoring of the electrode resistance. To measure neutron emissions, a (3)He
well counter as well as a NE-213 scintillation spectrometer were used, and a
HPGe detector for gamma emissions. Later, thermocouples monitored for thermal
swings as well. During a total observation time of about 550 hours, there were
some excursions on one counter, not matched by another, and could be rejected.
Such excursions were also observed in the absence of an electrolysis cell.
Another experiment using titanium exposed to D2 gas yielded no emissions
either.                                                          ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ichimaru S, Ogata S, Nakano A;             J. Phys. Soc. Japan 59 (1990) 3904.
"Rates of nuclear fusion in metal hydrides".
** Using quantum mechanical and Monte Carlo calculations, the authors look at
fusion enhancement in a metal lattice. They set an arbitrary observable rate
of about 1E-25 fus/s/pair, and some scenarios appear to allow such rate
enhancements.                                                    Jul-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin J;                              Ger. Offen. DE 3,915,153, 15 Nov. 1990.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:51753 (1991).
"Method and apparatus for sorbing hydrogen in solids, especially in electrodes
for cold fusion and supply containers".
** "The method comprises continuous depositing of forming a H sorption-
promoting coating having high surface area and/or many lattice imperfections
and/or an amorphous structure on the solids during H sorption....".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palamalai A, Rafi Ahmed AG, Sampath M, Chinnusamy A, Prasad GN,
Krishna Rao KS, Sreedharan OM, Raman VR, Balasubramanian GR;
Trans. SAEST 25 (1990) 73.
"Preliminary experimental studies on electrochemically induced fusion of
deuterium".
** Electrolysis of D2O at Pd. Gamma emission from thermalised neutrons was
detected by an NaI detector, shielded from cosmic rays by Pb shielding.
Aliquots of the electrolyte were extracted for tritium assays. In another
experiment, a Ti cuboid is used as cathode. Thermal effects were measured by
comparing a "live" cell with a dummy containing H2O. Some sporadic gamma
events were observed from both Pd and Ti electrodes. The authors also analyse
FPH's results and conclude that a small area/volume ratio is favourable for
fusion, as this relatively inhibits escape of deuterium from the Pd, thus
giving it more time to fuse.                                              ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saito N, Sakuta K, Sawata S, Tanimoto M, Takata N;
Bull. Electrotech Lab. (Japan) 54 (1990) 32  (in Japanese).
Cited in Phys. Abstr. 94(1394):21482 (1991).
What appears to be the same article is abstracted by Chem. Abstr. 114:50976
(1991) for the (same?) journal Denshi Gijutsu Sogo Kenkyusho Iho 54 (1990)
986. The abstracts are identical.
"Search for cold-fusion neutrons from palladium breathing deuterons".
** "A series of experiments have been carried out to detect cold-fusion
neutrons from various forms of palladium metals loaded with deuterium.
Deutreium was charged and discharged repeatedly by temperature cycling of Pd
in D2-gas as well as by electrolysis with periodic polarity changing between a
pair of Pd-electrodes in LiOD/D2O-solution. Neutron yield was monitored by
BF3- and (3)He detectors. No convincing evidence for cold fusion was observed,
although a few unidentified events were detected above statistically expected
level".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silvera IF, Moshary E;                             Phys. Rev. B42 (1990) 9143.
"Deuterated palladium at temperatures from 4.3 to 400K and pressures to 105
kbar: search for cold fusion".
** The authors used their diamond anvil to achieve these pressures. Detectors
for neutrons, gamma radiation and heat were mounted around the press. From the
volume compression, a loading of up to 1.34 was inferred. Several days at the
various temperatures and pressures evinced no evidence for cold fusion.
                                                                 Feb-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Published articles peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krapivnyi NG;                                Sov. Electrochem. 18 (1982) 1040.
"Use of electrochemical extraction to study hydrogen entry into metals".
** This paper has been quoted by cold fusion workers in the context of in-situ
measurement of the loading factor D/Pd. The paper in fact measures the uptake
of hydrogen (isotope) by any metal by reversing the current (making the metal
the anode) and integrating the reoxidation current. This is a kind of
destructive measurement, and probably not suitable for cold fusion work.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.05 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 5 Mar 91 16:16:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1811@manta.NOSC.MIL> north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) writes:
>In article <39707@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
 writes:
>>UD186413@NDSUVM1.BITNET says:
>>
>>> I read in this news group that Dr. Pons claimed to use a "special
>>> trick" to get his cold fusion expiriment to work correctly, but he
>>> refused to reveal the nature of this trick.
>>
>>If there is a trick (i.e. if the world is flat, if pigs can fly),
>>I would guess that he's using vacuum-cast palladium.  Casting under
>>vacuum is an old technique, commonly used for making turbine blades.
>>It normally is used to impart strength to metals -- they get _much_
>>stronger when the dissolved gases are sucked out.  And hydrogen
>>is dissolved in greater abundance than other gases, with the possible
>>exception of nitrogen.  Of course, steels will out-gas significant
>>amounts of carbon monoxide, too.
>>
>>I got this idea from a comment Pons made, to the effect that he thought
>>it might be profitable to put the deuterium in the palladium when it
>>is cast.  Why would he think of such a thing, unless he was already
>>using vacuum-cast metals?
>>
>>If true, this would render irrelevant all the findings of negative
>>results using ordinary air-cast palladium.  It's possible that the
>>normal hydrogen dissolved in air-cast palladium is preventing a
>>sufficient density of deuterium from being achieved in the rod.
>
>Sorry, we baked our Pd at 600 deg C for many hours before the experiment.
>Results -- negative.
>
>Mark
>
 
Was your outgassing in vacuum?  What percentage of occluded gases come
out at 600 C ?  This temperature is far below the melting point (1554 C)
so don't feel sorry.
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.05 / Mark North /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 5 Mar 91 18:58:12 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <1991Mar5.161606.21214@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>In article <1811@manta.NOSC.MIL> north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) writes:
>>
>>Sorry, we baked our Pd at 600 deg C for many hours before the experiment.
>>Results -- negative.
>>
>>Mark
>>
>
>Was your outgassing in vacuum?  What percentage of occluded gases come
>out at 600 C ?  This temperature is far below the melting point (1554 C)
>so don't feel sorry.
>
Yes it was done under vacuum, sorry I neglected to mention this.
 
It was decided that 600 deg C would be adequate to drive out any H or D as
this is close to the temperature necessary for gas phase charging. Other
gasses should not be a problem if the Pd was prepared properly in the
first place since diffusion of other gasses such as oxygen, etc are two to
three orders of magnitude smaller.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.05 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 5 Mar 91 22:03:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1823@manta.NOSC.MIL> north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) writes:
>In article <1991Mar5.161606.21214@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>>In article <1811@manta.NOSC.MIL> north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) writes:
>>>
>>>Sorry, we baked our Pd at 600 deg C for many hours before the experiment.
>>>Results -- negative.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>>
>>
>>Was your outgassing in vacuum?  What percentage of occluded gases come
>>out at 600 C ?  This temperature is far below the melting point (1554 C)
>>so don't feel sorry.
>>
>Yes it was done under vacuum, sorry I neglected to mention this.
>
>It was decided that 600 deg C would be adequate to drive out any H or D as
>this is close to the temperature necessary for gas phase charging. Other
>gasses should not be a problem if the Pd was prepared properly in the
>first place since diffusion of other gasses such as oxygen, etc are two to
>three orders of magnitude smaller.
>
>Mark
 
Well, it may be that other gases are occupying the positions where
Mr. Pons wants to put his deuterium atoms.  In any case, the conditions
for your negative results are different from those of vacuum casting.
 
ANother point of concern might be the meaning of vacuum: what is the
value in each case: 1 Torr? 10^-6 ? 10^-10 ?
 
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.09 / Steve Robiner /  Special Trick #2
     
Originally-From: robiner@mizar.usc.edu (Steve Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Special Trick #2
Date: 9 Mar 91 03:53:54 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

OK, I'll admit I'm no nuclear physicist (or a great speller) but
I'll hazard a guess as to what his special trick was and why he kept
it secret.
 
Last part first - he's already filed patent papers, but hasn't received
any clearances yet.  If he told everyone how to do it, and they did then
many could claim (as has happened before with countless other patents)
that they invented it first - or at least had been working on it for
a long time.  But, if he left out just one small part necessary to make it
work, then everyone claiming it's bunk would be the greatest proof in the
world that nobody else invented it already.  And, if suchj a special
trick does exist, and does work, then P & F have no contentions against
their patent.  A little far out, maybe, but if I knew I had something like
cold-fusion (that worked) I'd do the same thing.
 
Now as to the guess, and its just a guess 'cause I'm no chemist either.
What if the palladium/deterium reaction isn't caused by the static electric
charge, but by the magnetic field of the electrodes.
 
This might explain why many experiments showed spurious bursts of energy.
They may have been caused by a slightly (or drastically) fluctuating power
supply (some experimenters reportedly used car batteries!).  This fluctuating
electric current would cause greater magentic fields.
 
So, maybe P & Fs special trick was using an alternating current instead of DC.
Has anyone else tried this?  Even if it isn't a magnetic field, it might be
interesting to see what effect AC had on the reaction.  Maybe it would let the
D20 react faster by a constantly flushing in and out of the palladium.
 
No?  Possible?  Anyone with a PhD care to comment?
 
=steve=
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrobiner cudfnSteve cudlnRobiner cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.10 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Special Trick #2
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Special Trick #2
Date: 10 Mar 91 01:37:18 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <30901@usc> robiner@mizar.usc.edu (Steve Robiner) writes:
>OK, I'll admit I'm no nuclear physicist
 
Hey, no problem---that didn't stop P&F :-)
 
>I'm no chemist either.
 
At this point in time, thats probably a plus.
 
>This fluctuating
>electric current would cause greater magentic fields.
 
Not so---it would cause fluctuating magnetic fields, but not stronger ones.
 
>No?  Possible?  Anyone with a PhD care to comment?
 
Well, I have one, so I guess you're asking me :-) Basically,
the magnetic fields induced by these relatively small currents
( < 1AMP ) are a few gauss---not that much stronger than the
Earths magnetic field. Hard to see how these could provide any
kind of pressure needed to stimulate fusion.
 
On the otherhand, since these fields are comparable to the earths field,
the interaction between the two could be significant. Maybe thats why CF
only occurs in Utah :-)
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.09 / Mark Thorson /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 9 Mar 91 23:49:32 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

In the measurement of the hydrogen content of steel, temperatures
around 800C are used.  For titanium and zirconium, temperatures
above 1000C are used.  I don't have any data for palladium, which
is probably a lot different from these metals, but 600C seems not
too much heat if you're serious about proving a negative.  Did
you do a hydrogen determination after baking your metals to measure
just exactly how much hydrogen they retained?
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.10 / Darren Garnier /  PLASTMAK(tm) references
     
Originally-From: darth@athena.mit.edu (Darren T Garnier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PLASTMAK(tm) references
Date: 10 Mar 91 20:04:04 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Plasma Fusion Center

A while back (Nov. and Dec.) there was quite a bit of
discussion about alternate fusion devices.  In particular,
I remember quite a bit of discussion of the PLASMAK device
of Paul Koloc.  I didn't pay that much attention at the time,
but was there any literature in which the theory of this
device is discussed?   My knowledge of plasma physics has increased
since that time so maybe I can make more sense of it.  Otherwise,
does anyone have a copy of the thread?
 
Thanks,
 
Darren Garnier
(Plasmoid Grad Student)
--
                        Darren Garnier
darth@athena.mit.edu                     | Some rise, some fall,
garnier@alcvax.pfc.mit.edu               | some try to get to Terrapin.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendarth cudfnDarren cudlnGarnier cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.12 / Morgan Schweers /  Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: mrs@netcom.COM (Morgan Schweers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is fusion possible?
Date: 12 Mar 91 06:12:44 GMT
Organization: McAfee Associates

Greetings,
    I'm interested in the plausibility of fusion (*NOT* cold fusion) as an
alternate energy source.  In respect to this, I have a bunch of questions...
 
    1)  Is it doable with present technology?
 
    2)  Is it safe?  (I've heard it said, "Nuclear reactors CANNOT explode.
Thermonuclear, on the other hand..."  Is this true?  I understand that
'regular' reactors are safe in this regard, but what are the restrictions on
thermonuclear reactions?)
 
          2a)  Note:  I'm not a physicist.  I've listened to a few, and can
             BS some people, but I may use terms wrong.  Do us all a favor
             and don't flame me about them.  CORRECT me.
 
    3)  What are the estimates for the completion of fusion as a usable
mechanism?  (Time wise/expense wise)
 
    4)  NOW, in regards to "Cold Fusion".  Has this been resolved, and is
there a likelyhood of it EVER being resolved?  I don't understand the meaning
of (something like) 'excess <object-x> were detected, leading to the conclusion
that fusion was occurring.'  If the desired effect of fusion is energy release,
wouldn't it be extremely obvious?
 
                                                       --  Morgan Schweers
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|    I *AM* mrs@netcom.com, and ms@albert.ai.mit.edu.  Please use the    |
| netcom.com address first.  The enclosed opinions, if any, are nonsense.|
| (How's *THAT* for a disclaimer?)                                       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmrs cudfnMorgan cudlnSchweers cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.13 / Mike Pelt /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 13 Mar 91 02:43:49 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <27887@netcom.COM> mrs@netcom.COM (Morgan Schweers) writes:
>    1)  Is [fusion] doable with present technology?
 
Nope, or we'd be doing it.  Lots of people are working like
the dickens to invent the technology to do it, though.
 
>    2)  Is it safe?  (I've heard it said, "Nuclear reactors CANNOT explode.
>Thermonuclear, on the other hand..."  Is this true?  I understand that
>'regular' reactors are safe in this regard, but what are the restrictions on
>thermonuclear reactions?)
 
How safe is safe?  It's bound to be orders of magnitude safer than
coal, but then, so's fission, and look how frantic people get about
that.  Rational measures of real-world risk don't seem to have a whole
lot to do with it.
 
Fusion reactors exploding?  Not very likely.  It isn't possible to get
*too* specific, since we're talking about hypothetical reactors of
unknown design, but the magnetic confinement type contain a thin plasma
which would be extinguishged by any contact with the walls of the
chamber.  Intertial confinement (laser/ebeam/etc) does produce small
explosions in their normal operation, but they're limited by the size
of the hydrogen pellets that are injected.  The reactor would be built
to contain them, like a car engine is built to contain fuel-air
explosions.
 
Again depending on the particulars of the reactor, some versions
of fusion give off large quantities of neutrons.  These make the
internal parts of the reactor radioactive.  Not necessarily a
Big Deal, but you know what happens when you say The "R" Word
in public... :-(
 
>    3)  What are the estimates for the completion of fusion as a usable
>mechanism?  (Time wise/expense wise)
 
Real Soon Now/Biiiilyons and biiiilyons. :-)
 
>    4)  NOW, in regards to "Cold Fusion".  Has this been resolved, and is
>there a likelyhood of it EVER being resolved?  I don't understand the meaning
>of (something like) 'excess <object-x> were detected, leading to the conclusion
>that fusion was occurring.'  If the desired effect of fusion is energy release,
>wouldn't it be extremely obvious?
 
Now that Pons is (supposedly) Telling All, the loose ends should get
wrapped up fairly soon.   Ali AbuTaha wrote a paper showing that the
heat of crystallization of the palladium rods was large enough to
account for the excess heat numbers Pons had actually released, (as
opposed to the excess heat numbers Pons keeps hinting at) but I haven't
heard anything more about that.
--
Mike Van Pelt                     "Something is happening here,
Headland Technology/Video 7        What it is ain't exactly clear..."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                 -- Pons & Fleischmann
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.12 / Vincent Cate /  Re:Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: vac@crux.fac.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Is fusion possible?
Date: 12 Mar 91 16:20:31 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

 
Morgan Schweers:
>    1)  Is it [fusion] doable with present technology?
 
We had workable fusion a very long time ago (in the 60s?).  Successful
experiments were carried out with nuclear (H?) bombs down in salt caverns.
I can not find the reference - can someone out there post it?  It turns
out that if you have enough pressure on a salt dome (say 2000 feet of
earth) and a bit of steam to cushion the blast, that the salt dome will act
like an arch (under compression) even with a big bomb going off inside.
The steam can run a generator for a few weeks and then you set off another
bomb.  The final assembly of the bombs can be done deep underground.
It seems there are no technical/safety show stoppers.  The thing that
killed it was a belief that the U.S. public would not like the idea
of using nuclear bombs to generate power.
 
>    3)  What are the estimates for the completion of fusion as a usable
>mechanism?  (Time wise/expense wise)
 
Around 30 years ago.  Well under $1 billion (1 B1? or was it B2?).
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.12 / Steve Fairfax /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: fairfax@alcvax.pfc.mit.edu (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 12 Mar 91 21:31:01 GMT
Organization: MIT Plasma Fusion Center

Morgan Schweers asks about nuclear fusion:
 
>    1)  Is it doable with present technology?
Almost.  As an earlier respondent stated, we have been
able to set off fusion explosions since the 1950s.  These are
uncontrolled fusion reactions.  (While I am not familiar with the
salt-dome research described, I can see a number of potential
problems; technical, economic, environmental, and political.)
The work on controlled fusion reactions is nearly as old but not
as successful.  The best machines now can produce about 20% as
much heat out as it takes to heat them.  There are several
machines on the drawing boards (actually computer screens)  that
will produce more energy that it takes to heat them.  That is the
next step.  The following step is to build a device that actually
produces electricity, and then to build a demonstration power
plant that makes MONEY.  The issues involved in the design and
construction of these machines are increasingly technology-
oriented rather than questions of fundamental physical laws or
understanding.  These machines use magnetic fields to hold the
hot (100 million degrees) fuel.  Alternate approaches based on
use huge lasers or particle beams to ignite miniature hydrogen
bombs are promising, but the research is classified (the physics
is nearly identical to H-bomb physics) and the lasers are not
efficient, rugged, and powerful enough as yet.
 
>    2)  Is it safe? ...
 
I won't comment on the safety of setting off hydrogen
bombs one after the other.  Controlled fusion is inherently safe
because there is only a tiny fraction of a gram of fuel in the
machine at any one time.  It cannot conceivably explode.  There
is no possibility of a melt-down.  There are some types of
accidents that could damage the machine, but virtually no
creditable accidents that would threaten the environment or the
public.
 
Safety is a funny question.  Fusion power will not be
perfectly safe, and no energy source is.  The energy itself can
be dangerous!  Solar power is very dangerous when measured by
injuries or fatalities caused per unit of energy produced.  This
is because solar energy is very diffuse, and large collectors get
set up on rooftops and elsewhere to collect relatively small
amounts of energy.  Then people get burned by hot fluids or fall
off of the roofs and get injured.  This may seem frivolous, but
these are energy-related casualties and must be counted.
 
Coal and oil cause injuries and deaths during
production (drilling and mining are very hazardous occupations),
transportation, utilization, and of course the many thousands of
cancers and other illnesses caused or exacerbated by the stack
emissions.  Fission power causes far fewer casualties because so
little fuel is required and relatively few emissions are
released.  (Three mile island and Chernoble included.)
 
The fusion reaction releases neutrons, but these are
easily stopped by a thick concrete wall or similarly simple
means.  The tritium fuel is radioactive, and a fusion power plant
will have a containment structure to make sure that no tritium
can be released to the environment.  The tritium is produced in
the machine, so there are no transportation hazards and
relatively few processing problems.  The fuel is hydrogen
(deuterium actually) and the exhaust is ordinary helium.  The
fusion device itself will be made intensely radioactive by the
bombardment of fusion neutrons, but the radioactivity decays
relatively rapidly.  A 30-year old fusion plant that was retired
would need to be isolated from the environment for about 100
years before the radiation hazard was minimal.  This is a pretty
simple problem (we have built many things that can last over 100
years) especially compared to the problem of waste disposal from
fossil fuels or fission.  Fossil fuels have a problem because
there is so much ash (highly toxic) and fission wastes can stay
dangerous for 10,000 or even 100,000 years.  So fusion power will
be safER than fission, safER than fossil, safER than solar, but
not perfectly safe.  Nothing is.
 
>    3)  What are the estimates for the completion of fusion as a usable
>mechanism?  (Time wise/expense wise)
 
How much do you have to spend?  Seriously, the effort is
currently limited strictly by funding, not by ideas or knowledge.
Building the next machine will cost a few billion dollars spread
over several years.  Building any power plant costs about 10
billion dollars spread over 5-10 years.  If funded aggressively,
a demonstration plant might operate in 15 years.  If funded at
the present level, ($275 million this year, down from over $800
million in 1980) the USA will end up buying fusion plants from
the Europeans or the Japanese, both of whom have well funded
efforts and a better track record at making and keeping
commitments.  This is still research and one should expect  some
setbacks, blind alleys, and mistakes.
 
>    4)  NOW, in regards to "Cold Fusion".  Has this been resolved, and is
>there a likelihood of it EVER being resolved?
 
It will probably never be resolved, in the sense of all people
accepting the same facts.  How many versions of the "100 MPG
carburetor bought and kept secret by the big car makers" story
have you heard?  Cold fusion is exactly that kind of story, and
it will probably never die.  No independently confirmed,
reproducible experiment has demonstrated fusion or power release.
(There was some well-done work by Steve Jones at Brigham Young
University that raised the possibility of room-temperature fusion
at levels several trillion times below that claimed by Pons et
al, but nothing close to measurable power.)  No theory exists to
explain why fusion should occur under the stated conditions.  A
lot of good scientists have spent a huge amount of time trying to
duplicate the cold fusion results, and no one has succeeded.  The
nadir of this entire sorry episode might be in the lawsuit filed
against an independent Univ. of Utah scientist who took a
"working" cell and reported in a peer-reviewed journal that he
saw nothing.
 
> I don't understand the meaning of (something like) 'excess <object-x> were
> detected, leading to the conclusion that fusion was occurring.'If the
> desired effect of fusion is energy release, wouldn't it be extremely
> obvious?
No.  It is quit possible to produce a fusion reaction that will
take more energy to heat the fuel that will be released by the
reaction.  That is exactly the situation with current and
previous hot fusion experiments.  These efforts are steadily
closing in on the conditions that will result in net energy
release.  Measuring neutrons or other fusion products is tricky,
but far more sensitive than calorimetry or other techniques that
attempt to measure thermal energy balance.  Any chemistry student
can tell you that calorimetric measurements (the type used by Pons
et al to claim cold fusion) are extremely difficult and often
produce utter nonsense.  Neutron detectors are literally hundreds
of times more sensitive to things like sound or temperature than
they are to neutrons, so it is easy to make errors there as well.
I speak from bitter experience.
 
A long-winded answer to a few good questions.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenfairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.12 / Terry Greyzck /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: tdg@palm17.cray.com (Terry Greyzck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 12 Mar 91 23:00:32 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN

In article <1991Mar12.184509.11884@athena.mit.edu> fairfax@alcvax.pfc.mit.edu
 writes:
>understanding.  These machines use magnetic fields to hold the
>hot (100 million degrees)
 
Degrees Celsius or Kelvin?  :-) :-)  (sorry, couldn't resist)
 
| "Oh, I eat when I'm hungry,
|  and I drink when I'm dry,                       | Terry Greyzck        |
|  and if moonshine don't kill me,                 | tdg@alchemy.cray.com |
|  I'll live 'till I die."  - Irish folk song      | (612) 683-5580	  |
--
| "Oh, I eat when I'm hungry,
|  and I drink when I'm dry,                       | Terry Greyzck        |
|  and if moonshine don't kill me,                 | tdg@alchemy.cray.com |
|  I'll live 'till I die."  - Irish folk song      | (612) 683-5580	  |
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentdg cudfnTerry cudlnGreyzck cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 91 16:14:50 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <27887@netcom.COM> mrs@netcom.COM (Morgan Schweers) writes:
 
>    I'm interested in the plausibility of fusion (*NOT* cold fusion) as an
>alternate energy source.  In respect to this, I have a bunch of questions...
>
>    1)  Is it doable with present technology?
 
Yes---if you make the reactor large enough so that the heat released, spread
over its interior walls, does not destroy the wall; i.e. you need the
reactor to be sufficiently large. For such reactors, the fanciest part
of the technology would be the large superconducting magnets used to
generate the magnetic fields---but that seems doable working from existing
superconducting magnets.
 
However, if you want to keep the reactor fairly small, say a torus
with minor radius of 3 meters, then you will need to develop new
materials and heat removal techniques to deal with the heat loads at the
walls. For example, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER), which is the next major reactor planned, has two phases: a physics
phase, in which they study the physics and control of a burning plasma,
and a technology phase, in which they prototype technology for a future
commercial reactor. The heat loads for the physics phase are just barely
manageable with existing heat removal and materials techniques. But the
requirements for the technology phase are beyond what we can do, and the
machine would melt. Thus new ideas must be had for the ITER technology
phase.
 
But the bottom line is: a nuclear engineer will tell you they could build
you a power producing reactor right now---if you just let them make it big
enough. The drawback to this is that the machine---and thus the power---is
more costly, and probably several times the cost of power, currently.
 
However, it should be made clear we still don't understand the physics of the
plasma in these devices---there is heat transport to the walls by an unkown
means. Its just that you don't need to understand something to build a working
model.
 
>    2)  Is it safe?  (I've heard it said, "Nuclear reactors CANNOT explode.
>Thermonuclear, on the other hand..."  Is this true?  I understand that
>'regular' reactors are safe in this regard, but what are the restrictions on
>thermonuclear reactions?)
 
Its about as safe as anything that produces nuclear energy can be.
In terms of rad waste, its mostly activated materials/unstable isotopes
with a half life of < 100 years.
 
It can't blow up---in fact, the fire would always love to go out!---but
if you lose control of the plasma, it could boil away the wall coating,
which contains radiactive materials (tritium, activated materials).
This would release a moderate amount of radiactive gas---enough to be a danger
in the immediate vicinity.
 
>    3)  What are the estimates for the completion of fusion as a usable
>mechanism?  (Time wise/expense wise)
 
The US timetable is to have a commercial prototype in 2050---2060.
(its slowly slipping away). However, many engineers say we
could have one by 2010 if we really wanted to fund a major development effort.
 
>    4)  NOW, in regards to "Cold Fusion".  Has this been resolved, and is
>there a likelyhood of it EVER being resolved?
Essentially, it looks pretty doubtful as a power source. Pons has one
last chance to show he's got something---which should come to pass in the next
few months---and then it will be dead to second order. (Its already dead
to first order).
 
 
> I don't understand the meaning
>of (something like) 'excess <object-x> were detected,
 
Neither do a lot of the researchers :-). Excess heat seems to mean:
the device didn't cool off quite as fast as I thought it would, based on
my complicated calculations of cooling rate and energy put in. Its
not likes there is enormous heat being produced by the supposed reaction.
 
So, don't hold your breath.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.05 / Stanley Chow /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: schow@bcarh181.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 5 Mar 91 23:21:33 GMT
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Canada

In article <1811@manta.NOSC.MIL> north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) writes:
>In article <39707@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
 writes:
>>I got this idea from a comment Pons made, to the effect that he thought
>>it might be profitable to put the deuterium in the palladium when it
>>is cast.  Why would he think of such a thing, unless he was already
>>using vacuum-cast metals?
>
>Sorry, we baked our Pd at 600 deg C for many hours before the experiment.
>Results -- negative.
>
 
What if the casting is done in a deuterium atmosphere? WOuldn't this put
lots of D2 atoms inside?  Presumably, one could really "pre-load" the
palladium to a high degree.
 
Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!uunet!bnrgate!bcarh185!schow
(613) 763-2831               ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.13 / Vincent Cate /  Project Plowshare
     
Originally-From: vac@crux.fac.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Project Plowshare
Date: 13 Mar 91 04:07:09 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

 
The reference I read before was a very technical and detailed paper
by some of the scientists on the project.  This is a whole book about
"Project Plowshare" whose goal was to use nuclear bombs for peaceful
purposes, one of which was energy generation.  The project name comes
from Isaiah's prophecy, "And they shall beat their swords into
plowshares".
 
AUTHOR    Sanders, Ralph.
TITLE     Project Plowshare, the development of the peaceful uses of nuclear
          explosions. Foreword by Willard F. Libby.
LC-CARD   62-015677
CITATION  Washington, Public Affairs Press [1962] 206 p. illus. 24 cm.
NOTES     Includes bibliography.
SUBJECT   Project Plowshare.
 
From page 193 (of 195):
  "Plowshare gives promise of providing man with a tremendous resource.
  History proves that man invariably uses his better resources.
  Consequently, we must not make the mistake of confusing the future of
  Plowshare with today's political situation.  Viewed against the full
  sweep of history, a political position may represent but a shortlived
  tactical maneuver; conversely, Plowshare represents a tool for
  unborn generations.  Political constellations change; on the other
  hand, technological facts have a habit of lasting.  In short,
  Plowshare will survive the Cold War and those who debate it."
 
From skimming this book it looks like they were still at the early
stages of testing in salt when the book was written and the paper I
am thinking of came after this.  There is a Dr. Petre Beckmann
(beckmann@boulder.colorado.edu) who posted the reference once and
might (if you do not mention my name) give it to you.  If someone
gets the reference please post it.
 
   -- Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.13 / Jon Webb /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 13 Mar 91 13:20:20 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1991Mar12.184509.11884@athena.mit.edu>,
fairfax@alcvax.pfc.mit.edu (Steve Fairfax) writes:
|> A
|> lot of good scientists have spent a huge amount of time trying to
|> duplicate the cold fusion results, and no one has succeeded.
 
This is not true.  Credible scientists *have* reported duplication of
cold fusion results, including production of heat (at low levels, like
10% excess heat), neutrons, and tritium: for example, Bockris; also,
Matsushita recently filed a patent application based on cold fusion.
However, these results are not generally accepted, because no one has
demonstrated a reliable method of getting cold fusion to work.  This
could mean that the duplications are due to experimental error (which
seems unlikely to me, given the quality of the scientists reporting
positive results, and the ignominy associated with this area of research
-- why say it is working unless you are really, really sure?) or are the
result of some uncharacterized experimental condition.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenwebb cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.13 /  davidsen@crdos /  > Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: > Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1991 23:19:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
> Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
> Date: 13 Mar 91 02:43:49 GMT
> Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology
>
> In article <27887@netcom.COM> mrs@netcom.COM (Morgan Schweers) writes:
> >    1)  Is [fusion] doable with present technology?
>
> Nope, or we'd be doing it.  Lots of people are working like
> the dickens to invent the technology to do it, though.
 
  I don't think that's correct. First I pretty sure that lots of people
believe that we have the technology today if the social and ecconomic
climate were right. And I can't buy the idea that if we could we would.
We know how to do many things which are expensive and unprofitable, and
few of them will ever get done.
 
  If the social climate were right we could probably get a fusion system
going in a few years, using explosions in a salt dome.
 
> >    2)  Is it safe?  (I've heard it said, "Nuclear reactors CANNOT explode.
> >Thermonuclear, on the other hand..."  Is this true?  I understand that
> >'regular' reactors are safe in this regard, but what are the restrictions on
> >thermonuclear reactions?)
 
  I'm not even positive about reactors not being able to explode,
although I doubt that anything in use today can become what we think of
as an atomic bomb. Most reactors have water, sodium, or other coolant
which could make an explosion of conventional bomb proportions in a
worst case.
 
  The main attraction of fusion is that the fuel is cheap and the
byproducts are usually less toxic as chemicals, and have a shorter
halflife. The fact that hydrogen and helium isotopes tend to rise to the
top of the atmosphere in bulk makes the "cloud of death" rolling through
town less likely.
 
> How safe is safe?  It's bound to be orders of magnitude safer than
> coal, but then, so's fission, and look how frantic people get about
> that.  Rational measures of real-world risk don't seem to have a whole
> lot to do with it.
 
  True. You can prove that it makes good sense to put a reactor in the
middle of downtown LA, and that the waste heat would punch through the
temperature inversion, clear the smog, and save thousands of lives long
term. For some reason people don't like the idea, though.
 
  I don't think you can postulate any way for a nuclear explosion larger
than a few pounds on TNT using fusion. No matter what the failure mode
you just don't have enough material at the right temperature and
pressure to cause a problem. Fusion bombs are hard to do when you try,
much less by accident.
 
  As far as commercial cold fusion, I don't see any proof it's possible,
but I do believe that all the thinking about it over the last few years
will produce some "new physics" in this decade. That may be its major or
only contribution to science.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendavidsen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.14 / John Gregor /  Re: Project Plowshare
     
Originally-From: johng@OCE.ORST.EDU (John A. Gregor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Project Plowshare
Date: 14 Mar 91 01:23:42 GMT
Organization: College of Oceanography - Oregon State University

In article <1991Mar13.040709.28212@cs.cmu.edu> vac@crux.fac.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent
 Cate) writes:
>AUTHOR    Sanders, Ralph.
>TITLE     Project Plowshare, the development of the peaceful uses of nuclear
>          explosions. Foreword by Willard F. Libby.
 
Here are some other references I found.  No I haven't read them yet.
 
--
John A. Gregor
College of Oceanography                  E-mail: johng@oce.orst.edu
Oregon State University                 Voice #: +1 503 737-3022
Oceanography Admin Bldg. #104             Fax #: +1 503 737-2064
Corvallis, OR  97331-5503
 ------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE          : The nuclear impact : a case study of the plowshare program to
                 produce gas by underground nuclear stimulation in the Rocky
                 Mountains
AUTHOR         : Kreith, Frank
               : Wrenn, Catherine B.
PUBLISHER      : Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press,
PUB. DATE      : 1976.
DESCRIPTION    : xii, 248 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
LANGUAGE       : ENGLISH
SERIES         : Westview special studies on technology, natural resources,
                 and the environment ;
SUBJECT        : Project Plowshare
               : Gas, Natural -- Rocky Mountains
               : Nuclear excavation
BIBLIOGRAPHY   : Includes bibliographical references and index.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE          : PNE (peaceful nuclear explosion) activity projections for
                 arms control planning
AUTHOR         : Gulf Universities Research Consortium
               : United States. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
PUBLISHER      : Galveston, Tex. : The Consortium,
PUB. DATE      : 1975.
DESCRIPTION    : 2 v. : ill. ; 27 cm.
LANGUAGE       : ENGLISH
SUBJECT        : Nuclear excavation
               : Underground nuclear explosions
NOTES          : Cover title.
               : "Contact no. ACDA/PAB-253."
BIBLIOGRAPHY   : Includes bibliography.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE          : An Analysis of the economic feasibility, technical
                 significance, and time scale for application of peaceful
                 nuclear explosions in the U.S., with special reference to the
                 GURC report thereon : a panel report
AUTHOR         : Elkins, Lloyd E.
               : Cornell University. Program on Science, Technology, and
                 Society
               : United States. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
PUBLISHER      : Ithaca, N.Y. : Program on Science, Technology, and Society,
                 Cornell University,
PUB. DATE      : 1975.
DESCRIPTION    : iii, 45 p. ; 27 cm.
LANGUAGE       : ENGLISH
SUBJECT        : Nuclear excavation
NOTES          : "Final report to U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency."
BIBLIOGRAPHY   : Bibliography: p. 45.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE          : Peaceful nuclear explosions. Phenomenology and status report,
                 1970. Proceedings of a panel ... organized by the
                 International Atomic Energy Agency and held in Vienna, 2-6
                 March 1970
AUTHOR         : Panel on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions (1st : 1970
                 : Vienna)
               : International Atomic Energy Agency
PUBLISHER      : Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency,
PUB. DATE      : 1970.
DESCRIPTION    : 454 p. illus. 24 cm.
LANGUAGE       : ENGLISH
SERIES         : Panel proceedings series ;
SUBJECT        : Nuclear excavation
NOTES          : "STI/PUB/273."
               : English, French, or Russian; abstracts in English, French,
                 Spanish, and Russian.
               : "Peaceful nuclear explosions" (1 leaf) inserted.
BIBLIOGRAPHY   : Includes bibliographical references.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE          : Peaceful nuclear explosions III. Applications,
                 characteristics and effects, proceedings of a panel organized
                 by the International Atomic Energy Agency and held in Vienna,
                 27 November - 1 December 1972
AUTHOR         : Panel on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions (1972 :
                 Vienna)
               : International Atomic Energy Agency
PUBLISHER      : Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency,
PUB. DATE      : 1974.
DESCRIPTION    : 488 p. illus. 24 cm.
LANGUAGE       : ENGLISH
SERIES         : Panel proceedings series ;
SUBJECT        : Nuclear excavation
               : Nuclear explosions
NOTES          : "STI/PUB/367."
               : English, French, or Russian; abstracts in English, French,
                 Spanish, and Russian.
BIBLIOGRAPHY   : Includes bibliographical references.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE          : Education for peaceful uses of nuclear explosives
AUTHOR         : Weaver, Lynn E.
PUBLISHER      : Tucson, Ariz., University of Arizona Press
PUB. DATE      : [1970]
DESCRIPTION    : xii, 347 p. illus., maps. 24 cm.
LANGUAGE       : ENGLISH
SUBJECT        : Atomic energy -- Addresses, essays, lectures
               : Explosions -- Addresses, essays, lectures
               : Nuclear excavation -- Addresses, essays, lectures
NOTES          : "Developed from papers presented at the symposium on
                 Education for the peaceful uses of nuclear explosives at the
                 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, March 31-April 2,
                 1969."
BIBLIOGRAPHY   : Includes bibliographical references.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE          : Proceedings
AUTHOR         : Symposium on Public Health Aspects of Peaceful Uses of
                 Nuclear Explosives, Southwestern Radiological Health
                 Laboratory (1969)
               : Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory
PUBLISHER      : [Washington] U.S. Consumer Protection and Environmental
                 Health Service, Environmental Control Administration;
                 distributed by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
                 Technical Information, Springfield, Va.,
PUB. DATE      : 1969]
DESCRIPTION    : vii, 753 [i.e. 377] p. illus., maps. 28 cm.
LANGUAGE       : ENGLISH
SUBJECT        : Nuclear excavation -- Congresses
               : Underground nuclear explosions -- Environmental aspects --
                 Congresses
               : Radioactivity -- Safety measures -- Congresses
NOTES          : "SWRHL-82."
               : "Sponsored by the Southwestern Radiological Health
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE          : Peaceful nuclear explosions IV : proceedings of a committee
                 ... organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency and
                 held in Vienna 20-24 January, 1975
AUTHOR         : Technical Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear
                 Explosions (1975 : Vienna)
               : International Atomic Energy Agency
PUBLISHER      : Vienna : International Atomic Energy Agency,
PUB. DATE      : 1975.
DESCRIPTION    : 479 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
LANGUAGE       : ENGLISH
SERIES         : Panel proceedings series ;
SUBJECT        : Nuclear excavation -- Congresses
               : Underground nuclear explosions -- Congresses
NOTES          : "STI/PUB/414"
               : "Peaceful nuclear explosions I-III" published as proceedings
                 of 1st-3d Panel on the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Explosions,
                 held in 1970, 1971, and 1972.
               : English or Russian; abstracts also in French and Spanish.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohng cudfnJohn cudlnGregor cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.14 / Dieter Britz /  Questions, answers and a comment.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions, answers and a comment.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1991 15:10:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: robiner@mizar.usc.edu (Steve Robiner)
 
>This might explain why many experiments showed spurious bursts of energy.
>They may have been caused by a slightly (or drastically) fluctuating power
>supply (some experimenters reportedly used car batteries!).  This fluctuating
>electric current would cause greater magentic fields.
No; all serious experimenters use control circuits that keep either the
electrode potential or - more usually - the cell current rigidly constant,
to a large extent independent of power fluctuations.
 
>So, maybe P & Fs special trick was using an alternating current instead of DC.
>Has anyone else tried this?  Even if it isn't a magnetic field, it might be
>interesting to see what effect AC had on the reaction.  Maybe it would let the
>D20 react faster by a constantly flushing in and out of the palladium.
Barry Merriman has pooh-poohed this one but it's not so far-fetched at all.
I am not thinking of magnetic effects (I take BM's word here) but a
fluctuating current would be similar to some Japanese experiments (the
"on-off" effect). These people work on the hypothesis that you must have
nonequilibrium, i.e. something changing all the time (this is also stated in
the original Jones+ paper). The Japanese alternately load the Pd with
deuterium, and flush it out again. Not that I tend to believe all this, but
it has a certain logic.
 
 
Originally-From: mrs@netcom.COM (Morgan Schweers)
 
>... I don't understand the meaning
>of (something like) 'excess <object-x> were detected, leading to the conclusion
>that fusion was occurring.'  If the desired effect of fusion is energy release,
>wouldn't it be extremely obvious?
This deserves a serious answer, as opposed to a flippant one. Let's take the
concept of "excess heat". When you do calorimetry, and measure the power you
put in (easy), account for all known chemical processes (electrolysis of
water, formation of the various palladium deuteride phases, possible
recombination of D2 and O2 gases) and physical processes (gas released, water
evaporating) - all of which are understood and can be measured more or less
well; when you do the sums and end up with a discrepancy in the form of more
heat given off than you calculate, this must come from some other process than
those you have taken into account. If the magnitude of the effect lies within
your experimental error, no problem (but one worker may argue with another on
what the error levels are!). If the effect is smallish but definite, you may
well have ignored some known effect (such as evaporation or heat carried off
by evolved gases). But if the heat energy is so large that, in principle, no
chemical or non-nuclear physical effect can be causing it, you have true and
exciting excess heat that has to come from some nuclear process.
 We can now argue whether this has actually happened. I don't think it has,
all excess heat levels have been pretty modest. The FPH paper did use some
numbers like megajoules; these are calculated excess heats integrated over
long times, and Kreysa has shown that you can easily get this from known
chemical effects. On careful reading and re-reading of the FPALH(90) paper, I
find no serious flaws (which doesn't say there aren't any). There does seem to
be a smallish excess heat level and the experimental error seems to be
amazingly small, well below the effect measured. I don't know what to make of
it. But still I don't reckon the effect is so large that one must assume a
nuclear process.
 Incidentally, Ali AbuTaha did come up with what he thought was an explanation
for the excess heat (another physical effect) but it has been shown not to
work.
 
 A comment on plasma fusion. Someone recently wrote in to say that it's "just"
an engineering problem now, working out the remaining wrinkles in plasma
confinement. It strikes me that this smug attitude may be wrong. Quantum
theory and the mathematics of chaos have shown us that some things just can't
be determined, no matter how much we refine our techniques. It may, *in
principle*, be impossible to confine a turbulent plasma and this may be the
reason that plasma people have taken 30 years and uncounted billions of money
units, and will - if so - continue to do so, without success. Maybe, or maybe
not.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.14 / Terry Bollinger /  Jez stirrin' da pot a bit...
     
Originally-From: terry@ctc.contel.com (Terry Bollinger  x4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jez stirrin' da pot a bit...
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1991 16:15:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OAKRIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORIES REPORT ORNL/TM-11322
 
Way back on April 26 (Thursday) 1990, Dr. Nathan Lewis of Caltech gave
a talk at a joint colloquium that was sponsored by the National Science
Foundation Physics Department and George Washington University.  The
meeting was held at GWU in downtown Washington, D.C.  I attended the
meeting, and taped the talk.  Because I got sidetracked on some other
amusing issues in physics, I never summarized the report on this net
as I had originally intended to do.
 
Dr. Lewis gave a blistering talk with regards to the accuracy of the
various claims of results that "proved" nuclear fusion in PdDx and TiDx
systems.  Though I am naught but a poor, bewildered computer scientist,
I found the vast majority of his points well-stated and highly convincing.
It would have been very hard to listen closely and attentively to what
Dr. Lewis had to say and not come to the conclusion that there was very
little evidence indeed of anything remotely resembling deuterium fusion
going on in PdDx.  My thoughts were something of the ilk of "ah! this
talk should help dispense of this nonsense once and for all!"
 
Thus I was quite irritated when Dr. Lewis plopped down Figure 9 of Oak
Ridge National Laboratory report number ORNL/TM-11322, which describes
the last 300 hours of a 950 hour closed-system PdDx run performed by
C.D. Scott, J.E. Mrochek, E. Newman, T.C. Scott, G.E. Michaels, and
M. Petek of Oak Ridge Labs.
 
As described in more detail in the report, the Figure 9 chart shows a
system with an average energy input of roughtly 18 watts (J/s), and a
a net energy (heat) output of that was about 5% greater (or 19 watts)
for a period of about 200 hours.  That means that over that 200 hour
period, the system (labeled CF-4 in the paper) produced 0.65 megajoules
more energy than it received.  If one assumes that that energy came
from the PdDx component as opposed to the much larger electrolyte
component of the closed system, this would imply that the 0.65 Mjoules
came from a small wire containing about 0.5 cubic cm of PdDx material.
(Details of the wire are:  0.28 cm diameter, 8.0 cm length, swaged and
annealed at 900 degrees C for 2 hours in a vacuum.)
 
Again assuming that the heat output originated entirely from within the
volume of the wire, all of this implies an effective energy density of
*some* sort in the order of 1.3 Mjoules/cm3.  Anyone reading this who
believes that that kind of energy density can come from crystal lattice
stress probably also believes in Mary Poppins, and might just as well
go on to the next e-mail.  As I have stated before on this net, such
energy densities are flatly impossible because they are in excess of
the binding energies of matter -- any attempt to store that level of
energy in the electronic structure of solid matter at room temperature
and room pressure object will simply vaporize said object.  When the
chemists say such things are impossible, they *are* talking about
physics -- the physics of solid state matter.  They are just saying
it a little bit differently, that's all.
 
So clearly this was one of those sloppy, inept, first-year chemistry
hack type of experiments, right?  (I'm sure that kind of stuff never
happens to nukeys, barring perhaps that early case of the guy who
had a nuclear reactor on his desk and killed himself by bumping it
one day...)  Well shucks, as a computer type all I can say is that there
is a noticable difference in the integrity and completeness of sloppy
work vs. good work, and that I had a very, very hard time finding any
type of significant problems with this report.  It is meticulously done,
and does an excellent job of describing just about ever aspect of how
the experiments were performed.  I looked, but could find none of the
usual indicators of an experiment done by "true believers" who are
trying to prove a point regardless of whether the point is there or not.
 
Indeed, my impression was quite the opposite:  I was left with the
impression that the authors would have been delighted *not* to have
found data that seemed to support "true believers" of heat production.
The problem was (darn it all!) that the *experiment* refused to behave.
At several points the authors give very specific data, but then avoid
doing the obvious thing of summarizing its implications -- e.g., the
1.3 Mjoule/cm3 figure I gave above is easily calculated from specific
information given in the paper, but the authors do *not* make the
calculation for you.  If you are sufficiently interested, they give
you the information to do it on your own.
 
And again, this is *closed system* data from a *national lab*.  (Gee,
wasn't that once the public criterion for proving that there was some
highly unexpected physics going on in PdDx systems?  Must just be my
poor, feeble computer scientist memory failing me...)  But don't just
take my poor ramblings about it.  Here is an exact quote (as I said, I
have him on tape) of what a quite good and *very* critical electrochemist
from Caltech, Dr. Nathan Lewis, had to say about the ORNL Scott CF-4
experiment and results at his April 1990 colloquium:
 
  "And so those are the numbers you hear about -- 'we make 50 megajoules
  per cubic centimeter' -- come from data like this.  It might be real.
  It depends if, if you can evaluate what the random and systematic errors
  are, and what the calibration constants are, at all times in the system.
  These are calibrated there and there, they're calibrated at the beginning,
  and maybe at the end, and maybe once in the middle.  And so the question
  is 'just how constant is everything in the system to that level of
  accuracy?'  It may be good enough, it may not -- that's what we've
  fighting over."
 
Unlike many folks, Dr. Lewis clearly appreciated the very unusual nature
of the ORNL Scott CF-4 results, and for that reason was focusing very,
very intently on possible experimental flaws -- exactly as he should have
been!  What struck me most, however, was the difficulty he seemed to be
having at *finding* such flaws.  I remember at one point in the talk the
expression "grasping at straws" came to my mind -- for any other set of
results done this carefully, such fine-toothed introspection would have
been downright silly.  But as I said, these were not ordinary results,
and I think Dr. Lewis was quite justified to nitpick.  Unfortunately,
the nits he came up with were not very impressive for the ORNL Scott CF-4
experiment, especially when compared to the rolling good time Dr. Lewis
had just had dismantling the "fusion" signatures of other experiments.
 
Here is what Scott et all had to say at the end of report ORNL/TM-11322:
 
  "Preliminary tests of the electrolysis of D2O utilizing LiOD electrolytes
  and palladium electrodes have not confirmed the "cold fusion" phenomena.
  However, there have been several apparently anomalous neutron count rates,
  one unexplained 25-fold increase in tritium, and periods of many hours
  of apparent excess energy.  None of these results has been precisely
  reproduced, nor can they be explained by conventional nuclear or chemical
  theory."
 
What's that?  Can't be explained?  By conventional nuclear *or* chemical
theory?  I rather suspect that they, too, did that summary calculation of
1.3 Mjoules/cm3, and knew what it meant.
 
Now ain't that a pretty pickle?  But hey, this data is almost a *year old*,
so we can just *ignore* it, can't we?  After all, *everyone* knows that the
validity of well-performed experiments declines linearly with time -- or,
in the case of chemists blabbing about new physics, exponetially...  }=-)>
 
.....
 
By the way:  Frank Close apparently was associated with ORNL during the
same general time frame that all of this was going on.  With American
sales of his book just now getting underway, I suspect he's keeping tabs
on this net.  If Dr. Close could make any additional comments about this
experiment (especially any corrections if I have erred on any facts), I
suspect we'd all be interested.  The ORNL Scott CF-4 result has troubled
me for many months now, and I would love to see some more specific data
as to whether it should or should not be discountenanced.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.12 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  2nd CNF Conference and more "tricks"
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 2nd CNF Conference and more "tricks"
Date: 12 Mar 91 02:49:17 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

 
Apparently there will be a Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, but it
won't be held in Utah. The conference will instead be held in Como, Italy,
from June 29 - July 4, 1991. The General Chairpersons of the conference are
Dr. Tulio Bressani (University of Torino) and Dr. Guiliano Preparata
(University of Milano). The conference advisory committee (a veritable who's
who of true believers) includes Pons, Fleischmann, Menlove, Scaramuzzi,
McKubre and  Bockris. Interesting to see if the sceptics are allowed to (or
want to) attend this one.
 
On the subject of Pons' "tricks", there is apparently an even more important
one that even he doesn't know about. In the review of the NCFI conducted by
Adair and co, Pons is quoted as saying that he only gets excess heat from
specially treated palladium supplied by Johnson-Matthey, and that he himself
has not been informed what the special treatment is!
 
The report  mentions a little about P&F's latest excess heat results. As has
already been mentioned, Pons has allegedly discovered a "trick" to get more or
less reproducible heat production. This occurs about 9-10 days after the
commencement of the electrolysis and 3-4 bursts of heat are typically produced
before the cathode "dies". The amount of heat is not generally specified
but apparently one cell produced 450 kJ of excess heat and another boiled
dry. Hopefully there will be a paper or some other scrutiny of these results
soon.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Todd Green
Department Of Chemistry,
University Of Western Australia
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentiq cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.14 / Michael Attas /  cold fusion book by F.David Peat
     
Originally-From: Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion book by F.David Peat
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1991 20:03:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In my Astronomy Book club latest mailing, a book called Einstein's Moon:
Bell's Theorem and the Curious QUest for Quantum Reality, by F. David Peat
is described.  The author is profiled as "a physicist residing in Canada,
author of _Cold_Fusion_  (and _Superstrings_).  Have any of you heard of
the Cold fusion book he wrote, or even read it?  Is it pro/con/neither?
 
I've ordered the Frank Close book for our group, but it's not here yet.
 
Mikle
 
==================
       Michael Attas          Analytical Science Branch
       Pinawa, Manitoba       AECL Research, Whiteshell Laboratories
       Canada  R0E 1L0        (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited)
                                     (204) 753-2311 Ext. 2796
       attasm@wnre.aecl.ca (or .cdn)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenattasm cudfnMichael cudlnAttas cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 14 Mar 91 07:42:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

Contains responses to comments or responses by:
 
                          Vincent Cate
                          Steve Fairfax
                          Barry Merriman
                          Mike Van Pelt,    and
 
>In article: <27887@netcom.COM> Inmrs@netcom.COM (Morgan Schweers) queries:
 
>>    I'm interested in the plausibility of fusion (*NOT* cold fusion) as an
>>alternate energy source.  In respect to this, I have a bunch of questions...
>>   1)  Is it doable with present technology?
 
For Commercially viable electric power production the answer is NO, not
with present technology.  The current plan in mag fusion is to not seek
alternative more engineering responsible alternative concepts, but
instead just plow ahead exclusively with the tokamak, already nearly
30 years of not even through the "science stage".  The wall problem
is one of the killers, it must remain a fantastically clean super vacuum
membrane, and with expected radiation flux rates it couldn't last
a month of continuous operation without replacement.   Even now they can
only operate for an small fraction of an hour of full
current spread of a number of order second "shots"  before the walls
have to re-coated with refractory metal.  To replace an operating reactor
toroidal first wall will take billions, and for less than two months
of electric power output??
 
The ostrich head in the sand gov-fusion leadership's plan is for a
fairy god mother to wish MAGIC wall materials into existence.  The
program fancifully depends on such non-sense.
 
>>    2)  Is it safe?  (I've heard it said, "Nuclear reactors CANNOT explode.
>>Thermonuclear, on the other hand..."  Is this true?  I understand that
>>'regular' reactors are safe in this regard, but what are the restrictions on
>>thermonuclear reactions?)
 
Collectively they could be occasionally dangerous.  The plasma stabilizing
toroidal field coils will have order 10 giga joules  (10 billions of)
energy, which when one of these SUPERCONDUCTING devils faults under
the enormous torsional and expansion stresses the whole thing goes BOOM!.
That's hundreds of thousands of pounds of brisant explosive power (energy
if you think fast).
 
It would destroy a minimum of $$$billions in equipment and structure
and release a substantial radioactive (bio-phllic) inventory of
tritium from the huge volume of lithium breeding combs.
 
>>    3)  What are the estimates for the completion of fusion as a usable
>>mechanism?  (Time wise/expense wise)
 
Never, for tokamak, and it depends on investment and funding, but I would
say first significant burns before 2000 from a compact alternate.
 
>>    4)  NOW, in regards to "Cold Fusion".  Has this been resolved, and is
>>there a likelihood of it EVER being resolved?  I don't understand the
>>meaning of (something like) 'excess <object-x> were detected, leading to
>>the conclusion that fusion was occurring.'  If the desired effect of fusion
>>is energy release, wouldn't it be extremely obvious?
 
Cold Fusion allegedly puts out more net power(out) to power(in) per cubic
centimeter then the 100 billion dollar world wide tokamak program.  That
should indicate the plight of the mag fusion tokamak program.
 
In article: <1991Mar12.162031.389@cs.cmu.edu> vac@crux.fac.cs.cmu.edu
(Vincent Cate) writes:
>The thing that killed [ploughshare] was a belief that the U.S. public
>would not like the idea of using nuclear bombs to generate power.
 
Yes, and experience with underground bomb testing program, hydrology, etc.
They have difficulty finding a dump for current rad-waste let alone
one that would "cracked" by a thermonuclear blast.
 
>>    3)  What are the estimates for the completion of fusion as a usable
>>mechanism?  (Time wise/expense wise)
 
>Around 30 years ago.  Well under $1 billion (1 B1? or was it B2?).
 
Bussard thought he could produce throw away tokamaks for a million a
piece, and the didn't produce even one for the 17 million he received
from just one investment source, Guccione (Penthouse Mag).  If it
doesn't work it costs like hell --  (infinite black hole for $$$$).
 
A single small experimental tokamak that can't produce any power, has
superconducting magnets, and has no capability or apparatus for
extracting and converting the wanting power is in real 91 dollars
probably 4 to 8 billion.
 
In article: <1991Mar12.184509.11884@athena.mit.edu>
fairfax@alcvax.pfc.mit.edu (Steve Fairfax) writes:
 
>The best machines now can produce about 20% as much heat out as it
>takes to heat them.
 
Not Quite!!  Perhaps such a number comes AFTER subtracting all of
the energy that doesn't make it into the plasma (nearly all of it).
Then of the tiny bit that does get to the plasma, perhaps as much as
20% would be matched by a fusion burn.  However, this has never happened
it has only been calculated as would happen IF all kinds of wonderful
things go super.    BTW it "would" have used the correct fuel, and
further we are to look at THE cubic centimeter of plasma that has
been just gas puffed (or spheromaked), been particle beam blasted,
and even perhaps lasered as well. - use salt when Princeton speaks -
 
>>    2)  Is it safe? ...
> ..  . .  Fission power causes far fewer casualties because so
>little fuel is required and relatively few emissions are
>released.  (Three mile island and Chernoble included.)
 
Huh!!  little fuel?? 8 tons of the good stuff and 92 tons of other
potential trouble?  Maybe depends on your inventory accountant and
how many of the working reactors are considered, i. e. Hanford,
Clinch R. .. .  etc.
 
>The fusion reaction releases neutrons, but these are
>easily stopped by a thick concrete wall or similarly simple
>means.
 
Really thick (multi meters) and then you end up with a REALLY intense
activation and waste problem.
 
>The tritium fuel is radioactive, and a fusion power plant
>will have a containment structure to make sure that no tritium
>can be released to the environment.  The tritium is produced in
>the machine, so there are no transportation hazards and
>relatively few processing problems.
 
Don't count on it.   The tritium must be "processed", i. e.
separated from the helium four coolant,  and that requires an
very large building stuffed with the processing apparatus.  The
bigger the surface area, valving etc, the larger the leak problem.
Hydrogen (tritium) is metal reactive.   I was told that because of
this possibility, the TFTR will not operate with DT.   :-)  Actually
they wouldn't have done it anyway  .. DoE/Princeton can't stand egg
on the face.
 
>A 30-year old fusion plant that was retired
>would need to be isolated from the environment for about 100
>years before the radiation hazard was minimal.
 
Hmmmm! you mean it takes thirty years to get the wall loading
lifetime operating limit of thirty days ??   Hmmm!  you might be
right!   They certainly aren't operating up to that a plasma duty
cycle yet even in the science programs.
 
>    3)  What are the estimates for the completion of fusion as a usable
>mechanism?  (Time wise/expense wise)
 
>How much do you have to spend?  Seriously, the effort is
>currently limited strictly by funding, not by ideas or knowledge.
 
Good Grief !!   Help .. .  reality check Help .. .  reality check Help .. .
 reality check    ldsa;lj  ke3jj mvcmz ..  .
 
The ONLY approved approach to fusion, the tokamak, couldn't work
commercially if we spent the total world's annual wealth on it for
the next millennium.  Being that, it is a program manager's wildest
dream -- major funding justification for a lifetime --  his kid's
lifetime --  his grand .. .
 
>This is still research and one should expect some setbacks, blind
>alleys, and mistakes.
 
Right, DEAD END ALLEYS that apparently the VEHICLE OF FUSION DEVELOPMENT
can't back out of.   The idiot governments of the world have NO REVERSE
and the programs are too big and interlinked to turn around.  That is
THE set back; unfortunately, there may be no fix.
 
>    4)  NOW, in regards to "Cold Fusion".  Has this been resolved, and is
>there a likelihood of it EVER being resolved?
 
Cold fusion is a breath of fresh barn yard air by comparison to the
current mag fusion program.  They compare like a gnat and a
brontosaurus gigantus.  A different scale of size, but not the quality
of "raw plant food" coming out of the respective programs.
 
>These efforts are steadily closing in on the conditions that will
>result in net energy release.
 
Dream on .. and on .. and on .. and on .. and on ..  etc.
It's closing, an asymptote, but that value is well BELOW total
positive net energy release.
 
In article: <1991Mar12.161450.10822@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>>    1)  Is it doable with present technology?
 
>Yes---if you make the reactor large enough so that the heat released, spread
>over its interior walls, does not destroy the wall; i.e. you need the
>reactor to be sufficiently large. For such reactors, the fanciest part
>of the technology would be the large superconducting magnets used to
>generate the magnetic fields---but that seems doable working from existing
>superconducting magnets.
 
Barry you are ignoring the commercial demand and the wall (impurity)
problem.  Even big ones need a clean boundary plasma and won't operate
commercially at a really low burn densities.
 
>However, if you want to keep the reactor fairly small, say a torus
>with minor radius of 3 meters, then you will need to develop new
>materials and heat removal techniques to deal with the heat loads at the
>walls. For example, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
>(ITER), which is the next major reactor planned, has two phases: a physics
>phase, in which they study the physics and control of a burning plasma,
>and a technology phase, in which they prototype technology for a future
>commercial reactor.
 
Neat trick.. they keep the funding going as a science program under
the guise that it will work as an engineering device.  Thus the
suckers keep pumping in money.  Of course the IAEA won't ever do the
technology phase, just like the DoE here avoided burning DT in the
TFTR or bringing the MF2B to a operational evaluation.
 
>Thus new ideas must be had for the ITER technology phase.
 
>But the bottom line is: a nuclear engineer will tell you they could build
>you a power producing reactor right now---if you just let them make it big
>enough. The drawback to this is that the machine---and thus the power---is
>more costly, and probably several times the cost of power, currently.
 
YEP!   $$ $$ $$
There is room on earth for two big "working" but non-commercial
tokamaks.  One setting over the north magnetic pole and on setting
over the south magnetic pole.
 
>Its about as safe as anything that produces nuclear energy can be.
>In terms of rad waste, its mostly activated materials/unstable isotopes
>with a half life of < 100 years.
 
I think the tritium inventory in the lithium matrix, and processing
building is the real problem.  One is quick if the toroidal coil goes,
and the other is a bleeder .. Sort of like having a myriad of space
shuttle leaks.
 
>It can't blow up---in fact, the fire would always love to go out!---but
>if you lose control of the plasma, it could boil away the wall coating,
>which contains radioactive materials (tritium, activated materials).
>This would release a moderate amount of radioactive gas---enough to be a danger
>in the immediate vicinity.
 
Famous last words.  The plasma inventory and its energy isn't the
problem, the available magnetic energy and release of tritium
inventory in the lithium breeding cells is.
 
>The US timetable is to have a commercial prototype in 2050---2060.
>(its slowly slipping away). However, many engineers say we
>could have one by 2010 if we really wanted to fund a major development
>effort.
 
Doesn't 80 years tell you that this thing is a commercial fusion LOSER!!
If it is a breakthough, then 10 years should show the first working
result.  The tokamak looks more like a bust then a breakthrough.
 
>So, don't hold your breath.  [ speaking of cold fusion]
 
As currently pursued either HOT or COLD ..
 
In article  <7654@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
 
>>    1)  Is [fusion] doable with present technology?
 
>Nope, or we'd be doing it.  Lots of people are working like
>the dickens to invent the technology to do it, though.
 
GREAT reply!
 
>Fusion reactors exploding?  Not very likely.  It isn't possible to get
>*too* specific, since we're talking about hypothetical reactors of
>unknown design, but the magnetic confinement type contain a thin plasma
>which would be extinguished by any contact with the walls of the
>chamber.
 
It's those energy intensive stabilizing superconducting toroidal field
coils that are the "explosive hazard".  Of course it's not a nuclear
bomb, but then again, it could give the neighbors a "bump in the night"
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.14 /  LIGON@gecrdvm1 /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: LIGON@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 14 Mar 91 12:16:59 GMT
Organization: General Electric Corporate Research & Development

In a reply to this thread, it has been suggested that the fusion containment
 vessel could be constructed of a material which would give relatively short
 lived neutron capture products. While this is true, it overlooks the fact that
 one of the few absolutes in science is that virtually nothing is absolutely
 pure. The cost of even approaching five nines purity in a first wall material
would be astronomical. Accordingly there will always be traces of materials
 present which will give nasty long lived neutron capture products. Exactly,
this oversight has repeatedly caused problems for fission engineers.
 
 
Woody Ligon   GE CRD
this oversight has repeatedly caused problems for fission engineers.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenLIGON cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.15 /  /  Is Fusion possible
     
Originally-From: ames!CEBAF2.CEBAF.GOV!BEAUFAIT
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Fusion possible
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1991 00:33:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Back in the ealy 80s late 70s the inertial fusion boys said all they
needed was a laser that was 14% efficent to reach break even with
their process. The new FELs are reported to be approching 60% with
high power levels and fre
quency tunable. Whats the hold up? I cant be the only one whos spotted this.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBEAUFAIT cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.15 / Dieter Britz /  Tritium; more on heat.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium; more on heat.
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1991 15:25:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
fairfax@alcvax.pfc.mit.edu (Steve Fairfax) assures us that the tritium given
off by a plasma fusion reactor would be 100% contained and processed.
Pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) expresses some doubts about this, and I
agree with him. We have seen the same sort of statement about plutonium, and
there are lots of kg missing, lots of it lying in a desert in Australia and
who knows where else. There is a pattern to this: these gung-ho types, wanting
some particular technology badly, start by saying it's perfectly safe, we'll
contain this bad stuff 100%, don't worry. Next, we find that some it does
escape (as Koloc says, there are always leaks, mistakes etc). Then the word
is, it's not really so dangerous as the cranks are saying, you know. If the
government is involved, permissible levels are raised.
 This reminds me of a Gahan Wilson cartoon; a politician in his office,
wearing a gas mask; streaky gray smoke visible outside his window; an
assistant, also gas masked, comes in says "I'm sorry, Sir, there are some more
of these eco-nuts wanting to talk with you". I have to paraphrase, because I
no longer have my Playboy Gahan Wilson Collection, where this appeared. I've
bought it about 4 times and everytime I lend it to someone, it doesn't come
back.
  After I sent off my last submission, partly about excess heat, another kind
of excess heat occurred to me, which you might call the really truly excess
heat. Forget the chemical reactions possibly swallowing heat, like water
electrolysis (you might get back some...all of this by recombination) and
evaporation, or warmed-up gases exiting from the cell. Simply look at how much
power (energy per time unit) you are putting in, and how much heat is
produced. If you do this with a resistor instead of an electrochemical cell,
you get exactly 100% out/in (that's why you use resistors to calibrate a
calorimetric experiment). In an electrolysis, out/in will likely be less than
unity because of the energy-swallowing processes, but it can never be greater
than one. If it is, you have a "hitherto unknown nuclear process". This
definition has a practical value, if you want to use the heat for something.
You may not wish to recombine the evolved gases to get back the swallowed
heat, but if you want to go commercial, you must get more heat than you put
in energy. Unless I misinterpret the rather scanty paper, this is what Huggins
got (Belzner et al, I'll soon put it into the list) and - from Terry B's
submission, Scott of Oak Ridge.
 The above, incidentally, leads to thoughts of energy budgetting. If you are
assessing a particular way of generating energy, one way is to look at it in
terms of money. How much does it cost in toto, how much do I get when I sell
it? This is OK for a particular operator (in fact, it will likely be the only
criterion), but for the nation as a whole it may be misleading. There might
be subsidies from the government (i.e. hidden costs) or you might be getting
some resource dirt cheap from a poor third world country. However, if you
tally up all the energy used in order to produce a given amount of energy, you
have a much cleaner measure. You have to include the fuel
used to mine the coal or uranium or whatever, energy for transport, for
building the plant and running it, etc. If you still get more out than you put
in, you're in business. How about cold fusion (let's assume we have a real
effect)? How much energy is used up to produce 99.5% pure D2O, and Pd
electrodes? Do we in fact need Pd, or can we maybe use nickel, which also
absorbs hydrogen? So far, of course, we're not even sure whether we have an
effect at all, and we are just trying to confirm it. The above brutal out/in
definition of excess heat is a sort of enery budget. You could refine it by
making sure of recombination, and then you'd need to count the energy used for
that as well. All this - even if cold fusion exists - is way ahead of the
state of the art at the moment.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: 2nd CNF Conference and more "tricks"
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 2nd CNF Conference and more "tricks"
Date: 14 Mar 91 22:49:13 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Mar12.104918.3061@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
 writes:
 
> ..  .   .     ,      ,       ,     In the review of the NCFI conducted by
>Adair and co, Pons is quoted as saying that he only gets excess heat from
>specially treated palladium supplied by Johnson-Matthey, and that he himself
>has not been informed what the special treatment is!
 
Such want of information is not surprising.  I believe it is J-M that
provides the specially treated and selected metals for matrices used
to confine super high densities of light fusionable nuclei.  These mints
are then are used as "reaction rate accelerators" in thermonuclear bomb
initiators.  The metal is highly purified, zone refined, and degassed
at the melting point and then allowed to cool as a single crystal.  The
actual technique is classified and covered by the British Secrets Act.
 
Otherwise, treated boules are not nearly as functional.      :-(
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.15 / Charlie Ih /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: ih@udel.edu (Charlie Ih)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 15 Mar 91 15:29:43 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1991Mar14.074217.24989@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>Contains responses to comments or responses by:
> .....
>>>    2)  Is it safe?  (I've heard it said, "Nuclear reactors CANNOT explode.
 .......
>
>Collectively they could be occasionally dangerous.  The plasma stabilizing
>toroidal field coils will have order 10 giga joules ....
 
>| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
 
Is this correct?  If we charge the coil at 100 kw rate (10^5 w, for the
moment, let's not worry about how to do it),  it will take 27.8 hrs.
If the Tokamak toroidal coils are not good for anything else, they
may be very good for energy storage devices.
 
Charles S. Ih, University of Delaware,  302-451-8173.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenih cudfnCharlie cudlnIh cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 16 Mar 91 06:08:43 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <47741@nigel.ee.udel.edu> ih@udel.edu (Charlie Ih) writes:
>In article <1991Mar14.074217.24989@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>>Contains responses to comments or responses by:
>>>>    2)  Is it safe?  (I've heard it said, "Nuclear reactors CANNOT explode.
 
>>Collectively they could be occasionally dangerous.  The plasma stabilizing
>>toroidal field coils will have order 10 giga joules ....
 
>Is this correct?  If we charge the coil at 100 kw rate (10^5 w, for the
>moment, let's not worry about how to do it),  it will take 27.8 hrs.
>If the Tokamak toroidal coils are not good for anything else, they
>may be very good for energy storage devices.
 
>Charles S. Ih, University of Delaware,  302-451-8173.
 
Yep!  That MIGHT supply juice to a block of all electric powered single
family homes for a day!  It is kind of neat, but at what cost???  "VERY
GOOD"  can depend on your point of view.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.17 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 17 Mar 91 01:56:52 GMT
Organization: Intstitute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD

In article <1991Mar14.074217.24989@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
 
>>>    2)  Is it safe?
>
>Collectively they could be occasionally dangerous.  The plasma stabilizing
>toroidal field coils will have order 10 giga joules  (10 billions of)
>energy, which when one of these SUPERCONDUCTING devils faults under
>the enormous torsional and expansion stresses the whole thing goes BOOM!.
>That's hundreds of thousands of pounds of brisant explosive power (energy
>if you think fast).
 
Same kind of technology is at work in large particle accelerators.  It's
something to worry about, but not enormously difficult.
 
>
>>>    4)  NOW, in regards to "Cold Fusion".  Has this been resolved, and is
>>>there a likelihood of it EVER being resolved?  I don't understand the
>>>meaning of (something like) 'excess <object-x> were detected, leading to
>>>the conclusion that fusion was occurring.'  If the desired effect of fusion
>>>is energy release, wouldn't it be extremely obvious?
>
 
>Cold Fusion allegedly puts out more net power(out) to power(in) per cubic
>centimeter then the 100 billion dollar world wide tokamak program.
                     ??????????  US fusion budget/year < $300 million.
This is ridiculous.  If it were 100 billion, fusion would be working much
better now.
 
  That
>should indicate the plight of the mag fusion tokamak program.
 
"allegedly" is the right word.
 
>>    4)  NOW, in regards to "Cold Fusion".  Has this been resolved, and is
>>there a likelihood of it EVER being resolved?
>
>Cold fusion is a breath of fresh barn yard air by comparison to the
>current mag fusion program.  They compare like a gnat and a
>brontosaurus gigantus.  A different scale of size, but not the quality
>of "raw plant food" coming out of the respective programs.
 
Oh please.  From experimental evidence, it's highly doubtful that
any fusion at all is going on in "cold fusion".   People haven't had
any problem seeing fusion period in magnetic confinement fusion since the
50's.  As you mention (but I deleted for brevity), the sheer amount of
fusion presents problems in the wall.
 
>
>>How much do you have to spend?  Seriously, the effort is
>>currently limited strictly by funding, not by ideas or knowledge.
>
>Good Grief !!   Help .. .  reality check Help .. .  reality check Help .. .
 reality check    ldsa;lj  ke3jj mvcmz ..  .
>
>The ONLY approved approach to fusion, the tokamak, couldn't work
>commercially if we spent the total world's annual wealth on it for
>the next millennium.  Being that, it is a program manager's wildest
>dream -- major funding justification for a lifetime --  his kid's
>lifetime --  his grand .. .
 
You have this paranoiac idea that the tokamak lobby is so intense that it
will stifle all competition.  Face it, in the real world, fusion researchers
and their government administrators are puny diddly-squat.  In fact, the
fusion administrators (note, not "tokamak administrators") and especially
the scientists would love to find an alternative that works far better, as
it would assure them that their program would, all of a sudden, become FAR
more important!
 
>
>>This is still research and one should expect some setbacks, blind
>>alleys, and mistakes.
>
>Right, DEAD END ALLEYS that apparently the VEHICLE OF FUSION DEVELOPMENT
>can't back out of.   The idiot governments of the world have NO REVERSE
>and the programs are too big and interlinked to turn around.  That is
>THE set back; unfortunately, there may be no fix.
 
THey're too big, and they're too small.  There isn't enough money to
seriously investigate many alternatives.  (Or shall I say---the fusion
administrators have so little clout, and the congressional funding
process so short-sighted, that the money given to them is only enough to
ensure a long-drawn out process, whose slow pace will be reason to justify
further cutbacks)
 
THere is a hope for a fix:
propose and publicize a patently better alternative.  Have it withstand
the test of theoretical and experimental investigations.   So far, the
tokamak, despite its early inception, has remained standing while most
other proposals have gone by the wayside.
>
>In article: <1991Mar12.161450.10822@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu
>(Barry Merriman) writes:
>>>    1)  Is it doable with present technology?
>>Yes---if you make the reactor large enough so that the heat released, spread
>>over its interior walls, does not destroy the wall; i.e. you need the
>>reactor to be sufficiently large. For such reactors, the fanciest part
>>of the technology would be the large superconducting magnets used to
>>generate the magnetic fields---but that seems doable working from existing
>>superconducting magnets.
>
>Barry you are ignoring the commercial demand and the wall (impurity)
>problem.  Even big ones need a clean boundary plasma and won't operate
>commercially at a really low burn densities.
 
How, in any magnetic confinement scheme, do you propose to avoid the
wall activation problem?  Reactions that don't make neutrons have an
even smaller reaction cross-section than DT.  I mean, it's a hard enough
problem already---if you can just get DT confined well enough to work really
well, people will figure out the materials.
 
>{more arguments against magnetic fusion deleted}
 
 
>+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
>|                                                         +Commercial*
>| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
>| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
>| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
>+---------------------------------------------------------************
 
I realize that you have your own design for a fusion device, that you
believe to be much superior to the tokamak.  If it is indeed so much better,
then why hasn't there been much work done investigating it, at least on
a theoretical level?  For instance, how do you get around the essential
problem of heat transport to the walls?  You seem to have a detestation
for magnets---what else will really confine the plasma?
 
If you want your idea to be taken seriously, you have to make a serious
effort to get many scientists at least thinking about your idea.  This means
going to all the conferences talking up a storm, and submitting papers to
real peer-reviewed journals.  (the UC MELVYL library catalog gives
78 periodicals with the word "fusion" in their titles)
 
Please don't say, "The 'tokamak establishment' can't stand to have their
welfare program taken away and they will conspire to squash my idea" or
"I can't do that because I will give away my 'secrets' and
that will piss off my private investors."
 
1)  The "scientific establishment", contrary to what you might think, doesn't
suppress new ideas in order to suppress real innovation.  Ideas that
challenge the "conventional wisdom" will be subject to very tough scrutiny,
of course, but that's because usually the "conventional wisdom" has come about
because of previous scientific knowledge.  If you have a new idea, you have
to explain exactly why the "conventional wisdom" is wrong.  The Physical
Review has published many kooky things before, much odder than a new way
to do fusion.
 
2)  If you do truly have a practical way to do fusion, the world will
beat a path to your door!!!!!!  You will be rich and powerful, even if you
do "give out your secret"!   You can't possibly expect the gov't to give you
alot of money without explaining why you think it will work---AND LETTING
OTHERS EXAMINE IT AND GIVE IT AN INDEPENDENT OPINION.  This is standard
procedure in science, and can't be changed for your case.
 
********
If you really do believe that you can do fusion, I think it to be _immoral_ to
deprive the world of such an important invention while worrying about your
"secret" or "tokamak establishments".
********
 
Unfortunately, this is a common syndrome:  Inventor has fantastic idea, but
doesn't submit it to real journals, worrying about how he'll have his
secret "stolen".  Complains about how the scientific establishment has such
a vested interest in keeping things the old way that they'll intentionally
hush up his far superior alternative.
 
Almost always, this is a sign of either scientific bogosity or fraud.
 
 
I really hope that this is not the case in your circumstance.
 
 
 
Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.16 / John DuBois /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: spcecdt@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (John DuBois)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 16 Mar 91 02:35:31 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1991Mar14.074217.24989@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
 
+Collectively they could be occasionally dangerous.  The plasma stabilizing
+toroidal field coils will have order 10 giga joules  (10 billions of)
+energy, which when one of these SUPERCONDUCTING devils faults under
+the enormous torsional and expansion stresses the whole thing goes BOOM!.
+That's hundreds of thousands of pounds of brisant explosive power (energy
+if you think fast).
 
    A nit... 10 GJ ~ 2000 kg of TNT by my calculations...
 
+It would destroy a minimum of $$$billions in equipment and structure
+and release a substantial radioactive (bio-phllic) inventory of
+tritium from the huge volume of lithium breeding combs.
 
    Probably the same effect though.
 
    John
--
John DuBois	spcecdt@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us	KC6QKZ
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenspcecdt cudfnJohn cudlnDuBois cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.17 / HENRY BAUER /       Peat's book on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: HENRY BAUER <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Peat's book on cold fusion
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1991 17:11:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some one asked about this book. It is purely a potboiler, thrown together from
very early reports, poorly organized, repetitive. Adds nothing to the reviews
that were published in TIME and NEWSWEEK.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnHENRY cudlnBAUER cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Is fusion possible? epic and deteriorating
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible? epic and deteriorating
Date: 17 Mar 91 12:37:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <4970@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>In article <1991Mar14.074217.24989@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>
>>>>    2)  Is it safe?
>>
>>The plasma stabilizing >>toroidal field coils will have order 10 giga
>>(10 billions of) joules (energy), which when one of these SUPERCONDUCTING
>>devils faults under the enormous torsional and expansion stresses the
>>whole thing goes BOOM!.
 
>Same kind of technology is at work in large particle accelerators.  It's
>something to worry about, but not enormously difficult.
 
Not even close.  Particle accelerators' coils have essentially no
torsional stresses, aren't loaded nearly so much, and have a much
smaller cross section (radius of curvature).
 
>>Cold Fusion allegedly puts out more net power(out) to power(in) per cubic
>>centimeter then the 100 billion dollar world wide tokamak program.
>                     ??????????  US fusion budget/year < $300 million.
 
>This is ridiculous.  If it were 100 billion, fusion would be working much
>better now.
 
The USA funding was closer to a billion/yr then 300 million a few
years ago.  By the world wide tokamak program I'm including all
-machines built and operated over the last 25-30 years, and the
planned costs of the projects CURRENTLY underway such as ITER and
CIT.  The 100 billion is net cumulative value, NOT a per year value.
 
>Oh please.  From experimental evidence, it's highly doubtful that
>any fusion at all is going on in "cold fusion".   People haven't had
>any problem seeing fusion period in magnetic confinement fusion since the
>50's.  As you mention (but I deleted for brevity), the sheer amount of
>fusion presents problems in the wall.
 
That's not fusion enough to light one wooden match.  If there was
much more the walls would become activated, shutting down the
experimental operation of the device.  The wall problem is ugly
with only plasma ohmic heating.  The T-machine's walls have to be
gettered and recoated much, much too often for anything like the
occurrence of a reasonably sustained and continuous "hot plasma"
operating time. For me, an hour of full plasma thermalization might
be promising.
 
>>>How much do you have to spend?  Seriously, the effort is
>>>currently limited strictly by funding, not by ideas or knowledge.
 
>You have this paranoiac idea that the tokamak lobby is so intense that it
>will stifle all competition.
 
WILL STIFLE ???    I would say in USA they HAVE stifled.  Oak Ridge,
Los Alamos, Math Sciences, University of MD have all been turned off!
Earlier the Mirror Program and MIT's compact high field density stuff
was chopped.   What do you want  for "stifle", mushroom clouds on the
horizon???
 
>and their government administrators are puny diddly-squat.  In fact, the
>fusion administrators (note, not "tokamak administrators") and especially
>the scientists would love to find an alternative that works far better, as
>it would assure them that their program would, all of a sudden, become FAR
>more important!
 
Their "program" isn't to find alternative or advanced concepts and
test them to a reasonable level of comparison to their current work.
It is to "strictly" do the task they are funded for.  That means
if some concept "breakthrough" happens, their program would die within
months, causing enormous personal stress, and they would be obsolete
and consequently of questionable worth by comparison with those who
have worked innovately, since they likely would be so far afield from
the advanced concept.
 
Incidentally, the USDOE has had a policy since 1981 that NO new fusion
concept would be looked at.  Now their policy is to ONLY look at the
tokamak.   WELL?
 
>>Right, DEAD END ALLEYS that apparently the VEHICLE OF FUSION DEVELOPMENT
>>can't back out of.
 
> .. There isn't enough money to seriously investigate many alternatives.
 
There is plenty of money for innovative fusion concepts, it's just
wasted by dumping it down the black "rat" hole called tokamak.
 
> ..   . .             ..   .         .   .THERE is a hope for a fix:
>propose and publicize a patently better alternative.  Have it withstand
>the test of theoretical and experimental investigations.   So far, the
>tokamak, despite its early inception, has remained standing while most
>other proposals have gone by the wayside.
 
Fine, SEND us the money to implement your fix, and we will do it.
Money talks and b. ..
 
The tokamak is standing????   It is a behemoth and has won because
it generated the biggest funding storm.
 
>How, in any magnetic confinement scheme, do you propose to avoid the
>wall activation problem?  Reactions that don't make neutrons have an
>even smaller reaction cross-section than DT.  I mean, it's a hard enough
>problem already---if you can just get DT confined well enough to work really
>well, people will figure out the materials.
 
Your not being imaginative.  Let's look at related difficulties.
One of the big flaws in the tokamak is it's tremendous inefficiency at
utlizing applied pressure, i. e. for about 1000 atmospheres applied,
only 5 atmospheres of fusion plasma pressure results.
 
With other schemes, that pressure can be raised to many 10's of
THOUSANDS of atmospheres of SUSTAINED plasma pressure.  That represents
a lot of heating.  Therefore, without the severe pressure limitations
of the tokamak, aneutronic fuels can be burned with enormous power
density, which goes with the pressure squared (plasma density squared).
 
Now, in this high pressure configuration, the wall can be a dense
plasma embedded in a liquid density blanket. Such a configuration
is IMPERVIOUS to fusion driven radiation.
 
>I realize that you have your own design for a fusion device, that you
>believe to be much superior to the tokamak.  If it is indeed so much better,
>then why hasn't there been much work done investigating it, at least on
>a theoretical level?  For instance, how do you get around the essential
>problem of heat transport to the walls?  You seem to have a detestation
>for magnets---what else will really confine the plasma?
 
It has been studied.  It was first studied under as the Spheromak.
It is not the best physical embodiment, however, an all plasma highly
conducting spheromak is.   Hyper conductivity (relativistic currents
and essentially zero electron thermal gradients), an ideally smooth
and stable topology, and ultra dense fields all make a very huge
contribution to transport reduction.
 
Fast electron plasma currents produce all of the necessary stabilizing
and confining fields.   The compound plasma configuration is
mechanically fluid compressed at its external spheroidal boundary.
 
>If you want your idea to be taken seriously, you have to make a serious
>effort to get many scientists at least thinking about your idea.
 
A few are and the number is growing.
 
>This means
>going to all the conferences talking up a storm, and submitting papers to
>real peer-reviewed journals.  (the UC MELVYL library catalog gives
>78 periodicals with the word "fusion" in their titles)
 
My interest is in designing, building and implementing technology
that works.  THEN we can do research and present papers.
 
>Please don't say, "The 'tokamak establishment' can't stand to have their
>welfare program taken away and they will conspire to squash my idea" or
 
They will not threaten my idea; it's too big to squash.  But talk to
human beings that were "squashed" or at least stepped on,  Dan Wells
of U Florida,  Bob Bussard of EMC2, VA.  Bogdan Maglich of Princeton
(last contact), Reese Roth of U Tenn, The CTR mag group at LANL, The
Mirror program group and LLNL, The Alcator group at MIT,  also Coppi
and Lidsky at the same institute.  (I'm sure I missed a half dozen).
Each of THESE can give you an idea of the quality, color, texture and
aroma  of "the fusion (big) tokamak establishment."
 
>1)  The "scientific establishment", contrary to what you might think, doesn't
>suppress new ideas in order to suppress real innovation.
 
No they don't, you're right; funding is simply not forth coming to
"those outside the program guys", however.  LIKE IN RUSSIA a few
years ago, they didn't put people in jail for dissent they just
lost their jobs.  . . and then they went to jail because they
weren't working.  (or to the funny farm).
 
>2)  If you do truly have a practical way to do fusion, the world will
>beat a path to your door!!!!!!  You will be rich and powerful, even if you
>do "give out your secret"!
 
You're living back in the 20's or thirties.  NOW, Venture money looks
for the fastest "turn around" for those greasy bucks - about EIGHTEEN
months.  People get their thrills about future technology by seeing
Star Wars or going to Disneyland.  Clones (parts made in the Orient)
of successful electronic developments of a few Corporations are the
biggy high risk venture.
 
> ..     .         .You can't possibly expect the gov't to give you
>a lot of money without explaining why you think it will work---AND LETTING
>OTHERS EXAMINE IT AND GIVE IT AN INDEPENDENT OPINION.  This is standard
>procedure in science, and can't be changed for your case.
 
Right for SCIENCE!  But it's not the standard procedure in development
and technology.    We may have the greatest number of Nobel Prise
winners, but our technology is huffing and puffing well behind
the Japanese and it is even behind the EC.  And we are Bigger
and more innovative... so what gives??
 
>If you really do believe that you can do fusion, I think it to be _immoral_ to
>deprive the world of such an important invention while worrying about your
>"secret" or "tokamak establishments".
 
I hate to see the tax payers get taken even by this fairly modest
chunk of money.  Since you feel so strongly about it, consider that
it is *(*(immoral)*)*) if you don't form a "cult" to support a winning
fusion concept.  :-)  It's even more immoral you haven't read a bit
about this one so for the umpteenth time:
 
R. Roth, "Ball Lightning as a Route to Fusion Energy" Proceedings of the
     IEEE, THE 13TH SYMPOSIUM ON FUSION ENGINEERING, Knoxville
     (Oct. 2-6, 1989), Cat. No. 89 CH 2820-9  Vol 2, pages 1407-1411
 
Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications"
FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141
 
P. M. Koloc, "The PLASMAK(tm) Configuration and Ball Lightning,"
     presented at the First International Symposium on Ball Lightning,
     Tokyo, Japan, July 1988.  see Y. H. Ohtsuki (ed.), (below)
Ohtsuki, Y. H. (ed.), Science of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball). Singapore:
    World Scientific Publishing Co.,  1989.  (First International
    Symposium on Ball Lightning, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan,
    4-6 July 1988) L.C. QC966.7.B3157  1988  551.5'634  89-9004
    Write to or telephone World Scientific Pub. Co.  Farrar Road  Bx
    128  Singapore 9128 U.S.: 687 Hartwell Street, Teaneck, NJ 07666
    1-800-227-7562
 
>Unfortunately, this is a common syndrome:  Inventor has fantastic idea, but
>doesn't submit it to real journals, worrying about how he'll have his
>secret "stolen".  Complains about how the scientific establishment has such
>a vested interest in keeping things the old way that they'll intentionally
>hush up his far superior alternative.
 
>Almost always, this is a sign of either scientific bogosity or fraud.
>I really hope that this is not the case in your circumstance.
 
     When you finally pull your head out of your butt, let me know.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.17 / Darren Garnier /  Re: Is fusion possible? epic and deteriorating
     
Originally-From: darth@athena.mit.edu (Darren T Garnier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible? epic and deteriorating
Date: 17 Mar 91 21:34:11 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1991Mar17.123708.5403@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
 
>WILL STIFLE ???    I would say in USA they HAVE stifled.  Oak Ridge,
>Los Alamos, Math Sciences, University of MD have all been turned off!
>Earlier the Mirror Program and MIT's compact high field density stuff
>was chopped.   What do you want  for "stifle", mushroom clouds on the
>horizon???
 
>They will not threaten my idea; it's too big to squash.  But talk to
>human beings that were "squashed" or at least stepped on,  Dan Wells
>of U Florida,  Bob Bussard of EMC2, VA.  Bogdan Maglich of Princeton
>(last contact), Reese Roth of U Tenn, The CTR mag group at LANL, The
>Mirror program group and LLNL, The Alcator group at MIT,  also Coppi
>and Lidsky at the same institute.  (I'm sure I missed a half dozen).
>Each of THESE can give you an idea of the quality, color, texture and
>aroma  of "the fusion (big) tokamak establishment."
>
 
Well, I'm not looking to get in the middle of a flame war, but I
would like to point out that the Alcator group at MIT is still
quite alive and kicking.  Alcator C-MOD, a compact, high-field tokamak
is in the final stages of assembly and should have first plasma by
September (well, I'm not the final word on that but that's the current
hope).
 
Darren Garnier
(Plasmoid Grad Student)
 
 
--
                        Darren Garnier
darth@athena.mit.edu                     | Some rise, some fall,
garnier@alcvax.pfc.mit.edu               | some try to get to Terrapin.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendarth cudfnDarren cudlnGarnier cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 / Mark North /  Re: Ponn's "special trick"
     
Originally-From: north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ponn's "special trick"
Date: 18 Mar 91 01:28:40 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <4087@bnr-rsc.UUCP> bcarh185!schow@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Stanley T.H. Chow)
 writes:
>In article <1811@manta.NOSC.MIL> north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) writes:
>>
>>Sorry, we baked our Pd at 600 deg C for many hours before the experiment.
>>Results -- negative.
>>
>
>What if the casting is done in a deuterium atmosphere? WOuldn't this put
>lots of D2 atoms inside?  Presumably, one could really "pre-load" the
>palladium to a high degree.
>
 
Yes, this is exactly how it's done. Around 500 deg C.
 
But you must then cool it slowly over 30 days or so so that stresses
don't develop (fracto-fusion).
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 /  GORAN /  Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: keserovi@latcs1.oz.au (GORAN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion in space ???
Date: 18 Mar 91 06:01:29 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

 
  I'm not any form of expert on fusion, but I've been reading a lot
about the current difficulties of getting fusion to work commercially.
 
  I was wondering if there is any reason why fusion can't be carried out
in space ..( approximately close to Earth ) and the energy somehow
broght down to Earth ...probably microwave or some other EM wave  ???
 
    Are there any physicists out there who could comment on th
feesability of this ??
 
 
    Goran Keserovic
 
    Computer Science ,  LaTrobe University  ,  Melbourne  ,  Australia.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenkeserovi cudlnGORAN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Is fusion possible?  .. . deteriorating
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?  .. . deteriorating
Date: 18 Mar 91 08:36:22 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Mar17.213411.9941@athena.mit.edu> darth@athena.mit.edu (Darren T
 Garnier) writes:
>In article <1991Mar17.123708.5403@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>> .  . ..       .. ..  .      .. . .        . .    .   But talk to
>>human beings that were "squashed" or at least stepped on,  Dan Wells
>>of U Florida,  Bob Bussard of EMC2, VA.  Bogdan Maglich of Princeton
>>(last contact), Reese Roth of U Tenn, The CTR mag group at LANL, The
>>Mirror program group and LLNL, The Alcator group at MIT,  also Coppi
>>and Lidsky at the same institute.  (I'm sure I missed a half dozen).
>>Each of THESE can give you an idea of the quality, color, texture and
>>aroma  of "the fusion (big) tokamak establishment."
 
>Well, I'm not looking to get in the middle of a flame war, but I
>would like to point out that the Alcator group at MIT is still
>quite alive and kicking.  Alcator C-MOD, a compact, high-field tokamak
>is in the final stages of assembly and should have first plasma by
>September (well, I'm not the final word on that but that's the current
>hope).
 
That's a good point.  Being stepped on doesn't always mean your dead,
at least in the near term.   MIT is an interesting mix of arch
"establishment"  and "outsiders" (independents).  The war line runs
through the campus and has even encroached on the Fusion Center.  The
personalities are very strong and they have their individual centers
of support.  Lucky that the Coppi's argument for high field tokamaks
with Furth at the IAEA meeting in 76 finally ended up with Coppi's
cause winning the decade.  The days of the fluffy tokamaks are about
gone, and the shift has been toward more pressure for a while now.
Being in the right place doesn't hurt so much.  Unfortunately, a high
field (pressure) tokamak doesn't produce all that much more plasma
pressure, since the plasma Beta slips a bit, and the pressure leverage
is just as negative.
 
Still it is a step (increment) in the right direction, and that says
their position may be precarious.  Princeton and GA Tech are the
big winners.  On the other hand with R Parker's and R Davidson's
strong establishment position its a real toss up.  K Molvig just
missed a really influential position a while back that also could
have helped their cause.   (a shoot out with ICF implying that these
T-machines would have been examined more closely which could have
been favorable to the MIT high field approach.)
 
>(Plasmoid Grad Student)
 
If you have conjured up a topology for a plasmoid, I would be
interested to hear about it.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 /  davidsen@crdos /  Relativity
     
Originally-From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Relativity
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 17:47:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> From: well.sf.ca.us!ddrasin
> Subject: Hatonn and the Pleiades
> Date: 15 Mar 91 18:20:57 GMT
 
> Distance is relative to the system of physics through which you
> perceive it. Current physics recognizes that conventional notions of
> space and time are transcended by demonstrable superluminal
> (faster-than-light) connections. The concept of a 'warp drive,' while
> certainly a long way from being realized, is not at odds with the
> picture of the universe that is presently unfolding at the leading
> edges of physics. Those who believe that 'what we know is all there
> is to know' should remember that powered flight was generally
> regarded as an impossiblity less than a century ago.
 
  I don't know what conventional physics you are reading, but I
would like to see any reputable (ie teaching at a reputable university)
physicist who agrees with you. To put it simply, while FTL phenomina are
not useful, in that they (a) don't apply to matter, and (b) can't carry
information.
 
  There was a presentation on this at the World Science Fiction
convention in Boston, and the committee didn't find anyone reputable who
thought this was a viable way to get from point A to point B. What we
did find is a bunch of scientists who pointed out major reasons why
something like the "warp drive" isn't possible. Not theoretical reasons,
but "if this happened then you would see that" when you can prove
there's no "that" to be seen.
 
  There was also some discussion of wormholes, etc, which ended with
agreement, or at least non-disagreement, that the duration and size
would be energy limited, and that space travel via wormhole might happen
in big bang conditions, but don't plan on buying a ticket in this sun's
lifetime.
 
  My impression of what you are calling the "leading edge" is something
which starts from the assumption that existing science is wrong in some
major way. While this is not totally impossible, you need some better
proof than someone mystic channeling hypothetical beings from outer
space.
 
  My concept of leading edge is looking into the dim areas of our
understanding, the holes and crannies, if you will. I find it much
easier to believe that there is "new science" which clarifies our
current understanding, rather than proving them wrong. Something like
Einstein and Newton; where relativity is a better approximation of
reality than the simple laws of motion, but most calculations still use
Newton's ideas because they are simpler and close enough to reality to
be effective.
 
  I don't normally comment on stuff in this digest, but this strikes me
as being the mixture of mysticism and marginal science which gives
investigation of the unusual a bad name.
 
> From: pluto@cs.ucsd.edu (Mark Plutowski)
> Subject: Re: Relativity Woes
> Date: 15 Mar 91 21:16:53 GMT
 
> My understanding is that it was more of a disaster for Roger Penrose's theory,
> which implied the connection between Einstein's theory and the cosmic
 censorship
> conjecture.  Also, even if Penrose is correct, and the simulations do give an
> accurate model of reality, then (I gather from what I have read) researchers
> are still split on the impact of this evidence upon Einstein's theory.
> At worst, it seems it will only put a chink in a branch of it, and will not
> affect any fundamental aspects of the theory.
 
  That's my understanding. Relativity is not a brittle monolith which
becomes useless if some part of it is proven wrong. Assuming that
additional work indicates that Penrose is correct, the information will
be integrated into relativity, and probably some quantum people will
start looking to see if it clarifies some of their muddy areas.
 
  The points still in question are wheter the simulation is correct, and
if so what the implications are to relativity.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendavidsen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 / Les Earnest /  New Book: Cold Fusion Pioneers ``Invented'' Data
     
Originally-From: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Book: Cold Fusion Pioneers ``Invented'' Data
Date: 18 Mar 91 10:18:00 GMT

[From Associated Press]
   NEW YORK (AP) - Two scientists who claim to have achieved a cold
fusion reaction in a test tube experiment based the claim on
``invented'' data, a physicist says in a new book.
   The author, Frank Close, said B. Stanley Pons, chairman of the
University of Utah chemistry department, and Martin Fleischmann of
Southampton University in England, violated scientific ethics, The
New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
   The two researchers dismissed the accusations.
   ``We did nothing wrong,'' Fleischmann told the newspaper in a
telephone interview from his home in England.
   Pons and Fleischmann startled scientists worldwide when they
called a news conference March 27, 1989, to announce they achieved
a nuclear fusion reaction in a test tube at room temperature.
   Nuclear fusion is the force that powers the sun and stars
through the merging, rather than splitting, of atoms. Achieving a
fusion reaction requires millions of degrees of heat. If one could
be generated at room, or ``cold,'' temperatures, a nearly limitless
supply of cheap energy could be developed.
   In his book, ``Too Hot to Handle,'' to be published in May by
Princeton University Press, Close said crucial evidence on which
the cold fusion claim was based was so skewed as to have been
``invented.''
   Close, a physicist and researcher, holds top posts at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in Tennessee and the Rutherford Laboratory in
Britain.
   All types of nuclear fusion produce a variety of byproducts,
including heat, gamma rays and neutrons. Pons and Fleischmann, in a
preliminary paper published shortly after their announcement, said
their reaction produced gamma ray readings of 2.5 million
electron-volts, or MeV.
   The reading, they said, was taken by Robert J. Hoffman, a
radiation safety officer at the University of Utah.
   But Hoffman told The Times that the resesarchers used his data
``any way they liked'' without consulting him. And months later, he
said, he discovered his measuring instruments had been faulty.
   According to Close's book, Fleischmann presented the 2.5 MeV
figure to scientists a few days after the paper was published and
they told him 2.5 MeV would not indicate cold fusion had been
achieved. A few days later, in another talk, he said the reading
was 2.2 MeV, which The Times said was the correct reading that
would have been recorded in a successful cold fusion test.
   Hoffman told the newspaper that because of his faulty equipment,
he doesn't know what MeV reaction actually took place.
   Other scientists have been unable to duplicate the cold fusion
success Pons and Fleischmann have claimed.
   Pons couldn't be reached for comment. His lawyer told The Times
the book's assertions were unfounded.
   Fleischmann said the two figures were simply the result of a
change in calculation.
   ``You always calculate,'' he said. ``When you measure, you have
to convert it into an energy, you have to calibrate and calculate.
In the preliminary note you cannot explain all that.''
 
AP-NY-03-16-91 2330EST-
**********
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenLES cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 / rolfe petschek /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 18 Mar 91 15:32:51 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1991Mar16.060843.5098@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>In article <47741@nigel.ee.udel.edu> ih@udel.edu (Charlie Ih) writes:
>>In article <1991Mar14.074217.24989@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>>>Collectively they could be occasionally dangerous.  The plasma stabilizing
>>>toroidal field coils will have order 10 giga joules ....
>
>>If the Tokamak toroidal coils are not good for anything else, they
>>may be very good for energy storage devices.
>
>Yep!  That MIGHT supply juice to a block of all electric powered single
>family homes for a day!  It is kind of neat, but at what cost???  "VERY
>GOOD"  can depend on your point of view.
 
Magnetic energy storage devices have been extensively studied.
Unfortunately the energy densities (and consequent pressures) which are
easily obtained are very small.  It is almost certainly better, lacking
immense changes in the technology to pump water up hill.  This similarly
makes it hard for me to be concerned about magnetic explosions.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-2623
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrpetsche cudfnrolfe cudlnpetschek cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 / Mike Pelt /  Re: 2nd CNF Conference and more "tricks"
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 2nd CNF Conference and more "tricks"
Date: 18 Mar 91 19:09:29 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <1991Mar14.224913.12785@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
#In article <1991Mar12.104918.3061@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
 writes:
#>Pons is quoted as saying that he only gets excess heat from specially
#>treated palladium supplied by Johnson-Matthey, and that he himself has
#>not been informed what the special treatment is!
 
#[Johnson-Matthey's palladium] is highly purified, zone refined, and
#degassed at the melting point and then allowed to cool as a single
#crystal.  The actual technique is classified and covered by the British
#Secrets Act.
 
This sure does seem to support Ali AbuTaha's theory of what
Pons & Fleishmann were seeing.
--
Mike Van Pelt                     "Something is happening here,
Headland Technology/Video 7        What it is ain't exactly clear..."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                 -- Pons & Fleischmann
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 442 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 442 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1991 15:14:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hi ho everybody, this little contribution is not needed to put life into the
list but here it is, anyway. I've caught up with some oldies. Todd Green
kindly sent me a copy of the Davis paper, which I had given up on (got your
name right this time, mate), and I've finally received and translated the
Mazitov paper, which I have had in the grand list for a long time but only as
an obscure Chem. Abstr. reference. Neither paper is Earth-shattering but I
like to have my list complete, and to know what was written.
 Farley, who says he was at Brookhaven when The News Broke, has an explanation
for the excess heat which, however, will not satisfy a chemist. There used to
be much talk about nascent hydrogen when I went to school but we
electrochemists (along with all other chemists, I hope) now know that this is
a fiction. When you reduce water at (say) Palladium, you do indeed get
monoatomic H (or D) at the surface, but this either dives into the metal to
become the hydride, or looks for other H's and relaxes into the stable H2 or
D2 compound. There is no evolution of nascent anything into the electrolyte.
Ah well. The Paseka paper is in Czech, which I don't know, although it is
sufficiently similar to Russian for me to catch a bit here and there. The
paper had an English summary, which I quote, plus what I gleaned myself.
Another early paper, mostly commentary, but of a scientific nature, so it goes
into the main section. So does Thompson, for the same reason, although he does
little beyond reporting the first annual cold fusion meeting.
 Talking about meetings: there has been mention of the forthcoming Como
(Italy) cold fusion meeting. Anyone interested can contact
Prof. T. Bressani
INFN - Sezione di Torino            |        fax: +39-11-6190665
Via Sette Comuni, 56                |      email: iazzi@polfis.to.cnr.it
10127 TORINO                        |             iazzi%polfis@itopoli.bitnet
ITALY
I asked my source whether this would be a love fest or a balanced conference
and the answer was in the SUBJECT of his reply: I LOVE COLD FUSION. So if you
love cold fusion, go to Como.
 Back soon with lots more papers, but I have to read them first.       Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Mar. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis L;                                        Aust. Physicist 26 (1989) 219.
"Cold fusion: a learning curve?"
** An early discussion of cold fusion in the general context of fusion and
energy generation. The three possible d-d fusion reactions producing, resp.,
(3)He, T and (4)He, as well as the p-d reaction, are given and discussed. The
rest of the paper is then a report of the Australian AINSE colloquium on May
19, attended by 91 scientists, including such heavies as theoretical chemist
Noel Hush and metal hydride expert Alan Oates. The delegates disagree, some
plan experiments. Davis has a theory and hints at its publication elsewhere.
                                                                      ?/Sep-89
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farley FJM;                      New Scientist 129(1756) (1991) 3 (16-Feb-91).
"Cold fusion".
** Farley has an explanation for the fact (?) that the larger the Pd electrode
in FPH's experiment, the bigger the excess heat. He assumes that the Pt anode
was the same cylinder all the time, and that therefore the gap between the two
electrodes is smaller, the larger the Pd cathode. He further says we all know
that nascent hydrogen and nascent oxygen are generated by electrolysis, and
that these generate heat when they combine with other. This effect is the
greater, the smaller the gap. The heat, in other words, comes from
recombination of evolved (nascent) gases.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mazitov RK;                      Koord. Khim. 15 (9) (1989) 1294 (in Russian).
"On the detection of cold nuclear fusion".
** Writing at about t = 2 months into the cold fusion affair, Mazitov makes
three points about radiation detection:
1. If there be fusion, there will be primary emissions (neutrons, gammas,
protons and (3,4)He and T nuclei), as well as secondaries (the above plus beta
particles) from the interaction of primaries with cell materials, such as the
metal hydride itself. He calculates that a neutron peak can reasonably be
expected at about the energy Jones+(89) found, although with largish
uncertainties.
2. The radiation background level will often be very unstable, thus
confounding the measurements at these very low levels, due to radon, which is
everywhere.
3. Past experiments, conducted in basements, may have had high radon levels
and widely fluctuating background.
His prescription is to have exactly the same physical arrangement of the cell
during background and cold fusion measurement; to ensure a stable atmosphere
around the cell cum detector to ensure constant radon levels; to keep the cell
physically constant throughout the experiment (no dropping D2O level etc) to
minimise changes in the interactions of primaries with the cell.  May-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paseka I, Vondrak J;                     Chem. Listy 84 (1990) 897 (in Czech).
"Cold nuclear fusion".
** (English abstract:) "The subject of this article is the development of the
knowledge concerning cold nuclear fusion. Both the original communications and
the experiments on the checking of the phenomenon are presented. Further, the
main properties of the metal-hydrogen systems are summarized with respect to
the assumed influence of the nuclear reaction of deuterons, and some features
of this nuclear reaction are described. The causes of errors leading to
incorrect determination of thermal effects and nuclear particles are
discussed. Fusion processes with an observable thermal effect are not
probable, but it cannot be excluded, either experimentally or theoretically,
that fusion processes take place at very low speeds, below 1E-21 to 1E-28
fusions per second per one deuteron pair."
Written in June, 1989, the paper draws attention to most of the major
commentaries to that date, goes through most of the important aspects of the
Pd/D system, electrolysis, muon catalysis, Oppenheimer-Phillips theory, some
thermodynamics, nuclear chemistry, and the possible traps for the unwary cold
fusion researcher.                                              Jun-89/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thompson DT;                               Platinum Metals Rev. 34 (1990) 136.
"A report from the meeting in Salt Lake City".
** Thompson, of Johnson Matthey Technology Centre, went to the "First Annual
Conference on Cold Fusion" in Utah, March 1990, and here reports. The 200
strong audience was active, responsive to the generally high quality talks.
Most of these came from the USA but also from India, Japan and some European
countries such as Russia [sic] and Italy. Many speaker referred to Johnson and
Matthey palladium, notes Thompson. Positive calorimetric results were reported
again by Pons, as wellas by Murphy (TAM), Hutchinson (Oak Ridge) and Scott
(Oak Ridge). Tritium was discussed, and some positive results reported by
Iyengar (Babha), Bockris (TAM) and Storms (LANL) and some correlation between
heat and tritium was claimed, albeit with puzzling ratios; the same holds for
the neutron:tritium branching ratio which should be about unity but seems to
be far from this. The possible role of lithium, particularly (6)Li, was
discussed. At least one theoretical paper (Andermann, Hawaii) was given.
Fleischmann summed up the conference on a positive note and was given a
standing ovation.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Comment, news
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pippard B;                            Nature (London) 350 (1991) 29 (7 March).
"Footnote to history".
** A purported review of Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle". The actual
review takes up less than 20% of the article, and is scanty. Close is
upbraided for being repetitious and at times irritating. The contents of the
book are not discussed. The other 80% of the article gives BP's view of the
cold fusion affair. An interesting point made here is that, despite P&F's
claim to have been working on cold fusion for 5 years up to 1989, there was
very little to show for it. BP does not mention - as does Close - the puzzles
remaining to be explained by skeptics.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 / Dieter Britz /  The right materials
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The right materials
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1991 15:14:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I am quoting here, having wiped the previous bunch of spf, but Koloc says that
In article <4970@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>... if you can just get DT confined well enough to work really
>well, people will figure out the materials.
 
This belief in technology is a bit naive. There are some problems that can't
be solved. As I said in an earlier posting, you can't - for example - solve
the problem of 100% confinement of tritium within a reactor. Inevitably, there
will be leaks. I also said that there may be fundamental reasons why we'll
never be able to confine a hot plasma, or there may not. The point is that it
may not be possible to find the right stuff or the right method.
 Let me give you an example, from another area of electrochemistry (nothing to
do with fusion): the solid electrolyte membrane used to separate liquid sodium
from the liquid sodium sulphide in the sodium/sulphur battery; something I
spent some time looking at in 1975. The trouble with the membrane (it's almost
always a form of beta-alumina which conducts Na+ ions) is that, after some
number of cycles, it develops cracks. There was a clear pattern in the
literature. At intervals, some team reports that they have now found the right
composition or additive, making their membrane crack-free, so the way to Na/S
batteries in all our cars is now open. Then, nothing more is heard of it,
until a year or so later, another lab reports the same thing - implying that
the last one didn't work out, after all. This has now been going on for around
20 years. The only variation I've seen (but I'm undoubtedly out of date here)
was an early Dow cell, which used a bunch of very fine glass tubules, said to
have good Na+ conductance and, on top of that, to be "self-healing", if they
broke. Wonderful, you might think, but no more was heard of this either. I
regularly scan Chemical Abstracts and, although I am no longer so interested
in this battery, I note in passing the odd paper on a new beta-alumina
membrane. So, after 20 years, they are still looking for the right material.
 I can't judge whether Koloc has anything or not but he does have a point in
his criticism of tokamak fusion. It has gone on for too many years and cost
far too much money, and has all the signs of a research field carried along by
little besides its own momentum. If they announced that they were giving up,
wouldn't it be embarrassing? Not to mention loss of jobs. The sensible thing
at this stage would be a single world-wide funded experiment, and to drop the
rest.
 
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 / Barry Floyd /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 18 Mar 91 20:03:22 GMT

keserovi@latcs1.oz.au (GORAN) writes:
 
 
>  I'm not any form of expert on fusion, but I've been reading a lot
>about the current difficulties of getting fusion to work commercially.
 
>  I was wondering if there is any reason why fusion can't be carried out
>in space ..( approximately close to Earth ) and the energy somehow
>broght down to Earth ...probably microwave or some other EM wave  ???
 
>    Are there any physicists out there who could comment on th
>feesability of this ??
 
 
>    Goran Keserovic
 
>    Computer Science ,  LaTrobe University  ,  Melbourne  ,  Australia.
 
I would like to broaden the question to pertain to any form of energy
production. Given a sufficiently large solar collector in space one can
imagine a point where it becomes cost effective to "transmit" excess
energy to earth (in excess of what it takes to run the solar collector,
or fusion/fission plant).
 
I recall reading various speculative articles pertaining to "microwave"
transmissions (shortly before "microwave" ovens came on the market). The
"public" didn't seem to think such open air transmissions were a
good thing (boiling our brains and all). My understanding of "microwaves"
entails something about ovens using a very specific wavelength microwave
which is harmonic/sympathetic/something with water. Thus I am lead to believe
that there may be a wavelength within the microwave spectrum that may not
be harmful to organic (waterbased) life.
 
In general it seemed technically feasible to transmit energy from space
to earth. At this time it may not prove financially feasible, though.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Barry B. Floyd                   \\\       barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu |
| Manager Information Systems - HR    \\\          usere9w9@rpitsmts |
+-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarryf cudfnBarry cudlnFloyd cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 / rolfe petschek /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 18 Mar 91 21:53:14 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <9Q+=SD+@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes:
>keserovi@latcs1.oz.au (GORAN) writes:
>
>
>>  I was wondering if there is any reason why fusion can't be carried out
>>in space ..( approximately close to Earth ) and the energy somehow
>>broght down to Earth ...probably microwave or some other EM wave  ???
>
>I would like to broaden the question to pertain to any form of energy
>production. Given a sufficiently large solar collector in space one can
>imagine a point where it becomes cost effective to "transmit" excess
>energy to earth (in excess of what it takes to run the solar collector,
>or fusion/fission plant).
 
The problem is that microwave radiation of any wavelength does interact
with life and airplanes and such.  In fact to be safe the radiation
density can not much exceed that of ordinary sunlight. Thus there is
little advantage to doing this over ground based solar collectors.
in addition it is expensive to put things up in space.  Finally I know
of no real advantages to carrying out a fusion program in space - if we
can to it in space there is no immediate reason not to do it on the
ground - it really is not a safety (on the 10^6 meter scale) problem.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-2623
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrpetsche cudfnrolfe cudlnpetschek cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 /  Albatross /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: alberti@cs.umn.edu (Albatross)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 19 Mar 91 00:22:03 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In <1991Mar18.215314.26144@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu
 (rolfe g petschek) writes:
 
>In article <9Q+=SD+@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes:
>>keserovi@latcs1.oz.au (GORAN) writes:
>>
>>>  I was wondering if there is any reason why fusion can't be carried out
>>>in space ..( approximately close to Earth ) and the energy somehow
>>>broght down to Earth ...probably microwave or some other EM wave  ???
>>
>>I would like to broaden the question to pertain to any form of energy
>>production. Given a sufficiently large solar collector in space one can
>>imagine a point where it becomes cost effective to "transmit" excess
>>energy to earth (in excess of what it takes to run the solar collector,
>>or fusion/fission plant).
>
>The problem is that microwave radiation of any wavelength does interact
>with life and airplanes and such.  In fact to be safe the radiation
>density can not much exceed that of ordinary sunlight. Thus there is
>little advantage to doing this over ground based solar collectors.
>in addition it is expensive to put things up in space.  Finally I know
>of no real advantages to carrying out a fusion program in space - if we
>can to it in space there is no immediate reason not to do it on the
>ground - it really is not a safety (on the 10^6 meter scale) problem.
 
I would like to broaden the answer to pertain to real-life circumstances:
 
We'll be lucky if we get a space station off the ground inside of twenty
years, and a Mars mission inside of fifty (IMHO), and we don't even HAVE
fusion yet.  Space power satellites?  Riiiiight.
 
What we need instead are high-powered fusion reactors wired directly to the
braincases of most of our Congresspeople:  theoretically, sufficient voltage
will blast through the calcifying material gathered therein, freeing the
brain beneath for coherent thought.  So far this is only a theory.
--
Bob Alberti  Micro and Wkstn Networks Ctr, U of MN   // aka: Albatross| Unitar-
Internet:    alberti@boombox.micro.UMN.EDU        \\//      Images BBS| ian/
Disclaimer:  My employer does not mean what I say. //   (612) 884-7951| Univer-
Ingredients: 30% header, 30% quote, 10% content, 30% cutesy signature.| salist!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenalberti cudlnAlbatross cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 18 Mar 91 19:20:43 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <9765@latcs1.oz.au> keserovi@latcs1.oz.au (GORAN) writes:
>
>  I was wondering if there is any reason why fusion can't be carried out
>in space ..( approximately close to Earth ) and the energy somehow
>broght down to Earth ...probably microwave or some other EM wave  ???
>
 
We already have that---its called the Sun.
 
(As for something artificial, bad idea. Since proposed magnets
will weigh around 1,000,000 pounds, and the current cost of launch
is around $10,000/lb, it would cost  $10 Billion just to get
the raw materials up there!)
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 / C Neufeld /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 19 Mar 91 03:57:47 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <1991Mar18.215314.26144@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU
 (rolfe g petschek) writes:
>
>The problem is that microwave radiation of any wavelength does interact
>with life and airplanes and such.  In fact to be safe the radiation
>density can not much exceed that of ordinary sunlight. Thus there is
>little advantage to doing this over ground based solar collectors.
>in addition it is expensive to put things up in space.
>
   Yes, the energy density can't be much higher than that of sunlight,
but that doesn't mean that a microwave collector would have no
advantages over a ground-based solar power system. Ground-based
photovoltaics might change 20% of the incident sunlight into
electricity. A rough guide is that the solar cells have to cover about
as large an area as the city they're expected to power, after allowing
for the 5x baseline overproduction needed for reliable power storage in
dark periods. A microwave collector is a lot more efficient, over 90%
according to some estimates I've seen. The collector area could
therefore be almost a factor of 5 smaller on the ground, where space is
expensive. The collector would not obscure sunlight, so it could be
mounted on two metre towers over grazing land and not interfere with the
grass or cattle underneath.
   The rationale behind solar power satellites is that most of the
low-efficiency elements are stuck up in space where the rent is low,
even though transportation costs can be high. The broadcasting antenna
can be designed so that the presence of a receiving antenna at the
ground end is essential for the broadcast antenna to radiate, laying to
rest the fear that the microwave beam will bake a city.
   I believe that NASA studies showed that an SPS could be constructed
which would pay for itself in about ten years, assuming the whole thing
was launched from the ground on Saturn V rockets. The cost would go up
after congressional "cost-cutting" measures famous for increasing the
costs of NASA endeavours.
   It might be cheaper if we could find another source for the
electronics, solar cells, and structural members for the satellites,
ones which wouldn't have to be carried up from the Earth. Too bad the
Moon is only made of silicon, aluminum, iron, and oxygen.......
 
   As for fusion in space, I'm not sure that it would be feasible to put
a reactor on the Moon, where all that nice He3 is sitting, but maybe a
reactor on the Moon could relay microwave power to one of several
satellites in a lower orbit, which would have very large collector grids
to catch the beam spread, then retransmit the energy on a narrow beam to
a ground-based antenna farm.
 
>Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
>Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Too much self-love just
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra! | makes you jealous of
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | the people who envy you.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 /  GORAN /  Re: Fusion in space. ???
     
Originally-From: keserovi@latcs1.oz.au (GORAN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space. ???
Date: 19 Mar 91 06:19:35 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

 
   The reason I previously enquired about the feasability of a fusion
source in space was because as I understand , at the moment two of the
biggest problems in current fusion research are containment ( made
difficult because of gravity ) , and the heat ( a problem because of the
lack of vaccum on earth ) .. In space neither of these two is a real
concern ... so wouldn't a fusion power source in space be much easier
and cheaper to make than something like the current ideas ( ie. Tokamak)
 
 
 
     Goran Keserovic
 
     Computer Science ,  LaTrobe University,   Australia
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkeserovi cudlnGORAN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 18 Mar 91 23:07:47 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In article <4970@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>>centimeter then the 100 billion dollar world wide tokamak program.
>                     ??????????  US fusion budget/year < $300 million.
>This is ridiculous.  If it were 100 billion, fusion would be working much
>better now.
 
Pleeeze!  If you have a number, post it.  Enought of this, "it sounds
too big so it can't be true" type arguments.
 
>You have this paranoiac idea ...
 
If you insist on credentialism -- let us see your credentials to make
psychiatric evaluations.  Otherwise, spare us these insults attempting to
masquerade as scientific insight.
 
>If it is indeed so much better,
>then why hasn't there been much work done investigating it, at least on
>a theoretical level?
 
Oh brother.   Ogg says to Ork, "if the wheel is such a good idea, why
didn't our witch doctors come up with it?"  Ideas spring to life in
individuals.  No two individuals are guaranteed to have the same stores
of knowledge and experience.  Heaven forbid, even politics and philosophies
will alter response to stimulus.  Discovery is not a collectivist endeavor.
Society is not homogeneous.  Society does *NOT* think.  Individuals use
the structure of society as a conduit (imperfect in all respects) to
exchange information.  Thus, at all points, the exact makeup of knowledge
will be non-uniform.  Until we are all linked by psychic ESP, and until
we all share exactly the same value system, individuals will remain
*THE* source of creative ideas.  It cannot be otherwise.
 
So, if you have particular knowledge you can impart to us to show us
that one or the other fusion proposals has or lacks merit -- please
do so.  In the mean time, spare us these orgies of ad hominem.
They are as irritating as they are irrelevent.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 / Paul Koloc /  Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 19 Mar 91 08:00:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Mar18.153251.20712@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU
 (rolfe g petschek, associate physics professor) writes:
>In article <1991Mar16.060843.5098@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>>In article <47741@nigel.ee.udel.edu> ih@udel.edu (Charlie Ih) writes:
>>>In article <1991Mar14.074217.24989@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>>>>Collectively they could be occasionally dangerous.  The plasma stabilizing
>>>>toroidal field coils will have order 10 giga joules ....
 
>>>If the Tokamak
>>>toroidal coils are not good for anything else, they
>>>may be very good for energy storage devices.
 
>>It is kind of neat, but at what cost???
 
>Magnetic energy storage devices have been extensively studied.
>Unfortunately the energy densities (and consequent pressures) which are
>easily obtained are very small.  It is almost certainly better, lacking
>immense changes in the technology to pump water up hill.  This similarly
>makes it hard for me to be concerned about magnetic explosions.
 
 
You are correct that is not "easily" obtainable, but CIT TF coils will
not be easy (very very expensive) to obtain even from the Congress.
 
                        Two points:
                              I
The peak magnetic density of the planned CIT tokamak is about 16
tesla.  That is about  16^2 * 4  or near 1000 atmospheres of
pressure.  The energy density (pressure) of air is about a megajoule
per cubic meter.  That puts the magnetic pressure near the inner
most surface of the TF coil at about 990 atmospheres or nearly a
gigajoule per cubic meter.
 
Water would have to go very far up hill (Everest?) to exert that
kind of pressure at the end the sea level other end of the pipe.
 
                              II
When a tank of water ruptures is does not do so at near light
speed and therefore it dissipates its (mgh) energy over a much
larger area and for a much longer time, thus cutting the peak
power way down.  Consequently, this event is not characterized
as an explosion.  On the otherhand, if a single TF coil ruptures
at full magnetic stress, the sudden suitch to resistive path and
the fact that all of the flux of the the other coils are initially
linking the rupturing coil, does produce not only a massive energy
release, but it releases that energy into the local environment in
an incredibly short time.
 
It's the old
                                  Time =  L/R    =  10^-9
law.   Where:
                                     L = 2* E(total)/ I^2
  a guess                              =  (order) 10 uhenries
 
  another guess          R(effective)  =    100 ohm
 
Now since
                         Major  Radius = 2 meters
 
it looks like usual order 1/3 light speed dissipation.
 
Consider the spead of sound is more severely limited than
light speed, consequently this implies the build up of a
blasting shock process.  As pointed out correctly by John
Dubois it will driven by the equivalent of 2000 Kg TNT or
rather HE i.e. C4 due to its fast detonation time.
 
For a reality check:
The containment building used for the fluffy TFTR tokamak has
tremendously thick high strength walls, long lightning path
like zig zag corridors leading into Tokamak (with coils) chamber
area which all MAY indicate some SIGNIFICANT concern.  (one never
knows for sure, maybe local contractors had a lot of extra
concrete and steel)                   :-)
 
I'm occassionally several digits (orders) off, so check
the numbers.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 19 Mar 91 14:48:43 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1991Mar19.080058.19039@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
 
>The energy density (pressure) of air is about a megajoule
>per cubic meter.
 
Um, the pressure of air is about 0.1 megajoules per cubic meter.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 / C Neufeld /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 19 Mar 91 17:00:23 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <1991Mar19.080058.19039@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>
>                        Two points:
>                              I
>The peak magnetic density of the planned CIT tokamak is about 16
>tesla.  That is about  16^2 * 4  or near 1000 atmospheres of
>pressure.  The energy density (pressure) of air is about a megajoule
>per cubic meter.  That puts the magnetic pressure near the inner
>most surface of the TF coil at about 990 atmospheres or nearly a
>gigajoule per cubic meter.
>
   I get: U = B . H / 2 = 16^2 / (2*mu) is roughly 100 MJ/m^3 for the
energy density in the field. The pressure that exerts on the walls is
dependent on the geometry of the coil, but 1000 atmospheres sounds like
the right neighbourhood.
 
>                              II
>On the otherhand, if a single TF coil ruptures
>at full magnetic stress, the sudden suitch to resistive path and
>the fact that all of the flux of the the other coils are initially
>linking the rupturing coil, does produce not only a massive energy
>release, but it releases that energy into the local environment in
>an incredibly short time.
>
>It's the old
>                                  Time =  L/R    =  10^-9
>law.   Where:
>                                     L = 2* E(total)/ I^2
>  a guess                              =  (order) 10 uhenries
>
   10 microhenries????? Our 12T superconducting magnet has an inductance
of 60 Henries!
 
>  another guess          R(effective)  =    100 ohm
>
   That's a bit high. Our 12T magnet has protection resistors across the
coils so that the resistance is no greater than 8 ohms across the 60
Henry inductance. Any other current paths are in parallel with that one.
This isn't to say that we don't get the occasional big voltage, but most
of the power is dumped into the protection resistors in the magnet and
in the power supply.
   When our magnet quenches it drops about 200kJ of energy. This is not
a microsecond or nanosecond event, but something which takes many
seconds to run to completion. The typical sequence is: somebody looks up
in panic and says, "the power supply just tripped, oh no!" If the magnet
has quenched, we find out about it a couple of seconds later when the
helium boiloff valves start to flutter. As more and more energy drops
into the ballast resistors, which are not necessarily immersed in liquid
helium, the heat eventually finds its way to the helium bath, then three
or four emergency overpressure relief valves blow all over the magnet,
wasting helium to the room which we would usually recover for
reliquifaction. The energy is dropped into the helium over roughly 15
seconds, after which time the relief valves close up again, and the
magnet is restartable, at the cost of a few hundred dollars in liquid
helium.
   Superconducting magnets are a mature technology. They are designed to
survive quenches. I got some email a year ago from Jim Carr describing a
very exciting 10 MJ quench at the Michigan State Cyclotron ten years ago
which dissipated the power in the magnet over several tens of seconds.
If there's interest, I'll email him and ask if I can circulate the
letter. The point is, when a sucon magnet goes, it doesn't take out the
lab anymore. In the early days of these magnets, they did, I think they
even built labs with weak walls to allow the escape of the pressure
generated when a few hundred litres of liquified helium and nitrogen
suddenly increased in volume by a factor of 1000. Magnets nowadays
absorb the energy without melting down the coils, and lose just a bit of
replaceable cryogenic fluid.
 
>Now since
>                         Major  Radius = 2 meters
>
>it looks like usual order 1/3 light speed dissipation.
>
   Nowhere near! I get a time constant of thirty seconds or more for any
very-high-field superconducting magnet designed to modern specs.
 
>For a reality check:
>The containment building used for the fluffy TFTR tokamak has
>tremendously thick high strength walls, long lightning path
>like zig zag corridors leading into Tokamak (with coils) chamber
>area which all MAY indicate some SIGNIFICANT concern.  (one never
>knows for sure, maybe local contractors had a lot of extra
>concrete and steel)                   :-)
>
   Lightning is a problem when a magnet quenches. We've had arcs build
in helium at atmospheric pressure and rupture the walls to the vacuum
vessel. The quench in Michigan was very exciting in terms of lightning
displays. These arcs don't cause explosions, though, they just destroy
electronics and punch holes in steel support beams. There's a big
difference between that and shrapnel. I should mention that the Michigan
quench did destroy electronics and damage superstructure members, but
the magnet itself was restartable! No damage to the coil.
 
>| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
>| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Too much self-love just
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra! | makes you jealous of
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | the people who envy you.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Fusion in space. ???
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space. ???
Date: 19 Mar 91 16:08:52 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <9781@latcs1.oz.au>, keserovi@latcs1.oz.au (GORAN) writes...
>
>   The reason I previously enquired about the feasability of a fusion
>source in space was because as I understand , at the moment two of the
>biggest problems in current fusion research are containment ( made
>difficult because of gravity ) , and the heat ( a problem because of the
>lack of vaccum on earth ) .. In space neither of these two is a real
>concern ... so wouldn't a fusion power source in space be much easier
>and cheaper to make than something like the current ideas ( ie. Tokamak)
 
Let's distinguish between confinement and containment.  Confinement is
necessary to squeeze the hot reactants together hard enough for long
enough to achieve meaningful rates of fusion.  Containment keeps the
air out and the radioactive stuff in.  Gravity is pretty much a non-
concern, except of course as a civil and mechanical engineering issue
in the design of machinery and buildings.
 
Fusion in space would not obviate the need for a heating and confine-
ment scheme such as a tokamak, mirror machine, or inertial-confinement
apparatus.  You still have to make a hot plasma, squeeze it and keep
it squeezed, and catch the energy somehow.  It would, however, make
the logistics of construction and operation absolute hell.  (Then you
still have to get the electricity to someplace useful.)
 
There is, of course, gravitational confinement (self-igniting if you've
got enough fuel).  It's already in space.  It works very well and beams
power to you all by itself, though figuring out how to capture that power
is nontrivial.
 
Heat is a problem?  No; heat is the goal; you just don't want to build
up too much of it in one spot.  Vacuum would cost you two of the three
means by which you can move heat.
 
Finally, the words "easier" and "cheaper" are hard to apply to even a
physically small activity in space.  For amusement, one might compare
the price tag for the beleaguered Space Station Freedom (to say
nothing of the various Mars initiatives) to the current and proposed
budgets for fusion projects.  Today, man goes into space, at great expense,
for those things that can be uniquely done there.  If the characteristics
of space aren't an advantage,  it's much cheaper and easier to work here.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 /  davidsen@crdos /  Energy in space
     
Originally-From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy in space
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1991 01:15:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

|  Originally-From: barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd)
|  Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
|  Date: 18 Mar 91 20:03:22 GMT
 
|  I would like to broaden the question to pertain to any form of energy
|  production. Given a sufficiently large solar collector in space one can
|  imagine a point where it becomes cost effective to "transmit" excess
|  energy to earth (in excess of what it takes to run the solar collector,
|  or fusion/fission plant).
 
Two technical problems:
 -  if you concentrate the power for transmission, the beam becomes
    dangerous to anything it hits.
 -  if you don't concentrate the beam you have solar power, more or
    less.
 
Two political problems:
 -  the concentrated beam will be viewed by eccologists as a danger to
    life on this planet. Depending on the energy density, they could be
    entirely correct on this one.
 -  some countries will view this as a potential weapon.
 
Four ecconomic problems:
 -  oil producing countries will see this as an ecconomic threat. If I
    were running that part of the world I'd use some of my profits to
    look at turning the desert to solar energy production...
 -  the cost of changing our energy distribution and use infrastructure
    will be huge.
 -  the current energy producers will either own the process or suffer
    drastic downsizing.
 -  if this is done on a scale large enough to be a benefit in the
    20-100 year timeframe, it will probably produce a recession.
 
--
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
        "Most of the VAX instructions are in microcode,
         but halt and no-op are in hardware for efficiency"
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendavidsen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.19 / Georges Lauri /  Bussard's POLYWELL: any opinions?
     
Originally-From: lauri@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Georges Lauri)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bussard's POLYWELL: any opinions?
Date: 19 Mar 91 20:35:41 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY

In the March 1991 issue of Fusion Technology there is an article
by Robert Bussard describing his latest concept for achieving
commercially useful fusion: the POLYWELL. Would anyone care to
volunteer their opinions to the net about this? It's quite a
radical departure from Bussard's earlier work, I believe.
 
Georges Lauri
lauri@cs.cornell.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlauri cudfnGeorges cudlnLauri cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / Van Snyder /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 20 Mar 91 00:15:37 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <1991Mar12.161450.10822@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>But the bottom line is: a nuclear engineer will tell you they could build
>you a power producing reactor right now---if you just let them make it big
>enough. The drawback to this is that the machine---and thus the power---is
>more costly, and probably several times the cost of power, currently.
>
If you figure in ALL the costs -- black lung disease in coal miners, people
falling off their roofs while installing solar collectors, oil spills,
emphysema caused by coal / oil fired power plant emissions, disposal of fission
waste, land use, military expense to protect fossil fuel sources ...  you might
well discover that fusion power isn't any more expensive.  It's just the capital
investment in the power plant that is greater.
 
There is a good article on this topic in the current Scientific American.
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / Van Snyder /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 20 Mar 91 00:19:15 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <7654@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <27887@netcom.COM> mrs@netcom.COM (Morgan Schweers) writes:
>>    2)  Is it safe?  (I've heard it said, "Nuclear reactors CANNOT explode.
>>Thermonuclear, on the other hand..."  Is this true?  I understand that
>>'regular' reactors are safe in this regard, but what are the restrictions on
>>thermonuclear reactions?)
>
>How safe is safe?  It's bound to be orders of magnitude safer than
>coal, but then, so's fission, and look how frantic people get about
>that.  Rational measures of real-world risk don't seem to have a whole
>lot to do with it.
 
In this regard, see article 2531 in rec.humor.funny
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / Van Snyder /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 20 Mar 91 01:11:01 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <9Q+=SD+@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes:
>keserovi@latcs1.oz.au (GORAN) writes:
>
>...
>>  I was wondering if there is any reason why fusion can't be carried out
>>in space ..( approximately close to Earth ) and the energy somehow
>>broght down to Earth ...probably microwave or some other EM wave  ???
>
>
>>    Goran Keserovic
>
>I would like to broaden the question to pertain to any form of energy
>production... it becomes cost effective to "transmit" excess
>energy to earth...
>
>I recall reading various speculative articles pertaining to "microwave"
>transmissions ...  The "public" didn't seem to think such open air
>transmissions were a good thing... My understanding of "microwaves"
>entails something about ovens using a very specific wavelength microwave
>which is harmonic/sympathetic/something with water...
 
The power densities that were proposed to be used were too small to cause
injury no matter what the wavelength.  It was for exactly this reason that
a beam several MILES in diameter (and a similarly large receiving antenna array)
was proposed.
 
>In general it seemed technically feasible to transmit energy from space
>to earth. At this time it may not prove financially feasible, though.
>--
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Barry B. Floyd                   \\\       barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu |
>| Manager Information Systems - HR    \\\          usere9w9@rpitsmts |
>+-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
 
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / Van Snyder /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 01:16:37 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <1991Mar18.215314.26144@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU
 (rolfe g petschek) writes:
>
>The problem is that microwave radiation of any wavelength does interact
>with life and airplanes and such.  In fact to be safe the radiation
>density can not much exceed that of ordinary sunlight...
 
See article 2531 in rec.humor.funny
 
>...little advantage to doing this over ground based solar collectors.
 
The advantage is that a space-based solar collector could operate 24 hours
per day, instead of 10 or so.
 
>...  Finally I know of no real advantages to carrying out a fusion program in
>space...
 
Why should WE build a fusion reactor, when God gave us one, only 93e6 miles
away?
 
>--
>Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
>Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
>Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
>Cleveland Oh 44106-2623
 
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / Jack Dietz /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: bdietz@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Jack Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 20 Mar 91 06:24:43 GMT
Organization: UC San Diego ECE Dept.

 
	Doesn't Seattle have an experimental superconducting
power-storage coil?  I believe that a (relatively) small buried
coil cooled with LHe is being used by the WPPS power utility to test
the feasability of building lots more.
	Can anyone confirm this?
--
Segal's Law:                                         | Jack Dietz
  A man with one watch always knows what time it is. | (bdietz@ucsd.edu)
  A man with two watches is never sure.              | Sun-4-God-Trainee
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbdietz cudfnJack cudlnDietz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 /  Jigsaw /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: ded@kossy.jhuapl.edu (Jigsaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 20 Mar 91 15:28:10 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

>
>See article 2531 in rec.humor.funny
>
 
I believe every computer numbers articles differently, so number 2531
on your computer is probably a different number or everyone else's.
 
 
					me
 
P.S.  But I am curious.  I quit reading rec.humor.funny because it isn't.
Could you repost it here?
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudended cudlnJigsaw cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / John Hannon /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: jph2u@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (John P. Hannon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 20 Mar 91 17:57:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Mar20.152810.25337@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@kossy.jhuapl.edu.UUCP
 (Jigsaw) writes:
>>
>>See article 2531 in rec.humor.funny
>>
>
>I believe every computer numbers articles differently, so number 2531
>on your computer is probably a different number or everyone else's.
>
>
>					me
>
>P.S.  But I am curious.  I quit reading rec.humor.funny because it isn't.
>Could you repost it here?
 
     I second that motion.  On our system the current articles in r.h.f
     are in the 2400 range, so I have no way of knowing which one
     corresponds to the 2531 mentioned.  I'd like to see a repost as
     well.
 
          -jh-
 
--
===========================================================================
John P. Hannon                        | jph2u@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu
Dept. of Nuc. Engr. and Engr. Physics |"When all has been said and done,
University of Virginia                | more has been said than done."
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjph2u cudfnJohn cudlnHannon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 20 Mar 91 20:50:27 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>   Our 12T magnet has protection resistors across the
>coils so that the resistance is no greater than 8 ohms across the 60
>Henry inductance. Any other current paths are in parallel with that one.
 
>   When our magnet quenches it drops about 200kJ of energy. This is not
>a microsecond or nanosecond event, but something which takes many
>seconds to run to completion.
 
Let me hypothosize, say, a stress crack in the coil itself.  You may or
may not have 8 ohms resistance anymore.  Conceivable it could increase
quite a bit -- I don't know, what is the resistance in an arc-welder
arc?
 
For non-electronics/physics types, T=L/R where T=seconds and it takes
about 5T to "bleed" the energy in a coil.  L=inductance in henries, and
R=effective DC resistance.  As you can see, as the resistance increases
the time to dump the energy DECREASES.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / Brad Pierce /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 20 Mar 91 21:11:55 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department

In article <1991Mar20.175755.18204@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 jph2u@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (John P. Hannon) writes:
*In article <1991Mar20.152810.25337@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
 ded@kossy.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (Jigsaw) writes:
*>>
*>>See article 2531 in rec.humor.funny
*>>
*>
*>I believe every computer numbers articles differently, so number 2531
*>on your computer is probably a different number or everyone else's.
*>
*>
*>					me
*>
*>P.S.  But I am curious.  I quit reading rec.humor.funny because it isn't.
*>Could you repost it here?
 
The article referred to was probably Message-ID <S242.6fc3@looking.on.ca>.
To read this article with "rn", one would subscribe to rec.humor.funny
and give the command:
 
    /<S242.6fc3@looking.on.ca>/h
 
The message id is a unique identifier. There is no need to repost the
article about "warm fusion in chicken soup".
 
-- Brad
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpierce cudfnBrad cudlnPierce cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.17 / Van Snyder /  A Call for More Scientific Truth in Product Warning Labels
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Subject: A Call for More Scientific Truth in Product Warning Labels
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 21:42:44 GMT
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 19:30:4 EST
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <1991Mar20.152810.25337@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@kossy.jhuapl.edu.UUCP
 (Jigsaw) writes:
>>
>>See article 2531 in rec.humor.funny
>>
>
>I believe every computer numbers articles differently, so number 2531
>on your computer is probably a different number or everyone else's...
>
>Could you repost it here?
 
From elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!looking!funny-request Wed Mar 20 13:28:31 PST
 1991
Article 2531 of rec.humor.funny:
Path: jato!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!looking!funny-request
Message-id: <S242.35d3@looking.on.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 19:30:4 EST
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
>From: md@marvin.hq.ileaf.com (Mark Dionne x5551)
Subject: A Call for More Scientific Truth in Product Warning Labels
Keywords: funny, science
Approved: funny@looking.on.ca
 
A Call for More Scientific Truth in Product Warning Labels
 
by Susan Hewitt and Edward Subitzky
 
   As scientists and concerned citizens, we applaud the recent trend
towards legislation that requires the prominent placing of warnings
on products that present hazards to the general public. Yet we must
also offer the cautionary thought that such warnings, however well-
intentioned, merely scratch the surface of what is really necessary
in this important area. This is especially true in light of the
findings of 20th century physics.
 
   We are therefore proposing that, as responsible scientists, we
join together in an intensive push for new laws that will mandate
the conspicuous placement of suitably informative warnings on the
packaging of every product offered for sale in the United States of
America. Our suggested list of warnings appears below.
 
WARNING: This Product Warps Space and Time in Its Vicinity.
 
WARNING: This Product Attracts Every Other Piece of Matter in the
Universe, Including the Products of Other Manufacturers, with a
Force Proportional to the Product of the Masses and Inversely
Proportional to the Distance Between Them.
 
CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent
of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight.
 
HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE: This Product Contains Minute Electrically
Charged Particles Moving at Velocities in Excess of Five Hundred
Million Miles Per Hour.
 
CONSUMER NOTICE: Because of the "Uncertainty Principle," It Is
Impossible for the Consumer to Find Out at the Same Time Both
Precisely Where This Product Is and How Fast It Is Moving.
 
ADVISORY: There is an Extremely Small but Nonzero Chance That,
Through a Process Know as "Tunneling," This Product May Spon-
taneously Disappear from Its Present Location and Reappear at
Any Random Place in the Universe, Including Your Neighbor's
Domicile. The Manufacturer Will Not Be Responsible for Any
Damages or Inconvenience That May Result.
 
READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to Certain Suggested
Versions of the Grand Unified Theory, the Primary Particles
Constituting this Product May Decay to Nothingness Within
the Next Four Hundred Million Years.
 
THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the Unlikely Event That This
Merchandise Should Contact Antimatter in Any Form, a Catastrophic
Explosion Will Result.
 
PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any Use of This Product, in
Any Manner Whatsoever, Will Increase the Amount of Disorder in
the Universe. Although No Liability Is Implied Herein, the
Consumer Is Warned That This Process Will Ultimately Lead to
the Heat Death of the Universe.
 
NOTE: The Most Fundamental Particles in This Product Are Held
Together by a "Gluing" Force About Which Little is Currently Known
and Whose Adhesive Power Can Therefore Not Be Permanently Guaranteed.
 
ATTENTION: Despite Any Other Listing of Product Contents Found
Hereon, the Consumer is Advised That, in Actuality, This Product
Consists Of 99.9999999999% Empty Space.
 
NEW GRAND UNIFIED THEORY DISCLAIMER: The Manufacturer May
Technically Be Entitled to Claim That This Product Is Ten-
Dimensional. However, the Consumer Is Reminded That This
Confers No Legal Rights Above and Beyond Those Applicable
to Three-Dimensional Objects, Since the Seven New Dimensions
Are "Rolled Up" into Such a Small "Area" That They Cannot
Be Detected.
 
PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When
the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May
Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined
State.
 
COMPONENT EQUIVALENCY NOTICE: The Subatomic Particles (Electrons,
Protons, etc.) Comprising This Product Are Exactly the Same in
Every Measurable Respect as Those Used in the Products of Other
Manufacturers, and No Claim to the Contrary May Legitimately Be
Expressed or Implied.
 
HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting This Product,
Since Its Mass, and Thus Its Weight, Is Dependent on Its
Velocity Relative to the User.
 
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PURCHASERS: The Entire Physical Universe,
Including This Product, May One Day Collapse Back into an
Infinitesimally Small Space. Should Another Universe Subsequently
Re-emerge, the Existence of This Product in That Universe Cannot
Be Guaranteed.
 
 
(The above is from Volume 36, Number 1 of
The Journal of Irreproducible Results.
Copyright 1991 Blackwell Scientific Publications Inc.
3 Cambridge Center, Cambridge MA 02141
Individual US Subscriptions $12.00
Reproduced with permission.)
--
Edited by Brad Templeton.  MAIL your jokes (jokes ONLY) to funny@looking.ON.CA
If you post instead of mailing, it screws up the reply-address sometimes.
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible.  A Daemon will auto-reply.
 
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / Brad Pierce /  cancel <1991Mar20.211155.7766@cs.ucla.edu>
     
Originally-From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1991Mar20.211155.7766@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 22:37:46 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpierce cudfnBrad cudlnPierce cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / C Neufeld /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 20 Mar 91 22:36:06 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <1991Mar20.205027.17738@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>   Our 12T magnet has protection resistors across the
>>coils so that the resistance is no greater than 8 ohms across the 60
>>Henry inductance. Any other current paths are in parallel with that one.
>
>>   When our magnet quenches it drops about 200kJ of energy. This is not
>>a microsecond or nanosecond event, but something which takes many
>>seconds to run to completion.
>
>Let me hypothosize, say, a stress crack in the coil itself.  You may or
>may not have 8 ohms resistance anymore.  Conceivable it could increase
>quite a bit
>
   No, this won't do it. The design is more robust than that. Here's the
way it's set up, in poor ASCII graphics:
 
                 to power supply                to power supply
                       |                           |
                       |               Sw          |
                       |             /             |
                       |------------- -------------|
                       |                           |
                       |                           |
                       |-R-|-R-|-R-|-R-|-R-|-R-|-R-|
                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                       |-C-|-C-|-C-|-C-|-C-|-C-|-C-|
 
                 [There are actually more segments than this]
 
All straight segments, and the coil, marked 'C', are NbTi or NbSn
superconductor (NbSn is used in high field places, but it's too
expensive to use in the whole magnet). The 'Sw' is a superconducting
switch which can be made resistive by turning on a heater. 'R' are
ballast resistors, each between 0.25 and 1.0 ohms, with integral heat
sinks, each the size of a child's fist.
   In persistent mode the switch is closed, and there is a continuous
loop of superconductor which carries current essentially forever. We
observe a decay of roughly 5ppm per day in the field.
   If there's a break anywhere in this system, there will always be
resistors to take up the load safely. If the coil fractures, that's the
effect of one segment of the coil going normal. It happens, the field
decays very slowly. We had something like this happen once, and it took
a rotating coil gaussmeter and a twenty-minute observation time to be
sure the field was decaying. That's because the normal state resistivity
of these coils is also very low. Remember, those coils are not just
strands of NbTi, they are actually bundles of the stuff forming
microscopically thin cores in a solid copper wire. When the wire goes
superconducting the copper gets shorted out by the NbTi. If the NbTi
goes normal, the thick copper wire carries the current with little
enough heat dissipation in the copper that it can be cooled back below
the transition temperature and the superconductor can take up the
current again. There's a term for this, something like "reversible load
sharing to the cladding".
   If you look at the diagram, you see that each segment of coil is
protected by a ballast resistor. If a coil breaks and its protection
resistor dies, the rest of the magnet dumps into the appropriate ballast
resistors, while that one unprotected and broken coil dumps around the
outside loop (ie. dumps its energy into the neighbouring coils and
ballast resistors).
   The taps off the coil are all attached to a single plug, so I suppose
it's possible that the whole plug could come lose, open circuiting the
magnet and removing all the ballast resistors in one swell foop, but the
magnet could be designed better, and anyway, that plug would have to
fall up, off a threaded cap.
   To restate my case, the cataclysmic failure of superconducting
magnets resulting in the spontaneous physical disassembly of the magnet,
cryostat, and nearby persons, is not a danger with modern designs.
 
>- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Too much self-love just
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra! | makes you jealous of
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | the people who envy you.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 20 Mar 91 21:05:37 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I just wrote:
>neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>   Our 12T magnet has protection resistors across the
>>coils so that the resistance is no greater than 8 ohms across the 60
>>Henry inductance. Any other current paths are in parallel with that one.
>
>>   When our magnet quenches it drops about 200kJ of energy. This is not
>>a microsecond or nanosecond event, but something which takes many
>>seconds to run to completion.
>
>Let me hypothosize, say, a stress crack in the coil itself.  You may or
>may not have 8 ohms resistance anymore.  Conceivable it could increase
>quite a bit -- I don't know, what is the resistance in an arc-welder
>arc?
>
>For non-electronics/physics types, T=L/R where T=seconds and it takes
>about 5T to "bleed" the energy in a coil.  L=inductance in henries, and
>R=effective DC resistance.  As you can see, as the resistance increases
>the time to dump the energy DECREASES.
 
I forgot to mention that postitive feedback can come into play in the
above mentioned self-destruct scenario.  First a stress crack, then
an arc, then heating and expansion pushing the arc gap wider, which
in turn increases the R increasing the energy dump rate, causing
faster heating and expansion... etc.
 
Don't be so sure a high energy coil can't explode!!
 
(I recall an electronics text written in the 1920's which mentioned
run of the mill AC power transformers exploding when one of the
internal turns shorted to itself causing a loop.  The author reports
that the transformers looked "as if they were hit by a locomotive.")
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 21 Mar 91 06:19:47 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>   If you look at the diagram, you see that each segment of coil is
>protected by a ballast resistor. If a coil breaks and its protection
>resistor dies, the rest of the magnet dumps into the appropriate ballast
>resistors, while that one unprotected and broken coil dumps around the
>outside loop (ie. dumps its energy into the neighbouring coils and
>ballast resistors).
 
Most ingenious.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.22 / Les Earnest /  Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 22 Mar 91 01:09:00 GMT

[From Associated Press]
   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Navy researchers have reported matching
the production of nuclear products with excess heat in cold fusion
experiments similar to those of Utah scientists.
   National Cold Fusion Institute Director Fritz Will said Friday
the results produced by the team at the China Lake Naval Weapons
Center in California are a ``stunning finding.''
   But John Huizenga, co-chairman of a U.S. Department of Energy
cold fusion committee and a cold fusion skeptic, said he found a
number of inconsistencies in the Navy researchers' paper.
   A team under the direction of Melvin Miles, a chemist at the
Navy research facility, has had its paper accepted for publication
by the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, said Ben Bush, a
member of the team. Pre-prints of the paper are already being
widely distributed via fax machine.
   The experiment involves heavy-water electrochemical cells
similar to those of University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons
and Martin Fleischmann.
   Unlike Pons and Fleischmann, Miles' group captured the gas
bubbling off the experiment as it apparently produced up to a half
watt of excess heat.
   The gas samples were sent to another laboratory at the
University of Texas at Austin, where mass-spectrometry techniques
determined the samples had approximately 100 trillion atoms of
helium 4, an amount roughly comparable to the amount of heat
generated if both the helium and heat were produced in the same
nuclear fusion reaction.
   ``Apparently, the mechanism is cold fusion,'' Bush said Friday.
The helium had to be produced in the cells, and only a nuclear
fusion reaction could produce it, he said.
   The group also ran light-water experiments in the same cells,
and no excess heat or helium was reported.
   ``The finding of helium 4, and in addition the finding of helium
4 in the correct proportion, is an absolutely stunning finding,''
Will said.
   He noted that one of the physics community's largest complaints
about cold fusion has been the vast discrepancy between the
relatively large amounts of heat produced and the tiny amounts of
nuclear products found.
   He said a team from the Utah-based Cold Fusion Institute, and
likely several other researchers, have worked on techniques to
capture the evolving gas for analysis, but ``congratulations go to
Dr. Miles for being the first to get such results.''
   Huizenga, however, said the paper offered few details explaining
the setup of the cells and the heat measurements. The helium
measurements, he said, likely were the result of atmospheric
contamination.
   The atmosphere contains approximately the same density of helium
atoms as that found in the gas, and even Will acknowledged that
atmospheric contamination could be a problem.
   But Will noted that the light-water control experiments
contained no helium, which he took as a sign that the experimenters
were controlling the contamination.
   ``We were very careful to make sure we weren't getting any
source of contamination,'' said Bush, whose expertise was in
measuring the helium. ``The results are absolutely reliable.''
   Huizenga also noted that a fusion reaction favoring helium 4
production over helium 3 or tritium production violates nuclear
fusion's ``branching ratio.'' Cold-fusion proponents have
maintained that the ratio was established for ``hot'' fusion and
should not be applied to room-temperature reactions.
   Huizenga said the experimenters did not give hard data on
gamma-ray production, which would normally be expected in a nuclear
fusion reaction, especially one that produced no helium 3 or
tritium.
   Bush said they had seen some indications of gamma rays in the
cells, but those measurements have not been fully investigated.
   Huizenga also said the paper lacks detail surrounding the basic
setup of the experiment, a problem for which Pons and Fleischmann
were widely criticized after announcing in March 1989 that they had
produced a fusion reaction at room temperature in a University of
Utah lab.
   ``I think anyone would find it of a far lower quality than a lot
of the other positive papers,'' Huizenga said.
 
AP-NY-03-21-91 1851EST-
**********
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenLES cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.21 / C Neufeld /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 21 Mar 91 05:15:30 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <1991Mar20.210537.18019@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>
>Don't be so sure a high energy coil can't explode!!
>
>(I recall an electronics text written in the 1920's which mentioned
>run of the mill AC power transformers exploding when one of the
>internal turns shorted to itself causing a loop.  The author reports
>that the transformers looked "as if they were hit by a locomotive.")
>
   Sure could. But that's not a superconducting circuit. If you're
making a transformer out of normal wire you're not going to put low 'R'
protection resistors across it because that would be a crippling power
drain in normal operation. You just build it as a continuous coil and
hope for the best. You can't put protection resistors across a coil in
AC operation in any case, even with superconducting coils, unless you
don't mind the power wastage. You can't even put a protection diode in
there, since the voltage changes sign.
   The likely cause of the explosion was an open-circuiting of the coil
resulting in a large voltage spike which boiled the oil......you can
guess the rest. Power transformers still blow once in a while in the
city. When they do the entire horizon glows pink (in nighttime,
obviously; it's very impressive). That's why they put the big
transformers in industrial areas or in parks.
 
>- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Too much self-love just
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra! | makes you jealous of
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | the people who envy you.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 23 Mar 91 07:16:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Mar19.170023.28617@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>In article <1991Mar19.080058.19039@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
 
>   10 microhenries????? Our 12T superconducting magnet has an inductance
>of 60 Henries!
 
Sheesh.. I was considering the coil as as single turn (totally toroidally
closed)  ... where the the total current "I" would be the total ampere
turns..   ..  Sorry for the lapse.  I work with such simple single wound
topologies and I forgot the old fashion way was to wind up coils with a
long conducting thread ..  (by comparison).
 
Also, I didn' consider that these coils are very "open" and much of
the flux is lost from the toroidal volume.  That magnetizes a very
much larger volume of space and contributes significantly to the
over all inductance.
 
>   That's a bit high. Our 12T magnet has protection resistors across the
>coils so that the resistance is no greater than 8 ohms across the 60
>Henry inductance. Any other current paths are in parallel with that one.
>This isn't to say that we don't get the occasional big voltage, but most
>of the power is dumped into the protection resistors in the magnet and
>in the power supply.
 
Is such a protection possible in an energy conserving superconducting
system??   I know of a resistive coil segment exploding in mag fusion
(plasma) experiment at U Chicago.  It was fully balasted with monster
resistors that were actually great copper plates in a swimming pool
size water tank.
 
>   When our magnet quenches it drops about 200kJ of energy.
 
This is orders of magnitude less magnetic storage then for proposed
fusion reactors.   One could handle this energy in an air blast
with wearing something less than the protective body armor made
for bomb squads.   The (past) cyclotron magnet a Maryland at 2000
amps stored about eighty MEGAJOULES.  Wnen it shorted across the
input/output buss, it produced a two meter fire ball, blasted
an engineer into unconsciousness, and formed a half meter diameter
ball lightning that lasted about 18 seconds.  It made a realtively
small bang when it drifted into a wall and steel beam.
 
>   Superconducting magnets are a mature technology.
 
But is not proven, for coils under high torsional stress, and in the
sizes and pressures applications, required for Commercial tokamak
fusion.  The open magnetized channel is huge compared to what is
found in accelerator applications.
 
I don't know the volume of that Cyclotron or if it's peak energy
densities are near what is planned for burning tokamaks.  However,
given a 1000 times more energy and probably NOT a thousand times
the mass, I still believe, such applications are a serious problem.
 
>suddenly increased in volume by a factor of 1000. Magnets nowadays
>absorb the energy without melting down the coils, and lose just a bit of
>replaceable cryogenic fluid.
 
For non-complicated applications with plenty of space and small apertures
(initial volumes) this works.  It will require much more engineering in
the difficult space and parameter regimes of a production tokamak.
 
>>Now since
>>it looks like usual order 1/3 light speed dissipation.
 
>   Nowhere near! I get a time constant of thirty seconds or more for any
>very-high-field superconducting magnet designed to modern specs.
 
When one of the coil segments breaks, and goes non superconding?? ?
Again, are such "small aperture specs" applicable to open loops
of the coil system of a production tokamak?
 
>   Lightning is a problem when a magnet quenches. We've had arcs build
>in helium at atmospheric pressure and rupture the walls to the vacuum
>vessel. The quench in Michigan was very exciting in terms of lightning
>displays. These arcs don't cause explosions, though, they just destroy
>electronics and punch holes in steel support beams. There's a big
>difference between that and shrapnel. I should mention that the Michigan
>quench did destroy electronics and damage superstructure members, but
>the magnet itself was restartable! No damage to the coil.
 
Send me the video .. ,  not bad for 200kj.
 
        When little dams break there isn't much of a problem,
             but when huge dams break, there could be.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 23 Mar 91 19:50:14 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>   The likely cause of the explosion was an open-circuiting of the coil
>resulting in a large voltage spike which boiled the oil......you can
>guess the rest.
 
I'd have to think about this, but I believe the explosive force is from the
shorted turn having currents induced into it that are magnetically
repulsive to the primary winding.  Since opposing coils tend to cancel
each other's inductance, you can get very high rates of energy transfer --
giving rise to rapidly moving physical stresses.
 
But let me think about it a bit, just to double check.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.23 / Les Earnest /  Letter Says Fleishmann's Tenure at University of Utah Uncertain
     
Originally-From: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Letter Says Fleishmann's Tenure at University of Utah Uncertain
Date: 23 Mar 91 21:07:00 GMT

[From Associated Press]
   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - One of the two scientists who claimed to
have discovered a controversial room temperature atomic fusion
process has been told his future at the University of Utah is in
jeopardy.
   Martin Fleishmann, who is living in Britain, was asked in a
letter dated Feb. 4 if he intended to reapply as an auxiliary
professor in the chemistry department. Department faculty vote on
such appointments.
   ``It is only fair that I tell you that under the present
circumstances and the prevailing atmosphere surrounding cold fusion
at the university, it is rather uncertain that such an appointment
would be favorably acted upon by our senior faculty,'' wrote
department chairman Peter J. Stang.
   Fleischmann, a widely published electrochemist, replied March 6
that he wanted his appointment put to a vote and said he has no
doubt that his colleagues will reaffirm his position.
   He also accused Stang of trying to sabotage the fusion program.
   ``I think you would like to close the file (on cold fusion)
because you find it uncomfortable,'' he wrote.
   Fleischmann said he and his colleague, B. Stanley Pons, are
committed to keeping experiments in Utah to protect local patent
interests.
   Pons, who is in France on sabbatical from the university, called
Stang's treatment of his colleague ``deplorable.''
   ``How can a scientist like Martin Fleischmann be treated in this
way?'' he asked.
   Saturday was the second anniversary of the announcement by Pons
and Fleischmann that they had achieved fusion in a table-top
experiment at room temperature.
   A fusion reaction releases energy through the joining of atoms,
as opposed to fission in which heavy atoms such as uranium are
split. If fusion could be harnessed to produce electricity, it
could use plentiful hydrogen instead of uranium, but most
scientists believe that can only be achieved at extremely high
temperatures.
   Pons and Fleischmann have come under fire by the scientific
community, which has criticized their methods and had difficulty
reproducing their results.
   The Utah fusion program has suffered other setbacks. Earlier
this month, Fritz Will, director of the university's National Cold
Fusion Institute, asked to be released from the institute's
four-member board of trustees.
   Will complained that Pons and Fleishmann had not fully
cooperated with an external review of their experiments. The
scientists have disputed that claim.
   A $5 million appropriation by the Utah Legislature to fund cold
fusion research will run out June 30 and the institute has been
unable to solicit enough private donations to continue operations.
   The threat to Fleischmann's job surprised state science
officials.
   ``That's interesting. No one has talked to me about review of
adjunct appointments to do with Dr. Fleischmann,'' said Randy Moon,
state science adviser. ``With so little funds remaining, I would
think there would be more open communication.''
   Moon said university officials at the fusion advisory board's
meeting last month appeared to back the program.
   ``Yet it appears the university (officials) had already made up
their mind that there was a bleak future for the research,'' Moon
said.
 
AP-NY-03-23-91 1413EST-
**********
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenLES cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.23 / Juhana Kouhia /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 23 Mar 91 19:47:46 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology

 
In article <1991Mar22.165722.28929@cs.cmu.edu> webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
 writes:
>
>Yeah, I'm still a True Believer.  Ask yourself this: why in the world
>would anyone at a Naval Weapons lab report a positive result on cold
>fusion these days, unless they were sure they were right?
 
Keyword: Money.
They get money to their experiment if they say that they succeeded
even it's not true...
 
It happens -- I saw a document film which told about this kind of
money hunters in USA.
 
Juhana
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjk87377 cudfnJuhana cudlnKouhia cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.22 / Greg Shippen /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: greg@rapid.mips.com (Greg Shippen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 22 Mar 91 17:48:01 GMT

In article <1991Mar22.165722.28929@cs.cmu.edu>, webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon
Webb) writes:
>
> Or how about this possibility: Cold fusion cannot be true.  Therefore,
> any positive results must be either due to sloppy experimentation, poor
> analysis, or outright fraud.  This applies regardless of the
> prevously-demonstrated abilities of the researchers to conduct
> experiments and analysis correctly, or their reputation.
>
> Yeah, I'm still a True Believer.  Ask yourself this: why in the world
> would anyone at a Naval Weapons lab report a positive result on cold
> fusion these days, unless they were sure they were right?  Why expose
> yourself to the inevitable derision?  I mean, sure, Pons and Fleischmann
> aren't going to back down, but why would anyone JOIN them?  It just
> doesn't make sense.
>
> Note that at this point, cold fusion is NOT following the pattern of
> "pathological science".  By now, the only people claiming cold fusion
> results should be those who originally committed themselves to it.
>
> -- J
 
I agree here.  I cannot believe that anyone would be stupid enough to
submit bad or hasty science at this point.  Suicide is probably too good
a word for doing so.
 
Unfortunately, there is also strong incentive to play your cards close
since the potential rewards for success for oneself and for one's
institution are universally understood to be immense.  Hence,
discovering whether this
group is on a death wish or simply keeping their cards close may not be
obvious for some time.
 
For their sakes, I hope they have done a reasonably good job...
 
---
Gregory B. Shippen
MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.                    {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!greg
928 Arques Ave. MS 2-01                                greg@mips.com
Sunnyvale, CA  94086 (408) 524-8141
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnShippen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.22 /  Albatross /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: alberti@cs.umn.edu (Albatross)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 22 Mar 91 16:15:57 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In <#7u4a@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest) writes:
>   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Navy researchers have reported matching
>the production of nuclear products with excess heat in cold fusion
>experiments similar to those of Utah scientists.
>   The experiment involves heavy-water electrochemical cells
>similar to those of University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons
>and Martin Fleischmann.
>   Unlike Pons and Fleischmann, Miles' group captured the gas
>bubbling off the experiment as it apparently produced up to a half
>watt of excess heat.
>   Huizenga also said the paper lacks detail surrounding the basic
>setup of the experiment, a problem for which Pons and Fleischmann
>were widely criticized after announcing in March 1989 that they had
>produced a fusion reaction at room temperature in a University of
>Utah lab.
 
Hmm.. Has anyone considered the possibility that Cold Fusion can only take
place in a poorly-documented environment?
--
Bob Alberti  Micro and Wkstn Networks Ctr, U of MN   // aka: Albatross| Unitar-
Internet:    alberti@boombox.micro.UMN.EDU        \\//      Images BBS| ian/
Disclaimer:  My employer does not mean what I say. //   (612) 884-7951| Univer-
Ingredients: 30% header, 30% quote, 10% content, 30% cutesy signature.| salist!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenalberti cudlnAlbatross cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.22 / Jon Webb /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 22 Mar 91 16:57:22 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1991Mar22.161557.7496@cs.umn.edu>, alberti@cs.umn.edu
(Albatross) writes:
|> Hmm.. Has anyone considered the possibility that Cold Fusion can only
|> take
|> place in a poorly-documented environment?
 
Or how about this possibility: Cold fusion cannot be true.  Therefore,
any positive results must be either due to sloppy experimentation, poor
analysis, or outright fraud.  This applies regardless of the
prevously-demonstrated abilities of the researchers to conduct
experiments and analysis correctly, or their reputation.
 
Yeah, I'm still a True Believer.  Ask yourself this: why in the world
would anyone at a Naval Weapons lab report a positive result on cold
fusion these days, unless they were sure they were right?  Why expose
yourself to the inevitable derision?  I mean, sure, Pons and Fleischmann
aren't going to back down, but why would anyone JOIN them?  It just
doesn't make sense.
 
Note that at this point, cold fusion is NOT following the pattern of
"pathological science".  By now, the only people claiming cold fusion
results should be those who originally committed themselves to it.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenwebb cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.22 / Van Snyder /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 22 Mar 91 20:57:11 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <1991Mar20.223606.18144@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>In article <1991Mar20.205027.17738@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>>neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>>   Our 12T magnet has protection resistors across the
>>>coils so that the resistance is no greater than 8 ohms across the 60
>>>Henry inductance. Any other current paths are in parallel with that one.
>>
>>>   When our magnet quenches it drops about 200kJ of energy. This is not
>>>a microsecond or nanosecond event, but something which takes many
>>>seconds to run to completion.
>>
>>Let me hypothosize, say, a stress crack in the coil itself.  You may or
>>may not have 8 ohms resistance anymore.  Conceivable it could increase
>>quite a bit
>>
>   No, this won't do it. The design is more robust than that...
>...   To restate my case, the cataclysmic failure of superconducting
>magnets resulting in the spontaneous physical disassembly of the magnet,
>cryostat, and nearby persons, is not a danger with modern designs.
>
>>- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>>- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
>
>
>--
> Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Too much self-love just
> neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra! | makes you jealous of
> cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | the people who envy you.
> "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
 
Why is it the critics always assume the guys that have already done it are
too stupid to have done it right?
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.22 / Van Snyder /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 22 Mar 91 21:03:03 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <1991Mar22.161557.7496@cs.umn.edu> alberti@cs.umn.edu (Albatross)
 writes:
>In <#7u4a@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest) writes:
>>   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Navy researchers have reported matching
>>the production of nuclear products with excess heat in cold fusion
>>experiments similar to those of Utah scientists.
>>...
>Hmm.. Has anyone considered the possibility that Cold Fusion can only take
>place in a poorly-documented environment?
>--
>Bob Alberti  Micro and Wkstn Networks Ctr, U of MN   // aka: Albatross| Unitar-
>Internet:    alberti@boombox.micro.UMN.EDU        \\//      Images BBS| ian/
>Disclaimer:  My employer does not mean what I say. //   (612) 884-7951| Univer-
>Ingredients: 30% header, 30% quote, 10% content, 30% cutesy signature.| salist!
 
Sounds like the "shyness effect" that psychics invoke when debunked.
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 22 Mar 91 15:42:04
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     Actually, the explosion usually occurs when the temperature passes the
 Curie point
in the (iron) core.  When you get a turn-to-turn short in a power
tranformer, most of the power in goes to heating the transformer.  If
no fuse blows (note that the line load may be less than the normal
peak load at this point), eventually part of the core passes the Curie
point and "rejects" the magnetic field.  The coil on the input side is
now a low resistance (and low inductance) shunt across a high-voltage
power line.
 
    To add insult to injury, a lot of the energy from this shunt goes
into creating an intense magnetic field which is no longer confined to
the core, in fact is mostly excluded from it.  I have seen cans
rupture from the magnetic pressure even when the vent plugs and
coolant were long gone.
 
    Some day we may have sane laws about power transformers which
require coil or core temperature breakers, but until then New York
City will continue to have frequent electrical power system disasters.
(Many reputable power companies monitor transformer temperature
remotely.  It's not cheap, but it is a lot cheaper than refitting an
entire substation.  I don't know about Toronto, but Consolidated
Edison (New York City) and the r-word used above should never appear
in the same sentence.
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 23 Mar 91 00:06:00 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1991Mar22.165722.28929@cs.cmu.edu> webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
 writes:
>In article <1991Mar22.161557.7496@cs.umn.edu>, alberti@cs.umn.edu
>(Albatross) writes:
 
>
>Note that at this point, cold fusion is NOT following the pattern of
>"pathological science".  By now, the only people claiming cold fusion
>results should be those who originally committed themselves to it.
>
 
Why couldn't they just be honest scientists who did an experiment
to the best of their abilities, and reported the results they got.
I'm sure they did "originally" commit to doing the experiment, i.e.
they probably started back when there was optimism. The mere
fact that they finished and reported their positive result does
not mean they are infallible or somehow supersure---it just means
they are doing what scientists should do.
 
A single "replication" (and it is a stretch to call this
a replication, since P&F supposedly have secret tricks, etc)
deserves little  weight in the
light of so many negative results. It seems most likely that they
would have found a way to replicate the erroneous P&F results,
rather than some real fusion process. This will be sorted out
when we see how replicable _their_ experiment is.
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.24 / C Neufeld /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 24 Mar 91 02:09:03 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <1991Mar23.071636.1981@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>In article <1991Mar19.170023.28617@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>In article <1991Mar19.080058.19039@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>
>>   That's a bit high. Our 12T magnet has protection resistors across the
>>coils so that the resistance is no greater than 8 ohms across the 60
>>Henry inductance. Any other current paths are in parallel with that one.
>>This isn't to say that we don't get the occasional big voltage, but most
>>of the power is dumped into the protection resistors in the magnet and
>>in the power supply.
>
>Is such a protection possible in an energy conserving superconducting
>system??
>
   Yes it is, if the coils are operating at or close to DC. When in the
DC condition the resistors are completely shorted out by the
superconductor. When charging or discharging the magnet you dissipate
power in the resistors by V^2/R where V is the voltage applied to change
the current in the coil (remember, V=L dI(t)/dt ). For our magnet 'V' is
typically around two volts, so we dissipate 0.5W in the resistors when
ramping the field. This is considerably less than gets into the cryostat
through the resistive current leads from the power supply.
   If the coil is operating at AC this won't work. I believe that the
LEP cavities would fall under this category, having tuned LC networks to
slosh the energy in and out of the superconducting RF cavities at a
frequency related to the frequency of electrons circulating in the ring.
 
>I know of a resistive coil segment exploding in mag fusion
>(plasma) experiment at U Chicago.  It was fully balasted with monster
>resistors that were actually great copper plates in a swimming pool
>size water tank.
>
   So, describe this explosion. Did it damage the coil? A magnet quench
looks very impressive, the first time I saw one I didn't think the
magnet could have survived it but it was a routine quench protected by
the ballast resistors. What is a "resistive" coil segment? I'm
describing superconducting coils. It's impractical to ballast resistive
coils at a level sufficient to protect the coils.
 
>>   When our magnet quenches it drops about 200kJ of energy.
>
>This is orders of magnitude less magnetic storage then for proposed
>fusion reactors.   One could handle this energy in an air blast
>with wearing something less than the protective body armor made
>for bomb squads.   The (past) cyclotron magnet a Maryland at 2000
>amps stored about eighty MEGAJOULES.  Wnen it shorted across the
     note: gives roughly L= 40 Henries.
>input/output buss, it produced a two meter fire ball, blasted
>an engineer into unconsciousness, and formed a half meter diameter
>ball lightning that lasted about 18 seconds.  It made a realtively
>small bang when it drifted into a wall and steel beam.
>
   Yep, perfectly understandable. That's the lightning. Was the coil
damaged? I'm discussing a particular failure mode, that of energy in the
field being dropped primarily into the magnet windings, which are the
expensive parts of the magnets. We once had a quench which, though
ballasted, threw lightning from part of the internal current leads to
the vacuum vessel wall, puncturing it and flooding the vacuum space with
helium. That was a tough one to solder. One of the two copper current
leads melted down, too. Those had been underdesigned, though. There are
one or two other spots on our magnet where the design is not great.
   What's a magnet doing with an I/O port? If you mean that it shorted
across the leads, the stress of that is sometimes enough to drive the
superconducting switch normal, something which results in an immediate
quench.
 
>>   Superconducting magnets are a mature technology.
>
>But is not proven, for coils under high torsional stress, and in the
>sizes and pressures applications, required for Commercial tokamak
>fusion.  The open magnetized channel is huge compared to what is
>found in accelerator applications.
>
   What are the required parameters for such a fusion device? Our magnet
is not a good comparison here because it was optimized for field
homogeneity over a 2.5 cm diameter sphere. The magnet can itself has an
inner bore a few times that. If homogeneity had not been a concern, the
design would have been different, probably capable of a larger bore for
the same peak field (12T).
 
>I don't know the volume of that Cyclotron or if it's peak energy
>densities are near what is planned for burning tokamaks.  However,
>given a 1000 times more energy and probably NOT a thousand times
>the mass, I still believe, such applications are a serious problem.
>
   That cyclotron was 16MJ at full field. The pole face was 2m in
diameter. That's pretty big, and quite a lot of energy.
 
>>>Now since
>>>it looks like usual order 1/3 light speed dissipation.
>
>>   Nowhere near! I get a time constant of thirty seconds or more for any
>>very-high-field superconducting magnet designed to modern specs.
>
>When one of the coil segments breaks, and goes non superconding?? ?
>Again, are such "small aperture specs" applicable to open loops
>of the coil system of a production tokamak?
>
   Yes, this is for a single segment breaking. Thirty seconds. The
cyclotron magnet time constant was several tens of seconds when the dump
resistor burned completely through. The energy is also dumped not into
the coils but into the ballast resistors, which are designed, ideally,
to take the maximum stress load. The cyclotron magnet failed in that
respect. Somebody goofed, or maybe they forgot to turn on the water
cooling for the dump resistor.
 
>>The quench in Michigan was very exciting in terms of lightning
>>displays. These arcs don't cause explosions, though, they just destroy
>>electronics and punch holes in steel support beams. There's a big
>>difference between that and shrapnel. I should mention that the Michigan
>>quench did destroy electronics and damage superstructure members, but
>>the magnet itself was restartable! No damage to the coil.
>
>Send me the video .. ,  not bad for 200kj.
>
   I sent the description of the quench through email. It's the 16MJ
magnet, not our piddling 200kJ one.
 
   I think I sense a Net timelag. Have you read my later posts? I'm
going to hold off on any replies on this thread until it looks like your
site has caught up.
 
>| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
>| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Too much self-love just
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra! | makes you jealous of
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | the people who envy you.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.24 / Randell Jesup /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 24 Mar 91 02:40:17 GMT
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <1991Mar20.223606.18144@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>   To restate my case, the cataclysmic failure of superconducting
>magnets resulting in the spontaneous physical disassembly of the magnet,
			  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>cryostat, and nearby persons, is not a danger with modern designs.
 
	Hmmm, one of the more amusing synonyms for "explosion".  Reminds
me of government reports....
 
	This topic reminds me of a late-night bull session at college, where
a bunch of us (none of us physicists) were talking about unconventional
terrorist weapons, and someone proposed taking a superconducting coil/magnet,
pumping it up slowly, and then (by timer, or merely by cutting it off from
cooling fluid and letting it heat up) causing a loss of superconductivity.
The idea was that all that energy you had pumed into it for days or months
would come back FAST.
 
	Rather impractical (I think) for the intended purpose, but amusing.
Any idea how big an explosion you could get out of this?  (Assuming of course
they designed it for this purpose, instead of designing it to avoid this,
and lets say something you could put in an apartment and run off 3-phase.)
 
--
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup
The compiler runs
Like a swift-flowing river
I wait in silence.  (From "The Zen of Programming")  ;-)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.21 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 21 Mar 91 12:15:58 GMT
Organization: Dept. Of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, UK.

In <1991Mar19.035747.21478@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>expensive. The collector would not obscure sunlight, so it could be
>mounted on two metre towers over grazing land and not interfere with the
>grass or cattle underneath.
 
The cattle would be baked.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.25 / Dieter Britz /  Navy researchers' claims
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Navy researchers' claims
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1991 15:50:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest)
>[From Associated Press]
>   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Navy researchers have reported matching
>the production of nuclear products with excess heat in cold fusion
>experiments similar to those of Utah scientists.
>...
>   Unlike Pons and Fleischmann, Miles' group captured the gas
>bubbling off the experiment as it apparently produced up to a half
>watt of excess heat.
>...
>   The gas samples were sent to another laboratory at the
>University of Texas at Austin, where mass-spectrometry techniques
>determined the samples had approximately 100 trillion atoms of
>helium 4, an amount roughly comparable to the amount of heat
>generated if both the helium and heat were produced in the same
>nuclear fusion reaction.
 
I can see why they are excited. A rough calculation shows that at 0.5 W, there
should be something like 1E11 helium atoms produced per s, assuming the fusion
reaction d + d --> (4)He + 24MeV, suggested by Walling and Simons and assuming
that the 24MeV all goes into heat. If by "trillion" 1E12 is meant, this is in
the right ballpark, provided all the He goes into the gas phase.
 All this raises a number of questions. A lot has been assumed in the above.
Huizenga suggests helium contamination; while 1E11 sounds like a lot, it is
only 1E-13 moles (per s), which must be close to the background - I admit I am
not a helium expert. If true, the result would also appear to support Bockris'
dendrite theory or, in any case, the idea that cnf is a process taking place
on the Pd surface. If it were to be a bulk process, the helium wouldn't be in
the gas phase, being practically immobile in the palladium deuteride matrix. I
thought, however, that Frank Close had disposed of the dendrite theory
effectively. Another thing he has disposed of is the escape the (4)He branch
appears to offer: that of a fusion reaction without radiative emissions; the
fancy is that only helium and heat are produced. FC points out that the gamma
emission (here at 24MeV) would be producing all sorts of secondaries and
radiation meters would all be ringing their bells, or whatever they ring with.
 I presume that the Naval researchers have adequately addressed these sorts of
questions and we'll read it in the journal when the time comes. I seem to
recall seeing Naval types on this list (was it Mark North?); if the team that
did this work is reading this list, how about telling us?
 
  Now for something completely different:  For ball lightning freaks, there is
a good little summmary on this by Stanley Singer in Nature (London) 350 (1991)
108 (14-Mar).
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.25 / Richard Frost /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: frost@watop.nosc.mil (Richard Frost)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 25 Mar 91 08:48:20 GMT

webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) writes:
 
>Yeah, I'm still a True Believer.  Ask yourself this: why in the world
>would anyone at a Naval Weapons lab report a positive result on cold
>fusion these days, unless they were sure they were right?  Why expose
>yourself to the inevitable derision?
 
Money.  There's a funding bug for cold fusion at the Pentagon right now.
 
As for the reporting of a success and then subsequent (funded) failure:
that's our business!! (just joking, China Lake)
--
Richard Frost				Naval Ocean Systems Center
frost@watop.nosc.mil			voice: 619-553-6960
(Note: please e-mail directly as mail header is unreliable)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenfrost cudfnRichard cudlnFrost cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.25 / Barry Floyd /  Re: Letter Says Fleishmann's Tenure at University of Utah Uncertain
     
Originally-From: barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Letter Says Fleishmann's Tenure at University of Utah Uncertain
Date: 25 Mar 91 16:41:59 GMT

"Local Patent" rights stands out in the letter as a possible motivating
factor. It is my understanding that nothing that has been publically
presented may subsequently be patented (given a 1 year grace period).
 
If Utah is interested in patenting such a fundamental invention they
would have lost their chance during March of 1990, given full disclosure.
Here it is two years later and they can still patent their invention,
lacking full public disclosure.
 
As to the Navy, and the Pentagon's interests in cold fusion, their is
an obvious "national security" issue at hand. It is entirely possible that
the Pentagon in no small way has been involved in limiting full disclosure
(what if the Iraqi's started using our secrets :-> ).
 
On both counts, it is not suprising that we have seen only partial
disclosures and an agressive interest on the part of the Pentagon.
 
What happens if other physicists "independently" discover the same or
similar procedure and attempt to patent their invention? Will they
have a chance? now that its two years since partial disclosure?
 
barry
 
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Barry B. Floyd                   \\\       barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu |
| Manager Information Systems - HR    \\\          usere9w9@rpitsmts |
+-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbarryf cudfnBarry cudlnFloyd cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.25 / Flame Bait /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: joshua@athertn.Atherton.COM (Flame Bait)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 25 Mar 91 20:54:24 GMT
Organization: Atherton Technology, Sunnyvale, CA

webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) writes:
> Ask yourself this: why in the world would anyone at a Naval Weapons lab
> report a positive result on cold fusion these days, unless they were
> sure they were right?
 
Does anyone know how long ago the Navy paper was submitted?  I assumed
that it was submitted 6 months or a year ago, and is only now getting
published.  If the paper was submitted a while ago, your question becomes
moot.
 
> Note that at this point, cold fusion is NOT following the pattern of
> "pathological science".  By now, the only people claiming cold fusion
> results should be those who originally committed themselves to it.
 
Can you expand on this point?
 
I have seen several postings explaining in detail how CF is acting
like pathological science.  These postings used many data points to
show several similarities between pathological science and cold fusion.
In the last few months, there has been at most one new confimation (the
Navy one), so I find your argument (that this means cold fusion is not
pathological science) weak.
 
Do you have other information to support the idea that cold fusion is
not patholoical science?  For example, have there been other well done
confimations of Pons style cold fusion in the last 6 months?
 
Joshua Levy   joshua@atherton.com    (408) 734-9822
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjoshua cudfnFlame cudlnBait cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.26 / C Neufeld /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 26 Mar 91 02:46:53 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <chl.669557758@m1> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>In <1991Mar19.035747.21478@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>expensive. The collector would not obscure sunlight, so it could be
>>mounted on two metre towers over grazing land and not interfere with the
>>grass or cattle underneath.
>
>The cattle would be baked.
 
   If the cattle are baked you're not doing it properly. The numbers
I've seen for microwave rectenna conversion efficiency are over 90%
incident microwave energy to usable electrical power. This means that no
more than 10% of the energy is lost to the surroundings. If, as is
suggeted, the beam carries a power density equal to that of sunlight,
then you're looking at a worst case of 10% sunlight energy density
falling on the cattle. If that bakes a cow then they must be operating
awfully close to their design limits.
   In practice the transmitted power is likely to be lower. You can make
a screen opaque to microwaves which still passes a large fraction of
visible light. To take a case in point, look at the front of your
microwave oven some time. A microwave-reflecting plane an integer number
of half-waves below your rectenna would improve conversion efficiency,
and incidentally protect underlying life.
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Too much self-love just
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra! | makes you jealous of
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | the people who envy you.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.26 / F Antonio /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 26 Mar 91 12:33:13 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA

neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>   If the cattle are baked you're not doing it properly.
 
That's one thing we can agree on.
 
>The numbers
>I've seen for microwave rectenna conversion efficiency are over 90%
>incident microwave energy to usable electrical power. This means that no
>more than 10% of the energy is lost to the surroundings.
 
Whoa!  Suppose you build a 100MW plant.  (reasonable size for a power
generation plant these days).  10% is 10MW.  So you have "misplaced"
10 MegaWatts, and you think that's ok?  In the case of a loss-of-attitude-
control accident (LOACA), you have "misplaced" 100MW.  Not good.  Loss of
attitude control is a common failure mode for spacecraft.
 
>If, as is
>suggeted, the beam carries a power density equal to that of sunlight,
>then you're looking at a worst case of 10% sunlight energy density
>falling on the cattle.
 
Lets do some calculations.  The solar constant is 135 mW/sq cm.
Unfortunately, microwaves are more harmful to humans than sunlight.
The ANSI guidelines for microwave exposure are maximum 5mW/sq cm.
The ANSI guideline is now written into several US regulations.  Regs in
some other countries specify lower levels.  We learn more about the
biological effects of EM radiation all the time, so it is possible that
this limit may be reduced to something like 1mW/sq cm in the coming years.
 
If you beam microwaves to earth with a power density equal to sunlight,
you're way over the limit, and a LOACA accident could expose millions of
people to hazardous levels of microwave radiation.  Even your very
optimistic antenna soaking up 90%, still leaves 10% hitting the ground,
exposing living things to 13.5mW/sq cm, which is _still_ over the limit.
 
The antenna farm on the ground will have to be huge, by the way, to make the
radiation levels safe for the life forms on earth...
 
100MW = 10^8W = 10^11mW.  Suppose a 1 Km by 1 Km square  uniformly
illuminated antenna farm.
That's 10^10 sq cm .  10^11mW in 10^10 sq cm = 10 mW/sq cm.  Oops!
We're over the limit again.  The antenna farm will need to be even bigger.
Perhaps 3 Km x 3 Km is "reasonable"?  Then there is the problem that the
spacecraft's transmit antenna does not uniformly illuminate the antenna
farm on the ground.  To do so would require a very large antenna in space.
Ok, so now maybe the farm on the ground is 5Km x 5Km.  When does this become
unreasonable?
 
 
>If that bakes a cow then they must be operating
>awfully close to their design limits.
 
Cows, like all living things, _do_ operate close to their design limits.
Think safety.
 
> "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
 
A good thought.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenantonio cudfnFranklin cudlnAntonio cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.27 /   /   Magnet Meltdown and China Lake
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Magnet Meltdown and China Lake
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1991 03:51:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since I reside at the place where the cyclotron magnet refered to by Christopher
Neufeld continues to operate (along with a similar larger version) I thought
I should say a bit about magnet safety as I understand it.  First I will
quote a description of the accident from a laboratory document of the time.
 
"The overall integrity of the superconducting coil was unintentionally
further verified trough the fall months of 1977 as a result of three
accident situations which subjected the coil to severe conditions.  The
first of these came about during a full-current test of the energy dumping
system for the magnet.  A faulty water level controller in the "dump"
resistor allowed the stainless steel resistance element to protrude from
its water bath.  The element consequently melted giving an open circuit
on the coil and a very high voltage which led to arcing at two points,
one point being in a coil lead and the other being in the power supply.
The arc in the coil lead melted through the vacuum wall, thereby breaking
the insulating vacuum, and throwing a heat load estimated at 200 kilowatts
rather instantly onto the coil.  This heat load in turn caused a helium
blow-off through the helium can safety valve, leading to a rapid tempera-
ture change in the whole coil structure.  The power supply was significantly
damaged in this accident and required a month to repair, but there was
no detectable change in any characteristic of the coil. (The incident
was certainly for all of us a vivid and educational demonstration of the
punishing capabilities of large stored energy and the ensuing demand for
perfection in all aspects of a large coil system.)"
 
That magnet has remained in rather continuous service to the present, and
a second, larger cyclotron of similar construction has now been in regular
operation for two years.  The larger magnet has a stored energy of about
30 MJ.  Clearly if that energy is to be dumped noncatastrophically the
dump must be external to the coil and cryostat.  Hence maintaining
continuity in the external circuits is essential.  If the stored energy
is dumped in the coil some sort of meltdown would occur, but does that
imply an explosion?
-------------------
Meanwhile, on to China Lake.  Where has Melvin Miles been for the past two
years?  Doesn't he realize that the same kind of half-asked presentation
of results that started this whole mess is not going to receive a very
gracious reception?  Ya, I know 100 trillion sounds like lots of helium
atoms, but if you stop to think that just means ppm levels or less in
what is mostly D2 gas you can see that some rather careful analysis is
required to provide convincing evidence for helium production through
cold fusion.  Mass spectrograph at U of Texas?  That's a big place and
I would guess there are several groups using mass spectrographs routinely.
But sorting mass 4 ions into He and D2 is not routine for all spectrographs.
While I'm at it a comment on Terry Bollinger's presentation on the ORNL
Scott "excess heat".  I would say that several investigators have demonstrated
that the D2-Pd system calorimetry is likely to enter a mode in which
a persistant bias of the order of 5 to 10% developes.  Continued runs
under this condition lead to an integration of the error to the point
that it can not be ignored.  Careful experimentation would require that
the investigators check and report all experimental parameters in detail
during such episodes.  Why has two years of repeating these experiments
not resulted in a single case where raw data is recorded and reported in
detail?
 
Dick
Blue     National Superconducting Cyclotron Lab at Mich State Univ.
     (nothing official about any of this however)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.26 / C Neufeld /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 26 Mar 91 18:12:03 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <1991Mar26.123313.25956@qualcomm.com> antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com
 (Franklin Antonio) writes:
>neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>
>>The numbers
>>I've seen for microwave rectenna conversion efficiency are over 90%
>>incident microwave energy to usable electrical power. This means that no
>>more than 10% of the energy is lost to the surroundings.
>
>Whoa!  Suppose you build a 100MW plant.  (reasonable size for a power
>generation plant these days).  10% is 10MW.  So you have "misplaced"
>10 MegaWatts, and you think that's ok?  In the case of a loss-of-attitude-
>control accident (LOACA), you have "misplaced" 100MW.  Not good.  Loss of
>attitude control is a common failure mode for spacecraft.
>
   No, this was my estimate of the "worst case" since I don't have any
articles on hand which show where the losses go. The numbers I heard
were ">90% microwave to electrical energy conversion efficiency." I then
presented the worst case: 10% loss, and none of it in the electronics,
all of it in the form of transmission through the antenna elements.
   As for the beam hitting the wrong place, remember that the
transmitting system can be designed such that the rectenna is an
integral part of the system, in other words the satellite can't beam
power except to a receiving station which is actively helping it to do
so.
   Further, 10MW misplaced is nothing compared to a coal or nuclear
power plant, considerably more than 10% of the heat is lost to the
environment. Why do you think they build these things on rivers?
 
>>If, as is
>>suggeted, the beam carries a power density equal to that of sunlight,
>>then you're looking at a worst case of 10% sunlight energy density
>>falling on the cattle.
>
>Lets do some calculations.  The solar constant is 135 mW/sq cm.
>Unfortunately, microwaves are more harmful to humans than sunlight.
>The ANSI guidelines for microwave exposure are maximum 5mW/sq cm.
>The ANSI guideline is now written into several US regulations.  Regs in
>some other countries specify lower levels.  We learn more about the
>biological effects of EM radiation all the time, so it is possible that
>this limit may be reduced to something like 1mW/sq cm in the coming years.
>
   Minor point: at the Earth's surface the solar constant is about 960
W/m^2. You gain some of the difference by putting your solar cells above
the atmosphere.
   I'm not suggesting beaming this into a kindergarten class. You'd
never get people to agree to live under one of these things. The point I
was making is that you can still grow feedstock or graze meat herds
underneath these beams, as opposed to a photoelectric plant which would
cover ten to fifty times the area and prevent any use for farming
applications (unless you grow mushrooms).
 
>If you beam microwaves to earth with a power density equal to sunlight,
>you're way over the limit, and a LOACA accident could expose millions of
>people to hazardous levels of microwave radiation.  Even your very
>optimistic antenna soaking up 90%, still leaves 10% hitting the ground,
>exposing living things to 13.5mW/sq cm, which is _still_ over the limit.
>
   Are the ANSI rules for all living things, or only for humans, or more
particularly for things which might someday have children or lawyers? No
Big-Mac-to-be is going to complain about being rayed, or about eating
grass which was beamed with microwaves.
   Hitting people on the ground isn't a problem. I believe that one
scheme to making the satellite proof against that is to put the
microwave oscillator on the ground and beaming it up to the tranmission
antenna of the satellite. The satellite boosts the power (by a huge
amount) and beams it back down through the same antenna. If the
oscillator dies, you can't push power out of the antenna. If the antenna
loses track of the oscillator, it can't beam power. Make the antenna
directional and it only send power to a microwave oscillator which is
beaming at it at the correct frequency. A terrorist attack on a city
would entail installing a microwave oscillator in the city AND arranging
for the satellite to point at that city, despite protection devices
trying to prevent that. Put scuttling charges on the power amplifiers if
you're worried about that.
 
>The antenna farm on the ground will have to be huge, by the way, to make the
>radiation levels safe for the life forms on earth...
>
   Ah, yes, safe and comfortable for what will be tomorrow's steak.
Contented cows taste better. How safe does hamburger on the hoof have to
be? It's on a one way trip to the golden arches anyway.
   Admittedly there will be people who refuse to eat meat which was
microwaved while alive, even if they'll eat it microwaved after death,
but there will be a choice: 200 "normal" cows and 10 "waved" cows, or
100 normal cows, if the choice is between space-based photovoltaic and
a rectenna, and ground-based photovoltaic.
 
>>If that bakes a cow then they must be operating
>>awfully close to their design limits.
>
>Cows, like all living things, _do_ operate close to their design limits.
>Think safety.
>
   As far as incident energy on my body, I'm not operating within 10% of
design limits. I live in a temperate zone. There are people who live
quite comfortably in climates which would cause me severe short-term
discomfort before I got used to the heat and the light. If you suddenly
implanted in my body a device which put out as heat 10% of the energy it
gets as sunlight, I probably wouldn't notice it. It certainly wouldn't
kill me. I'd be under more severe thermal stress if I started doing
manual labour on a sunny day, such as taking up farming as a summer
job.
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Too much self-love just
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra! | makes you jealous of
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | the people who envy you.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.26 / Todd Masco /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Todd L. Masco)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 26 Mar 91 22:43:22 GMT
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

joshua@athertn.Atherton.COM (Flame Bait) writes:
> webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) writes:
> > Note that at this point, cold fusion is NOT following the pattern of
> > "pathological science".  By now, the only people claiming cold fusion
> > results should be those who originally committed themselves to it.
>
> Can you expand on this point?
>
> I have seen several postings explaining in detail how CF is acting
> like pathological science.
 
I suppose this inevitably brings up the question: How does "legitimate"
science behave?  I would expect there to be a strong similarity, at
least in the early stages.
 
I'm young enough that I can't think of any revolutionary strides in
"legit" science that I've been even close to having a clue on.
--
Todd Masco  | tm2b@andrew.cmu.edu | "Tax the churches.
CMU Physics | tm2b@andrew.BITNet  |  Tax the businesses owned by the churches."
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfnTodd cudlnMasco cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.27 / G Armitage /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 27 Mar 91 00:14:45 GMT
Organization: Basket Weavers, Inc.

In article <1991Mar26.181203.10379@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
 
	[..]
>   Further, 10MW misplaced is nothing compared to a coal or nuclear
>power plant, considerably more than 10% of the heat is lost to the
>environment.
>Why do you think they build these things on rivers?
 
So you get heat in water rather than cows in heat?
 
:-)
gja
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengja cudfnGrenville cudlnArmitage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 26 Mar 91 21:29:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

joshua@Atherton.COM (Flame Bait) writes:
>In the last few months, there has been at most one new confimation (the
>Navy one), so I find your argument (that this means cold fusion is not
>pathological science) weak.
 
Heh heh.  The whole concept of "pathological science" is based upon a
weak premise -- that you can tell the correctness of a person's thoughts
by the tie he is wearing.
 
It wouldn't suprise me if you could graph the form of ballroom dance
each scientist engages in versus the usefulness of his previous
success rate at discovery, and come up with some sort of correlation.
 
But when you start dragging out those charts to "prove" some new theory
or discovery is "wrong", don't mind if I chuckle a bit.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.26 / Randell Jesup /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 26 Mar 91 23:41:03 GMT
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <1991Mar26.123313.25956@qualcomm.com> antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com
 (Franklin Antonio) writes:
>neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>   If the cattle are baked you're not doing it properly.
>
>That's one thing we can agree on.
 
	That depends on whether you have a cookout scheduled.  ;-)
 
>Whoa!  Suppose you build a 100MW plant.  (reasonable size for a power
>generation plant these days).  10% is 10MW.  So you have "misplaced"
>10 MegaWatts, and you think that's ok?  In the case of a loss-of-attitude-
>control accident (LOACA), you have "misplaced" 100MW.  Not good.  Loss of
>attitude control is a common failure mode for spacecraft.
 
	Energy density is the issue.  Most 100MW generating plants probably
produce a lot more than 10MW in inefficiency (a lot more) that shows up as
heat in the cooling systems (I'd guess).
 
>Lets do some calculations.  The solar constant is 135 mW/sq cm.
>Unfortunately, microwaves are more harmful to humans than sunlight.
 
	That depends a lot on the frequency.  The ones used in ovens are
nasty, since their purpose is to be absorbed by water molecules - and we're
essentially impure water.  You don't want to use that frequency anyways,
since there's a lot of water in the atmosphere.
 
>The ANSI guidelines for microwave exposure are maximum 5mW/sq cm.
 
	At what frequencies?
 
>If you beam microwaves to earth with a power density equal to sunlight,
>you're way over the limit, and a LOACA accident could expose millions of
>people to hazardous levels of microwave radiation.  Even your very
>optimistic antenna soaking up 90%, still leaves 10% hitting the ground,
>exposing living things to 13.5mW/sq cm, which is _still_ over the limit.
 
	There are systems already designed to provide fail-safe cutoff of the
beam if it starts to stray even a bit (not really hard to design, either).
 
>100MW = 10^8W = 10^11mW.  Suppose a 1 Km by 1 Km square  uniformly
>illuminated antenna farm.
 
	That's a lot smaller than the proposed sizes.
 
>That's 10^10 sq cm .  10^11mW in 10^10 sq cm = 10 mW/sq cm.  Oops!
>We're over the limit again.  The antenna farm will need to be even bigger.
 
>>If that bakes a cow then they must be operating
>>awfully close to their design limits.
>
>Cows, like all living things, _do_ operate close to their design limits.
>Think safety.
 
	He meant the antenna, not the cow.  Also think on the fact that we
have windows in microwaves, which have HIGH concentrations of the worst
frequency of microwaves.  The same can be done with the antenna (and pass
more light, since the intensity it has to deal with is much lower, and the
frequency can be perhaps a bit longer (more open mesh).
 
--
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup
Thus spake the Master Ninjei: "To program a million-line operating system
is easy, to change a man's temperament is more difficult."
(From "The Zen of Programming")  ;-)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.26 / Charles Poirier /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 26 Mar 91 18:54:10 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1991Mar26.024653.2991@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>In article <chl.669557758@m1> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>>In <1991Mar19.035747.21478@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>>expensive. The collector would not obscure sunlight, so it could be
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>mounted on two metre towers over grazing land and not interfere with the
>>>grass or cattle underneath.
>>
>>The cattle would be baked.
 
>   If the cattle are baked you're not doing it properly. The numbers
>I've seen for microwave rectenna conversion efficiency are over 90%...
 
Perhaps the implication was that the cattle would be baked because of
the *solar* collector formed by the space under the microwave collector.
One might think that this isn't a problem: if the collector can pass enough
rain to grow grass, it ought to be porous enough to exchange the hot air
via wind as well.
 
Except that there are days with no wind... oh well:  roast beef.
 
	Cheers,
	Charles Poirier   poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpoirier cudfnCharles cudlnPoirier cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.27 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 27 Mar 91 16:36:11 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA 94720

Here's a generally overlooked aspect to the handwaving about beaming down
power from orbit in the form of microwaves.  What about interference?
We're busily filling up the entire spectrum and will no doubt continue
to do so during the n decades until microwave power links become reality.
Has anyone studied this subject?
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.29 / Paul Houle /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 29 Mar 91 02:32:52 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

 
	Actually,  you don't want to just amplify a signal from the ground,
you want to set up a large number of omnidirectional antennas on the
satellite (or wide-angle antennas) and use a pilot beam from the ground to
lock the phases of the transmitters.  With a properly designed array,  this
can bring a very narrow spot of energy to the ground,  and it's very fail-
safe if you build the system so that the individual transmitters have
awful phase stability over,  say,  the millisecond range,  if you're using
Ghz frequencies.  If the pilot signal stops,  the transmitters go out of
phase and the beam adds randomly,  spreading the signal across a large
area of space where it is pretty harmless.
 
	You're still left with two possible safety problems,  and one is
that reflections of the beam itself could alter the phasing of the beam
in a dangerous manner - specifically,  imagine the beam reflecting off
a metallic surface on earth and then phase-locking onto it's return.
This could be deadly,  so that reflective spots on the ground could draw
the beam.
 
	Even in that case,  going to a phased array provides good safety
benefits -- any kind of automatic shut-off can be replicated on all of
the transmitters,  so even if one fails,  even if alot of them fail,  most
of them will kill the transmitters and drop the power level drastically.
 
	There are lots of possible failsafes - but even so,  I think that
if we ever build big rectennas,  we'll put them out over the ocean,  where
the microwaves won't penetrate the water,  and we can keep the thing far
away from cities.
 
	I'm tending towards the more radical nondiffractive beam technologies
that might make it possible to,  say,  send back a few megawatts in a pencil
beam.  With this type of system,  one can imagine millions of compact beams
shooting out of a complex phased array that power individual households --
large beams serve satellites in low-earth orbit that are close enough to
track moving vehicles and serve them individually.  <Nah,  too crazy>
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpahsnsr cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.28 /  herrickd@iccgc /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 28 Mar 91 23:26:05 GMT

In article <1991Mar20.001537.8250@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
 (Van Snyder) writes:
> If you figure in ALL the costs -- black lung disease in coal miners, people
the statistics suggest that black lung disease is a cost of smoking
and mining coal, not a cost of mining coal
 
dan herrick
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenherrickd cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.29 / Van Snyder /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 02:30:52 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <chl.669557758@m1> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>In <1991Mar19.035747.21478@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>expensive. The collector would not obscure sunlight, so it could be
>>mounted on two metre towers over grazing land and not interfere with the
>>grass or cattle underneath.
>
>The cattle would be baked.
 
Not if the beam is large enough, that is, if the power density is low enough.
Radar heating was discovered by sailors on watch in the pacific during WWII,
who discovered they could stay warm by sitting in front of the radar antenna.
How many KW's were radiated from the antenna?  The energy density was low enough
not to cook the sailors.  Same principle applies when transmitting energy by
RF from space.
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.29 / Van Snyder /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 02:44:45 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <1991Mar26.123313.25956@qualcomm.com> antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com
 (Franklin Antonio) writes:
>neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>   If the cattle are baked you're not doing it properly.
>
>That's one thing we can agree on.
>
>>The numbers
>>I've seen for microwave rectenna conversion efficiency are over 90%
>>incident microwave energy to usable electrical power. This means that no
>>more than 10% of the energy is lost to the surroundings.
>
>Whoa!  Suppose you build a 100MW plant.  (reasonable size for a power
>generation plant these days).  10% is 10MW.  So you have "misplaced"
>10 MegaWatts, and you think that's ok?  In the case of a loss-of-attitude-
>control accident (LOACA), you have "misplaced" 100MW.  Not good.  Loss of
>attitude control is a common failure mode for spacecraft.
 
And a 1e6 ton spacecraft is going to slew at how many microradians per
second?  It's easy to arrange that the downlink is shut down if the
up-link is lost.  In the 1/8'th second or so that it takes the up-link
to be lost, the down-link slews off the antenna by several microradians,
illuminating about 3 meters outside the antenna.
 
>[stuff deleted]
>
>If you beam microwaves to earth with a power density equal to sunlight,
>you're way over the limit, and a LOACA accident could expose millions of
>people to hazardous levels of microwave radiation.  Even your very
>optimistic antenna soaking up 90%, still leaves 10% hitting the ground,
 ^^^^^^^^^^<- Experiments at JPL's DSN got overall transmission efficiency, that
              is, transmitter output -> transmitting antenna -> receiving
              antenna -> load of over 85%.  Assuming zero loss in the wave
              guides, that's about 7.5% loss per antenna.  Losses in the
              wave guides mean the antennas are MORE efficient.  These were
              first-cut crude experiments.  Technological maturity would
              increase efficiency.
>exposing living things to 13.5mW/sq cm, which is _still_ over the limit.
>
>The antenna farm on the ground will have to be huge, by the way, to make the
>radiation levels safe for the life forms on earth...
>[stuff deleted]
>Ok, so now maybe the farm on the ground is 5Km x 5Km.  When does this become
>unreasonable?
>
I think O'Neill and Dyson originally planned on antenna farms on the order of
25 square miles.
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.29 / Van Snyder /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 02:57:40 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <1991Mar28.121308.13302@qualcomm.com> antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com
 (Franklin Antonio) writes:
>You need to develop a healthy respect for the great many ways things can fail,
>and the history of human attempts to avoid failure.  All engineers should
>be required to take a course on this in college.  The famous Tacoma Narrows
>bridge failed because of a failure mechanism that no one had ever dreamed
>of, and no one had any means to stop.
And the Brooklyn bridge hasn't failed in the same mode.  The designers of
Galloping Gertie were skating too close to unknown limits.  Roebling said
approximately "I don't enough about this, so I design for loads I know will
be imposed, then multiply everything by six."
>                                       Designers of the Titanic said it
>was unsinkable because it had all these seperate watertight compartments...
>They didn't realize that an iceberg could slice horizontally thru many
>compartments.  Three Mile Island had a loss-of-coolant accident, even tho
>everyone knew this was a very serious and very possible failure mode.
>Probably tens of thousands of man hours were spent designing the fail-safe
>mechanisms, and when the time came, they didn't work.  Oops.  Sorry.
Excuse me, but everything I've heard suggests that despite the greatest efforts
of the crew at TMI to sabotage the safety systems, they still worked.  That
is, nothing but a little Xenon (and lots of money) leaked out of TMI.
>
>There are also failure modes where the satellite stays pointing the right
>direction, but the antenna pattern becomes distorted, perhaps elongated
>in one direction.  Oops.  This little scheme doesn't detect that.
I think anything that could distort the beam substantially would have two
counterbalancing effects: the energy density would go way down, and the
power generating stuff is likely to have been busted by the asteroid that
hit the spacecraft.
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.28 /  usenet@lll-win /  Update: Free Cray Time for SISAL Users
     
Originally-From: usenet@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Originally-From: usenet@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Newsgroups:
 sci.logic,sci.math,sci.math.num-analysis,sci.math.stat,sci.med,sci.med.physics,
 sci.military,sci.misc,sci.optics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sc
 i.space
Subject: Update: Free Cray Time for SISAL Users
Date: 28 Mar 91 19:37:08 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

 
 
Originally-From: usenet@lll-winken.llnl.gov
 
This is an update of an earlier posting which contained errors.
We apologize to the net commmunity for wasting bandwidth; we think we've got
it right this time...
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                  The Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative
 
                       Contacts: John Feo and Dave Cann
 
The Computing Research Group at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
announces the Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative (SSCI).  The Initiative
will award free Cray X-MP time and support to researchers willing to develop
their applications in SISAL, a functional language for parallel numerical
computation.  Members of the Computing Research Group will provide free
educational material, training, consulting, and user services.
 
SSCI is an outgrowth of the Sisal Language Project, a collaborative
effort by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Colorado State
University and funded in part by the Office of Energy Research (Department
of Energy), U.S. Army Research Office, and LLNL. SISAL provides a clean
and natural medium for expressing machine independent, determinate, parallel
programs. The cost of writing, debugging, and maintaining parallel
applications in SISAL is equivalent to the cost of writing, debugging, and
maintaining sequential applications in Fortran.  Moreover, the same SISAL
program will run, without change, on any parallel machine supporting SISAL
software.  Recent SISAL compiler developments for the Alliant FX/80, Cray X-MP,
and other shared memory machines have resulted in SISAL applications that run
faster than Fortran equivalents compiled using automatic concurrentizing and
vectorizing tools.
 
Interested participants should submit a 1-2 page proposal by
June 1, 1991 to
 
      Computing Research Group, L-306
      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
      P.O. Box 808
      Livermore, CA  94450
 
Proposals should describe the research and explain how the work will benefit
from parallel execution on a Cray X-MP.  We will announce accepted proposals
by July 1, 1991.  For more information about the Sisal Scientific Computing
Initiative please contact John Feo (feo@lll-crg.llnl.gov) at (415) 422-6389
or Dave Cann (cann@lll-crg.llnl.gov) at (415) 423-7875.  We look forward to
hearing from you.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenusenet cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.27 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
     
Originally-From: eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Navy Researchers Claim Cold Fusion Results Similar To Utah's
Date: 27 Mar 91 14:59:08
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <Mbvwu_i00WB5EPHdFC@andrew.cmu.edu> tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Todd L.
 Masco) writes:
 
   I suppose this inevitably brings up the question: How does "legitimate"
   science behave?  I would expect there to be a strong similarity, at
   least in the early stages.
 
   I'm young enough that I can't think of any revolutionary strides in
   "legit" science that I've been even close to having a clue on.
 
   Four that you might want to look at the history of: Semmelweiss and
puperal fever, (Semmelweiss was put into an insane asylum at one point
for insisting that doctors should wash their hands between patients),
field effect transistors, the effect of lunar phases on rainfall
amounts, and plate tectonics/continental drift.  All got their
advocates called crazy (or worse, treated that way) before better
instruments, better techniques, etc.  made it obvious that they had be
right all along.
 
     The discovery of new subatomic particles has normally worked the
other way around.  The neutrino, intermediate vector bosons, and the
pion were all well accepted before they were proven to exist.  (And,
with few possible exceptional events, no one has ever seen a quark.)
 
     You may be surprised to see the field effect transistor listed.
The theory of field effect solid state devices was first developed in
the 1930's.  However a field effect device requires a very low level
of impurities and crystal defects.  Several people discovered/built
unduplicatable field effect devices before zone refining of silicon
made it possible to build them reliably. I think that there is even a
1936 patent. The junction transistor, discovered at Bell Labs in the
early 50's was actually another attempt at finding the elusive FET.
(Vacuum tubes are field effect devices so it was natural that the
search for a solid state replacement looked for a similar device.)
However, the Bell Labs team was smart enough to realize that even
though their device did not amplify voltage, it was a very useful
beast.  Then improved techniques for building junction transistors
eventually made it possible to build FETs reliably.
 
     I think the right conclusion to draw is that for possible
discoveries "on the edge" you may have to wait decades to find out who
was right.
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.28 / F Antonio /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 28 Mar 91 12:13:08 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA

 
 jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes:
> antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) writes:
>>Lets do some calculations.  The solar constant is 135 mW/sq cm.
>>Unfortunately, microwaves are more harmful to humans than sunlight.
>
>	That depends a lot on the frequency.  The ones used in ovens are
>nasty, since their purpose is to be absorbed by water molecules - and we're
>essentially impure water.  You don't want to use that frequency anyways,
>since there's a lot of water in the atmosphere.
>
>>The ANSI guidelines for microwave exposure are maximum 5mW/sq cm.
>
>	At what frequencies?
 
The ANSI guideline is 5mW/sq cm over the frequency range 1 GHz to 100 GHz.
 
See ANSI paper C95.1, "Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields 300kHz to 100GHz".  Was adopted in 1982.  I believe copies are
available from IEEE.
 
Another group, NCRP, has proposed a 1mW/sq cm limit over this range.
See NCRP Report #86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Apr 6, 1986, by the National
Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurement, 7910 Woodmont Av.,
Bethesda, MD 20814.
 
In 1985, the FCC adopted the ANSI guideline as an interim standard.
I have heard that the EPA is considering adoption of a standard similar
to NCRP.
 
From everything I see happening in the bio effects of EM field these days,
I believe it is a certainty that future limits will be even lower.
 
If you think you can discover an inherently safe frequency, great.
Tell me what it is.  I'll be glad to come up with counterarguments
specific to your chosen frequency.
 
 
>>you're way over the limit, and a LOACA accident could expose millions of
>>people to hazardous levels of microwave radiation.  Even your very
>>...
>	There are systems already designed to provide fail-safe cutoff of the
>beam if it starts to stray even a bit (not really hard to design, either).
>
You need to develop a healthy respect for the great many ways things can fail,
and the history of human attempts to avoid failure.  All engineers should
be required to take a course on this in college.  The famous Tacoma Narrows
bridge failed because of a failure mechanism that no one had ever dreamed
of, and no one had any means to stop.   Designers of the Titanic said it
was unsinkable because it had all these seperate watertight compartments...
They didn't realize that an iceberg could slice horizontally thru many
compartments.  Three Mile Island had a loss-of-coolant accident, even tho
everyone knew this was a very serious and very possible failure mode.
Probably tens of thousands of man hours were spent designing the fail-safe
mechanisms, and when the time came, they didn't work.  Oops.  Sorry.
 
I don't buy your position that good fail-safe mechanisms for a power
generation satellite are "already designed" or "easy to design".
All the schemes i've heard of so far are awfully naive.
 
One fella wrote
me explaining a scheme where the microwave oscillator is on the ground,
and its output is beamed to the satellite.  The satellite simply amplifies
the signal, and returns it.  If the satellite changes attitude slightly,
the satellite won't receive the signal from the ground, so will emit no
power.  Sounds great, if you know nothing about electronics.  Did it ever
occur to him that a microwave oscillation onboard the satellite would be
a very common and expected failure mode?  Especially in those giant power
amplifiers.
 
There are also failure modes where the satellite stays pointing the right
direction, but the antenna pattern becomes distorted, perhaps elongated
in one direction.  Oops.  This little scheme doesn't detect that.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenantonio cudfnFranklin cudlnAntonio cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.28 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 28 Mar 91 15:17:42 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1991Mar28.121308.13302@qualcomm.com> antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com
 (Franklin Antonio) writes:
 
>>>The ANSI guidelines for microwave exposure are maximum 5mW/sq cm.
 
In reference SPS designs, the power density at the edge of the rectenna
itself is < 1 mw/cm^2 (the beam is gaussian).  The power density at the
fence is much less.
 
>One fella wrote
>me explaining a scheme where the microwave oscillator is on the ground,
>and its output is beamed to the satellite.  The satellite simply amplifies
>the signal, and returns it.  If the satellite changes attitude slightly,
>the satellite won't receive the signal from the ground, so will emit no
>power.  Sounds great, if you know nothing about electronics.  Did it ever
>occur to him that a microwave oscillation onboard the satellite would be
>a very common and expected failure mode?  Especially in those giant power
>amplifiers.
>
>There are also failure modes where the satellite stays pointing the right
>direction, but the antenna pattern becomes distorted, perhaps elongated
>in one direction.  Oops.  This little scheme doesn't detect that.
 
I don't believe you understand.  The scheme that the fellow was likely
trying to explain to you involved a large phased array antenna on the
powersat.  The coded reference beam from the ground is transmitted to
the antenna, phase conjugated, amplified and returned.  The antenna
consists of a large number of independent units.  If the reference
beam is lost, the phases of the elements randomize and antenna becomes
an omnidirectional transmitter -- no danger.  For the beam to be
redirected, a substantial fraction of the thousands of independent
transmitters must conspire to foul up so as to form a beam focused on
earth.  About the only way for that to happen would be if someone
stole the code for the reference beam.
 
Note that this scheme does not require that the antenna be precisely pointed
in a given direction, nor, indeed, need the antenna even be very rigid.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.25 / Ross Alexander /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: rwa@cs.athabascau.ca (Ross Alexander)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 25 Mar 91 06:35:02 GMT
Organization: Athabasca University

jph2u@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (John P. Hannon) writes:
 
>In article <1991Mar20.152810.25337@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
 ded@kossy.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (Jigsaw) writes:
>>>See article 2531 in rec.humor.funny
>>I believe every computer numbers articles differently, so number 2531
>>on your computer is probably a different number or everyone else's.
>     I second that motion.  On our system the current articles in r.h.f
>     are in the 2400 range, so I have no way of knowing which one
>     corresponds to the 2531 mentioned.  I'd like to see a repost as
>     well.
 
Every Usenet article has a field called "Message-Id" which is unique
to that article, and also is the same on every machine which has that
article.  The software uses it to detect duplicate articles, amongst
other things.  If you know the message id and the group name, you can
grep for the article.
--
--
Ross Alexander    rwa@cs.athabascau.ca    (403) 675 6311    ve6pdq
"Go on! Shoot me again! I enjoy it! I love the smell of burnt feathers
 and gunpowder and cordite!"  --  Daffy Duck, "Duck! Rabbit! Duck!"
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrwa cudfnRoss cudlnAlexander cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.29 / Van Snyder /  Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 03:00:44 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <4019.27f2353d@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
 writes:
>In article <1991Mar20.001537.8250@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
 (Van Snyder) writes:
>> If you figure in ALL the costs -- black lung disease in coal miners, people
>the statistics suggest that black lung disease is a cost of smoking
>and mining coal, not a cost of mining coal
>
>dan herrick
>herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Perhaps non-smoking coal miners don't get black lung disease, but do non-
coal mining smokers get it?  It still seems to be a cost that ought to be
figured into the cost of coal-generated electricity somehow.
 
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.29 /  herrickd@iccgc /  Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Date: 29 Mar 91 00:00:19 GMT

In article <1991Mar22.205711.26891@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
 (Van Snyder) writes:
> In article <1991Mar20.223606.18144@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>>In article <1991Mar20.205027.17738@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
 (John Logajan) writes:
>>>neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>
> Why is it the critics always assume the guys that have already done it are
> too stupid to have done it right?
 
Maybe Logajan could have phrased some things more gently.  However,
Neufeld has given me a very interesting education that would not
have appeared here if Logajan had not persisted in his skepticism.
 
I thank you both, John and Chris.  I would like to see the "interesting
description of an exciting quench" that was mentioned, if it hasn't been
posted already.
 
dan herrick
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenherrickd cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.03.29 /  herrickd@iccgc /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 29 Mar 91 00:12:55 GMT

In article <1991Mar26.123313.25956@qualcomm.com>, antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com
 (Franklin Antonio) writes:
>
> Lets do some calculations.  The solar constant is 135 mW/sq cm.
> Unfortunately, microwaves are more harmful to humans than sunlight.
> The ANSI guidelines for microwave exposure are maximum 5mW/sq cm.
 
I read an assertion elsewhere that I would like to confirm or deny.
Would you compare the ANSI guideline for microwave exposure to the
exposure of a human sitting in an automobile in front of a police
cruiser with the radar on while the policeman writes a ticket?
 
Wayne Green, several years ago, suggested that the guideline is for
leakage out of an oven and was much lower than routine exposure
to microwave transmitters.
 
dan herrick
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenherrickd cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1989.12.12 / C Neufeld /  Re: Superconducting magnets
     
Originally-From: neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosive Mag Coils ?? was Re: Is fusion possible?
Subject: Re: Superconducting magnets
Date: 29 Mar 91 05:46:06 GMT
Date:    Tue, 12 Dec 1989 9:08:10 EST
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <4020.27f23d43@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
 writes:
>
>I would like to see the "interesting
>description of an exciting quench" that was mentioned, if it hasn't been
>posted already.
>
   As you ask, here it is, with Jim's permission to redistribute.
 
 
Date:    Tue, 12 Dec 1989 9:08:10 EST
Subject: Re: Superconducting magnets
To: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca
 
Your quench sounds familiar.  The one at the Michigan State Cyclotron
Lab about 10 years ago was similar in its effects, just 10 times bigger.
 
The magnet has a bit less than a 2m diameter pole face with a large gap
at that time (now filled with field shaping elements).  Coil is standard
Niobium-Titanium wire with copper core, but (a first at that time) wound
in the same way a normal magnet is wound rather than in pancakes.  Big
stainless bobbin filled with He in a vacuum vessel with a Li-N heat
shield.  Nothing fancy.  Power supply can provide up to 5-10 volts at
700 to 800 amps across big copper bus bars to the leads into the magnet.
 
During the *first* full field test, they tripped a limit that had been
manually set right at the 700 A current they targeted, thus turning off
the power supply.  They made their measurements OK, but could not ramp
the current down with a reverse bias as they normally would.  Rather
than wait, they decided to test the dump switch.  About 10 seconds later
all hell broke loose.  Analysis indicated that water boiled off the
top of the coolant for the dump resistor, which was incapable of taking
the load without water cooling and melted.
 
As you are no doubt aware, the voltage in an open circuit containing a
large inductor tends to infinity.  They estimate the current was still
500 to 600 A at the time, with stored energy down around 10 MJ by then.
It took several interesting paths to ground.  Insulation was good in the
vessel so only a minor one occured where the leads entered the vessel.
The most spectacular was an arc from the bank of power transistors in
the power supply to a steel cross beam in the building frame that melted
a 4 inch diameter hole in the power supply sheet metal.  Fortunately, no
one was in the way, but it lasted many 10's of seconds.  The most
interesting one went through the IMSAI-8080 computer that sat across
the leads, measuring and regulating voltages.  Every chip in it was
vaporized, blowing little round plastic manhole covers off of each of
their packages.  Amazing to look at.
 
The fun part was when the University rad safe guys showed up with the
fire department (after all was calm again, of course) wearing their little
yellow booties and special rad gear.  They expected a 3 mile island melt
down!  Of course, as you know, high voltages kill more people -- and lab
safety took a turn for the better afterwards.
 
And the magnet still works fine as a cyclotron.
                                                 -- Jim
 
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Flash: morning star seen
 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra! | in evening! Baffled
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | astronomers: "could mean
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | second coming of Elvis!"
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1991.04.06 / Tim Smith /  "Too Hot To Handle"
     
Originally-From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Too Hot To Handle"
Date: Sat,  6 Apr 91 01:42:54 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I seem to recall that a book with the title "Too Hot To Handle", which
was supposed to be about the cold fusion farce, was supposed to show
up in the United States in March.
 
I've been scanning the shelves at my local bookstores, and have seen
no such book.
 
What happened?  Where is it?
 
						Tim Smith
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudents cudfnTim cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.07 / William Johnson /  Re: "Too Hot To Handle"
     
Originally-From: mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Too Hot To Handle"
Date: 7 Apr 91 20:30:24 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.

In article <40975@cup.portal.com>, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
> I seem to recall that a book with the title "Too Hot To Handle", which
> was supposed to be about the cold fusion farce, was supposed to show
> up in the United States in March.
 
The recent news reports (posted here a couple of weeks ago by Les Earnest)
have the release date changed to May.
 
> What happened?  Where is it?
 
I don't know the full story, but Frank Close, its author, tells me that, to no
one's great surprise, he has received (I'll use a euphemism...) "information"
from some Utah people expressing displeasure at the contents of the book and
making the usual rumblings about legal action.  This may impact publication on
this side of the lake, but he thinks (and obviously hopes) not.  It has already
been released in the UK, and was reviewed briefly in s.p.f several weeks ago, I
think by Patrick Smith (apologies if I misremember this).
 
When it does come out over here, the following ordering information applies:
"Too Hot to Handle," F. E. Close; ISBN 0-691-08591-9.
Princeton University Press, 3175 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville NJ 08648
Price $24.95 plus $1.50 shipping and handling; NJ and CA residents add sales
tax (7% and 7.25% respectively).
 
BTW, John Huizenga, professor of chemistry at the University of Rochester and
co-chair of the Department of Energy committee that examined cold fusion and
found it wanting (and also my Ph.D. thesis advisor many moons ago and a real
prince of a guy), is also writing a book on cold fusion that, like Frank's,
examines the subject from the viewpoint of a prominent -- and highly
skeptical -- professional nuclear scientist.  I don't know anything about a
release date for that one, but it will be interesting to compare it to Frank's
book.  John is an excellent writer, and he tells me that he intends a more
"official" viewpoint than Frank (not that he speaks for the DOE, but after all,
he *was* committee co-chair...), which may afford a different perspective on
some of the important issues.
 
--
Bill Johnson			| "A man should never be ashamed to own he
Los Alamos National Laboratory	| has been in the wrong, which is but saying,
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA	| in other words, that he is wiser to-day
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)	| than he was yesterday."  (A. Pope)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.09 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 449 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 449 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 15:59:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello good people,
here's a break from microwaves-from-space (for that lot: please move to
another list, like space, or sf-lovers!).
  I am just starting (after being very busy for a while) on a great heap, and
as I am still pressed for time, I'll do without my usual incisive comments.
Just read the abstracts below. More soon.
                                                                     Dieter.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 9-Apr. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albagli D, Ballinger R, Cammarata V, Chen X, Crooks RM, Fiore C, Gaudreau MPJ,
Hwang I, Li CK, Linsay P, Luckhardt SC, Parker RR, Petrasso RD, Schloh MO,
Wenzel KW, Wrighton MS;                         J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 133.
"Measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma-ray emission rates, other
fusion products, and power in electrochemical cells having Pd cathodes".
** An experiment, in which the Pd cathodes, electrolyte and effluent gases
were analysed for fusion products. The claim that (4)He is a major product was
examined by means of MS. Constant temperature calorimetry was done, and
neutrons and gammas counted; tritium was monitored and surface x-ray
spectroscopy at the Pd done. The MS results (from a very high-resolution MS
instrument) did show a (4)He peak, but it showed the same peak for the ambient
laboratory air. There were no results to support cold fusion. The authors make
some comments on cold fusion claims, pointing to experimental difficulties.
For example, the FPH(89) excess heat can indeed be conceived in terms of a
chemical reaction (as also pointed out by Kreysa).                    ?/Jul-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blencoe JG, Naney MT, Wesolowski DJ, Perey FG;  J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 149.
"Tests for 'cold fusion' in the Pd-D2 and Ti-D2 systems at 40-380 MPa and
-196-27 degC".
** This team decided to try to load Pd with D2 gas; while this was in
progress, they heard about the Frascatti experiments with Ti and added this to
the experiment. The Pd-D2 system was monitored for heat effects, as well as
for neutrons. A triple BF3 neutron detector was used.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapnik IM;                   J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett. 146 (1990) 273.
"Possibility of induced beta radioactivity in PdD".
** Chapnik notes that charged particle detectors, used to find protons, do not
go much below the Pd surface. Some have indeed detected some charged
particles. Going back to an old thesis by Segre (1947),
C suggests that beta emission may be induced in the deuterons in
the interstitial sites of Pd, by virtue of the many electrons around the
deuteron nucleus. This would produce (4)He plus energy at 10-12 MeV. He cites
Yamaguchi and Nishioka (1990) for experimental evidence.            Sep-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCracken DR, Paquette J, Boniface HA, Graham WRC, Johnson RE, Briden NA,
Cross WG, Arneja A, Tennant DC, Lone MA, Buyers WJL, Chambers KW, McIlwain AK,
Attas EM, Dutton R;                             J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 121.
"In search of nuclear fusion in electrolytic cells and in metal/gas systems".
** Both a Pd/D2O electrolysis and a Ti/D2 gas loading experiment are reported,
with neutron, gamma and tritium monitoring, as well as (later) calorimetric
measurement. Multiple neutron detectors, of various types, were used.
Calorimetry consisted of measuring the temperature at the inlet and outlet of
a cooling coil within the cell, with total gas recombination. About 1%
accuracy was achieved. Loading (i.e. x in PdD(x)) was measured by heating a
sample of the loaded electrode in a closed system and measuring the pressure
increase; a loading of 0.72 (beta phase) was found. The Ti was in the form of
sponge, and was temperature cycled in the D2 gas at up to 40 atm. No neutron,
gamma, tritium emissions were found in either system, and no heat events.
                                                                      ?/Jul-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott CE, Greenbaum E, Michaels GE, Mrochek JE, Newman E, Petek M, Scott TC;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 115.
"Preliminary investigation of possible low-temperature fusion".
** A calorimetry cum neutron detection experiment. The cell was cooled by a
constant flow water jacket, whose temperature was monitored at inlet and
outlet. A single NE-213 scintillation counter was used for the neutrons, with
gamma discrimination. A  2-foot thick concrete surround shielded (?) the cell.
There was also a separate NaI gamma detector to also detect neutrons
indirectly. Results show a single neutron event at 3.5 standard deviations
above background,  and no sustained excess heat, although there were some
short excess heat events. This preliminary experiment does not confirm cold
fusion.                                                               ?/Jul-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soifer VN, Goryachev VA, Salyuk AN, Sergeev F;
Sov. Phys. Dokl. 35(6) (1990) 546.
Originally in  Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 312 (1990) 860.
"Neutron yield in heavy-water electrolysis".
** In the absence of information about cold fusion experiments, this team from
Vladivostok designed their own, using NaOH dissolved in heavy water. They are
experienced in (heavy) water analysis for isotope content, and they note at
the start, that heavy water contains about 5 to 6 orders of magnitude more
tritium than normal water and therefore also an elevated content of (3)He,
from tritium decay. The neutron detector was a 4 litre proportional methane
counter, allowing anticoincidence discrimination of cosmic influx. For the
cathode, they tried Ti, stainless steel, Ti/V alloy, Pt and Pd, as plates and
wires, under a variety of current densities. No neutrons were measured.
                                                                Jul-89/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf KL, Packham NJC, Lawson D, Shoemaker J, Cheng F, Wass JC;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 105.
"Neutron emission and the tritium content associated with deuterium-loaded
palladium and titanium metals".
** Presumably submitted to the journal shortly after the conference, of which
this was one of the papers, this predates Wolf's tritium retraction of June
1990. Here, neutron emission is sporadically seen at the Jones+ level, as well
as tritium. Neutron detection was by a NE-213 time-of-flight detector, and
backed up with calculations of the expected energy/intensity function. This
confirmed some weakly positive results, though in a rather indirect manner.
The tritium results would be significant (a rise to a plateau by 3 orders of
magnitude over a period of 4 hours upon bumping the current) if it were not
for Wolf's later retraction. Bockris, however, still accepts these results and
rejects the retraction. The paper does present very clean background values,
with small inter-batch fluctuations, and the increase is not explicable in
terms of electrolytic enrichment. It might be thought strange that tritium,
originally present in the palladium, should appear in the electrolyte so
quickly. Wolf et al do in fact carefully consider the possibility of
contamination from various sources, including the electrodes. They sent some
of these for analysis but results were still pending.
No neutron/tritium/heat correlations were observed.                   ?/Jul-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.09 / Kevin Ryan /  Re: Fusion in space ???
     
Originally-From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in space ???
Date: 9 Apr 91 20:00:31 GMT
Organization: Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>	I'm tending towards the more radical nondiffractive beam technologies
>that might make it possible to,  say,  send back a few megawatts in a pencil
>beam.  With this type of system,  one can imagine millions of compact beams
>shooting out of a complex phased array that power individual households --
>large beams serve satellites in low-earth orbit that are close enough to
>track moving vehicles and serve them individually.  <Nah,  too crazy>
 
    With birds exploding into clouds of feathers and mist as they pass
through the beams.... :->
 
    Seriously - phased arrays locking into a ground based oscillator are
pretty damn resistant to wandering. Properly designed the emitters would
be _fighting_ to go out of phase, with only the ground based oscillator
keeping the beam focused. This means that you have to actively keep it
from going into a safe mode. And since the safe mode is enforced by
entropy (it being _extremely_ unlikely that thousands of emitters will
cooperate to beam in the wrong direction) dangerous failure is far from
likely.
 
                                                kwr
 
Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnKevin cudlnRyan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.09 / Tom DeBoni /  Free Cray Time (reposting)
     
Originally-From: deboni@fernando.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
Originally-From: deboni@fernando.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
Newsgroups:
 sci.logic,sci.math,sci.math.num-analysis,sci.math.stat,sci.med,sci.med.physics,
 sci.military,sci.misc,sci.optics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sc
 i.space
Subject: Free Cray Time (reposting)
Date: 9 Apr 91 20:55:20 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

 
Originally-From: deboni@fernando.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
 
 
                  The Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative
 
                       Contacts: John Feo and Dave Cann
 
The Computing Research Group at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
announces the Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative (SSCI).  The Initiative
will award free Cray X-MP time and support to researchers willing to develop
their applications in SISAL, a functional language for parallel numerical
computation.  Members of the Computing Research Group will provide free
educational material, training, consulting, and user services.
 
SSCI is an outgrowth of the Sisal Language Project, a collaborative
effort by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Colorado State
University and funded in part by the Office of Energy Research (Department
of Energy), U.S. Army Research Office, and LLNL. SISAL provides a clean
and natural medium for expressing machine independent, determinate, parallel
programs. The cost of writing, debugging, and maintaining parallel
applications in SISAL is equivalent to the cost of writing, debugging, and
maintaining sequential applications in Fortran.  Moreover, the same SISAL
program will run, without change, on any parallel machine supporting SISAL
software.  Recent SISAL compiler developments for the Alliant FX/80, Cray X-MP,
and other shared memory machines have resulted in SISAL applications that run
faster than Fortran equivalents compiled using automatic concurrentizing and
vectorizing tools.
 
Interested participants should submit a 1-2 page proposal by
June 1, 1991 to
 
      Computing Research Group, L-306
      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
      P.O. Box 808
      Livermore, CA  94450
 
Proposals should describe the research and explain how the work will benefit
from parallel execution on a Cray X-MP.  We will announce accepted proposals
by July 1, 1991.  For more information about the Sisal Scientific Computing
Initiative please contact John Feo (feo@lll-crg.llnl.gov) at (415) 422-6389
or Dave Cann (cann@lll-crg.llnl.gov) at (415) 423-7875.  We look forward to
hearing from you.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendeboni cudfnTom cudlnDeBoni cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.12 / Dieter Britz /  Too Hot to Handle
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Too Hot to Handle
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1991 14:09:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Bill Johnson (mwj@lanl.gov) gives the ISBN number of the US edition of Frank
Close's book, Too Hot to Handle, and it seems that there may be some delays,
perhaps due to legal wrangles. If this is the reason for the delay, it may be
a long time before the book comes out in the USA. I don't know the legal
position, but in principle, it should be possible to obtain the book from the
UK - I got mine in January (it was worth buying) from there. The British
edition is ISBN 1 85227 206 6, W.H. Allen Publishing, 26 Grand Union Centre,
338 Ladbroke Grove, London W10 5AH, UK. I got it from Heffers Booksellers,
20 Trinity Street, Cambridge CB2 3NG, UK; I have an account with Heffers. I
don't know how they would react to single orders from the US, but it may be
worth a try (again, I don't know how legal this would be over your way). The
most efficient way would be for someone to order a whole box full, and
distribute them locally - you might get rich (a little bit). Any takers?
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.12 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 453 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 453 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1991 14:09:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello again,
another mini-packet. The Blencoe is a repeat; I got some polite email asking
me what the conclusions were, and realised that, in my rush, I had not
finished that item; sorry about that.
  The Horanyi was in the grand list already but I had not actually seen it
(only the Chem. Abstr.). In fact, being inscrutably written in Hungarian, it
didn't help me much seeing it, but it does have an English summary, and one
does pick up the odd recognisable bit here and there, going through the text.
Bernabei regard palladium deuteride as a precipitation reaction and relate it
to fractofusion, but find nothing. They didn't reach very high loadings,
either. Bosch et al, the Bavarian Bubble Bottle Team, report at length that
they found precisely nothing, having looked at neutrons, tritium, gamma
radiation and heat. Very thorough and down to earth, as well as rather
cheerful and personal.
  We have more patent applications. Dies more or less lays claim to the same
stuff we all know, adding a row of alloy types, and the idea of loading the
metal with deuterium without (external) electrolysis, by etching in acid. In
fact, this is another form of electrolysis: when a metal dissloves in acid,
this happens as a number of micro-electrolysis reactions at many sites on the
metal (also called corrosion). Hydrogen isotope (I'm beginning to pick up
patent jargon) is generated at the surface just as in macro-electrolysis. You
have all seen zinc in HCl. Martin has a new twist. He recognises that the
metal surface state is important if you want the hydrogen (isotope) absorbed.
For example, freshly laid down amorphous Pd sponge enhances the process. So
he patents the process of continuous renewal of such a desirable surface, in
contrast with most workers, who see their electrodes getting poisoned and
maybe inactive, after some time. Others, of course, say that it is only when
the Pd is poisoned, that it starts to work. Name your poison.
The Matsushita patent (Gamo et al) was fun to read. I started to count the
"tritiums", "lithiums" etc, but lost count. A warning to all appliers of
patents: if you get it done in another country, get the language checked! I've
seen this before. When I worked at Juelich (Germany) my group applied for a US
patent and the US lawyers translated the text so badly that the patent was in
fact wrong, applying for something else altogether. In this one, for example,
in one place it mentions a Pb cathode, meaning Pd. This could well cause a
court case in the future. The team blandly claims detection of neutron and
tritium well above background, in the form of examples of their three
"preferred embodiments". One of these looks a lot like Wada and Nishizawa's
embodiment (the arc passed from one PdD to another). One of the authors (if
it is the same Taniguchi) is already in the grand list, in three papers, but
all were either negative or neutral. Maybe they were keeping mum before the
patent disclosure; or maybe it's a different Taniguchi.
  By the way, if you detect anomalies in my paper count in the SUBJECT, this
is not me lying but rather me finding out later that a particular paper was
already in the list but as a Chem. Abstr., and that I therefore should not
have counted it. I then quietly correct my figures. In this one, e.g., I am
not counting the Blencoe or the Horanyi.
 My stack is looking more inviting, a bit smaller but not much. Now I'll scan
Chem. Abstr. and am afraid I'll have to pick up another dozen or so. No rest
for the weary, nor succour for the succers.
                                                                     Dieter.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 12-Apr. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernabei R, Gannelli G, Cantelli R, Cordero, d'Angelo S, Iucci N, Picozza PG,
Villoresi G;                                Solid State Commun. 76 (1990) 815.
"Neutron monitoring during evolution of deuteride precipitation in Nb, Ta
and Ti".
** The formation of the highly loaded metal deuteride beta phase is here
called precipitation (why not?), and this team monitored neutron emissions
during such precipitation, as well as during deformation and crack nucleation.
The "D-doping" was done under D2 gas (99.96% pure) at 400 and 550 degC for 1-2
h and loadings of 0.07 to 0.43 were achieved. There was temperature cycling.
Crack formation was observed upon precipitation. No neutrons were found under
any conditions.                                                  Mar-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blencoe JG, Naney MT, Wesolowski DJ, Perey FG;  J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 149.
"Tests for 'cold fusion' in the Pd-D2 and Ti-D2 systems at 40-380 MPa and
-196-27 degC".
** This team decided to try to load Pd with D2 gas; while this was in
progress, they heard about the Frascatti experiments with Ti and added this to
the experiment. The Pd-D2 system was monitored for heat effects, as well as
for neutrons. A triple BF3 neutron detector was used. Results: "no sustained
neutron flux" over a long period of pressurisation, depressurisation and
temperature cycling for the Pd-D2 system, and temperature changes due only to
PV work and deuteride formation. The single Ti-D2 experiment gave an increase
in the neutron level over a period of 5 hours at 80 hours. This corresponds to
about 1000 n/s, comparable with Jones et al or Menlove et al, but the authors
warn that they cannot be sure that their detector was bahaving properly. They
plan more experiments to confirm/deny this result.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bosch H-S, Wurden GA, Gernhardt J, Karger F, Perchermeier J;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 165.
"Electrochemical cold fusion trials at IPP Garching".
** The "Bavarian Bubble Bottle Team" reports, in a refreshingly informal and
candid manner, their extensive experiments, starting as soon as they heard of
FPH's press conference. Lacking all technical details, they nevertheless
happened to hit on more or less the same set-up as FPH. Their neutron
detectors were not up to Jones+ levels but sufficiently sensitive for FPH
levels, as was their calorimetry, at an accuracy of about 5%. Three
electrolysis cells showed no signs of neutrons, tritium, gamma emissions or
excess heat above backgrounds. One large electrode, intended to verify the FPH
melt-down (it didn't) was thrown into liquid nitrogen after 21 h charging, and
allowed to warm up; this, to emulate Italian experiments. Again, no emissions.
The deuterium loading was estimated (with some corrections) at 0.9-1.2. The
team comments that the thermodynamics of palladium hydride differs from that
of the deuteride, and that this could well account for the claims by Huggins
(at that time not published), given his conditions of nonequilibrium; i.e. if
the loading is changing, then the two hydrogen isotopes behave differently in
a thermodynamic sense. They also point out (as Frank Close has done) that no
matter what nuclear reaction one postulates, one must expect some kind of
radiation; the cooperative, Moessbauer-type effect suggested by some,
absorbing such emissions as heat, is highly unlikely.                 ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dies KF;                   Ger. Offenl. DE 3913002 A1, 25.10.1990 (in German).
"Process for the generation of fusion energy by the use of Fe-(2)M alloys,
which are produced by electrolysis as well as by lysis (etching)".
** The title has "Fe-(2)M" but the abstract has the more probable "(2)H-Fe",
i.e. Fe-D compounds ("alloys"). There may be additions of such iron-group
metals as Cr, Ti, Zr, Mn etc, to enhance deuteride stability. Pt or Pd can
also be used. Both with electrolysis and etching in deuterated acids such as
DCl, DF, DBr, D2SO4 and HNO3, the metal is infused with deuterium, and we have
"etch fusion", a new word. Fe, Ni or Co rods can be used either normal or in
the austenitic form.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horanyi G;                        Magy. Kem. Fol 95 (1989) 140 (in Hungarian).
"Open questions concerning the Fleischmann-Pons experiment".
** An early paper, written when the ink on FPH(89) was not yet dry. I quote
only from the English abstract at the end. Problems of the interpretation of
the FPH experiment are discussed, in particular the overpotential (I recognise
in the text the juxtaposition of 0.8 eV and 10**26 atm). H says that the
theoretical foundations of cold fusion are questionable, as is the
calorimetric evidence, without more information about the possibility of the
recombination of D2 with O2, evolved from the cell.               13-Apr-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin J;                   Ger. Offenl. DE 3915153 A1, 15.11.1990 (in German).
"Process and apparatus for the uptake of hydrogen in a solid".
** Expressed very generally, this invention is about the uptake of hydrogen
isotopes in a solid that is capable of taking it up. This could be, for
example, a palladium cathode in a cold fusion arrangement, or a hydrogen
storage material in a vehicle. The essence of the invention is to solve the
problem of an active layer, that enables hydrogen uptake; such a layer is here
generated continuously by means of, e.g., a dilute palladium salt in the
electrolyte (causing Pd deposition in a spongy, active form), or by means of
surface radiation treatment of the material. Various other means are covered.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamo T, Niikura J, Taniguchi N, Hatoh K, Adachi K (Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co. Ltd.);         European Pat. Appl. EP 0 395 066 A2, 26.04.1990.
"Apparatus for cold nuclear fusion".
** Prepared by a German representative (patent lawyer?), this incredibly badly
written patent application claims a number of "preferred embodiments" for cold
fusion. One is electrolysis at a cathode of an alloy capable of occluding
hydrogen isotopes, such as Ti, Zr, and the like, in an electrolyte containing
a compound of hydrogen isotope and oxygen such as heavy water including alkali
metal ions such as Li+, K+ and the like. "Tritiums", "noutrons" may be
produced by making use of "lithiums" and by the "tonnel" effect. There is a
list of example alloys for use as cathode, all having larger hydrogen
occlusion ability than "Pb" and the like. An example shows that at the end of
an electrolysis, 5 times the starting concentration of T is found, proving
that cold fusion had taken place. Also, 500 neutrons of 2.45 MeV were detected
or 10 times the background. In the second preferred embodiment, some amorphous
alloys are used, not having "a crystal lattice rule of a long period", meaning
(presumably) no long-range order. Some of these appear to have a rather high
hydrogen uptake. Crumbling was never observed and again, excess tritiums are
seen. The third embodiment uses a large (7 mm diameter) spherical cathode. In
this way, the collision probability for deuterons is enhanced in the centre of
the electrode and in this way, the nuclear fusion reaction was caused easily
and an enormous energy was obtained (I am quoting). Two to ten times the
background neutron count was detected in an example. In another example, two
spherical alloy samples were charged with D2 gas, and then a high-frequency
discharge passed between them. Neutrons at 1000 times the background was
observed; using pure H2, the neutron flux was the same as the background.
Temperature cycling was also tried, and neutrons detected.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.12 / mr yawei /  Article about Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (mr. yawei)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Article about Cold Fusion
Date: 12 Apr 91 07:23:18 GMT
Organization: China News Digest

 
The following article was submitted to China News Digest (CND). Since
it is slightly outside the scope of CND, we are forwarding it here for
interested netters. All replies should go to the original author.
Follow-ups have been directed to sci.physics.fusion.
 
yawei
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenyawei cudfnmr cudlnyawei cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
when? /   /      
Originally-From: <FENG%DUVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>

 REPORT OF A COLLOQUIUM PRESENTED BY PROFESSOR MOSHE GAI OF YALE
 UNIVERSITY ON APRIL 4TH, 1991 IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS AND
 ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE OF DREXEL UNIVERSITY.
 
 The report is written by Professor Da Hsuan Feng of Drexel Univ.,
 which is based on the notes he took during the talk.  The talk is
 entitled COLD FUSION, TWO YEARS LATER.  It must be stressed that this
 is a report, and not the opinion about the subject of the reporter.
 For details, the readers should consult the speaker Professor Gai
 directly. It should be clearly stated that the materials reported
 in this summary do not represent the opinions about Cold Fusion of
 either Drexel University, Yale University or Brookhaven National
 Laboratory.
 Several friends have asked me whether Gai is from Taiwan or the
 Mainland.  Let it be clearly stated that he is from neither.  He
 was born in Iraq and moved to Israel as a young boy.
 
 
                                Da Hsuan Feng
                                Professor of Physics
                                Drexel University
 
 
 
               "COLD FUSION" - TWO YEARS LATER
            Professor Moshe Gai, Yale University
 
Due to the large interest in this colloquium I thought of
circulating a review.  It was delivered by Professor Moshe
Gai to a spell bound audience in a bigger than usual
auditorium.  Since many people showed particular interest in
the punch line of Professor Gai's talk, I will review firstly
the punch line (that was delivered so well, it was a knock
out...)
 
1. In the two Yale-BNL experiments (including one experiment
   that was set with the direct help and involvement of Dr.
   Steve Jones of Brigham Young University) no evidence for
   "cold fusion" was found.  In the last experiment the
   method developed in Frascati and Los Alamos (by Menlove et
   al.) was tested with clear negative results.  This method
   involves deutriding of Ti chips in high pressure of
   deuterium, cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature.
 
2. Since the sensitivity of the Yale-BNL experiment, is by
   far better than any of the experiments reporting evidence
   for "cold fusion", Professor Gai stated that in his
   opinion there is no evidence whatsoever for "cold fusion",
   even at the very low rate suggested by Jones et al.
 
3. Professor Gai has demonstrated that the results of Pons
   and Fleischmann are due to an inadequate experimental
   expertise of the researchers involved.
 
4. The original results of Jones, he concluded are consistent
   with long term (10 hours or so) variations of "cosmic
   neutron" (neutrons from cosmic rays).  The variations are
   due to changes in barometric pressure.
 
5. The later positive results of the Los Alamos-BYU
   collaboration (that were directly tested in the Yale
   experiment) were recently suggested by R.E. Anderson et
   al. of Los Alamos, to arise from natural cosmic background
   at Los Alamos.  Anderson et al. showed that neutron-bursts
   reported by the different group of Menlove et al. from Los
   Alamos, that collaborated with Dr. Jones, are possibly due
   to background of "cosmic neutrons" in Los Alamos.
 
6. The procedures used by the Los Alamos - BYU collaboration
   to treat the 662 Ti chips were possibly flawed, as
   discovered by the electro-chemists of the Yale-BNL
   collaboration who reviewed these procedures.  They found
   that a surface oxide layer, on the Ti chips, which was not
   treated by them, may have in fact prohibited the
   penetration of deuterium into the Ti lattice.  It is quite
   possible that the Ti chips used in the Los Alamos - BYU
   collaboration may have contained very little if no
   deuterium at all!  A similar conclusion was reached on the
   original Jones et al. data by a collaboration of five
   Universities at Paris, J.P. Briand et al. (Phys. Lett., A145,187
   (90) ), who reviewed the use of "the mother earth soup" of
   Jones et al.  They state in their paper: "It has been
   demonstrated that in the Jones experimental conditions,
   all cations of the solution are first deposited, blocking
   any deuterium penetration".
 
At the start Professor Gai reviewed the electro-chemistry and
nuclear physics of "cold fusion".  He showed that within the
known quantum mechanics and nuclear physics, if "cold fusion"
is to happen, than tell-tale neutrons must emerge.  These
neutrons arise as primary particles of energy 2.45 MeV, from
the d + d fusion.  If (only) tritium emerges from "cold
fusion" than neutrons have to accompany it as secondary
particles of energy 14.69 MeV.  These neutrons arise from t +
d, the interaction of primary 1.0 MeV tritons, with deuterium
present in the sample.  This point was overlooked by
scientists who claimed to have observed tritium only, and was
first pointed out by Garwin and Schiffer in the DOE/ERAB
review of "cold fusion".
 
The observation of tritium from "cold fusion" without
neutrons, violates quantum mechanics on several accounts.
First: the branching ratio are grossly incompatible with
charge symmetry of the NN interaction and with measured
branching ratios of room temperature d + d fusion (i.e. as
observed in muon catalyzed fusion).  Second: tritium have to
be emitted with very small energies that may in fact violate
energy-momentum conservation.  Third: allowed primary and
secondary reactions must be suppressed by some 7 or 8 orders
of magnitudes.  While one violation of quantum mechanics
would be a stretch of the imagination, several violations
together are ridiculous.
 
Professor Gai than reviewed the history of events of similar
nature and showed that history is riddled with similar
claims.  As he puts it: Deja Vu, Deja Lu, Deja Bu, i.e. we
saw it, read it and drank it.
 
After reviewing some of the well understood mistakes of Pons
and Fleischmann in their original experiment, Professor Gai
described the BYU experiment which reported neutron emission
at a rate some 5 orders of magnitudes smaller than reported
by Pones and Fleischmann.  Right after the announcement by
Utah and BYU, the Yale group ensembled its neutron detector,
consisting of neutron detectors from the Yale neutron ball,
which was built as part of the Ph.D. thesis of Professor
Gai's student, Steve Rugari.  A group of electro-chemists
across the Long Island Sound, from Brookhaven National
Laboratory, under the leadership of Kelvin Lynn, brought
their cells to Yale for measurements and the well advertised
Yale-BNL collaboration commenced.  In this experiment
neutrons events were over-determined, by measuring the pulse
shape of particle detected in an NE213 liquid scintillator,
the energy deposited in the detector, and the time of flight
of detected particles.  Large area cosmic veto counters and
extensive shielding were also employed.  In this way
background events were further removed, while the detector is
still efficient enough (with efficiency of 1% or so, and
neutron background rate of 1 or so per hour).  Indeed the
spectra shown by Professor Gai were embarrassingly clean and
the upper limit that they quote (with 98% confidence) for the
rate of "cold fusion" is at least a factor of 50 smaller than
the rate reported by Professor Steve Jones at BYU.  The
results of this collaboration yielded one of the highest
sensitivity search of "cold fusion", and constitute the first
published material refuting "cold fusion" that appeared in
the July 6th, 1989, issue of Nature (Vol. 340 p.29).
Professor Gai pointed out to the fact that their paper
appeared in print exactly two months after the experiment was
completed.
 
At his appearance in the "cold fusion" conference in Santa
Fe, May 1989, Professor Gai was criticized by the "believers"
that he did not have the magic formula for creating "cold
fusion".  Consequently, he decided to invite the magician to
show him how to do the trick.  At the conclusion of his talk
at Santa Fe, Professor Gai announced that he invited
Professor Steve Jones to collaborate with him at Yale.
During a visit to BYU of the DOE/ERAB review committee on
"cold fusion", co-chaired by Dr. J.R. Huizenga of Rochester
and N. Ramsey of Harvard, a considerable pressure was put on
Dr. Jones to accept this invitation and indeed a
collaboration between Brigham Young University, Yale
University and Brookhaven Laboratory was formed, during the
month of August, 1989.  This collaboration was set-out to
test the evidence provided by the Los Alamos - BYU
collaboration.  As such the conditions, materials and
procedures used in the BYU - Los Alamos collaborations were
exactly duplicated in the Yale experiment.  In fact the cells
were provided and set by Dr. Jones as he did in the Los
Alamos experiment.  Professor Gai also pointed out that to
his knowledge, this was the only collaboration between "a
believer" and "a skeptic".
 
During this collaboration the electro-chemists from Yale and
Brookhaven, that Professor Gai recruited for that experiment,
reviewed the procedures of the Los Alamos - BYU collaboration
for treating the 662 Ti chips emersed in high pressure
deuterium.  It was determined that the procedures used in the
Los Alamos - BYU collaboration were possibly flawed.  In
their procedure they did not treat the surface of the 662 Ti-
chips, hence a surface layer of oxygen may have prohibited
the formation of the hydride; i.e. it is quite possible that
in the original BYU - Los Alamos experiment very little if no
deuterium was present in the Ti samples!!  While this finding
created quite an amazement on the side of the expert of
electro-chemistry, the decision was made to follow these
procedures exactly, so as to have a valid test of the
evidence from the BYU - LANL experiment.
 
The negative results of the second test were published last
month in the March issue of the Physical Review C (vol. 43,
p. 1298).  Again the data shown by Professor gai, provide
upper limits (with 90% confidence) which are considerably
smaller than the evidence reported in the LANL - BYU
experiment.  Professor gai concluded with data on cosmic
neutrons from the World Data Center, Boulder Colorado, of
cosmic neutrons measured at Boulder (in one hour intervals)
from February 21st, 1989, to May 5th, 1989.  These data show
clear evidence for long range (10 hours or so) fluctuation of
cosmic neutrons, correlated with barometric pressure, with a
slight peak at an energy similar to the one reported by Jones
et al. and with a similar peak to background ratio.  He also
pointed out to a new research at Los Alamos, from a different
group of Andersen et al., that demonstrated that the evidence
of Menlove et al. from the BYU - Los Alamos collaboration, is
also due to cosmic neutrons.
 
Professor Gai has pointed out that while the first Yale-BNL
paper was published in Nature two months after the completion
of the experiment, the second experiment involving Dr. Jones,
took twenty months to get published.  He told us of an
interesting episode, under which after repeated claims by Dr.
Jones that the Yale experiment is not valid, Gai, Lynn (of
BNL) and Jones agreed for a procedure that might resemble
scientific arbitration.  In this procedure Dr. Dick Garwin
was mutually chosen as an arbitrator and he received a copy
of the Yale-BNL paper and some 100 pages of criticism from
Dr. Jones.  Garwin delivered his conclusion, on January 31
1990, that he finds no flaw with the Yale-BNL paper and that
Jones' criticism if adopted, may allow for a next generation
experiment with yet even higher sensitivity, but the current
conclusions as expressed in the Yale-BNL manuscript are valid
at the quoted level of sensitivity.  Dr. Garwin suggested
that if Dr. Jones does not want to be an author he should
grant a permission to publish these data.  The paper was then
submitted by Yale-BNL to the Physical Review C and the very
same discussion was repeated, but now through the office of
the editors of the Physical Review.  At one point Dr. Jones
submitted to the editors a letter including some 84 pages,
attempting to dispute the Yale-BNL paper.  The second review
by the editors of the Physical Review was completed with
conclusions similar to those of Dr. Garwin and the paper was
finally published without any alterations of the originally
quoted numbers or the original conclusions etc.
 
Professor Gai concluded that one can not help but wonder,
where would the scientific community be, if only a fraction
of the effort used in the attempt to dispute the Yale-BNL
paper, were used to scrutinize the original paper of Jones et
al. or the later paper of the Los Alamos - BYU collaboration.
 
He also announced that WGBH-Nova (public TV) will broadcast,
on April 30th, 1991, at 8:00 PM, "Confusion in a Jar",
produced by Jim Burge and Jayne Calander, of the BBC-Horizon.
If by than you have not had enough, you might like to tune
in.  Gai watched the British version (aired in England on
March 26th, 1990) and thought it was a good show.
 
 
                     Da Hsuan Feng
                     Professor of Physics
                     Drexel University
                     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA 19104-9984
cudkeys:
cudenBITNET cudln cudszL 
------------------------------
1991.04.12 / Xiping Wu /  Re: Article about Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: xwu32074@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Xiping Wu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Article about Cold Fusion
Date: 12 Apr 91 15:41:27 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Thank you, thank you! Mr. Yagui.  This posting is one of the
best I have seen so far on SCC.  Forget about those junks with
Toycotte or Toyota, radicals like Da Lai or TIers.  Who said
cold fusion doesn't belong in SCC or CND?  By the way, can any
physicist informing us about the cold fusion research in China?
Whether cold fusion is a pure hype or a radically new discovery
defying the existing laws of physics, it is interesting to notice
the play of human nature, especially emotion, in the whole business
of scientific research.  Let's quote Tolstoy:
 
   "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest
 complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious
truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conlusions
 which they have delighted in explaining to colleages, which they have
proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenxwu32074 cudfnXiping cudlnWu cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.13 / James Crotinger /  Re: Westinghouse AP-600
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Westinghouse AP-600
Date: 13 Apr 91 22:32:05 GMT

jfloyd@wam.umd.edu (Jason Edward Floyd) writes:
> 	I have been doing some reading about Westinghouse's new 'passive
> safety' reactor, the AP-600. From what I have read it sounds like a great
> idea. As anyone heard or read anything interesting about the AP-600? Such as
> whether or not its passive cooling system would work?
 
  There was an article about this and other advanced LWR designs in
the April 1990 Scientific American. I know some people who work in the
industry, and they generally seem excited about the AP-600, but are
afraid that it'll be a long time before one gets licensed. There seems
to be a feeling that it would be easier to go with another PWR. I
think that this is a sad statement about the status of our nuclear
energy program. It seems to me that it would make good sense for the
US government to fund the building, testing, and licensing of one or
more of these advanced reactors. I mean, the US will likely spend
several billion dollars over the next decade to fund fusion research.
It strikes me that fission research deserves some attention too, since
it is much more likely to benefit us in the short term than fusion.
Don't get me wrong---I work in the fusion research area and I believe
that it is an important project for our long term energy program.  But
it seems to me that getting some of these new design fission reactors
on line is at least as important as, say, building ITER.  And would
probably be less expensive.
 
> --
> In Real Life: Jason E. Floyd  jfloyd@cscwam.umd.edu
>               University of Maryland at College Park
> "Life is a grapefruit."
> motto: NUKE 'EM ALL
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore Natl Lab // The above views
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630    \\ // are mine and are not
(415) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550      \\/ necessarily those of LLNL
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.15 /   /   IFR reactors
     
Originally-From: <SBLAND%MACALSTR.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  IFR reactors
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1991 16:59:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
hi, my name is Brian Landberg (SBLAND@MACALSTR). I am an undergrad physics
major with a great interest in fusion and alternative energies, appropriate
technologies, and all the other jargon (policy side as well as technical
side). Well anyway, the other day, I came across an article in the not-so-
detailed but reputable CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (MARCH 6, 1991, pp12-13).
The article was about a new kind of Breeder Reactor design that solves or
partially solves a number of the problems that have prevented the US from
continuing with the Oak Ridge and a number of other projects in breeder
fission. The reactor is called INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR (IFR), and its main
advantages (according to designers at Argonne Nat. Labs) are:
 
        1) the reactor at no time isolates Pu such that it might be used
to make a bomb. it accomplishes this by not separating Pu from "other
actinides" using an electro-chemical immersion technique in reprocessing.
 
        2) since the fuel is an "all metal" type, if an overheating situation
develops, the fuel "expands, stopping the reaction". Thus, there would be no
possibility of even a human induced meltdown at the core.
 
However, like other breeder designs the IFR is sodium cooled, which I
understand inhibits the reaction less than would water. I have heard that
this use of sodium is problem-ridden in other ways however.
 
In any case, if Cold Fusion doesn't pan out as practically useful, this IFR
type of reactor sounds great according to the Christian Science Monitor. Yet
why haven't I heard anything else about this?! Does anyone know about this
"revolutionary" reactor design? If so, please fill me in!
 
                Brian (mata sono gaijin ka) Landberg
                username: SBLAND@MACALSTR
(actually its, "SBLAND@MACALSTR.EDU")
        or just respond via this ubiquitous fusion network...thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.13 / Jason Floyd /  Westinghouse AP-600
     
Originally-From: jfloyd@wam.umd.edu (Jason Edward Floyd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Westinghouse AP-600
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 19:13:03 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park

	I realize that this article is not really within the scope of fusion,
but I am not aware of a fission newsgroup.
 
	I have been doing some reading about Westinghouse's new 'passive
safety' reactor, the AP-600. From what I have read it sounds like a great
idea. As anyone heard or read anything interesting about the AP-600? Such as
whether or not its passive cooling system would work?
--
In Real Life: Jason E. Floyd  jfloyd@cscwam.umd.edu
              University of Maryland at College Park
"Life is a grapefruit."
motto: NUKE 'EM ALL
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjfloyd cudfnJason cudlnFloyd cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.14 / A Boulanger /  New Work on RF-excited Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Work on RF-excited Ball Lightning
Date: 14 Apr 91 01:32:57 GMT
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

 
Some new work on RF (microwave) excited ball lightning whose behavior
matches some predictions of Kapitza who developed a theory (1955) of ball
lightning based on the antinodes in interfering RF waves has been
reported in nature:
 
"Plasma Fireballs Formed by Microwave Interference in Air", Y.H.
Ohtsuki & H. Ofuruton, Nature Vol 350 (14 March) 1991, 139-141
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.16 / Dieter Britz /  Too Hot to Handle, but not impossible to get.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Too Hot to Handle, but not impossible to get.
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1991 14:20:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have been informed that the possible legal action on Frank Close's book in
the USA will not delay its appearance in May or so; the delay was due to other
factors. So if you want the book, you don't - as I suggested a few days
ago - have to write away to England, but put in an order at Princeton (see
Bill Johnson's message about a week ago for details).
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.19 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 458 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 458 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1991 21:50:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello again,
 
Didn't get as much done as I hoped but here's another lot. The Yaroslavskii
was in the list before but only as a Chem. Abstr.; I now have it, in
translation even. Note that it actually dates back to 1986 (a Soviet
symposium) and was presumably rushed to the journal (20-Apr-89!) as soon as
the cold fusion epidemic broke out - although there is no mention of FPH or
Jones+. The experiment is so easy (if you have neutron detection gear) that
it is strange that noone to my knowledge has tried to confirm it. Maybe this
says something about my knowledge. Not all Soviet scientists believe in cold
fusion, fracto- or otherwise, however, as evidenced by Brudanin et al, who
find nothing and set a rather low upper limit. The Derjaguin et al team,
however, continue to find (or to present) neutrons from their targets of LiD
and D2O ice. I must say that their figures have never convinced me, though,
they all look like noise, and there little between the blanks and the neutron
emitters, as far as I can see. Being now published in a Western journal, you
can all have a look and correct me if I'm wrong. Morgan III and his mate have
found that a back-of-the-envelope calculation is as good as a much more
difficult method, for calculating muon catalysed or spontaneous cold fusion
rates. No comfort for the TB's, however. Rugari et al have tried to optimise
Ti-in-gas dry cell experiments, and find nothing. They make some interesting
comments (quoting also Briand) about the problems with deuterium loading; it
seems that some work was done with hardly any deuterium absorbed by the
titanium, including the work of Jones+(89). The Briand comment that Jones+
merely deposited metals from their "witches' brew" makes sense to this humble
electrochemist. Szpak et al try a new technique, not a bad idea. They lay down
their PdDx by codeposition, on a copper base. Then, you have no problems with
the deuterium needing to diffuse into the Pd bulk. They get positive results,
including evidence for radiation. One could be quite skeptical, if not for the
controls, which showed nothing. I fail to see why there should be a
temperature rise when the current is switched off; everybody has been saying
that you must have nonequilibrium conditions to make cold fusion work, meaning
high current densities - so why should this work? The authors say nothing
about this (it's only a prelim. paper) but again, the controls don't show the
jump. Strange.
 I found Kenward's review of Frank Close's book unsatisfactory, as I found Sir
Brian Pippard's review in Nature. Maybe I am too critical; both give some
praise to the book and the author. I reckon, though, that both could have done
a much better job of it. I got the feeling that Kenward wasn't able to
concentrate on the job and didn't bring out the strong points. These journals
should have used my own review, it would have been a model of lucidity and
style (heh heh).
                                                                     Dieter.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Apr. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brudanin VB, Bystritsky VM, Egorov VG, Stetsenko SG, Yutlandov IA;
Phys. Lett. A151 (1990) 543.
"Search for the cold fusion d(d,(4)He) in electrolysis of D2O".
** Previous work by this team did not confirm either FPH(89) or Jones+(89)
claims. Nevertheless, the excess heat found by some needs to be explained.
Here the possibility of the reaction d+d --> (4)He + lattice energy is
investigated, by detection of alpha particles (i.e. He). Thin Pd (50 mu) and
Ti (100 mu) foils are used as cathodes in 0.1M Na2CO3 in D2O, at current
densities of 30 mA/cm**2 for about 100 h. Two CR-39 track detectors were
placed directly under the cathode foils. Not a single track was recorded. In
another experiment, a silicon surface barrier detector was used, again with no
alphas detected. This set an upper limit for cold fusion at 1E-26 fus/pair/s.
Thus, the exotic (4)He+heat branch is not the explanation for the excess heat
observed by others, and precision calorimetry must provide the answer.
                                                                 Sep-89/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derjaguin BV, Kluev VA, Lipson AG, Toporov YuP;       Physica B167 (1990) 189.
"Excitation of nuclear reaction under mechanical effect (impact) on deuterated
solids".
** Another report from this Soviet team of what has been called fractofusion.
Metal missiles (50 g) were shot (velocity 200 m/s) at targets of LiD and heavy
water ice, and neutrons measured. A block of 7 proportional "all wave" NSW-62
counters was used, immersed in silicone oil; efficiency 1%. Each shot was
centred within a 1s observation period. Both targets showed a background of
about 0.08 c/shot or about 0.1 n/s [sic]. Some background checks were done by
using dummy targets. The authors conclude that "is established that the count
of neutrons in shooting at LiD and D2O targets substantially exceeds the
'pulse background'" (i.e. the dummy shots). The diagrams are not quite as
convincing as this. The authors advance two explanations: (1) fractofusion,
(2) fusion due to shock compression of highly D-loaded microdomains
(dislocations), aided by polarons to provide shielding.          Sep-89/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan III JD, Monkhurst HJ;                        Phys. Rev A42 (1990) 5175.
"Simple model for accurate calculation of Coulomb-barrier penetration factors
in molecular fusion rates".
** A simple "back of the envelope" model is developed here for calculating
muon catalysed cold fusion rates. Despite its simplicity, the model still
gives results within 25% or so of more sophisticated methods such as full
Born-Oppenheimer integration, at the small d-d separations. Based on earlier
work by Jackson (1957) and Soviet work (1961), the method works within the
adiabatic approximation. Calculated cold fusion rates, uncatalysed by muons,
are not encouraging for true believers, coming out at about 3E-56 fus/pair/s.
                                                                 May-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rugari SL, France RH, Lund BJ, Smolen SD, Zhao Z, Gai M, Lynn KG;
Phys. Rev. C43 (1991) 1298.
"Upper limits on emission of neutrons from Ti in pressurized D2 gas cells:
A test of evidence for 'cold fusion'".
** This Yale/Brookhaven joint paper presents the results of a "dry cell"
experiment, i.e. metal (Ti-Pd alloy) chips are deuterated from the gas phase.
The team observes that in most such experiments, rather a short time is spent
under those conditions thought to provoke cold fusion; i.e. during the warming
up phase, after cooling the deuteride down to liquid nitrogen temperature.
Here, this phase was prolonged, so as to maximise the chances of observing
cold fusion. A very sensitive, low background neutron detector was used,
consisting of 12 NE213 liquid scintillators operable in single mode (28%
efficiency, moderate background of 100 c/h) or coincidence mode (2%, 2 c/h).
There is a detailed description of the neutron detection procedure, background
discrimination etc. No neutrons were detected in any runs. Thus the upper
limit on cold fusion was much lower than that claimed by Menlove et al. No
numbers are given, but from the background of 2 c/h at 2% efficiency and about
40 g Ti, I calculate 1E-25 fus/pair/s.
 There is some additional comment about Ti's ability to absorb deuterium.
Surface oxides prevent this, and are difficult to remove. Treatments such as
used by Menlove et al allowed a loading of 0.013 only. Ti-Pd alloy chips did
absorb D2. Also, Briand et al (to be published) report that the Jones+(89)
setup would merely deposit metals on the Ti, and no deuterium would be
absorbed.                                                        May-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Smith JJ;       J. Electroanal. Chem. 302 (1991) 255.
"On the behavior of Pd deposited in the presence of evolving deuterium".
** This preliminary publication (a fuller account is promised) describes a new
experimental twist in the area. Palladium and deuterium are deposited together
by electrolysis from a solution containing both the usual 0.1M LiOD and 0.05M
PdCl2. This creates a growing layer of PdDx, continually freshly laid down and
possessing the attribute of nonequilibrium, considered by many to be the magic
ingredient of cold fusion. The authors also claim that this method eliminates
the need for a uniform current distribution and long charging times. A copper
foil is used as the cathode initially, being progressively coated by the PdDx,
and a thermocouple mounted behind it (on the dry side) (T1), as well as in the
electrolyte (T2). A photographic film was mounted up close to the cathode and,
in one cell, a metal grid was placed between the cathode and this film. During
electrolysis, T1 > T2 by 2-4 degC, which cannot be explained by electrical
resistance of a deuterium gas film on the growing surface, say the authors.
Also, when the current is switched off, there is a sudden temperature rise in
T1, not explained. One might suspect a chemical decomposition of the PdDx. The
authors crudely calculate an excess heat of 10-40% from the T1-T2 differences.
Experiments with light water showed no such differences; T1 and T2 were about
the same, and there was no temperature jump upon current switch-off.
 Tritium levels went up by a factor of 10 in the electrolyte but not in the
light water controls. The film showed fogging, and clear shadowing by the
metal grid, suggesting soft x-ray emission; again, this was not observed with
the controls.                                                    Nov-90/Mar-91
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaroslavskii MA;  Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 307 (1989) 600   (in Russian).
Translation: Sov. Phys. Dokl. 34(7) (1989) 648.
"Nuclear reactions induced by temperature changes and phase transitions
in solids".
** This appears to be a report preliminary to their later paper in the same
journal (submitted 8 days later), describing neutron detection from frozen
mixtures of D2O and "natural chalk". The mixture was brought down to liquid
nitrogen temperature and slowly warmed up. Neutrons were detected by two
parallel SI13H counters. Intense neutron emissions and pulses trains of up to
several 100 microseconds long, containing about 1000 pulses, were detected, as
well as short 10-30 mics packets of 10-100 pulses. Upon freezing, the same was
observed as upon warming up. One intense pulse was observed upon melting of
the sample. In another experiment, 7 cm**3 D2O were mixed with 0.125 cm**3
pentane and this, upon warming, emitted tens of pulses per s until completely
melted. The author estimates that a pulse train emitted 1E06 neutrons. Thus,
for the first time, nuclear reactions were observed as a result of changes in
temperature, due to phase transitions. The reaction is assumed to be d+d -->
(3)He + n.
 Note that this paper was originally communicated in 1986 in Proc. 10th
All-Union Jubilee Symp. on the Mechanical Emission and Mechanical Chemistry of
Solids, Rostov-on-Don., and submitted to Doklady in '89.      20-Apr-89/Jul-89
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Comment, news
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenward M;                   New Scientist 129 (1991) 54 (issue 1759, 16-Mar).
"A close look at fusion"
** Review of Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle". Kenward, an energy expert
and former editor of New Scientist, reviews some of the past history of cold
fusion (going back only to Frank, 1947), muon catalysed fusion and the recent
furore over electrolytic cold fusion, which Close's book documents.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.19 / Terry Bollinger /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1991 21:57:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

======== Copyright protection begins with (and includes) this line ========
 
 
                             A TWIST OF RIBBON
 
 
                             Terry B. Bollinger
                           1014 San Jacinto #1233
                            Irving, Texas 75063
                              (214) 402-8453
 
                              April 19, 1991
 
 
     Copyright 1991 by Terry B. Bollinger.  Unlimited copying, trans-
     mission, and redistribution of complete, unaltered ASCII copies
     of this document in electronic, magnetic, or electromagnetic form
     is freely permitted, provided that all such copies include this
     copyright notice, are not used for direct financial profit, and
     are free of charge to all recipients.   Printing, photocopying,
     faxing, film imaging, and all other forms of permanent image
     creation or duplication are strictly prohibited without first
     obtaining explicit written consent from Terry B. Bollinger.
 
 
PREFACE
 
This is not a paper in the conventional sense of the word, nor is it
intended to be.  If appropriate, a full paper in conventional printed
media will follow at some future date.  This particular document might
better be described as a Farfetch that got out of hand.  (Farfetching is a
"game" I once proposed for trying to solve difficult problems.)  There are
some key points I have been unable to eliminate during the self-critiquing
phase of Farfetching, and this irritates me greatly.  I thus think it is
time to let other people have a look at these rather unusual ideas.
 
Besides, they lead to some interesting (and testable) predictions.
 
 
OVERVIEW
 
This document proposes a method whereby certain classes of low-energy
solid state systems may violate baryon conservation.  The method is to
induce heavy baryon-containing particles to jump from energy states that
closely approximate stationary (standing wave) momentum Dirac delta
functions into nearby energy states that closely approximate stationary
spatial Dirac delta functions.  Although similar in principle to the type
of state transitions seen in small-scale atomic phenomena, these spatially
large state transitions are interesting because they appear to be subject
to the constraints of large-scale, unidirectional time flow.  This is in
sharp contrast to small-scale state transitions of atoms, where time is
much more space-like in character and thus can support an essentially
instantaneous flow of state change information throughout a wavefunction.
 
If such transitions are embedded in conventional unidirectional time, they
should require non-zero lengths of time to complete.  It is proposed that
during such transition periods there will exist briefly conditions that
are roughly equivalent to stretching or distending the particles over
macroscopic distances.  Such distances are far larger than those over
which the strong force normally can act.  This implies that such transient
particle states will decompose into simpler particle sets that need only
preserve long-range conservation values of mass, charge, and spin.  Since
such decompositions would occur over physically large distances, most of
the mass of the particle would be translated into low-energy photon pairs
(heat) along the physical length of the decomposition event.  Neutrinos,
electrons, or positrons would form at the site of the spatially localized
goal state to resolve any residual spin and charge quantum numbers.  It
should be noted that such proposed decompositions would apply only to
heavy, baryon-containing particles, since light particles (electrons)
would be protected by the fact that there are no simpler particle sets
into which they could decay and still conserve mass, charge, and spin.
 
There appear to be at least two classes of solid state systems that could
provide a test of this proposed mechanism.  The first is high-density
injection of monochromatic thermal neutrons down the major axis of highly
anisotropic crystals such as graphite.  The second is the introduction of
fermion chemical species of hydrogen into transition metal hydrides that
have been physically or electrochemically structured so as to provide
pseudo-1D diffusion environments.  Because high hydrogen mobility is the
best indictor of potential band behavior, the best elemental medium for
this latter case would be the metal palladium.  Specifically, a single
crystal of pure palladium that has been electrochemically structured along
one of its three cubic crystal axis should provide a good approximation of
the conditions needed to produce the hydrogen isotope baryon violation
test case.  Slow hydrogen charging would be needed in such a system to
avoid alpha-beta phase transition disruption of the long-range crystal
structure, since that structure is critical to the formation of pseudo-1D
heavy particle bands.  The best candidate fermion hydrogen species for
baryon violation within such structures would be neutral deuterium atoms
and protium cations (protons).  Neutral deuterium should be somewhat more
likely to form the necessary band structures because of its minimal, alloy-
like chemical interaction with the surrounding metallic crystal lattice.
 
For both neutron-in-graphite and hydrogen-in-metal system classes, the
creation of adjacent Dirac delta-like states could be accomplished by
inducing solitons or soliton-like regions into pseudo-1D heavy-particle
band structures.  Soliton distortions of continuum band states would
create physically localized intergap states at the sites of the solitons,
with the energies of those states being somewhat above those of the
highest filled band states.  A jump of a heavy particle from the highest
filled band state to this intergap state then would meet the prerequisites
for inducing a rapid transition from an extended momentum-like states into
a localized space-like state.
 
Experimental evidence developed for other purposes at Oak Ridge National
Laboratories may provide some support for baryon violation in solid state
systems.  In particular, Oak Ridge has found that some palladium deuteride
electrochemical systems do in fact appear to produce excess heat with no
obvious by-products.  Such instances could be examples of baryon violation
for neutral atomic deuterium in palladium, which should produce only heat
and neutrinos.  A decay rate of roughly 10^10 deuterium atoms per second
per Joule/second of net heat output would be required to explain such
results.  A comparable neutrino output of at least 10^10 neutrinos/second
per Joule/second of heat output would then be expected to provide
resolution of the residual 1/2 spins of neutral deuterium atoms.
 
                             --------------
 
 
GO DELTA TO DELTA, THE DIRAC WAY
 
For the past few months I have been looking at a specialized class of
quantum state transitions, an investigation that led to this document.
Specifically, what I have been looking at is a class of direct transitions
from quantum states that approximate momentum-domain Dirac delta functions
into quantum states that approximate spatial-domain Dirac delta functions.
 
Although unusual, such Dirac to Dirac transitions are discussed indirectly
in a large body of solid state physics literature.  They can occur when a
soliton -- a phase "twist" -- is induced into the continuum band states of
a pseudo-1D metal such as polyacetylene.  The creation of a soliton region
results in the formation of a new, highly localized intergap state (the
spatial Dirac state) that is somewhat higher in energy than the highest
filled band state (the momentum Dirac state).  Although close in energy,
these two states have very different wavefunction properties.
 
Such drastic state transitions interesting primarily because they appear
to invoke some interesting temporal issues.  Momentum Dirac states can be
very large in their physical extent, as shown by the shared macroscopic
boson states of liquid helium II and the delocalization of the (fermi)
continuum state electrons found in metals.  In the case of metals, such
macroscopic delocalization of such states have energy implications that
lead to the formation of band gaps.  Specifically, the energy of the
highest filled band states -- say those where lambda approaches twice the
lattice unit -- are significantly lowered by the diffraction effects of
the lattice, and so are no longer roughly equivalent in energy to their
free-space counterparts.  They are "tied down" to the large-scale crystal
lattice structure by an energy debt.
 
Such states provide the familiar band-surface states that are readily
observable in all sorts of electronic and physical phenomena.  For
example, the holes of semiconductor bands represent electrons that have
been removed from such states.  Since a "found" electron is itself a
pretty good approximation of a spatial Dirac function state, an obvious
question is why there should be anything novel about the soliton version
of inducing an electron to enter the spatially localized intergap state.
Would it not be just another example of finding a top-of-the band
electron, much as in the case of semiconductor hole formation?
 
The difference is that hole formation corresponds to finding a top-of-the-
band electron at an unknown location in the lattice.  In contrast, soliton
formation attempts to "pull in" the highly delocalized, top-of-the-band
electron state into a known, well-defined location.  If soliton formation
occurs too quickly, this "pulling in" of the delocalized wave function
will occur too rapidly to allow proper integration of psi^2 probability
over time.  Viewed another way, the energy used to raise the electron to
the intergap state must first be redistributed throughout the lattice to
compensate for removal of the particle from an energetically preferable
band state.
 
A simpler way to describe to situation is to note that since extended band
states are energetically tied to large-scale crystal lattices that exists
in large-scale, unidirectional time, the band states themselves will also
be embedded in large-scale, unidirectional time.  Thus even though they
are nominally quantum entities, such band states will be subject to many
of the same time constraints that apply to large-scale objects.  This is
in sharp contrast to small-scale, highly localized state transitions of
the type found in atoms, where time is highly space-like in nature and
thus permits essentially instantaneous reconfigurations of wave states.
The embedding of a state transition in large-scale time implies that the
intermediate states that occur during state transitions should not be
ignored;  they will behave as real transient states with real physical
consequences.
 
 
EFFECTS ON FERMIONS
 
In the case of an electron, these consequences are likely to be minimal,
at least for the particles themselves.  No matter how much stress a large-
scale quantum transition event might place on an electron, there are no
simpler particles into which it can decay and still preserve its long-
range quantum numbers of mass, spin, and charge.
 
For a more complex fermion such as a neutron, proton, or even a composite
fermion such as a neutral deuterium atom, the issue is more complicated.
Specifically, the strong forces that hold together a neutron or proton are
not subject to any long-range conservation principles such as those that
apply to charge, mass, and spin.  (Because they fall off gradually with
distance, the effects of charge, mass, and spin of any given particle are
known throughout the universe, and must therefore be conserved without
violation throughout the universe.  In contrast, the strong force falls
off very rapidly with distance, and thus is only locally conserved;  it
can be violated without creating an inherent contradiction in the
structure of space.)
 
If the temporal issues I have proposed for macroscopic state transitions
are real, one consequence is that they may be able to differentiate
between fundamental long-range conservation laws for charge, mass, and
spin, and the local conservation laws that apply to the strong force and
the weak interaction.  If the short-range strong forces are "stretched"
over too great a distance during a large-scale state transition event, the
result may be a conversion to other particle types that meet long-range
conservation laws while providing a more direct resolution to the
distributed energy debts of the original delocalized band state.
 
 
WHY IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN
 
One obvious objection to all of this speculation is that it cannot happen
in the first place, since even the lightest stable baryons are many
hundreds of times heavier than electrons, and thus cannot possibly form
bands in the same fashion as electrons.  As a physicist once noted when I
described the heavy particle band idea to him, any "atom" that had, say,
protons orbiting in the manner of electrons would be thousands of times
smaller in radius than a metal atom.  Such a construction would be quite
impossible, since strong force interactions would take over at that range
and preclude any electron-like behavior by the protons.  This would seem
to mean there is no way a large-state transition experiment could even be
set up for baryons, let alone performed.
 
 
WHY IT COULD HAPPEN
 
However, it turns out that the electrons which form bands in metals are pi
electrons, which do not compare directly to the highly localized sigma
electrons found in situations such as covalent (single) bonding.  If
proton band behavior depended on protons behaving in a fashion similar to
that of sigma electrons, then such bands would indeed be impossible to
construct.  But the pi electrons are free to wander over an entire crystal
lattice, as in metallic bonds and the second bonds of double-bonded
organic compounds.  This is a much more plausible mode of behavior for
heavy particles such as protons.
 
Thus the first requirement for building a heavy-fermion quantum transition
experiment is not that the heavy fermions orbit as though they were parts
of atoms, but that they be relatively free to move through a some type of
periodic lattice.  Furthermore, the unit cell of that lattice should have
a length comparable to the lambda (momentum) wavelength of the fermion.
This turns out to be a fairly plausible requirement, one that appears to
be possible in more than one type of physically realizable system.
 
 
NEUTRON BANDS
 
One of such system would be an intense beam of neutrons directed down the
main axis of a large, high-quality graphite crystal.  The asymmetry of the
graphite crystal layers would encourage some degree of preferential
diffraction back in the direction of the beam, giving at least a rough
pseudo-1D structure.  If the intensity of the beam was high enough and was
centered strongly around a lambda value comparable to twice the distance
between graphite layers, competition for momentum states should lead to
some degree of band behavior -- assuming the crystal would not simply be
vaporized by such a nasty level of bombardment!  Although interesting, the
difficulty of maintaining high levels of neutron bombardment without
disrupting ordinary matter clearly make this a difficult experiment.
 
 
HYDROGEN BANDS
 
The second class of physical systems that appear to meet the minimal needs
for a heavy-fermion state transition experiment are much messier and far
more complex, but they are also much easier with which to work.  It turns
out that the isotopes of hydrogen -- protium, deuterium, and tritium --
are all remarkably mobile in various transition metals.  These metals thus
provide a possible basis for heavy fermion banding effects.  There are
many transition metals which demonstrate significant levels of such
hydrogen mobility, including niobium, tantalum, and titanium.  However,
since mobility is the key starting point for band behavior, the best metal
would be the one with the highest hydrogen mobility.
 
That metal is palladium.
 
 
THE QUANTUM DOT MODEL
 
Some idea of whether the heavy-fermion band idea is plausible can be
deduced by noting that the quantum wavefunctions of fermion hydrogen
species in metallic lattices are quite similar mathematically to scaled-
down versions of quantum dot semiconductor devices.  Quantum dot devices
are an experimental class of semiconductor devices that work by jumping
electrons across distances of hundreds or thousands of Angstroms.  As it
turns out, there is a simple inverse relationship between the mass of an
electron and the ideal distance over which they should be made to jump to
produce a working quantum dot device.
 
For example, if you could somehow make electron a couple of thousand times
heavier (about mass of a proton), you would need to place the dots about
an Angstrom apart.  Such a spacing  would place the devices right in the
same ball park as the spacing between interstitial hydrogen sites in a
metallic hydride crystal lattice.  This simple relationship strongly
suggests that the overall behaviors of metallic hydrides and quantum dot
semiconductor devices should be rather similar.
 
Quantum dot devices are dominated by Van Hove singularities, which are an
extreme form of the energy/momentum band skewing I mentioned earlier.  The
density of states -- that is, the number of continuum states contributing
electron charge to each dot in the quantum structure -- nominally goes to
infinity in such a structure, although of course in any real system it
will simply grow to be the (very large) number of electrons contributing
across all the dots.  Delocalization effects thus become quite important
for understanding how such devices work.
 
 
ATOMS OR PERTURBATIONS?
 
If my quantum-dot to metal-hydride analogy is valid, then the "atoms" of
hydrogen in metallic hydrides tend to behave oddly for a very good
reason:  They are not really singular atoms at all.  They are instead
composite nodes of a very large number of highly delocalized atoms, just
as the second-level (pi) bonds in polyacetylene are charge density waves
nodes composed of small perturbations of a very large number of continuum
electron states.  If you poke at these composite hydrogen band nodes hard
enough, they will be forced to "decide" to become distinct, singular atoms
of hydrogen.  But until such poking occurs, such nodes are more accurately
described as local perturbations of a continuum band of delocalized atoms.
 
This composite atoms idea has some precedent, by the way.  It has been
known for a long time that a small volume of liquid helium II is composed
not of individual atoms, but a continuum of atomic states delocalized over
the entire liquid.  The main difference in the case that I have just
proposed for metallic hydrides is that the composite behavior of the
continuum states would exhibit local perturbations that closely resemble
localized atoms in mass and charge.
 
 
SETTING UP THE EXPERIMENT
 
If palladium and other metals do in fact meet the first criterion of band
formation for the rapid quantum transition experiment, how might one go
about setting up such an experiment?
 
For reasons that have to do mostly with the ease of soliton formation, a
pseudo-1D environment is preferable.  This means that the palladium medium
would need some type of anisotropic orientation along one of its three
(cubic) symmetry axis.  The easiest way to do this would be to apply a
voltage differential across two opposite faces, since this would cause the
hydrogen to move preferentially along that axis.  The desired anisotropic
effect might also be significantly enhanced by using integer ratio mixes
of hydrogen and deuterium, such as a 1:1 protium/deuterium ratio.  These
isotopes travel at different rates as they move through palladium, and
thus would tend to compete over time for distinct paths that would enhance
pseudo-1D behavior for both isotopes.  Loading of the crystal with
hydrogen should be as slow as possible to minimize the disruptive effects
of alpha/beta phase transition on the metallic crystal lattice.
 
In the long run, a structurally imposed pseudo-1D environment would be
preferable, since it would provide greater stability.  Metallic compounds
that create isolated 1D chains of palladium and other atoms are already
known to exist, so such constructions appear to be quite plausible.
 
 
SORTING THE SPECIES
 
The hydrogen species most likely to participate in band formation are H+
(in which I use H to mean protium), neutral D (deuterium) atoms, and T+
(tritium cations).  T+ is a rather poor candidate both because of its
instability and high mass.  The other possible species are the anion
hydrogen species (H-, D-, and T-), and the boson species (H, D+ [, D-],
and T).  Even though two of the anion species (H- and T-) are fermions,
the anion species probably can be eliminated because of their similarity
to the neutral He configuration, which is extremely immobile in palladium.
 
The boson species can delocalize, but cannot compete for states to create
structured bands.  This in turn means they cannot create intergap states
when inverted at a soliton region, since the existence of the intergap
state depends on inversion of the (filled) valence and (empty) conduction
states.  The structured band thus acts like a ribbon of finite width, and
the soliton behaves like a twist that flips the ribbon over.
 
I suspect that both the neutral and positively charged (cation) states are
sufficiently mobile in palladium and other metals to lead to band
behavior.  Since band formation leads to a net lowering of energy, both
the H+ and D species would tend to transition into band structures if
allowed to move freely.  (The idea of bands of neutral particles may sound
a bit odd, but it really is not.  Band formation is consequence of fermi
statistics and the energy lowering due to lattice periodicity.  Neither of
these require that the particles be charged.)  However, of the H+ and D
possibilities, D should be a better candidate because its lack of charge
would keep it from interacting as strongly with the surrounding metallic
crystal lattice.
 
A further complication is that there could be two metallic hydride species
of neutral D.  One would be an ortho version where the electron spins in
the same direction as the nucleus, and the other a para version with
opposing electron/nucleus spins.  Such variations would give rise to
distinct bands for each spin state of each species, but would not change
the overall model for soliton formation.  (As I mentioned, the hydrogen in
metal scenario is quite a bit messier than the neutrons in graphite
scenario.)
 
It may sound odd to recommend a composite fermion such as D for an attempt
to "stress" the strong forces, which are many, many orders of magnitude
more powerful than the weak electromagnetic force that binds a single
electron to a deuterium nucleus.  But as best I can tell, the formation of
a set of continuum states would have the effect of "hiding" the internal
structure of the neutral D atom until it can reappear in a normal (vs.
frequency) space, at which point it would be able to eject its electron
with only a little prodding.  But by that time it may be too late, since
anything that will happen to the D atom will occur during the state
transition itself.
 
 
CREATING THE SOLITON REGION
 
Actual creation of the soliton state could occur either naturally, as it
does in polyacetylene, or as a result of a very slight (one lattice unit)
separation or compression of the crystal structure, say at roughly the
center.  Polyacetylene soliton formation can occur via relaxation around
an electron injected (or removed) by a donor (or acceptor) impurity, and
roughly similar classes of injection mechanisms may also be possible for
metallic hydrides.
 
 
PROPOSED RESULTS
 
As mentioned earlier, I would suggest that the consequences of building
successful state transition mechanisms for heavy particle would for the
most part be controlled by the long-range quantum conservation laws, with
the energy of such an event distributed over the original physical extent
of the delocalized particle state.  One visual analogy would be a long
piece of elastic ribbon that has been lightly tacked down along a very
long bar.  The attempt to suddenly create the spatial Dirac state would
then be like attempting to pull in the ribbon suddenly by striking it very
quickly in the middle.  If the speed of the strike goes beyond some limit,
its internal structure will begin to fray -- and once that occurs, the
fraying will propagate outwards along the physical length wavefunction.
 
In the case of neutral deuterium, the only fundamental quantities that
would need to be conserved in such a fraying process would be spin and
mass.  The simplest particle for carrying off the spin would be an
electron neutrino, while the simplest particles for carrying off the mass
would be spin-cancelling pairs of photons.  If one assumes that photon
pairs would be generated along the length of the original delocalized
state, the result would be a remarkably low average energy that would
closely resemble ordinary heat.
 
For the proton (H+) case, a positron would be needed to carry off the
positive charge.  This in turn would result in a classic positron-electron
gamma ray emission.
 
I should also note that these highly symmetrical cases are not the only
ones possible.  Depending primarily on the mass and charge distributions
of the both original band structure states and the goal intergap states,
many different types of particles could conceivably be produced.  For
example, since the end points of pseudo-1D band structures (at the crystal
surface) are themselves similar to solitons in topology, there could be
modes in which the goal states have large mass nodes at either end of the
electrochemically anisotropic crystal.  A slight asymmetry in the mass
distribution between two such nodes could then lead to the production of
neutrons at one of the band structure.  Such neutrons would then combine
with the ambient elements to form new isotopes, such as tritium via
combination with ambient deuterium at the crystal surface.
 
Continuous energy production would presumably occur by a sort of "candle
wick" effect in which a stable soliton would remove fermions from the
highest (valence) band state and try to move them into the intergap state,
resulting in decay.  New fermions would then "move up the queue" to also
be disrupted by attempting the transition.  To produce one Joule/second
(watt) of energy in this way would require that roughly 10^10 deuterons
decay per second (assuming that the energy carried off by neutrinos is
negligible).  Other than heat, the only major by-product would be the
production of neutrinos at a rate of at least one per deuterium atom decay.
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 
Although this document is the result of personal work that is unrelated to
my previous and current job responsibilities, I would nonetheless like to
dedicate this document to the memory of the Contel Technology Center and
all the people who made it such an outstanding applied research center.  I
would especially like to thank its president, Dr. Alan Salisbury, for his
leadership of the center over its three year existence.  I would also like
to thank (or is it blame?) my good e-mail friend Dieter Britz of the
Kemisk Institut at Aarhus Universitet in Denmark for encouraging me to do
what I just did.
 
I would also like to acknowledge, without at this point naming names, all
of the people with whom I've had interesting Internet e-mail conversations
on physics, chemistry, and related subjects, and the authors of the many
fascinating papers I have collected on the subjects of palladium hydrides,
polyacetylene, solitons, solid state physics, and particle physics.
 
 
========= Copyright protection ends with (and includes) this line =========
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.18 / Benno Eichmann /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 18 Apr 91 11:27:16 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

 
If the central concept is that space, rather than being an empty
 
In <8648@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
 
>extension, is a nonmaterial and mobile entity which generates, with its
>irrotational vortex motion, `velocity field' (VF) if you will, defined
>as the most fundimental universal field from which charge, mass and the
>associated electromagnetic and gravitational fields, matter, then can we
>create a condition where a 4D space to 3D space energy transition/precipitation
>can occur directly and non-destructively into our 3D real universe structure?
 
>I might even think for a brief moment that during Einsteins activities in
>association with Princetons Advanced Studies activities, this question
>as well as the completion of a functional Unified Field Theory was achived
>by some of that group and kept secret for national security reasons
>to this day.  I believe Nicola Tesla was also a member of the Advanced
>Studies group in those years, and that Hilbert Space equations were
>succesfully applied no later than the fifties.  How might I find out about
>such details if they exist in secrecy?
 
>I feel frustrated, have any of you any details?
 
>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbenno cudfnBenno cudlnEichmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.18 / Benno Eichmann /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 18 Apr 91 11:39:24 GMT

 
>If the central concept is that space, rather than being an empty
>extension, is a nonmaterial and mobile entity which generates, with its
>irrotational vortex motion, `velocity field' (VF) if you will, defined
>as the most fundimental universal field from which charge, mass and the
>associated electromagnetic and gravitational fields, matter, then can we not
>create a condition where a 4D space to 3D space energy transition/precipitation
>can occur directly and non-destructively into our 3D real universe structure?
 
>I might even think for a brief moment that during Einsteins activities in
>association with Princetons Advanced Studies activities, this question
>as well as the completion of a functional Unified Field Theory was achived
>by some of that group and kept secret for national security reasons
>to this day.  I believe Nicola Tesla was also a member of the Advanced
>Studies group in those years, and that Hilbert Space equations were
>succesfully applied no later than the fifties.  How might I find out about
>such details if they exist in secrecy?
 
>I feel frustrated, have any of you any details?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbenno cudfnBenno cudlnEichmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.18 /  rick@ee.uwm.ed /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: rick@ee.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 18 Apr 91 14:56:43 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

In article <8659@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
-If the central concept is that space, rather than being an empty
-extension, is a nonmaterial and mobile entity which generates, with its
-irrotational vortex motion, `velocity field' (VF) if you will, defined
-as the most fundimental universal field from which charge, mass and the
-associated electromagnetic and gravitational fields, matter, then can we not
-create a condition where a 4D space to 3D space energy transition/precipitation
-can occur directly and non-destructively into our 3D real universe structure?
 
	I used to read slurry like this when I was 'into' perpetual motion.
	It's all based on the ol' ETHER concept.  Sorry... it's been disproved.
	Experiments to determine the 'velocity' of the earth with respect to
	this ether showed that there is no such 'substance'.  No difference
	was found (yes, accuracies were sufficient) between the speed of light
	on the sun-side v.s. the space-side of the earth.  So, either there
	is no ether, or the earth is the center of the universe, with all
	the stars and planets revolving around it rather than vice-versa.
 
-I might even think for a brief moment that during Einsteins activities in
-association with Princetons Advanced Studies activities, this question
-as well as the completion of a functional Unified Field Theory was achived
-by some of that group and kept secret for national security reasons
-to this day.  I believe Nicola Tesla was also a member of the Advanced
-Studies group in those years, and that Hilbert Space equations were
-succesfully applied no later than the fifties.  How might I find out about
-such details if they exist in secrecy?
 
	"I believe..."  Sounds like a creed to me.  A very unlikely one too!
	To assume that something is being kept secret skips the step of
	asking yourself, "What if it's not?".  You can search through
	eternity for something that doesn't exist, just because you've
	already assumed that it does... but you have the paranoid delusion
	that someone is keeping it from you.
 
-I feel frustrated, have any of you any details?
 
	Only advice.  Seek psychiatric help, or go the other way and get a
	better education in physics.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrick cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.19 /  St. Epicac Iye /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: St. Epicac Iyeeeee
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 19 Apr 91 00:04:49 GMT
Organization: Lot's O Natas

In article <11135@uwm.edu> rick@ee.uwm.edu writes:
>In article <8659@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>-If the central concept is that space, rather than being an empty
>-extension, is a nonmaterial and mobile entity which generates, with its
>-irrotational vortex motion, `velocity field' (VF) if you will, defined
>-as the most fundimental universal field from which charge, mass and the
>-associated electromagnetic and gravitational fields, matter, then can we not
>-create a condition where a 4D space to 3D space energy
transition/precipitation
>-can occur directly and non-destructively into our 3D real universe structure?
 
>
>        I used to read slurry like this when I was 'into' perpetual motion.
>        It's all based on the ol' ETHER concept.  Sorry... it's been
disproved.
>        Experiments to determine the 'velocity' of the earth with respect to
>        this ether showed that there is no such 'substance'.  No difference
>        was found (yes, accuracies were sufficient) between the speed of light
>        on the sun-side v.s. the space-side of the earth.  So, either there
>        is no ether, or the earth is the center of the universe, with all
>        the stars and planets revolving around it rather than vice-versa.
>
>-I might even think for a brief moment that during Einsteins activities in
>-association with Princetons Advanced Studies activities, this question
>-as well as the completion of a functional Unified Field Theory was achived
>-by some of that group and kept secret for national security reasons
>-to this day.  I believe Nicola Tesla was also a member of the Advanced
>-Studies group in those years, and that Hilbert Space equations were
>-succesfully applied no later than the fifties.  How might I find out about
>-such details if they exist in secrecy?
>
>        "I believe..."  Sounds like a creed to me.  A very unlikely one too!
>        To assume that something is being kept secret skips the step of
>        asking yourself, "What if it's not?".  You can search through
>        eternity for something that doesn't exist, just because you've
>        already assumed that it does... but you have the paranoid delusion
>        that someone is keeping it from you.
>
>-I feel frustrated, have any of you any details?
>
>        Only advice.  Seek psychiatric help, or go the other way and get a
>        better education in physics.
>
Maybe you should take this to alt.slack
===============================================================
When I want your opinion|  St. Epicac Iyeeeee
I'll read your entrails |
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 18 Apr 91 20:51:30 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <8658@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
 
>>then can we
>>create a condition where a 4D space to 3D space energy
 transition/precipitation
>>can occur directly and non-destructively into our 3D real universe structure?
 
Regardless of what you call it, it doesn't impact our basic understanding
of the physics: namely, a unification between gravitational and electrical
forces, leading to some new effect, will only occur at extremely high
energies, much higher than we could ever hope to create on a large scale,
such as that needed to generate commercial power. And if the effect doesn't
involve gravity, then it relates only forces that are already unified,
and thus should be contained within the ``standard model'', familiar to
all elementary particle physicists.
 
>>I might even think for a brief moment that during Einsteins activities in
>>association with Princetons Advanced Studies activities, this question
>>as well as the completion of a functional Unified Field Theory was achived
>>by some of that group and kept secret for national security reasons
>>to this day.
 
For the above reasons, it doesn't matter if it was kept secret;
it would not be practical. For example, we now have theories
(from Thorne et al) about how to make time machines. There is no
need to keep them secret, since they require engineering beyond the
scale we can ever hope to obtain (black hole engineering, etc).
 
The practical stuff---nuclear energy---was kep secret as much as
possible. But it was hard to hide the A-bomb after we used it,
and the other applications of fission were obvious
corollaries; fusion turned out to be too difficult, so it was declassified in
the 1950's. The bottom line is: stuff that is doeable cannot be
kept secret for long, since its effects become known when it is used;
stuff that is not easily doable (fusion, time machines, etc) is
not worth keeping secret.
 
>>I believe Nicola Tesla was also a member of the Advanced
>>Studies group in those years,
 
This is unlikely----tesla was an electrical engineer/experimental physicist,
not a theoretician. Certainly not the sort represented at the IAS.
He did not even believe that nuclear energy existed (see his
biographies), and he had also gone insane by that time (late thirties).
 
 
>and that Hilbert Space equations were
>>succesfully applied no later than the fifties.
 
In the thirties, in fact, when Neumann mathematicized quantum
mechanics. But so what? It did'nt fundamentally change their theory.
>
>>I feel frustrated, have any of you any details?
>
 
If you really want to clear your head, I suggest you come back into
reality, and forget all this wishful sci-fi thinking. There is
no conspiracy to keep the "Theory of Everything" away from the people.
Such a theory, when found, is likely to have no impact whatsoever on
our technology for many cenutries.
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.19 / P Petropoulos /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: ouzo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Petropoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 19 Apr 91 19:51:13 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Applied Maths, Northwestern University

 
>In article <8658@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>
> Lots of technical specs...and lots of questions.
>
Please carry technical discussions of such nature to alt.alien.visitors.
There, I am sure, you will find a very qualified audience to answer them
accurately, and to the best of their knowledge. This is
not the right newsgroup.
 
P.G.Petropoulos (Delphi oracle at large)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenouzo cudfnPeter cudlnPetropoulos cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.20 / Steve Robiner /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: robiner@mizar.usc.edu (Steve Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 20 Apr 91 01:20:20 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <11135@uwm.edu> rick@ee.uwm.edu writes:
>In article <8659@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>-If the central concept is that space, rather than being an empty
>-extension, is a nonmaterial and mobile entity which generates, with its
>-irrotational vortex motion, `velocity field' (VF) if you will, defined
>-as the most fundimental universal field from which charge, mass and the
>-associated electromagnetic and gravitational fields, matter, then can we not
>-create a condition where a 4D space to 3D space energy
 transition/precipitation
>-can occur directly and non-destructively into our 3D real universe structure?
>
>	I used to read slurry like this when I was 'into' perpetual motion.
>	It's all based on the ol' ETHER concept.  Sorry... it's been disproved.
>	Experiments to determine the 'velocity' of the earth with respect to
>	this ether showed that there is no such 'substance'.  No difference
>	was found (yes, accuracies were sufficient) between the speed of light
>	on the sun-side v.s. the space-side of the earth.  So, either there
>	is no ether, or the earth is the center of the universe, with all
>	the stars and planets revolving around it rather than vice-versa.
 
No, not necessarily the only possibility.  If there is indeed an Aether and both
energy *and* MASS are made from it, then compression in the direction of motion
would be the same for light (energy) and the Earth (mass), so no 'detetectable'
difference between the sun-side and the space-side.
 
In other words, if the ruler one uses to messure how much farther or shorter
light travels in a given time, is similarly lengthen or shortened by the
same reason, then one will never see a difference.
 
 
=steve=
 
robiner@mizar.usc.edu
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
rn fodder
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrobiner cudfnSteve cudlnRobiner cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.24 /   /   Frank Close's Book Available
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Frank Close's Book Available
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 05:22:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Frank Close's Book "Too Hot to Handle" is indeed available in the US.
Last week I got a flyer from Princeton Univ. Press indicating that, and
then Sunday I was able to buy a copy right off the shelf in my local
book store.  He gives an interesting account of early prehistory of
encounters with the D2 plus paladium system which seems to anticipate
the latest "results" from China Lake.  Those people should definitely
get a copy of the book to read and take note of the references regarding
early false alarms about helium production.  Lord Rutherford noted that
the stuff diffuses into and out of glass.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.22 / John Travis /  cold fusion gossip
     
Originally-From: jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John S. Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion gossip
Date: 22 Apr 91 17:09:39 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Well, I should have a proof copy of a new cold fusion book pretty soon.
This one, "Fire from Ice", is by Eugene Mallove, Chief Science Writer
at MIT. He takes the opposite tack from Frank Close, since Mallove is one
of the few belivers still in CF. Actually, in our recent talk, Mallove
was quite excited saying that a rash of new results will be out soon
and may surprise the skeptics. Not sure which side of the fence I'm on
but I hope his book sells well, since he uses my undergraduate thesis
on the press coverage of cold fusion for one of his chapters.
 
Mallove also invited me to a talk at MIT this Wed from some "Midwest"
 scientists which he says should be really interesting. Suposedly some new
theories about CF. I'll report what I hear, but does anyone have any
scuttlebut about what will be presented?
 
later
john travis
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjstravis cudfnJohn cudlnTravis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.22 / Gregory Mulder /  Grad Schools
     
Originally-From: mulderg@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Gregory Mulder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Grad Schools
Date: 22 Apr 91 16:09:42 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept

I am currently an undergraduate at Oregon State University and
am soon going to have to face that ominous task of choosing Grad
Schools to apply to.
 
It is my desire to go on to study Plasma Physics with a concentration
on Fusion, but I am also interested in the cosmological aspects of
plamsas.
 
I would greatly appreciate any information anyone could share with
me about Grad Schools in any English or German speaking country.
 
Thanks,
 
Gregory Mulder
mulderg@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
greg@comphy.physics.orst.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmulderg cudfnGregory cudlnMulder cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.23 / Benno Eichmann /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 23 Apr 91 09:09:18 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

What, if anything, are you aware of in relation to a Philadelphia or Project
Rainbow or Project Pheonix as might be related to Dr. John Levinson in a group
that the Navy decided to classify after a successful test in 1940.  Were
some so-called Levinson Time Equations successfully applied to your knowledge
in relation to I.A.S. work on July 22, 1943 or on August 12, 1943?
 
Did anything unusual happen in physics in 1943, secret or otherwise?
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbenno cudfnBenno cudlnEichmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.24 / Paul Houle /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 24 Apr 91 01:25:23 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

In article <8757@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>What, if anything, are you aware of in relation to a Philadelphia or Project
>Rainbow or Project Pheonix as might be related to Dr. John Levinson in a group
 
	As I told the good DOCTOR long ago,  the PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT was
a SUCCESFUL TEST of EINSTEIN'S unified FIELD equations.  All matter and energy
are all manifestations of a COSMOLOGICAL influence mediated through the
MULTIPLEX SCALAR field.  EINSTEIN wrote about his equations in 1932,  BUT
he renounced his work because HE was AFRAID of the CONSEQUENCES that this
knowledge WOULD have on mankind.  Do you know that the ATOMIC BOMB is a lie
that has been told to the public to keep us from knowing the TRUTH?  The REAL
weapon is a multiplexed spatial howitzer that opens a SPACE-TIME gateway
between the core of the SUN and AS MANY AS 512 (in newer models) TARGET
points,  causing COMPLETE DEVESTATION.  Nuclear detonation was proved
impossible by N. TESLA in 1915;  Nuclear POWER is a LIE,  a retrograde form
of ENERGY caused by the accelerated NATURAL DECAY of matter.  The real
principle of the MANHATTAN DEVICE (Named because it is buried underneath
the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING) designed by ALBERT einstein which destroyed the
CITY of hiroshima would lead to unlimited 'free' energy -- Which could be
tapped off any hyperspatial TANGENT line,  derived from the CONSTANT PROCESS
OF CREATION OF MATTER in the interstellar medium.
 
 
	My COLLEGUE Dr. JOHN LEVINSON developed HIS solutions of the UNIFIED
FIELD EQUATIONS in 1939.  As such,  ROTATING MAGNETIC FIELDS can create a
local STREAMING of the space-time CONTINUM,  which was tested in a secret
series of experiments done underneath the BERMUDA TRIANGLE in 1940.  The
OTHER end of the TEMPORAL VORTEX that we created has SKIPPED in time from
1903 and will continue to do so until 2011.  It TOSSED five AMERICAN BOMBERS,
killing the crew from the effects of TIME SHEAR forward in time from 1945 to
1989,  when one was DISCOVERED underneath the OCEAN.  Another was FOUND ON
THE MOON by apollo astronauts.  The Levinson TIME equations can be transformed
using the method invented by myself and DR.  TOWNSEND BROWN to a set of SPACE
equations which allow for instanteous translation of MATTER through SPACE.
(Gene Rodenberry DESIGNED the TRANSPORTER for the syndicated program STAR
TREK in order to PREPARE the public for the concept of INSTANTEOUS
TELEPORTATION that was first successfully tested on AN american DESTROYER
called the ELDRIDGE.  More on that later)  ALSO,  using the result of EMILY
NOETHER,  instanteous translation is EQUIVALENT to reactionless propulsion;
which unfortunately creates a PROTATIONAL FIELD that KILLS humans.  LIVING
matter cannot be carried on SUCH a VESSEL.  AFTER too many DEATHS,  we
decided to GIVE UP our CAMPAIGN of UFO MOVIES and UFO FLYOVERS when the
SOVIET UNION realized that we had solved and applied BROWNS space equations.
And when THIS technology was FOUND impossible to adapt for transportation
of LIVING MATTER.  HOWEVER,  TIME SHEAR effects can be REDUCED in the CASE
of INSTANTEOUS transport.  HENCE,  this technology is REAL.  Buy shares in
the company TELEPAD that will be offered two months FROM NOW.  THEY WILL
introduce a PRACTICAL transporter that the POLICE will be able to USE to
ARREST people anywhere in the world.  IN TEN YEARS,  this will become
availible to YOU from the PHONE COMPANY as a service that by dialing
*647351845###646412* will INSTANTLY transport any HARRASSING caller to
your FRONT DOOR.
 
>that the Navy decided to classify after a successful test in 1940.  Were
 
	YES,  as I said,  the NAVY classified this result as BEING eighteen
security levels ABOVE TOP SECRET.  The NAME is SO SECRET that I don't EVEN
KNOW what this security classification are.
 
>some so-called Levinson Time Equations successfully applied to your knowledge
>in relation to I.A.S. work on July 22, 1943 or on August 12, 1943?
 
	On Jully 22, 1943,  the ELDRIDGE DEVICE was first ACTIVATED.  It
successfully made the destroyer invisible,  but it also ALTERED the crystal
structure of the metal,  SHIFTING ALL IRON atoms to the ALPHA-S configuration,
making the ship HEAVIER THAN WATER:  it sank to the bottom.  When the power
system FAILED because of an ELECTRICAL SHORT caused by SALT WATER leakage,
the ship floated back to the surface,  and the entire crew was DROWNED and
ELECTROCUTED.  We did not see the effects of TIME SHEAR in this experiment,
but SPACIAL DISTORTION left as a residual effect eventually altered the
crystaline form of the IRON atoms to the OMEGA-PSI configuration which is
LIGHTER THAN AIR,  and the ship blew away from our TEST DOCK and we had to
BLOW IT UP with the MANHATTAN DEVICE buried underneath the EMPIRE STATE
BUILDING (WHICH WAS in FACT the FIRST such test,  predating the so-called
TRINITY test)  before it would be seen by GERMAN spies,  who would realize
that WE COULD NOW transform any BATTLESHIP into an INVINCIBLE BLIMP.
 
	MOST PEOPLE think that the AUGUST 12 test of the PHILADELPHIA DEVICE
was conducted on the ELDRIDGE.  This is NOT true.  The real test ship was
a LARGE RUBBER RAFT.  WE had DISCOVERED the CRYSTALLINE structure of metal
was altered by this kind of PARAGRAVITATIONAL field,  so we allowed only
ORGANIC substances in the TEST ZONE.  As it turns OUT,  the presence of
a sailor's BELT BUCKLE started an ELECTROMAGNETIC REACTION that created an
INDUCED PROTATIONAL FIELD with resulting TIME SHEAR,  which ONLY CREMATED
half the CREW.  THEIR BODIES BURNED FOR 19 DAYS as we STOOD OUTSIDE the
field we created,  unable to TURN OFF the now GROWING WARP IN THE STRUCTURE
OF REALITY.
 
	Others were stuck in SLOW FREEZE and DEEP FREEZE for years.  THEY
would just sit there,  AND IF NOBODY TOUCHED THEM,  THEY WOULD NOT MOVE
and soon would become INVISIBLE.  Even at THIS PHASE,  if you see a PERSON,
or see others LAYING HANDS UPON another,  come and join them because this
man is THE MOST DESPERATE MAN IN THE WORLD.  NONE of these SAILORS wants
to undego the horrors of being CAUGHT IN THE PUSH,  the sensations just
BEFORE the DEEP FREEZE.
 
	Four of our sailors entered a BAR after we FREED them from the
PROTATIONAL FIELD (which we accomplished with the help of Dr. Einstein
and Dr. Levinson and using knowledge of neutrino interactions PASSED
BACKWARDS in TIME by researchers observing the 1997 SUPERNOVA of
ALPHA CENTAURI) and then went into SLOW FREEZE.  CAUGHT IN THE PUSH,
they tryed to start a fight but they SUDDENLY TURNED INVISIBLE,  and
then one of them WALKED RIGHT THROUGH A SOLID WALL IN ThE SIGHT OF
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE,  HE WAS NEVER SEEN AGAIN.
 
>
>Did anything unusual happen in physics in 1943, secret or otherwise?
 
	NO -- WE Have BEEN advancing the REAL PHYSICS.  (If your son is
TAKING what is called PHYSICS in college,  talk him into taking BUSINESS
or POLITICAL SCIENCE instead.  He will be MUCH happier and his SEX LIFE
will be FULFILLING.  Only the CIA teaches REAL PHYSICS;  what is TAUGHT
in COLLEGE is a LIE) with the HELP of ALIEN VISITORS since 1922.  1943
Was JUST another YEAR in the advancement of OUR unified FIELD theory.
 
 
--
DISCLAIMER:  IF YOU BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF WITH THE INFORMATION IN THIS FILE,
DELETE IT AND DON'T TELL **ANYBODY** WHERE YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpahsnsr cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.25 / Randell Jesup /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 25 Apr 91 17:19:11 GMT
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <1991Apr24.012523.23402@nmt.edu> pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
 writes:
>In article <8757@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>>What, if anything, are you aware of in relation to a Philadelphia or Project
>>Rainbow or Project Pheonix as might be related to Dr. John Levinson in a group
>
>	As I told the good DOCTOR long ago,  the PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT was
>a SUCCESFUL TEST of EINSTEIN'S unified FIELD equations.  All matter and energy
>are all manifestations of a COSMOLOGICAL influence mediated through the
>MULTIPLEX SCALAR field.  EINSTEIN wrote about his equations in 1932,  BUT
>he renounced his work because HE was AFRAID of the CONSEQUENCES that this
>knowledge WOULD have on mankind.
 
	never trust anyone who SHOUTS every third word.  ;-)
 
>  Buy shares in
>the company TELEPAD that will be offered two months FROM NOW.  THEY WILL
>introduce a PRACTICAL transporter that the POLICE will be able to USE to
>ARREST people anywhere in the world.  IN TEN YEARS,  this will become
>availible to YOU from the PHONE COMPANY as a service that by dialing
>*647351845###646412* will INSTANTLY transport any HARRASSING caller to
>your FRONT DOOR.
 
	So they can harrass you in person??  (tongue firmly in cheek)
 
--
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup
Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.
Thus spake the Master Ninjei: "To program a million-line operating system
is easy, to change a man's temperament is more difficult."
(From "The Zen of Programming")  ;-)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.25 / John Travis /  Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John S. Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 11:26:08 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Attended a fascinating talk yesterday at MIT which presented a new
theory offering to explain the anomolous and sporadic readings of
cold fusion as well as a host of other phenomenon such as the
diffusivity of hydrogen into metal and the excess heat in Jupiter.
The lecture was "On Very Low energy Hydogenic Nuclear Reaction" by
Dr Frederic Mayer and Dr Jogn Reitz. they proposed a new set of compact
neutral particles called hydrons that allow resonant direct nuclear
reactions(basically isotope shifts) that can release energy.
In the audience were peter hagelstein, one of the first to propose
theories for P&F fusion, and lawrence lidsky, a nuclear engineer at MIT,
as well as members from the MIT Plasma Fusion Center. The talk is
based on a paper that will appear in the May issue of Fusion technology.
Look for articles in science news and new scientist, the yhad reporters.
I'll (try) to provide a clearer explanation of the talk when i puzzle
through the paper and have some time. I, a confirmed skeptic, came
away really intrigued. I felt i had listened to either a bunch of garbage
or soemthing that could lead to a Nobel prize
 
john travis
jstravis@athena.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjstravis cudfnJohn cudlnTravis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.25 / John Travis /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John S. Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 25 Apr 91 21:21:12 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

ok, here's mt FIRST draft of an article on the lecture. some
of it is garbled in translation from my Mac, i'll try to get a
cleaner version somehow. Talked to editors at Science News and they
should have a piece as well next week and maybe New Scientist.
Sorry about paragraph formatting-but you can live with it.
I would be happy to answer questions if I can, and i would
also appreciate comments on the writing since i may try
to place the article, and mainly b/c i want to be a decent science
journalist. enjoy--hopefully more later
 
 
New Theory Suggests Cold Fusion May Be Real
by John Travis
 
Perhaps rewakening a controversy which stunned the world
over two years ago, a Michigan physicist yesterday at MIT
presented a broad new theory that may explain the sporadic
and puzzling results of cold fusion experiments, as well
addressing other intriguing problems such as excess
planetary heat and the presence of tritium in volcanic
emissions.
 
In 1989, two Utah chemists shocked the scientific community
with their announcement of room-temperature
fusion-in-a-bottle. Attempts to duplicate the experiment
proved largely unsuccessful, prompting most researchers to
dimiss the original report and the few others that followed
as incorrect. Still, in the face of strong skepticism and
even disdain from the majority of physicists, a small band
of believers have continued to experiment and have reported
some unusual results.
 
Speaking before a small audience at a lecture sponsored by
MIT's Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Dr. Frederic J. Mayer,
a plasma physicist with his own company in Ann Arbor, MI,
detailed a paper, appearing in next month's issue of Fusion
Technology, that attempts to explain the experimental
inconsistencies that have been observed over the past 24
months .
 
Fusion, the process which powers the sun, has a number of
established pathways, the most common being the collison of
two hydrogen atoms which produces a helium atom and a burst
of energy, However, this new theory bypasses fusion
reactions and proposes a novel energy-producing nuclear
reaction that involves a new class of atomic particles not
yet directly detected.
 
Mayer's paper, co-authored with theoretical physicist Dr.
John R. Reitz, suggests that the excess heat and other
nuclear products detected in various cold fusion experiments
are not the result of fusion, but instead a reaction
involving an isotope switch. Isotopes are atoms that are
chemically identical, but have different numbers of
neutrons. For example, carbon has a number of isotopes. A
carbon atom may have twelve neutrons or thirteen, yet these
 
normal chemical ones.
 
An isotope that is stripped of a neutron, or picks ups one,
can often release energy. These reactions, which Mayer calls
Resonant Direct Nuclear Reactions, may be the explanation
for the cold fusion phenomenon, according to the new theory.
There are a number of these isotope reactions, many of them
occuring in metals that have been accused of contaminating
cold fusion experiments. Since the level of contamination
can vary widely, Mayer suggests this may be one explanation
for the inrreproducibity of many experiments.
 
"The primary nuclear actions are not the conventional d-d
fusion reactions, but are RDNRs," Mayer told the gathered
audience, "The contaminants are driving the system."
 
Mayer divides the RDNRs into two categories, tritium
producers and tritium consumers. Tritium is an extremely
rare isotope of the hydrogen atom which normally has a
single proton. Tritium, in addition to the positively
charged proton, has two extra neutrons in the nucleus and
has been accused of being another contaminant in the
experiments.
 
In Mayer's isotope switch, tritium is converted to
deuterium, another form of hydrogen that has a single
neutron plus the proton, or vice-versa. When tritium  is
transformed into deuterium, a freed neutron is available for
a metal atom, creating two isotopes switches overall. The
metal, perhaps platinum or uranium, can also lose a neutron,
allowing a deuterium atom to be converted to tritium. It is
the isotope switch in the metals that release the excess
energy.
 
While the process appears simple and obvious, there is an
obstacle most physicists thought prevented such nuclear
reactions--the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is similar to
the repulsion that magnets can have with each other and
occurs when particles of similar charge are brought
together. The tritium, or deuterium, must be very close to
the metal atoms before they can trade neutrons. Yet, the
positive proton is repulsed by the large number of similraly
charged protons in the metal atoms and the reactions are
prevented from occuring.
But, as Mayer explains in the most contoversial part of the
new theory, the proton in the the tritium or deuterium can
be neutralized, which allows the atoms to evade the Coulomb
barrier and procede with their resonant direct nuclear
reactions(RDNRs). To perform this magic, Mayer and Reitz has
theorized a new class of particles they call hydrons or
virtual particles (the second name is avoided since it has
been used for other atomic particles as well).
According to Mayer, a hydron is an unstable, compact neutral
particle that sometimes occurs when an electron interacts
with a proton. In effect, the electron and proton cancel
each other out, creating a "virtual" neutron. If the proton
in tritium can be neutralized in this way, the Coulumb
barrier would no longer be an impediment and the nuclear
reactions would occur.
However, these hydrons have not been directly observed and
many in the audience were unconvinced that such a
proton-electron interaction could exist. Mayer could offer
only indirect evidence for the hydrons, but pointed out they
provided the best explanation for the variety of
experimental data.
"Small compact object that are neutral appear from the data
to be in nature," said Mayer, "Compact object like this
solve a lot of problem."
The absence of certain helium isotopes and gamma radiation
have been key arguments against cold fusion proponents,
since the two are typically produced in the accepted fusion
pathways. However, the new theory offers numerous routes in
which no radiation would be expected, and none of the
reactions would produce helium.
This fact may help solve another, older mystery involving
the Earth itself. Only about half of the earth's interior
energy, geothermal heat, can be accounted for from
measurements of helium. Mayer suggested these new reactions
may account for the extra heat, as well as explaining why
the ratio of helium isotopes is different for geothermal
gases than the ratio found in the galaxy. Jupiter, which
emits twice as much heat as can be explained presently, is
another area where hydrons may be involved.
Observations of volcanic emissions have also found large
anounts of tritium, more than can be explained the normal
fusion rate at the volcanoe's temperature. Tritium-producing
RDNRs may explain the excess, according to Mayer. The broad
scope of the theory is one the reasons it is so attractive,
said Mayer. It is not just limited to explaining cold fusion
phenomenon, but many other scientific puzzles.
In fact, the strongest evidence for the new theory may come
from other fusion experiments at Brookhaven National
Laboratory. Scientists there are studying a process known as
Cluster Imapct Fusion in which they shoot deuterium atoms at
titanium foil. Charged particles measured during the
experiment appear to match one of the isotope reactions
proposed by Mayer and Reitz.
Another  puzzle that may back-up the new theory is the the
diffusivity of hydrogen into metals. This is a
well-recognized problem that embrittles the metals. T
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjstravis cudfnJohn cudlnTravis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.25 / ROB Editor /  Theory may explain 'cold fusion' puzzle
     
Originally-From: jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John S. Travis)
Originally-From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROB STEIN, UPI Science Editor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: clari.tw.science,clari.tw.nuclear
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Subject: Theory may explain 'cold fusion' puzzle
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 03:35:35 GMT
Date: 25 Apr 91 20:23:29 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

here's the UPI version....
 
Article 429 in clari.tw.science (moderated):
Originally-From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROB STEIN, UPI Science Editor)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.science,clari.tw.nuclear
Subject: Theory may explain 'cold fusion' puzzle
Keywords: research, science, nuclear energy, energy
Message-ID: <2Rfusion_268@clarinet.com>
Date: 25 Apr 91 20:23:29 GMT
Lines: 58
Location: utah
 
 
        WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Two physicists said Thursday they had developed a
theory that could explain some of the puzzling phenomena persistently
produced by disputed ``cold fusion'' experiments.
        The experiments did not produce excess energy through nuclear fusion,
but instead by new type of nuclear reaction that scientists possibly
could harness to produce power, said Michigan physicists Frederick Mayer
and John Reitz.
        The reaction may result from production of a new type of particle
dubbed a ``hydron,'' which could interract with metal to produce a
nuclear reaction at room temperature, they said.
        The pair described the theory at a news conference in Boston, one day
after presenting a paper published in the journal Fusion Technology at a
seminar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.
        Lawrence Lidsky, a nuclear engineer at MIT who attended the seminar,
said the theory was interesting but needed to be confirmed by
experiments.
        ``Nobody ran out of the room screaming, 'He's got it,''' Lidsky said.
``It's interesting but the theory makes a lot of assumptions and
requires several leaps of faith.''
        One of the appealing aspects of the theory, however, is that it
should be able to be tested fairly easily, he said.
        ``There are some nifty tests that could be done to see if the theory
is correct or not that should be fairly definitive,'' he said.
        Meanwhile, Mills Technologies of Lancaster, Pa., also held a news
conference Thursday to claim the ``cold fusion'' results were actually
from a non-nuclear reaction that produces energy through the contraction
of hydrogen atoms.
        Company president Randell Mills said Fusion Technology had agreed to
publish a paper describing his work, which would be presented at a
meeting of the Ameircan Chemical Society in New York in August.
        Chemists B. Stanley Pons and Norman Fleischmann created a worldwide
uproar in 1989 when they announced that they had produced nuclear fusion
in a simple experiment at room temperature at the University of Utah.
        Scientists had thought enormous pressure and very high temperatures
would be need to produce fusion -- the reaction that powers the sun that
researchers have been trying to harness as an energy source.
        Pons and Fleischmann's claims largely have been discredited. But some
scientists have continued to report detecting hints of a possible
nuclear rea
produced by the experiments that they could not
explain.
        Pons and Fleischmann's experiment involved running electricity
through jars containing rods made of the metal palladium and a form of
water that has an extra hydrogen atom.
        The pair theorized the electrical current drove deuterium atoms in
the water into the palladium until the deuterium became so tightly
packed the atoms fused -- releasing excess energy.
        In the new theory, deuterium could react with metals like palladium
to form unstable neutral particles dubbed ``hydrons,'' which then could
react with the palladium in a nuclear reaction that produce excess heat.
        ``What he's saying is people were looking for the wrong reaction.
It's not a form of fusion but a form of nuclear reaction,'' Lidsky said.
        ``If it were true, it would explain a number of phenomena that are
puzzling,'' he said, adding: ``Can you use this to make power? Lord
knows.''
        Mayer is president of Mayer Applied Research Inc. in Ann Arbor. Reitz
is an Ann Arbor consultant who taught physics at Case Western Reserve
University from 1954 to 1965.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenclarinews cudfnROB cudlnEditor cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 01:41:12 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1991Apr25.212112.16324@athena.mit.edu> jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John
 S. Travis) writes:
>New Theory Suggests Cold Fusion May Be Real
 
 
A new theory? I'm sure the authors have spent the
past two years developing a model within existing
physics---they wont resort to any ridiculous sci fi speculation...
 
>John R. Reitz, suggests that the excess heat and other
>nuclear products detected in various cold fusion experiments
>are not the result of fusion, but instead a reaction
>involving an isotope switch.
 
Excellent, we understand isotopes, well within the real of
known physics...
 
>the Coulomb barrier
 
Yes, they must bridge that, but I'm sure they'll
do it convincingly...
 
 
>To perform this magic,
 
What? magic? hey wait---I thought this was physics....
 
>Mayer and Reitz has
>theorized a new class of particles they call hydrons
 
Oh, phew! what a relief. I was worried for a moment.
Of course, its the Hydrons! (slap forehead). How could I
have forgot about those.
 
Lets see if I can remember back to my undergraduate
nuclear phys class...
 
>a hydron is an unstable, compact neutral
>particle that sometimes occurs when an electron interacts
>with a proton. In effect, the electron and proton cancel
>each other out, creating a "virtual" neutron.
 
Yeah, thats a Hydron all right. Sure, thats the ticket!
Coulomb barrier here I come!
 
>"Compact object like this
>solve a lot of problem."
 
You better believe it---not to mention the problem of publishing
a CF paper...
 
>It is not just limited to explaining cold fusion
>phenomenon, but many other scientific puzzles.
 
no surprise---all the good new particles do!
 
>Brookhaven National
>Laboratory. Scientists there are studying a process known as
>Cluster Imapct Fusion in which they shoot deuterium atoms at
>titanium foil. Charged particles measured during the
>experiment appear to match one of the isotope reactions
>proposed by Mayer and Reitz.
 
yeah, good example (whats a few tens of orders of magnitude
between friends).
 
Well, Gee,  I'm totally reversing my opinion now that I realize I forgot
about the Hydrons. I guess I forgot that we
were trying to perform magic rather than achieve fusion! :-)
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 03:58:06 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1991Apr25.212112.16324@athena.mit.edu> jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John
 S. Travis) writes:
 
>New Theory Suggests Cold Fusion May Be Real
 
>by John Travis
 
Oh, by the way, thanks for the report John; I don't
asume you necessarily hold the same views as Mayer, but
you may want to use a disclaimer when you publish this :-)
 
 
>To perform this magic,
 
Now I know this is magic and all, so please excuse me for
trying to impose a little mundane old physics on their
incantations...
 
>Mayer and Reitz has
>theorized a new class of particles they call hydrons or
>virtual particles (the second name is avoided since it has
>been used for other atomic particles as well).
>According to Mayer, a hydron is an unstable, compact neutral
>particle that sometimes occurs when an electron interacts
>with a proton. In effect, the electron and proton cancel
>each other out
 
 
Ok, lets figure how often this could happen.
 
First, consider the formation of an isolated hydron. Its proton
electric field is shielded so that it only extends a distance
L, where L < bohr radius (the ``usual'' extent). Since this shielding
is simply supposed to be due to the electron being a distance L from
the proton (rephrase appropriately for QM picture), it will only
last for a time that goes like L/v, v = electron velocity. Since
v ~ c/100 we get it will only persist for t =100 L/c.
Thus we get the first principle of Hydron physics:
 
Principle 1:  a Hydron of size L has a lifetime of t ~ 100 L/c.
 
 
Also, since the wave function of the electron is roughly uniformly
spread over a bohr radius-sized region, the probability of finding
it in the L-sized region is just the ratio of the volumes, (L/bohr radius)^3.
(They don't seem to invoke any strange wavefunction magic, so I don't
see why this wouldn't hold).
Thus we get the second principle:
 
Principle 2; at a given time, in a large group of atoms, the probability
             that there is a Hydron of size L (or smaller) is (L/R_bohr)^3.
 
Now, all we need to do is to use the fundamental priciples
of hydrons to answer the following question:
 
Near room temperature, at what rate do Hydrons in a material get
undergo  nuclear interaction?
 
This is tricky, because the reaction rate will be a complicated function
of temperature and L, due to tunneling (i.e. the reaction will procede
by tunneling across L, with a little help from the temperature).
 
So, rather than estimate, lets use one empirical data point---namely
the reaction rate for muon catalyzed fusion, which is much like
the proposed hydron reaction (fusion of unusually compact
atoms).
 
The radius of the muonic atom is 1/200 of the normal radius, so this
gives us data for a L = (1/200)R_bohr Hydron. these guys, when
held next to eachother, spontaneously fuse in about a nanosecond
at 800 degrees C ( a bit hotter than room temperature, but lets
use it as an upper bound---things aren't quite as good at lower temps.)
 
From principle 2, the probabilty of finding such at a given time is 1/10^6.
 
So, how probable is it that two such hydrons will be adjacent for
1 nanosecond, long enough to interact? Let t = 100 L/c
be the lifetime, and imagine a clock that ticks of times ot size t;
every timestep all the atoms change their Hydron state. Each tick,
Suppose there are N atoms in our specimen: every tick there
will be N /10^6  L-Hydrons formed, and the number of adjacent ones
will be (N/10^6) * (1/10^6), due to their spatial frequency of occurence.
the odds that one of these pairs stays in the L-hydron state for the
next tick is (1/10^6)^2, and so on, tick after tick. So, the number of pairs
that will make it all the way to a nanosecond is:
 
N (1/10^12)^n
 
where n is the number of ticks in a nanosecond. Since t ~ 10^-15 sec, that is
10^6 steps, so the number of pairs that live long enough to get
a nuclear interaction is
 
N (1/10^12)^(10^6) per nanosecond.
 
Needless to say, this is an incredibly small number, and so you
wouldn't expect to ever observe such a thing.
 
In short, due to the extremely short hydron lifetime, the sustained
hydron reactions needed to give a nuclear reaction seem unlikely.
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.26 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 26 Apr 91 01:31:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

This "hydron" theory seems, at the very best, dubious.
 
One obvious problem is that no mechanism has been given for getting
rid of the energy from the supposed nuclear reactions.  This is
especially troublesome in the case of supposed tritium-producing
reactions.  In a (d,t) reaction on heavier atoms, the recoiling
tritium nucleus will carry off most of the energy.  The tritium will
have a fair chance of fusing with stationary deuterium atoms,
producing copious energetic neutrons.  I don't believe there are *any*
(d,t) reactions on stable isotopes that could leave the tritium with
little enough energy to prevent the creation of excessive secondary
radiation, although you should go back to the isotope tables to double
check.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.26 / Les Earnest /  Pennsylvania Company Claims It Has Solved Cold Fusion Mystery
     
Originally-From: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pennsylvania Company Claims It Has Solved Cold Fusion Mystery
Date: 26 Apr 91 02:01:00 GMT

[From Associated Press]
   SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A Pennsylvania company claims to have
solved the problem of reproducing a cold fusion reaction, but
scientists were skeptical.
   Mills Technologies of Lancaster, Pa., claims to have determined
a non-nuclear mechanism for the purported phenomenon reported at
the University of Utah two years ago.
   Most scientists have been unable to duplicate the results of the
Utah experiments.
   Mills attributes the effect to a previously unknown reaction in
which hydrogen atoms give up more energy than previously thought
possible.
   ``Basically, we have both the theoretical and practical aspects
solved,'' Mills' owner, Randell L. Mills, said in a telephone
interview Wednesday.
   He said the company has built cells that have produced up to 40
times as much energy as was put in.
   The cold fusion reaction was reported by University of Utah
researchers Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, but they were
wrong in their assumption that nuclear reactions were creating the
excess heat, Mills said.
   Under Mills' theory, the electrons in hydrogen atoms drop to
energy levels below what was thought to be the lowest level under
conventional quantum mechanics. Dropping to these lower levels
requires a release of energy as heat.
   Haven Bergeson, who directs the physics group for the National
Cold Fusion Institute at the University of Utah, said he was
unfamiliar with Mills and his work and could not comment on its
specifics.
   ``On the surface, it seems like an unlikely idea,'' Bergeson
said. ``It's a line of thinking that I don't think any of us have
followed.''
   John Huizenga, a University of Rochester nuclear chemist who
co-chaired the Department of Energy's cold-fusion review panel,
said he also knew nothing of the work, but thought it difficult to
take the claim seriously.
   Huizenga, who has previously said that cold fusion would require
``a succession of miracles,'' said Mills' work appears to be a case
of willingness to surrender a well-accepted and proven theory for
the sake of sketchy experimental evidence.
 
AP-NY-04-25-91 1322EDT-
**********
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenLES cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.26 / John Travis /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John S. Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 13:26:17 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Thanks for the second message b/c i don't think i should
be slammed for other's views, although i could be criticised
for the way I present them(ie "magic" but hey it's journalism)
 
Couple points: The MIT audience was generally receptive while
obviously skeptical. Peter Hagelstein, Larry Lidsky, and
members of the Plasma Fusion Center were there.
 
My understanding is that these are not hydron-hydron interaction, so
the probability you mention seems irrelevant. It is a between
a metal and one of these screened particles. It fact the screening
electron comes from the metal(Mayer says such events should
be evident in plasma b/c of the vailability of e- i believe).
 
So the questions seems 1) whether the hydron can exist at all
and 2) whether it can exist long enough to strip or pick
up the neutron from the metal. I don't know. I stopped with
most of an undergraduate physics degree at MIT, but i'm
our of my league.
 
as lidsky said in the UPI report, there's lots of speculation, but
testable speculation. so why ridicule Mayer et al, just b/c
this has been a ridiculous two years. give them a chance to fall
on their face. to be honest, i came out of the lecture saying
i just heard a bunch of garbage, or in a small chance heard
something that could win a Nobel. time will tell, not insults
 
at least things are fun again--right group :)
 
john travis
 
p.s. mayer estimated life of these particle at 12 to 19 nanoseconds(
he said very rough estimate)
 
p.p.s. i might be able to answer more ?, but i don't know what
details to tell me people
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjstravis cudfnJohn cudlnTravis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.26 / John Travis /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John S. Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 26 Apr 91 16:45:08 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(New --ok barry :) ) Theory Suggest Cold Fusion May Be Real
by John Travis
 
Perhaps rewakening a controversy which stunned the world
over two years ago, a Michigan physicist yesterday at MIT
presented a broad new theory that may explain the sporadic
and puzzling results of cold fusion experiments, as well
addressing other intriguing problems such as excess
planetary heat and the presence of tritium in volcanic
emissions.
In 1989, two Utah chemists shocked the scientific community
with their announcement of room-temperature
fusion-in-a-bottle. Attempts to duplicate the experiment
proved largely unsuccessful, prompting most researchers to
dimiss the original report and the few others that followed
as incorrect. Still, in the face of strong skepticism and
even disdain from the majority of physicists, a small band
of believers have continued to experiment and have reported
some unusual results.
Speaking before a small audience at a lecture sponsored by
MIT's Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Dr. Frederic J. Mayer,
a plasma physicist with his own company in Ann Arbor, MI,
detailed a paper, appearing in next month's issue of Fusion
Technology, that attempts to explain the experimental
inconsistencies that have been observed over the past 24
months .
Fusion, the process which powers the sun, has a number of
established pathways, the most common being the collison of
two hydrogen atoms which produces a helium atom and a burst
of energy, However, this new theory bypasses fusion
reactions and proposes a novel energy-producing nuclear
reaction that involves a new class of atomic particles not
yet directly detected.
Mayer's paper, co-authored with theoretical physicist Dr.
John R. Reitz, suggests that the excess heat and other
nuclear products detected in various cold fusion experiments
are not the result of fusion, but instead a reaction
involving an isotope switch. Isotopes are atoms that are
chemically identical, but have different numbers of
neutrons. For example, carbon has a number of isotopes. A
carbon atom may have twelve neutrons or thirteen, yet these
 
normal chemical ones.
An isotope that is stripped of a neutron, or picks ups one,
can often release energy. These reactions, which Mayer calls
Resonant Direct Nuclear Reactions, may be the explanation
for the cold fusion phenomenon, according to the new theory.
There are a number of these isotope reactions, many of them
occuring in metals that have been accused of contaminating
cold fusion experiments. Since the level of contamination
can vary widely, Mayer suggests this may be one explanation
for the inrreproducibity of many experiments.
"The primary nuclear actions are not the conventional d-d
fusion reactions, but are RDNRs," Mayer told the gathered
audience, "The contaminants are driving the system."
Mayer divides the RDNRs into two categories, tritium
producers and tritium consumers. Tritium is an extremely
rare isotope of the hydrogen atom which normally has a
single proton. Tritium, in addition to the positively
charged proton, has two extra neutrons in the nucleus and
has been accused of being another contaminant in the
experiments.
In Mayer's isotope switch, tritium is converted to
deuterium, another form of hydrogen that has a single
neutron plus the proton, or vice-versa. When tritium  is
transformed into deuterium, a freed neutron is available for
a metal atom, creating two isotopes switches overall. The
metal, perhaps platinum or uranium, can also lose a neutron,
allowing a deuterium atom to be converted to tritium. It is
the isotope switch in the metals that release the excess
energy.
While the process appears simple and obvious, there is an
obstacle most physicists thought prevented such nuclear
reactions--the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is similar to
the repulsion that magnets can have with each other and
occurs when particles of similar charge are brought
together. The tritium, or deuterium, must be very close to
the metal atoms before they can trade neutrons. Yet, the
positive proton is repulsed by the large number of similraly
charged protons in the metal atoms and the reactions are
prevented from occuring.
But, as Mayer explains in the most contoversial part of the
new theory, the proton in the the tritium or deuterium can
be neutralized, which allows the atoms to evade the Coulomb
barrier and procede with their resonant direct nuclear
reactions(RDNRs). To perform this magic, Mayer and Reitz has
theorized a new class of particles they call hydrons or
virtual particles (the second name is avoided since it has
been used for other atomic particles as well).
According to Mayer, a hydron is an unstable, compact neutral
particle that sometimes occurs when an electron interacts
with a proton. In effect, the electron and proton cancel
each other out, creating a "virtual" neutron. If the proton
in tritium can be neutralized in this way, the Coulumb
barrier would no longer be an impediment and the nuclear
reactions would occur.
However, these hydrons have not been directly observed and
many in the audience were unconvinced that such a
proton-electron interaction could exist. Mayer could offer
only indirect evidence for the hydrons, but pointed out they
provided the best explanation for the variety of
experimental data.
"Small compact object that are neutral appear from the data
to be in nature," said Mayer, "Compact object like this
solve a lot of problem."
The absence of certain helium isotopes and gamma radiation
have been key arguments against cold fusion proponents,
since the two are typically produced in the accepted fusion
pathways. However, the new theory offers numerous routes in
which no radiation would be expected, and none of the
reactions would produce helium.
This fact may help solve another, older mystery involving
the Earth itself. Only about half of the earth's interior
energy, geothermal heat, can be accounted for from
measurements of helium. Mayer suggested these new reactions
may account for the extra heat, as well as explaining why
the ratio of helium isotopes is different for geothermal
gases than the ratio found in the galaxy. Jupiter, which
emits twice as much heat as can be explained presently, is
another area where hydrons may be involved.
Observations of volcanic emissions have also found large
anounts of tritium, more than can be explained the normal
fusion rate at the volcanoe's temperature. Tritium-producing
RDNRs may explain the excess, according to Mayer. The broad
scope of the theory is one the reasons it is so attractive,
said Mayer. It is not just limited to explaining cold fusion
phenomenon, but many other scientific puzzles.
In fact, the strongest evidence for the new theory may come
from other fusion experiments at Brookhaven National
Laboratory. Scientists there are studying a process known as
Cluster Imapct Fusion in which they shoot deuterium atoms at
titanium foil. Charged particles measured during the
experiment appear to match one of the isotope reactions
proposed by Mayer and Reitz.
 
Another puzzle that may back-up the new theory is the the diffusivity of
hydrogen into metals. This is a well-recognized problem that embrittles the
metals. The hydrons, in addition to being neutral, would be extremely small and
could seep into metals much more effectively than similar atoms like oxygen or
nitrogen. Since the hydrons are short-lived, they would convert back("go
normal" in Mayers words) taking up a larger volume. And since the hydrons are
now inside the metal, this increase could cause cracking,  a possible
explanation for the metal's brittleness.
Mayer's audience at the lecture included Peter Hagelstein, a theoretician at
MIT who had provided one of the first possible explanations for cold fusion
almost two years ago. While intrigued with the new theory, Hagelstein was not
yet persuaded that hydrons could exist. The mathematical proof of them would be
difficult, he said.
Mayer agreed but pointed out one of the benefits of the hydron explanation was
a number of obvious experimental tests that could be done to either support or
contradict the theory. Repeating some of the cold fusion experiments, with
deliberate and controlled contamination of the metals, would be an excellent
start, according to Mayer.
Concluding his lecture, Mayer answered what he said was the most obvious
question--does the theory suggest a large scale nuclear energy source. While
refusing to speculate on the actual method, Mayer simply responded, "I think
there is.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjstravis cudfnJohn cudlnTravis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.26 / Bob Pendleton /  Hydrons and hydrogen diffusion?
     
Originally-From: bpendlet@bambam.dsd.es.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrons and hydrogen diffusion?
Date: 26 Apr 91 22:34:48 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Design Systems

It sounds like we are being told that hydrogen can spontaneously turn
into a compact particle called a hydron. If that statement is true
then it seems to me that a simulation of hydrogen diffusion through a
material that doesn't take into account the hydron state would give a
different answer than would an experiment or a simulation that does
take into account the hydron state. Is this a correct statement?
 
I'm sure experiments have been done to test the rate of diffusion of
hydrogen through many different materials. Have simulations of
hydrogen diffusion been done? If so, how do they match up with
experimental data? If the hydron hypothesis is correct then I would
expect all existing simulations to predict a diffusion rate lower than
the measured rate.
 
Anyone with access to the data want to fill us in on this? Any
physicists out there want to tell me why this test would be wrong?
 
		Curious
 
			Bob P.
 
 
--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
   bpendlet@dsd.es.com or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
 
                         Tools, not rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.26 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 22:33:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

What provides the energy required to localize the electron in a D nucleus
(to form the 'hydron')?.
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.29 / Heiner Biesel /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: biesel@thrall.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 29 Apr 91 15:02:32 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT

In article <3116@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
ijameson@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Iain Jameson) writes:
...various repeats...
>
>I'm real.
>
>A parody? In what way? It was not a parody.
>
 
Well, I think it was, amd so do several others who read it; perhaps if the
author could step forward and address the question your mind could be set
at ease. Real RAVINGS are NOT that CONSISTENTLY and THOROUGHLY inconsistent.
They are ALSO not that FUNNY!?
 
>How have I embarassed myself?
>
>Am I the only person here who gets annoyed when utter morons waste
>space by posting juvenile stories.
 
No you are not; I, for one, am getting annoyed at the lack of humor and
tolerance displayed by some posts.
 
>
>Am I the only person here with a science degree (or more)?
 
Aww, come on, gratuitous insults at the readership of this net are really
uncalled for.
 
>
>Am I the only person here who gets pissed off by people abusing
>science?
>
>I see no reason to be polite to these sort of people, or their
>defenders!
>
>Well, enough of my bitching. Hopefully we will now get back to
>some real fusion posts.
>
>Iain Jameson.
 
Iain, please consider the possibility of having misinterpreted a humorous post
for the ramblings of a lunatic. In that vein, please review your posts,
and responses to your posts. 'Nuff said. :-)
 
Heiner biesel@taurus.sim.es.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbiesel cudfnHeiner cudlnBiesel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.29 / Mickey Rowe /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 29 Apr 91 15:09:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <3116@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
 ijameson@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Iain Jameson) writes:
}In article <1991Apr29.023252.21509@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
 
}> Iain, it was also obvious to me that Mr. Houle's posting was *parody*.
}>
}> [ I am asuming that "Iain Jameson" is a real person, although
}>   the idea that someone could so dreadfully embarass themselves
}>   in this way is, to say the least, discomforting. ]
}>
}>
}>       Paul F. Dietz
}>       dietz@cs.rochester.edu
}
}I'm real.
}
}A parody? In what way? It was not a parody.
}
}How have I embarassed myself?
 
I fear that you are continuing to embarass yourself by not stepping
back, taking a deep breath, and rereading the post that got you so
riled up.  It seemed pretty clear to me that it was a parody as well.
I even thought it was a little bit funny.
 
}Am I the only person here who gets annoyed when utter morons waste
}space by posting juvenile stories.
 
No, but if you want to rant and rave about these things read
talk.origins and rail at Ted Holden.  He appears to be serious...
 
}Am I the only person here with a science degree (or more)?
 
No.
 
}Am I the only person here who gets pissed off by people abusing
}science?
 
No, but the person that you were responding to was not doing so.  You
seem to be the only person that thinks he was.
 
}I see no reason to be polite to these sort of people, or their
}defenders!
 
Perhaps "no reason" would be a bit harsh even if the poster was
serious?
 
} Hopefully we will now get back to
}some real fusion posts.
 
Ok, but the next time you see something so outrageous try a little bit
harder to accept that the person could be joking...
 
}Iain Jameson.
 
Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrowe cudfnMickey cudlnRowe cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.30 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 460 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 460 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1991 19:07:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello goodlife,
 
better send this off; who knows when I'll get the chance to do more. One Dr.
Peter Glueck of Roumania pointed out the Russian book to me; it's interesting
in carrying the story up to June, 1989; a short story, you might say, and it's
only 64 pp long. This reminds me: those of you reading Russian papers in
translation will come across the phrase "nuclear synthesis"; the translator
most often is not a specialist and doesn't know that in Russian "fusion" is
called "sintez", and so mistranslates the word.
 Gozzi et al find for cold fusion, having detected a single neutron burst with
their dosimeter, and having found 10**1 tritium atoms afterwards. This is
10**(-12) mol or so, and presumably well within the contamination level of
heavy water, so one is not entirely convinced here. Rout et al also find T,
in the surface layer of Ti bombarded by a deuterium plasma beam. They reckon
this is more than ought to be there, so it must have come from cold fusion.
 For those of you who don't know the name, Vielstich is a very well respected
electrochemist from way back. I am usually critical of experiments using a
single neutron detector, and this is what the Vielstich team did. The point
is, however, that a single detector will often produce spurious signals which
people then might call evidence of cold fusion. If it detects nothing, then
neither spurious nor cold fusion neutrons were around. So yes, I am justified
in accepting negative results from a single neutron detector, as in this case.
The Wand paper looks at several possibilities for cold fusion, and knocks them
down one after the other. Non e possibile, says Wang.
 The comment-type papers explain themselves. Close and Fleischmann lock horns
and we are warned of yet another book. I hear that Mallove is a TB, so that
one will try to be a counterweight to Close's.
More soon, I hope.
                                                                     Dieter.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 30-Apr. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 460.
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuzmin RN, Shvilkin BN;
"Cold Nuclear Fusion"         (Orig.: "Kholodnij Yadernij Sintez")
Znanie, Moscow 1989, 64 pp. In Russian.
** Description of the cold fusion saga up to June 1989.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gozzi D, Cignini PL, Petrucci L, Tomellini M, De Maria G, Frullani S,
Garibaldi F, Ghio F, Jodice M, Tabet E;         J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 241.
"Nuclear and thermal effects during electrolytic reduction of deuterium at
palladium cathode".
** Used a sintered Pd cathode and measured its temperature, but did no other
calorimetry. Neutron and gamma emissions were monitored. The cell was switched
off upon reaching 80 degC. A (3)He dosimeter was used for neutron detection,
up to 7 MeV, with an efficiency of 5E-05. Gamma detection was by means of a
NaI crystal connected to a SILENA spectrum analyser. Deuterium charging took
place in a series of bursts of increasing length. At the onset of such a
burst, there was a temperature rise of the cathode followed, upon current
cessation, by a slow drop. This pattern changed gradually due to increasing
D/Pd ratio. At one point, there was a temperature spike and a neutron burst at
the same time; the authors conclude from this single event that cold fusion
had taken place. At the end of the paper, a tritium excess of 2E11 atoms is
mentioned.                                                            ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rout RK, Srinivasan M, Shyam A, Chitra V;       Fusion Technol. 19 (1990) 391.
"Detection of high tritium activity on the central titanium electrode of a
plasma focus device".
** This team loaded a Ti cylinder in a vaccum chamber with deuterium from a
plasma beam. They then measured the near-surface tritium content of the rod,
and find more tritium there than can be accounted for, they say, by the
fusion reaction due to the plasma, or by impurities in the D2 gas used.
Therefore, they say, it was produced by a cold fusion process.   Sep-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vielstich W, Iwasita T, von Buttlar H, Farzin K, Uebelguenn K;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 303 (1991) 211.
"Search for neutrons from controlled deuterium concentrations in palladium".
** Basically, a FPH(89) experiment with careful neutron detection, and using a
cell divided with a membrane, so that the evolved gases do not mix (why is not
everybody doing this, being standard electrochemistry?). Three separate cells
were used, the cathodes being rather thin Pd plates, which can be fully
charged in a conveniently short time. Loading was measured by reversing the
current and integrating it. Some deuterium is lost as bubbles but results
indicate that a loading of about 0.85 was achieved. Neutrons were measured
with a single high-efficiency (43% at 2.5 MeV) NE-213 detector; pulse-shape
discrimination separated neutron from gamma detection very well. Shielding was
by 44 cm block of paraffin (more for the second experiment); the authors note
that metals like Pb or Fe lower the gamma background, but raise that of
neutrons. The three experiments gave three different upper limits for the cold
fusion rate; the best of these, with the largest Pd cathode and the heaviest
shielding, gave about 1E-25 fus/s/pair, or about 1/50 that claimed by
Jones+(89).                                                      Aug-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wang R;                            Commun. Theor. Phys. (China) 13 (1990) 549.
"Remarks on the possibility of cold fusion".
** Looks at some possible explanations. The suggested (4)He + gamma branch is
dismissed, because the fusion reaction takes place within a space about 1E-13
cm across, so the Pd atoms, with their 1E-08 cm spacing, cannot affect it;
the usual neutron/proton branch is expected. This is supported by some
quantitative theory. Another explanation is the group of solid state, plasma,
nonequilibrium thermal and electrochemical effects. None of these will do.
Nor can Thomas-Fermi screening help. Palladium crystal dislocations might do
it but only with the help of a new screening effect. Finally, heavy electrons
might do it, but where are they to come from, except as muons? Wang concludes
that cold fusion is not possible without muons.                      Feb-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Comment, news
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anon.;                               Science 251 (1990) 1415 (22 March issue).
"Cold fusion: battle of the books".
** Brief mention of the fact that Frank Close's book will be out (in the US)
in May, and that there is another one on the way, by Eugene Mallove, evidently
favourable to cold fusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close F;                     New Scientist 130 (1991) 12 (issue 1765, 20-Apr).
"Frank Close replies".
** Reply to Fleischmann's commment on the same page (heading: Talking Point).
The issue is the story of the gamma peak in the original FPH(89) paper, which
FC is trying to explain.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleischmann M;               New Scientist 130 (1991) 12 (issue 1765, 20-Apr).
"Cold fusion: reply to critics".
** Fleischmann commments on Frank Close's statements with respect to the gamma
peak in the FPH(89) paper. This peak was later shifted and deformed, and the
circumstances surrounding this are obscure. FC has pointed out the confusion,
and MF here writes that the change was simply due to a different kind of
interpolation, and that FC has not looked at the literature properly.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Briand J-P;          Recherche 21 (1990) 1282 (issue 225, Oct-90;  in French).
"'Cold' fusion eighteen months later".
** A brief skeptical review of the cold fusion affair, with 15 references.
The difficulties of weak radiation measurement and calorimetry are pointed
out, and the fact that physicists are generally skeptical.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Published articles peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iyer RN, Pickering HW;                   Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 20 (1990) 299.
"Mechanism and kinetics of electrochemical hydrogen entry and degradation of
metallic systems"
** A large review with 177 references. Hydrogen embrittlement has been a
concern of metallurgists for a long time. The basic electrochemcial and
chemical processes of entry of hydrogen into the metal are discussed here.
This should be read by cold fusion experimenters.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.28 / Curtis Yarvin /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 28 Apr 91 23:09:39 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science

In article <3108@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
 ijameson@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Iain Jameson) writes:
|In article <1991Apr24.012523.23402@nmt.edu> pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
 writes:
|> In article <8757@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
|>>What, if anything, are you aware of in relation to a Philadelphia or Project
|>>Rainbow or Project Pheonix as might be related to Dr. John Levinson in a
 group
|>
|
|As far as I can find out, Dr Levinson does not exist!
|Benno Eichmann argues that he is not famous, or known, because
|of a secrecy conspiracy! Then again, Benno has been writing
|articles that can only be considered the works of a very
|strange mind.
|
|>       As I told the good DOCTOR long ago,  the PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT was
|> a SUCCESFUL TEST of EINSTEIN'S unified FIELD equations.  All matter and
 energy
|
|No such thing as Einstein's unifield field equations.
|I suggest the writers of such articles get themselves an
|education before writing obvious garbage. It should not take
|more than five years.
|
|> are all manifestations of a COSMOLOGICAL influence mediated through the
|> MULTIPLEX SCALAR field.  EINSTEIN wrote about his equations in 1932,  BUT
|> he renounced his work because HE was AFRAID of the CONSEQUENCES that this
|> knowledge WOULD have on mankind.  Do you know that the ATOMIC BOMB is a lie
|> that has been told to the public to keep us from knowing the TRUTH?  The REAL
|> weapon is a multiplexed spatial howitzer that opens a SPACE-TIME gateway
|> between the core of the SUN and AS MANY AS 512 (in newer models) TARGET
|> points,  causing COMPLETE DEVESTATION.  Nuclear detonation was proved
|> impossible by N. TESLA in 1915;  Nuclear POWER is a LIE,  a retrograde form
|> of ENERGY caused by the accelerated NATURAL DECAY of matter.  The real
|> principle of the MANHATTAN DEVICE (Named because it is buried underneath
|> the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING) designed by ALBERT einstein which destroyed the
|> CITY of hiroshima would lead to unlimited 'free' energy -- Which could be
|> tapped off any hyperspatial TANGENT line,  derived from the CONSTANT PROCESS
|> OF CREATION OF MATTER in the interstellar medium.
|>
|
|Very nice. Nuclear power is a lie. Now, if any statement can be used
|to prove the presence of a warped mind, this is it.
|But there is more ...
|
|>
|>       My COLLEGUE Dr. JOHN LEVINSON developed HIS solutions of the UNIFIED
|> FIELD EQUATIONS in 1939.  As such,  ROTATING MAGNETIC FIELDS can create a
|
|As I said above, I could find no reference to Dr Levinson or his
|time equations.
|
|> local STREAMING of the space-time CONTINUM,  which was tested in a secret
|
|Rotating magnetic fields create a local streaming of the space-time
|continuum. Wow, the ol' local space-time continuum must realy be
|stuffed up by now, considering all the rotating magnetic fields
|there are in the universe.
|
|> series of experiments done underneath the BERMUDA TRIANGLE in 1940.  The
|> OTHER end of the TEMPORAL VORTEX that we created has SKIPPED in time from
|> 1903 and will continue to do so until 2011.  It TOSSED five AMERICAN BOMBERS,
|> killing the crew from the effects of TIME SHEAR forward in time from 1945 to
|> 1989,  when one was DISCOVERED underneath the OCEAN.  Another was FOUND ON
|> THE MOON by apollo astronauts.  The Levinson TIME equations can be
 transformed
|> using the method invented by myself and DR.  TOWNSEND BROWN to a set of SPACE
|> equations which allow for instanteous translation of MATTER through SPACE.
|> (Gene Rodenberry DESIGNED the TRANSPORTER for the syndicated program STAR
|> TREK in order to PREPARE the public for the concept of INSTANTEOUS
|> TELEPORTATION that was first successfully tested on AN american DESTROYER
|> called the ELDRIDGE.  More on that later)  ALSO,  using the result of EMILY
|> NOETHER,  instanteous translation is EQUIVALENT to reactionless propulsion;
|
|Using a result of Emily Noether. Why is it that all the results come
|from people who are dead?
|What result? Do you know who Noether is?
|This post is full of words, but empty of information.
|
|The rest of the post has been deleted. It's as bad as the above.
|
|How is it possible that people like the author of the above post
|exist? How could the education system fail us so badly?
|
|The post was pure fantasy. One wonders if it is somehow possible
|to have these people removed from the net. Benno has writtn a
|number of articles which are like the above. I hate to suggest it,
|but the net would be a better place without him and his wasteful
|posts.
|
|Iain Jameson.
 
This is my favorite posting of the century.
 
When asked to describe it, the expression "hook, line, and sinker" turns
belly up, chokes, and dies of an inadequately repressed inferiority complex.
 
"Hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, bait can, tacklebox, livewell, outboard,
lifejacket, seat cushions, fisherman, and boat" might suit the task better.
 
Truly, Iain Jameson is the Great White Shark of Straight Men.
 
Curtis
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencgy cudfnCurtis cudlnYarvin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.29 / Curtis Yarvin /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 29 Apr 91 02:25:17 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science

In article <3112@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
 bjameson@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Bruce Jameson) writes:
>
>Dear Wanker
>
>You obviously have no idea.
>These people believe what they write.
 
Actually, Benno Schmidt is a 24-karat genuine kook.  But Paul Houle is a New
Mexico physics student who posts many well-reasoned and intelligent articles
to this and other newsgroups.
 
>It is also an extreme waste of space.
 
You obviously get your Usenet feed by outrigger canoe from the Galapagos.
For the rest of us, space is pretty cheap; enough worthless trash is posted
on Usenet. Anything funny is rare, and it's good to see it in any newsgroup.
 
>Grow up fool.
 
Relax, Bruce.
 
Curtis
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencgy cudfnCurtis cudlnYarvin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.27 / rolfe petschek /  Re: Hydrons and hydrogen diffusion?
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrons and hydrogen diffusion?
Date: 27 Apr 91 13:53:39 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1991Apr26.223448.18487@dsd.es.com> bpendlet@dsd.es.com writes:
>It sounds like we are being told that hydrogen can spontaneously turn
>into a compact particle called a hydron. If that statement is true
>then it seems to me that a simulation of hydrogen diffusion through a
>material that doesn't take into account the hydron state would give a
>different answer than would an experiment or a simulation that does
>take into account the hydron state.
 
Unfortunately diffusion is a rather difficult thing to calculate - it
depends rather sensitively on the energy of the hydrogen nucleus in various
places in the solid - generally rather sensitively.  As precise
calculations of these energies are difficult with precision it is hard
to suppose that this will yeild useful bounds on the number of
'hydrons'.
 
Useful bounds on the number of hydrons come, I think, from the following
reasoning.  If hydrons form some force *other* than the forces known to
cause interactions between protons and electrons (weak and
electro-magnetic) must be important as these known forces are also known
not to cause hydron formation.  This force, from what we know of quantum
field theory must be mediated by a particle which, additionally can not
be too large a composite (to make for close hydron bounding) or to
massive (to make for a sufficiently strong force to bind hydrons). If
such a particle existed it would have been discovered rather long ago,
either in, say proton-electron scattering or the rather detailed and
extremely precise measurements of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom (to
be precise that of the proton and electron).  These are both relatively
simple to calculate and measure, the latter with very great precision
(after some corrections for the (measured) form factor for the proton).  It
seems to me at first sight unimaginable that there can be a force
consistent with these well-known and rather old measurements, relatively
primitive ideas of quantum mechanics and hydrons.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-2623
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrpetsche cudfnrolfe cudlnpetschek cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.29 /   /   How do you stop it?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  How do you stop it?
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1991 23:35:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Any theory that is proposed to make the transfer of neutrons into the
various hydrogen isotopes "easy" has to also provide some magic switch
to prevent the process of happening all the time, everywhere, which would
of course screw-up all that we have come to know and love about the
physics of hydrogen in metals.  The new "hydron" theory as reported from
MIT hints that the process is controlled by impurities, but do they
tell us which impurities and what their role is?  What everyone on
this net should know by now is that hydrogen (including deuterium and
tritium) is common ingredient of most metals under all levels of
stated purity and refinement.  Given the ammounts of hydrogen that
are thus exposed to the possibility of neutron transfer via the
"hydron" mechanism, the abundances of deuterium and tritium on the
earth should be strongly influenced by this mechanism there will
have to be a major rethinking as to what fixes the relative isotopic
abundances.  In a nut shell why isn't there just skads and skads of
tritium around and why don't we see the effects of hydrons in all
the many applications in which hydrogen or deuterium to deliberately
put into metals in molar quantities.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL        "I disclaim all knowledge of anything said in the above
             transmission."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Pennsylvania Company Claims It Has Solved Cold Fusion Mystery
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Company Claims It Has Solved Cold Fusion Mystery
Date: 27 Apr 91 16:59:06 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>[From Associated Press]
>   Under Mills' theory, the electrons in hydrogen atoms drop to
>energy levels below what was thought to be the lowest level under
>conventional quantum mechanics. Dropping to these lower levels
>requires a release of energy as heat.
 
If I understand this, it sounds like a mechanism with which to
reverse entrophy.  That is to say, hydrogen electrons would have
(or pick up) normal orbital energies from environmental thermal
agitation.  They would then be cycled through a Mills-O-Matic,
give up that energy as heat, and then be exhausted in their lower
energy state, where they'd again pick up thermal energy.
 
An entrophy reversing heat pump.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Pennsylvania Company Claims It Has Solved Cold Fusion Mystery
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Company Claims It Has Solved Cold Fusion Mystery
Date: 27 Apr 91 17:08:09 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In article <1991Apr27.165906.1699@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>>[From Associated Press]
>>   Under Mills' theory, the electrons in hydrogen atoms drop to
>>energy levels below what was thought to be the lowest level under
>>conventional quantum mechanics. Dropping to these lower levels
>>requires a release of energy as heat.
>
>If I understand this, it sounds like a mechanism with which to
>reverse entrophy.  That is to say, hydrogen electrons would have
>(or pick up) normal orbital energies from environmental thermal
>agitation.  They would then be cycled through a Mills-O-Matic,
>give up that energy as heat, and then be exhausted in their lower
>energy state, where they'd again pick up thermal energy.
>
>An entrophy reversing heat pump.
 
Oops, it'd only be entrophy reversing if it could sustain itself.
I was too hasty.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.27 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Pennsylvania Company Claims It Has Solved Cold Fusion Mystery
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Company Claims It Has Solved Cold Fusion Mystery
Date: 27 Apr 91 21:22:28 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

>>   Under Mills' theory, the electrons in hydrogen atoms drop to
>>energy levels below what was thought to be the lowest level under
>>conventional quantum mechanics. Dropping to these lower levels
>>requires a release of energy as heat.
 
Actually, since a lower energy state should result in a smaller atom
(= Hydron), it sounds like the Mills theory would yield similar
results to a hydron theory---i.e. that the compacted atoms would get
close enough to undergo nuclear reactions. (Mill wants to use
the transition energy of going to the compacted state as the
energy source---but he neglects that this compacted state would probably
result in substantial nuclear reactions).
 
Disclaimer: I doubt either theory has much relevance, since we still
have yet to see a reproducible experiment for the phenomena in question!
 
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.28 / Scott Cromar /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 28 Apr 91 02:29:39 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1991Apr26.033535.1068@athena.mit.edu> jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John
 S. Travis) writes:
 
> here's the UPI version....
 
> a form of
> water that has an extra hydrogen atom.
 
I KNEW there was a reason why they called it "heavy water."
 
8-)
--
--Scott Cromar (cromar@math.rutgers.edu) "The Militant Moderate"
"Country music is basically like Greek mythology: Love, sex,
disfunctional relationships and big birds picking at your liver."
--Roger Miller
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencromar cudfnScott cudlnCromar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.30 / Terry Bollinger /  A Michigan joke?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Michigan joke?
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1991 19:09:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On 26 Apr 91 16:45:08 GMT jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John S. Travis) wrote:
 
> Speaking before a small audience at a lecture sponsored by
> MIT's Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Dr. Frederic J. Mayer,
> a plasma physicist with his own company in Ann Arbor, MI,
> detailed a paper, appearing in next month's issue of Fusion
> Technology, that attempts to explain the experimental
> inconsistencies that have been observed over the past 24
> months.
...
> According to Mayer, a hydron is an unstable, compact neutral
> particle that sometimes occurs when an electron interacts
> with a proton. In effect, the electron and proton cancel
> each other out, creating a "virtual" neutron. If the proton
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> in tritium can be neutralized in this way, the Coulumb
> barrier would no longer be an impediment and the nuclear
> reactions would occur.
 
Despite my own rather, ah, unusual entry a week an a half ago,
this little flap over *virtual neutrons* (!!) has left my jaw
hanging.  For those of you who don't keep archives on alt.fusion,
I first proposed virtual neutrons a little less than two years ago
-- as part of a rather weak *joke*.
 
The subject of that email was the First Annual F&P Memorial
Chocolate Quiz, in which I offered to five (or was it ten?)
pounds of chocolate to the best quantum theory entry for how
chemical reactions might lead to nuclear results.  Using an
extremely similar description of how an electron might briefly
"forget" that it did not have enough energy (mass) to do so,
I suggested as a starting point the idea of a virtual neutron
(I even used the same words, although I believe it was in a
different order) as a starting point for people who wanted
to take a go at the chocolate.
 
The prize was later won by Dr. Hagelstein for his rather flimsy
theory of "coherent weak forces" -- a marvelously self-
contradictory phrase for events at the atomic level.  He
never claimed his prize, though, so perhaps Dr. Mayer is hoping
to recieve the actual chocolate (somewhat belatedly!)
 
If you want to see a wee little bit of exposition as to why
the "virtual neutron" theory has some, ah, *problems*, I suggest
that someone dig out an alt.fusion submission I once did called
"A POX ON VIRTUAL NEUTRONS!"  Anyone tempted to take virtual
neutrons seriously might want to take a long, careful look at
that letter before sticking their necks out *too* far.  The spin
conservation problem alone is enough to make the idea quite
useless.  (In case you were wondering:  Yes, I can afford to
stick my neck out -- this is nothing more than a hobby for me,
not a career.)
 
I must admit, however, that I was delighted to see people come
to the virtual defense of my new model by basing their own "new"
theory on the same idea I used in a rather poor joke I made two
years ago.  If some folks the same ideas found in my *jokes* this
seriously, I can only assume that they will be simply delighted
when they see my latest (and quite serious) entry.
 
			Cheers,
			Terry
 
 
P.S. -- I LOVED Paul HOULE'S latest entry, which PLACES the WHOLE
        THING in it's proper MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SUPERMARKET CHECK-
        OUT LINE PERSPECTIVE, DON'T you AGREE!?!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.28 / Iain Jameson /  A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain Jameson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 28 Apr 91 22:02:56 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, South Australia

In article <1991Apr24.012523.23402@nmt.edu> pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
 writes:
> In article <8757@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>>What, if anything, are you aware of in relation to a Philadelphia or Project
>>Rainbow or Project Pheonix as might be related to Dr. John Levinson in a group
>
 
As far as I can find out, Dr Levinson does not exist!
Benno Eichmann argues that he is not famous, or known, because
of a secrecy conspiracy! Then again, Benno has been writing
articles that can only be considered the works of a very
strange mind.
 
>       As I told the good DOCTOR long ago,  the PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT was
> a SUCCESFUL TEST of EINSTEIN'S unified FIELD equations.  All matter and energy
 
No such thing as Einstein's unifield field equations.
I suggest the writers of such articles get themselves an
education before writing obvious garbage. It should not take
more than five years.
 
> are all manifestations of a COSMOLOGICAL influence mediated through the
> MULTIPLEX SCALAR field.  EINSTEIN wrote about his equations in 1932,  BUT
> he renounced his work because HE was AFRAID of the CONSEQUENCES that this
> knowledge WOULD have on mankind.  Do you know that the ATOMIC BOMB is a lie
> that has been told to the public to keep us from knowing the TRUTH?  The REAL
> weapon is a multiplexed spatial howitzer that opens a SPACE-TIME gateway
> between the core of the SUN and AS MANY AS 512 (in newer models) TARGET
> points,  causing COMPLETE DEVESTATION.  Nuclear detonation was proved
> impossible by N. TESLA in 1915;  Nuclear POWER is a LIE,  a retrograde form
> of ENERGY caused by the accelerated NATURAL DECAY of matter.  The real
> principle of the MANHATTAN DEVICE (Named because it is buried underneath
> the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING) designed by ALBERT einstein which destroyed the
> CITY of hiroshima would lead to unlimited 'free' energy -- Which could be
> tapped off any hyperspatial TANGENT line,  derived from the CONSTANT PROCESS
> OF CREATION OF MATTER in the interstellar medium.
>
 
Very nice. Nuclear power is a lie. Now, if any statement can be used
to prove the presence of a warped mind, this is it.
But there is more ...
 
>
>       My COLLEGUE Dr. JOHN LEVINSON developed HIS solutions of the UNIFIED
> FIELD EQUATIONS in 1939.  As such,  ROTATING MAGNETIC FIELDS can create a
 
As I said above, I could find no reference to Dr Levinson or his
time equations.
 
> local STREAMING of the space-time CONTINUM,  which was tested in a secret
 
Rotating magnetic fields create a local streaming of the space-time
continuum. Wow, the ol' local space-time continuum must realy be
stuffed up by now, considering all the rotating magnetic fields
there are in the universe.
 
> series of experiments done underneath the BERMUDA TRIANGLE in 1940.  The
> OTHER end of the TEMPORAL VORTEX that we created has SKIPPED in time from
> 1903 and will continue to do so until 2011.  It TOSSED five AMERICAN BOMBERS,
> killing the crew from the effects of TIME SHEAR forward in time from 1945 to
> 1989,  when one was DISCOVERED underneath the OCEAN.  Another was FOUND ON
> THE MOON by apollo astronauts.  The Levinson TIME equations can be transformed
> using the method invented by myself and DR.  TOWNSEND BROWN to a set of SPACE
> equations which allow for instanteous translation of MATTER through SPACE.
> (Gene Rodenberry DESIGNED the TRANSPORTER for the syndicated program STAR
> TREK in order to PREPARE the public for the concept of INSTANTEOUS
> TELEPORTATION that was first successfully tested on AN american DESTROYER
> called the ELDRIDGE.  More on that later)  ALSO,  using the result of EMILY
> NOETHER,  instanteous translation is EQUIVALENT to reactionless propulsion;
 
Using a result of Emily Noether. Why is it that all the results come
from people who are dead?
What result? Do you know who Noether is?
This post is full of words, but empty of information.
 
The rest of the post has been deleted. It's as bad as the above.
 
How is it possible that people like the author of the above post
exist? How could the education system fail us so badly?
 
The post was pure fantasy. One wonders if it is somehow possible
to have these people removed from the net. Benno has writtn a
number of articles which are like the above. I hate to suggest it,
but the net would be a better place without him and his wasteful
posts.
 
Iain Jameson.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenijameson cudfnIain cudlnJameson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.29 / Iain Jameson /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain Jameson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 29 Apr 91 01:26:49 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, South Australia

In article <73789@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
 
My Stuff Deleted
 
>
> This is my favorite posting of the century.
>
> When asked to describe it, the expression "hook, line, and sinker" turns
> belly up, chokes, and dies of an inadequately repressed inferiority complex.
>
> "Hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, bait can, tacklebox, livewell, outboard,
> lifejacket, seat cushions, fisherman, and boat" might suit the task better.
>
> Truly, Iain Jameson is the Great White Shark of Straight Men.
>
> Curtis
 
Dear Wanker
 
You obviously have no idea.
These people believe what they write.
It is also an extreme waste of space.
 
Iain Jameson is a person who is sick to death of
idiots using the net to abuse science.
I am also sick of people who post their pesonal
fantasy's as legitimate works of science.
 
Grow up fool.
 
Iain Jameson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenijameson cudfnIain cudlnJameson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.29 / Paul Dietz /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 29 Apr 91 02:32:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

>> "Hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, bait can, tacklebox, livewell, outboard,
>> lifejacket, seat cushions, fisherman, and boat" might suit the task better.
>>
>> Truly, Iain Jameson is the Great White Shark of Straight Men.
 
"Iain Jameson" writes:
 
>Dear Wanker
  [ it goes downhill from there ]
 
Iain, it was also obvious to me that Mr. Houle's posting was *parody*.
 
Perhaps you could also use a politeness transplant when you have your
sense of humor installed?
 
[ I am asuming that "Iain Jameson" is a real person, although
  the idea that someone could so dreadfully embarass themselves
  in this way is, to say the least, discomforting. ]
 
Followups to /dev/null.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.29 / Iain Jameson /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain Jameson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 29 Apr 91 04:07:24 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, South Australia

In article <1991Apr29.023252.21509@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>> "Hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, bait can, tacklebox, livewell, outboard,
>>> lifejacket, seat cushions, fisherman, and boat" might suit the task better.
>>>
>>> Truly, Iain Jameson is the Great White Shark of Straight Men.
>
> "Iain Jameson" writes:
>
>>Dear Wanker
>   [ it goes downhill from there ]
>
> Iain, it was also obvious to me that Mr. Houle's posting was *parody*.
>
> Perhaps you could also use a politeness transplant when you have your
> sense of humor installed?
>
> [ I am asuming that "Iain Jameson" is a real person, although
>   the idea that someone could so dreadfully embarass themselves
>   in this way is, to say the least, discomforting. ]
>
> Followups to /dev/null.
>
>       Paul F. Dietz
>       dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
I'm real.
 
A parody? In what way? It was not a parody.
 
How have I embarassed myself?
 
Am I the only person here who gets annoyed when utter morons waste
space by posting juvenile stories.
 
Am I the only person here with a science degree (or more)?
 
Am I the only person here who gets pissed off by people abusing
science?
 
I see no reason to be polite to these sort of people, or their
defenders!
 
Well, enough of my bitching. Hopefully we will now get back to
some real fusion posts.
 
Iain Jameson.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenijameson cudfnIain cudlnJameson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.30 / Paul Houle /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 30 Apr 91 02:40:53 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

 
	Yeah,  it was a joke -- and his response was even better!  I mean,
it was a classic,  because I couldn't believe that ANYONE would be stupid
enough to fall for it.  I mean really,  "The second test wasn't done on the
Eldridge,  but it was done instead on a large rubber raft.";  I basically
stole little bits of pseudoscience from the National Enquirer,  and UFO
books,  and other wacky books and added a few things that I though up
(like the part about the rubber raft.)
 
	But,  honesly,  just as cops and robbers have the same mentality,
and hackers and computer-security-obsessives,  so do the people who really
believe this kind of pseudoscience and the people who rail against it really
show alot of the same personality characteristics.
 
	Certain kinds of paranoid shizophrenics invent perpetual motion
machines and unified field theories and stuff like that all the time.  And
most of these people,  funny enough,  don't have any sense of humor,  and
they take everything you say seriously.  And I've met some of these people,
and called a few others (like Joe Newmann) on the phone.  They are the
best victims in the world to make prank calls to (just tape the call so
your friends can laugh about it too) (What is your phone # Ian?)
 
	Just keep posting Ian,  you're cracking the rest of us up.
 
--
AngstCon '91 in Socorro, NM -------------------------------------------------
Sometime in the fall of 1991.  Email pahsnsr@jupiter.nmt.edu;  Are you Happy?
AngstCon can fix that or your money back.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpahsnsr cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / Scott Mueller /  Finally!  ConFusion...
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Finally!  ConFusion...
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 06:19:03 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

Finally, after waiting what seemed like forever, _ConFusion in a Jar_ aired
in my area.  Nova (or whomever) took the opportunity created by the delay
in airing the show to insert a short CNF update during one of the segments,
that came up to March 1991.
 
At long last, I got to see for myself whether the fusion archives I sent to
the BBC in 1989 were incorporated into the program.  The answer is a definite
yes, as I scrutinized a message header, and saw the format Zorch puts into the
Fusion Digest.  I was slightly irked that I was not credited at the end of the
show, but am still quite satisfied knowing that the material that I provided
was used.
 
It was very interesting to actually *see* all of these people.  I have
followed the CNF affair almost entirely from Usenet, with a few newspaper
stories thrown in for good measure.  I encountered no surprises in terms of
factual material, a definite plus in the Net's favor, though of course the
same cannot be said for people's appearances or voices.
 
All in all, as I just noted, there were no factual surprises for a devoted
CNF watcher.  The material was presented in a coherent manner, with very
little sensationalism.  I'd rate it a must-view for sci.physics.fusion and
Fusion Digest readers.
 
[An aside to Terry Bollinger - I haven't been able to get mail back to you
regarding your s.p.f submissions; please supply me an alternate mail path
for replies.]
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller | scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott
SF-Bay.ORG is a Bay Area Usenet Domain | Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Park; write for information on joining | for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests
SF-Bay Public-Access Unix 408-996-7358/61/78/86 login newuser password public
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.30 / Iain Jameson /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain Jameson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 30 Apr 91 09:52:12 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, South Australia

In article <1991Apr30.024053.2758@nmt.edu> pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
 writes:
>
>       Yeah,  it was a joke -- and his response was even better!  I mean,
> it was a classic,  because I couldn't believe that ANYONE would be stupid
> enough to fall for it.  I mean really,  "The second test wasn't done on the
> Eldridge,  but it was done instead on a large rubber raft.";  I basically
> stole little bits of pseudoscience from the National Enquirer,  and UFO
> books,  and other wacky books and added a few things that I though up
> (like the part about the rubber raft.)
>
>       But,  honesly,  just as cops and robbers have the same mentality,
> and hackers and computer-security-obsessives,  so do the people who really
> believe this kind of pseudoscience and the people who rail against it really
> show alot of the same personality characteristics.
>
>       Certain kinds of paranoid shizophrenics invent perpetual motion
> machines and unified field theories and stuff like that all the time.  And
> most of these people,  funny enough,  don't have any sense of humor,  and
> they take everything you say seriously.  And I've met some of these people,
> and called a few others (like Joe Newmann) on the phone.  They are the
> best victims in the world to make prank calls to (just tape the call so
> your friends can laugh about it too) (What is your phone # Ian?)
>
>       Just keep posting Ian,  you're cracking the rest of us up.
>
> --
> AngstCon '91 in Socorro, NM -------------------------------------------------
> Sometime in the fall of 1991.  Email pahsnsr@jupiter.nmt.edu;  Are you Happy?
> AngstCon can fix that or your money back.
 
 
I'm so very happy for you. No doubt you will laugh your
head of when I say your opinion means very little to me.
 
As an adult pointed out to me, I obviously misread
the author of the post. It was not hard to do,
considering that the post was exactly as Benno
would write it.
 
None of the coments in my last post were meant to
be read as insults. I was wondering at the apathy
that exists on the net towards crap disguised
as science.
 
I do not apologise for being angry at the misuse of
science. I will not apologise at being pissed off at
people getting away with the misuse of science.
I have seen enough crap to have become angry, not
only at the authors of such crap, but at the education
system that allows such people to exist.
 
I do apologise for misreading the author.
I will, however, continue to look out for
Benno's posts, and reply accordingly.
 
Iain Jameson
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenijameson cudfnIain cudlnJameson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 /   /   Mills/Farrell theory
     
Originally-From: <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Mills/Farrell theory
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 14:25:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
In response to Barry Merriman:
>Mills wants to use the transition energy of going to the
>compacted state as the energy source, but he neglects that this
>compacted state would probably result in a substantial number
>of nuclear reactions.
 
First of all, it depends on how compacted the hydrogen atoms is.
According to Mills/Farrell, a hydrogen atom has n = 1/2, 1/3,
1/4, ... (in addition to n = 1, 2, 3, 4, ...).  The radii for these states
are r(1/2)  = (1/2) (a0), r(1/3)  =  (1/3) a(0), r(1/4)  =  (1/4) (a0),
where (a0) is the Bohr radius.  Thus, only extremely small
hydrogen atoms--n = 1/100 or n = 1/263-- would increase
fusion rates.
 
Second, fusion of deuterium to form tritium or helium-4 will
occur only if heavy water is used.  We claim that excess heat
is obtained using light water--as observed by the China lake
Texas A&M report--because of the transition to these lower
energy states.
 
The best way to get the heat is to electrolyze 0.6 M potassium
carbonate (light water) with a Ni foil (we use a 7.5 cm x 5 cm
x 0.125 cm Ni foil rolled into a spiral) cathode and a Pt wire
anode at 80 mA.  Run the electrolysis in reverse polarity (80 mA)
for about 1/2 hour before beginning the calorimetry to
electropolish the Ni.  Higher starting temperatures (greater than
 50 C) work best.  Start the electrolysis at room temperature and
with a internal heater heat the solution to 50 C).  The heater can
also be used to determine the cell constant of the calorimeter.
 Do not clean the Ni with organic solvents.
 
May the heat be with you.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / Dieter Britz /  Subtle Aussie humour
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subtle Aussie humour
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 14:28:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain Jameson):
>How is it possible that people like the author of the above post
>exist?
...
>How have I embarassed myself?
 
Mate, this is beginning to get embarrassing to ME, as a fellow Australian.
These USA types just don't appreciate our subtility and dry humour, and your
brilliant wit is going straight past them, I'm afraid. So maybe you should
stop. Now please don't come back and tell me I don't exist either.
 
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / Jim Bowery /  "Confusion in a Jar" Factual Error
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Confusion in a Jar" Factual Error
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 17:26:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On the NOVA program "Confusion in a Jar" it was stated that notarizing
lab notebooks was standard practice at Brigham Young University.  This
is not true.  This was, in fact, highly unusual.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-8868               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.29 / Rolf Meier /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 29 Apr 91 17:19:47 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <3108@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> ijameson@adelphi.physics.adelaide.
edu.au.oz.au (Iain Jameson) writes:
 
>Using a result of Emily Noether. Why is it that all the results come
>from people who are dead?
>What result? Do you know who Noether is?
>This post is full of words, but empty of information.
>
>The rest of the post has been deleted. It's as bad as the above.
 
A matter of opinion.
 
>
>How is it possible that people like the author of the above post
>exist? How could the education system fail us so badly?
>
>The post was pure fantasy. One wonders if it is somehow possible
 
Oh, so you figured that out.
 
>to have these people removed from the net. Benno has writtn a
>number of articles which are like the above. I hate to suggest it,
>but the net would be a better place without him and his wasteful
>posts.
>
 
On the contrary, I found it to have far more entertainment value than
your stuffy, killjoy, boring, dac-like, wasteful, silly, useless,
no-information-content posting.
 
______________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier						Mitel Corporation
		"Everything You Know Is Wrong"
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmeier cudfnRolf cudlnMeier cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 30 Apr 91 03:34:15 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Apr26.035806.5248@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry
 Merriman) writes:
 
>Ok, lets figure how often this could happen.
 
>Principle 1:  a Hydron of size L has a lifetime of t ~ 100 L/c.
 
>Principle 2; at a given time, in a large group of atoms, the probability
>             that there is a Hydron of size L (or smaller) is (L/R_bohr)^3.
 
>Now, all we need to do is to use the fundamental principles
>of hydrons to answer the following question:
 
>Near room temperature, at what rate do Hydrons in a material get
>undergo  nuclear interaction?
 
>This is tricky, because the reaction rate will be a complicated function
>of temperature and L, due to tunneling (i.e. the reaction will procede
>by tunneling across L, with a little help from the temperature).
 
>So, rather than estimate, lets use one empirical data point---namely
>the reaction rate for muon catalyzed fusion, which is much like
>the proposed hydron reaction (fusion of unusually compact
>atoms).
 
This "condense pair state" is proposed for existence within Palladium.
Are we sure that the presence of muons in metals wouldn't alter their
energetics?
 
>The radius of the muonic atom is 1/200 of the normal radius, so this
>gives us data for a L = (1/200)R_bohr Hydron. these guys, when
>held next to eachother, spontaneously fuse in about a nanosecond
>at 800 degrees C ( a bit hotter than room temperature, but lets
>use it as an upper bound---things aren't quite as good at lower temps.)
 
>From principle 2, the probabilty of finding such at a given time is 1/10^6.
 
>So, how probable is it that two such hydrons will be adjacent for
>1 nanosecond, long enough to interact? Let t = 100 L/c
>be the lifetime, and imagine a clock that ticks of times ot size t;
>every timestep all the atoms change their Hydron state. Each tick,
>Suppose there are N atoms in our specimen: every tick there
>will be N /10^6  L-Hydrons formed, and the number of adjacent ones
>will be (N/10^6) * (1/10^6), due to their spatial frequency of occurence.
>the odds that one of these pairs stays in the L-hydron state for the
>next tick is (1/10^6)^2, and so on, tick after tick. So, the number of pairs
>that will make it all the way to a nanosecond is:
 
>N (1/10^12)^n
 
>where n is the number of ticks in a nanosecond. Since t ~ 10^-15 sec, that is
>10^6 steps, so the number of pairs that live long enough to get
>a nuclear interaction is
 
>N (1/10^12)^(10^6) per nanosecond.
 
>Needless to say, this is an incredibly small number, and so you
>wouldn't expect to ever observe such a thing.
 
But isn't the sample density (deuterium within the microvolumes of Palladium)
within an order or two of 10^22 particles/cm^3?   That's a very dense
muonic (hydronic?) soup.
 
>In short, due to the extremely short hydron lifetime, the sustained
>hydron reactions needed to give a nuclear reaction seem unlikely.
 
.. But nevertheless an interesting speculation.
 
>Barry Merriman >UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.30 / nod sivad /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 30 Apr 91 16:49:10 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>I have seen enough crap to have become angry, not
>only at the authors of such crap, but at the education
>system that allows such people to exist.
 
Sorry, son, but you flunked your physics test.  I'm afraid we'll
have to kill you :-)
 
					me
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.02 / Kent Dolan /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 22:43:53 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

 ijameson@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Iain Jameson) writes:
 
> A parody? In what way? It was not a parody.
 
Trust us, that you are unable to detect a parody does not make it any less
one.
 
> How have I embarassed myself?
 
By raving on about something as if it were serious writing that any reader
aged twelve or older would realize was excellent humor.  I took the article
that you flamed and reposted it to talk.bizarre and alt.flame, so that more
people could enjoy the joke, before you proved that you didn't catch on.
 
> Am I the only person here who gets annoyed when utter morons waste
> space by posting juvenile stories.
 
Probably the only one who can't tell the difference between serious
writing and parody, and feels compelled when caught out to so
characterize the authors, yes.
 
Cold Fusion has turned out to be a humiliatingly bad joke, and wreaked
utter havoc with the careers of people who should have done more careful
science and most certainly should have had more professionalism than to
go to the news media rather than the science media to publish their
results.
 
Lacking peer review, publication of exact methods, and checks on
repeatability of experiments,, the obvious disaster that peer review is
designed to prevent, occurred.
 
Unwarned by the lesson, dozens of research teams ran like stampeded
bison over the same precipice. In the cold light of dawn, the strewn
carcasses of promising careers insult the nostrils and the uncaring sky.
Only the buzzing news media botflies were winners in this rush to glory.
 
It is time now to face the joke as the joke it was, tell funny stories
to cover the embarrassment to all of science that this represents, and
get on with trying to make muon catalyzed fusion and other low yeild but
repeatable phenomena into usable power sources of the type that the cold
fusion publicity ballyhooed was already at hand.
 
There are going to be a _lot_ of skeleton rattling jokes about
pseudoscience, like the one you flamed, for the next few years, until
the red faces return to more normal shades.
 
> Am I the only person here with a science degree (or more)?
 
Funny you should mention that. Here in the states, public radio carries
a parodist who calls himself "Dr. Science", whose humor revolves around
giving plausible but obvious mumbo-jumbo "scientific" explanations for
real world phenomenon. His three minute "show" always ends with the
disclaimer from the announcer: "Remember, 'Dr. Science" isn't a real
doctor" and his response "That's right. I have a Master's Degree ... in
'Science'!" A large fraction of the net, and a much larger fraction
reading this newsgroup, have "science degrees". Most of us actually have
them in specific fields, more importantly.
 
There are, however, two things obvious about such degrees: 1) they do
not prevent people, as in your case, from getting so full of their own
importance, that they lose site of humor, civility, and all the other
lubricants for human dialog, and 2) they do not prevent some really
bizarre belief systems from retaining hold in the individual, as the
conspiracy theory article to which the posted parody was a response so
clearly demonstrates.
 
You can teach scientific method, use of evidence, and all the science
and facts you want to some people without making a dent in their inbuilt
illogical beliefs, as the phenomenon in at least the United States of
Doctors of Science with "Creationist" religous agendas to put forward
that fly in the face of and deny all the evidence and all the science
they are taught in school also clearly demonstrates.
 
> Am I the only person here who gets pissed off by people abusing
> science?
 
Probably not, but you'll find that more get irritated by your persistent
inability to see the joke than do more than chuckle at the muddleheaded
misunderstandings of what science is about that inevitably work their
way into any science oriented newsgroup.
 
> I see no reason to be polite to these sort of people, or their
> defenders!
 
Perhaps if enough people tell you what a jerk you are making yourself
out to be to 2/3rds the circumference of the planet, you can, even after
all your education, find that politeness and tolerance are other things
valuable for you to learn and practice. Depends entirely on how thick
your hide is how long the lesson takes to penetrate, of course.
 
> Well, enough of my bitching. Hopefully we will now get back to some
> real fusion posts.
 
Leavened, as needed, by humor, an essential ingredient of normal human
existance.
 
Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenxanthian cudfnKent cudlnDolan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.02 / Kent Dolan /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 23:34:12 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

 
 
> Can't leave it to just die?
 
Probably not; it would be so _nice_ if a non-hazardous, quasi-infinitely
renewable, nearly free energy source could be found in a universe rife
with rampant, but untamable, energy sources, that wishful thinking and
serious attempts to cash in on the various possibilities will be with us
until either one works out or the species goes extinct.
 
> And what are the results of this nuclear reaction - energy, certainly
> (gotta be if this thing is gonna explain anything);
 
Agreed.
 
> loss of mass, certainly (can't have one without the other);
 
Almost agreed; with the proper subvariant of Maxwell.s Daemon, the virtual
particles which constitute the energy of the vacuum constitute a potential,
but probably unrealizable, source of free mass.
 
> radiation, almost 100% certain (can't lose mass and conserve momentum
> without radiation).
 
Disagree completely. I'm not saying it can be done, and I'm not well
enough educated to do the math to prove it can or can't be done, but
momentum "needs" to be conserved in the system as a whole, not in some
subset. Discover a LUMP (large, ugly, missing particle) to do a phonon
(is that the right word?) coupling of the mass losing reaction to the
surrounding solid matrix, and the momentum gets dissipated
"undetectably" (from the point of view of outside radiation counters),
and, over a long average of many mass losing reactions, directionlessly,
into the matrix as heat, just like kids all around the world bouncing a
ball off the sidewalk gets lost to an outside observer of planetary
motion.
 
[Don't you hate it when someone who can't do the math argues by analogy?]
 
As a better example, suspend an old brass cannon and cannonball with
charge unconnected in the midst of a large, elastic jungle gym floating
in empty space; fire the cannon and it jumps one way until it runs into
the jungle gym and gets stopped, setting the jungle gym in vibration,
while the cannonball with some luck goes ricocheting out and is counted
by your cannonball detector conveniently waiting outside the jungle gym
matrix. You notice both "heat" and "radiation".
 
Repeat the experiment with both cannon and cannonball attached to the
jungle gym matrix by powerful bungee cords, and the jungle gym will,
when the cannon is fired, vibrate even more than the previous go around,
while all the energy of the sharge enters the jungle gym matrix, but your
cannonball detector will remain untripped.
 
We know one such powerful "bungee", the force holding quarks in their
bag; find a way to attach it or some similar mechanism between larger
objects, and you have a "radiationless" mass - energy conversion that
conserves momentum.
 
Dissipate enough heat this way, and you have a power supply. The
universe is fairly forgiving of violations of conservation laws that can
be kept to a short enough duration.
 
It might be wishful thinking, but I don't see any _inherent_ necessity
that momentum conservation be accomplished only by detectable radiation.
 
Nevertheless, I don't think, based on lack of confirmation, that P&F
found the appropriate bungee.
 
> How come nobody has been able to confirm any of these things to a
> moral certainty about any of the P&F experiments?
 
a) It was bad science, and also b) it was science distorted by secrecy
in hopes of gaining wealth.
 
[This is a phenomenon now also rapidly leading to the disintegration of
computer science, as formerly unpatentable "law of nature" algorithms
now become mired in bogus and hurtful patent findings, by scientists and
corporations, greedy for an ever bigger piece of the pie, who ignore how
much of the contribution of others, freely given, is included in their
everyday work and profit from software, threatening the collegial
sharing and cooperation that have made software development an
exponentially explosive positive feedback cash cow growth industry up to
now].
 
Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenxanthian cudfnKent cudlnDolan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.02 / Kent Dolan /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 23:46:50 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

[see the reference for the math]
 
I don't think you can do the math that way.  Subatomic phenomena seem to
be binary rather than durational, so that you don't have a reaction
"10^-6 catalized" but either catalized or uncatalized.  Thus, it requires
an _accumulated_ nanosecond of proximity to accomplish an average one
catalized fusion, not a _consecutive_ nanosecond of proximity.  That makes
your "10^6" power some much less powerful operator, perhaps a divisor on
the reaction rate.
 
Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenxanthian cudfnKent cudlnDolan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 / Kent Dolan /  The search for a better bungee cord
     
Originally-From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The search for a better bungee cord
Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 00:17:18 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

 
> Can't leave it to just die?
 
Probably not; it would be so _nice_ if a non-hazardous, quasi-infinitely
renewable, nearly free energy source could be found in a universe rife
with rampant, but untamable, energy sources, that wishful thinking and
serious attempts to cash in on the various possibilities will be with us
until either one works out or the species goes extinct.
 
> And what are the results of this nuclear reaction - energy, certainly
> (gotta be if this thing is gonna explain anything);
 
Agreed.
 
> loss of mass, certainly (can't have one without the other);
 
Almost agreed; with the proper subvariant of Maxwell's Daemon, the virtual
particles which constitute the energy of the vacuum constitute a potential,
but probably unrealizable, source of free mass.
 
> radiation, almost 100% certain (can't lose mass and conserve momentum
> without radiation).
 
Disagree completely. I'm not saying it can be done, and I'm not well
enough educated to do the math to prove it can or can't be done, but
momentum "needs" to be conserved in the system as a whole, not in some
subset. Discover a LUMP (large, ugly, missing particle) to do a phonon
(is that the right word?) coupling of the mass losing reaction to the
surrounding solid matrix, and the momentum gets dissipated
"undetectably" (from the point of view of outside radiation counters),
and, over a long average of many mass losing reactions, directionlessly,
into the matrix as heat, just like kids all around the world bouncing a
ball off the sidewalk gets lost to an outside observer of planetary
motion.
 
[Don't you hate it when someone who can't do the math argues by analogy?]
 
As a better example, suspend an old brass cannon and cannonball with
charge unconnected in the midst of a large, elastic jungle gym floating
in empty space; fire the cannon and it jumps one way until it runs into
the jungle gym and gets stopped, setting the jungle gym in vibration,
while the cannonball with some luck goes ricocheting out and is counted
by your cannonball detector conveniently waiting outside the jungle gym
matrix. You notice both "heat" and "radiation", and if you can measure
the jungle gym's slow resultant creep away, deduce that momentum was
conserved.
 
Repeat the experiment with both cannon and cannonball attached to the
jungle gym matrix by powerful bungee cords, and the jungle gym will,
when the cannon is fired, vibrate even more than the previous go around,
while all the energy of the sharge enters the jungle gym matrix, but
your cannonball detector will remain untripped, and the jungle gym
collectively immobile.
 
We know one such super-powerful "bungee", the force holding quarks in
their bag; find a way to attach it or some similar mechanism between
larger objects, and you have a "radiationless" mass - energy conversion
that conserves momentum.
 
Dissipate enough heat this way, and you have a power supply. The
universe is fairly forgiving of violations of conservation laws that can
be kept to a short enough duration.
 
It might be wishful thinking, but I don't see any _inherent_ necessity
that momentum conservation be accomplished only by detectable radiation.
 
Nevertheless, I don't think, based on lack of confirmation, that P&F
found the appropriate bungee cords.
 
> How come nobody has been able to confirm any of these things to a
> moral certainty about any of the P&F experiments?
 
a) It was bad science, and also b) it was science distorted by secrecy
in hopes of gaining wealth.
 
[This is a phenomenon now also rapidly leading to the disintegration of
computer science, as formerly unpatentable "law of nature" algorithms
now become mired in bogus and hurtful patent findings, by scientists and
corporations, greedy for an ever bigger piece of the pie, who ignore how
much of the contribution of others, freely given, is included in their
everyday work and profit from software, threatening the collegial
sharing and cooperation that have made software development an
exponentially explosive positive feedback cash cow growth industry up to
now, but perhaps no longer as lawsuits become a growth dissipation
mechanism].
 
Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenxanthian cudfnKent cudlnDolan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 / Kent Dolan /  cmsg cancel <1991May2.233412.7882@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
     
Originally-From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1991May2.233412.7882@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 00:17:25 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

This message was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenxanthian cudfnKent cudlnDolan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.30 / Van Snyder /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 17:16:57 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <3108@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
 ijameson@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Iain Jameson) writes:
>In article <1991Apr24.012523.23402@nmt.edu> pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
 writes:
>> In article <8757@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>
>The post was pure fantasy. One wonders if it is somehow possible
>to have these people removed from the net. Benno has writtn a
>number of articles which are like the above. I hate to suggest it,
>but the net would be a better place without him and his wasteful
>posts.
>
>Iain Jameson.
 
Were it not for the first sentence, I'd think Iain was taking Eichmann
seriously.  I've enjoyed the humor, whether Eichmann intended it or not.
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.30 / void NULL /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: c60c-3ia@e260-2g.berkeley.edu (void * real_life = NULL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 30 Apr 91 17:46:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 
Sometimes, enough is enough.  By now we all know that
pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) is very "healthily humorous" and
"ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain Jameson)" is a person
of "integrity" who tries to "preserve" or "salvage" the education
system harder than the Education Pres..., but would you please
conduct your war outside this news group?  Better yet, you can and
should conduct it via private mail (I mean postal service's mail, not
email).  Waste the bandwidth of the news net is deplorable.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden3ia cudfnvoid cudlnNULL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.30 /  mailhost /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: mkaminsk@cvbnet.prime.com (mailhost)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 30 Apr 91 19:12:05 GMT

>From article <1991Apr24.012523.23402@nmt.edu>, by pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A.
 Houle):
>
> series of experiments done underneath the BERMUDA TRIANGLE in 1940.  The
> OTHER end of the TEMPORAL VORTEX that we created has SKIPPED in time from
> 1903 and will continue to do so until 2011.  It TOSSED five AMERICAN BOMBERS,
> killing the crew from the effects of TIME SHEAR forward in time from 1945 to
> 1989,  when one was DISCOVERED underneath the OCEAN.  Another was FOUND ON
> THE MOON by apollo astronauts.  The Levinson TIME equations can be transformed
 
Aha! The PROOF that THIS is a SPOOF!  EVERYBODY knows that THE MOON
LANDING was faked.  :)
 
> TRINITY test)  before it would be seen by GERMAN spies,  who would realize
> that WE COULD NOW transform any BATTLESHIP into an INVINCIBLE BLIMP.
 
Otherwise known as the PENTAGON'S first trial BALLOON.
 
> 	Four of our sailors entered a BAR
 
Wait, stop.  I've heard THAT one already.
 
 
Mark B. Kaminsky   mkaminsk@cvbnet.prime.com
Computervision/Prime Computer, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmkaminsk cudlnmailhost cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / Mark Hopkins /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 1 May 91 01:49:54 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

In article <1991Apr26.035806.5248@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry
 Merriman) writes:
>Now I know this is magic and all, so please excuse me for
>trying to impose a little mundane old physics on their
>incantations...
 
The physics is irrelevant.  The bottom line is does it lead to tests with
repeatible results.
 
If so, and if those tests prove out the new idea, then it's the Physics that
will have to change.  Nature can't change her physics to make it conform to
yours.
 
So never mind the theoretical hand-waving and just DO the tests mentioned in
the talk.  You can only discover new phenomena by experiment, not by invoking
old theories...
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmarkh cudfnMark cudlnHopkins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 /  phys2108@waika /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: phys2108@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 1 May 91 02:41:54 GMT
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <11614@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
 writes:
> In article <1991Apr26.035806.5248@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>>Now I know this is magic and all, so please excuse me for
>>trying to impose a little mundane old physics on their
>>incantations...
>
> The physics is irrelevant.
????????????
> The bottom line is does it lead to tests with
> repeatible results.
>
> If so, and if those tests prove out the new idea,
You do agree that it is a big IF though
> then it's the Physics that
> will have to change.  Nature can't change her physics to make it conform to
> yours.
>
> So never mind the theoretical hand-waving and just DO the tests mentioned in
> the talk.  You can only discover new phenomena by experiment, not by invoking
> old theories...
But it very very rarely happens without any kind of theoretical basis.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenphys2108 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 /  kEvin /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: kthornbu@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (kEvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 03:32:44 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <1991May1.144154.3575@waikato.ac.nz> phys2108@waikato.ac.nz writes:
 
>> the talk.  You can only discover new phenomena by experiment, not by invoking
>> old theories...
 
>But it very very rarely happens without any kind of theoretical basis.
 
Right, like high temperature superconductivity and electron diffraction
and cyclotron radiation and continental drift and ....
 
 
kEvin
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkthornbu cudlnkEvin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.26 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 26 Apr 91 21:17:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1991Apr26.033535.1068@athena.mit.edu> jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John
 S. Travis) writes:
>Article 429 in clari.tw.science (moderated):
>From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROB STEIN, UPI Science Editor)
>        WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Two physicists said Thursday they had developed a
>theory that could explain some of the puzzling phenomena persistently
>produced by disputed ``cold fusion'' experiments.
>        The experiments did not produce excess energy through nuclear fusion,
>but instead by new type of nuclear reaction that scientists possibly
>could harness to produce power, said Michigan physicists Frederick Mayer
>and John Reitz.
>        The reaction may result from production of a new type of particle
>dubbed a ``hydron,'' which could interract with metal to produce a
>nuclear reaction at room temperature, they said.
 
 
 
			Can't leave it to just die?
 
And what are the results of this nuclear reaction - energy, certainly
(gotta be if this thing is gonna explain anything); loss of mass,
certainly (can't have one without the other); radiation, almost 100%
certain (can't lose mass and conserve momentum without radiation).  How
come nobody has been able to confirm any of these things to a moral
certainty about any of the P&F experiments?
 
 
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / Raul Baragiola /  Cold Fusion: are neutrons real?
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion: are neutrons real?
Date: 1 May 91 02:33:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Several months ago I posed in this group a question about neutron detectors.
Is it possible that noise (electrical or acoustical) from microcracks in
the material where D is pushed in and out is being picked up by the neutron
detector? After all, people really measure electrical pulses in their
counters, not neutrons.
 
At the APS meeting in Washington last week many comments were raised
about this same point.  If this effect is happening, running blank
tests with H may not prove cold fusion right, since the diffusion of H
in metals is different from that of D and so would the chances of
creating microfractures.
 
Would any experimenter care to comment?
 
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / Mark Thorson /  NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
Date: 1 May 91 05:53:43 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I'm sure you all watched the show tonight.  I found it a bit of a shock
to see Usenet traffic appear on TV.  Sort of like discovering that a
conversation in the hall has been secretly tape-recorded and printed
on the front page of the newspaper.
 
But what was even more shocking was the one-sided presentation
against cold fusion.  The show could have been written by Nathan Lewis
or that Park fellow.  It completely ignored the fact that all or nearly
all of the negative findings must be dismissed as flawed because
they used jeweler's palladium.  As any _competent_ metallurgist
can tell you, air-cast metals are hopelessly contaminated with
dissolved gases.  It is the normal hydrogen dissolved in the palladium
which is most likely preventing those experiments from producing
positive results.
 
Metals with low gas content can only be prepared by melting in a
vacuum.  And the best industrial metals are prepared using a second
melting.  Typically this is done by casting the metal once under vacuum,
in which the metal is cast into the shape of a consumable electrode
for a vacuum arc furnace.  The metal is then remelted by feeding it into
the arc of such a furnace.  Only the product of such a two-stage process
is anywhere close to being gas-free.
 
Is there even _one_ negative finding which used nearly gas-free palladium?
If so, did they do a hydrogen determination on their palladium to
measure just how much residual gas it contained?
 
No negative finding which fails to meet those two criteria can
be taken seriously as evidence against the reality of cold fusion !!!
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 / Terry Bollinger /  Fractional n?  Hmmmm...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fractional n?  Hmmmm...
Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 02:02:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On Wed, 1 May 1991 14:25:10 GMT <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU> wrote:
 
Hi folks,
 
> According to Mills/Farrell, a hydrogen atom has n = 1/2, 1/3,
> 1/4, ... (in addition to n = 1, 2, 3, 4, ...).
 
A decent Farfetch.  (I believe you said "theory," but I shan't quibble.)
 
First my compliments -- that was a nicely detailed recipe you gave
also gave in that email for anyone who might want to try it.  If there
is anything at all to any of this, it really is going to boil down to
experiments correlated to predictive theories, isn't it?
 
And I stand corrected -- that's ain't no virtual neutron.  It does sound
an awful lot like a virtual *muon*, though...  which *also* violates some
rather interesting conservation and self-consistency principles ...
 
 
Well anywho, I'll bite.  Action must be quantized, so are you:
 
  a) Multiplying the mass of the electron by an integer value,
 
  b) Postulating that Planck's constant can vary (via integer division), or
 
  c) None of the above?
 
Beware of the first one, since by the time you work it out you may
well find you have just developed an unusually complex way of expressing
standard mass/time uncertainty. And if you *don't* find that to be
your result, you'd best check your work very carefully for mathematical
and conceptual consistency.  Anything other result after starting with
the mass-change premise (alone) should lead to unavoidable contradictions
with the known behavior of both space and matter.
 
So is it Planck's variable (careful!), or something else?  If something
else, how *do* you prevent a blatant contradition of quantized action?
 
And your trigger?  What do you propose precipitates such a (rather serious)
violation of standard physics?  Taken at face value, the existence of
such fractional states would simply precipitate a general collapse of
matter into new ground states, so you must invoke a protective mechanism
that limits this behavior to a very restricted set of circumstances.
 
				Jez a po' bewildered Ozark amateur,
				Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: A `velocity field', has it been observed?
Date: 1 May 91 02:55:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Apr18.205130.4220@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry
 Merriman) writes:
>In article <8658@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>
>>>then can we
>>>create a condition where a 4D space to 3D space energy
 transition/precipitation
>>>can occur directly and non-destructively into our 3D real universe structure?
Seems like the wrong direction, and such a transition would require
and input of net energy.  Sort of the old: "Don't worry about the boulder
at the bottom of the hill."  Why?  Because it requires energy to run up hill
to our campsite.  In this case the "??energy??/stuff" would need to be
compressed to squeeze into the "real 3 space" and there isn't anything to
power that squeezing.
 
>Regardless of what you call it, it doesn't impact our basic understanding
>of the physics: namely, a unification between gravitational and electrical
>forces, leading to some new effect, will only occur at extremely high
>energies, much higher than we could ever hope to create on a large scale,
>such as that needed to generate commercial power.  .. .
 
Well, let's think about that. .. .
 
>                                  . .  And if the effect doesn't
>involve gravity, then it relates only forces that are already unified,
>and thus should be contained within the ``standard model'', familiar to
>all elementary particle physicists.
 
I think that collective effects could be quit very significant.
 
Actually, it is probably true that our "name_the_phenomon_we_can't
relate_or_understand" has given us a rather fragmented view (physics).
We do have a number of the fragments, so the paradigm does give a lot
of answers.  Logically, IF the universe operates under a "unified
solution" then, we really shouldn't have to dream up some "new effect".
On the contrary, there should be a number of "unexplained oldies"
(well half assed-explained oldies) that could be resolved with synthesis
of a grander, more elegant and unifying physics theory.
 
I take exception that new effects or unexplained ones would only
take place at high energies.   For example, we would expect from
the grander unification theory physics, that, like the results of
Maxwell, (i. e. magnetic effects can be generated by changing
electric fields or charge flow), then perhaps some type of
gravity/mass effect could also produce a mag field.  Let's speculate:
 
What we need is the _Curl of _A, Not really understanding the
physical significance of vector _A we are free to SPECULATE that
the circular motion of a mass, large enough (like a planet or star)
to distort its local metric (has dispersion in a radial time rate
gradient mass distribution) could make the "fields particles
accounting" difficult. This is all because a spinning planet has
a sheared time gradient field. For the simple case of pure axial
spin, the forces of motion result in vectors othrogonal to the spin
axis and that's not so tough so there wouldn't be any effect (it
has balance with no torsion).
 
But what if the planet precesses. Then we have some complicated
classical mechanics (and time changing local forces) that has
solutions in the complex plane.  That is:  One "real precession" is
only half of solution cycle.
 
So what? So where is the reality tie in?? (speculative -- fanciful
remember).  The speculation is this, that if accounting gets off,
then unaccounted for "field stuff" would be left circulating because
of the spin.  The amount would be proportional to the number of
particles participating (i.e. the "mass"), the amount the metric is
distorted (again the "mass"), and the distortion forces (precession
rate).  I speculate that if the stuff that's not accounted for is
the same "stuff" in a vortex that produces the "mag" _Curl of _A,
THEN driving gravitationally (mass) driven force for a time changing
magnetic field would be produced that is proportional the planets
mass squared, it's spin rate and its precession rate.  Further, it
should drive the cycling of the changing field at just twice the
"real physical" precession rate of the planet.
 
The difficulty is that most massive metric distorting bodies (the
BIG Guys) have conductivity and some even pressurized cold cores
with the ferromagnetic capacity to muck things up.  Although the
earth has a pitiful field, there are other similar sized objects
in the universe that have HUGE STRONG mag fields such as pulsars
- neutron stars spinning 30/sec and precessing every 15 minutes,
and a bit more massive as well.
 
True, the effect would be negligible for single particles, (unless
you stick your nose too close to a neutron :-/ ) but in collections
that produce planets or neutron stars, there could be some interesting
energy effects.  For example, if we could tap and convert the particle
energy trapped in the vacuum portion of our earth's field, it could
power a chunk of the earth's population.  A classical step derived
from not yet fully understood physics.
 
Fortunately, we won't have to rely on something so fanciful for our
future electric power.
 
>Barry Merriman >UCLA Dept. of Math >UCLA Inst. for Fusion & Plasma Research
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 1 May 91 05:21:38 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <11614@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>In article <1991Apr26.035806.5248@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>>Now I know this is magic and all, so please excuse me for
>>trying to impose a little mundane old physics on their
>>incantations...
>
>The physics is irrelevant.  The bottom line is does it lead to tests with
>repeatible results.
 
Yes, but...there are lots of crazy ideas that yield testable predictions;
does that mean they should all be tested? If someone wants to test
their own ideas, I'm all for it (e.g. P&F). If they want others
to do the tests, they had better have some compelling argument.
Here the implicit argument seems to be ``P&F were really right'',
which is a dubious argument these days. The explicit argument
is that there are these new Hydron states which would do X, Y and Z.
If thats compelling enough to get someone to do the experiments I'm all
for it.
 
>If so, and if those tests prove out the new idea, then it's the Physics that
>will have to change.  Nature can't change her physics to make it conform to
>yours.
 
Yes, but unlike some folks, I'm not ready to chuck all of known physics
at the drop of a hypothetical particle. Of course experiments are the bottom
line, I agree---but don't forget that embodied in our present _theories_ are
the results of many past _experiments_---because of this, these
theories carry substantial experimental weight.
 
>
>So never mind the theoretical hand-waving and just DO the tests mentioned in
>the talk.  You can only discover new phenomena by experiment, not by invoking
>old theories...
 
I agree that I was theoretical handwaving---though I just wanted a
rough estimate of what the standard theory would predict.
 
However, I totally disagree that fundamental new phenomena are only
(or even usually) discovered via experiment. For example:
 
(1) Bending of light by gravity
 
(2) Time contraction, length dilation, etc
 
(3) Gravitational redshift
 
(4) Black holes
 
(5) QM Tunneling
 
(6) Antiparticles
 
(7) The displacemnt current  (in electromagnetism)
 
(8) W, Z particles
 
(9) Abrahmov-Bohm effect
 
(10) expansion of the universe
 
etc
 
were all developed theoretically and only later verified
experimentally. In fact, every new theory
(which is usually an old theory forced into a new regime)
predicts loads of new effects that would never have been discovered otherwise.
 
 
A further huge set of phenomena were discovered only to preserve
old ideas in a new context (e.g. neutrinous to conserve momentum,
neutrons to stabilize the nucleus, etc).
 
Quite simply, by pushing an old idea into a new area, one can _often_
predict a new effect.
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / David Newton /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: newton@ils.nwu.edu (David Newton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 1 May 91 18:20:01 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <3108@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> you write:
> Using a result of Emily Noether. Why is it that all the results come
> from people who are dead?
 
   Heaven forbid we should learn something from dead people.
 
> How is it possible that people like the author of the above post
> exist? How could the education system fail us so badly?
 
   Look who's talking.
 
> The post was pure fantasy.
 
   Well no kidding.
 
> One wonders if it is somehow possible
> to have these people removed from the net.
 
   That'd be like removing Letterman from TV since his top 10 lists really
aren't productive, or saying that Gallagher's Sledge-o-Matic isn't really
that effective as a kitchen utensil since the by-products tend to stick to
walls.
 
> [...] I hate to suggest it,
> but the net would be a better place without him and his wasteful
> posts.
 
   Err...
 
--
David L. Newton	    |  Work: (708) 467-1015  |      newton@ils.nwu.edu
ILS, Room 135       |  Home: (708) 332-2321  |-------------------------------
1890 Maple St.      |-Gumby Cyberdeck Jockey-| Kicked out of alt.hackers by
Evanston, IL  60201 |__Dr. Seuss is a god.___| "Real Hackers."  Oh WOE is me.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudennewton cudfnDavid cudlnNewton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.02 / John Travis /  NOVA Cold Fusion Show
     
Originally-From: jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John S. Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NOVA Cold Fusion Show
Date: 2 May 91 04:17:20 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 
Talked to Evan Haddington (the Science Editor at NOVA) tonite and he wasn't
too happy with their episode either. Basically one year ago, they bought
a "hliarious satirical" piece blasting P&F according to Haddington. This
piece was done in Britain, but NOVA felt they needed to make it more
even-handed as well as update it. But they only were given $4000 to do
so, and the result was a slight more balanced report that lacked direction.
 
john travis
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjstravis cudfnJohn cudlnTravis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.02 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Mills/Farrell theory
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills/Farrell theory
Date: 2 May 91 02:47:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9105011402.AA05520@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>
>
>In response to Barry Merriman:
>>Mills wants to use the transition energy of going to the
>>compacted state as the energy source, but he neglects that this
>>compacted state would probably result in a substantial number
>>of nuclear reactions.
>
>First of all, it depends on how compacted the hydrogen atoms is.
>According to Mills/Farrell, a hydrogen atom has n = 1/2, 1/3,
>1/4, ... (in addition to n = 1, 2, 3, 4, ...).  The radii for these states
>are r(1/2)  = (1/2) (a0), r(1/3)  =  (1/3) a(0), r(1/4)  =  (1/4) (a0),
>where (a0) is the Bohr radius.  Thus, only extremely small
>hydrogen atoms--n = 1/100 or n = 1/263-- would increase
>fusion rates.
>
 
With due respect, what kind of junk is this? Where do the fractions come
from?  Is it numerology?
 
 
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.01 / Tom DeBoni /  Free Cray Time to Sisal Users
     
Originally-From: deboni@fernando.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
Originally-From: deboni@fernando.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
Newsgroups:
 sci.military,sci.misc,sci.optics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sc
 i.space
Subject: Free Cray Time to Sisal Users
Date: 1 May 91 15:39:15 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

 
Originally-From: deboni@fernando.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
 
 
                  The Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative
 
                       Contacts: John Feo and Dave Cann
 
The Computing Research Group at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
announces the Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative (SSCI).  The Initiative
will award free Cray X-MP time and support to researchers willing to develop
their applications in SISAL, a functional language for parallel numerical
computation.  Members of the Computing Research Group will provide free
educational material, training, consulting, and user services.
 
SSCI is an outgrowth of the Sisal Language Project, a collaborative
effort by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Colorado State
University and funded in part by the Office of Energy Research (Department
of Energy), U.S. Army Research Office, and LLNL. SISAL provides a clean
and natural medium for expressing machine independent, determinate, parallel
programs. The cost of writing, debugging, and maintaining parallel
applications in SISAL is equivalent to the cost of writing, debugging, and
maintaining sequential applications in Fortran.  Moreover, the same SISAL
program will run, without change, on any parallel machine supporting SISAL
software.  Recent SISAL compiler developments for the Alliant FX/80, Cray X-MP,
and other shared memory machines have resulted in SISAL applications that run
faster than Fortran equivalents compiled using automatic concurrentizing and
vectorizing tools.
 
Interested participants should submit a 1-2 page proposal by
June 1, 1991 to
 
      Computing Research Group, L-306
      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
      P.O. Box 808
      Livermore, CA  94450
 
Proposals should describe the research and explain how the work will benefit
from parallel execution on a Cray X-MP.  We will announce accepted proposals
by July 1, 1991.  For more information about the Sisal Scientific Computing
Initiative please contact John Feo (feo@lll-crg.llnl.gov) at (415) 422-6389
or Dave Cann (cann@lll-crg.llnl.gov) at (415) 423-7875.  We look forward to
hearing from you.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendeboni cudfnTom cudlnDeBoni cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.02 /  ATINTON@ESOC.B /  CERN - Fill me in on the latest developments
     
Originally-From: ATINTON@ESOC.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CERN - Fill me in on the latest developments
Date: 2 May 91 08:34:37 GMT

Can anybody out there fill my collegues and I on what is happening at
 
CERN in Switzerland.  What have they so far achieved, have any black
 
hole been developed.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenATINTON cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 /   /   Pooh-Pooh on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Pooh-Pooh on Cold Fusion
Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 23:20:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

<All or nearly all negative findings must be dismissed because they used
<jeweler's palladium....
 
<It is the normal hydrogen dissolved in the palladium which is most likely
<preventing those experiments from producing positive rusults.
 
I would be interested to know how the submitter of the above remarks
has come to these conclusions.   Pons and Fleischmann have repeatedly
stated that they were not withholding information that is needed to
achieve a positive result, and they have never said that their palladium
electrodes received the extensive vacuum degassing that you prescribe.
I have the impression that many of the negative results came from
experiments using palladium from the same source as P&F, namely Johnson
Mathey, and J&M provided no special pretreatment.  In any case the
true test of your assertions is whether careful degassing insures
positive results.  Are you sitting on positve results and not telling
anyone about them?  Most true believers seem to be having a difficult
time continuing the production of positive results.  If your methods
insure success then why don't you move on to clearing up some of the
questions concerning nuclear radiation or other evidence for fusion.
 
<Is it possible that noise (electrical or accoustical)... are being
<picked up by the neutron detector?
 
You bit it is! in both cases!  That is one reason I shudder everytime
I hear mention of "bursts of neutrons".  The most infamous case early
in the game was the Italian neutron detector that counted only in multiples
of 20, and they thought they were detecting neutrons.  That is just
too bazaar.  The correct explaination for such bursts is something like
the following:  A large noise pulse overloads the electronics resulting
in a pulse which "rings", i.e. has the waveform of a damped sine wave on
its trailing edge.  The counting circuit responds to each peak until
the amplitude has decayed to below the counting threshold.  Each noise
pulse thus registers as a "burst".  Nuclear reactions  obey a certain
kind of statistics and if your data don't conform to the rules you
know you have problems not a sign of the second coming.
 
Speaking of which,  Prof. Fleischmann is still clinging to the absurd
idea that the infamous 2.5 MeV gamma migratied to 2.2 MeV as the
result of a change from linear to quadratic interpolation.  I challange
any true  believer to construct a data set in which such a change is
possible, remembering the constraint that the energy scale was calibrated
by lines common in the natural background.  Note that two lines, one
above 2.5 MeV and one below are sufficient for the linear interpolation,
but a third data point is needed to fix a quadratic. Anyone care to
guess what the third gamma energy might be?  And isn't just a bit
strange that we are left with no published information on this question?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL         Why bother with a disclaimer?  Nobody cares all that much.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.02 / John McCauley /  Re: Cold Fusion: are neutrons real?
     
Originally-From: jsm@lyman.pppl.gov (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion: are neutrons real?
Date: 2 May 91 15:02:01 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

In article <1991May1.023304.8564@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>Several months ago I posed in this group a question about neutron detectors.
>Is it possible that noise (electrical or acoustical) from microcracks in
>the material where D is pushed in and out is being picked up by the neutron
>detector? After all, people really measure electrical pulses in their
>counters, not neutrons.
 
It is true that many standard neutron detectors (BF3, HE3) behave like
microphones. [I once tapped a HE3 detector and got 1000+ counts
instantaneously.]
 
It is possible to get around this somewhat by attaching a Pulse-Height
Analysis unit and measuring the height distribution of the observered pulses.
If the response function of the detector is known, the pulse-height spectrum
can usually be deconvolved and the energy spectrum of the neutrons can
directly be measured.
 
Noise won't produce an energy spectrum peaked around 2.5 MeV.
 
So, to convince people that you are actually seeing Fusion neutrons:
1) provide a reference spectrum from say a 252Cf or Pu-Be source.
2) provide a background spectrum
3) provide the 'Fusion' neutron spectrum
4) use a foil activation method as a counter-check.
 
My impression is that many false positive results (Georgia Tech for one)
would have been caught if care was taken to measure the 'neutron' spectrum.
 
	Hope this helps,
 
		Scott
 
P.S. Some references:
Tsoulfanidis, Measurement and Detection of Radiation, McGraw-Hill, 1983.
Marion and Fowler, Fast Neutron Physics
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.04.29 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: brian@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 29 Apr 91 19:54:44 GMT
Organization: Gremlin Lovers Anonymous

/ hpfcdj:sci.physics.fusion / jstravis@athena.mit.edu (John S. Travis) / 10:45
 am  Apr 26, 1991 /
>...
>Concluding his lecture, Mayer answered what he said was the most obvious
>question--does the theory suggest a large scale nuclear energy source. While
>refusing to speculate on the actual method, Mayer simply responded, "I think
>there is.
 
Not with the present methods, since any reaction that consumes the Palladium
will be very expensive!  On the other hand, if these funny new particles exist,
there may be some other way to use them.
 
Who me?
I didn't say that!
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.02 / Mark Thorson /  Re: NOVA Cold Fusion Show
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Cold Fusion Show
Date: 2 May 91 19:25:50 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

How many times did they run that piece of tape with Fleishman calling
the experiment "stupid".  They ran it at least once straight, then they
ran it several more times as background in other segments, including a
segment in a bar.
 
Presenting a point-of-view through subtle video tricks is not science
journalism.  If they wanted to drill the viewer with the concept that
the whole thing was a farce, they should have presented a critic saying
so openly.
 
Lack of a large post-production budget is no excuse.  By running it under
the NOVA name they are giving it their imprimateur.  They are standing
four-square on the side of trial-by-video, rather than presenting the facts
openly and objectively and letting the viewer reach his own conclusions.
 
Shame, NOVA, shame.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.06 /   /   MIlls/Farrell Theory
     
Originally-From: <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  MIlls/Farrell Theory
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 00:59:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
On Fri, 3 May 1991 <Terry Bollinger asked
 
> Action must be quantized, so are you:
 
 > a) Multiplying the mass of the electron by an integer value,
 
 > b) Postulating that Planck's constant can vary (via integer division), or
 
 >c) None of the above?
 
My answer is  "c", None of the above.
 
We use a principle derived by Haus, H. A., American Journal of
Physics, 54, 1126-1129, 1986.  He derived the condition for radiation by a
moving charge from Maxwell's equation--to radiate, the space-time
Fourier transform of the charge density function must possess
components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.
Actually, we used the inverse of this derivation--
 
For non-radiative states, the charge density function must not possess
space-time Fourier components that are synchronous with waves
traveling at the speed of light.
 
This leads to a delta function for the radial function
 
f(r)  =  delta(r-r(n)) where
 
2(pi)(nr(1)  =  2(pi)r(n)   =  wavelength(n)  where
 
n  =  1
n  =  2, 3, 4, ...
n  =  1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
 
(Note that Bohr almost had it right!)
 
That is, a hydrogen-atom electron can only exist at specific radii--
namely a0, 2a0, 3a0,..., (1/2) a0, (1/3)a0,...--or it radiates.  We call an
electron in one of these states an orbitsphere.  An orbitsphere is an
infinitely thin (2-dimensional) spherical surface of charge/mass
density.
 
The n = 1 state is called the no-photon state.  In this n  = 1 state:
 
**  The electron is an orbitsphere at a0.
**  The orbitsphere is moving (if it were not spinning the charge would
       fall into the nucleus) and has spin angular momentum.  (Note the
       origination of spin angular momentum.)  (By the way, the total
       angular momentum of the electron is hbar.)
**  For r < a0, the electric field inside of the orbitsphere is the electric
       field of the proton.
**  For r > a0, the electric field is zero (the electric field of the proton
       and the electron cancel).
 
In a transition to a higher energy state the orbitsphere acts as a spherical
resonator cavity.  This cavity can trap electromagnetic radiation of
discrete frequencies (note the origination of quantum absorption).  The
electric field of the photon adds--distructively--with the electric field of
the proton and the orbitsphere expands to a new, allowed radius (n = 2,
3, 4,...). (I am neglecting the "l" = 0, 1, 2,   , orbital angular momentum
for simplicity here.)  The effective nuclear charge, Zeff, is the sum of
the proton's electric field and the trapped photon's electric field.
 
Zeff  =  1/n   where  n  = 2, 3, 4, ...
 
This is probably a good place to stop.  I know I haven't explained how
to get to n = 1/2, 1/3,..., but let me give you a hint.  When n = 1/2, Zeff =
2.  Also, when n = 1/137, the potential energy
 
(V  =  ((Z^2)(e^2)/4(pi)(epsilon0)(a0))*(1/n^2))
 
is equal to m0c^2.  (Note that is makes the fine structure constant 1/137
exactly.  As a matter of fact, to make things work out nicely, the meter
ought to be redefined such that the speed of light is exactly 3 x 10^8 m/s.)
 
Just a struggling chemist,
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.04 / Benno Eichmann /  Re: The search for a better bungee cord Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad
     
Originally-From: benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The search for a better bungee cord Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad
 new theory
Date: 4 May 91 05:08:44 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

I *hate* the secrecy and science mix, it's been know to be a real Black Hole!
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbenno cudfnBenno cudlnEichmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.04 / Benno Eichmann /  Re: Einstein's Unified Theory
     
Originally-From: benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Einstein's Unified Theory
Date: 4 May 91 06:13:27 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

Iain, this is a fair statement of the shallow results I also found.
Maybe, with your abilities/resources you can find the Einstein papers
and other materials refered to in this post?  It's the best I've
been able to find so far also.  So I will send this into sci.physics
for possible follow up by you?  You asked for some semblence to a detail,
this may be it?  I would be delighted if you found an unaltered original
copy of any of these documents, or anyone else for that matter.
:
 
 
In <880@systech.bjorn.COM> johnr@systech.bjorn.COM (John Reed) writes:
 
 
>Ok, call me a skeptic.  I'm highly skeptical of UFO's, anti-gravity, Keely's
>inventions, etc., etc.  But I'm also very curious.
 
>(To my knowledge I have never seen a UFO, never seen an Alien, and never
>been kidnapped by an advanced race!!)
 
>My basic philosophy:  I Don't Believe Anything!
 
>I'm an electrical engineer by training, but a software engineer in practice.
>Technology fascinates me and I love a great conspiracy.  Articles in this
>newsgroup that have dealt with UFO's, their propulsion mechanisms, Keely,
>and Tesla, are extremely interesting to me, and I think we all owe Don Allen
>some thanks for adding a wonderful thread to the group.
 
>Some of the claims made by guys like Keely seem farfetched, but does that
>mean that we should immediately dismiss them without really investigating
>for ourselves??  Just because Michelson-Morely supposedly "proved" there
>was no Aether, does that mean that we should therefore consider the debate
>closed?  With that in mind I went looking in our local
>BookStar (a great bookstore by the way) for books on anti-gravity and such.
 
>There were several to choose from and the one I chose had the title:
 
>                           Anti-Gravity
>                      And The Unified Field
 
>[Disclaimer: I have no connections whatsoever with the author of this book
>or the publisher]
 
>So far I've read the first couple of chapters and browsed through the rest.
>I guess I picked this book over the others because "The Unified field"
>part of it kind of caught my eye.  Chapter 1's title is:
 
>1. Albert Einstein and The Unified Field.
 
>I thought the first chapter was a little disappointing.  There was enough
>information there to whet my appetite, but not quite enough to really
>satisfy it.
 
>For those not aware of it, Einstein spent a lot of time trying to develop
>a "Unified Theory".  He sought to combine the gravitational field and the
>electro-magnetic field into a single structure.  From chapter 1:
 
>        It is this last subject [work on the Unified Field], being
>        formulated for the public from the 20's up until his death
>        in 1955, that has the most profound ramifications for science
>        and mankind as a whole.
 
>and more:
 
>        Consequently, Einstein sought to build a theory of "Unified
>        Field" which would be a generalization of his gravitational
>        theory and would include all electromagnetic phenomena.  He
>        also thought that in this way he might be able to obtain a
>        more satisfactory theory of light quanta (photons) that Bohr's,
>        and derive laws about how our physical reality worked, instead
>        of only laws about observational results.
 
>Einstein published an article (1929) concerning his Unified Field theory in
>the Transactions of the Prussian Academy of Science.  It is described
>in the book:
 
>        The article was only a few pages long and it consisted for
>        the most part of mathematical formulae that were completely
>        unintelligible to the public.  The emotion with which the
>        common man greeted the formulae might be compared to that
>        experienced by the sight of an ancient cuneiform inscription.
>        For an understanding of the paper a considerable capacity for
>        abstract geometrical thinking was required.  To those who
>        possessed this quality it revealed that general laws for a
>        unified field could be derived from a certain hypothesis
>        regarding the structure of four-dimensional space.  It could
>        be shown that these laws included the known laws of the
>        electromagnetic field as well as Einstein's law of gravitation
>        as special cases.
 
>The author goes on to talk about the work of Maxwell and a contemporary
>of Einstein's, T.J.J See.  See published 7 manuals (total of about 4000
>pages) on his research on the Unified Theory and the gravitational riddle.
>The author states that See's work was largely ignored by the Scientific
>community, mostly because of his "arrogant egotism".  Once again from
>chapter 1:
 
>        Actually, See's technical work, and in particular his wave
>        theory of gravitation was quite competent and is now generally
>        viewed by many as providing a sound basis toward an eventually
>        accepted Unified Field Theory.  The basis for See's wave theory
>        is that Pi is an infinite oscillating series leading to an
>        expanded theory of curvilinear motion.  The oscillating series
>        correspond to dynamic impulses - physical waves in the ether,
>        as postulated by Huyghens and Newton for the curvilinear motions
>        of the stars observed in the immensity of space.  According to
>        See, gravitational, magnetic and electrostatic fields are
>        presented as longitudinal/compression waves in the ether, of
>        widely divergent wave lengths.  These various wave forms are
>        of proportionate magnitude to the distances over which they
>        operate.
 
>The author goes on to discuss a book written by a British Scientist named
>Paul Davies.  And finally the author concludes:
 
>        Essentially, all energy particles must belong to the Unified
>        Field.  It is from this field that all matter, mass, wave form,
>        energy and particles are manifesting.  Quantum particles are now
>        the ether and science has proven that there is no void.  Energy
>        is everywhere, even in so-called empty space.  The outmoded term
>        of Ether, supposedly disproved by the famous Michelson-Morley
>        speed of light experiment, now becomes the Quantum Field, and
>        physics come full circle again, though at least in an upward
>        spiral.
 
 
>So fine?  The Author concludes by making some pretty heady statements
>without fully documenting the evidence.  He presents some evidence, but
>his evidence doesn't really support the conclusion.  He may believe this
>to be true, but the proof still remains in the pudding.
 
>I will do a little more digging on this Unified Field Theory.  There must
>be something there or Einstein would not have spent so much time and
>effort on it.
 
>Finally, the author seems to suspect a conspiracy of sorts regarding the
>Unified Theory:
 
>         Even though Einstein first unveiled his Unified Field Equation
>         in 1929, little, or no work, has apparently occurred on the
>         subject for the last fifty years!  Can this be the truth, or
>         has work on the Unified Field and its promise of artificial
>         gravity continued secretly since the theory was first proposed?
 
>I too wonder.  I would say it is highly probable that there has been
>much work done in secret on the Unified Theory.  Ah yes, another
>wonderful government conspiracy!
 
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>John Reed
>Systech Corp.
 
>{uunet,ucsd}!systech!johnr
>-------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbenno cudfnBenno cudlnEichmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.06 / Dieter Britz /  Theories
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Theories
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 15:59:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) gives us some good stuff about
theories anticipating experimental facts, later to be verified. All more or
less true but I take exception to
>(4) Black holes
>(10) expansion of the universe.
As I understand it, black holes (like the Big Bang) are theories only. Noone
has seen a black hole, although some astronomic features are not inconsistent
with such animals. Likewise, the expanding universe is known by those
redshifts plus some theorising, and there are reputable astronomers like Hoyle
etc who have other explanations. This is not just quibbling. I feel that both
black holes and the expanding universe are plausible but we should not forget
the plausible alternatives (whatever they are, and I could be behind with
respect to black holes).
 However, we have to ask of any new theory, what can it do for me? If it has
practical significance (cheap abundant power, yippeee!), it must have testable
experimental consequences, so we can't rest with the theory. Those who put
forward a new theory that deviates markedly from our present expectations, had
better provide evidence for it.
Farrell & Co.'s theory (I don't have the email stuff handy here) is one of
that sort, suggesting that the hitherto accepted ground states are in fact not
ground states. Now there are decades of spectroscopic observation to establish
the ground states, and they had better come across with more spectroscopy as
evidence for these purported even lower ones. If their explanation of cold
fusion is, then, that in the Pd matrix the electrons (was that in D or in Pd?
atoms?) can fall into lower-than-ground states, we have a plain physical
effect, not a nuclear reaction. This is OK; it could act as a source of energy
here and now, to be paid for out of the environment later on, when the atoms
absorb energy again to kick themselves back up to the (conventional) ground
state.
 All this does seem a bit unlikely to me and we'd better see some evidence,
soon. Now if only we'd have some real, non-marginal, evidence for cold fusion,
we could be sure that there is something there to explain...
 
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.06 /   /   NOVA Confusion
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  NOVA Confusion
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 22:31:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

<Shame, NOVA, Shame>
 
Whether the NOVA presentation on cold fusion was "balanced" or not is
a very subjective question.  The issue is sufficiently complex that the
only balanced presentation would be one in which many more details were
discussed at length than could possible fit in the hour format.  Reduced
to its essentials I think the program covered the following: (1)Pons and
Fleischmann announced that they had achieved fusion in a jar although
experimental details were decidedly lacking.  (2)The announcement received
lots of attention by the media, by politicians, and by the public. (3)
There was a rush to duplicate the result by everyone from the very
inexperienced working with limited equipment to some very highly skilled
people with the very best equipment. (4)There were several early
"confirmations" that proved to be faulty. (5)The phenomena proved very
difficult to reproduce. (6)The "Physics Community" found fault with several
aspects of the Utah data, particularly the detection of gammas and neutrons.
(7)The final chapter on cold fusion has not yet been written.  As to the
question of "balance", I would say that the skeptics, well represented
by Prof. Gai, were given the last word, but what have you got to offer that
would negate what he said.  Any new experimental results that provide
more convincing evidence and more detail than what has appeared from
previous experiments will be cordually received on this forum, if not
elsewhere.  Without better experiments cold fusion is a dead issue.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 / Benno Eichmann /  Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
Date: 3 May 91 06:44:59 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

I am suspicious(not new), who has what to gain by burying Cold Fusion
in the publics eye?
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbenno cudfnBenno cudlnEichmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 / Benno Eichmann /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 3 May 91 08:42:37 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

Paul, I feel bad, as I missed your post to which Iain was responding,
but before I found this post I was getting real confused as I read
the portion he included, and by the time I reached `512...' it
stunk of high fools treason.
 
You've made the point that you may have seen some of the common
up to at least now useless stuff.  I found myself prior to and after
your post, having zip useful information of the nature that is in some
productive/reproducible/transferable.
 
I at this point conclude that you may be an alright sort, and above
the norm for a necessary  humor required for good science when chasing
serious reality.  If you or anyone else knows anything, they haven't
said anything, except for possibly Iain, indicating that you are hiding
somthing of a serious undisclosed truth.  And even in Iain's case, a very
, possibly overly, serious person might well respond as he did and not
be holding any secrets.
 
The big point is that none has stepped forward with any first hand
info giving reproducable details for some of the far out `ether' zone
stuff, so until a tangable object is at hand, I've made zip progress
towards my inquiry.  If I should find something in the future, I hope
no N.S.A. types tap me out if I consider sharing some reproducable
experimental data/design details with you.  And I hope we can open
some the secrecy doors if they exist.
 
Iain, I would rather error on the side of innocence rather than
to lock out the question of a possibly genuine questioning mind.  I
recomend a lighter heart.  And if someone is sitting on a reality
shattering Montauk style discovery, they may have very good reasons
to be quiet, which I and others might agree with, if I were fully
informed.  Until I and others fulfill our dreams or at least have
`checked them out' I hope we never turn away anyone needlessly!
 
Life was hard, questions harder, real honest science even harder,
and now the truth, whatever it might be, looks even more distant!
 
P.S.: Paul, could you send me a copy of your timely well placed
post, appearently overdue, and much enjoyed in an air of open
minded diciplined pursuit of sometimes warped realities.
 
<I never went as far as I would like with physics, but I
will document my experiments for others to reproduce in the open
if I have anything to say about it, or I will not do them.
My idea of real science is sharing honestly first and last.>
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbenno cudfnBenno cudlnEichmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
Date: 3 May 91 11:58:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <8986@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>I am suspicious(not new), who has what to gain by burying Cold Fusion
>in the publics eye?
 
Yeah! that's what we need, a conspiracy theory.  I guess the people
trying to bury CF are the same ones trying to retard development of
efficient batteries, or electric automobiles, or research about UFOs.
Or are they a new gang?
:-)
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 / Craig Levin /  Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: moonman@buhub.bradley.edu (Craig Levin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
Date: 3 May 91 13:12:15 GMT
Organization: Science underground-a political quantum leap!

In <8986@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
 
>I am suspicious(not new), who has what to gain by burying Cold Fusion
>in the publics eye?
 
	Could possibly be because it has all the validity of aether
theory, y'know. Not all scientific "discoveries" actually turn out to
be real. Remember polywater?
 
--
Craig\The Moonman\Levin                      Pedro Alcazar
moonman@buhub.bradley.edu 	House Of The Moss Rose, Barony of
				Illiton, Middle Kingdom
"Space is big, space is dark, you'll always find a place to park!"
-Burma Shave
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmoonman cudfnCraig cudlnLevin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 /  geyer@galton.u /  Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: geyer@galton.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
Date: 3 May 91 16:06:58 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

 
In article <8986@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>I am suspicious(not new), who has what to gain by burying Cold Fusion
>in the publics eye?
 
Surely this is obvious.  If Nova is to draw viewers away from soap operas,
they must present science-as-soap-opera.
 
Big shot scientists make fools of themselves!!!  Once hoping for Nobel
prizes, they are now lucky to still have jobs!!!
 
Hey, whaddaya expect?  It's the tube.
 
Charles Geyer
Department of Statistics
University of Chicago
geyer@galton.uchicago.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengeyer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture - broad new theory
Date: 3 May 91 19:56:55 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1991May2.234650.8221@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>[see the reference for the math]
 
I considered a simple model where hydrons form randomly, simply due to the
random fluctuactions in electron position about the nucleus, in accordance with
the standard probabilty distribtuion for its location (i.e. wave function^2).
 
>
>I don't think you can do the math that way.  Subatomic phenomena seem to
>be binary rather than durational, so that you don't have a reaction
>"10^-6 catalized" but either catalized or uncatalized.  Thus, it requires
>an _accumulated_ nanosecond of proximity to accomplish an average one
>catalized fusion, not a _consecutive_ nanosecond of proximity.  That makes
>your "10^6" power some much less powerful operator, perhaps a divisor on
>the reaction rate.
>
 
I tend to agree generally that reactants need only _accumulate_ enough
 interaction
time to react----not have the time be onsecutive. But, as is the case here, if
the time is broken up into extremely small units, separated by million-fold
longer gaps, it may not actually contribute to the accumulated time.
 
The point is this: the hydron lifetime t = 100L/c (L = distance of e from
nucleus, c = light speed) during which the hydron exists is not so
 important---what
is important is that the _nuclei_ have time to move close enough together
to accumulate some tunneling interaction time. Since the nuclei are 4000
(for D) times as massive as the electron, they move sqrt(4000) = 60 times
slower. Thus the hydron state must persist for about 60 lifetimes in order
for the nuclei to move and accumulate interaction time. Even the odds
of two hydrons persisting side-by-side for 60 lifetimes are way too
small to ever observe such an event in a material:
basically: (prob of neighbors being in the hydron L=1/200 a0 state)^60
          = ( 1/10^6 x 1/10^6 )^60 = 1/10^120
is the odds of some pair accumulating on the order of 60 lifetimes
(somewhat less, since the nuclei must move). In one second, there are
about 10^17 such lifetimes ticking by, and there are 10^24 pairs of neighbors in
a sample, so the total accumulated time goes like
60 x 10^17 x 10^24 ^ 1/10^120 = 1/10^80 seconds---so it would take
about 10^70 seconds to accumulate a nanosecond, and thus this process described
above will never occur in this universe.
 
The point is: I hop Meyer and Ritz have a better method.
 
BM
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.04 / Benno Eichmann /  Re: A Fantasy Called The Hilbert Space Equations
     
Originally-From: benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy Called The Hilbert Space Equations
Date: 4 May 91 02:55:30 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

In <3107@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain
 Jameson) writes:
 
>In article <8859@crash.cts.com> benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
>> John Levinson,... I believe his work may have been done after the
>> project was put into a state of secrecy, and thus, unlike the others
>> with prior histories, he was not visible to nearly the same extent.
>>
>> At best the Levinson Time equations would only be proported under such
>> a condition if the secrecy is effective, which I would not have much
>> doubt about, as some branches can keep a secret quite well if there
>> is little directly connected hardware to a math department.
>>
>> ???
 
>How very convenient! Using a secrecy argument to hid the facts.
>Your article on Hilbert and Von Neumann was a load of garbage,
>why should I believe othewise here?
 
>You seem to enjoy making up stories and posting them.
>What's the matter, do you get some sort of thrill from
>seeing your name on a post?
 
>Your posts in other newsgroups, sci.physics.fusion, sci.energy
>and alt.sceptic, in particular, prove that you have no idea what
>you are talking about. Take your little fantasys somewhere else.
>Preferably the school play ground.
 
>Iain.
 
Iain, much of current physics started as fantasys, and only after much
sweet and I dare say many tears, did we reach some semblence of a real
clear thing which we could apply and call a science.
 
Iain, the greatest discoveries are still to be made and they will
likely start with a question in some silly persons mind that
pursued long enough, finally yeild themselves to least closed minded
investigator whole doesn't make the same mistakes as those who preceded
him!  Let's please lighten up, unless the question is a serious
threat to a question that has already been answered in secret behind
military or N.S.A. doors closed to the public forum.
 
Iain, I can in part relate to your possible feeling with all the seeming
junk about the matters I've mentioned in other posts, but my hunch
suggests that there is something of interest at the end of the
investigation, and does it realy hurt to follow a, even to me, hollow
undiciplined feeling for the purpose of maybe putting some physical
measures and values to it, that we might all possibly benefit.
Everything tends to start with an honest simple feeling, what else
can I say right now Iain, have you never had that experience yourself?
 
Tommorows questions may send todays understanding beyond a future
event horizon.  I just simple don't know right now, so I ASKED, and
that's a start!
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbenno cudfnBenno cudlnEichmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.04 / P Petropoulos /  Re: Einstein's Unified Theory
     
Originally-From: ouzo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Petropoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Einstein's Unified Theory
Date: 4 May 91 16:37:48 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University

Now all you people out there, see what you started ???
I don't see the word fusion in the Keywords list, instead
it reads like something out of FATE magazine.
 
Where are all the people concerned with bandwidth wastage ???
Would it be reasonable to ask anyone who likes to be humored
by Eichmann's sort of people to read alt.allien.visitors, and to
stop encouraging postings in this newsgroup with keywords such as
the above ???
 
Peter P.
Dept. of Applied Maths
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenouzo cudfnPeter cudlnPetropoulos cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.05 / Iain Jameson /  Re: A Fantasy Called The Hilbert Space Equations
     
Originally-From: ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain Jameson)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy Called The Hilbert Space Equations
Date: 5 May 91 23:49:11 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, South Australia

Post deleted.
 
Benno, if you were telling the truth, I would be the first
to agree with you.
 
However, your post on the so-called Hilbert Space Equations, in
which you talk about Von Neumann and Hilbert, was a load of
garbage. A simple trip to the library was all it took to show
that you were wrong. The post was pure fantasy.
 
There are no such things as the Hilbert Space Equations.
The statement makes no sense. Hilbert space is a mathematical
tool. You do things in it. You do not write Hilbert Space
Equations!
 
Iain.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenijameson cudfnIain cudlnJameson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.06 / Mark North /  Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
Date: 6 May 91 01:47:25 GMT

benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann) writes:
 
>I am suspicious(not new), who has what to gain by burying Cold Fusion
>in the publics eye?
 
He's dead, Jim.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.06 / Bruce Martin /  CONSERVATION OF PARODY
     
Originally-From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CONSERVATION OF PARODY
Date: 6 May 91 15:46:34 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory

In article <3108@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
 ijameson@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Iain Jameson) writes:
> Article 1749 of sci.physics.fusion:
> From: ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain Jameson)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
> Subject: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
> Summary: Fools Writing Garbage
	   ^^^^^
	   ^^^^^
 
Whoa!!!!  This is the month of APRIL, isn't it.
That was the clue we all missed.
 
 
He continues, at great length:
> .............. (Numerous merciful deletions) .......
and concludes thusly:
 
>How is it possible that people like the author of the above post
>exist? How could the education system fail us so badly?
>
>The post was pure fantasy. One wonders if it is somehow possible
>to have these people removed from the net. Benno has writtn a
>number of articles which are like the above. I hate to suggest it,
>but the net would be a better place without him and his wasteful
>posts.
>
>Iain Jameson.
 
I confess:  I really did fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
[Not the original parody (which was obviously a put-on, even before
the FIRST set of CAPITAL letters) but the truly funny pretended-response
allegedly posted by someone with by the name of "Iain".]
 
Congratulations, whoever you are.  It was masterful.
 
You really had me believing that you were for real.
And it also suckered in several others who were naive enough to *reply*
as if your posting was actually a real response from a real person who
really became irate after reading the original parody.  (You nearly gave
it away when you began by arguing against and trying to "disprove" it!!!).
 
I really believe that whoever made up this "Iain" character deserves the
1991 Nobel prize in humor.  I'm still chuckling over how subtle it was
i.e. disarming suspicion by arousing their counter-ire, while putting one
over on the responders who didn't stop to realize that the joke was on them
for not realizing that the "Iain" posting was a fake.  (After all, nobody
could be that silly and be able to memorize all twenty-six letters of the
alphabet.  If a person so demonstably anal-retentive actually existed,
I doubt that he could even manage to find them on a keyboard!)
 
Again, congratulations -- whoever you are.  Thanks so much for livening
up what was becoming an increasingly dull group.  Your timing (just after
April Fools Day) was also exquisite.
 
Sincerely, me
 
P.S.  I am not real.  This letter is a joke.  So are you.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbam cudfnBruce cudlnMartin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.07 / Terry Bollinger /  typo of note
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: typo of note
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 17:56:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A non-trivial typo:  What I really meant to say on that one line was:
 
    "... I suggest that you not waste time ..."
                            ^^^
The absence of the "not" makes for a rather amusing recommendation that,
judging by the history of "cold fusion," is probably quite unnecessary.
 
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.07 / Terry Bollinger /  Sigh.
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sigh.
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 20:16:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
A few miscellaneous items:
 
  o  To Mills/Farrell:  Best of luck.  Suggest you worry less about
     equations and more about self-consistency of your basic premises.
 
  o  To the various satirists:  Good stuff!  You might tone down the
     ad hominems a bit (it really does detract from the humor), but
     basically I'd much rather see that kind of material than a lot
     of the other junk that comes by on the net.
 
  o  To Those Who Believe That Big Brother Is Watching You:  Could
     you *please* take that crap elsewhere?  If you are joking it
     is not very amusing, and if you are serious you *really* need
     to lighten up for your own sake.
 
  o  For those who are wondering if I was pullling *your* leg when
     I sent out "A TWIST OF RIBBON":  Unfortunately, no.  It was
     cryptic because it covered a lot of material in a hurry, and
     the only way I could do that was to use the specialized terms
     of the areas it covers.  I will be sending out some references
     later to tell you where to go to decipher some of the terminology,
     but  please don't expect easy reading even then.  The original
     document, which was written the more familiar explanatory style
     most of you have seen from me, was getting to be absolutely huge
     -- probably in the hundred page range -- and I just could not
     see dumping *that* many pages on the net when the key point
     (baryon violation via solitons in heavy-particle bands) could
     be expanded to the point of making a few rather interesting
     experimental predictions in only 10 (rather cryptic) pages.
 
To be honest, my main thoughts when I sent out "A TWIST OF RIBBON"
were along the line of "Well, there goes any chance of my ever
publishing an explanatory article on information aspects of quantum
physics in a magazine like Scientific American."  Every other Farfetch
-- or outlandish proposition that *should* quickly result in a flat
contradiction of some sort -- that I've tried out before has terminated
rather quickly.  (The one I liked best was an enormously more mundane
exercise in the idea of self-growing capacitors -- but it too led to
inconsistencies after a while.)  Except for this blasted, confounded,
idiotic (sorry, I don't like it either) issue of "What exactly would
happen if you created the equivalent of a polyacetylene soliton using
baryons (e.g., protons) instead of electrons?", which has refused to
die a proper death no matter how I tried to research it or beat on it.
 
The question came up as I was reading an excellent circa 1980 physics
article by Jackiw and Rebbi about solitons "fracturing" fermions.  They
are really the ones who proposed the basic idea that protons might be
"fractured" (their term, not mine) by strongly emphasizing that the
effect applied to *all fermions*", not just "electrons."  I was only
curious as to whether it had ever been proven that the "heavy fermion"
case was trivially the same as the (experimentally known) electron case.
The bottom line is that *no one* ever seems to have explored that simple
question from either a theoretical or experimental viewpoint -- and I
can assure that I looked very thoroughly for some such discussion.
 
It shouldn't have even been possible to find a way to *try* it, but
instead guess where I wound up?  Why, good old palladium.  Didn't even
have to work at it -- it just sorta pops out very soon after you ask
the question.  Soliton math?  Sorry, folks, but most of it is based on
the "infinite chain" approximation that simply begs the question and
then complains about the "mathematically and numerically intractible"
region in the center of the soliton, where the density of states goes
(nominally) to infinity.  (There are some good exceptions on this point,
such as a lot of the work on whether solitons should attract each other.)
 
If you are interested in what I sent out, I'd strongly suggest that you
waste a lot of intellectual and computational time looking at side issues.
The key issue was and continues to be this:
 
  If you construct a polyacetylene-style soliton out of heavy fermions,
  is it necessarily true that there will be no unusual consequences?
 
Prove that point and the whole thing goes away very nicely -- as I had
rather hoped it would.
 
Experimentally, *please* don't go around buying palladium and doing
half-baked experiments.  I sent that stuff out mainly because there seem
to be more than a few folks who have gotten odd results now and then,
but seem unable to reproduce them.  If some of what I said looks familiar
to them, great -- maybe it will help give them some specific directions
to explore, if nothing else.
 
Is mass-to-energy conversion inherently ridiculous?  My gut feel -- very
much like most of you I suspect -- is "YES!! IT'S TOTALLY ABSURD!"  That's
why I was so upset when Oak Ridge proposed that they had seen it in their
experimental work.  It's very carefully phrased, of course, but I'm afraid
the only conclusions one can reach after reading their Scott experiment
carefully is that there is either a) energy coming out of the vacuum, or
b) significant amounts of mass in the system *somehow* being cleanly
converted into heat.  Don't grouse at me for that one -- I simply took
Oak Ridge at their word on a very nicely very well done experiment.  Check
out Close's book on the subject -- he was there at the time and, from what
I've heard about his book, he does seem to acknowledge that something quite
odd was going on in the Scott experiments.  I'm just naught enough to point
out that if those results are real *at all*, they unavoidably imply
E=mc^2 by *some* type of extraordinarily clean mechanism.
 
Is baryon violation inherently more improbable than "cold fusion?"  Ah my
friends, if you think that you've been immersed in the absurdities of
all this far too long.  "Cold fusion" involves miracles of at least
62 orders or so of magnitude, and that's not even counting the added
absurdities of magically making the nasty by products disappear.  My
proposal asks for an additional one or two magnitudes of energy output
per deuteron, and (very much to my surprise) seems to provide at least
a plausible route for down-shifting the energy levels to those of heat.
It's also very, very specific to the palladium solid-state systems --
its relevance to, say, stellar fusion is zero point zip as far as I
can see.  I sort of like those kinds of restrictions, since I'm not
fond of theories that flagrantly violate the self-consistency of the
universe.
 
Enough.  Some references will follow sometime in the near future.  I'd
suggest that if you are a qualified physicist and aren't going to just
annoy the poor man, Claudio Rebbi is without a doubt the world's most
knowledgeable man on the subject of solitons of all types, and he is
also very good at writing about his work.  If you don't know where he is
(he is in the U.S.), you'll have to find out on you own.  Roman Jackiw
would probably also be an excellent resource.  There are also a number
of folks who are very good at polyacetylene mathematics, such as Paul
Schrieffer (sp?).  Christof Kuhn has a very nice paper on a step-potential
model that is lucid and to the point both conceptually and computationally,
and which is very good at predicting soliton behavior via solutions to
Schroedinger's equation.  (His interesting discussion about the coupling
constant and its relationship to the formation of CDWs is related to some
of what I was saying about temporal issues, although of course his paper
does not phrase it that way.)
 
Speaking of temporal issues (sigh), I'm going to have to bite the bullet
again and very grudgingly mention that the person most likely to be able
to thoroughly trash my temporal musings without undue effort would be
Stephen Hawkings.  I absolutely *hate* saying that, because unlike all
the other people I just mentioned, Hawkings is a Person of Note --
meaning I will probably be accused of going of the deep end again simply
for saying that *HE* might find something I wrote amusing.  Nonetheless,
Hawkings (and perhaps Wheeler) is probably the most serious temporal
physicist around these days.  For heaven's sake, though, *please* leave
the man alone -- go take a look at his papers instead.
 
				Somewhat Grudging Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.07 / brian account /  Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: brian@edat.UUCP (brian douglass personal account)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
Date: 7 May 91 00:53:58 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Technologies, Inc., Las Vegas, NV

In article <41864@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
 writes:
[deleted stuff]
>
>But what was even more shocking was the one-sided presentation
>against cold fusion.
[deleted stuff]
>It completely ignored the fact that all or nearly
>all of the negative findings must be dismissed as flawed because
>they used jeweler's palladium.
 
I think the point of the show was, had Mr Flieschman and Mr. Pons
released their findings in a reputable journal instead of
succumbing to administration greed and airing their findings at a
news conference, other experimenters could have much better
verified or refuted their claims.  Instead, the world had ended up
with _Confusion In A Jar_  :-;
 
Brian Douglass			Voice: 702-361-1510 X311
Electronic Data Technologies	FAX #: 702-361-2545
1085 Palms Airport Drive	brian@edat.uucp
Las Vegas, NV 89119-3715
--
Brian Douglass			brian@edat.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbrian cudfnbrian cudlnaccount cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: MIlls/Farrell Theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIlls/Farrell Theory
Date: 6 May 91 18:36:19 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <9105042335.AA25790@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>
>We use a principle derived by Haus, H. A., American Journal of
>Physics, 54, 1126-1129, 1986.  He derived the condition for radiation by a
>moving charge from Maxwell's equation--to radiate, the space-time
>Fourier transform of the charge density function must possess
>components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.
>Actually, we used the inverse of this derivation--
>
>For non-radiative states, the charge density function must not possess
>space-time Fourier components that are synchronous with waves
>traveling at the speed of light.
>
 
Seems reasonable, but: any stationary charge density will
satisfy this condition, so I don't see how it can lead to a quantized
radius. That is, rho(r) = delta(r - r0) would be a nonradiative solution
of maywell for any r0. So what actually forces r0 to be quantized?
>
>**  For r < a0, the electric field inside of the orbitsphere is the electric
>       field of the proton.
>**  For r > a0, the electric field is zero (the electric field of the proton
>       and the electron cancel).
 
A bold assertion---it seems to me existing scattering experiments
would contradict this field distribution. Probably the best way to
test your theory would be to work out some simple scattering
predicitons from it, and compare with existing experiments
(most of what we know about atomic structure comes from
some type of scattering, either particle or photon).
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.08 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Two Fantasies That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two Fantasies That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 8 May 91 04:51:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991May2.224353.7034@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
 
> ijameson@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Iain Jameson) writes:
>> A parody? In what way? It was not a parody.
 
>> Am I the only person here who gets annoyed when utter morons waste
>> space by posting juvenile stories.
 
>Cold Fusion has turned out to be a humiliatingly bad joke, and wreaked
>utter havoc with the careers of people who should have done more careful
>science and most certainly should have had more professionalism than to
>go to the news media rather than the science media to publish their
>results.
 
But, unfortunately or not, this (press announcements) is THE accepted
practice for the fusion commumnity for at least the last couple of
decades.  In mag fusion, the "annual break through" is disclosed
usually by the Princeton PPL tokamak crew.  Amazingly, it happens
just before the congressional hearings on the fusion budget.  Now that
DoE has cut funding of all fusion concepts except tokamaks and its
related programs, there may be no need to continue this charade.
 
>Lacking peer review, publication of exact methods, and checks on
>repeatability of experiments,, the obvious disaster that peer review is
>designed to prevent, occurred.
 
Great idea for science theory, but such an approach is of little use
in developing new technologies.  New technology usually doesn't work
until someone "gets it right".  Once that happens, THEN science can
step in and use the technology in other science research or perhaps
even study the " science" of the technology itself.  These days one
should go to Europe or Japan to see examples of that process.
 
>It is time now to face the joke as the joke it was, tell funny stories
>to cover the embarrassment to all of science that this represents, and
>get on with trying to make muon catalyzed fusion and other low yeild but
>repeatable phenomena into usable power sources of the type that the cold
>fusion publicity ballyhooed was already at hand.
 
AND.. the tokamak program is ballyhooing success in only another fifty or
one hundred years from now.
 
>There are going to be a _lot_ of skeleton rattling jokes about
>pseudoscience, like the one you flamed, for the next few years, until
>the red faces return to more normal shades.
 
The tokamak will make an interesting museum piece to demostrate the
engineering stupidity of Goverment sponsored big physics programs that
are supposed to flow (somehow) into real working technology.
 
The point:  Kent, I wouldn't hold my breath for muon catalysed fusion,
either.   That is ..  not unless you are prepared to do it yourself.
 
>Kent, the man from xanth.
><xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.08 / Paul Koloc /  Re: NOVA Confusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Confusion
Date: 8 May 91 05:11:55 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <9105062103.AA28401@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
><Shame, NOVA, Shame>
>
>question of "balance", I would say that the skeptics, well represented
>by Prof. Gai, were given the last word, but what have you got to offer that
>would negate what he said.
 
Hmmmm!  If fusion in palladium REQUIRES neutrons then there isn't much
that can be said since he (Gai) found nothing (even from Jones).  BUT
I don't see why neutrons or gammas for that matter have to be a part
of a heat producing fusion reaction in palladium.   Do you???  Certainly,
Gai didn't point this out.. After all it would put a an excellent neutron
detection technician in a less "adjudicative" (and important) role.
 
For instance, if we use a the reaction between deuterium and Lithium(6)
which yields 2 He(4) -- note the near perfection in balance in
radiationless momentum!!.  Looks to me like a real winner as a
neutronless metal lattice thermalizer.   And it is fusion .. right?
 
>Dick Blue - NSCL
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.09 / Terry Bollinger /  TMC?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TMC?
Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 14:19:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
A fellow computer type, Bob Pendleton, suggested a convenient name (and
implied acronym) for the all this outlandishness:  total mass conversion,
or TMC.  A bit easier to say than "baryon conservation violation via
solitons in polyacetylene-style delocalized heavy-particle band states."
 
Thanks Bob!
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.08 / Paul Hager /  The Net on NOVA's Confusion
     
Originally-From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Net on NOVA's Confusion
Date: 8 May 91 17:30:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

One aspect of the show that intrigued me was the reference to
the old alt.fusion group and the display of a message with
VO of several net exchanges.  It seems the net is becoming
known to the outside world.  Most interesting was the
reference -- fleeting -- to alt.fusion's shutting down in
the context of the fading of the Cold Fusion dream.
 
--
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
"Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find
free speech under assault throughout the United States, including
on some college campuses."		   Geo. Bush,     4-May-1991
- "pro-drug" teachers cannot be tolerated, Bob Martinez, 12-Apr-1991
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenhagerp cudfnPaul cudlnHager cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.08 / Robert Eachus /  Spin states in deuterium
     
Originally-From: eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Spin states in deuterium
Date: 8 May 91 21:17:07 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     This may have nothing to do with cold fusion or it may have
everything to do with it. :-) I realize when driving home the other
day that deuterium should come in two spin states, with either the
proton and neutron spins in the same or opposite directions.  If the
(easy) transition between these states is a forbidden one due to
coservation laws, then such transitions would (should) only occur due
to an interaction with another boson...
 
    Now assume for the moment that the energy difference between the
states is small by nuclear standards (but large by chemical
standards), and that the mix of states is different for natural
deuterium and that produced by nuclear reactors.  Maybe the source of
the deuterium is important when doing cold fusion...
 
    (Note that if these states have say a 100 eV energy difference,
the physicists and chemists could both be right.  The source of energy
could be neither fusion OR chemical.)
 
     Actually I think it is unlikely that this sort of reaction could
be involved, as one thermal neutron floating through a jar of (a 50/50
mix) D2O would release a LOT of energy unless the cross-section of
this reaction was very small...
 
 
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.08 / Robert Eachus /  Spin states in deuterium
     
Originally-From: eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Spin states in deuterium
Date: 8 May 91 21:17:07 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     This may have nothing to do with cold fusion or it may have
everything to do with it. :-) I realize when driving home the other
day that deuterium should come in two spin states, with either the
proton and neutron spins in the same or opposite directions.  If the
(easy) transition between these states is a forbidden one due to
coservation laws, then such transitions would (should) only occur due
to an interaction with another boson...
 
    Now assume for the moment that the energy difference between the
states is small by nuclear standards (but large by chemical
standards), and that the mix of states is different for natural
deuterium and that produced by nuclear reactors.  Maybe the source of
the deuterium is important when doing cold fusion...
 
    (Note that if these states have say a 100 eV energy difference,
the physicists and chemists could both be right.  The source of energy
could be neither fusion OR chemical.)
 
     Actually I think it is unlikely that this sort of reaction could
be involved, as one thermal neutron floating through a jar of (a 50/50
mix) D2O would release a LOT of energy unless the cross-section of
this reaction was very small...
 
 
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.08 / Robert Eachus /  Spin states in deuterium
     
Originally-From: eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Spin states in deuterium
Date: 8 May 91 21:17:07 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     This may have nothing to do with cold fusion or it may have
everything to do with it. :-) I realize when driving home the other
day that deuterium should come in two spin states, with either the
proton and neutron spins in the same or opposite directions.  If the
(easy) transition between these states is a forbidden one due to
coservation laws, then such transitions would (should) only occur due
to an interaction with another boson...
 
    Now assume for the moment that the energy difference between the
states is small by nuclear standards (but large by chemical
standards), and that the mix of states is different for natural
deuterium and that produced by nuclear reactors.  Maybe the source of
the deuterium is important when doing cold fusion...
 
    (Note that if these states have say a 100 eV energy difference,
the physicists and chemists could both be right.  The source of energy
could be neither fusion OR chemical.)
 
     Actually I think it is unlikely that this sort of reaction could
be involved, as one thermal neutron floating through a jar of (a 50/50
mix) D2O would release a LOT of energy unless the cross-section of
this reaction was very small...
 
 
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.09 / rolfe petschek /  Re: Spin states in deuterium
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Spin states in deuterium
Date: 9 May 91 13:15:55 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <EACHUS.91May8161708@largo.mitre.o> eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I.
 Eachus) writes:
>
>     This may have nothing to do with cold fusion or it may have
>everything to do with it. :-) I realize when driving home the other
>day that deuterium should come in two spin states, with either the
>proton and neutron spins in the same or opposite directions.  If the
>(easy) transition between these states is a forbidden one due to
>coservation laws, then such transitions would (should) only occur due
>to an interaction with another boson...
 
The spin states in deuterium equilibrate rather quickly at ordinary
temperatures, are routinely studied by nuclear magnetic resonance, and
are rather well understood.  In any case electronic spins are largely
irrelevant to nuclear fusion.  The energy difference is in any case
small - in hydrogen it gives rise to the (famous) 21 centimeter
radiation which implies rather small energies.  In any case this is
irrelevant in a metal where a deuterium nucleus can not be associated
directly with any particular electron.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-2623
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrpetsche cudfnrolfe cudlnpetschek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.09 / Jim Carr /  Re: Spin states in deuterium
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Spin states in deuterium
Date: 9 May 91 15:22:24 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Deuterium has spin=1, meaning the proton and neutron spins are aligned.
This state is bound by 2.225 MeV and is the *only* bound state of the
p+n system.  That means the S=0 configuration, being unbound, lies more
than 2 MeV higher in energy.  Alot is known about Deuterium, so the
properties of this continuum resonance may be in the literature -- but
I am not expert in that area.  Perhaps someone else on the net knows,
but you could always seek it in the journals......
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.10 / David Greene /  Supercollider Costs Were Understated, Lawmakers Say
     
Originally-From: dg1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Greene)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fwd: Supercollider Costs Were Understated, Lawmakers Say
Subject: Supercollider Costs Were Understated, Lawmakers Say
Date: 10 May 91 13:38:55 GMT
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 08:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon,
 Pittsburgh, PA

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
Subject: Supercollider Costs Were Understated, Lawmakers Say
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 08:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
 
 (reprinted without permission from Dow-Jones news service)
 
  WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers accused the Energy Department of
underestimating costs of the superconducting supercollider by as much as
$1 billion, signaling trouble for the big research project.
 
  The congressional critics said the department's current estimate of
$8.2 billion to complete the supercollider left out lab expenses,
contingencies and operating costs once the project is completed. These
factors could push the cost over $9 billion.
 
  Moreover, an independent projection that tried to figure in the cost
of obstacles that might arise from such factors as the uncertainties of
the technology came up with an $11.8 billion estimate. The project was
originally projected in the early 1980s to cost closer to $5 billion.
 
 
  Department officials, testifying before a subcommittee of the House
Committee on Science, Space and Technology, defended their figures and
denied suggestions by subcommittee members that they were trying to be
misleading on costs.
 
  The supercollider, slated to be built in Texas and completed by 1998,
is to be the world's largest atom smasher, a 54-mile, circular tunnel
for research on fundamental particles of matter and energy. Scientists
have urged the project as necessary for the U.S. to stay at the
forefront of scientific discovery. But as the price goes up, support on
Capitol Hill erodes.
 
  The attack on the project was led by Rep. Howard Wolpe (D., Mich.),
chairman of the subcommittee, and Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert of New York,
the panel's ranking Republican who at one time supported the project.
Boehlert said the supercollider "is simply too uncertain, too expensive,
and too low a priority to spend the money on at this time." The only
obvious support at the hearing came from members of the Texas delegation.
 
 
  Of the total cost of the project, $5.6 billion is to come from the
federal government, $1.7 billion from foreign governments and $1 billion
from Texas.
 
  But critics say the department promised to keep the government's cost
under $5 billion. They add the only foreign pledge so far was $50
million, from India.
 
  The General Accounting Office presented a report at the hearing
faulting the Energy Department for such things as methods for testing
the 11,000-odd magnets to be used in the machine.
 
  Energy agency officials said the project was moving along well. To
date, over $600 million has been spent on development of the atom
smasher, with over 8,000 contracts let in 43 states. Construction for
the massive project that involves $1 billion in tunneling has yet to
begin and Rep. Boehlert says he doesn't "think we should dig one spade
of earth at this time."
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudfnDavid cudlnGreene cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.15 /   /   No radiation means no fusion?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  No radiation means no fusion?
Date: Wed, 15 May 1991 06:14:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul Kolac questioning my assessment of the NOVA program says:
<<Hmmm! If fusion in palladium REQUIRES neutrons then there isn't much>>
<<that can be said since he (Gai) found nothing (even from Jones).  BUT>>
<<I don't see why neutrons or gammas for that matter have to be a part of
<<heat producing fusion reactions in palladium. . . . >>
 
Paul then goes on to suggest that the 6Li + d reaction can be neutronless
as indeed it can if it produces two 4He's.  First hurdle to be overcome
within the framework of the FPH type experiments is to explain why this
reaction occurs but 7Li + d makes no contrabution.  Granting the first
miracle which says the chemistry selects between the two lithium isotope,
we now consider only the 6Li as a potential reactant.  Without getting
into the grubby details, those two alphas will come aout of the reaction
with about 4 MeV each.  Your 2nd assignment then Paul, should you choose
to accept, is to explain how you thermalize the alpha particles without
producing any detectable radiation.  Oh, by the way.  Evidence for the
production of helium is not exactly easy to come by either.  In any case
before we get too far down the road of assuming that Li is the magic
ingredient for cold fusion, shouldn't we do an experiment or two to see
if the isotopic composition of lithium makes any difference?
 
Meanwhile  Robert I Eachus is speculating about parallel vs. antiparallel
spins in the deuteron.  James Carr (Hi Jim) is correct when he says that
only the parallel spin case is bound, and that binding energy is 2.22 MeV.
You remember the gamma ray energy that Hawkins and Hoffman couldn't get
straight?  That gamma is what comes out when you stick a proton and a
neutron together.  The antiparallel state of the neutron-proton system
is slightly unbound and is observed only via scattering experiments.
One lesson keeps coming through.  All the lightest nuclei that have
been candidates for starring roles in cold fusion have relatively few
bound excited states, and if there are any excited states their spacing
is of the order of MeV.  As a result there aren't many ways you can
transfer energy from a fusion process to boiling water and keep the
nuclear reaction a secret.  There will be detectable radiation!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL                "The nucleon-nucleon interaction is spin dependent."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.15 / Terry Bollinger /  Miscellaneous responses
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miscellaneous responses
Date: Wed, 15 May 1991 16:34:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On 8 May 91 05:11:55 GMT pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote:
 
> radiationless momentum!!.  Looks to me like a real winner as a
> neutronless metal lattice thermalizer.   And it is fusion .. right?
 
Paul Koloc has an excellent (and subtle) sense of humor, one that goes
right over my poor head most of the time.  But no, it is definitely not
fusion...  if in fact that *was* intended to be a question...   ;)
 
At any rate, thanks for all the interesting and lively comments you've
made on the net over the past few months.
 
("Neutronless metal lattice thermalizer"??  Cute!)
 
..........
 
On 8 May 91 17:30:22 hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) wrote:
 
> It seems the net is becoming known to the outside world.
 
Well shucks, they interviewed Vince Cate on national radio right after
"CNF" first became news.  And now, two years later, a book is appearing
on the shelves that describes how nuclear physicist Bill Johnson led the
more "cogent" Bitnet dialog on test-tube fusion.  (Yes, I finally got
my copy of Close's book.)  Also, after picking up the newly released
paperback copy (so I'm cheap) of "Earth" by David Brin, I'd be willing
to bet that he has tuned into this particular user group at least once
or twice.  (At the very least Brin is an avid net follower, of that I
have no doubt.)  Finally, the Wall Street Journal has had more than
one press release that seems to have been rather closely syncronized
with some of the earlier Bitnet conversations.
 
It would be a bit surprising if "outsiders" *didn't* tune in every
once in a while just to see what's going on.  Whether they do (or
should!) pay much attention to the discussions on various minor
issues in physics and chemistry is another question entirely.
 
..........
 
On 9 May 91 13:15:55 GMT rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek) wrote:
 
> In any case this is irrelevant in a metal where a deuterium nucleus can
> not be associated directly with any particular electron.
 
Even though it was addressed to a proposal by Robert Eachus, this single
line is a very good criticism of the ideas in "A TWIST OF RIBBON".  Dr.
Petschek is pointing out that the idea of an "atom" of deuterium in
a metallic hydride lattice does not correspond very well to our usual
idea of an independent atom in space -- more specifically, the electrons
in metallic hydrides are, well, mostly metallic in behavior, meaning
they don't stick very closely to any one atom.
 
I have a few references relevant to this issue, and I'll try again to
get them and the other references together this weekend.  (My family
is moving down to Dallas with me this week, so I'm a bit busy.)
 
An offhand comment is simply that *complete* independence of electrons
from the deuterons is not a matter of absolutes, but just of relative
amplitudes.  There is an amplitude for the deuterons to behave like
integral atoms, and an amplitude for them to behave like metallic
deuterons.  I simply suspect that the amplitude for atomic behavior
is high enough to allow interesting *atomic* delocalization behavior.
I could be wrong, of course.
 
Incidentally, Dr. Petschek is an excellent solid state physicist who
is familiar with polyacetylene-style solitons, soliton math, and
charge fractionalization via solitons.
 
..........
 
On 9 May 91 15:22:24 GMT jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
 
> Deuterium has spin=1, meaning the proton and neutron spins are aligned.
> This state is bound by 2.225 MeV and is the *only* bound state of the
> p+n system.  That means the S=0 configuration, being unbound, lies more
> than 2 MeV higher in energy.
 
Yes.  Parallel proton/neutron spin is required for sufficient strong
force binding to permit a stable deuteron -- which, in combination with
Pauli exclusion explains why you cannot get two neutrons (or two protons)
to stick together, even though the strong force applies between *any*
two nucleons.
 
> A lot is known about Deuterium, so the properties of this
> continuum resonance may be in the literature -- but I am not expert
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> in that area.  Perhaps someone else on the net knows, but you could
> always seek it in the journals......
 
My apologies for dumping out a mix of solid-state and particle terms
without adequate references -- I'm afraid it led to some ambiguities
I did not anticipate.
 
The word "continuum deuterons" as I used it in the article simply means
the ones that are spatially delocalized into a band-like structure.  It
has no implications whatsoever about the state of the deuteron itself.
Indeed, if the deuteron *did* change states, the deuterium atom as a
whole would necessarily leave its continuum band state and become an
"ordinary," spatially localized deuteron, since it would no longer be
indistinguishable from the other band deuterons.
 
Band solitons simply cannot be fully described using a spatial-only
description -- they are not phonon effects, for example.  If any one
is interested, I could try to give a more general description of the
band-state issue, which is very important for understanding what I
was (and was not) trying to say in "A TWIST OF RIBBON".  Let me know
if anyone is interested -- otherwise I see no reason to put out another
longish (but much more readable) piece.
 
..........
 
A last comment:  if anyone wants to, it is perfectly OK to quote short
sections from "A TWIST OF RIBBON" for purposes of critiquing and/or
blasting it.  My copyright restrictions were only intended to prevent
fragmentation -- it didn't even occur to me that it might also make
people reluctant to quote short sections (permitted by copyright law,
I believe) for discussion purposes.
 
And thanks for some genuine criticisms of what I wrote, rather than
just ad hominems (sp?).  There really is an interesting little physics
problem there, I think, so comments on that problem (regardless of
what it might or might not imply) are very much appreciated.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.10 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: TMC?
     
Originally-From: bpendlet@bambam.dsd.es.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TMC?
Date: 10 May 91 15:46:11 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Design Systems

In article <9105091309.AA20922@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com
 (Terry Bollinger) writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> A fellow computer type, Bob Pendleton, suggested a convenient name (and
> implied acronym) for the all this outlandishness:  total mass conversion,
> or TMC.  A bit easier to say than "baryon conservation violation via
> solitons in polyacetylene-style delocalized heavy-particle band states."
>
> Thanks Bob!
>
> 				Cheers,
> 				Terry
 
 
Ahhh, I'd like to take credit for the term, but...
 
I got it from Robert A. Heinlein. I got it from either "Time For The
Stars" or from "Starman Jones." I'm not sure which. Maybe both. It's
been a LONG time since I read those books.
 
 
 
--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
   bpendlet@dsd.es.com or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or hellgate!esunix!bpendlet
 
                         Tools, not rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.17 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 496 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 496 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 00:29:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello again,
 
more from (mostly) J. Fusion Energy and Fusion Technol., consisting of the
publications of an earlyish conference. Here are some of the classic results
that have often been cited, now in full view (such as the Menlove et al, Gai
et al, Oriani et al, more from the Jones et al stable). I am still trying to
find out just what two papers by the Huggins group are saying, so I don't
include them yet. There are some lesser-known papers, among them some exotics
like that of Matsumoto, who persists with his nattohs and itons, which can
explain all, even excess heat from light water, and the absence of radiation
(other than itons, that is). Two patent applications by Yamazaki, predating
the four I sent the last time, include electrochemical cold fusion, so
Yamazaki is betting all ways. One of the two was erroneously attributed to
Shunpei (Yamazaki's first name) by Chemical Abstracts; it's not often you can
catch them making a mistake.
I won't bore you with further bla bla; read the entries below.
                                                                     Dieter.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 16-May. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 496.
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barut AO;                                    J. Hydrogen Energy 15 (1990) 907.
"Prediction of new tightly-bound states of H2+ (D2+) and 'cold fusion'
experiments".
** FPH(89) concluded that their results were due to an hitherto unknown
nuclear reaction. Barut believes that the explanation may be tightly bound
states of D2+ ions, and three-body interactions, which are called the anti-
Born-Oppenheimer approximation, in which an electron is squeezed between two
positive nuclei rapidly rotating about it. Barut develops this
quantum-mechanical model. The formation of these "supermolecules" from only
a tiny fraction of the deuterium could account for excess heat observations.
One drawback is that normal hydrogen should do the same, and output about a
quarter the excess heat.                                           May-90/?-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bertin A, Bruschi M, Capponi M, De Castro S, Marconi U, Moroni C, Piccinini M,
Semprini-Cesari N, Trombini A, Vitale A, Zoccoli A, Czirr JB, Jensen GL,
Jones SE, Palmer EP;                            J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 209.
"First experimental results at the Gran Sasso Laboratory on cold nuclear
fusion in titanium electrodes".
** This reports preliminary results of neutron measurements from electrolytic
infusion of deuterium into Ti. The measurements were undertaken under low-
background conditions. The same electrolyte mixture as used by Jones+(89) was
used, and the same type of Ti electrodes. The laboratory inside the Gran Sasso
massif has an overall radioactivity level 1/10 that elsewhere, and practically
no cosmic radiation gets in, except neutrinos. One neutron detector (a NE-213
type) was set next to the cell, another 8m away. Neutron-gamma separation was
possible by pulse shape discrimination and confirmed by calibration. The
results show a definite difference between the two counters, with a calculated
875+-180 neutrons/hour emitted from the cold fusion cell. Taking account of
some experimental differences, this compares well with the results of
Jones+(89), thus confirming low-level cold fusion.                    ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cecil FE, Ferg D, Furtak TE, Mader C, McNeil JA, Williamson DL;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1009) 195.
"Study of energetic charged particles emitted from thin deuterated palladium
foils subject to high current densities".
** Some cold fusion results, such as heat without radiation emissions, could
be due to the radiation being in the form of short-range charged particles. So
this team looked for such emissions from Pd foil, irradiated by a D+ beam at
95 keV. During beam inpact, roughly the expected flux of neutrons was given
off (self-targeting). The beam was switched off, electric current passed
through the foil and energy spectra measured. Quote: "In Fig. 4a, accumulated
over a period of 19 hours, there is a suggestion of a peak at about 3 MeV
which could be identified as the protons from the d(d,p)t reaction. Another
spectrum shows a peak at 5 MeV, and this is not seen for the controls in
which either there was no current running through the PdD or a current running
through undeuterated Pd. The authors have no explanation for this peak, which
is consistent with a (d,p) reaction with various Pd isotopes, all very
unlikely to occur.                                                    ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chen M, Steadman SG, Gaudreau MPJ, Luckhardt SC, Parker RR, Albagli D,
Cammarata V, Schloh M, Wrighton MS, Kwok K, Thieme C, Lowenstein DI, Debbe R,
Reilly JJ;                                      J. Fusion Energy 9 (1009) 155.
"Measurements of neutron emission induced by muons stopped in metal deuteride
targets".
** There have been suggestions that perhaps muons from cosmic infall cause
cold fusion. This team investigates by experiment whether this can be so. A
muon beam is aimed at deuterated Pd, Ti and Y, and neutron emission measured
by a ring of (3)He detectors of high efficiency (14%). There was no difference
between the neutron count from the deuterides and controls, so muons from
cosmic radiation cannot explain cold fusion. On the side, some simple heat
and tritium measurements were also made, also without result.         ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fang PH;                                        Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 369.
"Deuterium fusion through nonequilibrium induction".
** Fang notes that a number of authors have appeared to induce cold fusion by
a nonequilibrium condition - current pulses, warming up, mechanical fracture
and so on. Fang suggests another efficient method of forcing nonequilibrium,
using ultrasonics applied to, e.g., Pd powder in heavy water etc. The
ultrasound would increase the frequency of collision between metal and
deuterium atoms. Many configurations are possible, and can be augmented by
electric fields.                                                 Jun-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gai M, Rugari SL, France RH, Lund BJ, Zhao Z, Davenport AJ, Isaacs HS,
Lynn KG;                                        J. Fusion Energy 9 (1009) 217.
"Upper limits on emission rates of neutrons and gamma-rays from 'cold fusion'
in deuterated metals".
** An array of six liquid-scintillator neutron counters with total efficiency
of about 1% and a very low background was used to measure neutron and gamma
emissions from a cold fusion experiment. Up to four FPH-type electrochemical
cells ran simultaneously for up to 2 weeks, with Pd and Ti as cathodes. No
statistically significant emissions above background were observed in any of
the experiments. This translates into an upper limit of 1E-25 fus/pair/s from
the neutron count, or 1E-22 from the gamma count. The lower limit is 50-100
times smaller than that reported by Jones+(89), and some 1E06 smaller than
FPH(89). The results suggest that a significant fraction of the neutrons are
associated with cosmic rays.                                          ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Godshall NA, Roth EP, Kelly MJ, Guilinger TR, Ewing RI;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 229.
"Calorimetric and thermodynamic analysis of palladium-deuterium
electrochemical cells".
** A novel, large calorimeter was developed, based on the vaporisation of
freon and which does not depend on temperature measurement within the cell,
thus avoiding problems of temperature gradients. The 10.6 g Pd rod was vacuum
annealed at 900 degC for 16 hours to remove residual hydrogen, and placed, in
a dry room to exclude light water, into the cell also containing 167 ml of
0.1M LiOD in D2O. The electrolysis cell was placed into a Dewar, completely
immersed in liquid freon. All heat released by the cell resulted in freon
vaporisation, and the power output of the cell was calculated from the flow
of freon gas out of the system. This gave an accuracy of 2% of the known power
inputs, or 0.1W. Initial loading of the Pd with D took place at low current
for 48 h, then the current density was raised to 270-360 mA/cm**2 and held for
21 days. The current was reversed for 1 day, and then reapplied for a further
14 days. A neutron detector consisting of three (3)He proportional counters
was also mounted close to the cell. The cell heat output was within 2% of that
expected from conventional chemical reactions in all cases. No neutron
emissions not accountable as background, were detected. This included a short
burst twice the long-term background, but such bursts are not unusual, being
artifacts also observed by others. There is a very clear discussion of the
thermodynamics of the chemical reactions in the cell, and how this affects the
calorimetry of such cells.                                            ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hale GM, Smith RD, Talley TL;                   J. Fusion Energy 9 (1009) 187.
"Nuclear reactions and screened-Coulomb fusion rates".
** The authors say that R-matrix theory is a very convenient way to describe
many-body systems with both long- and short-range forces, as we have in cold
fusion. This is applied here to the long-range screened-Coulomb potentials of
the Hulthen form. The result is that, in order to get fusion rates of the
Jones+(89) levels, unreasonably high electron densities are required at low
particle energies. Perhaps nonequilibrium conditions supply high-energy
particles, which can fuse at larger screening lengths. However, the branching
ratios of the d-d fusion come out fairly conventional (close to 1) and the
exotic radiationless (4)He branch is not supported.                   ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden ME, Naerger U, Booth JL, Whitehead LA, Hardy WN, Carolan JF,
Wishnow EH, Balzarini DA, Brewer JH, Blake CC;  J. Fusion Energy 9 (1009) 161.
"High precision calorimetric search for evidence of cold fusion using in situ
catalytic recombination of evolved gases".
** A closed electrolytic cell was developed with recombination of the evolved
gases, so as to eliminate these as problems in accurate calorimetry. The
result was an order of magnitude in the accuracy of the overall power balance.
The calorimeter is of the cooling jacket type, with careful measurement of the
temperature at the in- and outlet of the jacket by an 8-element thermopile.
Chunky bar shaped Pd cathodes were used, degassed at 600 degC, and the
electrolyte was 0.1M LiOD in D2O. Loading was measured by mass, and reached
a little over 0.8. After loading, the electrode was inserted into the
calorimetric apparatus. There were no pressure changes, i.e. recombination
worked. For a range of input powers 4-18 W, the ratio of heat outputs from a
control cell (using a Pt electrode) to that of the Pd-electrode cell was 1.000
+- 0.003, i.e. within 0.3%, excess heat is ruled out.                 ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Izumida T, Ozawa Y, Ozawa K, Izumi S, Uchida S, Miyamoto T, Yamashita H,
Miyadera H;                                     Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 641.
"A search for neutron emission from cold nuclear fusion in a
titanium-deuterium system".
** Spongy Ti was pressurised with D2 gas at 20-50 atm and heated to enhance
deuterium absorption by the metal, resulting in absorption "almost to the
theoretical limit" (no further details given, but TiD2 is named). The neutron
detection equipment consisted of a small water tank filled with purified water
as moderator, several (3)He counters and a BF3 counter with polyethylene
moderator. A background base was established over a period of 120 h. The
TiD2 was cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature, and then allowed to warm up to
room temperature. Neutron bursts were detected by both kinds of counters at
about 220-250K, and the fusion rate calculated to be 1E-23 fus/pair/s.
Statistics confirmed a fusion origin of the neutron bursts. After some cycles,
the TiD2 was powdered rather than spongy. Fractofusion is invoked as the
mechanism of cold fusion.                                        May-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones SE, Palmer EP, Czirr JB, Decker DL, Jensen GL, Thorne JM, Taylor SF,
Rafelski J;                                     J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 199.
"Anomalous nuclear reactions in condensed matter: recent results and open
questions".
** The Jones+(89) work arose out of earlier work on muon catalysed fusion,
where the group measured effects at variance with theory, as was the case with
cold fusion. The group continues to measure the same small effect, although
no excess heat has been detected. Indeed, the authors do not believe in a
nuclear origin of excess heat. This paper gives a summary of the best evidence
for cold fusion and discusses it. The idea that muons from cosmic radiation
causes cold fusion is eliminated; there is not sufficient time for the dd(mu)
melecule to form, before the muon is absorbed elsewhere. The electrolyte used
in the electrolysis experiments has been slightly modified, and more work is
needed to unravel the essential components; as well, pressurised D2 is used
by the group to deuterate metals (this goes back to 1986 but has been modified
by the Scaramuzzi group's experience). Some neutron results are shown with
error bars, from previous work. On average, this amounts to 1E-24 fus/pair/s
if it is a volume effect, or much larger if a surface effect (up to 1E-20).
Neutron bursts are discussed. Although there are bursts in the background,
those from cold fusion experiments are too large to be background, and should
be studied further. There is some discussion of geological cold fusion, which
was one of the driving factors for the work; geological (3)He/(4)He ratios
are mentioned, as well as geological tritium, which appears to have been
detected at some volcanic sites. The authors conclude that cold fusion is an
interesting phenomenon worthy of further study, but should not be confused by
claims of excess heat production.                                     ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorne J;                                        Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 371.
"Neutron and gamma-ray emission from palladium deuteride under supercritical
conditions".
** Another try at forcing nonequilibrium; here, Pd under pressurised D2 gas
is cycled between 75 and 295 degC, the critical point for PdDx, beyond which
the alpha- and beta phases merge and large fluctuations in density might
enhance the sought-after effect. Pd foil and sponge were kept for three days
under up to 90 atm pressurised D2, at -80 degC, then slowly allowed to warm
up, then heated up to 320 degC. Two NE-213 scintillation neutron counters
were placed around the cell, with pulse-shape discriminators to reject gamma
radiation. Neutron counting efficiency was about 1%. Gamma radiation was taken
from the same pulse-shape separation. No significant increase over background
levels were observed during the warm-up to room temperature, nor upon going
to 473K; the cell was then held under 36 atm pressure at room temperature for
>2 months, then heated to 620K, well above the critical temp., and significant
neutron emissions were recorded above about 550K, the two counters being very
well correlated. A similar increase was seen in the gamma emission. Control
runs, with empty cells or Pd + H2 gas, showed no emissions of this sort. Rough
estimation of the fusion rate leads to about Jones+(89) levels, at 1E-21 or
so.                                                              Mar-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keesing RG, Greenhow RC, Cohler MD, McQuillan AJ;
Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 375.
"Thermal, thermoelectric, and cathode poisoning effects in cold fusion
experiments".
** This team ran FPH-type experiments 24h/day for 10 weeks and observed no
excess heat or signs of nuclear emission. However, they gained some
understanding of the reaction, thermal effects and heat pumping due to the
Peltier effect, as well as the effects of cathode poisoning. Their
calorimetric measurements produced negligible excess heat, temperature being
monitored at five different points in the cell. During an early run, the cell
temperature was lower than expected; heat was being absorbed. The authors
believe that this might be due to a Peltier effect at the Pd/Pt junction, and
then realised that such an effect might in fact be the cause for excess heat
apparently observed by others. The Peltier effect is normally small, but if
the Pt is deuterided (near the surface) it becomes as a semiconductor, which
would increase the effect. Tests for this were not successful, however.
Experiments with poisoning (using cyanide) show that this raises the
overpotential; this might lead workers to see excess heat where there is in
fact increased ohmic heating. The authors speculate that absorption of CO2
might, by reduction, lead to CO poisoning, with similar effects. The paper
concludes that one must be careful to account for exothermicity, any possible
Peltier effect and poisoning. No comments about radiation could be made, since
nothing was detected.                                            Aug-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimura T;                                 J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 27 (1990) 67.
"Quantitative evaluation of multiple production of neutrons induced by cosmic
rays in materials".
** Neutrons can be emitted as a result of cosmic ray influx onto some
materials, and this possibility needs to be considered in the very low-level
neutron measurements in cold fusion experiments. This is examined
experimentally in this work. 32 (3)He detectors, shielded by a Cd plate and
a layer of boric acid, and held within a polyethylene moderator, were used,
with pulse height- and -interval analysis, multichannel scaling and
coincidence measurements. Materials put to the tests included Pb, Cd, Nb-Mo,
Cu-Zn and Ti-Al-V-S alloys, Fe, Al, D2O and H2O. Results showed rough log-log
linearity of neutron production rate vs atomic weight, with a slope of 1.8;
these rates are 0.001-0.01 n/kg/s, corresponding to an equivalent fusion rate
of roughly 1E-27-1E-26 fus/pair/s. The additive effect of this neutron
production in a cold fusion experiment may, however, need to be taken into
account.                                                         Sep-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matsumoto T;                                    Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 647.
"Prediction of new particle emission on cold fusion".
** Having observed the new particle, the iton (p. 356, same volume), M now
predicts it theoretically, using the Nattoh model. Cold fusion takes place not
via the branches commonly assumed (proton+T, neutron+(3)He) - these are of
lesser importance - but mainly by hydrogen-catalysed fusion, in which first a
nattoh is formed, then two D's fuse with the help of a third, into the short
lived (4)H, which then becomes (4)He, and an iton is emitted. This also
explains M's observation of cold fusion in ordinary light water. This paper
looks at the theory of this process and concludes that it works. A further
paper, suggesting a cold fusion reactor, is on the way.          Feb-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Menlove HO, Fowler MM, Garcia E, Mayer A, Miller MC, Ryan RR, Jones SE;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 215.
"The measurement of neutron emission from Ti plus D2 gas".
** Various forms of Ti chips and sponge were exposed to D2 under pressure, and
neutrons monitored, using high-efficiency (21-34%) cavity-type detectors
containing 6-8 (3)He tubes. Random neutron emissions were observed as well as
time-correlated neutron bursts. Temperature cycling, from liquid nitrogen
temperature up to room temp., was emplyed, and the neutron bursts were emitted
during the warm-up phase; the random emissions persisted for 19 h after
warm-up. The cycle could be repeated only a few times, whereupon neutron
emissions ceased. The rather low neutron yields at 0.05-0.2 n/s were 10.4
sigma above background. Two electrolytic cells showed similar neutron bursts.
The mechanism of neutron production is not clear.                     ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noninski VC, Noninski CI;                       Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 364.
"Determination of the excess energy obtained during the electrolysis of heavy
water".
** Calorimetric experiments, using a bundle of thin Pd wire as cathode, and
K2SO4 in D2O as electrolyte. After "lengthy" preelectrolysis, in which the Pd
is saturated with deuterium, the cell is moved into the calorimeter. Gases
evolve into an airbag, also within the calorimeter. Very short measuring
times (electrolyses) of about 3 min, are used. During this time, the cell
temperature rose, and the rises were converted to heat produced by
precalibration. With or without recombination, most of the 10 runs reported
show some excess heat. No controls are reported, but the authors claim that
this calorimeter solves a number of problems.                    Jul-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oriani RA, Nelson JC, Lee S-K, Broadhurst JH;   Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 652.
"Calorimetric measurements of excess power output during the cathodic charging
of deuterium into palladium".
** A calorimeter using the Seebeck effect is used. The cylindrical electrode
space is entirely surrounded by a thermopile array, thus capturing all the
heat given off; temperature gradients do not matter. Calibration with
electrical heating shows an accuracy of 0.3%. Runs with water establish
precise agreement between expected and measured heat, and absence of
significant recombination effects. Runs with heavy water then show no
anomalous heat outputs over 31 hours. A larger cell was then built, with lower
electrolytic resistance, to allow larger current densities. Also, palladium
was a part of the anode, so as to dissolve Pd and redeposit it onto the
cathode, in order to encourage crack formation there. Now some apparent excess
heat was measured. Recalibration with H2O confirmed this. Another anomaly
observed was that, upon reduction of the input power there was a rise in the
calorimeter signal, and excess heat. There was also a slight waviness in the
calorimeter signal with heavy water but not with light water, indicating the
possibility of periodic or sporadic heat bursts. Chemical explanations for
the excess heats appear not to be sufficient, nor are mechanical energy
storage models. Some attempt to monitor neutron flux, and to assay for tritium
afterwards; neither was found. The excess heat observed remains unexplained.
                                                                 May-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sato T, Okamoto M, Kim P, Fujii Y, Aizawa O;    Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 357.
"Detection of neutrons in electrolysis of heavy water".
** A divided electrolysis cell, with a Pd plate cathode and 1M LiOD
electrolyte was used. Neutron detection was by means of 9 (3)He counters,
grouped into three channels, with pulse height discrimination. Shielding all
around, by polyethylene blocks, cadmium plates and boric acid. Neutron count
efficiency was calibrated to be 7%. The background was carefully recorded and
showed some bursts due to a nuclear reactor nearby. Three electrolyses were
run; two of them evinced large neutron counts at about 5 h, the third at 20 h.
These bursts were 2-3 times the background bursts. There will be further
measurements using a large NE-213 scintillator, allowing energy assignment,
to be reported later.                                            Jul-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takahashi A, Iida T, Maekawa F, Sugimoto H, Yoshida S;
Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 380.
"Windows of cold nuclear fusion and pulsed electrolysis experiments".
** A hypothetical excitation-screening model is proposed as a possible
mechanism for nuclear heating, and some experiments to confirm it, are
reported. The model rules out cold fusion under stationary conditions, so
nonstationary conditions are examined as well. Pd is unusual with its 10
valence electrons. An incoming deuteron will be surrounded by many free
electrons, resulting in strong screening. As more and more d comes in, the
probablity of a d-d meeting increases, while electron screening decreases. At
a certain loading, the fusion rate will be at a maximum. At full charging,
screening is very weak; no more fusion. This might explain some of the
observed results. Some rough estimations using the excitation model indicate
the feasibility of observed fusion rates.
An experiment using biased pulsed electrolysis current was then run, involving
two different neutron detectors (a Bonner (3)He thermal neutron detector, and
a NE-213 one) and simple cell temperature measurement. No definite emissions
were detected, although there were some slight increases over the background.
Nevertheless, the authors say that cold fusion exists, and encourage further
work, including that with "crazy ideas".                         Dec-89/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamazaki S;                         Euro. Pat. Appl. EP 0 392 324, 3-Apr-1990.
"Electrochemical nuclear fusion method".
** Yamazaki (working for the Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Japan)
starts by summarising what is wrong with the way Jones+(89) carry out
electrolytic cold fusion. The use of atmospheric pressure reduces the
probability of cold fusion; the reaction tends to occur at a localised section
of the electrode from the rise in temperature at that point; poisoning of the
cathode leads to side reactions and product decomposition, and the deuterium
ends up in the atmosphere, so the amount used for fusion is small; says Y.
The invention describes a pressurised cell, with the evolved gases (which are
kept separate) providing the pressure. A heat exchanger removes the excess
heat, thus keeping the cell temperature down. The cathode is either Pd or Ti,
the electrolyte being a mixture not unlike that of Jones+(89). Neutrons are
measured by a detector; nuclear fusion "is obviously accelerated when the
reaction at the cathode is implemented under high pressure". Up to 200 atm
can be used. The neutrons released can cause subsequent nuclear fusion by
breeding, so there is some danger of an atomic explosion, which can be
prevented by controlling the extent of electrolysis. This is done by pulsing
the current, to a level not exceeding the critical nuclear fusion value.
Two example experiments showed that the neutron flux is proportional to the
pressure, and can be controlled by the duty ratio of the pulsed current.
Excess heat was also observed.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamazaki S;                         Euro. Pat. Appl. EP 0 392 325, 3-Apr-1990.
"Electrochemical nuclear fusion method".
** This appears to be the same as EP 0 392 324, but phrased a little more
formally. Note that Chem. Abstracts has this under the name Shunpei, Yamazaki;
this is probably because the inventor's name is given as "Shunpei Yamazaki"
here, as opposed to "Yamazaki, Shunpei" in the other patent application.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.06 / G Bridgewater /  Re: NOVA Cold Fusion Show
     
Originally-From: gary@proa.sv.dg.com (Gary Bridgewater)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Cold Fusion Show
Date: 6 May 91 22:19:42 GMT
Organization: Data General SDD, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <41938@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
 writes:
>Shame, NOVA, shame.
 
But, seriously, NOVA stopped being "science" at least two years ago.  Now it is
 about
people (who may do "science") and animals.  If you think of it as "America's
 Funniest
Home Science Videos" you can avoid this feeling of betrayal.  Any year now it
 will add
a laugh track.
--
Gary Bridgewater, Data General Corporation, Sunnyvale California
gary@sv.dg.com or {amdahl,aeras,amdcad}!dgcad!gary
"I am a pizza.  I am a pizza.  ..."
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengary cudfnGary cudlnBridgewater cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.07 / Benno Eichmann /  Re: A Fantasy, vortex based effects, past work?
     
Originally-From: benno@crash.cts.com (Benno Eichmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy, vortex based effects, past work?
Date: 7 May 91 02:16:21 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

Iain, if you have a good source, can you find anything related to
an Arno Werner at University of LUND, Sweden?
 
What of Viktor Schaugerger, in relation to the Biotechnical Academy in
Austria, under a Walter Schauberger(?)?
 
I'm simply trying to help find some trail, and if it doesn't pan out,
well then at least we tried?
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbenno cudfnBenno cudlnEichmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.07 / Chuck Sites /  Re: MIlls/Farrell Theory
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.uucp (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIlls/Farrell Theory
Date: 7 May 91 04:26:30 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
 
 
>On Fri, 3 May 1991 <Terry Bollinger asked
>> Action must be quantized, so are you:
> > a) Multiplying the mass of the electron by an integer value,
> > b) Postulating that Planck's constant can vary (via integer division), or
> >c) None of the above?
 
>My answer is  "c", None of the above.
 
>We use a principle derived by Haus, H. A., American Journal of
>Physics, 54, 1126-1129, 1986.  He derived the condition for radiation by a
>moving charge from Maxwell's equation--to radiate, the space-time
>Fourier transform of the charge density function must possess
>components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.
>Actually, we used the inverse of this derivation--
 
This vision you have of how quantum mechanic operates gives me a very
interesting image of nature.  Are you sure this is this how it really
works?  Your post certainly has given me some food for thought.  Anyway,
one aspect that you havn't seemed to touch upon is the energy question.
Is energy absorbed in the (1/3)a0 to (1/2)a0 transition? Is any
senergy released during state transition (1)a0 to (1/n)a0?  If energy
is moving and can't manifest itself in the form of quanta EM energy
packet, what form does it show itself? (Magnetic? Like in super-conductor?)
 
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College
 
John, keep posting.  I think you have a quite a few interested people here.
 
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Pooh-Poohs Cold Fusion
Date: 7 May 91 16:11:22 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <2615@edat.UUCP> brian@edat.UUCP (brian douglass personal account)
 writes:
>In article <41864@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
 writes:
>[deleted stuff]
>>It completely ignored the fact that all or nearly
>>all of the negative findings must be dismissed as flawed because
>>they used jeweler's palladium.
>
>I think the point of the show was, had Mr Flieschman and Mr. Pons
>released their findings in a reputable journal instead of
>succumbing to administration greed and airing their findings at a
>news conference, other experimenters could have much better
>verified or refuted their claims.  Instead, the world had ended up
>with _Confusion In A Jar_  :-;
>
>--
>Brian Douglass			brian@edat.uucp
 
THAT point of the show was a bit weak, IHMO.  What Pons and Fleischman
did was to submit a paper to a reputable journal and then, AFTER it was
accepted for publication, hold a news conference announcing same.  This
is a very common practice in science.  Usually the *big* results in the
Physical Review Letters and Physics Letters are announced on the day the
article actually comes off the presses because these journals insist on
that procedure, but that is not always the case.  Indeed, within a year
after the P&F flap started, SLAC held a news conference, to announce that
a paper had been *submitted* about some properties of the Z-zero, that was
very conveniently timed to be a few days before the far superior CERN
results appeared in print in Physics Letters.
 
Now, don't flame me about the journal they used -- even the Florida State
library subscribes to it!  But it is true that its referees know very
little about nuclear physics, and therein lies the rub.  When the TV
show got real was when it pointed out the terrible shortcomings of the
PAPER.  No spectrum (MIT got it off news film, so the press conference
had more scientifically valid information than the paper) and no details
about the experiment.  Nowhere was there anything about any special
requirements concerning the source of Palladium, for example.  If it was
important, you will not find it in their communication to the journal.
THAT is what the experimenters needed to see -- and STILL have not seen.
 
Jones, on the other hand, brought his lab books to the Washington APS
meeting and had the guts to run his experiment in someone else's lab.
The difference is pretty clear to a scientist.
 
The other good part was about the timing of the news conference in violation
of their agreement with Jones.  It is about time that story got told.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.07 / Mark Thorson /  Re: NOVA Confusion
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Confusion
Date: 7 May 91 16:16:29 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

What was lacking was a more than cursory examination of the positive
findings.  There was a medium-length segment on the unreliability of
BF3 detectors, which was good.  But then there was a guilt-by-association
segment describing how the first-class labs were finding negative results, and
the second-class labs were finding positive results.  There was also a
brief appearance of the charges that certain labs spiked their tubes
with tritium, but after airing this _very_ serious charge, no mention
of the more recent discovery that palladium recycled from scrap contains
significant tritium contamination.  Also, there was no representation
of positive findings by independent third parties.  Has Huggins at Stanford
recanted the results of his carefully-controlled experiments?
 
And while much of the show was spent crucifying F&P for what might
be called unprofessional behavior, there was no exposure of the
equally unprofessional behavior on the other side, such as the "vote"
on cold fusion at the conference of physicists (APS?) which occurred
at about the same time as the meeting of the Electrochemical Society.
 
Their show followed a simple formula:  everything bad about cold fusion
and its proponents, everything good about its detractors.  If this were
respectable scientific journalism, more than half of this show would have
ended up on the cutting room floor.  That would have made room to present
an objective discussion of the experiments conducted to date, and the
problems these experiments have had (such as using the wrong kind of
palladium).
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.08 / Paul Houle /  Re: Theories
     
Originally-From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Theories
Date: 8 May 91 00:59:02 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

 
	I would love to see the environmental effects of subground hydrogen.
Could you imagine a machine with some kind of palladium matrix in it that
converts ordinary hydrogen into a,  say n=1/16th state (with corresponding
release of energy on the order of 2500 eV/atom!).  A totally new kind of
'heavy hydrogen' issues from the other end of the machine,  hydrogen that
is denser than ordinary hydrogen because the molecules are smaller (OK,  OK,
this effect only really shows us in liquid form)
 
	Subground hydrogen would be really hard to ionize.  Really hard.
It won't participate in very many chemical reactions at all.
 
	Would make a nice science fiction story,  you have to admit --
slowly poisoning our atmosphere with 'an inert allotrope of hydrogen'.
 
	From the viewpoint of real science,  I'm skeptical of it,  at least
in isolated hydrogen atoms/molecules.  Sure,  you can play with the old
Bohr model of the atom and say,  ok,  momentum can have any value L that
is equal to n or 1/n,  where n is any integer.  That would work OK,  but
you gotta explain why those 'subground states' never show their head in
spectro experiments.
 
	From the viewpoint of fully-grown quantum mechanics,  this is just
plain awful.  It looks like it would break the very concept of quantization,
although I can just barely set up the Schrodinger equation and solve it
now.
 
	Just from the viewpoint of conservation,  and,  say,  assuming that
photon energy/angular momentum remains quantized,  I can actually see
where you'd get a selection rule that would keep atoms from making the
jump from n=1 to n=1/2 (Or,  for that matter,  vice versa) by electromagnetic
interaction.  But then,  we're still left with needing some way to couple
out the energy and fractional angular momentum away as we make this
transition.  Is Jack Williamson really right in "The Humanoids?"  Are the
platinum group metals really the key to unlocking the power of the
"fifth force?",  "rhodomagnetism?" (Note to Iain:  This isn't serious).
I have to admit that I showed lots of people passages out of that book
which talk about the use of palladium ("I thought they made watch
springs out of palladium because it ISN'T magnetic!") at the start of the
cold fusion flap.
 
	I would love to see some papers on hydrons and the other,  similar
model that popped up.  Does anyone know when they'll be out?
 
--
AngstCon '91 in Socorro, NM -------------------------------------------------
Sometime in the fall of 1991.  Email pahsnsr@jupiter.nmt.edu;  Are you Happy?
AngstCon can fix that or your money back.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpahsnsr cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.08 /  will /  Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
     
Originally-From: will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Fantasy That Should Not Be Here!
Date: 8 May 91 08:15:45 GMT
Organization: Ryukoku Univ., Seta, Japan

In article <3108@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>, ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au
 (Iain Jameson) writes:
>The post was pure fantasy. One wonders if it is somehow possible
>to have these people removed from the net. Benno has writtn a
>number of articles which are like the above. I hate to suggest it,
>but the net would be a better place without him and his wasteful
>posts.
>
 
	Now come on.  This guy has a much right to post his views as you or
	anyone else on the net.  Sure, I think he is a nut. But look, if we
	start throwing people of the net for being nuts, thier won't be very
	many people left to use the net.  This world is ####ed.  Face it.
 
							Will....
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenwill cudlnwill cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.08 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: NOVA Confusion
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Confusion
Date: 8 May 91 12:20:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

One comment I have is about Morrison's observation on the correlation of
positive results with distance from the central labs.  My impression is
that the reason has to do with the social pressure and the consequence
of ridicule in northern countries rather than with the approach to science.
Morrison's comments were a bit derogatory with respects to southern Europe,
and unfairly so if one remembers where Leonardo, Galileo and Fermi came from.
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.15 / Robert Eachus /  Apologies for multiple copies.
     
Originally-From: eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Apologies for multiple copies.
Date: 15 May 91 06:49:28 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     There was a problem on the machine that posts these messages to
usenet, where messages were not being shown as sent.  The sysadmin
tried to figure out what was wrong and in the process retransmitted
this message many times. I hope this was caught at the next site up
the line.  If you did get several copies of the message, I apologize
on MITREs' behalf.
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.21 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 474 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 474 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 21 May 1991 14:12:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am resending the submission below. I originally sent it on 8-May but have
not seen it appear yet, at least not on the LISTSERV mailings; there is a good
chance that it got lost - or (a faint chance) that I in fact never did send
it. I wouldn't like y'all to miss out, so here goes again:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello again,
 
here's another lot, might as well send it off. The pile is not getting any
smaller, though, more coming all the time. The big news we were all awaiting
is the "China Lake" paper by Bush et al. This team has previously failed to
find excess heat and radiation; now they find them both, and helium to boot,
correlated with the heat (prudently, they do not show the relation, I suspect
it's rough). This paper has been criticised for the low levels of He it
reports (1E14 atoms is not a lot in terms of mol/L, i.e., about 1E-09) but
they do seem to have detection limits three orders of magnitude below that, so
I can't easily see any problem. The same team reports excess heat in a
separate paper (Stilwell et al), but the Bush et al must be the most recent,
mentioning up to 46% excess.
  Helium was also the subject (Morrey et al) of an inter-lab investigation of
a number of palladium rod sections, chosen at random from as-is blanks and
ones used in cold fusion experiments, as well as spiked ones. A couple of
these did show helium above the expected levels. If cold fusion is a volume
effect, then the helium should be in the palladium and not escape, being very
immobile in it. These authors take it to be a near-surface effect, so some
would get out, and some stay in; you CAN have it both ways. This would, of
course, upset the Bush et al estimate of the amount expected in the gas phase
for so many W of excess heat but a factor of 2 or so may not matter.
  Mengoli et al appear to have good evidence for tritium production; again, I
can't see any errors, although they do not tell us that much. The blank
statement about electrolytic enrichment being ruled out is not quite enough;
overall tritium gains are within enrichment factors, as I see it.
  Olofsson et al is a must for calorimetry people, quite amazing accuracy -
and no excess heat. Harb et al use statistics to get the most out of their
neutron measurements, and find for cold fusion. They also suggest a more
concentrated LiOD solution, at 3M - why not? Why is everybody else sticking to
the 0.1M as used by FPH(89)? Push harder, maybe you'll get something. This was
also done by Sona et al, who used 2.4M. They also recommend keeping traces of
oxygen (generated at the anode) from the Pd.
  There are some theoretical works as well. Another Bush has a brand new one,
taking 40+ pages to tell us, and even ends up with a preliminary reactor
design. His transmission resonance model explains everything, it seems.
Chatterjee can explain skewed branching ratios by spectator electrons, but
warns that theories really ought to wait for a firm experimental base. Kim
solves a mystery that has had me worried: the results of Wada and Nishizawa.
You may recall they had two Pd rods in pressurised D2, waited for loading and
then zapped a spark from one rod to the other. They measured large neutron
bursts. It seems that this is nothing but a self-target effect, well known for
decades. I don't see then, why they get nothing using Pt rods, but the
explanation rings true.
  There are four patents (and more to come) from Yamazaki et al. They are
patenting everything they can think of - twice, it seems, unless I am missing
something. As usual for English-language patents handled by non-English patent
law firms, they contain a goodly number of spelling and other language errors.
"Solusion" (repeatedly) is not as funny as "costive". I like the quaint "500
KHz to 500 MHz, for example 13.56 MHz". Lots of other examples in that range.
I include these as papers, because they present results of cold fusion
experiments. I.e., they find neutrons. I will chase up their other two patents,
in which they also cover electrolysis. It does seem to me that they are
patenting self-targetting, not cold fusion.
 Another bit of news: lately I've had several requests for a copy of the whole
bibliography. It being fairly big now, despite being divided into two, it's not
easy for me to send it, I've had to break it up even further. I have arranged
now to have it filed in the archive containing this list, and soon you'll be
able to GET it out yourself. When I know the details, I'll let you know.
                                                                     Dieter.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 8-May. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 474.
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush BF, Lagowski JJ, Miles MH, Ostrom GS;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271.
"Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion experiments".
** The "China Lake" paper. The gas effluent from cold fusion electrolysis
cells was analysed for He by a sensitive mass spectrometer. Great care was
taken to establish that there was no contamination; the N2 gas used to flush
the sample flask was checked and found to contain no He, and blank runs showed
none. The Pd cathode was surface-ground with wet silicon carbide paper to
remove any possible helium from it (?). The MS detection limit for He was about
8E11 atoms of (4)He. Results show that those electrodes that had produced
excess heat (reported elsewhere) also gave off (4)He in amounts large compared
to the detection limit, while those that gave little or no excess heat did
not. None gave off any detectable (3)He. The He detection limit corresponds to
around 8% excess heat, and up to 27% had been observed. For the cell giving
out 0.46 W, about 5.4E14 He atoms are expected during the electrolysis time of
4440 s; this is certainly well above their detection limit. The amount of He
found is roughly proportional to the excess power (with large uncertainties
because the amounts are still small). Dental x-ray film, placed next to the
electrodes, showed evidence of radiation emitted from the electrode. Control
electrolyses with light water showed no helium; these electrodes had been used
previously in heavy water and contained some residual D, so d+p fusion could
not be ruled out; indeed, some unexpected excess heat was found, despite the
lack of (3)He, expected from this reaction. There was no evidence of radiation
on the film. The fact that He was detected implies that it is produced at the
metal surface and that most of it escapes.                       Feb-91/Apr-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush RT;                                        Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 313.
"Cold 'fusion'. The transmission resonance model fits data on excess heat,
predicts optimal trigger points, and suggests nuclear reaction scenarios".
** Bush, in this 40+ page paper, outlines his model, which explains the
neutrons, tritium, excess heat and even cluster impact emissions claimed by
various experimenters. When an odd integer multiple number of quarter waves of
the de Broglie waves of diffusons (here deuterons diffusing within Pd) match
the potential well widths of the lattice particles, 100% transmissivity can be
achieved, and the deuteron can get close to others on the way, and may fuse.
The model not only explains the experimental evidence but also makes detailed
predictions of, e.g., the shape of the function excess power vs. current
density (it finds a relative minimum, matched to a measured point set). It
also leads to optimal conditions ("trigger points") for observing cold fusion,
and even goes as far as some preliminary reactor design. The nuclear reaction
taking place is not d-d fusion but most likely neutron transfer from deuteron
to Pd: d + (105)Pd --> p + (106)Pd + energy.                     May-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatterjee L;                                   Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 683.
"Could spectator electrons legalize cold fusion?".
** An interesting introductory phrase: "The origin of the phenomenon is not
understood, so theoretical adventures may be hazardous until the experimenters
reach a concensus". Still, C explores a possible avenue; that of spectator
(conduction) electrons somehow enhancing one of the two fusion branches, which
might explain "excess tritium" production in some experiments. Theory seems to
support this idea; the electrons drain away some of the energy from the fusion
vertex, skewing the branching ratio markedly.                    Jun-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harb JN, Pitt WG, Tolley HD;                    Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 669.
"Statistical analysis of neutron burst size and rate during electrolysis of
LiOD solutions".
** Rigorous statistical analysis is used to describe the distribution of both
the neutron burst size and rate, from a cold fusion electrolysis at a Pd
cathode in a 3M LiOD solution in heavy water. This is to overcome the
ambiguity plaguing most such experiments, with neutron levels close to the
background. A Czirr+Jensen type spectrometer was used, in conjunction with a
neutron flux monitor, enabling detection of bursts. A pair of thermocouples
were also placed in the cell but never detected any excess heat. There was
also some analysis for tritium but, again, none was found. The results show
a rather clear steady rise in the mean neutron emission rate with time, for
electrolysis in heavy water, and a very steady constant mean rate for the
light water control. The heavy water emissions are characterised by large
infrequent bursts superimposed on the background. These results are consistent
with those of Menlove et al, and show that careful statistical treatment is
essential in such experiments.                                   Apr-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE;                                         Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 680.
"Neutron burst from a high-voltage discharge between palladium electrodes in
D2 gas".
** Kim offers a conventional explanation for the results of Wada and Nishizawa
who got large neutron emissions from a high voltage discharge "stimulation"
between two Pd rods in pressurised D2 gas. W&N claimed this was due to cold
fusion of supersaturated D in the Pd. Kim suggests, and underpins
theoretically, that it can be explained in terms of D+ ions, accelerated by
the discharge, striking the PdDx; in other words, it is just plain well known
beam fusion, as in self-targeting. All W&N's experimental features such as
pressure changes and the "controls" can be accommodated by this explanation.
                                                                 Feb-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mengoli G, Fabrizio M, Manduchi C, Zannoni G, Riccardi L, Veronesi F, Buffa A;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 279.
"The observation of tritium in the electrolysis of D2O at palladium sheet
electrodes".
** Electrolysis at sheets down to 0.1 mm thickness. Loadings of 0.8-0.9 were
achieved, measured by reverse electrolysis. Tritium was analysed by means of
aliquots taken from the electrolyte. D2O levels were kept up by addition of
more D2O; the authors compensate the tritium results for the fact that the
D2O added contained much less tritium than that originally in the cell. Many
cells show no tritium produced, but some do, at significant levels, above
those that can be attributed to electrolytic enrichment. Thiourea and As2O3
were used to poison the Pd surface, to aid deuterium loading.    Nov-90/Apr-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morrey JR, Caffee MW, Farrar IV H, Hoffman NJ, Hudson GB, Jones RH, Kurz MD,
Lupton J, Oliver BM, Ruiz BV, Wacker JF, van Veen A;
Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 659.
"Measurements of helium in electrolyzed palladium".
** Six laboratories spread across the US and as far as The Netherlands took
part in a double blind study of sections of palladium rods, some of which had
been used as cathodes in cold fusion experiments, and some were controls. One
rod was as received from Johnson-Mathey; some were spiked with surface
implanted helium by Johnson-Mathey and supplied as such (one) or used in a
cold fusion experiment (two); one unspiked rod was used in a cold fusion
electrolysis (it was later said to have produced excess heat). These five rods
were analysed by the various labs, using their own methods, for helium. One
rod dropped out; this was the spiked one, not used in any experiments. Its
known helium level (from the spiking) did not agree with the analysis. The
other 4 rods made an interesting picture. The He levels in the two remaining
spiked rods were about right (both had been used in cold fusion experiments).
Of the two unspiked rods, one should have had no He, and between 1E-11 and
1E-10 mol/cm**3 were found - this might be considered experimental background,
although it was higher than expected. The other, reported to have given out
excess heat, had about 10 times this much. That level was not enough, however,
to explain the excess heat from the known fusion reaction, by a factor of
about 36. All He was found near the surface, and there seemed to be more at
the ends of the rods than near the middle, for some reason. No (3)He was
found, although some of the labs would have if there had been some. The
authors conclude that they cannot be sure that the He found in the unspiked
rod came from cold fusion, and suggest further experiments of this sort.
                                                                 Jul-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olofsson G, Wadsoe I, Eberson L;             J. Chem. Thermodyn. 23 (1991) 95.
"Design and testing of a calorimeter for measurements on electrochemical
reactions with gas evolution".
** Cold fusion calorimetry places great demands on the experimenter, because
of the high currents and gas evolution, over long periods. Many calorimeter
designs allow substantial rise in cell temperature, which itself introduces
problems. Here, the authors present a better design, using thermopile heat
conduction to carry heat out of the cell. Accuracy was 0.2%. In this kind of
setup, the calibration constant is not a function of the heat capacity of the
cell, unlike with other calorimeters. During electrolysis, even at the highest
applied powers (up to 1W), cell temperature was not raised by more than 0.5K.
The results show no excess heat for any cell, within the experimental limits.
                                                            Sep-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sona PG, Ferrari M;                             Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 678.
"The possible negative influence of dissolved O2 in cold nuclear fusion
experiments".
** As Appleby has stated elsewhere, it is possible that a layer containing Li
needs to be deposited, in order for deuterium to get into the Pd, instead of
forming D2 gas and bubbling off (this is in fact a fast reaction) - i.e. the
Li-containing layer is a poison for bubble formation. If the layer has holes,
it works less well. The layer, being a compound of Pd, Li and D, would clearly
be sensitive to oxygen, which would dissolve it as LiOD, leaving Pd. So it is
a good idea to prevent access of oxygen to the Pd cathode (O2 is generated at
the anode). This can be done by, among other things, putting a porous membrane
between the cathode and anode (standard electrochemical practice in fact), or
using a hydrogen anode, i.e. one where hydrogen (or deuterium) gas is oxidised
to water. Sona & Ferrari also speed up the layer's formation by increasing the
LiOD concentration from the usual 0.1M to 2.4M.                  May-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stilwell DE, Park KH, Miles MH;                 J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 333.
"Electrochemical calorimetric studies on the electrolysis of water and heavy
water (D2O)".
** This paper reports excess heat, which was correlated in another paper with
He. Two kinds of calorimetric cells were used. In one (type A), the
temperature was measured directly inside the cell; in the other (type B), the
cell heated up a bath surrounding it, and the temp. was measured there. Both
were without recombination, which was in fact minimised. For the excess heat
calculation, the power going into water electrolysis (current * thermoneutral
potential) was subtracted. The cells were operated at 13-37 degC above room
temp. For type A cells, both light and heavy water appeared to give about 7%
excess heat, so something was wrong here. Type B cells showed no excess heat.
The conclusion is that these experiments do not support cold fusion, and that
calorimetry with type A cells is not easy. Note that in a (presumably) later
paper, the same authors find excess heat, using shorter, thicker, cathodes
than here (Miles et al, J. Electroanal. Chem. 296 (1990) 241) and still later,
they report helium and radiation (J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271).
                                                                      ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamazaki S, Miyanaga A, Wakaizumi K, Takemura Y;
Eur. Pat. Appl. 0 393 461, 09.04.90
"Plasma nuclear fusion method".
** This patent sets out to solve several problems with "conventional" cold
fusion apparati and thereby give us reliable cold fusion. These problems are:
a) the use of "solusion", allowing little chance for cold fusion;
b) creation of deuterons in the same place as that in which they are to fuse;
c) poisoning of the Pd, leading to no more deuteride;
d) much deuterium is wasted as D2 gas and not used for fusion.
The invention produces a dense plasma (10-1000 times as dense as plasma formed
by high frequency fields) from gaseous D2, and then accelerates the deuterons
towards the Pd target by means of a voltage field. The plasma is generated by
resonance of microwave and magnetism. The gas is >= 98% pure D2 plus a little
H2 and He. There are further details of heat exchange for the heat produced,
prevention of overheating of the magnets etc.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamazaki S;                                Eur. Pat. Appl. 0 393 463, 09.04.90
"Electrode for nuclear fusion and method for using the same".
** This patent, as the previous patent of the same inventor (with others)
tries to provide reliable cold fusion. Here, instead of microwave resonance
with magnetism, a high frequency electric field ("500 KHz to 500 MHz, for
example 13.56 MHz") produces the plasma, again beaming it at the Pd (or Ti)
target.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamazaki S, Miyanaga A, Takemura Y;        Eur. Pat. Appl. 0 393 464, 09.04.90
"Apparatus for plasma nuclear fusion".
** This patent appears to this abstractor to concern the same invention as
Pat. Appl. 0 393 461 of the same day, same inventors (+ one), but with a more
detailed and more carefully expressed description.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamazaki S, Miyanaga A, Takemura Y;        Eur. Pat. Appl. 0 393 465, 09.04.90
"Method for producing plasma nuclear fusion".
** This patent appears to this abstractor to concern the same invention as
Pat. Appl. 0 393 463 of the same day, same inventors (-2), but with a more
detailed and more carefully expressed description.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.21 / Dieter Britz /  Bibliography archived
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bibliography archived
Date: Tue, 21 May 1991 18:27:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Attention goodlife:
 
As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I have been getting a minor flood of
requests for my bibliography (well, 2 or 3). Since this is now quite bulky,
it's a small pain in the bum to divvy it up and email it off. So I have
arranged to have it filed in this list's archives, wherefrom you can get it
for yourself anytime you feel like it. There are two ways to do this. I know
nothing about the first, called "ftp" way, so I quote Marty Hoag, who runs the
LISTSERV end:
 
>   The bibliography is available via anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu
>(134.129.111.1).  Use the userid anonymous and your e-mail address as the
>password.  Once connected enter
>   cd fusion
>to access the fusion archives.  Then you may enter   dir fusion.bib*
>to get a listing of the bibliography files.  To transfer each file use
>GET (ie. mget fusion.bib*  or  get fusion.biblio1a  etc.).
>Enter  quit to terminate ftp.
 
The other way to do it is via LISTSERV, which means I get it sent by email. To
first find out what is in the archive, send an email to
listserv@ndsuvm1.bitnet, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"
consisting of the command
 
index fusion
 
You get a largish list of all files available (I assume it's largish under ftp
as well; fortunately for you and me, my biblio-files come first!). To get any
one of these files, you then send to the same address the command, e.g.,
 
get fusion 91-00487
get fusion biblio1a
 
etc, according to what you're after. My bibliography has been chopped up into
(so far) 3 pieces; the files are BIBLIO1A, BIBLIO1B and BIBLIO2. The first two
are two halves of one list, up to date to about October 1990; the last is what
came after that up to about April 1991; I am now accumulating - and will soon
add to the archive - BIBLIO3, which will grow as I add more. The first three
are more or less fixed now, but I occasionally either find an error (mostly
spelling, nothing serious) or I finally read a paper I entered directly from
an Abstract, and fill in my own observations, removing the reference to the
abstract. There is not much of that now, the files have more or less settled
down.
 Do what you like with the bibliography, I don't want copyright or anything of
the sort. If you should sell it (I don't know who would buy it), send me half
the money.
 
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.15 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: No radiation means no fusion?
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No radiation means no fusion?
Date: 15 May 91 11:30:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

On the question of two, 4 MeV alphas and no radiation, it must be said
that if all heat comes from these alphas, there must be plenty of them.
But now fast alphas excite the inner shells of the Pd which decay in
part by emitting X-rays.
 
How many alphas? 4 MeV is ~6.4e-13 joules. So, if someone is producing
one watt (a modest amount), this model needs ~1.6 e12 alphas per second.
Now I assume that only the first 200 nm of Pd can produce energetic X-rays
(>1 keV) before the alpha slows down significantly.  With a cross section
of 1e-21 (small for an inner shell excitation), the x-ray yield should be
~1.2e-5 x-rays/alpha, or 2e7 hard x-rays per second.  Very easy to detect,
especially if the "fusions" occur near the surface as has been suggested.
 
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.15 / rolfe petschek /  Re: No radiation means no fusion?
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No radiation means no fusion?
Date: 15 May 91 12:54:42 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <9105150225.AA02668@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>Paul Kolac questioning my assessment of the NOVA program says:
><<Hmmm! If fusion in palladium REQUIRES neutrons then there isn't much>>
><<that can be said since he (Gai) found nothing (even from Jones).  BUT>>
><<I don't see why neutrons or gammas for that matter have to be a part of
><<heat producing fusion reactions in palladium. . . . >>
>
>Paul then goes on to suggest that the 6Li + d reaction can be neutronless
>as indeed it can if it produces two 4He's.  First hurdle to be overcome
>within the framework of the FPH type experiments is to explain why this
>reaction occurs but 7Li + d makes no contrabution.  Granting the first
>miracle which says the chemistry selects between the two lithium isotope,
 
Ah, but this is easy.  The reduced mass of the 6Li-d system is slightly
less than that of the 7Li-d system.  Thus at the (very low) energies
available in the solid state the tunneling rates for the first reaction
will be many orders of magnitude larger, provided they are, as predicted
both unobservably small.
 
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-2623
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrpetsche cudfnrolfe cudlnpetschek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.22 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 505 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 505 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1991 22:11:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
the pile is definitely shrinking now, another lot will clear it.  Here are 9
items, all out of J. Fusion Energy, and all papers given at the big
conference, so some of them have probably been mentioned before. The
Besenbacher et al crowd is in a building just next to mine. They apply their
effective medium theory to cold fusion. I note that all papers are negative,
with the exception of Mayer et al, who seem to confirm fractofusion
theoretically. Guilinger have a go (among other things) at measuring D/Pd
loading, and get a maximum of 0.8 by different methods. However, they all seem
to entail switching the current off at least, and thus exclude the possibility
that the loading is higher during charging, as suggested by the observation
that there are bubbles when the current is switched off. On the other hand,
because of the slow rate of diffusion, such super-0.8 D/Pd must be confined to
a surface layer, so they are likely to be pretty correct. As has been pointed
out by others, cold fusion - if it exists - has to be a near-surface effect.
 That's it, the rest soon.                                              Dieter
 
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 22-May. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 505.
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barwick SW, Price PB, Williams WT, Porter JD;   J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 273.
"Search for 0.8 MeV (3)He nuclei emitted from Pd and Ti exposed to high
pressure D2".
** Track recording plastic films have been laid alongside Pd and Ti sheets
exposed to D2 gas under >= 15 bars, to detect the neutrons from the n+(3)He
branch of the fusion reactions. There was temperature and pressure cycling,
and radiation background elimination. No evidence of cold fusion was found,
with neutron upper limits of 0.7 and 2.5 fusions/s/cm**3, as compared with
20 and 260 measured by de Ninno et al. There were some alpha particles
detected, arising from impurities in the metals (Th and U).           ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besenbacher F, Bech Nielsen B, Noerskov JK, Myers SM, Nordlander P;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 257.
"Interaction of hydrogen isotopes with metals: deuterium trapped at lattice
defects in palladium".
** A fundamental study, both theoretical and experimental, of the interaction
of hydrogen isotopes with defects in metals. Ion implantation is used for the
experiments. For the theory, the inhomogeneous metal is modelled as a simpler
host, the "effective medium", giving the name to the theory (dating back some
years). In short, defects act as a trap for hydrogen. There is good absolute
agreement between theory and experiment, with respect to trap strength of some
metals looked at. Up to 6 hydrogens can be trapped at a single open defect;
the distance between them is, however, no less than 1.85 A, far too great to
allow fusion.                                                         ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besenbacher F, Bech Nielsen B, Hornshoej, Laesgaard E, Rud N;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 315.
"Search for cold fusion in plasma-charged Pd-D and Ti-D systems".
** Although the effective-medium theory (see other papers from this group)
says that cold fusion should not occur, the team nevertheless tried it out.
Nonequilibrium has been said to be the secret; one more way to ensure this is
to charge the metal with deuterium from a plasma, obtained by means of a DC
glow discharge in a low-pressure deuterium gas between two Cu electrodes. The
cathode was the test metal (Pd or Ti) covered with a thin layer (50 A) of Cu,
which trapped the D in the metal. The D impinges at 200-400 eV, and loses
about 100 eV to the Cu barrier, not leaving enough energy for self targetting
neutron emission. Any neutrons measured would thus have to come from fusion.
Neutron detection was by means of an NE-213 liquid scintillator coupled to a
fast photomultiplier tube, with pulse shape gamma discrimination, and an
efficiency of about 3% at the sample. Measurements continued for 2 weeks.
Loading of the top layer of the Pd was determined by surface nuclear reaction
analysis and found to be about 0.8. The upper limit for cold fusion,
calculated from the neutron flux, was <= 5E-24 fus/pair/s, or well below
claimed rates. Thus cold fusion is not found.                         ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullock IV JS, Powell GL, Hutchinson DP;        J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 275.
"Electrochemical factors in cold fusion experiments".
** Expertise in electrochem, metal hydrides and physics was brought together
to study cold fusion, and this paper reports the electrochemical findings. The
FPH(89) paper gave a few clues (some now superseded): unalloyed Pd, Pt anode,
high-purity D2O with 0.1M LiOD 0.2 M was used here), bulky electrode. Cell
symmetry giving an even current distribution etc. were added as reasonable
guesses, and gas-phase precharging of the Pd with D2 gas to save time. The
electrolyte was analysed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy
(ICP-MS), the Pd by metallography, scanning electron microscopy (SEM),
transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and x-ray crystallography (XRC).
Evolved gases were analysed by high resolution MS (HRMS). No evidence of cold
fusion was obtained, and comments are made.
There is table of the possible (electro)chemical reactions than may take place
at both cathode and anode, as well as in solution; this will be useful for the
nonspecialists. There is some duscussion of the thermodynamics of the cell and
some modelling. A scenario is suggested to explain the FPH exploding cube. It
is suggested that several poisons should be tried, and high-symmetry cells
with reference electrodes used.                                       ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chambers GP, Eridon JE, Grabowski KS, Sartwell BD, Chrisey DB;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 281.
"Charged particle spectra of palladium thin films during low energy deuterium
ion implantation".
** If a new nuclear reaction, rather than conventional d-d fusion, is
responsible for the results of FPH(89), then one might expect heavy charged
particle emissions such as alphas, tritons or protons. These would be emitted
at MeV energies but stopped within the Pd lattice, so not easy to detect. So
thin film Pd electrodes were used here, loaded with deuterium by an ion beam
and charged particles detected by a silicon surface barrier detector. During
several runs, a few counts were detected at the same energy of about 21 MeV,
at about the same time into the run (2700 s). If these are due to charged
particles, these must be heavier than D; possibly (3)He or (4)He nuclei. No
known fusion reaction can account for these, though. Other explanations, in
terms of artifacts, are possible.                                     ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guilinger TR, Kelly MJ, Scully JR, Christensen TM, Ingersoll D, Knapp JA,
Ewing RI, Casey WH, Tsao SS;                    J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 299.
"Investigation of fusion reactions in palladium and titanium tritide using
galvanostatic, coulometric, and hydrogen permeation techniques".
** Ran a long-term reenactment of FPH(89) using annealed Pd wire (1050 degC at
1E-06 Torr), measuring neutron and tritium emission; none was found, with a
sensitivity of 1E-23 to 1E-22 fus/pair/s. There were also hydrogen permeation
studies (and some interesting theory) to find the possible D/Pd loading; 0.8
was not exceeded (although this does not rule out that possibility while the
charging current is on). The efficiency of loading was found to decreased
markedly by surface contamination with carbon; flame washing of the metal to
remove this resulted in efficient hydrogen uptake. Tritiated Pd films were
tried to see whether this might call forth cold fusion; it did not.   ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayer FJ, King JS, Reitz JR;                    J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 269.
"Nuclear fusion from crack-generated particle acceleration".
** A theoretical look at the fractofusion model for "cold" fusion. A crack is
modelled as a capacitor shorted at one end, with a high voltage across it -
as might be the case at the moment of crack formation. If this field can be
maintained long enough for deuterons to accelerate across the crack, we might
be in business. Some rough calculations indicate that we might be, indeed,
making certain assumptions about crack size and speed of formation. This also
suggests the possibility of maximising the effect by inducing cracking
deliberately. A first attempt is made to show how one might calculate whether
such a process might be energy-profitable.                            ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myers SM, Follstaedt DM, Schirber JE, Richards PM;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 263.
"Search for cold fusion at D/Pd > 1 using ion implantation".
** It has been stressed that the D/Pd loading should be maximised in order to
get cold fusion. So ion implantation is used to do this. Nuclear reaction
analysis was used to determine the surface loading, which reached 1.3 +- 0.2.
Charged particles (protons) from a cold fusion reaction were measured upon
breaking the implantation beam. No evidence for cold fusion was found on Pd
or on Zr.                                                             ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redey L, Myles KM, Dees D, Krumpelt M, Vissers DR;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 249.
"Calorimetric measurements on electrochemical cells with Pd-D cathodes".
** First, an attempt was made to directly compare a cell with H2O + LiOH with
another containing D2O + LiOD. The idea was to detect, under identical
electrolysis conditions, large temperature differences perhaps due to cold
fusion. It proved impossible to ensure identical conditions; e.g., for the
same current, different cell voltages (and thus input powers) were observed.
A constant-heat-loss calorimeter was then tried, sufficiently sensitive to
measure excess heat from cold fusion; accuracy was about 0.4%. The 19 g Pd
rods were degassed either below 100 degC or at high temperatures in vacuum,
heat treated in air at 650 degC for an hour and finally for 18 hours in vacuum
at 600 degC. The electrolyte was saturated LiOD, to lower its resistance
compared with the usual 0.1M solution. Six extended experiments, totalling
1500 h were run, the longest being 460 h and 700 Ah. During the runs, the Pd
was weighed, its potential measured with current both on and off, and the
amount of heavy water measured that was needed to maintain constant level. At
the end, an H/D ratio of 0.02 was found, presumably due to some exchange with
air, but no significant increase of tritium was found in the electrolyte. The
Pd was outgassed, and the gas was found to have an H/D ratio of 0.06. The
D/Pd loading was close to 0.8, and there was degassing upon switching the
current off. There is some discussion about these, and recombination (which
was not important). No excess heat was found.                         ?/Sep-90
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: No radiation means no fusion?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No radiation means no fusion?
Date: 18 May 91 07:37:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <9105150225.AA02668@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>Paul Koloc questioning my assessment of the NOVA program says:
><<Hmmm! If fusion in palladium REQUIRES neutrons then there isn't much>>
><<that can be said since he (Gai) found nothing (even from Jones).  BUT>>
><<I don't see why neutrons or gammas for that matter have to be a part of
><<heat producing fusion reactions in palladium. . . . >>
 
>Paul then goes on to suggest that the 6Li + d reaction can be neutronless
>as indeed it can if it produces two 4He's.  First hurdle to be overcome
>within the framework of the FPH type experiments is to explain why this
>reaction occurs but 7Li + d makes no contribution.
 
The magnetic moment and diffusion coefficients (in palladium) should be
significantly different for these two isotopes.
 
>          .  .        ..     .       .       Granting the first
>miracle which says the chemistry selects between the two lithium isotope,
>we now consider only the 6Li as a potential reactant.  Without getting
>into the grubby details, those two alphas will come out of the reaction
>with about 4 MeV each.
 
Ah.. I'm baffled.. 4MeV???  ..    thought it would be more like 11 MeV
a piece (***  see Reference below).
 
 
>                       Your 2nd assignment then Paul, should you choose
>to accept, is to explain how you thermalize the alpha particles without
>producing any detectable radiation.
 
Seems to me that 11 MeV alphas are already quite "thermalized", and I
doubt if they need any more heating.  The environment of a metal
lattice with its myriad of electrons in a variety of bound states
would certainly be thermalized by the rampaging plus 2 charge of the
flying bulldozer alphas.  Incidentally, I never claimed the alphas of
such a reaction would not produce ANY detectable radiation, what I
said was it would not be in the "hard" or energetic (X/gammas)
category.  Softer X-rays (a few kev or less) would have a tough time
getting out of the metal lattice or through the glass walls of the
electrolysis bottle.   HOWEVER, it may be possible to see visible
light produced by the events.  That would require such scintillations
(if they exist) from other sources, for example electrolysis (current
driven? ) be eliminated.
 
 
>                           . .    . Oh, by the way.  Evidence for the
>production of helium is not exactly easy to come by either.  In any case
>before we get too far down the road of assuming that Li is the magic
>ingredient for cold fusion, shouldn't we do an experiment or two to see
>if the isotopic composition of lithium makes any difference?
 
Be most happy to - seems a must do.
 
***    See John M. Dawson's (UCLA) chapter on "Advanced Fusion Reactors"
	(specifically p. 456) in E. Teller (ed.), FUSION, Vol. 1,
	Part B (Magnetic Confinement), Academic Press, New York, 1981.
 
 
>Dick Blue
>NSCL                "The nucleon-nucleon interaction is spin dependent."
 
                         So is politics.           ;-)
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.24 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 518 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 518 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 24 May 1991 14:27:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
the last of the pile! Now I can wait for the next pile (another whole issue of
J. Fusion Energy devoted to cnf, I think) without too much worry.
The Davydov is much like an earlier on, for which I only have an abstract.
There are no real surprises here. If you find the Olemskoj item a bit strange,
you are in good company (mine). It is written in a difficult style, and in a
few places, I was not sure of my translation. A pity, since I don't think that
journal gets professionally translated. Their theory of fluctuations seems to
me to be reasonably important, too. The Leonas article shows that the other
"affair", cluster impact fusion, is still alive and well. Raul Bariogla tells
me that it, too, involves a many-of-orders-of-magnitude problem, i.e. that
far too many neutrons are emitted.
Biblio3 is now in the archives, and will be updated (replaced) every week or
so.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 24-May. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 518.
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davydov AS;                                 Sov. Phys. Dokl. 35(9) (1990) 811.
Originally: Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 314 (1990) 339 (in Russian).
"Possible explanation of the cold fusion experiments".
** Submitted 30-May-89, the paper says that the tritium+proton branch is
more probable, and the proton then splits another deuteron, producing a
neutron at 0.75 MeV. This, together with the 2.45 MeV from the (3)He+n branch,
escape from the PdD, and are observed as gamma emission upon being
thermalised. D points ut that the sharp 2.2 MeV peak of FPH(89) does not, as
FPH(89) claim, represent neutrons coming from a fusion reaction. The
explanation of cold fusion lies in the electronic structure of Pd and its
hydride (which is a superconductor at 11K). Hybridisation of the broad subband
of Pd s-electrons and a very narrow subband of 4d-electrons with large
effective mass, form Cooper pairs (bosons) which can pull deuterons together,
enhancing the rate of fusion.                                 30-May-89/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagleton RD, Bush RT;                           J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 359.
"Design considerations for palladium electrodes as suggested by a deuteron
cluster model for cold nuclear fusion".
** According to the authors' model, the essential element in cold fusion is
the formation of deuteron clusters in the PdDx lattice. The paper discusses
the processes and events in the production of suitable Pd electrodes.
Electrode preparation, chemisorption and absorption of deuterium into the Pd,
saturation, cluster growth and subsequent fusion of closely crowded deuterons
are discussed. Fusion is expected to lead to (4)He, which will give some of
their energy to other deuterons, causing local melt-downs and plasma, which
would screen x-rays. Tritium can also be produced, if deuterons at a cluster
periphery fuse. Design consequences of all this are that any Pd not immersed
must be sealed by cladding or a surface poison; cluster formation should be
optimum near the electrode cladding.                                  ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gu AG, Teng RKF, Miller MS, Sprouse J;          J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 329.
"Experimental study on cold fusion using deuterium gas and deuterium ion beam
with palladium".
** Pd was exposed to D2 gas at 69 kPa, and a Ludlum 14C neutron detector
placed nearby. Temperature cycling was applied. In another experiment, an ion
beam of deuterons was aimed at the Pd, with a nitrogen beam as a control. The
neutron flux was here detected by a BF3 detector. Upon switching to the
deuteron beam, the neutron fluc went from 4-6 counts over a 2-min period to
about 36. The authors ask themselves whether this might not be plasma beam
fusion (self targeting) and it well might, although in one experiment, they
continued to detect neutrons after switching off the deuterons and purging
with nitrogen. They draw no conclusions but promise more work.        ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill JC, Stassis C, Shinar J, Goldman AI, Folkerts R, Schwellenbach DD,
Peterson DT, Widrig C, Porter M, Benesh CJ, Vary JP;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 305.
"Search for cold fusion using Pd-D2O cells and Ti-D mixtures".
** A conventional electrolysis cell was tried, using a 2 mm polycrystalline Pd
rod and a 4 mm single crystal. No neutron or gamma emissions above background
were detected, with D/Pd loadings of 0.8, measured by degassing in vacuum and
measuring the pressure increase. Then, Ti powder and pieces were loaded under
D2 at 50 atm, with the usual temperature cycling. Again, no neutrons.
Acting on a report by Koonin and Nauenberg, predicting that d-p fusion should
be easier, they then placed 4 g of LaHD2 against a Ge gamma detector for 24
days, and found no emissions here, either. The paper ends with some simple
theory, arriving at the conclusion that the d-d separation is too great to
make fusion plausible.                                                ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longhurst GR, Dolan TJ, Henriksen GL;           J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 337.
"An investigation of energy balances in palladium cathode electrolysis
experiments".
** Calorimetry similar to that of FPH(89) was used, with several sizes of Pd
cathodes in 0.1M to 1.2M "LiOH" in H2O, D2O and mixtures thereof. Cell voltage
and temperatures were continuously recorded and calibration heating applied.
The difference between heat input and output was a fluctuating +-4.4%, with no
relation to type of water or other conditions. Neutron and gamma emissions
were also checked using a BC-501 liquid scintillator; nothing was found. The
build-up of tritium in the electrolyte was accounted for by conventional
causes (enrichment). So no cold fusion was observed here.             ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Menlove HO, Miller MC;         Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. A299 (1990) 10.
"Neutron-burst detectors for cold-fusion experiments".
** This describes the neutron detector built at LANL, and details some of the
design considerations. The job is to cope with the intermittent nature and low
intensity of theneutrons, and with short bursts without losing information.
The high-efficiency detectors used by Menlove et al are based on (3)He gas
tubes in a CH2 moderator. An inner ring of nine (3)He tubes is surrounded by
an outer one of 42 tubes. The inner ring is unmoderated and is more sensitive
to lower-energy neutrons, while the moderated outer ring responds to higher-
energies. Bursts are handled by time-spread them by thermalisation in the CH2
moderator. The detectors have been used in cold fusion experiments (mostly
reported elsewhere) in an underground laboratory with low background, and
worked well.                                                          ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olemskoj AI, Toropov EA;        Ukr. Fiz. Zh. 35(11) (1990) 1619 (in Russian).
"On the fluctuation theory of cold fusion".
** The authors use the work of Anderson (Phys. Rev. 109 (1958) 1492) to work
out a model of cold fusion, and the conditions under which it might work. The
idea is that although mean states do not allow fusion in metal deuteride,
their fluctuations might, with the right parameters; large values of deuteron
delocalisation and scattering and small storage parameter are favourable,
helped by the fluctuations and external noise.                   Apr-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Porter JD, Shihab-Eldin AA, Bossy H, Echegaray FJ, Nitschke JM, Prussin SG,
Rasmussen JO, Stoyer MA;                        J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 319.
"Limits on electromagnetic and particle emission from palladium-D2O
electrolytic cells".
** First, an FPH(89)-type cell, using a Pd wire, was used, and neutrons
monitored by means of the 2.224 MeV gamma peak expected from neutron
thermalisation. Open-circuit electrode potential measurements were attempted
as a measure of D/Pd loading but abandoned as useless. Electrochemical
titration (i.e. reoxidation of all D and current integration) yielded a lower
limit of 0.62. This cell produced no emissions above background, setting the
upper limit at 2E-22 fus/pair/s. Another, twin, cell was then built, with
D2O in the one and H2O in the other. "Single blind" mode was used, in which
the experimenters did not know which cell was which. The two cells were
alternately placed into the detector space for 24 hours. Gamma, x-ray, neutron
detectors were placed, as well as one for high-energy charged particles. Also,
a thin-foil cell was placed over an SSB charged particle detector. No
emissions indicating cold fusion were detected. Current cycling was tried in
order to perhaps stimulate stress cracking and fractofusion, again with no
results. The thin-foil cell showed no charged particle emissions. The need for
the twin cells was emphasised by considerable background variations. As well,
there were a few large neutron bursts, readily associated with known noise
sources.                                                              ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powell GL, Bullock IV JS, Hallman RL, Horton PJ, Hutchinson DP;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 355.
"The preparation of palladium for cold fusion experiments".
** Clearly, Pd cathode preparation is a critical issue in cold fusion. This
paper examines the options. One can distinguish between electrodes that have
been mechanically worked (by forging, extrusion, swaging and rolling or
surface treatments such as turning, drilling and tapping) and those that have
not. These latter might be chill-block cast, dud melted directionally
solidified, zone refined boule grown or treated by the Czochralski method.
Some of these produce single crystals or oriented grains, some with shrink
voids. Voids may be important. The paper reports an experiment with Pd melted
from foil in an ultravacuum furnace at 1600 degC and rapidly solidified to
produce voids which have nice clean surfaces and might sustain high deuterium
pressures. Two of the rods were annealed at 900 degC for 4 h to remove
residual work. They were charged with D2 gas, while measuring the pressure
(changes), which allowed a pressure-loading curve to be measured. It showed a
final D/Pd loading of 0.63 at about 2 atm at 50 degC. Future work is plannned,
such as inclusion of Li or LiD.                                       ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prelas M, Boody F, Gallaher W, Leal-Quiros E, Mencin D, Taylor S;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 309.
"Cold fusion experiments using Maxwellian plasmas and sub-atmospheric
deuterium gas".
** Here is a team with experience with plasma fusion. They use a heated plasma
of deuterium aimed at a Pd target to load D into the Pd, at the typically low
plasma pressures, and measure gamma and neutron fluxes. Data is taken with
software and "manually ... in bound notebooks". Some neutron and gamma
emissions were detected above background, and were shown not to be due to
heating of the Pd sample, since simple heating produced no such effects. The
results are sufficiently interesting to warrant further research using, e.g.,
better neutron detectors and searching for tritium as well.           ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandquist GM, Rogers VC;                        J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 351.
"Enhancement of cold fusion reaction rates".
** This paper considers some enhancement possibilities, given the assumption
that cold fusion takes place inside the metal lattice, where the deuterons are
highly compressed and contained for long times, with apparent reduction of
quantum mechanical barrier width. Pd pretreatment such as repeated degassing
in vacuum might be essential, and zone refining might help, as might surface
etching with aqua regia to remove metallic impurities. Applying high pressure
to the electrolyte is suggested. For the temperature, a trade-off between
stability of the hydride, and faster diffusion, should be made. Try using
pulsed current. The electrolyte should be pure, the authors believe that
poisoning goes against deuterium uptake (as opposed to most other workers).
Bruenner [sic] -Nernst theory is invoked with respect to mass transport of the
deuterium specie [sic] near the electrode. There is a list of methods for
monitoring the D/Pd loading, and a list of how to measure tritium, neutrons,
protons, gamma rays, the two He isotopes as well as activation products.
                                                                      ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
White CT, Dunlap BI, Brenner DW, Mowrey RC, Mintmire JW;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 363.
"Limits of chemical effects on cold fusion".
** The authors examine theoretically the idea that d-d fusion can occur at the
sort of d-d distances seen in the PdD lattice. They detail here their local
density functional (LDF) theory. Solution of the relevant differential
equation allowed the calculation of the total energy of the cluster formed by
a pair of deuterons plus the immediately surrounding Pd atoms. These
calculations rule out cold fusion as an explanation of the Jones+(89) or
FPH(89) results.                                                      ?/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
White CT, Brenner DW, Mowrey RC, Mintmire JW;
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 1, 30 (1991) 182.
"D-D (H-H) interactions within the interstices of Pd".
** Over a period of one year, the authors have examined several different
theoretical models, to examine d-d and p-p interactions within the Pd
deuteride lattice. They report on three:
a) the bulk embedded-atom method gave good agreement with known facts like
bulk expansion upon hydriding, and the migration energy; it showed that if you
try to squeeze deuterons together by chemical or other forces, you only cause
lattice expansion instead.
b) the cluster local-density-functional, and Hartree-Fock methods showed that
for all cases considered, there is strong d-d repulsion with resulting large
d-d distances.
c) they also looked at what happens at 0.1 Bohr d-d distance, a la Koonin and
Nauenberg, but still found nothing promising.
They conclude that neither squeezing deuterons together, nor electron
screening, can account for cold fusion.                          May-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Published articles peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonas VB;                                  Sov. Phys. Usp. 33(11) (1990) 956.
Originally: Usp. Fiz. Nauk 160(11) (1990) 135.
"A new approach to achieving D-D fusion reactions".
** A comment on the cluster-impact fusion paper of Beuhler et al. Leonas
doubts the explanation that oxygen imparts some of its energy to deuterium,
helping it along and attempts to provide one of his own.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.25 /   /   It's the Lithium!
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  It's the Lithium!
Date: Sat, 25 May 1991 02:57:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

So now we are coming to a consensus that Cold Fusion investigators have
been looking under the wrong street lamp.  There never were any neutrons
to be detected, and Pons and Fleischmann (those clever dogs) had just
sent us nuclear types off on a wild goose chase.  The key to the whole
mistery has been under our noses all along, and we thought it was just
along for the ride.  It's the lithium that does it!  To be more specific
the reaction that makes Cold Fusion hot has been narrowed down to:
 
         6Li + d -> 4He + 4He + 22 MeV  .
 
(At this point I must apologize for having stated incorrectly that each
alpha would have about 4 MeV.  I was just being lazy and through out a
number that I was sure was not too high.)
 
Next question was whether there was a way to explain the lack of 7Li + d
reactions.  I'll accept two out of the three possibilities offered as
being OK with me but "magnetic moment" seems a bit far fetched.
 
Now getting to the heart of the matter:  "No radiation means no fusion."
 
Paul K. refers to the 11 MeV alphas as "rampaging plus2 charge of flying
bulldozer alphas" but in the next breath says, "it (radiation) would not
be in the hard or energetic (X/gamma) catagory."  I need to be enlightened
on that point.  Considering only the palladium  as a target I would have
expected to see gammas from the inelastic scattering of alphas of Pd and
lots of Pd X-rays.  If we allow that some of the deuterons might just
get in the way you can bet your bottom dollar those pesky neutrons would
show up as well.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL                "Radiation is good for you! (Sometimes)"
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.29 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 525 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 525 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 13:31:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
another few. I find the Golubnichij interesting, as it does an obvious
experiment to test the fracto-theory. Once more, though, the effect is (I
think!) marginal. 42 correlated events, against 6 random ones - it would be
nicer if the numbers were bigger. I put in the Mills patent straight from the
Chem. Abstract; I was informed by our librarian that it is over 200 pages long
and expensive to get. Get it yerself, if you must. Rosamilia et al have also
done a good experiment, looked at deuterium charging in the right
(electrochemical) way. Their results will reassure those workers who see
bubbles coming out of the Pd when they turn off the current, and dry & weigh
the electrode. The loss figure of up to 6% would normally be much smaller, I
guess, with more bulky electrodes. The Tsarev is interesting reading, and does
not appear to be out of date, despite being written in January 1990. He makes
some good points. Wada writes a review of cold fusion, amazingly without
references.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 29-May. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 525.
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astakhov II, Davydov AD, Katargin NV, Kazarinov VE, Kiseleva IG, Kriksunov LB,
Kudryavtsev DYu, Lebedev IA, Myasoedov BF, Shcheglov OP, Teplitskaya GL,
Tsionskii VM;                                Electrochim. Acta 36 (1991) 1127.
"An attempt to detect neutron and gamma radiations in heavy water electrolysis
with a palladium cathode".
** 10 (3)He neutron counters were used, with pulse-height analysis, to detect
neutrons; a scintillation spectrometer was used for gamma emissions.
Electrolysis was done at a bulky Pd cathode, with membrane separation of the
two electrodes. Results were that whether the cell was in the detection space,
or heavy or light water was being electrolysed, made no difference to the
neutron count, nor was any gamma emission detected. Lithium was found to be
incorporated into the Pd, up to 0.5%. Its diffusion is finite in Pd, about
1E-10 cm**2/s, compared with 1E-07 for deuterium. Lithium incorporation might
explain some of the anomalies observed by others, such as apparent excess
heat. This will be reported in a future paper.                   Aug-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golubnichij PI, Kuz'minov VV, Merzon GI, Pritychenko BV, Filonenko AD,
Tsarev VA, Tsarik AA;                                JETP Lett. 53 (1991) 122.
Originally in: Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53 (1991) 115 (in Russian).
"Correlated neutron and acoustic emission from a deterium-saturated palladium
target".
** What the fractofusion school of thought has been waiting for; are the
cracks sources of neutrons? Experiments were done under low background
conditions, underground. The Pd was electrolytically saturated with deuterium.
Neutrons were moderated in paraffin and detected with an array of 10 SNM-18
counters, with an overall efficiency of 10%. SOund was measured with a ceramic
piezoelectric device. Correlation measurements were carried out for 3.5 h.
There were 42 correlated events (with a time shift, due largely to the finite
propagation of the acoustic signal), while 6 are expected if they were random.
So the results appear to support the fractofusion model.         Dec-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gryzinski M;       Rozpr. Electrotech. (Poland) 35(4) (1989) 1057 (in Polish).
Cited in: Phys. Abstr. 94:68376 (1991).
"Deuterium in palladium lattice and cold fusion".
** "The idea that electrons in the matter are responsible for Coulomb barrier
tunnelling. It is shown that bu adopting this idea one can explain the cold
fusion process and give a satisfactory description of various aspects of the
problem in particular, lack of neutrons, and gamma-ray fusion. 7 refs."
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mills RL; PCT Int. Appl. WO 90 13,126 Nov. 1990; US Appl. 341,733, 21-Apr-89.
Cited in: Chem. Abstr. 114:173685 (1991).
"Energy/matter conversion methods and structures".
** "A method and app. for releasing energy comprise: selecting a 1st and a 2nd
atom; detg. the resonance orbital shrinkage nergy levels of the e orbitals of
the 2 atoms; providing 2 energy holes substantially equal to each of the
shrinkage energy levels of the atoms; and juxtaposing the atoms and energy
holes to produce nuclear fusion of the atoms. The cold fusion takes place when
the energy is removed from the electron orbitals of atoms by the energy holes
permitting redn. of the at. orbitals and attractive nuclear forces to act. The
energy holes can be provided by using a catalytic ion-pair, each ion having
ionization energy close to the resonance orbital shrinkage energy of one of
the ions. A table of numerous such ion-pairs is also presented."
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosamilia JM, Abys JA, Miller B;             Electrochim. Acta 36 (1991) 1203.
"Electrochemical hydrogen insertion into palladium and palladium-nickel thin
films".
** Cold fusion has raised a number of fundamental questions about electrode
potentials, limiting compositions, hydrogen mobility, outgassing etc. This
paper addresses some of these, experimentally, using films of palladium
deposited on Pt, and Pd-Ni alloys. Thin films have the advantage of being
saturated by the hydrogen (isotope) in a short time (about 10 s). The
ring-disk electrode was used, where the ring can "catch" hydrogen generated by
oxidation at the disk, upon reoxidation to estimate the extent of hydriding,
and also for the outgassing resulting from switching the charging current off,
as has been observed. These measurements at the ring showed that the D/Pd
loading was about 0.81, independent of the film thickness; the time scale for
the unloading (reoxidation), however, was much larger than the diffusional
time scale. Experiments with charging current interruption showed the expected
detection transient at the ring; integration and the decay time indicate that
the error made by the normal procedure of taking out the cathode and weighing
it, is no more than about 6% in the D/Pd figure, if one is reasonably speedy.
Addition of nickel to the film drastically reduce the D/Pd loading; other
codeposits can be expected to do the same.                       Jun-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsarev VA;                                  Sov. Phys. Usp. 33(11) (1990) 881.
Originally: Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 160 (1990) 1 (in Russian).
"Cold fusion".
** A review of cold fusion, written in Jan-90, i.e. 8 months into the affair.
131 references are given, many of which, perforce, are to preprints and talks
given at conferences. Clearly a physicist, Tsarev makes a number of good
points. Like other physicists, he points to the necessity of x-ray emissions
from any proposed nuclear process taking place in the metal lattice. A
thorough discussion of all the issues (emissions, calorimetry, theories) is
followed by one on the Soviet view of cold fusion - which can be said to date
back to 1986 - i.e. fractofusion. Fairly, Tsarev points out that these results
all come from a single laboratory (Klyuev et al) and need to be confirmed by
others (in the meantime they have, and have also been refuted). The biggest
problem with fractofusion is the conductivity of palladium deuteride, and
Tsarev suggests that at high loadings and under nonequilibrium conditions, the
material might become a dielectric, making this mechanism possible. He makes
a number of suggestions for future work, both practical and fundamental.
                                                                 Jan-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wada N;                               Suri Kagaku 330 (1990) 69 (in Japanese).
Cited in: Chem. Abstr. 114:193695 (1991).
"Possibility of room temperature nuclear fusion".
** "A review with no refs. is given.".
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.29 / Barry Merriman /  Mills theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills theory
Date: 29 May 91 21:00:57 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

Speaking of Mills (their patent was recently filed), I still
don't have an answer to my basic question:
 
How does one go from the tenet (which is the
basis of Mills Neo-classical theory of the atom)
 
   spacetime spectrum of charge density
   has no components coincident with      => no radiation emitted by charge
   plane waves of speed c
 
to the result that
 
   the radious of a nonradiating spherical shell of charge about
   a nucleus must bu quantized
 
(which is supposed to reproduce quantum effects within their theory)?
 
You see, my problem is that any uniform spherical shell of charge
(which may be rotating but whose center of mass is unaccelerated)
will _not_ radiate, because the total charge/current density
is constant in time (even though little bits of charge are moving).
Thus, I don't see why the radius of their electron shell gets
quantized.
 
Even though I have their book, it is rather unclear on this point---they
go through a lengthy calculation of the fourier transform of the
sphereical shell charge density, impose their tenet, and the condition
of quantization pops out, but I don't see why on the intuitive level
(nor can I easily follow their calculation, which is a bit terse).
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.30 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 531 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 531 papers on cnf)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 23:43:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
I just got a heap of patents I had ordered, and let you have them here. I may
stop getting them, since I find they are expensive; so in future I might make
do with the abstract straight from Chem. Abstr. The ones below are bulky and
wordy, and almost fun to read with the quaint patent language they use. This
slips occasionally; in oneplace, Rabinowitz et al use the word "exciting", and
I wonder why the patent lawyers let that slip past them. Likewise, Hagelstein
either put in or - more likely - accidentally left in, a note or letter to
Florence and Sam which lightens the air of preferred embodiments and the like.
The Hagelstein is interesting because I had not previously seen his theory,
which is reproduced in the patent; first as part of the patent, then again,
clearly reproducing a separate paper - we'll see when we see his paper, which
is in fact out but I can't get it yet.
 Lest you think I can read Japanese, I can't; the Fukada et al is written in
that language but has an English title, journal name, abstract and figure
labels, so you and I can work out what (little) is going on.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 30-May. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 531.
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fukada S, Furuya S, Matsumoto Y, Ishibashi K, Mitsuishi N;
Technol. Rep. Kyushu Univ. 63(5) (1990) 475 (in Japanese, English abstract).
"Neutron emission from some metal deuterides".
** The metal under high pressure D2 mode of cold fusion experiment, including
the customary temperature cycling. Ti, Pd and Pd-coated carbon were tried. A
single BF3 neutron counter was used. No reproducible neutron emission was
observed, but with the Ti sample, analysis of variance indicated some
unreproducible bursts; these appear to have occurred at the liquid nitrogen
temperature, before the rise to room temp.                            ?/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagelstein PL;                          Int. Pat. Appl. WO 90/13129, 1-Nov-90.
"Fusion apparatus".
** "Fusion apparatuses for coupling fusible material to a quantized mode in
coherent fusion are provided. Method for optimization of reactor operation,
control of the coherent fusion reaction and extraction of usable energy
generated are provided". Some of the means of doing this are: containing the
fusible material (deuterium) in an electrically conductive radially symmetric
vessel and initiating fusion through coupling to plasmon modes or by radially
polarizing insulating crystals, or by lining the vessel with radially disposed
rod-like projections electrically connected in series with an oscillator and
in series with a computer controlled variable load for extracting the energy;
acoustic excitation or excitement by alpha particles or cosmic rays. The
inventor's theory is given (twice), p.48 shows a letter to Florence and Sam
and there are 138 claims.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabinowitz M, Worledge DH;              Int. Pat. Appl. WO 90/13128, 1-Nov-90.
"Enhancing nuclear fusion rate in a solid".
** Methods for increasing the collision rate of light isotopes in a carrier
(i.e. deuterium in Pd, Ti etc). One way is to constrain the isotope to one-
dimensional motion by making the carrier in the form of thin filaments, or by
providing thin channels, or thin layers, within it. This is done by a number
of techniques such as vapour deposition, sputtering and ion bombardment or by
using material that has such channels or layers naturally. The use of heavy
fermion material will yield electrons with large effective mass, which will
aid in overcoming the Coulomb barrier between deuterons and the like. Other
suggestions are made. 21 claims are made.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabinowitz M, Santucci J, Worledge DH; Int. Pat. Appl. WO 90/14670, 29-Nov-90.
"Isotope deposition, stimulation, and direct energy conversion for nuclear
fusion in a solid".
** The invention provides techniques for deposition of light isotopes in a
hydrogen absorbing solid and their stimulation to accelerate their fusion,
in various embodiments such as a metal with planar, channel construction,
thermal (laser) stimulation to produce high hydrogen isotope concentration,
laser ablation to produce a shock wave, and the use of ultrasonics for aiding
with the loading and stimulation. Techniques for the conversion of the energy
to electricity are included. The metal is loaded by alternate vapour
deposition of metal, deuterium, metal, etc, in thin layers.  16 claims.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scaramuzzi F, De Ninno A; Podda S, Frattolillo A, Lollobattista G, Martone M,
Mori L, Martinis L;                  Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 0 394 204, 11-Apr-90.
"A system for producing neutrons and heat by nuclear fusion in a gas absorbed
on a metal".
** A system, and "an equipment" for pressurised gas-phase deuterising of
metals, and temperature cycling, so as to produce cold fusion. Some neutron
emission results are shown.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watanabe M, Takahashi A, Sumita K;    Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 0 394 980, 31-Oct-90.
"Cold nuclear fusion apparatus".
** First, a metal must be used that can absorb deuterium to high
concentrations; then, the deuterium's harmonic oscillation energy in the metal
must be raised, preferably "by discharge of deuterium gas, optical irradiation
or supersonic energy". In another embodiment, a pair of parallel metal plates
are subjected to pulsed voltages to induce gas charge and discharge, so as to
enhance cold fusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.31 / Paul Koloc /  Re: It's the Lithium!
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It's the Lithium!
Date: 31 May 91 07:03:40 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <9105242101.AA04514@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
> ..    .        . It's the lithium that does it!  To be more specific
>the reaction that makes Cold Fusion hot has been narrowed down to:
 
>>         6Li + d -> 4He + 4He + 22 MeV  .
 
>Next question was whether there was a way to explain the lack of 7Li + d
>reactions.  I'll accept two out of the three possibilities offered as
>being OK with me but "magnetic moment" seems a bit far fetched.
 
As far as the direct reactivity ratio for d-Li(6) and d-Li(7), I haven't
looked into it.   As for the magnetic moment.
 
Yep.   In a hand waving explanation, consider that a high
diffusivity isotope can negotiate the highly ordered channels a Pd
crystal by essentially rolling through the channels with little
interaction (collision) with the electric field "walls" of the channels
(provided by the bound Pd electrons).  This implies that there is
little or no velocity cross Magnetic field term (_v_ X _B_) that
would generate a sideways force moving the diffusing particle into the
channel wall, resulting in a randomizing "bounce" action.  Actually
the electric field has a more or less symmetric gradient field about
the lattice channel.  Consequently, the grad _phi_ X _grad Bdotdl_)
will produce the randomizing velocity-vector effect.  Note that in
this case the paired neutron-proton nuclei (deuterium,helium,lithium6)
have the reduced dipole field.
 
>Now getting to the heart of the matter:  "No radiation means no fusion."
>
>Paul K. refers to the 11 MeV alphas as "rampaging plus2 charge of flying
>bulldozer alphas" but in the next breath says, "it (radiation) would not
>be in the hard or energetic (X/gamma) category."  I need to be enlightened
>on that point.  Considering only the palladium  as a target I would have
>expected to see gammas from the inelastic scattering of alphas of Pd and
>lots of Pd X-rays.
 
Electrons of equivalent energy (11 MeV) are "high" gamma (relativistic
mass is say 22 times electron rest mass).  This indicates the particle
is moving at light speed and has a flattened (Lorentz) electric field
shape.  It moves through electron "lattice soup" without having
collisions because the interaction time (passing time for the flattened
field) is so short.  That means high gamma electrons aren't retarded
by the electron shells and have a much higher crossection for high
energy collision with the a Pd nuclei than otherwise.
 
Alphas of this energy are a different matter.  They are moving
definitely very sub light speed and consequently their interaction
(radius and strength) with the lattice electrons is huge.  Unlike a
high gamma electron striking and being stopped dead with a collision
with Pd nuclei, non-gamma alpha will not be stopped by a "head on
collision" with a single electron.  Since the alphas move so slowly,
the braking effect is "collective", and consequently, energy is
piped directly to HUGE NUMBER of the lattice Pd sites.  Thus, BIG
hard X-rays would not be expected.  All of the little tiny ones
would be absorbed within the lattice.   Still, if a tiny piece of
encapsulated phospor could be attached to a patch of the surface
of an aneutronic Pd-Li (isotope-6) sample, light flashes may well
be observed once activated with Deuterium.
 
> ..    .   ..     If we allow that some of the deuterons might just
>get in the way you can bet your bottom dollar those pesky neutrons would
>show up as well.
 
Electrons in the MeV range can penetrate and then "knock-off(out)"
neutrons from deuterium, I'm ignorant of MeV alphas doing the same.
It is an interesting point to research, let me know what you find.
 
Thanks
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.31 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 531 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 531 papers on cnf)
Date: 31 May 91 05:42:14 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <69F1BDEBE31F0035D8@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>
>Hello all,
>I just got a heap of patents I had ordered, and let you have them here. I may
 
 
>Hagelstein PL;                          Int. Pat. Appl. WO 90/13129, 1-Nov-90.
>"Fusion apparatus".
>** "Fusion apparatuses for coupling fusible material to a quantized mode in
>coherent fusion are provided. Method for optimization of reactor operation,
>control of the coherent fusion reaction and extraction of usable energy
>generated are provided".
 
>Rabinowitz M, Worledge DH;              Int. Pat. Appl. WO 90/13128, 1-Nov-90.
>"Enhancing nuclear fusion rate in a solid".
>** Methods for increasing the collision rate of light isotopes in a carrier
>(i.e. deuterium in Pd, Ti etc).
 
>Rabinowitz M, Santucci J, Worledge DH; Int. Pat. Appl. WO 90/14670, 29-Nov-90.
>"Isotope deposition, stimulation, and direct energy conversion for nuclear
>fusion in a solid".
>** The invention provides techniques for deposition of light isotopes in a
>hydrogen absorbing solid and their stimulation to accelerate their fusion,
 
>Mori L, Martinis L;                  Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 0 394 204, 11-Apr-90.
>"A system for producing neutrons and heat by nuclear fusion in a gas absorbed
>on a metal".
>** A system, and "an equipment" for pressurised gas-phase deuterising of
>metals, and temperature cycling, so as to produce cold fusion.
 
 
>Watanabe M, Takahashi A, Sumita K;    Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 0 394 980, 31-Oct-90.
>"Cold nuclear fusion apparatus".
>** First, a metal must be used that can absorb deuterium to high
>concentrations; then, the deuterium's harmonic oscillation energy in the metal
>must be raised
 
Gee, I sort of hope none of these patents get granted, because it is
obvious that none of these devices work as the inventors claim
for producing useful (or even measurable) amounts of energy.
(If they do, where are their
results?!). These are clearly just attempts to stake some claim
on anything remotely resembling cold fusion that might ever be discovered.
I'm sure that with one of these patents and a good lawyer, the patentor
could win some sort of claim against just about any cold fusion
method, should such ever be found.
 
Perhaps our only hope is that the 193* patent for transmuting
hydrogen would supercede these, or perhaps the P&F patent, or
that they would be invalidated by cold fusion methods discussed in
the literature by several folks over the past 20 years.
 
The P&F patent is understandable, since they really thought they
had strong experimental evidence for their effect, as well as
a heuristic theory (the ultra high pressure due to chemical potentials).
 
But these patents strike me as sleazy in comparison, since they
are based on thin (or maybe hot) air and the hope that
_someone else_ (P&F) had a good idea that they can take a
($$) chunk out of.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.05.31 / Patrick Smith /  Local News Resumes (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
     
Originally-From: p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Local News Resumes (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
Date: 31 May 91 21:40:24 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
Dear s.p.f.ers;
 
Frank Close visited Utah this last week of May, during which he gave a
radio (May 28, KSL radio) and television interview, and also gave a
talk at the U of U on cold fusion.  He also gave a colloquium at the U
of U physics department on the spin of the proton.  For political
reasons, the physics department chair preferred not to have a
colloquium on cold fusion, so an earlier talk was arranged, but not
widely advertised.  Unfortunately, I couldn't attend this talk.  I
understand that Dr. Fritz Will attended however, and held a lengthy
private discussion with Frank afterwards.  Today (May 31) Frank will
give a cold fusion talk at BYU.
 
In the television interview (May 30 on KSL), Frank was asked if P&F
had intentionally misled the public when they held the infamous press
conference; to which Frank answered no, that P&F had strongly believed
that they did indeed have cold fusion.  The interviewer then asked if
outright fraud had ever been committed in the presentation of their
data.  Frank answered:
 
"If you'll explain to me the libel laws in Utah, then perhaps I'll
answer that question."
 
She responded: "I think you just did!"
 
Frank went on to explain his early involvement in cold fusion
(following the press conference), etc., and concluded by stating that
while something interesting is likely happening, the phenomenon has no
real potential as a future energy source.
 
 
After the colloquium on the spin of the proton (in which Frank
described the implications of some recent experiments which seem to
suggest that the spin may not be carried by the quarks after all), I
was shown a series of copies of the mobile gamma peak (from different
sources) which solidly indicate that scientific fraud was committed!!!
This is new material (not in the book) which has surfaced since the
lawyer G.  Triggs made threats of legal action against Frank.  The
series of graphs fit in with the material in the book to form a very
solid history of the movement of the peak.  From March 11 until after
March 28 of 1989, the peak was at 2.5 MeV.  The peak was then moved to
2.2 MeV and rescaled.  Comparison of two of the graphs shows clearly
that the data points were identical - they had simply been moved and
the scale changed to accomodate the marker peak.  Changing the
interpolation algorithm cannot account for what I saw!
 
At this point in time, Frank has asked that the details of all of this
be kept secret, but may let me say more about it later.
 
-Patrick
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.03 / kenton yee /  Re: (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
     
Originally-From: kyee@bnlux1.bnl.gov (kenton yee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
Date: 3 Jun 91 01:54:04 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

In article <941@giga.slc.unisys.com> p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J.
 Smith) writes:
>
>Frank Close visited Utah this last week of May, during which he gave a
>radio (May 28, KSL radio) and television interview, and also gave a
>talk at the U of U on cold fusion.  He also gave a colloquium at the U
>of U physics department on the spin of the proton.  For political
>reasons, the physics department chair preferred not to have a
>colloquium on cold fusion, so an earlier talk was arranged, but not
>widely advertised.
>
>After the colloquium on the spin of the proton (in which Frank
>described the implications of some recent experiments which seem to
>suggest that the spin may not be carried by the quarks after all), I
 
  would someone care to describe the current status of these proton
  spin results?
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkyee cudfnkenton cudlnyee cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.03 / William Johnson /  Re: Local News Resumes (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
     
Originally-From: mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local News Resumes (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
Date: 3 Jun 91 14:49:41 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.

In article <941@giga.slc.unisys.com>, p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J.
 Smith) writes:
>
> Frank Close visited Utah this last week of May, during which he gave a
> radio (May 28, KSL radio) and television interview, and also gave a
> talk at the U of U on cold fusion.  He also gave a colloquium at the U
> of U physics department on the spin of the proton.  For political
> reasons, the physics department chair preferred not to have a
> colloquium on cold fusion, so an earlier talk was arranged, but not
> widely advertised.  Unfortunately, I couldn't attend this talk.  I
> understand that Dr. Fritz Will attended however, and held a lengthy
> private discussion with Frank afterwards.  Today (May 31) Frank will
> give a cold fusion talk at BYU.
 
Frank has been making a rather extensive speaking tour of the US and gave a
cold-fusion talk here in Los Alamos on Wednesday, 5/29.  I could only make
the first half of this talk, having to catch a plane just as the talk was
scheduled to end; however, we had an interesting conversation beforehand, in
which Frank mentioned that of the dozen or so talks he was giving on this
tour, only one talked about "real physics" -- and that was the one at the
University of Utah ...  Sort of a pat on the back for Mike Salamon, who
certainly deserves it.  BTW, anyone who gets a chance to hear Frank talk
should certainly take advantage of it; he is an immensely entertaining
speaker with a solid reputation in his field (theoretical medium-energy
and/or particle physics) and command of his subject.
 
> Frank ... concluded by stating that
> while something interesting is likely happening, the phenomenon has no
> real potential as a future energy source.
 
Really?  I'd be surprised if his wording was that upbeat.
 
> was shown a series of copies of the mobile gamma peak (from different
> sources) which solidly indicate that scientific fraud was committed!!!
 
He showed these to me at the Los Alamos talk too, and I confess that I don't
know what to make of them.  It is clear that at least two different peaks have
been mentioned as the neutron signature at one time or other, and also that
one of the peaks has been rescaled in the process.  I'm not sure, however,
that this constitutes "scientific fraud" as much as it demonstrates a lack
of even the most rudimentary awareness of what's important about gamma-ray
spectra.  For starters, could the rescaling of the peak just be shoddy
graphmanship?  It is neither uncommon nor inappropriate to arbitrarily rescale
certain curves for publication that are based on macroscopic observables --
shapes of IR/visible/UV spectra, for example, where so many photons are
commonly observed at each wavelength that the spectrum can be regarded as
perfectly well known.  (Observe that these are exactly the kinds of spectra
that the typical chemist is likely to get exposed to somewhere in the course
of his/her training.)  But in gamma-ray spectroscopy, one counts individual
photons, and peak shapes, etc., can be perturbed markedly by statistical
considerations (since as few as 20 or 25 photons can comprise a "statistically
significant" peak under some conditions), so gamma-ray spectra are customarily
presented with accurate, unambiguous scaling.  I'm a gamma-ray spectroscopist
(and used to be a chemist), so I know this.  But is the failure of a team of
wet chemists like FPH to understand this really evidence of "scientific
fraud," or just a demonstration that FPH were sloppy about the physics -- as
if any further demonstration was needed?
 
BTW, I'm preparing a review of "Too Hot To Handle" for posting later this
week.  (The review will *not* necessarily say flattering things about the guy
named Johnson who's mentioned in the book ... :-)  To summarize, it's well
worth a read, if possessed of some major flaws; Frank's command of his
subject is excellent, his exposition of the science accurate (with a few
minor errors that don't impact the message), but the editing of the book is
abominable and makes it harder and more tedious to read than it should be,
given Frank's proficiency as a scientific expositor.  Details later.
Meanwhile, has anyone seen the Mallove book (a True Believer epistle, I am
told) who'd be willing to review it?  That book gores a particular ox of
mine; more about that later too.
 
--
Bill Johnson			| "A man should never be ashamed to own he
Los Alamos National Laboratory	| has been in the wrong, which is but saying,
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA	| in other words, that he is wiser to-day
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)	| than he was yesterday."  (A. Pope)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.04 /  fusion@zorch.S /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 14:41:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenfusion cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.04 / F information /  cmsg cancel <1991Jun4.144111.2077@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
     
Originally-From: fusion@zorch (Forwarder of fusion information)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1991Jun4.144111.2077@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 14:53:11 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenfusion cudfnForwarder cudlninformation cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.05 / David Chapman /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: David Chapman <dwc@mahakala.ESD.3Com.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1991 04:17:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dear folks,
   I have been watching as "cold fusion" goes back and
forth.  The situation reminds me of semiconductor physics
in the 1930's.
   At that time, many claims were made about various
observations, which other labs were frequently unable to
duplicate.  More embarrassing, the original lab was often
unable to reproduce its work.  Only after much effort did
people realize that semiconductor devices require a level
of purity far beyond their previous experience.
   I suspect that "electro-compression" experiments such
as that conducted by F&P work only if the palladium is of
semiconductor purity levels, and only if it possesses one
of the several appropriate crystal structures.  (Directional
solidification/zone refining can do both at the same time.)
   There is also a widely held suspicion that lithium must
be present in the palladium, in small amounts.  It would
not be very surprising if dopants were necessary.
   My personal theory about the absence of radiation is
that, unlike the case in vacuum, D-D fusion inside a
crystal lattice is not constrained to break apart into a
H1/H3 or N/He3 pair.  The excess momentum could be
coupled into the lattice as phonons, or even dissipated
over several microseconds as an exciton of the conduction
band electrons.  (The numbers do not support the exciton
theories, since the lattice electronic energy is inadequate
to stabilize an exciton by a few orders of magnitude.  The
number of phonons required to cause D-D fusion to proceed
to He4 is large, but not hopeless.  This theory makes a very
annoying prediction, however:  Increasing the heat of the Pd
crystal will increase the rate of the reaction.  To a first
order, the energy output will scale as the exponential of
the kelvin temperature.)
   The other theory which explains no radiation is that we are
observing Li6-D fusion.  If this was so, there would be a
small residual amount of x-rays and neutrons emitted.  The
x-rays would be from fusion events near the surface, whose
alpha particles would remove electrons form palladium
atoms, which would emit "cascade" x-rays, and the
neutrons would be from alpha-n nuclear interactions, with a
very low cross-section.   These would be detectable, but it
would not be easy.
   Good Luck!
					-Dave Chapman
dwc@mahakala.3com.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendwc cudfnDavid cudlnChapman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.05 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 5 Jun 91 17:46:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9106050349.AA07679@mahakala.ESD.3Com.COM> David Chapman
 <dwc@mahakala.ESD.3Com.COM> writes:
>
>Dear folks,
>   I have been watching as "cold fusion" goes back and
>forth.  The situation reminds me of semiconductor physics
>in the 1930's.
>   At that time, many claims were made about various
>observations, which other labs were frequently unable to
>duplicate.  More embarrassing, the original lab was often
>unable to reproduce its work.  Only after much effort did
>people realize that semiconductor devices require a level
>of purity far beyond their previous experience.
 
I would not hold my breath expecting the same outcome, though.
 
>   I suspect that "electro-compression" experiments such
>as that conducted by F&P work only if the palladium is of
>semiconductor purity levels, and only if it possesses one
>of the several appropriate crystal structures.  (Directional
>solidification/zone refining can do both at the same time.)
 
I doubt that level of purity is possible now and, in any case, that's
not what F&P used. Furthermore, the term "electro-compression" is
unjustified and misleading.
 
 
>   There is also a widely held suspicion that lithium must
>be present in the palladium, in small amounts.  It would
>not be very surprising if dopants were necessary.
>   My personal theory about the absence of radiation is
>that, unlike the case in vacuum, D-D fusion inside a
>crystal lattice is not constrained to break apart into a
>H1/H3 or N/He3 pair.  The excess momentum could be
>coupled into the lattice as phonons, or even dissipated
>over several microseconds as an exciton of the conduction
>band electrons.  (The numbers do not support the exciton
>theories, since the lattice electronic energy is inadequate
>to stabilize an exciton by a few orders of magnitude.  The
>number of phonons required to cause D-D fusion to proceed
>to He4 is large, but not hopeless.  This theory makes a very
>annoying prediction, however:  Increasing the heat of the Pd
>crystal will increase the rate of the reaction.  To a first
>order, the energy output will scale as the exponential of
>the kelvin temperature.)
 
Is that a hunch or a theory?  How is the fusion event coupled to
the lattice?  That is, how can the transient compound nucleus transfer
momentum in times carachteristic of nuclear events (say 10^-22 secs)
to the lattice which has response times of the order of 10^-13 secs?
I would like to see how this is done, and your derivation that the
energy output should scale with exp(T).
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 20:27:46 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1991Jun5.174641.3682@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
 
[commenting on D. Chapmans "theory" that nuclear energy gets
converted to lattice vibration energy]
 
>How is the fusion event coupled to
>the lattice?  That is, how can the transient compound nucleus transfer
>momentum in times carachteristic of nuclear events (say 10^-22 secs)
>to the lattice which has response times of the order of 10^-13 secs?
 
 
I seriously doubt it is possible, so we'll never know how it is
accomplished. But, it is still interesting to consider such coupling
in real cold fusion, namely muon-catalyzed fusion. There, how
does the nuclear reaction couple to the electron (really muon)
configuration of the muonic D_2 molecules or muonic D-D colliding pairs?
 
In particular, does the fusion reaction leave some sizable fraction of
its energy in excited muons, or is it pretty much decoupled from the muons
(of course, they get striped off as the fused nucleus go zipping away).
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: Local News Resumes (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local News Resumes (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
Date: 6 Jun 91 04:06:59 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <24947@lanl.gov> mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
>In article <941@giga.slc.unisys.com>, p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J.
 Smith) writes:
>>
 ....
 
>> was shown a series of copies of the mobile gamma peak (from different
>> sources) which solidly indicate that scientific fraud was committed!!!
>
>He showed these to me at the Los Alamos talk too, and I confess that I don't
>know what to make of them.  It is clear that at least two different peaks have
>been mentioned as the neutron signature at one time or other, and also that
>one of the peaks has been rescaled in the process.  I'm not sure, however,
>that this constitutes "scientific fraud" as much as it demonstrates a lack
>of even the most rudimentary awareness of what's important about gamma-ray
>spectra.  For starters, could the rescaling of the peak just be shoddy
>graphmanship?  It is neither uncommon nor inappropriate to arbitrarily rescale
 
I saw most of the "different" versions of the spectra when I saw Frank at
a conference in Telluride, CO this past March.  Comparing them on over-
head transparencies is most entertaining.  The points that make up the
peaks are identical in all respects.  Only the vertical (counts) and
horizontal (energy) scales were changed; the change in the energy scale
was such as to change the width of the peak as measured in MeV.  Some
of these pictures are in his book, but you can see some of it for yourself
by examining the original paper and its erratum.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.06 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 6 Jun 91 14:52:57 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Jun5.202746.5503@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry
 Merriman) writes:
>In article <1991Jun5.174641.3682@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>
>[commenting on D. Chapmans "theory" that nuclear energy gets
>converted to lattice vibration energy]
>
>>How is the fusion event coupled to
>>the lattice?  That is, how can the transient compound nucleus transfer
>>momentum in times carachteristic of nuclear events (say 10^-22 secs)
>>to the lattice which has response times of the order of 10^-13 secs?
>
>
>I seriously doubt it is possible, so we'll never know how it is
>accomplished. But, it is still interesting to consider such coupling
>in real cold fusion, namely muon-catalyzed fusion. There, how
>does the nuclear reaction couple to the electron (really muon)
>configuration of the muonic D_2 molecules or muonic D-D colliding pairs?
>
>In particular, does the fusion reaction leave some sizable fraction of
>its energy in excited muons, or is it pretty much decoupled from the muons
>(of course, they get striped off as the fused nucleus go zipping away).
>
>
When fusion occurs, the potential seen by the muon changes suddenly.  The
most likely outcome of this should be that the muon is ionized. The
muon in the reaction acts just to screen the D-D pair and allow a closer
approach.  I believe the fusion event itself, the _nuclear_ part is not
much affected by the small chance that the muon is found _at_ the
nucleus.
 
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.07 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 538 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 538 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1991 14:16:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
I've decided to clean up in my stack of references; there are a number I am
waiting to get as copies, but those below look like taking a long long time,
so I decided to use the abstracts straight out of Chem. Abstr. (with the
exception of the Russell, which I have).
Russell refines his dineutron model and calculates that, as a curious
coincidence, it just happens to work. Altaiskii et al report (as Altaiskii
does elsewhere, on their fluctuation model, which can explain cold fusion as
well. I can't tell from the abstract what the conclusions of Gann and P are,
but they have another model. There are relatively few Soviet cold fusion
experiments outside the very busy fractofusion school, and Budnikov et al, as
well as Zelenskii et al are examples. The former find nothing, the latter
confirm cold fusion. The Turkish workers Birgul et al (I know Yildiz from
the electrochemical literature) find indirect evidence of cold fusion, while
the Chinese group, Gou et al, have a theory (not specified) and then confirm
cold fusion by experiment, appearing to find heat evolution and fusion
products, presumably by mass spectroscopy.
This should keep y'all going until I get the large heap out of J. Fusion
Energy and Fusion Technol. recent issues.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 7-Jun. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 538
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altaiskii MV, Artekha SN, Barts BI, Bar'yakhtar VG, Moiseev SS;
Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh., Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povrezhdenii Radiats. Materialoved.
(1990)(1) 78.   (in Russian).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:109730 (1991).
"Enchancement of quantum-mechanical and wave barrier transparency by
fluctuations and some physical consequences".
** "The influence was examd. of fluctuation of barrier parameters on its
transparency. Upon averaging out the fluctuations there develops an addnl.
factor closely related to the Debye-Waller factor in solid-state theory. As a
result, the penetrability of a barrier can be substantially increased, which
is extremely important for nuclear physics reactions at very low energies in a
solid, and esp. for cold fusion".
Notes: I reproduce "Enchancement" as it stands; "transparency" undoubtedly
means penetrability.                                                      ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birgul O, Celebi S, Ozdural A, Pekmez K, Yildiz A, Yurum Y;
Doga: Turk. Muhendislik Cevre Bilimleri Derg. 14(3) (1990) 373.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:130615 (1991).
"Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium using surface modified
palladium electrodes".
** "Bursts of gamma-ray emission accompanying sudden temp. rises were obsd.
during the const. current electrolysis of D2O contg. LiOD electrolyte using
the surface modified Pd cathodes following the charge-up of the cathode
material with the electrolytically produced D. The macroscopic and microscopic
deformations of the cathode material were noted at the end of electrolysis
that could only be caused by extreme pos. thermal changes. The results were
compared with blank expts. using H2O in which no such changes occurred."
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budnikov AT, Danilov PA, Kartamyshev GA, Katrich NP, Seminozhenko VP;
Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh., Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povrezhdenii Radiats. Materialoved.
(1990)(1) 81.   (in Russian).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:110463 (1991).
"Study of gases released from palladium, nickel and copper irradiated with
deuterons, from palladium saturated with gases during heavy water electrolysis
and heating in a deuterium atmosphere".
** "By using an ultrahigh-vacuum system with a mass-spectrometric method,
measurements were made and selective pumping out was accomplished of chem.
active and inert gases in a gaseous medium, formed during the electrolysis of
D2O and desorbed from Pd electrodes. Pd, Ni and Ca targets irradiated by d (a
product of fusion) showed no (3)He, (4)He or T2. In the above cases, the
gaseous medium consists of the same diat. and triat. mols. of the H isotopes:
D2, HD, H2 and HD2, and D3. Even after 10 h of electrolysis of D2O the Pd
electrodes, and the formed gaseous medium did not contain significant
quantities of the He isotopes and T2."                                     ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gann VV, Pokhodyashchii VI;         Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh., Ser.: Fiz. Radiats.
Povrezhdenii Radiats. Materialoved. (1990)(1) 89.   (in Russian).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:89635 (1991).
"Metastable bound states of deuterium in palladium and their role in cold
nuclear fusion".
** "The feasibility was analyzed of the development of metastable bound states
of 2 D atoms situated in a quasi-homogeneous gas of heavy e with increased d.
The conditions for realizing such bound states in a Pd crystal are discussed.
The rates of fusion of D were calcd. within the framework of a proposed
model".                                                                    ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gou Q, Zhu Z, Zhang Q; Yuanzi Yu Fenzi Wuli Xuebao 7 (1990) 1491 (in Chinese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:151805 (1991).
"Possible mechanism of cold fusion and experimental research".
** "A possible mechanism is proposed of D-D cold fusion based on at., mol. or
solid state physics. After this assumption, the remarkable effects of temp.
variation and exothermal and the fusion products with mass no. 4 and 3 were
obsvd. during the electrolysis of Dd with Pd or Ti electrodes.            ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Jr JL;                                 Ann. Nucl. Energy 18 (1991) 75.
"Virtual electron capture in deuterium".
** Russell has previously suggested that cold fusion could be due to dineutron
formation in deuterons, by electron capture by the nucleus. In this paper, he
has a more detailed look at the scenario, which can explain how the Coulomb
barrier is overcome (it isn't there), why tritium is produced (is it?) and the
excess heat. A neutrino is released upon dineutron formation, and the
dineutron, during its short life (aye, there's the rub) might capture a nearby
nucleus. Can this work? Weak interaction theory, the Schroedinger equation and
a cloudy crystal ball show that the dineutron formation rate and lifetime are
well within the range required for cold fusion. Remarkably, this range is
narrow; if the lifetime were one order of magnitude (OOM) smaller, no cold
fusion would be observed; if it was 1 OOM larger, it would would have been
seen long ago.                                    Aug-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zelenskii VF, Rybalko VF, Morozov AN, Tolstolutskaya GD, Kulish VG,
Pistryak SV, Martynov IS;            Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh., Ser.: Fiz. Radiats.
Povrezhdenii Radiats. Materialoved. (1990)(1) 65.   (in Russian).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:89634 (1991).
"Experiments on cold nuclear fusion in palladium and titanium saturated with
deuterium by ion implantation".
** "Measurements were made of the emission of nuclear radiation - n and the
charged products of fusion ((3)He, T, p) from samples of Pd and Ti satd. with
D by using ion implantation. The data attest to the existence of cold fusion."
                                                                           ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.07 / Bill Lurker /  Bibliography
     
Originally-From: bbs.lurker@spies.com (Bill Lurker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bibliography
Date: 7 Jun 91 06:30:32 GMT
Organization: Spies in the wire, (408) 867-7400

I've noticed a number of bibliography posts, since I am new to this
group, please forgive a probable freq. question, but is there an FTP
site with all the bibliographies posted in the past?
 
Bill Lurker
 
 
--
Bill Lurker (bbs.lurker@spies.com)
 
Spies in the Wire, PUBLIC ACCESS UNIX  -- (408) 867-7400
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlurker cudfnBill cudlnLurker cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.05 / Patrick Smith /  Re: Local News Resumes (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
     
Originally-From: p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local News Resumes (Frank Close's visit to SLC)
Date: 5 Jun 91 17:12:16 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah

In article <24947@lanl.gov>, mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
> In article <941@giga.slc.unisys.com>, p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J.
 Smith) writes:
> >
> > was shown a series of copies of the mobile gamma peak (from different
> > sources) which solidly indicate that scientific fraud was committed!!!
>
> He showed these to me at the Los Alamos talk too, and I confess that I don't
> know what to make of them. It is clear that at least two different peaks have
> been mentioned as the neutron signature at one time or other, and also that
> one of the peaks has been rescaled in the process.  I'm not sure, however,
> that this constitutes "scientific fraud" as much as it demonstrates a lack
> of even the most rudimentary awareness of what's important about gamma-ray
> spectra.  For starters, could the rescaling of the peak just be shoddy
> graphmanship? It is neither uncommon nor inappropriate to arbitrarily rescale
> certain curves for publication that are based on macroscopic observables --
> shapes of IR/visible/UV spectra, for example, where so many photons are
> commonly observed at each wavelength that the spectrum can be regarded as
> perfectly well known...
> ...But is the failure of a team of
> wet chemists like FPH to understand this, really evidence of "scientific
> fraud," or just a demonstration that FPH were sloppy about the physics -- as
> if any further demonstration was needed?
>
 
Certainly FPH were "sloppy about the physics" in the hectic days just
before the press conference.  But at least part of the reason for this
sloppiness reflects the reasons behind the press conference and
the rescaling of the gamma peak.
 
FPH knew that Jones et al were claiming "solid state fusion" just as
*they* were.  They knew that Jones et al had detected neutrons,
which comprised the "smoking gun" evidence.  And Jones had told them
of his intention to publish - he would send a paper to Nature on
March 24, and give a talk at the May APS meeting.  At this point, FPH
must have feared that they would lose priority in what they believed
to be a discovery of immense importance.  They were apparently
seeing excess heat, and attributed it to cold fusion.  But they needed
their own smoking gun evidence of fusion.
 
Fleischmann tried to get Harwell to do the measurements, but they were
unable to replicate the phenomenon (eventually giving up after 127
attempts).  He next tried to send them a "working" cell, but it became
embroiled in regulations.  The March 24 deadline was fast approaching
and so the attempt to measure neutrons was hurriedly put together, and
a peak was measured.  The peak energy was ~2.5 MeV.  The press
conference was called for March 23.  FPH had apparently established
priority.
 
A few days later Fleischmann gave a talk at Harwell, at which the
problems with the gamma spectrum became apparent.  Meanwhile, Saloman
and others at the physics dept were getting calls from all
over the world from colleagues who assumed that the physics dept had
signed off on the gamma spectrum.  Finally, Saloman, Taylor, etc. told
Brophy that they needed to see the paper and talk to Pons.  When
Saloman looked at the spectrum, the problems were obvious.  An hour
later Saloman asked Pons:  "Did you recalibrate, or what?"  And Pons
answered: "Yes, yes, yes."  This was less than two days after the
Harwell talk.
 
What Frank Close's graphs show clearly is that the peak was simply
moved to 2.2 MeV.  This could not be considered a rescaling to
account for macroscopic characteristics because, first, the "signal"
peak at 2.5 MeV was thought to be the PROOF OF FUSION.  Moving it to
2.2 MeV amounts to assuming your correct before the fact.  Second,
once the peak was moved, the macroscopic characteristics (the marker
peak) of the spectrum were wrong.  So the energy scale was expanded
to move the marker peak back to where it should have been.  It is this
sequence of events that is clear from the various graphs.
 
Considering that FPH had reason to believe they could lose priority if
it ever came to a legal battle (and they were absolutely convinced of
the validity of the excess heat and its origin), their motive is
clear.  Jones had apparently measured neutrons, and so FPH assumed
that neutrons must be present.  And keep in mind that Jones et al
obtained their results (the results published in the Nature paper)
around December 88 - January 89, months after Jones had seen the DOE
application.  Then, given the circumstances, was it appropriate for
Pons to shift the data as he did, so as to claim priority in an
important discovery?  I think that it wasn't.  But then again, what
would I have done???
 
-Patrick
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.10 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Fusion spending (was Re: <none>)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion spending (was Re: <none>)
Date: 10 Jun 91 19:50:28 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>>How much has been spent on fusion energy research?
 
This figure will take some browsing, but I'll try as time permits.  My
data will almost certainly be restricted to AEC-, ERDA-, and DOE-
supported MFE and nondefense IFE research.  There has been a great deal
of research in defense programs that is relevant to IFE but is at this
time classified (and if anybody told me they'd have to shoot me :)
 
My Scientific Wild-A**ed Guess is a couple billion a decade for two decades.
 
>>It seems that money could be better spent on a bunch of small ideas than
>>on a few  $(multi-billion) projects.
 
Philosophical question, but note that some things lend themselves to
"small science" and others don't.  Note also that the fusion budget
supports a fair amount of "small science" under a "big science" aegis.
 
I've taken some liberties with the message header, directing followups
to sci.physics.fusion -- and deleting the talk.* groups so Bill Johnson
doesn't start wondering what he did to deserve me.  :)
 
Joe
"The pallid pimp of the dead-line/The enervate of the pen" --Rob't Service
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.05 / David Chapman /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: David.Chapman@f98.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (David Chapman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 5 Jun 91 09:17:31 GMT

 
 
Dear folks,
   I have been watching as "cold fusion" goes back and
forth.  The situation reminds me of semiconductor physics
in the 1930's.
   At that time, many claims were made about various
observations, which other labs were frequently unable to
duplicate.  More embarrassing, the original lab was often
unable to reproduce its work.  Only after much effort did
people realize that semiconductor devices require a level
of purity far beyond their previous experience.
   I suspect that "electro-compression" experiments such
as that conducted by F&P work only if the palladium is of
semiconductor purity levels, and only if it possesses one
of the several appropriate crystal structures.  (Directional
solidification/zone refining can do both at the same time.)
   There is also a widely held suspicion that lithium must
be present in the palladium, in small amounts.  It would
not be very surprising if dopants were necessary.
   My personal theory about the absence of radiation is
that, unlike the case in vacuum, D-D fusion inside a
crystal lattice is not constrained to break apart into a
H1/H3 or N/He3 pair.  The excess momentum could be
coupled into the lattice as phonons, or even dissipated
over several microseconds as an exciton of the conduction
band electrons.  (The numbers do not support the exciton
theories, since the lattice electronic energy is inadequate
to stabilize an exciton by a few orders of magnitude.  The
number of phonons required to cause D-D fusion to proceed
to He4 is large, but not hopeless.  This theory makes a very
annoying prediction, however:  Increasing the heat of the Pd
crystal will increase the rate of the reaction.  To a first
order, the energy output will scale as the exponential of
the kelvin temperature.)
   The other theory which explains no radiation is that we are
observing Li6-D fusion.  If this was so, there would be a
small residual amount of x-rays and neutrons emitted.  The
x-rays would be from fusion events near the surface, whose
alpha particles would remove electrons form palladium
atoms, which would emit "cascade" x-rays, and the
neutrons would be from alpha-n nuclear interactions, with a
very low cross-section.   These would be detectable, but it
would not be easy.
   Good Luck!
					-Dave Chapman
dwc@mahakala.3com.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenChapman cudfnDavid cudlnChapman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.04 /  Forwarder.of.f /  cmsg cancel <1991Jun4.144111.2077@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
     
Originally-From: Forwarder.of.fusion.information@f98.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org
 (Forwarder of fusion information)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1991Jun4.144111.2077@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Date: 4 Jun 91 19:53:11 GMT

 
This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeninformation cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.11 / Barry Merriman /  More on Mills theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Mills theory
Date: 11 Jun 91 21:27:33 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In response to me question about the origins of quantization
in Mills and Farrel's theory of atomic structure (and
of cold fusion), I just received a hefty packet of papers from Mills.
 
I haven't yet read them in detail, but they have done a large
number of experiments which consistently produce excess heat.
The experiments are based on open cell calorimetry of an electrolysis
cell with nickel cathode, platinum anode, and K2CO3 + H2O electrolyte,
or another Na2Co3.
 
They carry out a number of controls, etc, so that at least
at the supeficial level I've read through it, it seems like
reasonable experimental protocols were followed.
 
They typically get around 1000% excess heat, i.e. increase in cell
temperature beyond what is expected.
 
They attribute this to atoms falling into a lower energy level
than their standard ground state, which is predicted in their
theory (for this choice of K electrolyte).
 
Now on to my question: most of our knowledge of atomic structure
comes from scattering experiments (including scattering of photons,
i.e. the spectrum of the atom). The Mills experiment tests their
new theory of atomic structure via electrolysis, looking for
the heat released in the transition to lower energy levels below
the ground state. A calorimetry experiment seems like a
rather coarse way to test such a delicate hypothesis. If it is true,
as Mills predicts, that H (among others) has lower energy states
than its standard ground state, it seems that some fraction of H would
be in these lower states, and that would add some new lines to the
absorption spectra of H. Or, if for some reason no naturally occuring
H is in these lower states, some sort of collisional process
(against particles or photons) should be able to induce a transition,
and again the modified spectrum would be observable. So, what I'm
saying is that, rather than doing electrolysis, Mills should be doing
spectrometry to test their theory.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: More on Mills theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Mills theory
Date: 11 Jun 91 21:36:17 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1991Jun11.212733.5343@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry
 Merriman) writes:
>
>They attribute this to atoms falling into a lower energy level
>than their standard ground state, which is predicted in their
>theory (for this choice of K electrolyte).
>
 
>What I'm saying is that, rather than doing electrolysis, Mills should be doing
>spectrometry to test their theory.
>
 
In fact, they should just siphon the sub-ground-state H (they think
is) produced in their electrolysis an do spectroscopy on it to
see if it absorbs additional lines (corresponding to the
transition from sub-ground-state back to ground).
 
This should be even easier than looking for neutrons from cold fusion :-)
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.12 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: More on Mills theory
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Mills theory
Date: 12 Jun 91 02:39:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Jun11.212733.5343@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry
 Merriman) writes:
>In response to me question about the origins of quantization
>in Mills and Farrel's theory of atomic structure (and
>of cold fusion), I just received a hefty packet of papers from Mills.
>
>I haven't yet read them in detail, but they have done a large
>number of experiments which consistently produce excess heat.
>The experiments are based on open cell calorimetry of an electrolysis
>cell with nickel cathode, platinum anode, and K2CO3 + H2O electrolyte,
>or another Na2Co3.
>
>They carry out a number of controls, etc, so that at least
>at the supeficial level I've read through it, it seems like
>reasonable experimental protocols were followed.
>
>They typically get around 1000% excess heat, i.e. increase in cell
>temperature beyond what is expected.
>
>They attribute this to atoms falling into a lower energy level
>than their standard ground state, which is predicted in their
>theory (for this choice of K electrolyte).
>
>Now on to my question: most of our knowledge of atomic structure
>comes from scattering experiments (including scattering of photons,
>i.e. the spectrum of the atom). The Mills experiment tests their
>new theory of atomic structure via electrolysis, looking for
>the heat released in the transition to lower energy levels below
>the ground state. A calorimetry experiment seems like a
>rather coarse way to test such a delicate hypothesis. If it is true,
>as Mills predicts, that H (among others) has lower energy states
>than its standard ground state, it seems that some fraction of H would
>be in these lower states, and that would add some new lines to the
>absorption spectra of H. Or, if for some reason no naturally occuring
>H is in these lower states, some sort of collisional process
>(against particles or photons) should be able to induce a transition,
>and again the modified spectrum would be observable. So, what I'm
>saying is that, rather than doing electrolysis, Mills should be doing
>spectrometry to test their theory.
>
>--
 
Mills is proved wrong simply by noticing that the Hydrogen emission
spectrum is COMPLETELY understood, for instance that coming from the
Sun.  Besides, of course, it should be possible to prove the theory
wrong from a theoretical point of view, by someone who has the
derivation, time and willingness to do so. Mills does not need to do
spectrometry, it has already been done with photons, electrons and
ions on hydrogen atoms and molecules.  No hints on deviations to
current theories.
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: Fusion spending (was Re: <none>)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion spending (was Re: <none>)
Date: 12 Jun 91 22:24:10 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <14145@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>>>How much has been spent on fusion energy research?
>
>This figure will take some browsing, but I'll try as time permits.  My
>data will almost certainly be restricted to AEC-, ERDA-, and DOE-
>supported MFE and nondefense IFE research.  There has been a great deal
>of research in defense programs that is relevant to IFE but is at this
>time classified (and if anybody told me they'd have to shoot me :)
>
>My Scientific Wild-A**ed Guess is a couple billion a decade for two decades.
>
 
Not a bad guess.  The following data are from Physics Today, April 1991,
page 81, in their report on the science requests to Congress.  The data
only cover the last few years.
 
                  FY90 (actual)   FY91 (appropriated)  FY92 (request)
                  -------------   -------------------  --------------
 
Magnetic Fusion    316.7 M$       289.6 M$             337.1 M$
 
Inertial Fusion    169.2 M$       175.0 M$             187.5 M$
 
The table also gives the FY91 request, and as you might guess, Magnetic
Fusion got quite a bit less than it asked for while Inertial Fusion was
in the ball park of its request.
 
 
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.12 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Fusion spending (was Re: <none>)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion spending (was Re: <none>)
Date: 12 Jun 91 23:36:12 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>How much has been spent on fusion energy research?
 
Here is a first cut at how much the US has spent on it recently.
European nations, singly and in various collaborations, have also
been heavily involved; Japan is jumping in; and the Soviets, of
course, have spent some unknown amount over many years.
 
This table is tab-delimited for the convenience of those who
want to load it into graphing software.  My apologies to anyone
whose terminal doesn't like tabs.
 
This round of information comes entirely from "Physics Today," the
easiest place to find the relevant data. (Also the source of the
liveliest commentary on the budget process, which is the best soap opera
in the land -- though those of us who have to live with it might think
a David Lynch movie would make a better metaphor).  This stuff usually
appears in the "Washington Reports" section of the April or May issue.
 
Disclaimer:  This is not the official anything of anybody.  So sue me.
 
--Joe
Strategically placed flunky, Accelerator and Fusion Research Division
 
US DOE MAGNETIC AND INERTIAL FUSION ENERGY BUDGETS, 1977-PRESENT
All figures in millions of then-year dollars (that is to say,
not adjusted for inflation).  Includes operating, construction,
and capital-equipment monies unless otherwise noted.
 
FISCAL YEAR	MFE	ICF	COMMENTS
 
1992		337	182	Request
1991		290	175	Current
1990		316	169	Actual (reported the following FY)
1989		346	163	"
1988		333	159	"
1987		342	169	"
1986		362	147	"
1985		430	180	"
1984		465	170	"
1983		461	189	"
1982		451	209	"
1981		394	209	Estimate of budgetary authority (EBA)
1980		350	195	Actual
1979		352	147	EBA
1978		316	127	"
1977		291	108	EBA; agency was ERDA, not DOE
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.12 / Barry Merriman /  more on Mills theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: more on Mills theory
Date: 12 Jun 91 22:17:49 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

I've been able to understand more of (but not all of, so my
apology to Mills if I make a misinterpretation---please correct me).
 
At this point, I think I have to give it a thumbs down---that is,
it doesn't seem to be a theory that is both consistent and
predictive.
 
Strangely, it does seem to be predictive, in that Mills
uses it to accurately predict ionization energies for a variety
of atoms---but I'm beginning to suspect that this is due to
a considerable amount of ``twisting'' to make things come out
"right" (i.e. like quantum mechanics says).
 
However, it does not seem to be consistent, i.e. it has a number of
strange, non-physical assumptions. (Note: that is, of course,
common for new theories, but this one claims to derive itself
from relativity and electromagnetism; I'm afraid the
strange assumptions may be just those needed to make things "work").
 
The Mills theory is (intended to be) a theory of atomic
structure based on a classical model of the atom, governed
by Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein (no Schroedinger!). They take it
much further than this (weak and strong forces, gravity, etc), but
we can safely and simply judge it by the model of the atom it
presents.
 
A few words on their theory:
 
The fundamental problem with a classical theory of the atom
is that the orbiting electron is accelerated, and thus radiates
away its energy quite rapidly (microsecond for the orbit to
decay). So classical models of the atom don't normally
yield stable atoms.
 
The second obstacle is to explain quantization of the atom.
 
In the Mills theory, these first two difficulties are (in attempt)
dealt with via a novel model of the electron. They model the electron as
a spherical shell of charge (and mass, whose density is proportional
to charge) which is centered around the nucleus, and spins about an axis.
 
They then search for such configurations that do not radiate. It turns out
that generally, for a given angular velocity and distribution of
charge on the sphere, only spheres of certain radii will not radiate.
Thus one achieves classical stable atoms with quantized size.
 
More precisely, if one takes the criteria for nonradiation
to be that the J^(k,w) = 0 when |k| = w/c (J^ is the space-time
fourier transfrom of the current density, k is wavenumber, w
frequency, and the condition says that this must vanish at (k,w)
corresponding to plane EM waves) (I haven't checked that this
criteria really is equivalent to non-radiation, but it sounds reasonable
and they cite a paper in Am. J. Phys. By Haus, 1986), then
one finds the following:
 
(0) If charge is uniformly distributed on the sphere, then the
electron will not radiate, and can have _any_ radius and
_any_ angular velocity, independently (Mills seems to ignore
this _un_quantized case). This is obvious, since a uniform spherical
shell cannot radiate by symmetry.
 
(1) If the charge distribution is non-uniform on the sphere, and the
angular velocity, W, of the rotating sphere is given, then there
are certain discrete radii r_1(W), r_2(W),...r_N(W)  for which the
electron will not radiate (the number of such radii depends on the
way the charge is distributed; N could be anywhere from 1 to infinity,
depending on the charge distribution. Note that the radii
are functions of W, so they will really
only be quantized if W---the angular velocity of the sphere---is
quantized. The relation I get for the allowed r is
r_m = (pi*c)(m/W) where m=1,2,3,....  in general, and for certain
special charge distributions (that are invariant under rotation
by 2pi/n about the axis of rotation) r_m/n is allowed (i.e. a
fraction of the normally allowed radius) (because for such
a distribution, the charge distribution effectively
rotates at nW instead of W). I think this is where
their fractional-radii atoms come in.
 
So, the above provides us with stable quantized atoms---if
we throw out the stable unquantized atoms in (0), and if the
angular velocity of the sphere-electron W is quantized.
 
(Note: as far as I can tell, this yields nonradiating configurations
no matter *how* the charge is distributed on the sphere---even all
at one point. This suggests that for *point* charges in a circular
orbit, that under the right conditions (radius and angular velocity)
it would not radiate---so even certain planetary models of
the atom would be stable. This is suspicious, so either the
math doesn't go through in this case, or the correct orbital
conditions cannot be met using a central force law that we are given).
 
At this stage, we have an interesting result---certain time-varying,
accelerated charge distributions that don't radiate. (Intuitively,
they must radiate and then move so as to reabsorb their radiation).
And of an "orbital, quantized" nature to boot. Rather amusing---good
for winning a few bar bets with physicists. As long as the radiation
condition imposed above is true, these seem to exist in abundance.
 
Now is where Mills theory starts to deviate from what is reasonable.
 
To quantize W as well, and thus get the quantized atom, the idea is that
in the atom only certain W are allowed, since centrifical force
(function of r,W) must balance attraction to the nucleus (function
of r), thus providing one more relation between r, W. Together with the
non-radiation condition above, these would have a discrete set of solutions,
constituting the allowed (r,W) states of the Mills atom (which in turn
would determine the spectrum, etc).
 
But at this point there are conflicitng goals: we want to impose the
classical mechanics force balance above, but for orbiting shells
of the type above, there is no need for force balance, as long
as the mass/charge is not distributed in a lopsided way on the
spinning shell (one part of the shell counterbalances another).
 
But Mills goes ahead, and for all purposes of force balance, treats
the electron as an orbiting point charge: i.e. a single position
and velocity (whereas points on the sphere have a distribution
of positions and velocities). So, at this point the classical spherical
shell of charge is abandoned, and even further twisted when he
needs to get spin. Probably, this is done because it seems to
give good answers (I haven't checked that, though). But it
is definitely not a classical theory of the atom (and Mills
says as much in his book, once these shells get sufficiently
loaded up with semi-ad-hoc properties like the above). So, the
upshot is that for some calculations the elctron is a spereical
shell, for others it is a point charge, and for others something
yet again. Not what I would call a consistent classically derived
theory.
 
So, anyway, I'm doubtful about this theory. Since it predicts,
it seems, new energy levels for H, that should be pretty easy to test
via spectroscopy. But the theory itself doesn't give me great
confidence. I should read their book more carefully before
passing judgement, though---the above are just my current impressions.
Its not that their book isn't precise---its just that there are many
of these glossed over points, discarded solutions (like (0)),
twisted applications of existing ideas (like the force balance),
etc, which means one really has to think carefully while reading
it, to figure out if they are really doing something new, or just
permuting concepts and definitions to get something that comes out right;
that makes it slow going (and frustrating when you wonder
why they left out certain things, like (0) above).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.12 / Barry Merriman /  One more point on Mills theory
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: One more point on Mills theory
Date: 12 Jun 91 22:31:40 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

The real question Mills doesn't tackle in his theory of the atom
is whether its possible to have a nucleus at the center of a
spinning spherical shell of charge which is a stable
electro-mechanical system, i.e. it doesn't radiate EM energy,
and it is in stable mechanical state as well, so that if the shell
is displaced slightly it will reposition iteself, or at least
not crash into the nucleus.
 
His current set-up gives the nonradiating shells, but I doubt
that the mechanical stability could aslo be satisfied.
 
This would, however, rule out the uniformly charged shells,
since they lack mechanical stability agaisnt displacements;
they are neutrally stable, though, since they exert no force on the
nucleus, and vice versa, no matter where it is inside the sphere
(think back to you EM courses---there is  no field inside a uniform
shell of charge).
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.13 / Dieter Britz /  Mills et al
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills et al
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1991 14:40:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Let me say at the start that I tend not to believe Mills' et al theories, nor
their reproducible 1000% excess heat - but I certainly will read their papers
when they come out. A couple of points occur to me, however.
 Don't trust a physicist when he/she says that something is impossible. There
were some theorists who threw out cold fusion simply on the basis that in
palladium deuteride, d-d distances are much greater than in D2 gas; ergo, no
cold fusion. This is making things too easy for yourself; sure, I realise that
this argument is a counter to those who appeared to imply that deuterium is so
wonderfully closely packed in Pd that it can't help but fuse.
 As to Mills et al, they are saying that hydrogen has lower than ground states
and physicists are now saying that this would show up in the hydrogen spectrum
(I admit I've said so myself). I can, however, imagine some low states that
will not normally be reached spontaneously, that require special conditions
for the decay to these states. So the mere fact that we have not seen such
spectral emission lines doesn't prove anything, I think. Barry Merriman makes
a good suggestion, however: if it is true that in PdD or PdH, such lower
states are reached, then spectroscopy should show energy absorption for the
return from these lower states to the "normal" ground state. So we have an
experimental test here.
 The next point is that if it were all true, it may or may not mean an energy
source. You can't indefinitely emit energy in falling to lower states; those
atoms will reabsorb energy to get back to normal, and there is no net gain.
The Danes have a saying for this: it's like (in winter) pissing in your pants
to get warm. Nevertheless, that's exactly what happens with those heat
transfer setups in some houses, where you effectively pipe heat from the
ground into a house, and let the sun reheat the ground - you might be able to
let energy reabsorption use environmental heat, while you generate electricity
from the emission. Possible, maybe - if this phenomenon exists, that is.
 As for the last, no amount of theory will convince anybody. As with
"conventional" cold fusion (what??), we have to first find out just what the
experimental evidence is, before we try to explain it by a theory - else you
might explain something that doesn't happen. So let's see that evidence.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.14 /   /   Lviv, Ukraine SSR math/physics lab seek collaboration.
     
Originally-From: <WERTHMULLER%SIENA.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Lviv, Ukraine SSR math/physics lab seek collaboration.
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 17:24:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
 
 
 
     The laboratory  of  mathematical  modelling  of  nonlinear  systems  of the
 Institute for Applied Problems of  Mechanics  and Mathematics at the Academy of
 Sciences, Lvov,  Ukraine  SSR  is  seeking    opportunity  to  collaborate with
 academic or research institutions on new or ongoing projects.
     The lab at the Academy of Sciences  in Lvov, Ukraine specializes in: a) the
 theory of dynamics of nonlinear dissipative  systems of diffusion type;  b) the
 investigation  of  nonequilibrium  nonlinear  effects  in  diffusion  class  of
 physical, chemical and biological systems;    c)  the  solution of new types of
 nonlinear equations of mathematical  physics;    d)  the numerical modelling of
 diffusive  nonlinear  equations;  and     e)  the  development  of  variational
 principles for investigation of dissipative systems
     The lab also does work in the  theory of free boundary problem:  the theory
 of surface dynamics of the phase  interfaces in a whole class of nonequilibrium
 phenomena arising in  processes  of  crystallization, electroplating, aggregate
 formation, etc., reduced to the Stephan problem.
     Interested  institutions  or  labs  should  write  directly  to  Dr. Vasily
 Gafyichuk, head of the laboratory, 290020,  Naukova Street 3b, Lvov 20, Ukraine
 SSR, or call 65-19-49. Fax number: 62-12-12.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.14 / Bob Pendleton /  Local news
     
Originally-From: bpendlet@bambam.dsd.es.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Local news
Date: 14 Jun 91 19:43:52 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Design Systems

There was a brief report on KUTV channel 2 Salt Lake City on June 13
about the impending demise of the Nation Cold Fusion Institute. It
seems they are running out of money and will close their doors at the
end of June.
 
During the report they should a tape of Fritz Will (I hope I have the
name right) to paraphrase, he said that it is sad that the NCFI is
closing just when they reached the point where their experiments were
reproducible. He claimed they can produce tritium every time they get
the loading high enough.
 
Don't burn the messenger, I'm just reporting what I heard him say.
 
 
 
--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
   bpendlet@dsd.es.com or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or hellgate!esunix!bpendlet
 
                         Tools, not rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Local news
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local news
Date: 14 Jun 91 21:11:28 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1991Jun14.194352.3218@dsd.es.com> bpendlet@dsd.es.com writes:
 
>During the report they should a tape of Fritz Will (I hope I have the
>name right) to paraphrase, he said that it is sad that the NCFI is
>closing just when they reached the point where their experiments were
>reproducible. He claimed they can produce tritium every time they get
>the loading high enough.
 
 
Oh, really? Well then Will shouldn't be sad, since the money
will soon start to flow in much larger quantities. Strange
that he would be so negative; its a little bit like saying
"Gee, its too bad I lost my funding, just when I finished
my desktop power plant; all that work gone to waste..."
 
 
When are P&F scheduled to finally lay their cards on the table?
There have been this words for some time now that have everthything
nice and reproducible. So where's the "beef" (is that T-bone :-).
 
 
Also, a visiting prof from Utah mentioned to me that, in his opinion,
Pons was being pushed out by the U of U, and that the "research
professorship" that Pons took---in turn giving up tenure!---is just
their first step of easing him out. In particular, he's
not getting his tenure/professorship back, in my source's opinion.
 
Sad, just when he got everything working :-)
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.16 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Local news
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.uucp (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local news
Date: 16 Jun 91 01:19:37 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

In sci.physics.fusion you write:
 
>There was a brief report on KUTV channel 2 Salt Lake City on June 13
>about the impending demise of the Nation Cold Fusion Institute. It
>seems they are running out of money and will close their doors at the
>end of June.
 
This is a shame.  Having been in operation for a little over a year,
how can one produce results in that kind of time scale, and with
so little previous knowledge to base thier work on, much less
experimental methods to tackle the problem.  Dieter Britz and his
wonderful CNF biography shows time after time, interesting and
positive results for a small nuclear phenomenon are being
meassured in labs across the world.  We also know that the
excess heat phenomenon is real, and yet there is still no
real physics that explains this effect. Since the NCFI was
created to learn methods to exploit theses effects, why not give
them time to tackle these issues without the threat of an axe falling.
I think any shut-down the NCFI simply demonstrates a short sitedness
by America to bring fusion energy to the people.
 
>During the report they should a tape of Fritz Will (I hope I have the
>name right) to paraphrase, he said that it is sad that the NCFI is
>closing just when they reached the point where their experiments were
>reproducible. He claimed they can produce tritium every time they get
>the loading high enough.
 
From my own viewpoint of CNF, which is skeptical of high level fusion
by-products, but a believer of the high level heat production, I am
very interested what Dr. Wills is saying about the NCFI's production
of tritium. Before the NCFI closes I hope they present a paper that
explains thier methods for tweeking Pd-D into the production of T.
If they did, I think it would be grounds for continued support of the
NCFI, and as a citizen of the US I would be more than happy see my
tax dollars go to such an endevor.
 
Chuck Sites
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.17 / Chuck Sites /  HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.uucp (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 17 Jun 91 20:33:05 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
 
                             " HEAVY HEAT "
 
          Zone Theory Applied to Hydrogen Species in Hydrated Metals
 
                          By Charles B. Sites
 
  The possibility that deuterium in palladium could form a band structure
and force deuterides into discrete zones of energy is an idea Terry Bollinger
used in a "TWIST OF RIBBON"[1].  Like Terry, I also have speculated on the
possibility of heavy particle banding in hydrated metals[2], and what this
posting will attempt to show is that, with-in hydrated metals, a banding
effect of heavy ions can occur.  The consequence of this effect are
really unknown, however Terry has suggested there may be some effects
that could cause some unusual atomic interactions that may explain
some of the results of cold nuclear fusion (CNF).  The significance of a
banding structure of heavy particles in hydrated metals could be important
to other fields besides those CNF, so I will attempt show one method
of attacking the problem periodic potentials, and later show how this
can lead to the formation of excess heat in hydrated metals.
 
   I suspect the first thing to do is briefly review the analogy that
this idea comes from.  Zone theory (better known as Band theory) comes from
the field of solid state physics as a means of describing why some materials
are insulators, others conductors and still others semi-conductors. By
looking at the lattice of a material as a periodic potential and applying
Schrodinger's wave equation (SWE) to calculate the energies that a particle
can assume when moving through a periodic potential, one can show that
band structures can form.  Zone theory has it's roots in quantum-mechanical
free electron theory of Sommerfeld[3] and seems a very applicable analogy
to the case of hydrogen species within a metal lattice.  For example, the
valence electrons in a conductor have a drift velocity of 10E-2 cm/s.
Deuterium in palladium has a mobility of 10E-7 cm*cm/s (for Pd in alpha
phase at room temperature).  Under a potential difference, deuterium in
Pd may have drift velocities comparable to that of an electron. This
suggests that Sommerfeld's free electron theory can be modified to
examine hydrated metals.
 
 
ONE-DIMENSIONAL INFINITE WELL   (GETTING A BALL PARK FIGURE)
 
  Since this is all basic quantum-mechanics, it might be interesting to
look at a quick SWE back-of-the-envelope calculation for a hydrogen atom,
in an infinitly deep potential well, with the boundary conditions set to
width of the lattice spacing of palladium. The simplist application of SWE
is the deep one dimensional potential well.  The conditions are set so:
 
                                      ^             ^
V(x) = 0   for 0 < x < a         V(x) |             |
                                      |   <--c -->  |
V(x) = oo  for x < 0 and x > a        |             |
                                      |             |
(oo = infinity)                  <----+-------------+----> x
                                     x=0            x=a
 
Any particle in the well will remain in the well because of the infinite
walls (potentials) and psi(x), the probability of finding a particle outside
the well, is 0. That is psi(x)=0 for x < 0 and x > a.   Inside the well, the
SWE is given by,
 
     2
    d  psi(x)        2 m E
    ----------  +   --------  psi(x)   =  0
           2
       d x            hbar
 
Let k = sqrt (2 m E) / hbar  and form the differential equations,
 
     2
    d  psi(x)        2
    ----------  +   k  psi(x)   =  0
           2
       d x
 
This has the general solution of  psi(x) = A sin k x  + B cos k x,
where A and B must be evaluated by use of the boundary conditions.
This forces us to have psi(x)=0 at x=0 and x=a.  Since psi(x)=0 at
x=0 this forces us to choose B=0.  So,
 
psi(x) = A sin k x      where      A is the modulating amplitude.
 
Since psi(x)=0 at x=a and we are not seeking the trivial solution of
A = 0, then sin k a must equal zero.  This is only possible if k a
is an integer multiple of pi.  (remember sin (n * pi) = 0).  Thus,
 
k a = n pi,   where n = 1, 2, 3, ...
 
so
      n pi                          sqrt(2 m E)
k =   ----    but recall that   k = ------------
        a                              hbar
 
                                2    2
       2     2 m E            n   pi
so   k   =  ----------  =   ----------   .
                  2                2
              hbar               a
 
Since we are looking for the energy this particle may have,
simply solve for E.  Thus,
 
           2      2
      2  pi  hbar
E = n   -----------  .
               2
          2 m a
 
Now let's get some ball park figures by playing in actual numbers.
First for an electron in an atom: hbar = 1.0545 E-34 J-sec. The
mass of the electron m = 9.1E-31 kg and the diameter of an atom
is approximately  a = 1E-10 meters, and the state level is n = 1.
 
                      2                       2
       2     (3.14159)   *  (1.0544E-34 J-sec)
E = (1)  *  -------------------------------------
                                               2
             2 * 9.109E-31 kg * (1E-10 meters)
 
E = 5.9442 E-19 Joule = 37 eV.
 
To get the range of magnitude, if we consider the boundary conditions to
represent a proton constrained with in the nucleus of an atom,
m = 1.6725E-27 kg, and a = 10E-14 meters, then E = 3.2308 E-13 Joule
or roughly E = 2 MeV!  Now if we apply conditions to a proton, and then
to a deuterium atom for boundary conditions like those found in the lattice
of metal (a = 1E-10 meters) the results are:
 
For a proton      m = 1.6725E-27 kg.  E = 0.0205 eV
and for deuterium  m = 3.3443E-27 kg.  E = 0.0102 eV.
 
These make for some interesting ball park figures, because it says if
a proton is constrained between the lattice of some metal, it's energy
will be quantisized in steps of roughly 1/100th eV.  If we make the
assumption that this energy will be seen as a photon where E=hv with
h=plank's constant and v=the frequency, then v = E/h and the wavelength
w= 1/v then w = h/E.
 
  +------------+-----------+----------------+------+------------+------------+
  |  Mass (Kg) | Width (m) | Energy (Joule) |  eV  |  Frequency | Wavelength |
  +------------+-----------+----------------+------+------------+------------+
H+| 1.6725E-27 |   1E-14   |  3.23804 E-13  | 2E06 | 4.9511 E20 | 2.0197E-21 |
e | 9.1091E-31 |   1E-10   |  5.94419 E-19  | 37.7 | 8.9716 E14 | 1.1146E-15 |
H+| 1.6725E-27 |   1E-10   |  3.28085 E-21  | 2E-2 | 4.9513 E12 | 2.0197E-13 |
D | 3.3443E-27 |   1E-10   |  1.64142 E-21  | 1E-2 | 2.4774 E12 | 4.0365E-13 |
  +------------+-----------+----------------+------+------------+------------+
 
At E = 2 MeV this puts us in the gamma range.
At E = 37 eV then we are in the near infrared range.
At E = 0.02 eV we are in the far infrared range.
At E = 0.01 eV we are even farther in the far infrared (as in heat!).
 
 
TAKING THE NEXT STEP  (SWE OF A STEP FUNCTION)
 
 Understanding the periodic potential, involves the understanding
of the transmission and reflection of quantum waves over a barrier.
 
                                                V(x)  ^          T
                                        _   _   _   _ | _   ____>
V(x) = 0   for 0 < x < a         _   R_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \|/ \_/
V(x) = Vo  for a < x < oo       /  \     /     \     /+----------> Vo
(oo = infinity)               /      \_/         \_/  | .........
I = Incident wave.          I                         | .........
T = Transmitted wave.                            c    | .... b ..
R = Reflected wave.                    <--------------+----------> x
                                                     x=0
 
When one considers a particle incident upon a step potential, classically
if E > Vo then one would expect total transmission of the wave over the
step.  This is easy to imagine.  Simply throw a ball at a step, if it
goes over, then we have total transmission, but if it hits the step, that
is E < Vo, then we get total reflection.  However, this simply analogy does
not apply when looking at the problem for atomic size particles.  Since
these particles have a wave component, there are two situations that can
arise.  When E > Vo, part of the wave is transmitted, and some is reflected.
Similarly, if E < Vo and the potential barrier has a finite width then we
see that part of the in-coming wave is reflected, and part is transmitted,
or 'tunnels' through the barrier.  In this case let's look at E > Vo.
 
For region 'c' the SWE is
 
 2
d  psi(x)'c'      2 m E                                   Sqrt(2 m E)
----------  +   --------  psi(x)'c' =  0        Let k1 =  -----------
       2                                                         2
   d x            hbar                                       hbar
 
and for region 'b'
 
 2
d  psi(x)'b'    2 m
----------  + ------- (E - Vo)  psi(x)'b' =  0   Let k2 = Sqrt( 2 m [E - Vo])
       2                                                  -------------------
   d x          hbar                                                 2
                                                                 hbar
The general solution to the SWE for region 'c' is given by
 
                i k1 x       -i k1 x
psi(x)'c' = A e         + B e
 
where A represents the amplitude of the incident wave, and B represents
the amplitude of the reflected wave.  For region 'b' the SWE solution is
 
                i k2 x
psi(x)'b' = C e
 
where C represents the transmitted amplitude of the wave function.  From this
we can develop the coefficients for transmission and reflection of the wave
over the step.
 
     Reflected intensity     ABS( Reflected amplitude) ^2     | B | ^2
R = --------------------- = ------------------------------ = ----------
     Incident intensity      ABS( Incident amplitude ) ^2     | A | ^2
 
     Transmitted intensity     ABS(Transmitted amplitude) ^2    | C | ^2
T = ----------------------- = ------------------------------ = ----------
      Incident intensity       ABS( Incident amplitude ) ^2     | A | ^2
 
If we set the boundary conditions at x=0,
 
                               d psi(x)'b' |           d psi(x)'c' |
psi(0)'b' = psi(0)'c'  and    ------------ |      =   ----------- |
                                 d x       | x=0          d x     | x = 0
 
this gives the following:  A + B = C    and   i k1 (A - B) = i k2 C.
solving these equations gives use the result that
 
          2                2                     2                2
     | B |    [  k1 - k2  ]                 | C |    [    2 k1   ]
R =  ------ = | --------- |    and     T = ------- = | --------- |
          2   [  k1 + k2  ]                      2   [  k1 + k2  ]
     | A |                                  | A |
 
 
PERIODIC POTENTIALS
 
If you recall, I said that hydrogen species in a metal lattice under
the influence of electrolysis may behave in a manner like Somerfeld's
free electron theory.  This theory when applied to metal assumes that
electrons are totally free to move where ever they please and are
contained in the metal by the large potential barrier at the surface.
However in a lattice this is not the case.  The lattice forms a periodic
potential as in figure 1.  The only difference between how an electron
would interact with this periodic potential and how a hydrogen ion would,
is the sign of the charge and the difference in mass.  Thus the
treatment of this problem should be similar.  To show that hydrogen in a
metal can from a band structure involves solving the Schrodinger wave
equation for periodic potentials.  The most common simplification of
this problem is known as the Kronig-Penney model[4], which models
the periodic potential as a series of rectangular barriers, Figure 2.
 
V(x)                                             V(x)
^                                                 ^   Lattice spacing
|..          _______ Atoms of the lattice         |    a=b+c
|...\       /    /                                |
|....|+ /\ + /\ + /\ + /\ + /\ +                  |
|....| |..| |..| |..| |..| |..|                   |   +--+  +--+  +--+  +--+ Vo
|....| |..| |..| |..| |..| |..|                   |<c>|..|  |..|  |..|  |..|
|....| |..| |..| |..| |..| |..|                   |   |b.|  |..|  |..|  |..|
|....| |..| |..| |..| |..| |..|                   |   |..|  |..|  |..|  |..|
+-------------------------------------->   -------+------------------------->
  \                                   (x)         |<-a->|                (x)
   \__ Surface Potential
           Fig. 1                                         Fig. 2
        Periodic Potential                           Kronig-Penney Model
 
The question of whether hydrogen in palladium can be evaluated with the
Kronig-Penny model is of course the thesis of this posting.  When looking
at the K&P model, one has to consider the quantum wave function evaluated
for area between the potentials 'c' and the transmission and reflection of
the wave in the potentials 'b'.  If E < Vo then the solution for the K&P
model will be quite complex[5].  One only needs to look at the previous
section and imagine an extrapolation to n number of steps to get an idea
how complex the solution of K&P's model actually is.  However if E > Vo,
then it should be easy to demonstrate the formation of a band structure.
This is the assumption, I will make here, which, I think can be justified by
the following simple argument.  If hydrogen in Pd is highly mobile, and
also is influenced by an electric field gradient from electrolysis, then
it should be obvious, that E > Vo.  This can be explained by having the
hydrogen species move through a path of least resistance in the lattice.
 
                         (Negative Side)           Figure 3.
                           __.
                            /|            Hydrogen ion moving through an
                          /               imaginary crystal lattice (M)
               (M) ---------- (M)         by means of a driving potential.
             /         /    /  |          Notice how the lattice would form
         (M) ----------- (M)   |          a periodic potential and that the
        /          /   /  |    |          H-atom should move through a path
    (M) -----------(M)    |    |          of least resistance by traveling
     |         /    |     |   (M)         through the face of the lattice.
     |       /      |     | /             Other crystal geometries may
     |    (H)       |   (M)               cause even more unusual periodic
     |              |  /                  potentials through which and H
    (M) -----------(M)                    atom must travel, like the FCC
                                          crystal structure of Palladium.
(Positive side)
 
To examine the problem, first we need to evaluate the SWE for a periodic
potential.  The form of the problem is again:
 
     2
    d  psi(x)        2 m
    ----------  +   ------- [ E - V(x) ]  psi(x)   =  0
           2              2
       d x           hbar
 
Let k = sqrt (2 m [ E - V(x)] ) / hbar.  The differential equations,
has the conditions that V(x) = 0, for region 'c' in Figure 2, and
V(x) = Vo in region 'b'. The general solution gives us:
psi(x) = A sin k x + B cos k x. Since we are examining the wave
function for the T side of an incident particle, this forms the
equation, by the boundary conditions, psi(x) = A sin k x.  In this
case however, A is not constant and represents a function that
modulates the amplitude. That is, A = u(x + a) = u(x), where 'a'
is the lattice spacing.  Looking at Figure 2, on can envisage this.
In the center of region 'c', the modulation will be small, but at
the boundaries of the potential it will be quite different.  So, if
we convert, sin k x into it's exponential form, we get:
 
               i k x
psi(x) =  u(x)e          where u(x) = u(x + a).
 
This is known as Block's theorem.  By applying the boundary conditions
for continuity of a wave (ie: -1<= Cos (k a) <= 1) and it's derivative,
we get relationship:
                             [ Sqrt(2 m E)   ]
                         Sin [ ----------  a ]
              m a            [    hbar       ]         [ Sqrt(2 m E)   ]
Cos (k a)  = ------ Vo b  --------------------- +  Cos [ ----------- a ]
                  2          Sqrt(2 m E)               [     hbar      ]
              hbar          ------------- a
                                hbar
 
This relationship implies some very interesting properties about
band formation of heavy particles.  As mass increases, the gap
between forbidden and allowed zones becomes narrower and narrower.
This means that the energy needed for the particle to enter a conduction
band is very small.  Another way to look at this problem is to plot the
right hand side of the equation as a function of E, as in figure 4.
 
 
   | A |  F  |A |F| A |F |A || A|| ...                 Figure 4.
   |*                        F   F
   | *         **                                     A very crude plot of
-1 +-*--------*--*---------**------**--------**---    Sin[E]/E + Cos[E]
   | *        *   *       *  *     * *      *  *      The line at -1 and 1
   | *       *     *      *   *    *  *     *  *      1 set the boundary
   | *       *     *      *   *    *  *     *  *          conditions.
   +-*-------*------*-----*---*---*----*---*----*--> E  the sections |A|
   |  *      * pi   *    * 2pi *  * 3pi*   * 4pi*      are the allowed bands
   |  *      *      *    *     *  *    *   *    *      and the |F| sections
   |   *     *       *   *      * *     *  *     *     are the forbidden
 1 +---*-----*-------*---*------**-------**--------    zones.
   |    *   *          **
   |     ***                F    F
   | A |  F  |A |F| A |F |A || A|| ...
 
Since the allow bands are always center about (n pi) times some scaling
factor 'f' then we get:
                                  2  2  2   2
          Sqrt(2 m E)             f n pi hbar
f n pi = ------------- a   or    -------------  =  E (center of band)
              hbar                        2
                                     2 m a
 
will always be in an allowed band.  What this demonstrates quite
nicely is that as the mass of the particle gets larger, the
gap between allowed band energy states will get smaller.  Also
the allowed bands are much narrower for a proton in comparison
to an electron. What is also interesting about this equation is
that as the lattice spacing 'a' increases the distance between
the gap decreases! So does the width of the band energy state!
Other than the scaling factor, the results numerically  are the
same as for a simple potential well and imply a quantum step
energy with a magnitude of 1.0E-02 eV.
 
 
POSSIBLE DOUBLE CONDUCTION PHENOMENA
 
If one makes a simple assumption that hydrogen does form a band structures,
then we have an interesting phenomenon.  The outer shell electrons of
in the lattice of Pd are conducting and move under the influence of the
Electro-Motive Force (EMF).  These electrons move across the electrodes
and the electrolyte with some amount of resistance, which shows up as heat.
The heat from electrolysis called Joule heating can be calculated, from the
following argument. Electric current provides negatively charged electrons,
that enter the system from the cathode. This causes at the cathode:
                _             _
        H O  + e  -> H   +  OH             I use 'H' to indicate the
         2            abs                  Hydrogen species, which includes
                                           protium, deuterium, and tritium.
                       _             _
        H    + H O  + e  ->  H  +  OH
         abs    2             2 gas
 
        H   -> H                            These equations are the same
         abs     lattice                    as Pons & Flieshman's[7]
                                            equations [i-iv] only using
         H  +  H     -> H                   'H' as generic form of
         abs     abs     2 gas              expressing the electrolysis
                                            of the H2O species.
 
The amount of Joule heating depends upon whether these reactions are
balance by anode side reaction of:
            _                   _
        4 OH   -> H O + O  + 4 e
                   2     2 gas
 
If 'I' is the current in amps, then the power used to evolve hydrogen and
oxygen gas is given by, 1.54 * I watts. (Note: for deuterium, this value is
1.48, and tritium is even lower).  If 'V' is the potential difference
between the cathode and anode, then the power available for heating the
cell is: Joule heat = I * (V - 1.54).  This is what a common experimental
electrolytic calorimetry apparatus would measure; ie. the flow of electrons
and resistance to the flow of charge.  However, if the hydrogen in Pd is
also conducting then not only do we have an UN-MEASURED POSITIVE CHARGE
CURRENT, BUT ALSO AN UN-MEASURED POSITIVE CHARGE RESISTANCE!  The result
of this positive charge resistance is the appearance of excess heat as
measured by standard calorimetry methods.  That is:
 
                                          2
     Total Cell Heat  = I * (V - 1.54) + I  R         where
                         e                H  H
 
I  is the positive charge current, and R  is the positive charge resistance.
 H                                     H
 
   This raises the question of "Are we getting something for nothing?"
This is certainly an interesting question.  Much like the phenomena of
HT-superconductors, we have a quantum-mechanical effect that manifests
itself in a way that seems to violates the classic physics from which we base
most all of our measurements.  Since standard colorimetry is measuring
only the flow of electrons, we have a classic "Schrodinger Cat" analogy,
when we go to measure it, all we see is the smile.
 
 
CONCLUSION
 
   I have attempted to show that the application of Zone theory and
the SWE of periodic potentials may be a useful method of looking at
hydrogen species in a metal lattice.   With respect to CNF there
could be some very interesting effects if a banding structure
of heavy particles results from the periodic potential of the
lattice.  Thus the following conjecture:
 
In certain lattice structures there can exist conditions where free moving
heavy particles are forced to assume quantisized energy band states
due to the periodic potential of a lattice structure.  Further, the
band formation can set up conditions where a positive charge current
is created and any resistance to this positive charge current will
cause the formation of excess heat as measured with electron current
flow.
 
This still leaves a lot of interesting questions about the application
of these ideas to explain some of the experimental results of CNF.
Could some metals possibly form a periodic potential with respect to
ions heavier than hydrogen?  Could the resulting quantisized band
structure be the cause for a small nuclear signature seen in the still
controversial, and still exciting field of cold fusion?  What effects could
manifest themselves by having heavy ions in discrete band energy states?  Do
these energy bands behave in a similar manner to quantum mechanics with
it's familiar quantum jumps, and can this signature be seen by spectroscopy?
If an ion of the hydrogen family makes a jump from a high energy band to a
lower, how is the energy manifested physically and in what manner is this
observable?  There is some very interesting and difficult physics here, and
I hope that this correspondence will cause further investigations into
possible heavy particle banding.
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
I would like to thank the following people: First of all is Terry Bollinger,
who's game of "Farfetching" caused all of this. Second, is Dr. J. Gwinn
who took me under his wing, and taught me physics.  Lastly, Dannie Gregory,
Dr. B. Giammara, Emma Leguizamon, and Chester Massie, all put up with months
of my rambling about periodic potentials and cold fusion.  Also, I would like
mention all of people who correspond in the open forum of sci.physics.fusion.
 
REFERENCES
 
[1] T. Bollinger, USENET correspondence, "TWIST OF RIBBON", sci.physics.fusion
    04/19(1991)
[2] C. Sites, USENET correspondence, "New Theory", sci.physics.fusion
    11/21/(1989)
[3] A. Somerfeld & N.H Frank, "Revs. Mod. Phys." 3,1,(1931)
[4] R. de Kronig, W. G. Penny,"Proc. Roy. Soc.", A130, 499, (1931)
[5] F. Carter, "Electron Tunneling in Short Periodic Arrays",
    "Molecular Electronic Devices", Marcel Dekker Inc. p121, (1982)
     Note: I include this because Dr. Carter has devised an algorithm
     for the calculation of the transmission and reflection of a wave
     through a periodic potential where E > Vo.  Quite good work.
     Also, there are some nice discussions about Polyacetylene soliton
     formation mentioned in T. Bollingers "TWIST OF RIBBON" above.
[6] Atam Arya, "Elementery Modern Physics", Addison-Wesley, p329 (1974).
    Note: Good introduction on periodic potentials and zone theory.
 
Have fun,
Chuck
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Local news
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local news
Date: 16 Jun 91 07:03:35 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1991Jun16.011937.12645@coplex.uucp> chuck@coplex.uucp (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>In sci.physics.fusion you write:
>
>>the impending demise of the Nation Cold Fusion Institute. It
>>seems they are running out of money and will close their doors at the
>>end of June.
>
>This is a shame.  Having been in operation for a little over a year,
>how can one produce results in that kind of time scale, and with
>so little previous knowledge to base thier work on, much less
>experimental methods to tackle the problem.
 
Well, supposedly P&F had been perfecting the work for 5 years
prior to this, and the Institute has persisted nearly 2 years.
I think thats enough time to at least get some solid experimental data.
 
>Dieter Britz and his
>wonderful CNF biography shows time after time, interesting and
>positive results for a small nuclear phenomenon are being
>meassured in labs across the world.
 
Yes---and why would this justify a special Center (with its own buildings,
etc) to research the phenomena? Whats wrong with letting the "labs across
the world" continue to research it (which is why these labs exist)?
 
>  We also know that the
>excess heat phenomenon is real
 
Do we? Its not even clear to me that this has been demonstrated.
Are you sure its not just erroneous math, poor experimental setup,
and known reactions. "excess heat" would imply that we had pretty
well eliminated these possibilities, which would also produce apparent
heat anomalies.
 
 
>I think any shut-down the NCFI simply demonstrates a short sitedness
>by America to bring fusion energy to the people.
 
The NCFI was _never_ meant to bring energy to the people. It was intended
to enrich U of U and the State of Utah, by giving them a monopoly
on cold fusion technology. Just think back to the arguments used to
get the Utah legislature to cough up the original funding. I don't
think philanthropy was primary goal.
 
>Before the NCFI closes I hope they present a paper that
>explains thier methods for tweeking Pd-D into the production of T.
 
What on Earth would prevent them? How much does it cost to run a few
electrolysis cells and do some scintillation counting? Surely if
they have, as Will claimed, got it reproducible, they could keep
a small scale experiment going that would readily demonstrate their
results.
 
>I think it would be grounds for continued support of the
>NCFI,
 
No, the NCFI deserves to die as a publicly supported entity. We
support national labs to do this work, and their output really does
belong to the U.S., not to a single state. If NCFI continues
on as a _private enterprise_, thats fine by me. But if they want federal
funding, at the very least the U. of Utah should sign over the patents
to the federal government, as is the case at other national labs.
 
As it stands, don't be fooled. NCFI exists to enrich the state of Utah.
 
>and as a citizen of the US I would be more than happy see my
>tax dollars go to such an endevor.
 
Would you be happy to have your tax dollars support the people
who really work on fusion? Over the past year, the magnetic fusion
program has had big budget cuts, putting many people out of work,
and killing major programs---mostly alternative approaches to
the tokamak. In fact, a full 20% or so of people working on fusion
are going to be cut if the present budget continues another year.
 
 
 
>. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
>o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
>O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 
If that's as fusion gets, we're all in trouble :-)
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.11 / Colin Henderson /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 11 Jun 91 10:38:05 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1991Jun5.202746.5503@math.ucla.edu>, barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry
 Merriman) writes:
> In article <1991Jun5.174641.3682@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>
> [commenting on D. Chapmans "theory" that nuclear energy gets
> converted to lattice vibration energy]
>
>>How is the fusion event coupled to
>>the lattice?  That is, how can the transient compound nucleus transfer
>>momentum in times carachteristic of nuclear events (say 10^-22 secs)
>>to the lattice which has response times of the order of 10^-13 secs?
>
> [serious doubts..]
>
> In particular, does the fusion reaction leave some sizable fraction of
> its energy in excited muons, or is it pretty much decoupled from the muons
> (of course, they get striped off as the fused nucleus go zipping away).
>
 
Firstly, glad to see it's permissible to talk about something other than
*cold* fusion in this newsgroup!
 
Re Muon catalysed fusion, the muon is largely a spectator once it has been
instrumental in bringing the nuclei close enough to fuse. The fusion
process is mediated by the strong interaction while the muon feels only
weak and electromagneric. Same, I should think, as the lattice in cold
fusion, but then I know very little about SS physics.
 
Without going into too much detail, (for an overview of MCF I'd suggest
S.E. Jones' (the very same) article in Nature vol 321 (1986) pp329-332 ) in
d-d MCF, the muon remains bound about 12\% of the time to the charged
fusion product (^3He or ^3H). The rest of the time, it is left standing, as
the neutron (or proton) and the He or T zip away. For DT fusion, the
percentage of "muon sticking" is much less (around 0.9\%).  No "energetic"
muons, though I think they buzz off with a few keV.
 
You do get a few energetic muons in pd MCF, where all the binding energy is
released as a gamma. The muon sometimes picks up the gamma (internal
conversion) as it does feel the electromag interaction. You get  5.4 MeV
muons. That, incidentally, is how MCF was first seen by Alvarez way back in
'57.
 
Is anyone else out there interested in MCF? We're mucking about (seriously)
with it here. If so, how about some discussion about it as well as the cold
fusion stuff? BTW, we're having fun here playing around (though not very
seriously) with the notion that diquarks are responsible for PF type cold
fusion.
 
Colin Henderson
Dept of physics             hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za
University of Cape Town
Cape Town
South Africa
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnHenderson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.17 /  davidsen@crdos /  Fritz Will talk
     
Originally-From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fritz Will talk
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 14:52:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

  When Fritz returned here to give a talk on CNF, he made these points.
I can't put my hand on my notes, so I am missing some.
 
- They have a method of creating electrodes which reliably give high
loading. This should allow others to at least attempt to duplicate
results.
 
- research using a very low background and good detectors shows neutron
emmision with great reproducibility. Since there's no other facility
quite like it right now the nay-sayers are ignoreing it as results from
a single source.
 
- lots of burst phenomina, heat and neutrons.
 
- it looks more like "new physics" than "cheap energy" in the short run.
 
  I have a pretty high confidence in the new physics aspect, and I believe
that we will see some better theories and experiments in the next
decade. Energy may take longer, or never come.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendavidsen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.17 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Local news
     
Originally-From: bpendlet@bambam.dsd.es.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local news
Date: 17 Jun 91 17:05:45 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Design Systems

In article <1991Jun16.011937.12645@coplex.uucp>, chuck@coplex.uucp (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
 
> explains thier methods for tweeking Pd-D into the production of T.
> If they did, I think it would be grounds for continued support of the
> NCFI, and as a citizen of the US I would be more than happy see my
> tax dollars go to such an endevor.
>
> Chuck Sites
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Even though the name, National Cold Fusion Institute, implies that it
is a national lab, it is not. The NCFI is funded by the state of Utah
and all results belong to the state of Utah.
 
Please remember, the founders of the State of Desseret didn't want to
be part of the US. And didn't, in their minds, become part of the US
until a large number of federal troops showed up and enforced the fact
that the State of Desseret was really Utah Territory. IMHO many of the
descendants of the founders would still like to tell the US where to
get off.
 
Believe me, the state of Utah has no interest in doing anything for
the masses. Everything done here, from the Olympic bid to the NCFI, is
done for the benefit of the state of Utah.
 
You sort of have to live here to understand just what a strange place
this really is.
 
--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
   bpendlet@dsd.es.com or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or hellgate!esunix!bpendlet
 
                         Tools, not rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.17 / Greg Shippen /  Re: Local news
     
Originally-From: greg@rapid.mips.com (Greg Shippen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local news
Date: 17 Jun 91 19:16:25 GMT

In article <1991Jun17.170545.27080@dsd.es.com>,
bpendlet@bambam.dsd.es.com (Bob Pendleton) writes:
 
>
> Believe me, the state of Utah has no interest in doing anything for
> the masses. Everything done here, from the Olympic bid to the NCFI, is
> done for the benefit of the state of Utah.
>
> You sort of have to live here to understand just what a strange place
> this really is.
 
Strange you say...
 
Apparently you are unacquainted with the other 49 states of the Union...
 
Perhaps you believed that Texas had the good of the nation and the physics
community in mind when it graciously agreed to cough up millions of dollars
as well as the necessary real estate to locate the supercollider in Texas?
 
California does what is best for California.  Nevada does what it believes
is best for Nevada.  Just what is new or unusual in all of this?
 
I happen to be acquainted with one State Senator from Utah and spoke with
him several times during the heat (pardon the pun) of the CF debate.  It
was clear that the State Legislature (and no doubt not a few scientists in
the state) greatly feared what might happen if CF turned out to be real.  They
believed (and I think they had some grounds for concern) that with such a
monumental discovery, the chances of the Utah -- both it's Universities and
business community -- retaining any significant economic benefits from the
discovery would be small unless they acted aggresively to legally protect them.
There certainly is a feeling, no doubt shared by many of the less influential
states, that given an event of the magnitude CF could have been (may yet be?),
the larger states -- aided by the Federal Government -- would have moved in
and siphoned away much of the benefits.
 
How you ask could this have been done?  Well, for starters, the chances of the
DOE -- aka the Federal Government -- granting the majority of available
research
dollards for CF to Utah Universities was well nigh 0 up against the likes of
MIT, CalTech and Stanford (ignoring for now the National Labs).  Even today,
if CF does eventually turn out to be of commercial value, it is unlikely that
the significant research necessary to make it commercially viable would occur
outside of well established centers of research -- all of which are located
outside of Utah.
 
>
> --
>               Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
>    bpendlet@dsd.es.com or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or hellgate!esunix!bpendlet
>
>                          Tools, not rules.
 
Gregory B. Shippen
MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.                    {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!greg
928 Arques Ave. MS 2-01                                greg@mips.com
Sunnyvale, CA  94086 (408) 524-8141
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnShippen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: Fritz Will talk
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fritz Will talk
Date: 17 Jun 91 21:16:15 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <85CA989398@crdos1> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com writes:
>
>- They have a method of creating electrodes which reliably give high
>loading. This should allow others to at least attempt to duplicate
>results.
 
It would if they were to publish the technical details.  I know
several groups that, although once burned, would probably try
again if they had a clear and unambiguous recipe to follow.
 
>- research using a very low background and good detectors shows neutron
>emmision with great reproducibility. Since there's no other facility
>quite like it right now the nay-sayers are ignoreing it as results from
>a single source.
>
>- lots of burst phenomina, heat and neutrons.
 
Do you recall if they were taking data using coincidence electronics
that allow measurement of the numbers of neutrons that appear in a
burst, and with a cosmic ray veto?  There are excellent facilities,
including one in a mine near Leadville that Steve Jones has used to
see tiny bursts of neutrons, at other locations.  Perhaps they could
run their experiment elsewhere?  I would be most interested to see the
preprint describing their facility and the results of the experiments.
 
I remain very skeptical that heat can be measured with the same sensitivity
as nuclear phenomena, but are you saying that they measure a burst of
neutrons in coincidence with a burst of heat?  And only when there is
a burst of heat?  Please take notes the next time you hear him talk!
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fritz Will talk
     
Originally-From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fritz Will talk
Date: 17 Jun 91 17:49:16 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <85CA989398@crdos1> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com writes:
>
>  When Fritz returned here to give a talk on CNF, he made these points.
>
>- lots of burst phenomina, heat and neutrons.
>
>- it looks more like "new physics" than "cheap energy" in the short run.
>
This last remark seems inconsistent: IF there is measurable, real,
reasonably reproducible "excess heat" being released, THEN wouldn't that
imply cheap energy in the near term---certainly it may be easier
to refine and scale up the energy production than to understand the
new physics.
 
Sounds like Will is hedging his bets, so to speak, by not
emphasizing the energy production.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.18 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 546 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 546 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 22:59:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here's another lot. To save money, I'm giving you a few patents straight from
Chem. Abstr.; I am ordering a couple of short ones anyway, because the
abstracts are interesting but unclear, and will report on these later. The
Bagnulo looks like making use of the fracto-effect (if any); Neeb et al want
to tickle cold fusion with nuclear feathers (I don't think this idea has been
published before this); Brumlik et al looks to me like conventional cnf
described by patentese, as does Coupland et al. Mizugai suggests heavy
fermions along with the metal lattice.
 Kazarinov et al have looked at the role of the electrolyte cation such as Li+
and K+, and find that they do indeed get deposited and go some way into the Pd
lattice, up to 5 at% or x=0.05 - not so very little. They warn that excess
heat observations may well be due to decomposition of such 3-component layers.
One would expect such decomposition to take place upon current interruption,
so excess heat bursts should follow interruptions. I must check; what with 546
papers to check through, this is not an easy job these days, although I do
remember much of it. Finally, Chu invokes color aneutrality as the way the
Coulomb barrier is overcome, maybe, and suggests a condition for cold fusion,
essentially another one of nonequilibrium. A good way to do this would be to
use a thin-walled Pd tube as cathode, sealed at the bottom, so that there is
no electrolyte inside it; you might want to blow argon through the inside to
remove deuterium coming through the wall, to keep up that gradient. Easy to
do, worth a try (who, me?).
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 7-Jun. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 546
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bagnulo L;                               Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 402,988 19-Dec-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:216542 (1991).
"A process, with relevant plants and devices, for the production of energy
through the industrial application of plausible dynamics concerning controlled
cold nuclear fusion".
** "...nuclear fusion in metals, esp. Pd and Ti, which readily absorb H and
its isotopes. The process is based on the absorption by these metals, through
electrolysis of [sic; 'or' meant?] gas-pressurising, of D or its mixts. with
T or He, followed by their consequent liberation within cracks, created in the
metal mass either by mech. or metallurgical means."
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braun T;                      J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett. 146 (1990) 289.
"World flash on cold fusion. No. 8".
** Braun continues to list cold fusion articles that he has read. He notes
that reports now appear in journals, rather than on newspaper front pages. ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brumlik, GC, Cvijanovich GC, Johnson K; PCT Int. Appl. WO 90 16,070, 27-Dec-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:216545 (1991).
"Catalyzed nuclear fusion of heavy isotopes of hydrogen".
** A nuclear fusion device and method for D or T are described having a solid/
liq. phase of noble metals in contact with another phase contg. D or T where
the nuclei of D or T are moved into the lattice of the liq. or solid noble
metal by means of diffusion, mech. forces, or by elec. or magnetic means to
undergo temp.- and lattice-assisted nuclear fusion".                 ?/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chu S-Y, Shen B;                               Mod. Phys. Lett. A6 (1991) 237.
"Can the color force be used to achieve fusion?"
** The basic question of cold fusion is: what are the possible forces that can
overcome the Coulomb barrier to fusion? So far, muons, quarks and diquarks
have been proposed, and the remaining unexplored possibility is the color
force. Small deviations from absolute color neutrality might collectively be
able to produce a color field sufficient to overcome the Coulomb barrier. The
paper examines this question and concludes that the process is feasible. It
further suggests that a favourable condition for cold fusion is the creation
and maintenance of a deuteron concentration gradient in the Pd, possibly by
using a thin Pd sheet with different deuterium concentrations on the two
sides.                                                                Apr-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coupland DR, Doyle ML, Potter RJ, McGill Ir;
PCT Int. Appl. WO 90 15,415, 13-Dec-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:216546 (1991).
"Cold-fusion support".
** "Materials are described which are effective to support cold fusion when
loaded with D, e.g. Pd modified to change the local environment for D under
cold fusion conditions. Particular modifications are alloys or dispersions of
Pd with Ce, Ag, LaNi5, and Ti. Other modifications concern the grain size.
Excess heat and T and n have been detected".                          ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kazarinov VE, Astakhov II, Teplitskaya GL, Kiseleva IG, Davydov AD,
Nekrasova NV, Kudryavzev DYu, Zhukova TB;
Elektrokhimiya 27 (1991) 9 (in Russian) [This will appear in English, as
Sov. Electrochem.].
"Cathodic behaviour of palladium in electrolytic solutions containing alkali
metal ions".
** Li, and to a lesser extent K, intrude into a Pd lattice upon cathodic
polarisation in aprotic as well as aqueous electrolytes. In aprotic media, the
result is the formation of intermetallic Li with the Pd, able to react with
water, and a solid solution in the bulk of the Pd. In aqueous media, after 74h
of electrolysis, a 0.5mm-thick layer of a solid solution was formed, with a
mean overall concentration of 5 at%, but the electrode gradually dissolves
during electrolysis. It is concluded that in electrolytic cold fusion
experiments, one is dealing not with deuterated palladium, but rather a solid
solution system D-Li-Pd and must reckon with heat effects due to the
decomposition of these aqueous intrusion products.               Jan-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mizugai T;                     Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,271,288, 6-Nov-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:216547 (1991).
"Nuclear fusion employing heavy fermion effect within a solid material".
** "Deuterium ((2)D, or (2)D and (3)T) is made to be absorbed by a heavy
fermion compd. or a composite of the heavy fermion compd. and a H-storing
material, to cause nuclear fusion. The method uses electrons with
extraordinary heavy mass due to the heavy fermion effect in solid state to
shield elec. charge of the deuteron to cause nuclear fusion with a small
unit".                                                                ?/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neeb KH, Hoffmann R, Martin J;             Ger. Offen. DE 3,920,312, 3-Jan-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:216543 (1991).
"Method and apparatus for fusion of light particles in solid getter".
** "The title method of fusion of H and/or its isotopes in a solid getter
comprises an electrode, e.g. Pd, a center electrode, and an electrolyte where
the getter and the light particles are irradiated and/or bombarded with
radiation and/or particles, e.g., n, alpha-particles, or (3)He ions. One of
the ways to implement the above process is incorporating an alpha-emitting
nuclei [sic] in the cathode material. The above process increases cold fusion
probability.                                                          ?/Jan-91
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.19 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion spending
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion spending
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 00:26:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Joe Chew writes:
>>It seems that money could be better spent on a bunch of small ideas than
>>on a few  $(multi-billion) projects.
>
>Philosophical question,
 
It's a political question whose answer has been discovered emperically:
 
Small science is correct policy.  Big science is a fallacy.
 
It is only a philosophical question to the extent that pedants can
continue to debate the validity of 2+2=4 as long as they have tenure
or as long as denying it feeds into a political process that gives
them next year's budget.
 
>but note that some things lend themselves to
>"small science" and others don't.
 
And since deciding which science project to pursue is largely
a matter of aesthetics (as opposed to ENGINEERING which is an
 ECONOMICALLY driven discipline and which therefore belongs in the
 PRIVATE SECTOR) we should always pursue the less costly science.
 
>Note also that the fusion budget
>supports a fair amount of "small science" under a "big science" aegis.
 
First, in the specific arena of fusion, this is observably and
demonstrably false.  Funding for new paradigms in fusion was
eliminated informally in 1979.   This decision was made public shortly
thereafter.  Finally, last year, funding was terminated for all MCF
paradigms, all of which were started prior to the 1979 decision.
Agreed, these alternative approaches were TECHNICAL approaches which
means they are engineering and not science, but this only means that
the tokamak fusion program is doubly corrupt:  It is engineering and not
science and it is bad engineering to boot.
 
This, by the way, is exactly  why we want to terminate public
capitalization for technology as a matter of policy:  There is no
incentive to make development or systems economical when the taxpayer is
capitalizing things.  Indeed, there is a DISincentive to do so.  But
most damaging of all, there is an INcentive to suppress anyone who might
come up with such an economical system.  Karl Marx can yammer all he wants
about the honorable motives of his central committee comrades, but when it
comes to human nature, we have all the evidence we need to predict, with
overwhelming certainty, the outcome of our present fusion energy policy.
 
This is also a major reason why the public is so credulous to claims
of cold fusion.  They know the existing fusion bureaucracy is having a
negative impact on progress in fusion and that the only hope for real
progress in fusion is an an "outsider" to come up with something
AGAINST the efforts of "the fusion establishment."  It's not just that
American's love a kook, it's that they know and hate bureaucratic
cowardice when they see it.
 
Second, how does the total amount of science compare between the "trickle
down" practices of big science and the "demand-side" practice of small
science, regardless of funding levels?
 
Third, how does the science PER DOLLAR compare between "trickle down"
science and demand-side science?
 
If programs like Tokamak, Shuttle, Space Station and Human Geneome are
any lesson at all, the answers to all of the above issues are obvious.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.18 / John Manuel /  Bernoulli's equation for a compressible MHD fluid
     
Originally-From: manuel@space.ualberta.ca (John Manuel)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bernoulli's equation for a compressible MHD fluid
Date: 18 Jun 91 21:07:12 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

I've been looking for a generalization of Bernoulli's equation which would
allow me to account for magnetic field effects in the steady flow of a
compressible MHD fluid. I've followed Batchelor's approach (p. 157 in _An
Introduction to Fluid Dynamics_) while retaining magnetic fields and have come
up with this
 
	h = 1/2*u^2 + gamma/(gamma - 1)*P/rho + B^2/(2*mu0*rho),
 
	where	u is the velocity,
		gamma is the adiabatic index (aka the ratio of specific heats),
		P is the pressure,
		rho is the density,
		B is the magnetic field,
		mu0 is the permeability of free space,
 
for a plasma flowing perpendicular to B with the equation of state
P/rho^gamma = constant. Is this right? I'm asking because I get weird
results when I apply it.
 
--
John R. Manuel (manuel@space.ualberta.ca)
Department of Physics, University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA, T6G 2J1
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmanuel cudfnJohn cudlnManuel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.18 / Chuck Sites /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 18 Jun 91 15:26:50 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Just a short followup:
 
So what are you saying Mr. Sites?
 
  I realize that my posting "HEAVY HEAT" had a lot of complex material that
really had nothing to do with my suggestion of a double conduction phenomena.
This was meant to prepare, as well as show, readers how to tackle the problem
of periodic potentials. The math and formula manipulation for periodic
potentials are quite involved, yet they are necessary difficulties to
demonstrate that a banding effect of heavy particles is possible.
 
   What is interesting about the formation of bands is that the only
energy that is required to form these creatures is to have a periodic
potential (like found in a lattice), and to have a particle with a higher
energy then the potential its moving through. The energy needed to "go
over" the potential can be caused by an external source, like heat, or by
and electrical force like the voltage supplied to a cell under electrolysis.
Electrolysis of H2O with some metals (like nickle and palladium) causes
hydrogen to defuse into the metal.  Once the hydrogen is in the lattice,
it will try to find a potential well where it can rest. It reaches an
equalibrium between localized positive and negative charge.  Next, lets
assume another hydrogen enters the lattice, and pushes the previous hydrogen
to the next well.  This repeats over and over until, within the metal,
a potential difference is set up.  From the view point of the hydrogen on
the front row of this diffusion wave, they will see a repulsive force from
the electromagnetic field set-up by the hydrogen entering the system. At the
same time a constant attractive electric field is maintained by the flow of
electrons into the system. This causes a potential difference in the lattice.
From what I can tell, this internal potential difference in the metal lattice
occurs without affecting the external current or voltage supplied.  With
this internal potential difference, we have conditions needed for the
formation of a band structure of the imbeeded hydrogen.
 
    Once the band structure is created, then we have a way of observing
its effects, that is the transition of a proton from a high energy band
state to a lower one.  From my calculations this would result in the
release a photon with an energy in the far infrared frequency.  In an
electron rich environment like a metal lattice this would show up as heat.
Now what is interesting about this, other than providing an electrical
potential difference to form a band structure, the energy released after
this is purely free. It's due to a quantum band effect.  In a general way
it's like a superconductor. We are inducing hydrogen into a conducting state
without any additional resistance or effect on the flow of electrons!  The
result is that with in the metal, there are two currents available for the
creation of heat; one is the electron current, and the other is the internal
hydrogen current.  As with any ordinary conductor, the hydrogen current
will also experinence a resistance and release heat in the form of photons
as the hydrogen moves from the conduction band to a lower energy band.
 
Anyway, if these ideas are true, then we have a very odd effect and surely
worthy of further investigation.
 
Have fun,
Chuck.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com | : 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: we have changed from the .UUCP domain to the .com domain.  If you are
trying to reach me by email, try chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.19 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 548 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 548 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 14:56:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
four more here. I got the Speiser + Rieker rather belatedly from Speiser
himself, who pointed out yet another one I had missed and will come across
with soon; and I think it was Todd Green who told me about the Times review,
a rather better effort than I had seen until then. Ichimaru et al support cold
fusion, and have an explanation for its fickleness. The impressive team from
Ljubljana, on the other hand, went to a lot of trouble and found nothing.
Wrong conditions? T. Braun, who collects a bibliography himself, had the
Skibbe item in his Nr.8; the authors do not want to be associated with cold
fusion but I put the paper into Section 2, anyway; it does give some useful
info about superloading at the surface.
 If you're wondering about my arithmetic (544 + 4 = 546), I've cleaned out my
grand list and found a couple of duplicates. Yes, I can count.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Jun. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 548
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ichimaru S, Ogata S, Nakano A;             J. Phys. Soc. Japan 59 (1990) 3904.
"Rates of nuclear fusion in metal hydrides".
** Hydrogen exists in a metal hydride both as a trapped quantum solid, and an
itinerant particle. This paper does some Monte Carlo simulations of the
behaviour of these dual particles, which differ from those in starts or plasmas
by the interactions with valence and partially localised electrons. Using as
a model some previous theory applied to carbon-oxygen solids of similar
nature, the paper calculates expected fusion rates for both states. For the
trapped state, these are too low to be of interest, whereas for the itinerants
they approach observed levels. Further, the fusion rates are very sensitive to
the microscopic details of lattice fields in the metal hydrides, which could
explain the extreme variation between observations. As others have suggested,
the authors suggest that p-d fusion is favoured, that nonequilibrium is a good
thing, and that Ti and Pd have special (and different) advantages.Jul-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilic R, Rant J, Sutej T, Kristof E, Skvarc J, Kozelj M, Najzer M, Humar M,
Cercek M, Glumac B, Cvikl B, Fajgelj A, Gyergyek T, Trkov A, Loose A,
Peternelj J, Remec I, Ravnik M;      Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas. 17 (1990) 483.
"A search for neutrons, protons, tritons, (3)He ions, gamma- and x-rays from
deuterium-deuterium nuclear reaction in electrochemically charged palladium".
** A contribution from the J. Stefan Institute in Ljubljana. The system
included an array of 6 proportional (3)He counters, a high-purity Ge detector,
CR-39 track-etch detector, a BD-100 bubble damage polymer detector and a
CaF2:Mn thermoluminescent dosimeter (this is the team that has advocated the
use of in-situ passive devices). So upper limits for both the neutron- and
proton-producing fusion reaction branches could be determined. A tubular Pd
cathode was used, 7.8 g in the solution, and a thermistor mounted near it to
detect any gross thermal excursions. Neutrons were H2O-moderated and gamma
background reduced with Pb shielding. The neutron background was monitored by
another detector 5 m away from the cell. Results do not support cold fusion,
the rates being below the lowest measurable. There were no heat events during
2 and 6 days' charging periods.                                       Dec-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skibbe U, Neue G;                                Colloids Surf. 45 (1990) 235.
"A 2D-NMR method to study near-surface regions of conductors".
** A method is described, and applied to the study of surface layers of PdD;
the authors point out that the work was started before cold fusion became
public knowledge, and that they do not want to contribute to that area. Pd
foil was "completely saturated" with D by electrolysis in acid solution,
giving a D/Pd loading of 0.66. The results show that there is a higher loading
at and near the surface. Also, a diffusion coefficient of D in the bulk is
given as 2.3E-10 m**2/s, with a reference.                                 ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speiser B, Rieker A;        Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 616 (in German).
"Energy from electrochemically induced nuclear fusion?"
** An early discussion of cold fusion, from a pair of electrochemists. FPH's
calorimetry results are put under the microscope and found wanting; the errors
in the excess heat measurements are much larger than desirable - although this
is not the same as the calorimetry errors (my comment). There is some
discussion of the 1E27 atm figure in FPH, and somewhat simplified arguments
reject this, as well. The paper has some good references to the "Paneth and
Peters" affair of 1926/7.                                             ?/Jun-89
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinch T;       The Times Higher Education Supplement (London) 3.5.1991, p.24.
"How gold became fool's gold".
** Review of "Too Hot to Handle" bu F. Close, by science sociologist Pinch. He
sums up the cold fusion story, and the book. Close comes under some fire for
his glib in-principle dismissal of cold fusion; Pinch feels that present
theory may not be adequate and may have to give a little. Close's sociology of
error, scrutinised by a sociologist, looks less solid than it might be; he is
easier on cold fusion's critics than on its proponents, writes Pinch, who in
the end feels that the book may be premature.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 19 Jun 91 03:16:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Jun18.152650.16291@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>creation of heat; one is the electron current, and the other is the internal
>hydrogen current.  As with any ordinary conductor, the hydrogen current
>will also experinence a resistance and release heat in the form of photons
>as the hydrogen moves from the conduction band to a lower energy band.
>
 
     Where is the EMF driving this current flow coming from?  If one
     cannot see it in the measurements that are already being taken
     on voltage and current external to the cell, where is the energy
     to drive it.
 
     I may be mistaking your point, but I fail to see why a flow of positive
     current carriers changes anything in the analysis of how much energy
     is pumped into the cell.  The current and potential measurements
     external to the cell should be completely oblivious to the details
     of charge conduction.
 
     I also suspect that since the electrons are so much more mobile
     than the deuterons inside the lattice, that the significant electrical
     effects of deuterium mobility are very limited.
 
     In any case, I do not see how 'phantom heat' is created
     without the external electrical gauges registering energy input.
 
                                      dale bass
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.19 / G Steinbach /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: steinbac@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com (Guenter Steinbach)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 19 Jun 91 23:29:15 GMT
Organization: HP Labs, High Speed Electronics Dept., Palo Alto, CA

/ hpl-opus:sci.physics.fusion / chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) /  8:26 am  Jun
 18, 1991 /
 
[ stuff deleted throughout ...]
 
>                                    From the view point of the hydrogen on
> the front row of this diffusion wave, they will see a repulsive force from
> the electromagnetic field set-up by the hydrogen entering the system. At the
> same time a constant attractive electric field is maintained by the flow of
> electrons into the system. This causes a potential difference in the lattice.
 
Only if you are talking H ions.
 
> From what I can tell, this internal potential difference in the metal lattice
> occurs without affecting the external current or voltage supplied.
 
I think that's not right.  If you supply more carriers, you in effect
lower the resistance of the metal, and for the same current your voltage
will drop.
 
> Now what is interesting about this, other than providing an electrical
> potential difference to form a band structure, the energy released after
> this is purely free.
 
No, it comes from the power supply.
 
>                             We are inducing hydrogen into a conducting state
> without any additional resistance or effect on the flow of electrons!
 
I'd express it as "you put an additional resistance in parallel to the
one that the electrons see, thus lowering the overall resistance to
current flow".
 
> The
> result is that with in the metal, there are two currents available for the
> creation of heat; one is the electron current, and the other is the internal
> hydrogen current.  As with any ordinary conductor, the hydrogen current
> will also experinence a resistance and release heat in the form of photons
> as the hydrogen moves from the conduction band to a lower energy band.
 
Right, see my comment directly above.
 
> Anyway, if these ideas are true, then we have a very odd effect and surely
> worthy of further investigation.
 
Yes, but I don't see the bearing on CNF, unless P&F used the known
"electron-only" resistance in their heat calculations.  And even if they
did, it would err on the wrong side, because a higher assumed metal
resistance would mean for the same current they have to attribute more
heat to Joule heating.  - Or am I totally wrong?
 
> . . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / .
> o o o o \chuck@coplex.com | : 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o
> O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O
 
	 Guenter Steinbach		gunter_steinbach@hplabs.hp.com
 
	 Just an electrical engineer, but this seemed to be in my
	 field.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensteinbac cudfnGuenter cudlnSteinbach cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.21 / Jim Bowery /  Robert Hirsch: Patriarch or Heretic?
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Robert Hirsch: Patriarch or Heretic?
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 00:53:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I ran across a reference to a book titled "Fusion: The
Search for Endless Energy" from Cambridge University
Press, 1990 by Robin Herman in which Robert Hirsch
is quoted from a 1985 speech before the fusion community
claiming Tokamak is dead.  He is listed as having been a
leading advocate of focusing all efforts on Tokamak in
the 1970's as the head of the fusion branch of the AEC.
He advocated instead, a more diverse approach including
spheromak and modernized pinch machines.
 
Y'all are probably already aware of this, but I'd like
to try to get in touch with Hirsch.  Do you have
any idea where he is these days?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.21 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 551 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 551 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 22:55:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
before I go on holidays, I'll send off this minipack. It contains two
important papers by the Belzner et al team; the famous and much-quoted
"Huggins" results. They are in fact just one paper, published twice but never
mind. I have been keeping them from you, because I was confused by the
verbiage in them. I had written to the team for clarification, without a
reply. Todd Green of Western Australia agrees with my interpretation of the
paper, however, and I'll let it go at that.
 The paper discusses at some length the power correction for water
electrolysis, but the results, and especially the figures seem to show that
Belzner et al have in fact not used this correction, and thus have applied the
most stringent definition of excess heat.  The fact that Belzner et al get
some excess heat for heavy water, and none for light water electrolysis, is
thus very strong evidence for a non-chemical process taking place here. My
comments about an unexpected chemical reaction are of necessity a bit brief in
my (already long) abstract. What I mean is this. The excess heat is of about
the same magnitude as the deficit for water electrolysis, seen for light
water, and initially for heavy water as well. One possible chemical
explanation of the excess would be that some unknown chemical reaction takes
place and releases that much heat/power. For example, the reaction of hydrogen
with some impurity in the Pd. Such an explanation is very implausible, because
that impurity would need to be present in very high concentrations (i.e.
comparable to that of the D-loading) or the reaction would need to have an
impossibly high reaction enthalpy. Either way, this won't work. So until
someone finds the artifact producing apparent-only excess heat in this
experiment, this is strong positive evidence for a non-chemical reaction.
 Chatterjee et al, and You et al (from China) provide theoretical support for
cold fusion; the You team was actually spurred by the Beuhler et al cluster
impact saga, but their result applies equally well to cold fusion, I take it.
Peripheral information is given by Powell and Kirkpatrick, on the diffusion
of hydrogen in Pd; the slight inhibition by limited surface conductance I
assume to be unimportant for the usual SQRT(Dt) calculation for how long one
needs to keep charging for saturation, but I find the paper good stuff for the
numbers it gives, and the references. We're not far off with a diffusion coeff
of about 2E-11 m**2/s for D in Pd, at room temp.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 21-Jun. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 548
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belzner A, Bischler U, Crouch-Baker S, Guer TM, Lucier G, Schreiber M,
Huggins RA;                                     J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 219.
"Two fast mixed-conductor systems: deuterium and hydrogen in palladium -
thermal measurements and experimental considerations".
** The well known "Huggins" paper, presented at a conference in 1989. This
team used an isoperibolic calorimeter to look for excess heat in PdHx and
PdDx, respectively. In this type of calorimeter, the cell temperature does not
rise very much, so temperature effects and nonlinearities do not appear. The
authors measure the power put into a working cell and compare it with the
power given off by it. They do not correct for the energy required for the
electrolysis of water, so that if any excess heat is found, it must be real;
recombination of evolved hydrogen (isotope) with oxygen is of no consequence
with this most severe of all definitions of excess heat. The results are
presented in the form of plots of power-out vs power-in. For a calibration,
using electrical heating, this is a straight line with unity slope. The plot
for the Pd-H system (light water) lies below this line, showing that some
power is absorbed by the electrolysis. For Pd-D, this is also seen initially,
during the charging phase; after 66 h electrolysis, when the Pd is presumably
fully charged (given the diffusion coefficient of D in PdD of 2E-11, charging
can be expected to reach into the sample to a depth of 2 mm and the Pd was
3-4 mm thick), the plot lies clearly above the calibration line, showing an
excess heat of about 10%. A time effect is also shown: the out/in ratio goes
smoothly from below 1 to above, for two cells. The excess heat is comparable
with the deficit for Pd-H or for Pd-D initially. So, unless one postulates an
exothermic reaction taking place (e.g. between impurities in the Pd and
deuterium but not hydrogen) at a scale comparable with the power absorbed by
water electrolysis, these results appear to provide strong evidence for a
non-chemical source of excess heat in the Pd-D system.               ?/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belzner A, Bischler U, Crouch-Baker S, Guer TM, Lucier G, Schreiber M,
Huggins RA;                               Solid State Ionics 40/41 (1990) 519.
"Recent results on mixed conductors containing hydrogen or deuterium".
** Essentially the same results (and text) as in the authors' paper in the
J. Fusion Energy  9 (1990) 219.                                       ?/Aug-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatterjee L, Das G;                                Phys. Lett. A154 (1991) 5.
"Sub-barrier nuclear fusion of amuonic and muonic flavour".
** The physics of cold fusion is analysed in terms of Allis-Morse potentials,
to decide in which way this apparently amuonic process might take place. Under
the special nonequilibrium conditions during deuterium charging of the metal,
abnormal electron pile-up could provide strong screening. The authors arrive
at a necessary d-d distance of close to 0.1 A and feel that this can be
achieved, especially during the later phases of charging. Thus, the delay
before onset of neutron emission is explained and nonequilibrium confirmed as
a requirement.                                                   Dec-89/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You JH, Cheng FH, Cheng FZ, Huang FH;              Phys. Rev. B43 (1991) 7293.
"Interior adsorption, channel collimation, and nuclear fusion in solids".
** Addressing the phenomenon of cluster impact fusion, this paper looks at the
possibility of solid state nuclear fusion in terms of the state of hydrogen
isotopes in the Pd lattice. It argues that hydrogen will collect along linear
structures and be highly compressed, and that this is favourable for fusion.
Secondly, channel collimation again favours fusion by increasing its cross
section. It is suggested that d-(3)He or d-t fusion might be more favourable
for energy yield. No cold fusion references.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powell GL, Kirkpatrick JR;                         Phys. Rev. B43 (1991) 6968.
"Surface conductance and the diffusion of H and D in Pd".
** A good paper for references to the diffusion of hydrogen isotopes in Pd.
The authors measured the diffusion coefficient for H and D in a Pd sphere,
at a range of temperatures and taking into considerations finite surface
conductance, i.e. speed of transfer from the gas phase to the solid. A
mathematical model is used to fit the experimental data, and plots of
diffusion coefficients vs 1/T are presented. At ambient temperatures, the
finite surface conductance plays a role, while at higher temperatures, a
simple diffusion model does just as well. The implications for cold fusion
experiments are that charging times can be expected to be marginally longer
than calculated from a simple diffusion model - but not by much.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.24 / Marc Mengel /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: mengel@dcdmwm.uucp (Marc Mengel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 24 Jun 91 14:55:55 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia IL

In article <70510001@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com> steinbac@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com (Guenter
 Steinbach) writes:
>/ hpl-opus:sci.physics.fusion / chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) /  8:26 am  Jun
 18, 1991 /
>> Now what is interesting about this, other than providing an electrical
>> potential difference to form a band structure, the energy released after
>> this is purely free.
>
>No, it comes from the power supply.
 
>> . . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / .
>	 Guenter Steinbach		gunter_steinbach@hplabs.hp.com
 
	Lots of discussion has been bouncing back and forth here,
	but it seems to come down to:  If the heat is being generated
	by a "proton current" in the lattice, it must still be the
	result of the external voltage being applied, hence still no
	"free" heat.
 
	However there is a fallacy in this assumption; it may be that
	the potential energy of the system is lower with the H+ ions
	"caught" in the lattice than with them floating around outside
	as hydrogen, hence we would have created conditions which would
	allow energy to be released; and we would have a heavier crystal
	lattice when we were done.  It seems to me that this is superficially
	plausible, and would look an awful lot like fusion going on...
 
	Maybe somebody who understands this crystal lattice stuff a lot
	better than I could comment?  Can the H+ ions end up trapped in
	the lattice, and would this be a lower potential energy than free
	H+ in solution?
-------
Marc Mengel
mengel@fnal.fnal.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmengel cudfnMarc cudlnMengel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.25 / Steven Bellovin /  Science News on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Science News on cold fusion
Date: 25 Jun 91 01:58:39 GMT

The latest issue of Science News has a moderately-favorable article on
cold fusion.  They cite a number of people around the world who keep
seeing Something.  It's never reproducible, though the success rates
seem to be improving, and that's the biggest stumbling block.  They
do mention a number of variables now ``known'' to be critical, such as
the deuterium loading, the rate at which it's loaded into the palladium,
the purity of the ingredients, the pulse rate, current, and voltage
used, etc.
 
By no means anything conclusive, but it's a useful survey article of
the pro side.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensmb cudfnSteven cudlnBellovin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.25 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Science News on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science News on cold fusion
Date: 25 Jun 91 06:08:28 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <15041@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
>The latest issue of Science News has a moderately-favorable article on
>cold fusion.
 
>By no means anything conclusive, but it's a useful survey article of
>the pro side.
 
If CF has become a topic that requires a ``pro'' side, perhaps
we should move the discussion to sci.skeptic, where it can take its
place alongside UFO's, psychics, etc. :-)
 
 
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.26 / H Henson /  Re: Science News on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science News on cold fusion
Date: 26 Jun 91 16:53:57 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

After reading the Science News article, I was struck with the frustration
this must be causing to people trying to work on CF.  On the other hand,
when they get good results, sometimes they are excellent.  I don't think
sloppy technique can account for the intermittent character of the
results, some of these people are just too competent!  Could it require
a few muons?  Can anyone think of an uncontrolled environmental variable
which might catalze fusion in Pd?  Keith Henson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenhkhenson cudfnH cudlnHenson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Science News on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science News on cold fusion
Date: 26 Jun 91 17:52:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>>By no means anything conclusive, but it's a useful survey article of
>>the pro side.
>
>If CF has become a topic that requires a ``pro'' side, perhaps
>we should move the discussion to sci.skeptic, where it can take its
>place alongside UFO's, psychics, etc. :-)
 
Not to mention meteorites, plate tectonics, evolution, rocketry,
etc etc etc.  Thank god real science doesn't rely on vocal advocates
of the unorthodox.  We are indeed fortunate in human history that
all scientific advancement has come from disinterested investigators
who simultaneoulsy received unanimous consensus with all other
scientists.  No pro no con, just universal instantaneous consensus.
 
Perhaps all true scientists are omniscient.  Now if someone will just
show me the score card so I can find out who the omniscient ones are,
I can join Barry's club and start making pronouncements of my own.
 
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.26 / Paul Dietz /  Heat without fusion
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat without fusion
Date: 26 Jun 91 18:43:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

I don't think folks are being imaginative enough with "cold fusion"
theories.  Here's another idea for your amusement...
 
I assume here that the excess heat observations are correct.  I also
assume here that whatever is happening is not (primarily) nuclear
fusion (the absence of sufficient nuclear observables should be
convincing evidence of this).
 
What other heat source could there be?  Here's one: bound pairs of
massive magnetic monopoles of opposite magnetic polarity.  (Such
pairs, being magnetically neutral, would evade the limit implied by
the continued existence of the galactic magnetic field.)  In states of
high quantum number, the pairs can be treated classically.  If the
particles are sufficiently massive (very roughly, billions of GeV),
small (angstrom scale) bound pairs have lifetimes against radiative
decay exceeding the age of the universe.  Being treated classically,
the orbits could decay with the loss of small parcels of energy that
could easily be dissipated as heat without the production of
penetrating radiation (at least down until the last moments).  One can
also imagine a variant of this idea with massive electrically charged
particles.
 
Why should this show up in "cold fusion" experiments?  Perhaps these
pairs get attached to protons and form a kind of exotic superheavy
hydrogen (there are stringent observational limits for the abundance
of superheavy hydrogen in some mass ranges, perhaps these are not
fatal).  The pairs would have to get attached to something in any case
to avoid falling into the center of the earth; this puts some sort of
upper limit on their mass, I imagine.  Some means would also have to
be found to make the rate of energy loss be much higher in the
electrode than in heavy water.
 
Superheavy water could get concentrated along with ordinary heavy
water, but I expect there would be some differences in its behavior
(because of the enormous mass difference), so samples of heavy water
from different sources might have wildly different superheavy water
concentrations.  This might explain irreproducibility.
 
This idea can probably be shot down easily, but it is amusing to
contemplate just how such pairs would behave, "cold fusion" aside.
It also suggests experiments: centrifuge your heavy water first, and
use the fraction from the bottom of the tube.  Heavy water derived
from seawater might have a higher concentration of the pairs than
heavy water derived from rainwater.  Annihilation of the pairs might
be observable as well.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.26 / John Prentice /  cold fusion book?
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion book?
Date: 26 Jun 91 22:51:56 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

A new book was published within a month or so talking about the cold fusion
controversy.  The author is a physicist from Oak Ridge I believe.  Anyone
know the author, title, and publisher?  Thanks.
 
John
--
John K. Prentice    john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
Computational Physics Group
Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.27 / Pierre Hilaire /  Re: Heat without fusion
     
Originally-From: pierre@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat without fusion
Date: 27 Jun 91 01:04:55 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

 
>What other heat source could there be?  Here's one: bound pairs of
>massive magnetic monopoles of opposite magnetic polarity.
>
>This idea can probably be shot down easily, but it is amusing to
>contemplate just how such pairs would behave, "cold fusion" aside.
 
	A possible problem: according to most "grand unified
theories", magnetic monopoles cause proton decay and the violation of
baryon number conservation. In the neighborhood of a monopole, protons
and neutrons would most likely be converted to an electron + LOTS of
energy (almost all the baryonic mass gets converted to energy!). This
is called the Callan Rubakov effect. The cross section of this effect
is roughly similar to a proton radius. So a trapped monopole would
likely create lots of easily detectable hard radiation. Of course ,
there might be an interaction of the monopole with the metal lattice
preventing that effect, or maybe this is the cause of some of the
observed radiation (if any!).
 
				Pierre St Hilaire
				MIT Media Laboratory
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpierre cudfnPierre cudlnHilaire cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.28 / Chuck Sites /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 28 Jun 91 08:22:33 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Dale Bass asks:
 
>     Where is the EMF driving this current flow coming from?  If one
>     cannot see it in the measurements that are already being taken
>     on voltage and current external to the cell, where is the energy
>     to drive it.
 
This is hits nicely at what I'm suggesting in  "Heavy Heat".  The question
is, what causes the EMF of the proton current in hydrated metals?  This is
simple, the EMF is from the power supply used to move *electrons* in the system.
My leap of faith is in the energy transfer mechanism that causes a hydrogen
current in the lattice.  What I'm suggesting is that this transfer comes
about without resistance, or effect on the (macro) flow of electrons through
the metal.
 
Guenter Steinbach has several points:
 
>>                                    From the view point of the hydrogen on
>> the front row of this diffusion wave, they will see a repulsive force from
>> the electromagnetic field set-up by the hydrogen entering the system. At the
>> same time a constant attractive electric field is maintained by the flow of
>> electrons into the system. This causes a potential difference in the lattice.
 
>Only if you are talking H ions.
 
I am.  When a hydrogen atom (that is a hydrogen species, like protium,
deuterium or tritium) enters the lattice of an H absorbing metal, the 1s
electron is basically removed to become a lattice electron.  So when I say
H in a lattice, I am talking about a hydrogen species ion.  I would like
to note that there is a difference between protium, deuterium, and tritium.
A deuterium ion is a boson. Protium, and tritium stripped of the 1s
electron are fermions and must obay the Pauli exclusion priciple.  This
difference is something I don't consider in "Heavy Heat", yet it may be
important in explaining why D2O generates more heat in CNF calorimetry
than does H2O.
 
>> From what I can tell, this internal potential difference in the metal lattice
>> occurs without affecting the external current or voltage supplied.
 
>I think that's not right.  If you supply more carriers, you in effect
>lower the resistance of the metal, and for the same current your voltage
>will drop.
 
This is a good point. To be honest, I don't know if there is any variance
in the measurements of resistance or applied voltage with heat producing CNF
cells. From the infromation I've seen on heat producing CNF cells, the
measurements are based on power-in verses power-out.  Extrapolated over
time one gets energy-in verses energy-out.  These are based on the
measuring the flow of electrons into and out of the system.  However, what
I'm attacking with the hydrogen current idea is that our standard ideas of
current, voltage, and power are based on meassurements of the flow of
electrons.  If a hydrogen current is induced by the flow of electrons
without resistance, then certainly the situation is very different.
 
>> Now what is interesting about this, other than providing an electrical
>> potential difference to form a band structure, the energy released after
>> this is purely free.
 
>No, it comes from the power supply.
 
Well, it does require a power supply, that much is true.  However the only
thing a power supply does is move electrons.  Again we are back to my
original point.  If a hydrogen current is created without causing
resistance to the flow of electrons then what we have is free energy.
(Free if we only consider energy needed move electrons.)
 
>> We are inducing hydrogen into a conducting state
>> without any additional resistance or effect on the flow of electrons!
 
>I'd express it as "you put an additional resistance in parallel to the
>one that the electrons see, thus lowering the overall resistance to
>current flow".
 
You maybe right.  This is something I've been considering also as a way
testing the idea of hydrogen current.  Before a hydrogen current begins
there should be a period early in electrolysis were there should be some
interaction between the flow of electrons and the infusing hydrogen
species.  This may show up as lowering of resistance just as you have
suggested.
 
Marc Mengel comments:
 
>	Lots of discussion has been bouncing back and forth here,
>	but it seems to come down to:  If the heat is being generated
>	by a "proton current" in the lattice, it must still be the
>	result of the external voltage being applied, hence still no
>	"free" heat.
 
 
In a general way, it would be like a superconductor coil inducing a current
in a secondary superconducting coil, but instead of magnetic coupling, its
electric coupling.  Here is an interesting thought experiment.  Assume you
have a superconducting transformer.  Now assume the secondary coil has a
resistor in line. The heat from this resistor is measured by the current
flow of the primary winding. Wouldn't this look an awful lot like free
energy?   What I'm trying to suggest as a model for CNF heat production is
somewhat similar.
 
I must admit this idea is very simplistic, and does not yield any solution
to observations of any nuclear by-products of cold fusion; namely tritium,
and neutrons.  However, it might explain the low levels of excess heat seen
in some H2O experiments, and perhaps some of the high level excess heat of
the D2O electrolysis experiments of PF&H fame.
 
Have fun. Chuck.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com |  502-454-7218  Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Spam! |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.28 / G Steinbach /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: steinbac@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com (Guenter Steinbach)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 28 Jun 91 20:03:21 GMT
Organization: HP Labs, High Speed Electronics Dept., Palo Alto, CA

> / hpl-opus:sci.physics.fusion / chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) /
> 1:22 am  Jun 28, 1991 /
 
[ lots of text deleted ...]
 
> My leap of faith is in the energy transfer mechanism that causes a hydrogen
> current in the lattice.  What I'm suggesting is that this transfer comes
> about without resistance, or effect on the (macro) flow of electrons through
> the metal.
 
> However, what
> I'm attacking with the hydrogen current idea is that our standard ideas of
> current, voltage, and power are based on meassurements of the flow of
> electrons.  If a hydrogen current is induced by the flow of electrons
> without resistance, then certainly the situation is very different.
 
> Again we are back to my
> original point.  If a hydrogen current is created without causing
> resistance to the flow of electrons then what we have is free energy.
> (Free if we only consider energy needed move electrons.)
 
Chuck, I beg to differ.  I can not see a way for having a voltage drop
across a piece of metal, and having a "superconducting" current through
it at the same time.  Zero resistance means a finite voltage produces an
infinite current.  What you are proposing is in effect that the metal is
at the same time a normal and a superconductor.
 
> Marc Mengel comments:
>
> >	Lots of discussion has been bouncing back and forth here,
> >	but it seems to come down to:  If the heat is being generated
> >	by a "proton current" in the lattice, it must still be the
> >	result of the external voltage being applied, hence still no
> >	"free" heat.
>
> In a general way, it would be like a superconductor coil inducing a current
> in a secondary superconducting coil, but instead of magnetic coupling, its
> electric coupling.  Here is an interesting thought experiment.  Assume you
> have a superconducting transformer.  Now assume the secondary coil has a
> resistor in line. The heat from this resistor is measured by the current
> flow of the primary winding. Wouldn't this look an awful lot like free
> energy?
 
No.  You would see that when you put the resistor across the secondary
winding, the voltage across the primary winding acquired a component in
phase with the current, and you'd measure a real power going into the
system, just as much as heats up the resistor.  Because you do see a
voltage across a superconducting transformer, V=L*dI/dt (L being the
inductance).  Only with no resistor load, voltage and current are out of
phase, and the power is zero.
I suspect that in your "heavy heat" hypothesis you are doing the same
thing that you did in the above thought experiment:  Neglecting to look
at some "other" factor (here it was the voltage) that would show that
your heat does not come for free.
 
	 Guenter Steinbach		gunter_steinbach@hplabs.hp.com
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudensteinbac cudfnGuenter cudlnSteinbach cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.28 / kenneth becker /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: kab@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kenneth.a.becker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 21:40:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

 
 
From article <1991Jun28.082233.6009@coplex.com>, by chuck@coplex.com (Chuck
 Sites):
> Dale Bass asks:
>
>>     Where is the EMF driving this current flow coming from?  If one
>>     cannot see it in the measurements that are already being taken
>>     on voltage and current external to the cell, where is the energy
>>     to drive it.
>
<<< stuff deleted >>>
>
>>Only if you are talking H ions.
>
> I am.  When a hydrogen atom (that is a hydrogen species, like protium,
> deuterium or tritium) enters the lattice of an H absorbing metal, the 1s
> electron is basically removed to become a lattice electron.  So when I say
> H in a lattice, I am talking about a hydrogen species ion.  I would like
> to note that there is a difference between protium, deuterium, and tritium.
> A deuterium ion is a boson. Protium, and tritium stripped of the 1s
> electron are fermions and must obay the Pauli exclusion priciple.  This
> difference is something I don't consider in "Heavy Heat", yet it may be
> important in explaining why D2O generates more heat in CNF calorimetry
> than does H2O.
>
<< more stuff deleted>>
 
Ahem.  I don't often post to the net, and I'm not a nuclear physicist, so
I expect to hear flamethowers being turned on now.  However, I believe
in this last exchange I saw something interesting.
 
I've recently finished reading an article or two in Scientific American
and the IEEE Spectrum Magazine where some interesting comments were
made about bosons and fermions.  Specificially, it was stated (here
come the flamethrowers) that bosons and fermions have quite different
quantum mechanical characteristics, one of the most important of which
had to do with how one added up the probabilities of where a particular
boson or fermion ended up.  These articles said that heretofore all
basic (more flamethrowers) nuclear entites were either one or the
other; however, after one had done the math, it appeared that
"inbetween" nuclear entities could exist.  That is, one could have an
entity that was, say, 2/3 boson and 1/3 fermion.
	According the the S. A. author, it was originally thought that
these mathematical constructs were of the same flavor as sqrt(-1) in
electrical engineering: one could hypothesize having electrical signals
with imaginary components, but in reality all the imaginary components
would cancel and you'd end up with real signals with phase angles.
	However, the author of the S. A. article now believes and
further has done experiments to prove that such particles do exist.
From the articles, the physicists involved seem to believe that high
temperature superconductors, which have electrons flowing in
two-dimensional flat sheets, are an example of such particles: the
electrons (and I don't remember whether they're bosons or fermions)
pick up characteristics of the opposite type and this is, again
according to the authors, what causes the superconductive effect.
 
	So, here's what I'm reading from all this:  1)  Bosons or
Fermions - and duterons are of the former, and not usual; 2) thin
planes of conductor, surrounded by nonconductors.  Back when this
newsgroup was really active, there was a lot of talk about
microfractures in the metal.  I could believe in thin conducting sheets.
Further, I could even believe in thin conducting sheets that melt when
the temperature gets a little high.
 
	I'm not sure where all this is leading, but is >>sounds<<
interesting.  Anybody want to take pot shots at it?
 
 
	Ken Becker  att!hotstone!kab
 
 
.sig under construction.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenkab cudfnkenneth cudlnbecker cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.28 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Science News on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science News on cold fusion
Date: 28 Jun 91 05:36:32 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <43700@cup.portal.com> hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson)
 writes:
>I don't think
>sloppy technique can account for the intermittent character of the
>results, some of these people are just too competent!
 
No one is too competent to make mistakes, even fairly big mistakes.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.06.30 / Chuck Sites /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 30 Jun 91 10:32:22 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

steinbac@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com (Guenter Steinbach) writes:
 
>> / hpl-opus:sci.physics.fusion / chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) /
>> 1:22 am  Jun 28, 1991 /
 
>[ lots of text deleted ...]
 
>> My leap of faith is in the energy transfer mechanism that causes a hydrogen
>> current in the lattice.  What I'm suggesting is that this transfer comes
>> about without resistance, or effect on the (macro) flow of electrons through
>> the metal.
 
>> However, what
>> I'm attacking with the hydrogen current idea is that our standard ideas of
>> current, voltage, and power are based on meassurements of the flow of
>> electrons.  If a hydrogen current is induced by the flow of electrons
>> without resistance, then certainly the situation is very different.
 
>> Again we are back to my
>> original point.  If a hydrogen current is created without causing
>> resistance to the flow of electrons then what we have is free energy.
>> (Free if we only consider energy needed move electrons.)
 
>Chuck, I beg to differ.  I can not see a way for having a voltage drop
>across a piece of metal, and having a "superconducting" current through
>it at the same time.  Zero resistance means a finite voltage produces an
>infinite current.  What you are proposing is in effect that the metal is
>at the same time a normal and a superconductor.
 
Well, perhaps my anology of a superconductor is way off the mark.
The only point I've been trying to make with that anology is
that a hydrogen ion current in an electrolyzed hydrated metal
should occur without significant effect the flow of electrons in
the metal.  The result is that the equation for joule heating
of hydrated metals under electrolysis do not take into account
this situation and the hydrogen current could appear as excess
heat.  With palladium, two things could be driving the EMF of
a hydrogen current.  One is the natural diffusion speed of
hydrogen into palladium.  If left alone at one atm. fully depleted
Pd soakes up hydrogen to a point where it reaches a loading
factor of 0.3.  Under electrolysis, the factor is even larger,
between 0.6 to 0.8. The power to do this is supplied by the EMF
which causes the the seperation of H2O to H(gas) and O(gas).
The absorbtion of H gas comes purely from a potential gradiant
setup across the metal lattice.  What cause the hydrogen current
is the old dictum, opposites attract.  As far as the hydrogen
current is concerned, the only work the the electrons do is to
create a potential field gradiant for the hydrogen.  Second, recall
that the 1s electrons of H in Pd are basically removed (I believe this
state is disallowed quantum-mechanically in Pd I'll check my references).
Thus interations between hydrogen in the lattice and lattice electrons
is almost nill.  This implies that a hydrogen current could be
induced without effecting electron flow.
 
   As you noted in a previous posting,  this still leaves a problem with
voltage.  As you pump more hydrogen into Pd, it should develope a small
positive charge, and this should change the voltage some.  But this voltage
change occurs not because of the hydrogen current but because of the
over-all net positive charge gain on the cathode.  Standard electrolysis
calculates Joule heating for H2O as I(V-1.54).  What I'm saying is that
this neglects a possible hydrogen current for hydrated metals and should
be I(V-1.54) + (hydrogen) I^2 R.  It's just that simple.
 
>	 Guenter Steinbach		gunter_steinbach@hplabs.hp.com
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 1 Jul 91 04:14:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Jun28.082233.6009@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>Dale Bass asks:
>
>>     Where is the EMF driving this current flow coming from?  If one
>>     cannot see it in the measurements that are already being taken
>>     on voltage and current external to the cell, where is the energy
>>     to drive it.
>
>This is hits nicely at what I'm suggesting in  "Heavy Heat".  The question
>is, what causes the EMF of the proton current in hydrated metals?  This is
>simple, the EMF is from the power supply used to move *electrons* in the
 system.
>My leap of faith is in the energy transfer mechanism that causes a hydrogen
>current in the lattice.  What I'm suggesting is that this transfer comes
>about without resistance, or effect on the (macro) flow of electrons through
>the metal.
 
 
     I guess you missed my point.  Measurements external to the cell have no
     idea by what mechanism the current is carried.  It does not matter if
     the voltage is used to move protons, electrons or charged rhinos;
     the voltage drop is simply based on electromagnetic considerations.
     Similarly, the current would be unaffected if the charge carriers
     were sufficiently mobile pack mules.
 
     Also, even if it mattered,  a proton is several thousand times more
     massive than an electron.  So even assuming equal electromagnetic
     mobility, the electron would have several orders of magnitude greater
     inertial mobility.
 
     Also, assume that the hydrogen is mobile enough to act as a charge
     carrier.  Where do the positive charges all go?  They cannot exit the
     cells with the electrons, so they must build up fairly rapidly in
     on of the electrodes, preventing further migration (experimentally
     observed occurence)
 
>This is a good point. To be honest, I don't know if there is any variance
>in the measurements of resistance or applied voltage with heat producing CNF
>cells. From the infromation I've seen on heat producing CNF cells, the
>measurements are based on power-in verses power-out.  Extrapolated over
>time one gets energy-in verses energy-out.  These are based on the
>measuring the flow of electrons into and out of the system.  However, what
>I'm attacking with the hydrogen current idea is that our standard ideas of
>current, voltage, and power are based on meassurements of the flow of
>electrons.  If a hydrogen current is induced by the flow of electrons
>without resistance, then certainly the situation is very different.
 
     You are a bit confused.  They do not measure the flow of electrons.
     They measure currents and voltages.  That is a crucial difference.
 
     Also, if there is no resistance, there is no heat.
>
>Well, it does require a power supply, that much is true.  However the only
>thing a power supply does is move electrons.  Again we are back to my
>original point.  If a hydrogen current is created without causing
>resistance to the flow of electrons then what we have is free energy.
>(Free if we only consider energy needed move electrons.)
 
     No, a power supply does not care about the nature of the charge carriers.
     It sets up a potential difference in order to facilitate the flow
     of charge carriers.  It once again matters little what the
     carriers are.
 
     It matters not a bit if the carriers are electrons, protons or some
     combination of the above.
>
>You maybe right.  This is something I've been considering also as a way
>testing the idea of hydrogen current.  Before a hydrogen current begins
>there should be a period early in electrolysis were there should be some
>interaction between the flow of electrons and the infusing hydrogen
>species.  This may show up as lowering of resistance just as you have
>suggested.
 
     There is clearly a 'hydrogen current' since the protons are transported
     into the lattice.  As to its electrical consequences,  if resistance
     is lowered, heating is lowered.
 
>Marc Mengel comments:
>
>>	Lots of discussion has been bouncing back and forth here,
>>	but it seems to come down to:  If the heat is being generated
>>	by a "proton current" in the lattice, it must still be the
>>	result of the external voltage being applied, hence still no
>>	"free" heat.
>
 
      Seems about right to me.
 
>In a general way, it would be like a superconductor coil inducing a current
>in a secondary superconducting coil, but instead of magnetic coupling, its
>electric coupling.  Here is an interesting thought experiment.  Assume you
>have a superconducting transformer.  Now assume the secondary coil has a
>resistor in line. The heat from this resistor is measured by the current
>flow of the primary winding. Wouldn't this look an awful lot like free
>energy?   What I'm trying to suggest as a model for CNF heat production is
>somewhat similar.
 
       No it would not, and this seems somewhat confused.  If you had
       voltage and current measurements on the resistor, you would
       clearly have power dissipated in the resistor.
 
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 04:32:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Jun30.103222.14210@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
>Well, perhaps my anology of a superconductor is way off the mark.
>The only point I've been trying to make with that anology is
>that a hydrogen ion current in an electrolyzed hydrated metal
>should occur without significant effect the flow of electrons in
>the metal.  The result is that the equation for joule heating
 
      The flow of electrons will most certainly be affected since the
      charge carriers ALL see the potential difference.  Think globally
      on this unless you are willing to solve for the effects locally.
      It matters little.  The results will be the same, but it is a bit (!)
      more difficult to analyze locally.
 
>of hydrated metals under electrolysis do not take into account
>this situation and the hydrogen current could appear as excess
>heat.  With palladium, two things could be driving the EMF of
 
      There will be no excess heat unless there is 'excess' EMF seen
      in the porential measurements external to the cell.  Something must
      drive the current.
 
>
>   As you noted in a previous posting,  this still leaves a problem with
>voltage.  As you pump more hydrogen into Pd, it should develope a small
>positive charge, and this should change the voltage some.  But this voltage
>change occurs not because of the hydrogen current but because of the
>over-all net positive charge gain on the cathode.  Standard electrolysis
>calculates Joule heating for H2O as I(V-1.54).  What I'm saying is that
>this neglects a possible hydrogen current for hydrated metals and should
>be I(V-1.54) + (hydrogen) I^2 R.  It's just that simple.
 
      Huh?   Again, there is no potential to drive the flow of hydrogen.
      And even if there were, where would it go in a steady state case?
 
                                         dale bass
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.01 / rolfe petschek /  Re: Heat without fusion
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat without fusion
Date: 1 Jul 91 16:29:56 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1991Jun26.184347.17113@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
>I don't think folks are being imaginative enough with "cold fusion"
>theories.  Here's another idea for your amusement...
>
>I assume here that the excess heat observations are correct.  I also
>assume here that whatever is happening is not (primarily) nuclear
>fusion (the absence of sufficient nuclear observables should be
>convincing evidence of this).
>
>What other heat source could there be?  Here's one: bound pairs of
>massive magnetic monopoles of opposite magnetic polarity.  (Such
>
>Why should this show up in "cold fusion" experiments?  Perhaps these
>pairs get attached to protons and form a kind of exotic superheavy
>hydrogen (there are stringent observational limits for the abundance
>of superheavy hydrogen in some mass ranges, perhaps these are not
>fatal).
 
Hmm.   This worries me - why do they attach to hydrogen and, once
attached why does the attaching force not also cause them to decay
and/or be produced in e+e- or p+p- collisions?  Well how about a magnet
cum electric monopole (electric charge +1) with a neutral monopole or
some other 'exotic' particle which slowly decays emitting (say)
electromagnetic radiation - it sort of has to be electromagnetic or
something 'standard' to be stopped in the solid and observed as heat.
Without much change we have a hydrogen analog without the about
objections.
 
Well, now we have to worry about solid state effects - electro-magnetic
radiation is just plain pure and simple different in the solid state
than in space so this is something of a worry but the effects are
probably not unimaginably difficult if you allow arbitrary adjustment of
the exotic composite parameters.  OK.
 
Trouble
 
Why is it intermittant - it should work (in some gross way independent
of environment) independent of sample state (e.g. current density).  It
is not unimaginable that this can be explained by solid state effects
but this seems rather difficult.
 
Suggestion:
 
Make things very cold [fractions of a degree].  Calorimetry is very,
very, very much easier at very low temperatures and in the absence of
other heat (and I don't see why these should be important).  Try for
excess heat (or unexplainable heat leaks).
 
Trouble
 
This suggestion must have been extensively tried at least on hydrogen
which is (was) and important cryogenic fluid and I expect that this would
rule out any such effect.  I am less sure about palladium, which is used
less extensively in cryogenics.
 
This does bring to mind the question: what are the limits on slow decay
of matter via non-violent e.g. not GeV at a time events.  I suspect that
they are rather poor but it would be interesting to know.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7970
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrpetsche cudfnrolfe cudlnpetschek cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.02 / Terry Bollinger /  Monopoles
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monopoles
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 20:35:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On 26 Jun 91 18:43:47 GMT dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) wrote:
 
> What other heat source could there be?  Here's one: bound pairs of
> massive magnetic monopoles of opposite magnetic polarity.
 
This idea is interesting (and innovative) idea, and it nicely avoids the
trap of trying to prove that the problem is fusion whether it is or not.
 
It's also very much in keeping with the Standard theory, since monopoles
are actually *required* by it.  There is an isolated but very interesting
"sighting" from Stanford on Valentine's Day a number of years ago.
 
Standard theory monopoles are very, very heavy -- each one should have
about the same mass as an amoeba.  Does anyone recall the idea of "cosmic
strings" that was talked about quite a bit a few years ago -- you know,
incredibly massive one-dimensional objects that might stretch for many
light years?  Well, it turns out that magnetic monopoles are simply a
zero-dimension version of the same set of mathematical solutions that
lead to cosmic strings.  (There are also two-dimensional "domain walls"
that never got as much press, probably because current observations
of the universe already pretty much excluded the possibility of any
of them existing.)
 
All of these objects share the characteristic that their cores exist at
very, very high energy levels that are in effect "left over" from when
the initially unified strong and electroweak forces "crystallized" into
the separate sets of forces that we know now.  Just as crystals growing
in water can have different (and incompatible) orientations, this
separation of forces during the early growth of the universe can have
different "orientations" that require some kind of resolution where they
meet.  Those "resolutions" are called monopoles, cosmic strings, and
domain walls, and to perform their resolution they are forced to retain
some of the earlier extremely high masses and energy levels of the very
early universe.
 
Monopoles were first proposed via symmetry articles by Dirac -- the same
fellow who discovered antimatter via negative energy state solutions to
his marvelous relativistically-derived Dirac equation.  (By the way,
did ya'll know that Dirac was an electrical engineer by training -- not
a physicist at all?)
 
Standard Theory monopoles, which are enormously heavier than the Dirac
versions, have a rather interesting history.  It seems that around
1979-1981 there was an effort to apply soliton theory to particle
physics, driven in part by the curious similarity of how solitons and
solitary waves persist to the way particles persist.  Roman Jackiw and
Claudio Rebbi hoped that their newly discovered effect of "charge
fracturing" (sound familiar?) might lead to quark-like field solutions,
but the resulting hypothetical particles were too heavy to be quarks.
 
In the end, the only lasting result of the effort to define fundamental
particles in terms of solitons was the invention of a new particle that
became an intrinsic part of the Standard theory.  That particle is the
magnetic monopole...
 
Yes, folks, the magnetic monopole is a type of soliton (or solitary
wave, actually).  It's not usually advertised as such simply because
the monopole is better known than the soliton theory from which it
was originally derived.
 
 
> If the particles are sufficiently massive (very roughly, billions of GeV),
> small (angstrom scale) bound pairs have lifetimes against radiative
> decay exceeding the age of the universe.
 
Now *that's* an interesting (and counter-intuitive) result.  I had always
assumed that they would zero in on each other pronto, but Paul Dietz's
point that recombination would be drastically slowed by the huge masses
of the monopoles is well taken.  (Jeepers, is the time really *that* long?)
 
A lot of energy can be stored in the situaion he described.  If the
monopoles were true point particles, the total energy released by their
approach would in fact be infinite (!), a classic example of the infinity
problems that plauge point particles and require renormalization methods
to be used in quantum electrodynamics.  Monopoles are *not* true point
particles, but you can get them very, very, very, very close before they
would start following quantum behavior (discrete states) instead of the
continuum, classical-like states they would exhibit at atomic or proton
separation scales.  Not to mention that they will make one whale of a
bang when they *do* hit -- two amoeba's worth of energy would convert
most buildings (and, uh, researchers) into piles of rubble.
 
One prolbem that might be encountered is the same one Pierre St. Hilaire
mentioned -- the monopoles would tend to interact with normal matter,
which would probably do strange things to the mutual orbit of the pair.
 
....
 
 
On 27 Jun 91 01:04:55 GMT pierre@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire)
wrote:
 
> A possible problem: according to most "grand unified theories", magnetic
> monopoles cause proton decay and the violation of baryon number
> conservation.
 
> This is called the Callan Rubakov effect.  The cross section of this
> effect is roughly similar to a proton radius.
 
Hmm.  A type of soliton (the monopole) that violates baryon conservation --
and the effect even has a name?  Getting awfully radical here, folks...
 
I should immediately point out that monopoles have very little to do with
the type of (fermion band) solitons I was invoking.  There are no huge
masses involved with band solitions, for example.  But there *are* some
interesting mathematical singularity issues involved in both...
 
I did not know that proton demolition by monopoles had a name, but I
first ran across the possibility that a monopole might do strange things
to a proton in a monopole Farfetch that I was following at one time.
(It didn't work, by the way -- no good way to down-shift energy levels.)
 
The proton oddities begin with the fact that as a particle with a magnetic
dipole (e.g., a proton) approaches a very-point-like monople, the sharp
magnetic gradient of the monopole will begin to attract the dipole particle
quite strongly.  Since the monopole is classical down to a very small size,
this dipole attraction would not stop a the proton level -- it would begin
to latch on to the individual quarks as the proton came within about one
nucleon diameter of the monopole.  That's as far as I took it, though.
 
A bit later I ran across a passing reference in a McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia
of Science and Technology that a monopole might be able to destroy a proton
(although it did give a name for the effect).  I figured (and still figure)
that my little non-mathematical quark-dipole attraction argument is closely
related to how monopole go about dismantling of protons, though.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.02 / Terry Bollinger /  By the way...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: By the way...
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 20:35:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi again,
 
For those of you who did not see an earlier email, (I pulled it from the
batch -- I was in a grouchy mood last week), I'd like to mention again that
I thought Chuck Sites put in an interesting and innovative contribution to
the group.  There is a good deal of experimental data (some of it probably
classified) about hydrogen isotope diffusion behavior in palladium -- those
materials might be relevant to his proton-resistance heating idea.  And
thanks for the reference, Chuck -- it was greatly appreciated!
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.03 / RK Owen /  Hydrogen in metals
     
Originally-From: rkowen@diablo.arc.nasa.gov (RK Owen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Hydrogen in metals
Date: 3 Jul 91 16:27:24 GMT
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center

 
I'm  looking  for  some  good  references  on experimental &
theoretical   results   concerning   hydrogen   in    metals
(particularly hydrogen molecules).
 
My  own  interest  is  in  calculating  the Potential Energy
Surface of H-H in a metal. However, I've been having a tough
time finding relevant papers (since I can only do this in my
spare time which is almost non-existent).
 
Please e-mail any info you might have  to  speed  me  on  my
quest.  If I get some serious helpful comments I'll condense
and post on sci.physics.
(Please no ``me too'' mailings ... I'll be happy to send out
whatever info I get AFTER I collect it and post it.)
 
I  appreciate the ``netters'' and their willingness to help.
Thanks in advanced.
 
R.K.Owen, NASA-Ames Research Center, CCF
rkowen@eagle.arc.nasa.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrkowen cudfnRK cudlnOwen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.03 /  M14494@mwvm.mi /  Cold fusion and gaseous deuterium
     
Originally-From: M14494@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion and gaseous deuterium
Date: 3 Jul 91 15:48:07 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

Has anyone tried the cold fusion experiment with gaseous deuterium rather than
heavy water?  One could put the Pd in an evacuated chamber, and introduce the
gas.  Reactions, if any, could be observed as a function of pressure.
This might remove some of the variables at work in the electrolysis method;
after all, the coil and current scheme is just a way to introduce
deuterium into the Pd lattice, isn't it?
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenM14494 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.03 / H Henson /  Re: Monopoles -- Quarks?
     
Originally-From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Monopoles -- Quarks?
Date: 3 Jul 91 23:23:57 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Re this thread, I wonder if a single lose quark might catalize Pd/D2
fusion.  There was a long series of repeated (but not replicated)
experiments, a superconducting version of the Millican oil drop one
which seemed to show some chunks of Nd (?) with fractional residual
charges.  Could a *single* quark (assuming they _do_ exist) catalize
cold fusion?  If so, or if there is some other (monopole?) rare factor
it would go a *long* way explaining why the workers in CF have been
having so much trouble replicating their experiments.  Would this lead
to any suggestions on how to improve their results?  Keith Henson
(please excuse spelling errors, my checker is offline)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhkhenson cudfnH cudlnHenson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.04 / James White /  excess heat with silver electrode plated with palladium
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: excess heat with silver electrode plated with palladium
Date: 4 Jul 91 05:22:16 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

The 7/3/91 Wall Street Journal has an article on cold fusion by Jerry
E. Bishop. It mentions an interesting new result that has been presented
at the Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion (which started 6/29/91
and will end 7/4/91). Robert T. Bush, a physicist at California State
Polytechnic University in Pomona, got excess heat with a solid silver
rod plated with 5 microns of palladium. The excess heat started after
almost 4 weeks. The experiment produced 16 to 17 watts with an input of
12.5 watts. Over 54 days 15 Megajoules of excess heat were produced.
 
This means that either the excess heat is a surface effect, or that
silver is just as good a catalyst as palladium. Given that helium-4
consistent with the excess heat has been found in the gas from heat
producing cells but never in the bulk of the electrode, I think that
the phenomena is most likely a surface effect.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.04 / Mark Hittinger /  Wed's Wall St Journal article
     
Originally-From: mhitting@lunatix.uucp (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wed's Wall St Journal article
Date: 4 Jul 91 14:19:59 GMT
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix

 
 
Silver has been going up since around May with no (good) reason for it.  I
have been asking around trying to find out whats up with no success.  One
of my buddies at work said...."Oh  obviously it has something to do with
cold fusion haw haw haw.".
 
He was joking of course.  Now we read the article and he grins even more.
 
Surface effect would seem to be the plan if these experiments work out.  One
nice thing about this type of rod is that it reduces the price of doing the
experiment!
 
One other thing - alternating current tends to flow in the outside portion
of a conductor.  If there were any alternating currents being put out by these
guys' power supplies they would be flowing in the surface also.
 
Its always bothered me that nobody has tried an AC experiment vs DC.
 
Still hoping for 'star in a jar'.
 
Mark Hittinger
mhitting@lunatix.uucp
an288@cleveland.freenet.edu  (better)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmhitting cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.05 / Richard Mathews /  Re: Monopoles -- Quarks?
     
Originally-From: richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Monopoles -- Quarks?
Date: 5 Jul 91 20:48:30 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes:
 
>There was a long series of repeated (but not replicated)
>experiments, a superconducting version of the Millican oil drop one
>which seemed to show some chunks of Nd (?) with fractional residual
>charges.
 
I think the experiment was done at Stanford, and it was Nb.  I believe
this result was rejected as being due to poor experimental method.
Oversimplifying to the point of sarcasm, I believe their method was
to make a bunch of measurements, discard all results within a standard
deviation of integral charge, average all of the remaining measurements,
and --surprise, surprise -- they got a result which differed by more than
a standard deviation from integral.
 
Richard M. Mathews			D efend
richard@locus.com			 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
lcc!richard@seas.ucla.edu		  I ndependence
..!{uunet|ucla-se|turnkey}!lcc!richard
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMathews cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Cold fusion and gaseous deuterium
     
Originally-From: mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and gaseous deuterium
Date: 7 Jul 91 20:28:25 GMT

M14494@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
> Has anyone tried the cold fusion experiment with gaseous deuterium rather than
> heavy water?  One could put the Pd in an evacuated chamber, and introduce the
> gas.  Reactions, if any, could be observed as a function of pressure.
> This might remove some of the variables at work in the electrolysis method;
> after all, the coil and current scheme is just a way to introduce
> deuterium into the Pd lattice, isn't it?
 
Funny you should mention this.  A friend of mine is annealing some metallic
sample (for doing some magnetoresistance experiements) in gaseous hydrogen,
just down the hall.  It's quite a bit more dangerous than just using
water electrolysis, because of the explosion danger, especially if you want
to do high pressures and temperatures.  Perhaps this is a reason why
people dont do it this way.  (Of course, a better reason is that they want to
work on something productive...)
 
 
Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.04 / Chuck Sites /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 4 Jul 91 07:52:33 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <1991Jun30.103222.14210@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>>
>>Well, perhaps my anology of a superconductor is way off the mark.
>>The only point I've been trying to make with that anology is
>>that a hydrogen ion current in an electrolyzed hydrated metal
>>should occur without significant effect the flow of electrons in
>>the metal.  The result is that the equation for joule heating
 
>      The flow of electrons will most certainly be affected since the
>      charge carriers ALL see the potential difference.  Think globally
>      on this unless you are willing to solve for the effects locally.
>      It matters little.  The results will be the same, but it is a bit (!)
>      more difficult to analyze locally.
 
Your point about the build up of charge and its effect on resistance were
well taken from an earlier posting of yours.  You way notice that my
thoughts are evolving because of the criticisum that has been brought up.
I must admit "Heavy Heat" is a simple and yet tricky concept because it hits
home at the fundamental beliefs in how charge particles interact, and how we
measure those interactions.
   I know that the basis of your argument is the energy balance problem.
What I'm trying to argue is not that this violates the conservation of energy,
but that the way we measure electrical energy is based on the movement of
electrons, and in this case we may be missing the true value.  Consider
how one measures the values of current, voltage, and resistance. All of these
are based on electrons moving through the static lattice of some conducting
metal. In the case of infused hydrogen in the Pd cathode, these H ions will
not capture electrons and thus do not effect electron current.  Since they
do not disrupt electron current, then the other considerations that must be
looked at are voltage and resistance.  Resistance is interesting to
look at quantum-mecanically, because it's cause can be described by
band theory as well. Resistance is based on how an electrons interact
with an atosm. However if there is no interaction between the hydrogen in
the lattice then the effective resistance due to these imbedded hydrogen
should be nill.  In other words, there should be no measurable change
in voltage, current, or resistance as meassured directly by electrons
due to a hydrogen current.  I would ask, how does one measure a
proton current given these circumstances?  Second question. Considering
that these hydrogen ions are not static in the lattice, how do you
think they would interact with the surrounding enviroment?
 
>> Standard electrolysis
>>calculates Joule heating for H2O as I(V-1.54).  What I'm saying is that
>>this neglects a possible hydrogen current for hydrated metals and should
>>be I(V-1.54) + (hydrogen) I^2 R.  It's just that simple.
 
>      Huh?   Again, there is no potential to drive the flow of hydrogen.
>      And even if there were, where would it go in a steady state case?
 
Eventually hydrogen will out gas from the palladium, and take up an
electron.  So in a way, if resistance drops in the metal, as you have
suggested it might, then it certainly will increase upon out gassing,
so overall no change in Ohm's law as seen in the total electrolytic cell
as measured by electrons.  And yet the EMF for the electrons is what
causes the hydrogen currents, and thus the potential for what would
appear to be excess heat by measuring electron flow.
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.08 / Steve Crocker /  The Palladium Market
     
Originally-From: bbs.stevec@spies.com (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Palladium Market
Date: 8 Jul 91 08:04:19 GMT
Organization: Spies in the wire, (408) 867-7400

I am curious whether anyone here has any info on how the Palladium market
has responded to the ups and downs of the cold fusion hypothesis. I'm
particularly interested in both expected shifts (price up on good news, down
on debunks) as well as anomalies in which news which might have been
expected to affect the market did not, or had a perverse effect. Material,
including anecdotal, regarding direct attempts to manipulate this market
would also be of interest. Reply here or send Email.
     Thanks,
     Steve
 
--
Steve Crocker (bbs.stevec@spies.com)
 
Spies in the Wire, PUBLIC ACCESS UNIX  -- (408) 867-7400
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenstevec cudfnSteve cudlnCrocker cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HEAVY HEAT - Cold fusion solved?
Date: 9 Jul 91 17:54:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Jul4.075233.9984@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
>Your point about the build up of charge and its effect on resistance were
>well taken from an earlier posting of yours.  You way notice that my
>thoughts are evolving because of the criticisum that has been brought up.
>I must admit "Heavy Heat" is a simple and yet tricky concept because it hits
>home at the fundamental beliefs in how charge particles interact, and how we
>measure those interactions.
>   I know that the basis of your argument is the energy balance problem.
>What I'm trying to argue is not that this violates the conservation of energy,
>but that the way we measure electrical energy is based on the movement of
>electrons, and in this case we may be missing the true value.  Consider
>how one measures the values of current, voltage, and resistance. All of these
>are based on electrons moving through the static lattice of some conducting
>metal. In the case of infused hydrogen in the Pd cathode, these H ions will
 
     This is most emphatically not true.  The way one measures voltage
     is to place a known (large) resistance across the circuit and take a
     potential drop.  Nowhere does the actual identity of the charge carriers
     external to the voltmeter come into play.  Similarly for the ammeter.
 
     There is no measurement at all of electrons.  Simply the application of
     OHM's law inside the voltmeter (where it most emphatically applies).
     Outside the voltmeter it matters not what the charge carriers are.
 
     Basically you have hit the nail on the head.  What you are asking
     for is a violation of conservation of energy.  You ask the protons
     to move in the field (i.e. to be affected by it) without producing an
     effect.  If you lose no energy by moving the protons, then no heat
     will be produced.  You must convince yourself that the current and
     voltage measuring instruments just measure electrical phenomena without
     regard to the charge carriers.
 
>not capture electrons and thus do not effect electron current.  Since they
>do not disrupt electron current, then the other considerations that must be
 
     This is also not true.  If there is movement of charged objects in
     a field, the current (and voltage) will be affected.
 
>looked at are voltage and resistance.  Resistance is interesting to
>look at quantum-mecanically, because it's cause can be described by
>band theory as well. Resistance is based on how an electrons interact
>with an atosm. However if there is no interaction between the hydrogen in
>the lattice then the effective resistance due to these imbedded hydrogen
>should be nill.  In other words, there should be no measurable change
 
     But this is not the case.  There is always interaction between
     the gross fields involved in the flow of charge carriers.  There
     is no way around it.  If you are somehow inducing a flow of protons,
     that will affect external fields.  It is describably classically, with
     no recourse to quantum mechanics.  I think you are getting confused
     with approximations that may make sense when applied to one ion,
     but make absolutely no sense when applied to field measurements
     of global currents.
 
>in voltage, current, or resistance as meassured directly by electrons
>due to a hydrogen current.  I would ask, how does one measure a
>proton current given these circumstances?  Second question. Considering
>that these hydrogen ions are not static in the lattice, how do you
>think they would interact with the surrounding enviroment?
 
     Once again, one does not measure currents due to electrons.  One
     measures currents, voltages, resistances.  It does not matter what
     the charge carriers are.  If protons were the charge carriers and
     there were no electrons, the same measurment tools would apply.
 
>
>>> Standard electrolysis
>>>calculates Joule heating for H2O as I(V-1.54).  What I'm saying is that
>>>this neglects a possible hydrogen current for hydrated metals and should
>>>be I(V-1.54) + (hydrogen) I^2 R.  It's just that simple.
>
>>      Huh?   Again, there is no potential to drive the flow of hydrogen.
>>      And even if there were, where would it go in a steady state case?
>
>Eventually hydrogen will out gas from the palladium, and take up an
>electron.  So in a way, if resistance drops in the metal, as you have
>suggested it might, then it certainly will increase upon out gassing,
>so overall no change in Ohm's law as seen in the total electrolytic cell
>as measured by electrons.  And yet the EMF for the electrons is what
>causes the hydrogen currents, and thus the potential for what would
>appear to be excess heat by measuring electron flow.
 
     Why will it do this?  You have applied a voltage to make sure it does
     not outgas.  You have rolled it up the proberbial potential hill and
     are now applying a voltage to keep it there.  How does it outgas in
     a steady state situation?
 
     And once again, when you measure EMF, you measure EMF, not EMF for
     the electrons.  Also you seem to have stated the crux of your
     paradox right here.  How could the EMF affect the protons without
     the protons affecting the electrons?  The answer is that it cannot.
 
                                        dale
 
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.10 / Dieter Britz /  Gas phase experiments & "Heavy Heat".
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gas phase experiments & "Heavy Heat".
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 14:55:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
M14494@mwvm.mitre.org asks
>Has anyone tried the cold fusion experiment with gaseous deuterium rather than
>heavy water?  One could put the Pd in an evacuated chamber, and introduce the
>gas.  Reactions, if any, could be observed as a function of pressure.
>This might remove some of the variables at work in the electrolysis method;
>after all, the coil and current scheme is just a way to introduce
>deuterium into the Pd lattice, isn't it?
 
- indeed they have. I have just made a list of gas-phase papers and I find
that about 50 out of (I am guestimating) 350 or so experimental papers use D2
gas to charge a metal - Ti and Pd mostly. I find also three papers that use
gas charging, followed by electrolysis. It seems that most experiments with
Ti use D2 gas, notably the Italians.
 
 
My comments on Heavy Heat, by chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites), who writes
>What I'm trying to argue is not that this violates the conservation of energy,
>but that the way we measure electrical energy is based on the movement of
>electrons, and in this case we may be missing the true value....
 
Well, I don't think we're missing anything here. Think about where the heat
from electrical current (i.e. electron flow) comes from: there is a voltage
driving electrons to some high kinetic energy, which dissipates in the metal
as heat, as the electrons make their bumpy way through it. The electrons
excite the metal ions. The electrical IE work is here transformed into heat,
and we can easily account for all this quantitatively - in fact, we calibrate
calorimeters doing just that.
In the case of hydrogen (like Chuck, I'll let that stand for any of its
isotopes), this is formed at the metal surface, and diffuses into the metal
bulk. Upon entering the metal, the concensus is that H breaks up into a proton
(or deuteron etc) and an electron (there is some dissent here), with the
proton a lot less mobile than the electron. For H to spread into the bulk,
both p or d as well as the accompanying electrons must move together - else
you'd get a charge gradient, which you don't. You are quite right, there is no
voltage field driving the process, as in plain electrical current, so it's
hard to measure the heat transferred - we can't simply say it is equal to some
current times a voltage. However, the process of heat transfer is the same:
energetic protons (and electrons) make their bumpy way through the lattice,
losing kinetic energy to the metal. The metal gets warmer, the H gets cooler,
the overall amount of heat is unchanged. The source of the starting energy of
the H's, you ask? I assume this to be the overpotential of electrolysis, times
the electrolysis current. This is assumed to simply dissipate as heat, and the
H-Pd heat exchange is one avenue for that heat. OK, what about gas-phase
charging, while we're at it? H2 molecules come at the metal surface, each with
a given kinetic energy, break up into H atoms, still carrying the energy, and
enter the metal, same thing after that. The metal gets warmer, the gas cooler,
just like condensation. All this ignores the chemical heat (enthalpy) of metal
hydride formation, another story.
 So Chuck, I'm afraid you have not found the mysterious source of excess heat;
you have described a real process, but not one we have been neglecting. What
is this mysterious source of heat found by some, at least? I wish I could
explain it. Why is there not more response to Terry's proposal? Surely not all
the theory types on this group are reeling from Terry's maths, as I am?
 Good try though, mate, and I forgive you for "Flieshman" {:]. In fact, you
have nudged me into a little computer simulation project, concerning charging
times and -depths. I started doing some idle back-of-the-envelope calculations
of deuteron flux, expressed as Amperes/cm**2 (why not?), based on diffusion
rates, and got some quite high currents - in fact, initially higher than the
highest levels of electrolysis current densities employed. These values were
artifacts of the simplest diffusion model, and the real model will now include
the actual current. I won't arrive at anything startling, but it's
interesting, all the same.
 Well, back to enjoying my holidays (I just came in to look at my email).
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.10 / Terry Bollinger /  Palladium & such...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium & such...
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 15:51:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On 8 Jul 91 08:04:19 GMT bbs.stevec@spies.com (Steve Crocker) wrote
 
> I am curious whether anyone here has any info on how the Palladium market
> has responded to the ups and downs of the cold fusion hypothesis...
..
> Material, including anecdotal, regarding direct attempts to manipulate
> this market would also be of interest. Reply here or send Email.
 
 
Haven't even read all of the email this was in, but this is a good place
to mention something I've thought about bringing up once or twice.
 
So here, folks, is Terry Bollingers total financial investment portfolio:
 
   Total past, present (& future) investments in Pd/precious metals: $0
 
   Total stocks:  A whole bunch in GTE  (& nuttin' else whatsoever)
 
(If you're thinking "gee, this noodle needs a good investment advisor to
tell him how to diversify his holdings" -- well, what can I say?)
 
I think a lot of people did not take me seriously when I prefaced "A TWIST
OF RIBBON" with a comment about being irritated that I was unable to
*disprove* the idea that heavy particle fermi band solitons might have
unusual properties.  I don't know about all of you out there, but that's
not the kind of precept upon which I base my personal finances.
 
I think the bottom line on this new round of (thankfully) NON-fusion
theorizing is that its main value is in giving experimenters ideas for
making unusual solid-state effects readily reproducible.  If there is
in fact some new physics involved, I would be very, very surprised if
any amount of theorizing is going to nail down the precise details of
what is going on.  Why?  Two reasons:  1) it's solid state physics, and
that means very, very messy from a math perspective; and  2) it's going
to have to involve boundary regions of QM that have not been adequately
explored (yes, there really are such areas).  That's a rough combo to
fully map out a priori.
 
Despite the fact that I broadcast it widely, the bottom line for "A TWIST
OF RIBBON" is that it was *not*, repeat *not* a paper intended for general
consumption.  As I said once before, it was more for the sake of those
who might look at it and say "hey!  I've seen something like that!" than
for those who wanted to promulgate yet another Palladium Religion.  I gave
no references, but I did end it by listing the important keywords.  Anyone
*really* serious about looking it up could recreate much of my own research
from a good computer search using those keywords.  If I had to make myself
look like a fool to achieve that combination of rapid dissemination without
everyone declare the silly thing as "The Solution," that's fine with me.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.10 /  barry@julia.ma /  P&F---whats up?
     
Originally-From: barry@julia.math.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F---whats up?
Date: 10 Jul 91 22:47:19 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

It seems last we heard---two months back or so---Pons was claiming
to finally have the experiment reproducible, and everything was going
generally well. But since then, no word and the CFI closed down, etc.
 
So, whats the story? Is there any solid results, or upcoming meeting
at which such will be given, from the U of Utah camp? I just want to
get to the bottom line so that I can collect on all those $1 bets
I made a year ago, at 100:1 odds against cold fusion.
 
 
 
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.11 / Lawrence Foard /  Not dead yet?!?!
     
Originally-From: entropy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C Foard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not dead yet?!?!
Date: 11 Jul 91 08:01:03 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

I thought cold fusion was dead?
 
Sounds like monty python :-)
--
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true.            ------  0<p<1
Hackers do it for fun.  |  Being Bisexual squares your         \    / therefore
"Profesionals" do it for money. |  probability of not getting   \  / p^2<p and
Managers have others do it for them. |  laid on a saturday night.\/ 1-p^2>1-p
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenentropy cudfnLawrence cudlnFoard cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.11 /  M14494@mwvm.mi /  Re: Gas phase experiments & "Heavy Heat".
     
Originally-From: M14494@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gas phase experiments & "Heavy Heat".
Date: 11 Jul 91 13:45:13 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

To Deiter Britz: thanks for the reply.  I take it that none of the gas phase
experiments produced any excess energy output... ?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenM14494 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.12 / kenton yee /  Re: needed: lagrangian with Monopoles
     
Originally-From: kyee@bnlux1.bnl.gov (kenton yee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: needed: lagrangian with Monopoles
Date: 12 Jul 91 00:56:36 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

In article <9107021504.AA09346@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
	(Terry Bollinger) writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>On 26 Jun 91 18:43:47 GMT dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) wrote:
>
>> What other heat source could there be?  Here's one: bound pairs of
>> massive magnetic monopoles of opposite magnetic polarity.
>
>Monopoles were first proposed via symmetry articles by Dirac -- the same
>fellow who discovered antimatter via negative energy state solutions to
>his marvelous relativistically-derived Dirac equation.  (By the way,
>did ya'll know that Dirac was an electrical engineer by training -- not
>a physicist at all?)
 
 
  my officemate and i are having an arguement about what the
   lagrangian for QED would be if there were monopoles in
  addition to electrons.  can someone email me the lagrangian?
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkyee cudfnkenton cudlnyee cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.10 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The Palladium Market
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Palladium Market
Date: 10 Jul 91 20:39:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <wXaR51w164w@spies.com> bbs.stevec@spies.com (Steve Crocker) writes:
>I am curious whether anyone here has any info on how the Palladium market
>has responded to the ups and downs of the cold fusion hypothesis. I'm
>particularly interested in both expected shifts (price up on good news, down
>on debunks) as well as anomalies in which news which might have been
>expected to affect the market did not, or had a perverse effect. Material,
>including anecdotal, regarding direct attempts to manipulate this market
>would also be of interest. Reply here or send Email.
 
There was 50$ or so upward pop to around 185$/troy oz. when the P&F
announcement was made and then it leveled between 145 and 165 for a
while.  After that it has been steadily dropping due to Russian selling,
a large platinum-palladium mine coming on line in Montana, and the
worsing world economy to a low of about 75 to 85 dollars.  Recently,
it rose to a 100$ on word that two Japanese companies are producing
catalytic convertors to remove NOx and CO from auto exhaust by utilizing
a thin coating of Palladium and reducing an amount of platinum
previously used.  Also maybe 3$ of that rise might have been due to
the recent `cold fusion successes' announced.  However, the last
announcement in the "Wall Street Jounal" to the effect of an extremely
thin coating of Palladium was effective, probably took back most of that
3$ gain.  The economy is ruling supreme so the price is still below
100$ around 96$ last I saw.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.12 / MUNGER EDWARD /  Re: Not dead yet?!?!
     
Originally-From: jem6892@zeus.tamu.edu (MUNGER, JAMES EDWARD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not dead yet?!?!
Date: 12 Jul 91 05:05:24 GMT
Organization: Academic Computing Services, Texas A&M University

In article <1991Jul11.080103.543@wpi.WPI.EDU>, entropy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C
 Foard) writes...
>
>I thought cold fusion was dead?
>
>Sounds like monty python :-)
 
	No, it doesn't 8^D.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-                     James Munger --  jem6892@zeus.tamu.edu                   -
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-  I...I never wanted to do any of this.  I never wanted to be a lumberjack,   -
-  talking about Scotch Pines and buttered scones.  I always wanted to be....  -
-  a weather forecaster!   Leaping from cloud to cloud as they fill the mighty -
-  rivers of East Texas.  The cumulus.....the altostratus....the cirrus....    -
-  the mighty cumulonimbus!  With my best rain guage by my side!  We'd sing... -
-  sing......sing......                                                        -
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjem6892 cudfnMUNGER cudlnEDWARD cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.13 / Mark North /  Re: Not dead yet?!?!
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not dead yet?!?!
Date: 13 Jul 91 18:33:54 GMT

entropy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C Foard) writes:
 
>I thought cold fusion was dead?
 
It is dead but the corpse is still twitching.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Not dead yet?!?!
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not dead yet?!?!
Date: 15 Jul 91 07:57:35 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
 
>entropy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C Foard) writes:
 
>>I thought cold fusion was dead?
 
>It is dead but the corpse is still twitching.
 
No, it's a zombie that can't be killed and it's coming back to haunt you.
 
Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.15 / Terry Bollinger /  Palladium Hydride References for "A TWIST OF RIBBON"
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium Hydride References for "A TWIST OF RIBBON"
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1991 14:24:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
======== Copyright protection begins with (and includes) this line ========
 
 
     Appendix A -- Palladium Hydride References for "A TWIST OF RIBBON"
 
 
                             Terry B. Bollinger
                          4421 North Star, Apt 235
                            Irving, Texas 75038
 
                               July 14, 1991
 
 
     Copyright 1991 by Terry B. Bollinger.  Unlimited copying, trans-
     mission, and redistribution of complete, unaltered copies of this
     document in electronic, magnetic, electromagnetic, or printed form
     is permitted, provided that all such copies include this copyright
     notice, are not used for direct or indirect financial profit, and
     are provided free of charge to all recipients.
 
 
BACKGROUND
 
The references given below include many historical references on palladium
hydride and deuteride systems, but only one "cold fusion" reference -- a
report describing a carefully performed palladium hydride experiment done
at Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
 
The intent of my research when I developed this reference list was to
determine whether there is any type of solid-state system that could (at
least in principle) support the existence of heavy particle fermi band
solitons.  This objective led quickly to palladium hydride -- but not to
the "cold fusion" literature.  The "cold fusion" literature I encountered
during this literature search generally exhibited only a rather
superficial knowledge of palldium hydride physics and chemistry, and for
that reason was of little value for evaluating my heavy particle band
soliton proposal.
 
The single exception to this was the Oak Ridge paper, which is carefully
done and appears to provide experimental evidence for the existence of
highly unusual solid-state effect in some palladium hydride systems.
Whether or not such effect would are any connection to heavy particle band
solitons is clearly very much open to debate, but it does at least provide
a data point indicating sufficient unknown behavior in palladium hydride
systems to permit the existence of some type of novel quantum effect.
 
My net conclusion from this exploration of PdHx literature is that while
past work does not provide any clear proof of the existence of heavy
particle band solitons in palladium hydride systems, it does show that
PdHx systems are sufficiently complex and poorly understood even today
that such an effect could probably exist without necessarily having been
recognized.  Perhaps more importantly, data such as the detection of
atomic hydrogen and deuterium tunnelling via the SPOTS NMR technique seem
to provide strong hints that the critical prerequisite of band formation
for atomic hydrogen isotopes is fairly plausible.  In combination with
predictive modeling, similar experimental methods might help prove or
disprove the existence of heavy particle band and soliton phenomena in
palladium hydride systems.
 
The references themselves are in no particular order.  Some of the most
interesting ones come later in the list, for example.  Many of them are
cryogenic studies that look at ordering effects at low temperatures,
rather than at room temperature.
 
                        --------------------
 
     1.  O. Blaschko, R. Klemencic, and P. Weinzierl, "Lattice dynamics of
beta-PdD0.78 at 85 K and ordering effects at 75 K," Physical Review B, Vol
24 No 3 (1 Aug 1981), pp 1552-1555.
 
Abstract:  The phonon dispersion relations of PdD0.78 have been measured
by inelastic neutron scattering at temperatures slightly above and below
the order-disorder transition.  The acoustic modes are not sensitive to
the ordering process and are somewhat higher in frequency than the
corresponding modes in PdD0.63.  The optic frequencies in the disordered
phase of PdD0.78 are equal to those of PdD0.63.  After ordering, a slight
increase was observed in some transverse branches.
 
Comments:  A good discussion of some of the interesting vacancy ordering
effects found in PdH compounds, which may be indicative of long-range
coherency effects.
 
 
     2.  O. Blaschko, P. Fratzl, and R. Klemencic, "Model for the
structural changes occurring at low temperatures in PdDx," Physical Review
B, Vol 24 No 1 (1 July 1981), pp 277-282.
 
Abstract:  A structural model for the short-range-ordered state in PdDx,
with 0.7 < x <= 0.78, observed at low temperatures, is proposed.  The
model describes the complicated diffuse intensity contours with "mixed"
microdomains consisting of cells of the NinMo type.  A simple distortion,
i.e., a relaxation of the D atoms towards vacant sites, is introduced in
the "mixed" microdomain and accounts for the measured intinsity
asymmetry.  Furthermore, a measurement of the intensities of the
superlattice reflections in the long-range-ordered Ni4Mo structure is
presented, and its result is reproduced by calculation, when the same
relaxation towards the vacancy is assumed.  Finally an important Debye-
Waller factor for the superlattice reflections is found.
 
 
     3.  O. Blaschko, P. Fratzl, and R. Klemencic, "Model for the
structural changes occurring at low temperatures in PdDx;  II. Extension
to lower concentrations," Physical Review B, Vol 24 No 11 (1 Dec 1981), pp
6486-6490.
 
Abstract:  The concept of "mixed" microdomains presented in a previous
paper for the description of the complicated diffuse intensity contours
occurring in PdDx at low temperatures for x > 0.71 has been extended to
describe the diffuse scattering at lower concentrations, i.e., near 0.65.
A diffuse neutron scattering experiment in PdD0.69 is presented and the
results in this intermediate-concentration range can easily be explained
in the framework of the extended model.  The model shows that the simple
isointensity contours at lower concentrations can be described by "mixed"
microdomains whose components are cells having a (100) mirror plane.  The
transition to the complicated contours for x > 0.71 occurs when in the
composition of the "mixed" domain the contirbution of cells asymmetric
relative to the (100) plane is progressively increased at higher
concentrations.
 
 
     4.  O. Blaschko, "Fermi-surface imaging effect in the D short-range
order of PdDx," Physical Review B, Vol 29 No 9 (1 May 1984), pp 5187-5189.
 
Abstract:  A Fermi-surface imaging effect is proposed to explain the
concentration-dependent D short-range order in the vicinity of the (1,1/
2,0) point of PdDx with 0.7 < x < 0.78.  Within a rigid-band approximation
the shape of the Fermi surface in PdD0.75 is deduced from that calculated
by Gupta and Freeman for stoichiometric PdH.  In PdD0.75 the obtained
Fermi surface shows flat portions and 2kF vectors close to the (1,1/2,0)
points.
 
 
     5.  O. Blaschko and J. Pleschiutschnig, "Chainlike hydrogen ordering
in alpha-ScDx systems," Physical Review B, Vol 40 No 8 (15 Sept 1989-I),
pp 5344-5349.
 
Abstract:  Hydrogen ordering is investigated in the alpha-ScDx system for
two concentrations x = 0.19 and x = 0.33 by diffuse neutron-scattering
techniques.  The results reveal the formation of chains, consisting of
pairs of hydrogen atoms located on second-neighbor tetrahedral
interstitial sites along the hexagonal direction.  The results are similar
to those found previously in alpha-LuDx.  The differences between alpha-
ScDx and alpha-LuDx give evidence for a chain formation due to a lowering
of coherency stresses.
 
 
     6.  T.E. Ellis, C.B. Satterthwaite, M.H. Mueller, and T.O. Brun,
"Evidence for H (D) Ordering in PdHx (PdDx)," Physical Review Letters, Vol
42 No 7 (12 Feb 1979), pp 456-458.
 
Abstract:  Resistivity, annealing, and neutron-diffraction studies of PdHx
and PdDx, provide evidence for ordering of the H and D atoms on the
octahedral interstitial sublattice.  Neutron diffraction results on a
PdD0.76 single crystal indicate that the D atoms order on the fcc
interstitial lattice with every fifth (4,2,0) plane vacant and all others
filled, corresponding to the Ni4Mo structure.
 
 
     7.  Hector E. Avram and Robin L. Armstrong, "Low-Temperature
Evolution of the Proton Magnetic Resonance Line Shape in beta-Phase
Palladium Hydride," Journal of Low Temperature Physics, Vol 69 Nos 5/6
(1987), 391-400.
 
Abstract:  Measurement of the proton magnetic resonance absorption line
shape in beta-phase palladium hydride indicate that there is no short-
range ordering associated with the order-disorder phase transition that
occurs in the neighborhood of 50 K.  However, measurements of the line
shape in the range 10-30 K show a change from a Gaussian to a non-Gaussian
profile.  This effect is not related to the order-disorder phase
transition.  A possible explanation in terms of thermally assisted
tunneling is proposed.
 
 
     8.  Lawrence R. Pratt and J. Eckert, "Molecular dynamics of a dilute
solution of hydrogen in palladium," Physical Review B, Vol 39 No 18 (15
June 1989-II), pp 13170-13174.
 
Abstract:  Molecular-dynamics results on a dilute solution of H in Pd are
presented and compared with available incoherent inelastic neutron-
scattering results.  The embedded-atom model adopted here does a good job
of describing the H-Pd atomic forces probed by incoherent inelastic
neutron scattering.  The time correlation functions associated with the
computed spectras are strongly damped and indicative of the anharmonicity
that has been suggested as the principle contribution to the anomolous
isotope dependence of the superconducting transtion temperature in PdH.
These results highlight the fact that the H-atom vibrations in Pd-H
solutions are low-frequency, large-amplitude vibrations relative to the
vibrations of H atoms in usual covalent interactions.  The rms
displacement of the H atom from its mean position in the center of the Pd
octahedron compares favorably with the available neutron-diffraction
results.
 
 
     9.  M.M. Beg and D.K. Ross, "The quasielastic scattering of cold
neutrons from the beta-phase of palladium hydride," Journal of Physics C:
Solid State Physics (Great Britain), Vol 3 (1970), pp 2487-2500.
 
Abstract:  The cold neutron time of flight technique has been used to
study the diffusive motions of hydrogen in the beta-phase of palladium
hydride.  The quasielastic scattering was measured at 20 degrees C, 100
degrees C, 150 degrees C, and 200 degrees C.  The data were found to be
well predicted by Lorentzians broadened by the appropriate resolution
function.  In contrast to the results obtained by Skold and Nelim in the
alpha-phase, the dependence of the broadening on momentum transfer was not
as predicted by the Chudley-Elliot model for jumps between octahedral
sites.  It was, however, well fitted by a model which included the
possibility of jumps between octahedral and tetrahedral interstitial sites
as well as octahedral ones.  The resultant diffusion coefficients were
described by the expression D = 1.1 * 10^-3 exp ( -3380 / RT ) cm^2 s^-1.
At 100 degrees C this agrees with the macroscopic diffusion coefficient
measured by Wicke and Bohmholdt, but the tempareature dependence of their
results indicated the much higher value of 5700 +or- 200 cal for the
activation energy.  The predicted jump time extrapolated to 250 K, 10^-10
s, is a factor 50 less than the value obtained from the measurements of
the spin-lattice time in the nmr experiments of Burger, and possible
sources of this discrepancy are discussed.
 
 
     10.  Hector E Avram and Robin L Armstrong, "Effects of tunnelling on
proton magnetic resonance transient responses in beta-phase palladium
hydride," J. Phyics C: Solid State Phys., Vol 20 (1987), pp 6305-6314.
 
Abstract:  A comprehensive study of the effects of hydrogen atom
tunnelling on proton magnetic resonance transient responses is reported
for beta-phase palladium hydride.  Data for beta-PdHx are presented for
concentrations
X = 0.80, 0.75 and 0.71 at 40 K and are characteristic of data taken over
the temperature range 30 to 80 K.  It is shown that the free-induction
decay signal can be represented by the same empirical function for each
concentration studied.  The ratio of second to fourth moments deduced by
fitting this function to the data is consistent with a random distribution
of hydrogen atoms over the octahedral sites of the Pd lattice.  However,
the moments themselves are reduced from their rigid lattice values as a
result of the tunnelling of the hydrogen atoms.  A solid-echo study shows
that the direct dipolar coupling between protons is much more important
than indirect coupling.  The presence of a Hahn echo is related to the
distribution of Knight shifts in this non-stoichiometric alloy.  The
characteristics of this echo are documented.
 
 
     11.  C.J. Carlile and D.K. Ross, "An experimental verification of the
Chudley-Elliot model for the diffusion of hydrogen in alpha-phase Pd/H,"
Solid State Communications (Great Britain), Vol 15 (1974), pp 1923-1927.
 
Abstract:  Measurements have been made of quasi-elastic neutron scattering
from hydrogen in a single crystal of palladium in the alpha-phase.  The
energy broadening was obtained for Q vectors in the (200) direction at 573
K and in the (220) direction at 623 K out to a maximum Q value of 2.0
Angstrom^-1.  These were found to be in good agreement with the Chudley-
Elliot model for residence times of 4.31 and 2.84 ps respectively.
 
 
     12.  Herbert H. Johnson, "Hydrogen-vacancy trapping and detrapping
kinetics," Scripta Metallurgica, Vol 23 (1989), pp 1203-1206.
 
Comments:  Lists hydrogen-vacancy relaxation times and diffusion
activation energies for Al, Cu, Ni, Fe, and Pd.
 
 
     13.  P. Brill and J. Voitlaender, "Palladium and Proton Knight Shift
in Palladium Hydride," Berichte der Bunsenges. physic. Chem., Vol 77 No 12
(1973), pp 1097-1103.
 
Abstract:  The nuclear magnetic resonance of ^105 PD has been observed in
alpha-PdHn for the first time.  The resonant field was measured at 75
degrees C as a function of hydrogen pressure p within the entire alpha
phase region.  A linear relationship between Knight shift and hydrogen
concentration has been established by comparison with the p(n) absorption
isotherm at 75 degrees C.  Moreover, it has been found that the ^105 Pd
Knight shift K and the susceptibility chi of alpha-PdHn are linearly
related.  From the K - chi dependence a value of -(1.80 +or- 014)% for the
Knight shift in pure palladium metal at 75 degrees C and a value of -(1.49
+/- 015)% for PdH0.025 at 75 degrees C could be determined.  This may be
attributed to the decreasing 4d spin susceptibility within the alpha phase.
 
The proton Knight shift in alpha-PdHn was also studied at 75 degrees C.
Similarly to the ^105 Pd Knight shift for the ^1 H Knight shift in alpha-
PdHn depends linearly on hydrogen concentration and susceptibility.
Knight shifts between -(93 +or- 8) ppm for PdH0.014 and -(50 +or- 5) ppm
for PdH0.035 relative to the bare proton have been obtained.
 
The proton Knight shift K in beta-PdHn was observed at 0 degrees, 25
degrees, 50 degrees, and 75 degrees C under hydrogen pressures between 0
and 700 Torr.  From a comparison of the p(K) isotherms with the
corresponding p(n) isotherms the ^1 H Knight shift in beta PdHn has been
obtained as a function of hydrogen concentration.  In the neighbourhood of
the phase transition the K(n) isotherms become temperature dependent and
show a hysteresis.  Within the pure beta phase the K(n) curves coincide
and show no temperature dependence.  For hydrogen concentrations greater
than 0.70 the Knight shift is linearly related to the hydrogen content.
With increasing hydrogen concentration the proton line shifts towards
lower applied magnetic fields.  For PdH0.62 a proton Knight shift of -
(13.5 +or- 0.5) ppm and for PdH0.75 a Knight shift of -(2 +or- 0.5) ppm
compared to the bare proton was obtained.  This increasing Knight shift
may be due to the vanishing d spin susceptibility and the increasing s
electron density at the proton site.
 
 
     14.  J. Zbasnik and M. Mahnig, "The Electronic Structure of Beta-
Phase Palladium Hydride," Z. Physik B, Vol 23 (1976), pp 15-21.
 
Abstract:  The electronic energy bands for some beta-phase palladium
hydrides have been computed using the augmented plane wave method.  The
Xalpha exchange potential was used.  It was found that the localized d-
type states are insensitive, in a relative sense, to the hydrogen
concentration, while the other states are constantly elevated in energy as
the hydrogen concentration is decreased.  Some differences are noticed
when the present bands are compared to the photoemission spectra, but the
computed Fermi level density of states is in good agreement with
electronic specific heat and magnetic susceptibility measurements.
 
 
     15.  K Wyrzykowski, A Rodzik and B Baranowski, "Optical transmission
and reflection of PdHx thin films," J. Phys.: Condensed Matter (United
Kingdom), Vol 1 (1989), pp 2269-2277.
 
Abstract:  Transmission and reflection data (0.5-5eV) for 300 Angstrom
PdHx thin films (x = 0.65, 0.85 and 0.92), hydrogenated under high-
pressure conditions are presented and compared with similar data for pure
palladium before and after hydrogen desorption.  The main difference in
transmission data consists of a pronounced peak around 1 eV in the
transmission of PdHx compared with the structureless continuously
increasing transmission in pure palladium.  This confirms the theoretical
expectation of Khan and Riedinger that the inter-band absorption edge in
PdH occurs at about 1 eV.  The reflectivity data were measurable for
PdH0.65 only; samples with higher hydrogen contents (x = 0.85 and x =
0.92) exhibit a reflectivity below 0.5%, which is thus not quantitatively
measurable by the method applied.  This high reduction in reflectivity
cannot be explained by the increase in surface roughness only.  A possible
contribution from the hydrogen itself is briefly discussed.
 
 
     16.  J.E. Worsham, Jr., M.K. Wilkinson and C.G. Shull, "Neutron-
Diffraction Observations on the Palladium-Hydrogen and Palladium-Deuterium
Systems," J. Phys. Chem. Solids, Vol 3 (1957), pp 303-310.
 
Abstract:  Neutron-diffraction investigations on powdered samples have
shown that both hydrogen and deuterium atoms in beta-phase Pd-H and Pd-D
are located in the octahedral positions of the palladium lattice.  Results
obtained for samples with low gas concentration are inconclusive in
determining the atomic positions in the alpha-phase, since at room
temperature only a small amount of gas enters this phase.  Although the
vibrational amplitudes of hydrogen and deuterium are similar to those
observed in other compounds, the total neutron scattering cross-section
for hydrogen in this system is abnormally low, indicating that the protons
are more nearly free than in the other hydrogen compounds.
 
 
     17.  Donald M. Nace and J.G. Aston, "Palladium Hydride.  I.  The
Thermodynamic Properties of Pd2H between 273 and 345 degrees K," Journal
of the American Chemical Society," Vol 79 No 14 (25 July 1957), pp 3619-
3623.
 
Abstract:  The 30 degree absorption isotherm for hydrogen dissolved in a
highly active palladium black has been measured and found to agree very
closely with an equilibirum desorption isotherm obtained previously by
Gillespie and Hall.  Partial molar heats of desorption for the system
palladium-hydrogen have been calculated from the isotherms.  Partial molar
heats of absorption and desorption of hydrogen from palladium hydride also
have been measured in an adiabatic calorimeter.  These  values are used to
calculate the free energy and the entropy change associated with the
formation of Pd2H from the elements at 30 degrees.  Agreement between the
calorimetric heats and those calculated from the temperature coefficient
of the equilibrium pressure establishes a reasonable criterion of
equilibrium for the system.
 
 
     18.  Donald M. Nace and J.G. Aston, "Palladium Hydride.  II.  The
Entropy of Pd2H at 0 degrees K," Journal of the American Chemical
Society," Vol 79 No 14 (25 July 1957), pp 3623-3626.
 
Abstract:  The heat capacity contribution due to the absorbed hydrogen
atoms in palladium hydride at a composition of nearly Pd2H was measured in
a newly constructed adiabatic calorimeter over small temperature intervals
from 16 to 340 degrees K.  A residual entropy of 0.59 +or- 0.18 e.u. has
been calculated from experimental data to exist at 0 degrees K.  It is
concluded that Pd2H does not approach a completely ordered state at low
temperatures and so is not a true compound.  The shape of the heat
capacity curve indicates the probability of covalently bound hydrogen at
low temperatures with a dissociation process occurring as the temperature
is varied.  More evidence for this model is to be given in the succeeding
paper.
 
 
     19.  Donald M. Nace and J.G. Aston, "Palladium Hydride.  III.
Thermodynamic Study of Pd2D from 15 to 303 degrees K.  Evidence for the
Tetrahedral PdH4 Structure in Palladium Hydride," Journal of the American
Chemical Society," Vol 79 No 14 (25 July 1957), pp 3627-3633.
 
Abstract:  The heat capacity of Pd2D has been measured from 15 to 152
degrees K and 280 to 300 degrees K for comparison with that of Pd2H to
verify a theoretical conclusion based on the shape of the lambda
transition in the latter.  For completeness certain points in the isotherm
and partial molal heats of absorption of deuterium in palladium have been
measured.  The heat capacities of Pd2H have been analyzed.  Reasonable
barrier heights and frequencies have been calculated to fit for a model
based on PdH4.7Pd at low temperatures.  To explain the heat capacities
above 120 degrees K, a dissociation process is postulated which involves a
decrease in the average number of hydrogen bonds as the temperature is
raised.  Hydrogen diffusion through palladium is conceived as a movement
of hydrogen atoms by a continuous combination of (1) rotation about a
parent palladium atom and (2) bonding to, and subsequent rotation about, a
neighboring palladium atom.  A new theory has been developed to explain
the phase separation and hysteresis in the absorption isotherm.
 
 
     20.  J.G. Aston and Paul Mitacek, Jr., "Structure of Hydrides of
Palladium," Nature, Vol 195 No 4836 (7 July 1962), pp 70-71.
 
A complete ascii-form reprint of this short paper is given below:
 
....
 
"The recent determinations of activation energies for slow processes in
palladium hydride [1,2] confirm new results obtained in this laboratory.
 
"The heat capacities of PdHx recently completed for x = 0.5 and x = 0.75
are show in Fig. 1 along with points for other concentrations.[3,4]
Between 35 degrees K and 85 degrees K the heat capacity is obviously
independent of the hydrogen concentration up to 0.75 H/Pd ratio.
 
            3 -|             * *
               |           *     *
     Cp        |          *       *
            2 -|         *          *
   (cal.       |        *              *  *  *  *
  deg.^-1      |       *
  mole^-1   1 -|     *
   of H2)      |    *
               |   *
            0 -+------|------|------|------|------|
              35     45     55     65     75     85
 
                      Temperature (degrees K)
 
  Fig. 1.  Cp of a mole of hygrogen in block palladium samples of ratio
  0.75, 0.50, 0.25 and 0.125 H/Pd and palldium powder sample of 0.50 H/Pd
  ratio between 35 degrees K and 85 degrees K.  [TB -- Individual data
  points have been ommitted from the ascii graph.]
 
"Warm drifts in the calorimetry were again noted.  Fig. 2 presents a
logarithmic plot of the warm drift versus the reciprocal temperature for
the earlier and new data from the slope of which activation energies were
obtained.[3]
 
          6.5 -|
               |
          5.5 -|         * 0.75 H/Pd from 200K to 250K
               |        *
          4.5 -|       /   0.125 H/Pd   * 0.125 H/Pd from 150K to 200K
  -ln heat     |      /   from        -
    rate  3.5 -|    *  * 200K     _ *
               |   /  / to      -
          2.5 -|    * 250K  _ *
               |   /      *
          1.5 -+--*----|------|------|------|
              3.5    4.5    5.5    6.5    7.5
 
       s           1/T x 10^-3 (degrees K)
 
  Fig. 2.  Plot of reciprocal of T versus ln rate of heat evolution to give
  activation energies for the three samples.
 
"These results, summarized in Table 1, provide clues leading to a model
consistent with modern ligand theory which leads dirctly to the observed
zero point entropy of Pd2H.  Neutron diffraction investigations place the
hydrogen atoms in the octahedral positions of the palladium lattice at
room temperature [5] and down to 20 degrees K (ref. 6).  In the proposed
model applied to the beta-phase, these hydrogens form sheets through
hydrogen bonding with the neighboring palladium atoms in the lattice.  A
square planar arrangement of hydrogens about the palladium atoms in these
sheets is favoured by resonance leading to the Waa term in the Lacher
quasi-chemical treatment.  The sheets can take right angle bends in any
direction, but never intersect.[7]
 
         "Table 1.  Activation Energies for Diffusion in PdHx
 
  Region of Drift      x = 0.125      0.25         0.50         0.75
  ----------------     --------     --------     --------     --------
  150 - 200 deg. K     2.9 kcal     2.9 kcal     no drift     no drift
  200 - 250 deg. K     6.4 kcal     6.4 kcal     no drift     5.5 kcal
 
"Simple numerology shows that at the composition Pd2H all palladium atoms
at the corners of the face-centered cubes are part of sheets, with
hydrogen midway between each palladium atom in the sheets and with no
hydrogen outside the sheets.  Above 0.50 H/Pd ratio cross planes of
hydrogen and palladium sheets begin to form.  This explains the sudden
change from metallic to non-metallic conduction around 0.50 H/Pd ratio
noted by Schindler et al.[8]
 
"In the alpha phase, hydrogen is randomly distibuted between corener
palladium atoms which are not part of sheets.  Thus at low temperatures,
due to resonance stabilization of the beta-phase, the alpha-phase has a
negligible concentration of hydrogen, as follows from the calculations of
Lacher.  Since resonance favours full occupation of the square planar
positions, at low temperatures all vacancies in the sheets will be filled.
 
"Below the heat capacity peak at 55 degrees K, PdH4 molecules librate
about an axis through the palladium atom and perpendicular to the fully
occupied planes.  As the temperature increases this libration turnes to
hindered rotation (ring diffusion) and as rotation starts the potential
barrier to rotation decreases (that is, the value of Waa decreases).  This
is a co-operative type phenomenon and gives the type of heat capacities
presented in Fig. 1.  Since the addition of more hydrogen to the sample
mererly forms larger sheets the heat capacity effect of the hydrogen is
concentration independent.
 
"At temperatures where vacancies in the sheets exist, diffusion to
neighbouring cells can occur through rotation (ring diffusion).  Such a
process, leading to filling of vacancies, is the cause of the warm drift
starting at 150 degrees K in the 0.125 H/Pd and 0.25 H/Pd compositions.
On rapid cooling, the system does not reach the equilibirum which favours
less vacancies.  Its slow establishment produces the warm drifts near 150
degrees K with activation energy of 2,900 calories per mole.  At 0.50 H/Pd
ratio and above the sheets of the beta-phase are filled and there can be
no lack of equilibrium with respect to the filling process.  By nuclear
magnetic resonance methods, valid at equilibrium, Spalthoff [1] measured
the activation energy of this neighbouring cell diffusion in a 0.64 H/Pd
ratio sample at equilibrium conditions and found an activation energy of
2,400 +or- 300 calories.
 
"The warm drifts at 200 degrees K and higher are due to long-range
diffusion from alpha- to beta-phase or from one sheet to another.  By
rapid cooling the sample cannot establish the true equilibrium which
requires less hydrogen in the alpha-phase.  The slow return to equilibrium
requires the long-range diffusion occurring above 200 degrees K with an
activation energy near 6,000 calories.  The 0.50 H/Pd ratio has no
incomplete sheets (no beta-phase vacancies) and therefore could not
exhibit a warm drift in this region.  Above 0.50 H/Pd ratio the sheets are
cross-linked to form a set of systems of sheets at right angles with no
vacancies in any single system.  Only with the resonance energy thus
available can the extra replulsion be overcome.
 
"The activation energy for long-range diffusion is the same as the
measured activation energy (6-8 kcal) for diffusion of hydrogen through
palladium,[9] as it should be.  Rapid cooling produces lack of equilibrium
with respect to the size of these units which is slowly restored by the
long-range diffusion.
 
"At the composition 0.50 H/Pd if certain hydrogens on palladium atoms
rotate through pi/2 the sheets suffer a sharp bend by pi/2.  Since this
rotation can occur at random, at equilibrium the situation is equivalent
numeralogically to that of ice.  There are three non-participating face-
centred palladium atoms to each corner one.  Since the species analogous
to water is PdH2 in each corner palladium atom, the basic unit is Pd4H2.
In keeping with this it was found [10] that the zero point entropy of two
Pd2H units in palldium black is 1.18 +or- 0.36 (2 x 0.59 +or- 0.18).  The
theoretical value is 0.82.
 
"We thank the National Science Foundation for its financial support in
connexion [sic] with this work.
 
                                    "J.G. Aston
                                     Paul Mitacek, Jun.
 
                         "Cryogenic Laboratory
                    College of Chemistry and Physics
                      Pennsylvania State University
 
"1  Spalthoff, W., Z. Phys. Chem., Vol 29, 258 (1961).
 2  Burger, J.P., Paulis, N.J., and Hass, W.P.A., Physica, Vol 27, No 6,
      514 (1961).
 3  For the lower concentrations, see Mitacek, jun., P., and Aston, J.G.,
      Nature, Vol 191, 271 (1961).
 4  Nace, D.M., and Aston, J.G., J. Amer. Chem. Soc., Vol 79, 3619 (1957).
 5  Warsham, J.G., Fr., Wilkinson, M.K., and Shull, C.G., J. Phys. Chem.
      Solids, Vol 3, 303 (1957).
 6  Schindler, A.I. (unpublished ork).  Schindler, from his intensities,
      has found evidence for hydrogen at tetrahedral sites in the
      neighborhood of the heat capacity peak.
 7  Lacher, J.G., Proc. Roy. Soc., A, Vol 161, 525 (1937).
 8  Schindler, A.I., Smith, R.J., and Kammer, W., Comm. 1, Intern. Inst.
      for Refrigeration, Copenhagen (August 1959).
 9  Barrer, R.M., Diffusion in and through Solids (Cambridge, 1941).
 10 Nace, D.M., and Aston, J.G., J. Amer. Chem. Soc., Vol 79, 3627 (1957)."
 
....
 
Comments:  Although many of the concepts contains are now out of date or
incomplete, this early Aston/Mitacek paper represents an important early
attempt to make theoretical sense out of the unusual data derived from
palladium hydride systems.  It is also rather amusing to note that the
recent "cold fusion" controvery is not the first time that experimenters
have had to explain unexpected heat outputs from palladium hydride
systems.  This and another Aston/Mitacek paper (see below) go into
considerable detail to formulate an explanation for "heat drifts" that
occur for certain Pd/H ratios a low temperatures.
 
 
     21.  J.G. Aston and Paul Mitacek, Jr., "Solutions of Hydrogen in
Palladium," Advances in Chemistry Series, Vol 39 (Nonstoichiometric
Compounds) (1963), pp 111-121.
 
Abstract:  The heat capacity curves of solutions of hydrogen in palladium
of certain compositions are used to throw light on the structures in the
palladium-hydrogen system.  The warming rate of the solutions after
heating has been used to identify two processes of diffusion.  A peak in
the heat capacity curve at 55 degrees K is connected with an anomoly in
the resistivity for solutions with the hydrogen-palladium ratio greater
than H/Pd = 0.5.  This connection, together with a change from metallic
conduction below this ratio to semiconduction behavior above, is used as
the basis for a model which also explains the diffusion processes.
 
Comments:  Essentially an expanded version of the short 1962 Aston/Mitacek
letter to Nature, which was given above in its entirety.
 
 
     22.   E.O. Wollan, J.W. Cable, and W.C. Koehler, "The Hydrogen Atom
Positions in Face Centered Cubic Nickel Hydride," J. Phys. Chem. Solids,
Vol 24 (1963), pp 1141-1143.
 
Abstract:  Neutron diffraction observations on the nickel-nickel hydride
system show that the hydrogen atoms occupy the octahedral sites of the
face centered cubic lattice.  The hydrogen to nickel atom ratio in the
hydride phase was found to be 0.6 +or- 0.1.  In these respects nickel and
palladium behave similarly.  The systems differ, however, in the one
important detail that the palladium hydride is stable at room temperature
whereas the nickel hydride is unstable.
 
Comments:  Of only modest relevance to palladium hydride work;  simply
shows that many of the structural issues of palladium hydride are shared
with other metallic hydride systems.
 
 
     23.  F.A., Lewis, The Palladium Hydrogen System, Academic Press,
London / New York, 1967.  See especially Chapter 9, "Investigations of
Changes of Lattice Structure and of Some Other Physical and Electrical
Properties as Functions of Hydrogen and Deuterium Contents," and Chapter
10, "Theoretical Models for the Pd/H and Related Systems."
 
 
     24.  R. Griessen, W.J. Venema, J.K. Jacobs, and F.D. Manchester,
"Electronic States of Concentrated Pd-H Alloys from de Haas-van Alphen
Measurements," pp 123-127 in Hydrides for Energy Storage (A.F. Andresen
and A.J. Maeland, eds.), Pergamon Press;  proceedings of an international
symposium held in Geilo, Norway, 14-19 August 1977.
 
Abstract of Griessen et al article:  The results of de Haas-van Alphen
measurements on palladium-hydrogen alloys, with hydrogen concentrations up
to 30 at. % H in Pd, show that for H/Pd ~< 0.06 the hydride remains in the
alpha-phase.  The observed decrease in the area of various extremal cross-
sections of the d-hole ellipsoids at X and L is found to be entirely due
to the lattice expansion induced by the interstitial hydrogen, and not to
the added hydrogen electrons.  For H/Pd ~> 0.07 the alloy cannot be
quenched in a metastable single phase state.  This leads to a sharp drop
in the Dingle temperature TD at H/Pd ~= 0.07.  Both TD and the dHvA
frequencies remain approximately constant at higher hydrogen
concentrations, as expected for a two phase alloy with incoherent
segregation.
 
First paragraph of article:
 
"The observation of oscillatory quantum effects has traditionally been
restricted to high quality single crystals of pure metals, very dilute
alloys and stoichiometric compounds.  We present here measurements of
quantum oscillatory effects in palldium-hydrogen alloys with hydrogen
concentrations up to 30%.  These are to our knowledge the first
measurements of quantum oscillations in concentrated transition metal
hydrides."
 
 
     25.  Earl L. Muetterties, ed., Transition Metal Hydrides; Marcel
Dekker, Inc. (New York), 1971.  See Palladium Hydride section, pp 21-23,
and its six corresponding references on page 30 (refs 55-56, 59-62).
 
Comments:  A good short, general introduction to issues in palladium
hydride chemistry.  Four of the palladium references from this book are
already included in this reference list.  The other two references are:
 
a. E.O. Wollan, J.W. Cable, and W.C. Koehler, J. Phys. Chem. Solids,
     Vol 24, 1141 (1963).
b. T.R.P Gibb, Jr., in Progress in Inorganic Chemistry, Vol 3
     (F.A. Cotton, ed.), Interscience, New York, 1962, pp 419-424."
 
 
     26.  C.D. Scott et al, "A Preliminary Investigation of Cold Fusion by
Electrolysis of Heavy Water," Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL/TM-
11322 (Nov 1989).
 
Abstract:  Several tests have been made with electrolytic cells utilizing
0.1 to 0.2 N LiOD in D2O as the electrolyte and a palladium cathode
surrounded by a wire-wound platinum anode operating at cathode current
densities of 100 to 600 mA/cm^2.  The cathodes ware swaged to diameters of
2.8 or 5.5 mm with 8.0 to 8.5 cm of active length and then annealed in
some tests.  The electrolyte temperature was controlled and heat was
removed by flowing water in a cooling jacket, and the cell was insulated.
Cooling water an electrolyte temperatures were determinted by
thermocouples;  neutron and gamma-ray spectra were measured;  and the
electrolyte was periodically analyzed for tritium.  In one test, an
internal wire coil of platinum coated with palladium black was used in a
closed system to recombine the electolytically generated D2 and O2 without
release of any off-gas.
 
The electrolyte was periodically sampled and electrolyte of the nominal
concentration was added to replace the volume withdrawn;  makeup D2O was
also added, when required, in those experiments which did not include a
recombiner.  Neutron and gamma-ray spectra were recorded on magnetic
media;  temperatures, coolant flow rate, and voltages were recorded and,
in the last two experiments, acquired by a computer data acquisition
system.
 
Tests up to 1000 h in duration were made, and in some experiments excess
power was detected for periods of many hours, usually in the range of 5 to
15%.  However, during one 12-h period, excess power of up to 50% was
observed.  On three separate occasions, the neutron count rate exceeded
the background by three standard deviations;  in addition, an apparent
transient increase in tritium in the electrolyte by at least a factor of
25 occurred during one test.
 
Text from section 4, Conclusions:
 
"Preliminary tests of the electrolysis of D2O utilizing LiOD electrolytes
and palladium electrodes have not confirmed the "cold fusion" phenomena.
However, there have been several apparently anomalous neutron count rates,
one unexplained 25-fold increase in tritium, and periods of many hours of
apparent excess energy.  None of these results has been precisely
reproduced, nor can they be explained by conventional nuclear or chemical
theory."
 
Comments:  The slight net energy production over a period of hundreds of
hours for the closed-system experiment labeled CF-4 is notable for the
rigor with which it was obtained.
 
However, the paper provides very little insight into the conditions needed
to produce such unusual excursions, since (by design) it makes no attempt
to correlate heat production and other anomalies to any detailed theories
about the complex structure and dynamic behavior of palladium hydrides.
Without some specification of which detailed aspects of PdHx structure and
dynamics are critical, easy reproduction of the Scott result is unlikely.
 
                          --------------------
 
I do not have copies of the following references, but have included them
here because from their abstracts they appear to be applicable.  These
references are given exactly as they appear in Chemical Abstracts, with
their Chemical Abstracts reference numbers.
 
     27.  112: 127527p  Solubility of hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium in
palladium metal.  Powell, G. L.;  Laesser, R.  (Oak Ridge 4-12 Plant, Oak
Ridge, TN  USA).  Report 1988, Y-2395;  Order No. DE89005304, 41 pp.
(Eng).  Avail. Ntis.  From Energy REs. Abstr. 1989, 14(6), Abstr. No.
11503.  The soly. of H, D, and T in Pd was measured, described anal. over
a wide temp. range (296 to 1460 K), and used to calc. enthalpies of
reaction, isotope sepn. factors, and phase boundaries.
 
Comments:  Although it is not classified, the close relationship of this
document to tritium separation may make it "sensitive" in the following
sense:  If you order it and you don't work for another national lab or
similar government agency, don't be surprised if your name gets added to a
FBI list of "people who order documents that aren't classified, but whom
we really don't think should be asking for such documents."  After a
curious exchange with a librarian I received the distinct impression that
this may be such a document, and I therefore decided to pass on requesting
it.
 
                           --------------------
 
The next five intriguing references are all taken from a single issue
(Vol. 164, No. 1) of Z. Phys. Chem (Munich), which is the English
translation of the widely respected German physical chemistry journal.
Although all but one of them deals with niobium, niobium hydroxide, and
tantalum, they are all involved with the general issue of proton tunneling
and hopping in metallic compounds.
 
 
     28.  112: 43126u  Nonadiabatic tunneling and diffusion of hydrogen in
niobium.  Wipf, Helmut;  Neumaier, Karl  (Inst. Festkoerperphys., Tech.
Hochsch. Darmstadt, D-6100 Darmstadt, Fed. Rep. Ger.).  Z. Phys. Chem.
(Munich) 1988 (Pub. 1989).  164(1), 953-62 (Eng).  The tunneling and local
diffusion of H interstitials in Nb(OH)x (0.0002 <= x <= 0.011) was
investigated by neutron spectroscopy in the temp. range between 0.05 and
160 K.  The expts. demonstrate the transition from a low-temp. tunneling
behavior (T <= 10 K, inelastic spectra) to a jump diffusion behaviour at
elevated temps.  (T >= 10 K, quasielastic spectra).  Up to ~70 K, both
tunneling and jump diffusion diffusion is controlled by nonadiabatic
(direct) coupling of the H to conduction electrons.  Above ~70 K, the jump
diffusion behavior is increasingly dominated by interaction with phonons.
 
 
     29.  112: 43127v  Tunneling of trapped hydrogen in niobium:
dynamics, density of states, and isotope effect.  Morr, W.;  Mueller, A.;
Weiss, G.;  Wipf, H.  (Inst. Angew. Phys. II, Univ. Heidelberg, D-6900
Heidelberg, Fed. Rep. Ger.).  Z. Phys. Chem. (Munich) 1988 (Pub. 1989).
164(1), 963-8 (Eng).  We present ultrasonic studies on H tunneling systems
in superconducting and normal conducting Nb.  In the superconducting state
an absorption max. is found around 3.5 K for H and 5 K for D at
frequencies of 90 MHz.  This is caused by a relaxation process where the
relaxation rate of the tunneling systems is detd. by their interaction
with thermally excited quasiparticles.  Moreover, the shift of the
absorption max. can be explained almost perfrectly by the relaxation rate
being proportional to the square of the resp. tunneling matrix element.
 
 
     30.  112: 43128w  Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) studies of
hydrogen tunneling and trapping in niobium.  Pfiz, T.;  Messer, R.;
Seeger, A.  (Inst. Phys., Max-Planck-Inst. Metallforsch., D-7000
Stuttgart, 80 Fed. Rep. Ger.).  Z. Phys. Chem. (Munich)  1988  (Pub.
1989).  164(1), 969-74  (Eng).  Measurements of the spin-lattice
relaxation rate Gamma1 of protons in the system NbOH were performed from 2
K up to 450 K.  A relaxation max. at about 200 K is attributed to the
reorientation of H trapped by O.  The low-temp Gamma1 is compatible with
recent neutron scattering expts.  On the basis of the present
measurements, a model for the OH complexes in Nb is proposed which
incorporates the results of neutron-scattering as well as internal-
friction expts.
 
 
     31.  112: 43129x  Diffusion coefficient of hydrogen in niobium and
tantalum.  Vargas, Patricio;  Miranda, Lorenzo;  Lagos, Miguel  (Dep.
Fis., Univ. Santiago, Santiago, Chile 5659).  Z. Phys. Chem. (Munich)
1988  (Pub. 1989).  164(1), 975-83  (Eng).  The current data on H
diffusion in Ta at 15-550 K and in Nb at 135-400 K can be quant. explained
by the small polaron theory.  The exptl. data can be understood assuming
ground-state to ground-state tunneling between interstitial sites with
tetrahedral symmetry plus a thermally activated contribution due to
tunneling between excited states having octahedral symmetry.  The break of
the diffusivity curve at T ~= 250 K follows naturally.  It evidences the
transition between the tetrahedral and octahedral hopping.  For Ta the
second break of the diffusivity curve at T ~= 20 K indicates the
recovering of the ground-state hopping with tetrahedral symmetry.  Below T
~= 10 K and T ~= 7 K for Nb the diffusion coeff. becomes independent of T.
 
 
     32.  112: 43133u  Measurements of hydrogen diffusion coefficient in
the alpha-phase concentration range of the palladium-hydrogen system by
the diffusion-elastic technique.  Kufudakis, A.;  Cermak, J.;  Lewis,
F.A.  (Inst. Phys., 180 40 Prague, Czech.).  Z. Phys. Chem. (Munich)
1988  (Pub. 1989).  164(1), 1013-18  (Eng).  The diffusion-elastic
technique (DE) was applied to measure the diffusivity D of H in the alpha-
phase of the Pd/H sytem at 50 degrees and to investigate the influence of
boundary and initial conditions on derived value of D.  The agreement
between exptl. curves and theor. shapes and coincidence with available
data indicate a good fit of the model to the chosen exptl. regimes.  High
sensitivity of the DE-effect as comparted to the Gorsky effect allows a
close check of this fit which is significant for a correct interpretation
of involved processes and results.
 
 
========= Copyright protection ends with (and includes) this line =========
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.15 / Chuck Sites /  Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
Date: 15 Jul 91 21:40:46 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
   Anyone that has been following the discussion on the hypothesis of
"Heavy Heat" will realize there are two directions in this discussion:
hydrogen currents verses Ohm's law.  I'm glad that it brought some critical
thinking to the possibility that excess heat in cold fusion experiments
may not need fusion to resolve the energy balance problem. Even if my proposed
solution is proven to be wrong (which I'm still going to try argue away
later ;-), at least people are now looking at how to treat the QM solid state
problems of hydrated metal systems;  That is, heavy particle banding from
periodic potentials.  Understanding this quantum-mechanical phenomenon is a
necessary condition for gaining insight into Terry's beautifully thought out
"TWIST OF RIBBON" conjecture. Since his conjecture requires understanding
of solitons, this necessitates deep understanding of band theory.
 
   The excess heat that Pon's and Fleischmann saw was real (did I get him
right Dieter? ;-).  The last I heard was they were trying to resolve three
different problems.  One was a constant low-level excess heat output.  The
next was high-level heat bursts.  The third was tritium production at the
surface.  What I'm trying to argue with "Heavy-Heat" is a solution for the
first problem; constant low-level excess heat.  The same explanation can be
used to  in tackle the excess heat in the H2O nickel experiments of Mills
et al.  Terry's deep hypothesis that heavy particle band solitons
could cause a violation of the conservation of baryon number, might
explain the heat bursts.  These heat bursts are very hard to explain away
without invoking some nuclear solution.  It would not take too many of these
TWISTY events to cause a bursty high level excess heat.  The conditions
needed to create heavy particle band solitons are unique and could be stress
induced and thus transient.  For the problem of tritium production
at the surface, this is absolutely a nuclear effect. With the indulgence
of the net, I would like to briefly speculate on this effect later on.
Prepare yourself, because this little bit of speculation comes right
out of "Twist of Ribbon". But first let me answer some of the arguments
against proton resistive heating (Heavy Heat).
 
    To some people, there appears to be a problem with my hypothesis of
"Heavy Heat".  This has to do with how one looks at the foundations of
basics of electricity; Ohm's law. V=IR.  This relationship is taught
as being fundamental. It certainly was something I thought was a
fundamental relation. However, it wasn't until I started looking at the
case of hydrogen in palladium and nickel that my belief in this began to
change. This has to do with how one looks at quantum-mechanical causes
of electron-current, electron-resistance, and potential difference as
measured by electrons.  Dale Bass made it very clear that a charge carrier,
regardless of it being a proton or electron, is still a charge carrier
and will effect effect voltage, current, and resistance.  It certainly
will if you look at protons and electrons as point charges.  However
at a certain point, at the quantum-mechanical distances of atoms, point
charges are no longer a good description of what is actually going on.
When electrons interact with the nucleus of an atom, they interacts quantum
mechanically.  If the interaction is a disallowed quantum interaction,
the electron should continue to go it's own way.  One could argue that
such an interaction involves the transfer of momentum, and thus the transfer
of energy which should effect quantum state of the electron and
nucleus.  That is absolutely true.  However, electrons in a conductor
are not in a discrete energy state. They have energies in a broad
conduction band. Small kinetic energy transfers by coulumb interactions
between the nucleus and electrons do not effect the overall energy band
state of the electrons. Because of this, no photons are released by a change
of electron energy states, instead energy is transfered to the proton,
a little at a time. These interactions can occur over a long range, and
this is what I suggesting is the driving force (EMF) of a proton current.
At the same time, because the electrons are still in the conduction band
state, there is no effect on their flow.  Do you see the point I'm driving
at?
 
    Dale did bring up one point where he points out; this ignores
how charges interact over the long range across a metal lattice.  Charge
regardless of how it interacts by QM, should effect voltage, current, and
resistance.  Opposites charges attract, so, as more protons are pumped
into the metal, more electrons should want to hang around and cause
resistance.  At the same time, this over-all positive charge should
attract more electrons from the electro-motive force (EMF).  From the
point of view of an amp-meter current should increase.  Very true,
but consider that for each proton charge, in a Pd lattice pumped
to 0.6 H/Pd for example, eventually the overall charge difference will
be balanced.  In other words, the charge difference to the overall
electrolytic system after this loading stage will be constant.  After
this charge balance is achieved, quantum-mechanics takes over.
 
   Conduction electrons in a metal are in broad band QM energy states.
This is what causes metallic surfaces to be so reflective.  Photon interaction
with these electrons are in discrete energy amounts but the wavelengths of the
photons allowed to interact is large.  This visually defines broad energy
band states.  If the band energy state is shifted up or down or made
narrower with respect to the photon wavelengths, it will only allow reflection
of photons with an energy that falls in that energy band.  This is the reason
some metals have a tint of color to the light that is reflected from them.
Gold, and copper are two metals that have such shifted band energy states.
Most other metals have conduction band energy states that are much broader
and thus appear silver.  Since the p and d conduction electrons are in
broad band QM state, a little kinetic pushing and shoving between these
electrons and the infuse hydrogen, will go unnoticed with regard to the
p and d electron energy states.  In other words, if the electrons quantum
state is a disallow state with respect to the hydrogen, a kinetic
interaction can transfer energy but it will not move the electrons
out of the conduction band.  This is a point that I may not have been
too clear about in earlier posts.  So you see, Heavy Heat does not
violate the conservation of energy. Its just that you can not balance
the energy by looking at electrons only and treating the system as
a resistive heater.
 
   When one measures voltage, current, and resistance, one is
not measuring simple point charges. Instead one is measuring
the electrons in the conduction band, and how electrons interact
with the surrounding atoms quantum-mechanically. In almost all cases
when we measure energy based on Ohm's law, it usually has to do
with electron motion across quantum-mechanically allowed energy states.
Its this simple fact of solid state physics that made me suggest that
in this *very* special case of hydrated metals, we may be missing the true
values of the energy balance by measuring only electron flow.  There are
phenomena where quantum mechanics causes violation of Ohm's law.  For example
Josephson junctions are such a case.  When any voltage is applied, electron
current immediately goes to zero implying infinite resistance, but when the
voltage is zero one gets a current with a value defined quantum-mechanically,
but not defined by Ohm's law (0/R = I and I<>0). The point is, that in the
realm of QM odd things can happen. In the case of hydrogen in Pd, I think
something just as odd is going on, and it's global effect is the appearance
of excess heat.
 
I hope this has answered some of the problems people have pointed out
with regard to the heavy heat and proton resistive heating. Now it's
time to really test the limits of imagination and mental concentration
by tackling the problem of tritium production by electrolysis of D2O.
with Pd cathodes as a surface effect.  Terry Bollinger has suggested
that some low-energy solid state systems could cause violation
of the conservation of baryon number, and the method to do so is
to cause baryon-containing particles to jump from energy states that
resemble momentum-domain Dirac delta functions (heavy particle energy bands)
to energy states defined by spatial-domain Dirac delta functions (internal
particle energy).  That is the delocalized energy of band states concentrates
to localized energy states.  Although rare, such transitions do occur in
solid state physics in the form of solitons.  Basically these are localized
(intergap) energy states that normally form out the band states by a
localized  perturbations of pi-electrons.  A picture of this quantum state
with respect to the polyacetylene may help to clarify to the reader what
such a quantum state would look like.
 
   H     H      H     H     H     H     H          Here is a picture of the
   |     |      |     |     |     |     |          chemical structure of this
   C     C   *  C     C     C     C     C          unusual, conductive 1D
//  \  //  \   /  \\ /  \\ /  \\ /  \\ /           polymer; polyacetylene.
      C      C      C     C     C     C            (Trans) isomer of (CH)x
      |      |      |     |     |     |            * is the location of the
      H      H      H     H     H     H            localized soliton state.
 
 ===========================================       The quantum-mechanical
 ======== Conduction band Pi* electrons ====       picture of the conduction
 ===========================================       band state, the localized
                                                   soliton state, and the
             --   Soliton state                    valence band state. One
                                                   interesting point, is that
 ===========================================       these soliton states are
 ======= Valence band Pi ===================       mobile, and can look like
 ===========================================       a discrete particle with
                                                   with it's own properties.
 
What makes this state so unusual, and causes the violation of baryon
conservation is a very twisted (In both meanings of the word).  The
state transition between the conduction band to the soliton state
does not allow proper integration of psi^2 probability.  In other
words transitions of this type could cause the internal wave functions
of the particle to be spread all over the place (literally across
universe).  With electrons, there is no problem with this.  Such
disappear-reappear acts are quite common with electrons in the quantum
state transitions.  However, heavy baryon containing particles in
such transitions are absolutely effected.  Short range forces like
the strong-force as mediated by pion exchange, would literally fall
off to zero in such a state. (Is this true of gluon exchange Terry?
I doubt it and thus baryon number would be conserved.) Still, the
point that these states could literally blow heavy particles into
their basic components (possibly resulting other particle types)
is sound.  Perhaps the old PEP debate of James White could be
argued by such an effect. It's something similar to James' argument
that I plan to in this next bit of the speculation.
 
    There is a good deal of experimental evidence that tritium production
by electrolysis of D2O with palladium is a surface effect.  This experimental
evidence has been consider controversial because the formation appears to
violate all evidence from high temperature fusion.  The branching ratios
for D+D fusion to D(D,p)T and D(D,n)He3 which is normally 50/50 is
off to about 98/2. Also, the energy of the reaction products seem
incredibly low.  These problems must be resolved.  Consider band theory
as a description of the conducting electrodes and electrolyte in an
electrolytic cell.  There are two of the energy bands states for the system;
the conduction band states of the electrodes, and the conduction band state
for the electrolyte.  At the interface of an electrode and electrolyte, the
difference in the energy bands must be reconciled.  It seems very likely that
such a reconciliation could form a soliton like quantum state across the
whole interface.  Electronic soliton states could be used to explain the easy
separation of molecules into their ionic components at the electrode-
electrolyte interface.  Could a similar soliton quantum state mechanism
exist for a heavier particle band states (like those formed by deuterons
entering and leaving a highly saturated deuterated metal)?
 
    At the interface of an electrode there is a lot going on.  It would seem
to me that quantum soliton states could be quite dense across the surface of
the electrode.  This implies that pairs of deuteron soliton states could exist
in close proximity.  Electrons coming off the cathode, could also be involved
in this deuteron soliton state pairs.  They might act as a knife, separating
the positive charge bearing components of a deuteron soliton state.  To help
one visualize this state, consider quantum state of a single electron
orbiting between two deuterons in a highly unstable soliton state. Or
perhaps all three are in transition to soliton states. Eventually something
take up the electron, but could the electron work a neutron loose from the
soliton?  It might, if it is taken up by the proton, in a (D+D)+e -> (D+n +
p+e) -> T + p+e interaction.  Let me be more precise in how charge interacts
with the reactions where [] indicates a paired soliton state.
 
[(D+) + (D+)] + e- ==> [(D+)+n  +  (p+)+e-] ==> [T+] + [H]  == (T+) + H
 
The normal reactions that D solitons would take in the interaction are
 
[(D+) + (D+)] + e- ==> [(D+) + D] ==> 2D+
 
[(D+) + (D+)] + e- ==> [(D+) + D] ==> (D+) + D
 
   First let me admit this is wild speculation, but there are reasons
to look at the electrode-electrolyte interface as possibly conducive to
soliton formation. The difference in energy that conduction electrons
experience while moving through the interface suggest that a simple
QM step functions is not applicable, or if it is, it maybe an overly
simplistic analogy to what is actually goes on.  For example, at the
interface conduction electrons leave the cathode with a broad energy band
state, and can either be captured by positive ions, ignored by neutral atoms,
or repelled negative ions before reaching the conduction band of the
electrolyte.  This perturbation in the conduction band states at the
interface would be highly suggestive of soliton formation. This is true
of electrons, but what about heavier deuterons particles?  Is there a
location in the electrolyte where periodicity can cause heavy particle
banding and thus form heavy particle soliton states needed for tritium
generation described above? Well it turns out that there is, and this
is the interface between liquid and gas of a bubble. Simple D ions
can easyly be skipped across the inside of the bubble interface, and
the form an overall band structure. At the location of contact between
the lattice and the bubble highly localized currents and potential
differences can exist. Surely these are the foundations for QM soliton
expression. If heavy particle banding occurs, then this interface could
cause the effect described in a TWIST of RIBBON.  That is bubble formation
could cause the soliton states where the nucleus is place in unstable state
by the difference in periodicity between the lattice and the electrolyte. I
would expect from this argument that bubble formation, and tritium production
and could be correlated, to each other.
 
Well there are a lot of ideas to digest here.  I hope this answers some
of the questions that have been asked, and generates questions about some
of the answers given.  The tritium generation falls right out of "Twist of
Ribbon" and is caused by heavy particle solitons states in close proximity.
 
Anyway have fun,
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.16 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
Date: 16 Jul 91 04:13:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Is there a compact way to explain "Heavy Heat" auming the reader knows
quantum mechanics and electron transport in solids?  What is the source
of the heat?  What are the initial and final states? I am sure that there
are many readers with a solid-state background at Kittel's or Ashcroft
level who would benefit from a suscinct explanation.
 
--
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.16 / Terry Bollinger /  FBI Reference "Hot List" Program
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FBI Reference "Hot List" Program
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1991 14:49:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
I may have inadvertantly stirred up a bit of controversy of an unintended
sort with my passing comment about FBI lists, so let me briefly explain:
 
Several years ago (during the Reagan administration) the FBI began a program
of actively working "with" libraries to find cases where researchers (esp.
non-USA researchers) were looking extensively at topics such as nuclear
technology.  (If you take a look at Iraq, you may be able to get some idea
of why they were worried...)  I put the "with" in quotes because a lot of
librarians got very upset about the whole thing, and complained loudly and
publicly about it.  They did not feel that "checking up" on patrons was
compatible with their overall objective of encouraging the dissemination
of information to anyone interested.  My own reactions to the program
range from mixed to indifferent.  I can understand some of the reasons
behind it, but personally feel that if information is truly sensitive it
should be classified, period, and not left sitting around in libraries.
 
Very little has been said about this program since that time, and to be
honest I'm not even sure that the program is still active.  But when I
specifically told a worker at the Library of Congress that I had heard
about this program and was wondering whether it would apply to tritium
separation references, his response (several times) was "you know, I've
heard the same thing."  He was also quite agreeable when I decided not
to request the document.  I didn't pursue it any further.
 
As far as getting on such a list, I frankly wouldn't worry too much about
it if your intentions are good -- but I just didn't feel right about
passing out such a reference when I figured there was, say, a 50/50
chance that there was a string attached to it.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.16 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 554 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 554 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1991 14:49:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
back at work, and here's a little more for your pleasure, including a couple
of translations. The Goedkoop is quite old but I had not been able to get hold
of it until now; like the Birgul et al, it replaces already existing entries
in the grand list. The Gann + Pokhodyashchii one is also oldish but the
journal is not so easily obtained, so it took a while to get it; more from
that are on the way. That article is not very exciting, either, providing a
fairly simple argument for cold fusion (increased effective electron mass).
The Turkish paper (fortunately in English, I don't know a single Turkish word)
shows an interesting figure or pair of figures: gamma emission, and cell
temperature, both vs time. The authors mention without much emphasis that
there is some correlation (heat with gamma peaks) but do not make much out of
this. I note, though, that if you shift the T-curve back by about 30 min, the
correlation looks rather high - I intend to find out more about this. Goedkoop
deserves to be in section 2 (real papers), since he made, already in June
1989, some good points and gives good general data (all in Dutch of course, go
for it, heh heh). I got the Herbst reference from Dr. Speiser of Tuebingen,
with whom I have email correspondence on other matters. I am not sure whether
he is right about the absorption of He in Pd from the air. If He is totally
immobile in Pd, then how can it geet into it? Maybe only into surface layers.
Anyway, it may serve as a warning to some. The same applies, and even more to
the point, to the warning by Middleton et al, about "natural" tritium levels
of T:D up to 1E-10. People have long warned tritium finders about this; here
we have concrete evidence. A 1g sample aliquot of D2O would thus have about
1E-14 tritium atoms in it, worth remembering.
Bruce Lewenstein of Cornell, who has also set up (or helped to do so, I am not
sure) the Cornell cold fusion archive, has reviewd both the Close and Mallowe
books, and I review his reviews. I know I'll get a rebuke from at least one
person for loosely using the word "unscientific" but I feel that, although we
scientists don't work as we say we do, we have not yet descended to science by
vote. As I say, even if we tend to go along with current feeling, a strong
experimental result will instantly sway us away from it. I hope.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 16-Jul. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 554
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birgul O, Celebi S, Ozdural A, Pekmez K, Yildiz A, Yurum Y (umlauts missing);
Doga- Turk. J. Eng. Env. Sci. 14(3) (1990) 373.
"Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium using surface modified
palladium electrodes".
** Bursts of gamma-ray emission accompanying sudden temp. rises were obsd.
during the const. current electrolysis of D2O contg. LiOD electrolyte using
the surface modified Pd cathodes following the charge-up of the cathode
material with the electrolytically produced D. Macroscopic and microscopic
deformations of the cathode material were noted at the end of electrolysis
that could only be caused by extreme pos. thermal changes. The results were
compared with blank expts. using H2O in which no such changes occurred. The
nature of surface modification is not specified. The authors speculate that
fusion is initiated by microscopic rises in temperature and collapse from the
beta to alpha phase, by either recombination of deuterons into D2, or reaction
of deposited Li with D2O. The surface modification will be described
elsewhere.                                                            Jul-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gann VV, Pokhodyashchii VI;                    Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser. Fiz.
Radiats. Povrezhdenii Radiats. Materialoved. 1990(1) 89 (in Russian).
"Metastable bound states of deuterium in palladium and its role in cold
nuclear fusion".
** Examines the possibility of raised probability of tunnelling barrier
penetration. Analysis shows that an effective electron mass of twice normal
might be realised at the periphery of the d-shells of the Pd, and under some
circumstances this might lead to fusion rates of the order of those observed.
For this, it is assumed that deuterium exists in a mildly nonuniform gas of
quasiparticles (the conductance electrons), whose characteristic dimensions
exceed those between the bound d-atoms. Macroscopic defects might play a role
in causing electron localisation and aggregation of deuterons.   Dec-89/Jan-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goedkoop JA;                         Energiespektrum 13 (1989) 156 (in Dutch).
"Koude kernfusie in de vaste stof?" (Cold nuclear fusion in solids?)
** A competent early review of cold fusion, written in June 1989. It contains
some useful background information about d-d fusion reactions, thermodynamics
of PdDx, electrochemistry and palladium hydride structure. It also points to
the theoretical work that appeared subsequently, towards explaining the
effect, if any. The possibility of the (4)He branch, which some consider might
lead simply to heat dissipated in the Pd lattice, is mentioned, as well as the
fracto theory, with the doubt expressed, that the postulated charge separation
is sustainable in the hydride as in LiD; this later became one of the strong
arguments against fractofusion.                                       ?/Jun-89
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbst H;                          Chemiker-Zeitung 50 (1926) 905 (in German).
"Ist der Aufbau des Heliums aus Wasserstoff gelungen?" (Was the production of
helium from hydrogen succesful?).
** A comment on Paneth and Peter's (1926) report of the cold fusion of
hydrogen into helium. Herbst points out that he himself had observed that it
is not possible to remove all traces of He from catalysts by treatment in a
vacuum, that high temperatures are required to drive it out. In particular,
he claims that Pd will form compounds with helium, just as with hydrogen, so
that a given Pd sample will have absorbed some He from the air. This, he says,
explains both the appearance of He in Paneth's experiments, and its cessation
after a time. He suggests that Paneth should use the vacuum+heat treatment as
a precaution.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middleton R, Klein J, Fink D;  Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. B47 (1990) 409.
"Tritium measurements with a tandem accelerator".
** Spurred by the cold fusion news, this team decided to measure the
sensitivity of their accelerator mass spectrometer for tritium analysis. This
instrument is not only very sensitive, but also allows discrimination of other
species with similar mass, such as HD- ions, or similar magnetic rigidity,
such as (6)Li. The team had available deuterated Ti samples 10 and 12 years
old; these might, if Jones et al (89) are right, have steadily accumulated T
in the interval. The method was to absorb the deuterium gas in Ti powder (if
not already there) and release it into the instrument. The sensitivity of the
measurement is down to a ratio T:D equal to 1E-16; this is somewhat academic,
since it was found that several samples of fresh D2O showed a ratio of 1E-10,
an "astonishingly high level". The authors checked, by directly injecting D2
rather than going through their Ti-absorption way, that the T did not come
from unintended cold fusion in the Ti. We must accept, then, that heavy water
is now "naturally" contaminated with tritium. This rather expensive method,
however, is a good way of monitoring T with accuracy. The old TiD samples did
not, by the way, show unexpected tritium.                            Dec-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewenstein BV;                                The Sciences, Jul/Aug (1991) 44.
"Energy in a jar".
** A comparative review of the two books on cold fusion by Frank Close and
Eugene Mallowe. The author is a professor of communication and science
sociology and clearly regards cold fusion as a "fiasco", seeking only to
explain it as such. The books are searched for the morals to be drawn. BL
himself falls into an unscientific attitude, however, when he writes that "Few
reputable scientists continue to believe ..." and that P&F have been "drummed
out of the scientific community". The first would be entirely overridden by
solid experimental evidence and the second is highly doubtful, since P&F still
have their past non-fusion reputation intact; their achievements in
electrochemistry stand. Contrary to popular belief, BL points out that the
role of the press in the affair is not a novelty; media hype etc are quite the
norm. He argues on the other hand that the cold fusion affair has brought the
social factors of science into public light.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.17 / Richard Ristow /       Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
     
Originally-From: Richard Ristow <sjsca4!uunet!brownvm.brown.edu!AP430001>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 14:26:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.com) wrote on 15 Jul 91 21:40:46 GMT
 
>    To some people, there appears to be a problem with my hypothesis of
>"Heavy Heat".  This has to do with how one looks at the foundations of
>basics of electricity; Ohm's law. V=IR.  This relationship is taught
>as being fundamental. It certainly was something I thought was a
>fundamental relation. However, it wasn't until I started looking at the
>case of hydrogen in palladium and nickel that my belief in this began to
>change. This has to do with how one looks at quantum-mechanical causes
>of electron-current, electron-resistance, and potential difference as
>measured by electrons.  Dale Bass made it very clear that a charge carrier,
>regardless of it being a proton or electron, is still a charge carrier
>and will effect effect voltage, current, and resistance.  It certainly
>will if you look at protons and electrons as point charges.  However
>at a certain point, at the quantum-mechanical distances of atoms, point
>charges are no longer a good description of what is actually going on.
>When electrons interact with the nucleus of an atom, they interacts quantum
>mechanically.  If the interaction is a disallowed quantum interaction,
>the electron should continue to go it's own way.  One could argue that
>such an interaction involves the transfer of momentum, and thus the transfer
>of energy which should effect quantum state of the electron and
>nucleus.  That is absolutely true.  However, electrons in a conductor
>are not in a discrete energy state. They have energies in a broad
>conduction band. Small kinetic energy transfers by coulumb interactions
>between the nucleus and electrons do not effect the overall energy band
>state of the electrons. Because of this, no photons are released by a change
>of electron energy states, instead energy is transfered to the proton,
>a little at a time. These interactions can occur over a long range, and
>this is what I suggesting is the driving force (EMF) of a proton current.
>At the same time, because the electrons are still in the conduction band
>state, there is no effect on their flow.  Do you see the point I'm driving
>at?
>
>    Dale did bring up one point where he points out; this ignores
>how charges interact over the long range across a metal lattice.  Charge
>regardless of how it interacts by QM, should effect voltage, current, and
>resistance.  Opposites charges attract, so, as more protons are pumped
>into the metal, more electrons should want to hang around and cause
>resistance.  At the same time, this over-all positive charge should
>attract more electrons from the electro-motive force (EMF).  From the
>point of view of an amp-meter current should increase.  Very true,
>but consider that for each proton charge, in a Pd lattice pumped
>to 0.6 H/Pd for example, eventually the overall charge difference will
>be balanced.  In other words, the charge difference to the overall
>electrolytic system after this loading stage will be constant.  After
>this charge balance is achieved, quantum-mechanics takes over.
>
>   Conduction electrons in a metal are in broad band QM energy states.
>This is what causes metallic surfaces to be so reflective.  Photon interaction
>with these electrons are in discrete energy amounts but the wavelengths of the
>photons allowed to interact is large.  This visually defines broad energy
>band states.  If the band energy state is shifted up or down or made
>narrower with respect to the photon wavelengths, it will only allow reflection
>of photons with an energy that falls in that energy band.  This is the reason
>some metals have a tint of color to the light that is reflected from them.
>Gold, and copper are two metals that have such shifted band energy states.
>Most other metals have conduction band energy states that are much broader
>and thus appear silver.  Since the p and d conduction electrons are in
>broad band QM state, a little kinetic pushing and shoving between these
>electrons and the infuse hydrogen, will go unnoticed with regard to the
>p and d electron energy states.  In other words, if the electrons quantum
>state is a disallow state with respect to the hydrogen, a kinetic
>interaction can transfer energy but it will not move the electrons
>out of the conduction band.  This is a point that I may not have been
>too clear about in earlier posts.  So you see, Heavy Heat does not
>violate the conservation of energy. Its just that you can not balance
>the energy by looking at electrons only and treating the system as
>a resistive heater.
>
>    When one measures voltage, current, and resistance, one is
> not measuring simple point charges. Instead one is measuring
> the electrons in the conduction band, and how electrons interact
> with the surrounding atoms quantum-mechanically. In almost all cases
> when we measure energy based on Ohm's law, it usually has to do
> with electron motion across quantum-mechanically allowed energy states.
> Its this simple fact of solid state physics that made me suggest that
> in this *very* special case of hydrated metals, we may be missing the true
> values of the energy balance by measuring only electron flow.
 
I have to join Dale Bass here:  No.  Unless I'm missing something entirely,
you're getting hung up on possible Ohm's law violations.  Ohm's law often
fails to hold (it's not at all fundamental), but neither the law, nor its
possible violations, nor the nature of the charge carriers, enter into
calculating the energy delivered to a P-D cell (or anything else) by an
external electrical power source.
 
Ohm's law does hold for a range of common substances under common conditions,
but that's all one can say.  It fails for any semiconductor device containing
a junction, for electrochemical cells, for any arc, for arcs at low pressure
such as the neon bulb in an ordinary circuit tester, even for the filament
of an incandescent lamp (because the operating temperature range of the
lamp filament is wide enough to cause an important resistance shift).  If
a material or device obeys Ohm's law, then it's an "Ohm's law resister",
and if it doesn't it isn't.
 
Now, you are quite right that resistance is measured by simultaneously
measuring the current I through, and the voltage V across, the device in
question.  However, calculating resistance R=V/I from these measurements
assumes Ohm's law, and so THIS TECHNIQUE IS ONLY VALID ON A DEVICE KNOWN
TO BE AN OHM'S LAW RESISTER.  It is commonly observed, and quite true,
that an ohmmeter or other resistance-measuring device will give very
different readings for different values and directions of the applied
current and voltage.  It is a common error to describe these measurements
as changes in the resistance, as you seem to in one posting speaking of
"charge buildup as changing the resistance of the cell".  A device that is
not an Ohm's law resister does not have a resistance;  an ohmmeter reading
or anything else that gives a value in ohms is always calculating based
on the (here erroneous) Ohm's law.   (Side note:  Many devices that are
not Ohm's law resisters have *locally valid* resistances that approximate
their behavior over certain parts of their operating range.  Such
resistances may be measured more or less conventionally and may be used
to calculate the device's behavior *if* the measurements are taken in,
and the calculations applied to, the appropriate parts of the operating
range.  Local resistances can, among other things, have negative values
for some devices -- electric arcs are an example.)
 
Now, if you can't trust Ohm's law, how can you measure the power delivered
to anything?  You use a relation that really is fundamental:  P=I*V ;
power = current times voltage.  (This relation, by the way, is always and
instantaneously true.  If the voltage and current are alternating, and the
RMS rather than instantaneous values of I and V are used, an additional
factor called the 'power factor', based on the phase angle between voltage
and current, is introduced;  but this is an artifact of averaging, not a
modification to the fundamental law.)
 
Now, are measurements of voltage and current (NOT resistance) based on
assumptions about the charge carriers?  That is, are we measuring "the
electrons in the conduction band, and how [they] interact  with the
surrounding atoms quantum-mechanically"?  Let's take a familiar case:
conventional passive (non-electronic) moving-pointer meters.  Such meters
are almost universally built around a d'Arsonval galvanometer, and the
pointer on the scale measures one thing and one only:  the CURRENT through
the copper galvanometer coil.  The physical effect used is the magnetic
field produced by the current, which is totally insensitive to the nature
of the charges that are moving.  (Besides, the coil wire is ordinary
copper, not subject to any possible hydrogen-palladium lattice effects.)
To measure the current through something else, like a P-D cell, one puts
the galvanometer in series with the cell, so that the law of conservation
of charge guarantees the currents through the galvanometer and cell are
the same.  (Actually, there's usually a shunt around the galvanometer,
so the galvanometer registers a known fraction of the actual current.)
To measure the voltage across something, one puts the galvanometer across
it, reads the current, and calculates the necessary voltage from the
resistance of the galvanometer coil and Ohm's law.  (Actually, there's
almost always an additional resistance in series with the coil to keep
the coil current within its rather small limits.)  To measure power, one
makes both voltage and current measurements and multiplies.  This uses
NO assumptions about charge carriers in the P-D cell or the cell's
resistance (fortunately, as not being an Ohm's law resister it doesn't
have one).  Physical assumptions made are
 
+ Magnetic field correctly measured current -- but this is based on
  long-standing theory unchanged by quantum mechanics, and by many years
  of diverse experimental results
 
+ The galvanometer coils and the shunts and series resistances used are
  Ohm's-law resisters of known value -- but these are deliberately chosen
  to be such, and are used in well-understood conditions
 
+ The voltage and current vary slowly enough for the galvanometers to
  follow.  Some cold fusion experiments have, I believe, been criticized
  for failing to check this assumption (if it is false, actual power can
  considerably exceed measured power), but nothing in your arguments
  seems to raise this point.
 
Your arguments sound interesting, and you write as if you know a good deal
about the solid-state quantum-mechanical effects (as I do not), but your
argument for the extra heat source seems to be based on either a misunder-
standing of very ordinary, and classical, electrical measurements, or on
the positing of a totally unknown energy source for the 'proton current'.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ristow     AP430001@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU    Bitnet: AP430001@BROWNVM
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnRichard cudlnRistow cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.17 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
     
Originally-From: eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
Date: 17 Jul 91 19:24:32 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <9107170535.AA00546@relay1.UU.NET> fusion@zorch writes:
 
   If a material or device obeys Ohm's law, then it's an "Ohm's law
   resister", and if it doesn't it isn't.
 
   I can't resist!  No, if it obeys Ohm's Law it is an Ohm's Law
resistor.  If it DOESN'T, it's an Ohm's Law resister. :-)
 
   (Apply heavy flame-retardant here.)
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
Date: 17 Jul 91 18:16:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Jul15.214046.22700@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
>et al.  Terry's deep hypothesis that heavy particle band solitons
>could cause a violation of the conservation of baryon number, might
>explain the heat bursts.  These heat bursts are very hard to explain away
 
     Violation of conservation of Baryon number seems a more extreme
     hypothesis than simple fusion with a novel method of removing
     fusion energies and products.
 
>    To some people, there appears to be a problem with my hypothesis of
>"Heavy Heat".  This has to do with how one looks at the foundations of
>basics of electricity; Ohm's law. V=IR.  This relationship is taught
>as being fundamental. It certainly was something I thought was a
 
      Ohm's law can only be construed as being fundamental if you
      take it as the definition of resistance.  It really has little to
      do with the power input.  The meters external to the circuit do
      not measure resistance.  They measure the fundamental quantities of
      current and voltage.
 
>measured by electrons.  Dale Bass made it very clear that a charge carrier,
>regardless of it being a proton or electron, is still a charge carrier
>and will effect effect voltage, current, and resistance.  It certainly
>will if you look at protons and electrons as point charges.  However
>at a certain point, at the quantum-mechanical distances of atoms, point
>charges are no longer a good description of what is actually going on.
 
       It does not matter if you consider them point charges or charge
       distributed on the surface of large red rubber balls.  Quantum
       mechanical considerations do not matter for the global measurements
       outside of the cell.  You measure how much power you put in, period.
 
       The only way to avoid accurate measurement is to use meters
       that do not respond to alternating current (or fluctuations).
       If there is sufficient fluctuation, you could underpredict
       power input, but this is a classical phenomenon.
 
>When electrons interact with the nucleus of an atom, they interacts quantum
>mechanically.  If the interaction is a disallowed quantum interaction,
>the electron should continue to go it's own way.  One could argue that
>such an interaction involves the transfer of momentum, and thus the transfer
>of energy which should effect quantum state of the electron and
>nucleus.  That is absolutely true.  However, electrons in a conductor
>are not in a discrete energy state. They have energies in a broad
>conduction band. Small kinetic energy transfers by coulumb interactions
>between the nucleus and electrons do not effect the overall energy band
>state of the electrons. Because of this, no photons are released by a change
>of electron energy states, instead energy is transfered to the proton,
>a little at a time. These interactions can occur over a long range, and
>this is what I suggesting is the driving force (EMF) of a proton current.
>At the same time, because the electrons are still in the conduction band
>state, there is no effect on their flow.  Do you see the point I'm driving
>at?
 
      You are missing the forest for the trees.  Conduction band phenomena
      are important to insure that conduction occurs, but the details
      are irrelevant for the purposes of measuring power in the wires
      outside the cell.
 
>electrons and the infuse hydrogen, will go unnoticed with regard to the
>p and d electron energy states.  In other words, if the electrons quantum
>state is a disallow state with respect to the hydrogen, a kinetic
>interaction can transfer energy but it will not move the electrons
>out of the conduction band.  This is a point that I may not have been
>too clear about in earlier posts.  So you see, Heavy Heat does not
>violate the conservation of energy. Its just that you can not balance
>the energy by looking at electrons only and treating the system as
>a resistive heater.
 
      The system is not treated as a resistive heater for the purposes
      of power input.  The current and voltage external to the cell are
      measured.  If one wishes to consider V/I the resistance, then one
      may, but the power VI is not subject to missinterpretation.  Once again,
      look at the system from a global perspective.  In the wires outside the
      cell, the voltmeter and ammeter cannot tell by what method charge is
      carried to their terminals (across for the voltmeter).  Inside the
      voltmeter and ammeter, the meters do a very good job of measuring
      the current and voltage using the electrons flowing through the wires.
      (Parenthetically if protons were flowing in the wires in the meters,
      they meters would also function properly if the internal resistances
      behaved as they do for electron flow, but of course there is no proton
      flow external to the cell.)  There is no way to move charge using
      the power of the external circuit without it registering on the
      meters.  (excepting of course using fluctuations that the meters are
      unable to register, like using a DC meter for AC current).
 
>Its this simple fact of solid state physics that made me suggest that
>in this *very* special case of hydrated metals, we may be missing the true
>values of the energy balance by measuring only electron flow.  There are
>phenomena where quantum mechanics causes violation of Ohm's law.  For example
>Josephson junctions are such a case.  When any voltage is applied, electron
 
      Ohm's law is not fundamental, see above.  You can consider Ohm's
      law to be a definition of resistance, sometimes resistance is
      not well defined.
 
>that some low-energy solid state systems could cause violation
>of the conservation of baryon number, and the method to do so is
>to cause baryon-containing particles to jump from energy states that
>resemble momentum-domain Dirac delta functions (heavy particle energy bands)
>to energy states defined by spatial-domain Dirac delta functions (internal
>particle energy).  That is the delocalized energy of band states concentrates
 
      Hagelstein's hypotheses seem surprisingly less radical when presented
      with violation of Baryon number conservation.  Try not to get
      too heavily bogged down in the jargon to realize that there are
      radical consequences for such a radical hypothesis.
 
      Also, if you can make headway with defining a Baryon as a type
      of soliton for some system of equations (keep in mind the headache
      of standard Baryon number conservation and all of the observed
      Baryon-particle interactions), I suspect that there is a seat for
      you somewhere in Stockholm.
 
 
>banding and thus form heavy particle soliton states needed for tritium
>generation described above? Well it turns out that there is, and this
>is the interface between liquid and gas of a bubble. Simple D ions
>can easyly be skipped across the inside of the bubble interface, and
>the form an overall band structure. At the location of contact between
>the lattice and the bubble highly localized currents and potential
>differences can exist. Surely these are the foundations for QM soliton
>expression. If heavy particle banding occurs, then this interface could
>cause the effect described in a TWIST of RIBBON.  That is bubble formation
>could cause the soliton states where the nucleus is place in unstable state
>by the difference in periodicity between the lattice and the electrolyte. I
>would expect from this argument that bubble formation, and tritium production
>and could be correlated, to each other.
 
     This is very confused.   Hagelstein has a much more coherent structure
     for letting the metal carry off emitted energy in megaphonons.  Though
     is relies on magic in much of the formalism, it at least is a coherent
     (no pun intended) hypothesis.
 
                                          dale bass
 
 
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.18 / Terry Bollinger /  Cleaned-up copy of palladium references
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cleaned-up copy of palladium references
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1991 14:16:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
For anyone who wants a cleaner copy of the palladium references, I now
have one that corrects a lot of typos.  I also left out the tangential
discussion about the FBI library reference program -- it's an interesting
topic, but I don't think it needs to included in that particular list.
 
If you want a copy of the cleaned up palladium references, please send
me a *brief* request and I'll immediately email a copy back to you.
 
More references (solitons + general) will be following in the near future.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry		(terry@asl.dl.nec.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.18 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
Date: 18 Jul 91 07:03:03 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
 
>Is there a compact way to explain "Heavy Heat" auming the reader knows
>quantum mechanics and electron transport in solids?  What is the source
>of the heat?  What are the initial and final states? I am sure that there
>are many readers with a solid-state background at Kittel's or Ashcroft
>level who would benefit from a suscinct explanation.
 
Sure Raul, why not.
 
                             HEAVY HEAT
                              ABSTRACT
 
It is proposed that highly mobile hydrogen species in certain classes of
hydrated/deuterated/titrated metals can form a energy band structure by
treating the lattice as series of periodic potentials. These heavy particle
band energy states can be treated in a similar manner to the electronic band
states of conductors, semiconductors, and insulators with all the implications
this implies. It has been estimated by 1D Kronig-Penny model that photon
emission by heavy band state transitions would be in the far-infrared and
it is suggested that photon emission by heavy band state transitions could
explain some anomalous excess heat seen in electrolytic systems of PdH(x),
PdD(x), NiH(x) and other hydrated/deuterated systems.
 
>--
>Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
>Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
>University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
 
I would like to ask one small tiny favor of the readers. This is an open
electronic forum for the discussion of science and information can spread
very fast.  Occasionally, testable ideas and hypotheses will be presented
that need the attention the general science community by publication. I would
ask of the scientist that absolutly wants to take the idea and run with it,
that you credit the authors by reference to thier names, the electronic
forum (as in USENET corrispondence in sci.physics.fusion), and the month
and year of the corrispondence.  Please, out of courtesy to the forum.
 
Sorry for the editorial but this discussion is getting to that point.
 
Anyway, physics is fun, so have a bunch of fun,
Chuck
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com |Ph 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.18 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Heat, Twist of Ribbon, and tritium
Date: 18 Jul 91 08:32:48 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <1991Jul15.214046.22700@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>>
>>et al.  Terry's deep hypothesis that heavy particle band solitons
>>could cause a violation of the conservation of baryon number, might
>>explain the heat bursts.  These heat bursts are very hard to explain away
 
>     Violation of conservation of Baryon number seems a more extreme
>     hypothesis than simple fusion with a novel method of removing
>     fusion energies and products.
 
As I pointed out much later in the argument, there may be a small flaw
in "Twist of Ribbon" which has to do with gluon exchange in the quark
model of particles.  However, pion exchange, which mediates the force
between protons an neutrons, is still subseptable to effect of
heavy band soliton states.  This leaves the possibility of
simple neutron capture as a means of generating energy, or even
something as wierd as proton-neutron capture resonance around a
soilton state.
 
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
 
Well, it's getting late here. More on this later.  It's a good discussion.
Have fun,
Chuck
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.19 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 557 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 557 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 15:55:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
First, something different: you'll remember Terry Bollinger's excellent list
of palladium hydride references, complete with abstracts and his annotations.
I got Terry's permission to include this list in "my" bibliography, and it is
in Section 5 (formerly containing only Vince Cate's old preprints) of the file
Biblio3, which - as you all remember - you can GET out of the archives.
Terry's list is reproduced there exactly as he sent it to me, complete with
the wasteful last blank line (I was tempted to wipe it but resisted). I am
about to update Biblio3 and this should have taken place by the time you see
this message. Thanks, Terry.
 Here are 4-5 more items. Two, to my mind, rather wistful "if only things were
different, then things would be different" kind of papers, on cold fusion
rates inside Jupiter. The Gajda + Rafelski is interesting, as it uses the
Jones+ results as an information base, no doubts here. The Donohue one was a
bit frustrating; the authors refrain from referring to cold fusion more than
incidentally but are clearly motivated by it (I think). Not many theorists
have involved the Pd itself in the cold fusion scenario (a few have) and the
paper in fact finds that there is no change in the Pd isotope distribution.
The frustrating bit is that here we had a chance to see fusion products (if
any, that is) inside the metal, such as T or He, but none seem to have been
found; all the low-mass species seem to be triatom species, so I assume T
would come out variously as TDD+, TTD+ AND TTT+, but these masses are not in
the list (were they found??); I don't know what He would do. No comment from
the authors on this score, they were only interested in the Pd itself. They do
mention the extremely interesting finding that even 99.9% pure D2O leads to
about 25% ratio of p/d in the "deuteride", when charged. Experimenters, take
note.
Yun et al, from Korea, present some careful calorimetry at 2% accuracy, which
I am prepared to believe, and do find some unexplained heat bursts. They don't
beat their drum, though, and ask for more, unequivocal evidence.
 I have a heap of patent abstracts and will post them separately.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Jul. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 557
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donohue DL, Petek M;                                Anal. Chem. 63 (1991) 740.
"Isotopic measurements of palladium metal containing protium and deuterium by
glow discharge mass spectrometry".
** The question addressed here is whether there are changes in the isotope
distribution of Pd upon electrolysis of D2O at such Pd, acting as a cathode.
The Pd was arc melted under argon, and annealed  at 900 degC in vacuum. Three
kinds of electrolysis were carried out: in 0.1 LiOH in H2O, in LiOD in D2O,
and LiOD in D2O followed by LiOH in H2O with the same cathode. Mass
spectrometry was the main analytical tool. It was found that pure Pd gave a
characterstic isotope pattern, deviating somewhat from the expected. After
electrolysis, the spectra included various protonised and deuteronised Pd
species such as PdH+, PdH2+, etc. Heating, to drive out the hydrogen isotopes,
then restored the original Pd isotope distribution in all cases. That is,
electrolysis did not change the Pd isotope distribution. It will be of
interest to cold fusion workers that even in 99.9% pure D2O, something like
25% of the hydrogen in the Pd after electrolysis was (1)H; thus, the
supposedly tiny fraction of H in the D2O seems to be very preferentially taken
up. At the low end of the mass spectra, species with masses 3-6 were found;
these were assigned to respectively H3+, (DH2+ and D2+), D2H+ and D3+. Tritium
or helium species either were not present or were not able to be discriminated
from H- and D-species; the authors do not say.                   Oct-90/Apr-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gajda M, Rafelski J;                                 J. Phys. G 17 (1991) 653.
"Jovian limits on conventional fusion".
** Fusion rates are evaluated for the interior of Jupiter and compared to
those assumed by conventional wisdom; might these explain Jovian excess heat?
Also, terrestrial cold fusion experiments are looked at. The authors take as
given that these latter have now been established to give a rate of
1E-23 fusions/s/dd-pair. A central density of 4 g/cm**3 and a temperature of
1.4 eV are assumed for Jupiter, as well as a degenerate Fermi gas state for
the electrons, and a d/p ratio of 1E-05. Theory then yields fusion rates that
are not sufficient to explain Jupiter's excess heat. Maybe other factors? Such
as local high densities and/or higher temperatures, maybe 2.8 eV? G&R now
say that, given Jones+(89), and transferring this knowledge to Jupiter, the
heat is still unexplained. Bu, if a similar enhancement for the dp fusion
reaction is assumed, the heat is explained. Unfortunately, there are no
reports of laboratory pd cold fusion, for which gamma emission should be seen.
So Jones+(89) might help astronomers explain the Jupiter enigma. Nov-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horowitz CJ;                                     Astrophys. J. 367 (1991) 288.
"Cold nuclear fusion in dense metallic hydrogen".
** H writes that the extreme conditions required to overcome the fusion
barrier, although impossible to realise in the laboratory, might have
astrophysical relevance; in particular, cold fusion might explain excess heat
from Jupiter. Fractofusion is also mentioned, and the possibility that low
level cold fusion takes place inside the Earth, producing tritium and (3)He,
as suggested by some (I am not sure anyone has found T). Finally, a pp fusion
rate in the Sun, greater than expected, might explain the solar neutrino
puzzle. H calculates cnf rates in dense metallic hydrogen, possibly existing
within Jupiter, at a density of 4-5 g/cm**3. At high densities, the electrons
degenerate to a Fermi gas. Numerical integration of the Schroedinger equation
yields expected fusion rates (i.e. pp and dp; dd is not likely, with the small
d-content of H) that, under certain conditions, such as high density could
account for Jupiter's heat; unfortunately, Jupiter is not large enough to
provide such densities. But wait: maybe other enhancement factors can be
found. One avenue is the fairly high temperature (1-5 eV), making the hydrogen
liquid. This leads to higher rates at realistic densities, though still not
enough. There are still unexplored factors such as fluctuations, collective
effects and phase transitions. If only Jupiter were a brown dwarf. An Appendix
shows how to do a numerical Runge-Kutta integration of the Schroedinger
equation.                                                        Nov-89/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yun K-S, Ju J-B, Cho B-W, Cho W-I, Park S-Y;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 306 (1991) 279.
"Calorimetric observation of heat production during electrolysis of 0.1 M LiOD
+ D2O solution".
** An apparently carefully done series of experiments with electrolysis at two
kinds of Pd electrodes: as supplied and annealed at 800 degC in vacuum or in
D2 gas. Both kinds gave essentially the same results. The calorimeters were
open and closed, with and without recombination and with small temperature
rises in the electrolytes. At a rate of about 4-5 experiments out of 20,
excess heat bursts were observed at times, going up to over 20%. This level
cannot be accounted for as chemical artifacts, given the calorimeters'
accuracy (about 2%). The authors draw no strong nuclear conclusions, however,
noting that more experiments, particularly correlated heat and emission events
are needed for this.                                             Feb-91/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ebert K;                    Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German).
"Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced
fusion of deuterium).
** Early comment, reporting on the initial F&P press conference and the paper
in JEC. The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to
the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.18 /  KVJLC@ASUACAD. /  aternative fusion methodologies...
     
Originally-From: KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: aternative fusion methodologies...
Date: 18 Jul 91 16:46:32 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

Several years ago I was working on an invention that had properties of
different mechanical devices.  The primary research, unassisted, was to
develop a lasing device that was unlike conventional lasers in its geo-
metrical design or behavior.  Using a couple of relative theories that
would allow me to chamber the (h) in various phases through a central
choke point to achieve, at least what i thought, would be a method for
extracting the electron or proton depending on the magnetic influence
used at the time.
 
Needless to say, I was attempting to design a system that used a
magnetic turbine of sorts to capture the target species in phase 0.  The
transition through each phase would be caused by a magnetic turbulence
that would create a vortex effect causing the species to be accelerated
towards the central core of the chamber.  This device would resemble a
turbine with various exceptions.  Most notably is the constuction of
magnetic fins that could be alternated to polarized varibles (e.g.
each insert could have a reverse polarized field of magnetic influence).
 
The inner chamber could have any possible combination of design shapes
to incorporate the desired effect on the species (i.e. centrifugal field
of effect) during each phase transition.  Consider the following design
below:
 
 
         --------------------------------------------------
         |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
          || ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||
                     ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||
         -------------------------------------------------- <-- electical
Inner--> -------------------->                                flow field of
 Chamber 0       1       2       x <--- choke     4      5     force (Ev)
         --------------------------------------------------
  Bell ------>       ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||            <-- Magnetic
  shape   || ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||    fins (inset)
         |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
         --------------------------------------------------- <-- exterior
                                                                 wall
 
x = mean magnetic field of force,
 
              where two events could occur depending on
              the design structure of the inner-chamber cavity:
 
              a. provided sufficient magnetic (guass) influence is
                 in effect, fused molecular activity.  Hot gas fusion
                 from the centrifugal activity in phases 0 --> 3.
 
                 this phenomenon is the result of several events that
                 would need to occur prior to the species arriving at
                 x point in time.  Relative to all events occuring,
                 it is suggested that the molecular structure of the
                 (h) species would be weakened by activity that occurs
                 in phases 0 --> 3.
 
                 In addition, the magnetic fins (inset) field of force
                 would be concurrent and similar in passing the transient
                 kenitic energy through each phase until sufficient energy
                 has been acquired to alter or modify the orbital energy
                 holding the (e) or (p) in place.  --- subjected theory.
 
              B. Fission, from the same effects noted above with respect to
                 the differences in magnetic field of effect.
 
 
   explaination:  Magnetic field of effect is the net result of alternating
                  the magnetic fins (inset) to syncronize the activity of
                  each phase to have the maximum effect on the molecular
                  structure of the target species.
 
                  n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s
                  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
                  S N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N
 
                  ^g..x--------------------------------------> ^g..x
                       n                                            n+
                                        x...x
          phase    0,,,,,,,1,,,,,,,2,,,,,,3,,,,,,,,,4,,,,,,,,,5
 
                   input source (h)? (he)?  (y)??  (pl)???
 
 
 
     Note:  For a more detailed explaination of the laser, please
            see U.S. Patent #4,831,627, Jonathan L. Campbell, May 16, 1989.
 
 
  The NBST performed an evaluation on the merits of the invention in 1989
  and concluded that there were technical deficiencies in the operation
  of the invention as stated.  However, they did include areas that needed
  to be improved before re-submitting the invention for re-evaluation.
 
  One of the interesting, actually there were several, comments that the
  evaluator at NBST made was that this device could have other applications
  other than what was stated in the patent.  As such, he went on to explain
  the other possible uses, which is from what I understand - is uncommon.
 
  But thinking about the theory of fusion, (i.e. cold, hot, or indifferent)
  started me to wonder if in fact that this device could be modified to
  compress a hot plasma??  I am aware of the Tomahawk fusion reactor that
  is being designed.  The concepts are not to unlike, except that I had
  thought to take another approach to the problem without exploring
  existing systems.
 
  I have a couple of questions for anyone willing to take the time to
  think about the concept:
 
  In a chamber, where the magnetic fins are rotating at extreme velocities
  alternating the magnetic field proportionally, what effect would this
  have on any species?  Now, take the species and place them in a core
  chamber that resides in the inner-chamber of the cylinder, and pulse an
  electrical field down the line, what additional effect would this have??
 
  Does or could this accelerate the species to the choke point??
 
  Would a bell shape curve, with incremental phasing occuring, influence
  the molecular orbit of the species to degrade gravity of the proton
  or electron??  If so, what effect would agitation and collision have on
  the species taking into consideration the other events that are occuring?
 
  Now that the excited species have reached the choke point, what effect
  would a strong magnetic field (alternating) have on the held species?
 
  If this field were strong enough, but measure the needed gauss in
  relation to the phase effects, could it be possible to compress the
  excited species more easier and with less energy?
 
  If the expended energy of the target species were taken into consideration,
  and the choke point range held the species in place, could some other
  action be taken to compress the species (i.e. a pulsed electrical field)
  that would further bring the rotating protons and electrons together??
 
  I could go on and on with the questions, but I hope that someone's
  interest was sparked enough to respond to my query or take it upon
  themselves to investigate this phenomenon more closely.
 
  One more thing to consider, if this design were similar to a gas turbine
  what other applications could it be possibly used for (anti-magnetic
  confinement chamber)?????
 
  Thanks for caring enough to send the IRS...
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenKVJLC cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.19 / Dieter Britz /  Correction, please; more heavy heat
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction, please; more heavy heat
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 15:55:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
in my last biblio-update, I write in the intro,
> A 1g sample aliquot of D2O would thus have about
>1E-14 tritium atoms in it, worth remembering.
- well, 1E14 atoms was meant, of course. Red Face Dept.
 
Then we have Chuck Sites, alias chuck@coplex.com:
>   The excess heat that Pon's and Fleischmann saw was real (did I get him
>right Dieter? ;-).
You got Fleischmann right, but now you mangle Pons; he is not in the genitive
normally. Sorry to be a stickler.
 
 Chuck goes on:
 
>    Dale did bring up one point where he points out; this ignores
>how charges interact over the long range across a metal lattice.  Charge
>regardless of how it interacts by QM, should effect voltage, current, and
>resistance.  Opposites charges attract, so, as more protons are pumped
>into the metal, more electrons should want to hang around and cause
>resistance.  At the same time, this over-all positive charge should
>attract more electrons from the electro-motive force (EMF).  From the
 
etc etc. Chuck, you make all this needlessly complicated. There is no need to
go into QM states, band theory and all that stuff. Try to see the forest, not
the atoms in the trees. There are no deuterons being pushed into Pd: it is
deuterium atoms. As I said in my last submission, this D is thought to break
up into an electron and a deuteron, but we can even ignore that. Let me try
again. In the case of electrons (i.e. normal electric current), a voltage is
the force that drags the little buggers through the metal, and the electrons'
progress causes the metal to heat up, by bumping into the metal atoms. You get
no further information at this level, by going into the QM details of this
process; the heat energy is exactly equal to the IE work done by you, the
dragger, the applier of that voltage. OK. Now in the case of D-charging, by
providing a high concentration of D atoms at the Pd surface (either by
electrolysis or high-p D2 gas), we effectively push D into the metal. Let's
even forget the dissociation into e and d; these D atoms make their way into
the interior of the Pd. They start with some highish energy at the surface
and, bumping into metal atoms on the way, impart some of this to the metal. As
they get further inside, and have lost the energy, they get as much as they
give, on average. The heating of the metal here comes from the "pushing" work
done at the surface. As I say, this is a part of the I*dE, where dE is the
electrolysis overpotential - another part goes into the electrolyte, which
also heats up a bit. In the case of gas charging, the gas must cool off. Quite
a bit, actually, since the surface dissociation of D2 into two adsorbed D's is
strongly endothermic, much more so than the piffling heat generated by the D's
filling the metal.
 So, in this context, i.e. of you trying to explain excess heat by a deuteron
current heating up the metal, I don't care about band structure, solitons or
twisted ribbons; they have nothing to contribute to this simple situation. I
have strong reservations about socalled excess heat and would love to see a
rational explanation, but this is not it, mate.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.19 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 568 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 568 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 15:57:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
that was quick, wasn't it? I wanted to get this lot out of the way quickly. As
I have said before, I include patents as papers, since most of those I have
read include some evidence that their process or preferred method works - at
least they claim it does, which is what you might say about "normal" papers,
too. So here are 11 more. You might be as disgusted as I am at the dates seen
on some of them, and at these things in general. Assume for the moment that
cold fusion works, i.e. F&P and Jones+ have made an epoch making discovery.
Then, within a few days of the announcement, patents appear which are no more
than parasitic copies of the discoverers' process, by people who had zero to
do with the discovery. Parasites and thieves, I say. If you now tell me that's
business, then I still don't have to like it, they're still lower than the
humble slime mold to me. It serves them right that most of these things are
dumb anyway. Like the one about implanting D into Pd by an electric field
(Hasegawa+); that's a well-known set-up (self targetting) and must have been
rejected as totally uneconomic decades ago. The slimy ones don't even read.
Noninski squared have patented F&P's calorimeter; I wish them luck selling it!
No I don't, they are parasites, thieves and (Russians love this word) idlers.
 I have quoted the abstracts as verbatim as possible out of Chem. Abstracts,
having decided not to buy any more expensive patent reprints. I can't, with
ASCII, reproduce the degree sign, or the wavy approximation sign, etc but I do
me best. The missing punctuation in the Schoessow item is CA's, not mine.
Caught them again, heh heh.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Jul. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 568
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drexler J;                             PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 02,359, 21-Feb-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:2554494 (1991).
"Distributed accumulator for energy conversion".
** "A cell is described for producing thermal energy by absorption or
adsorption of D and lithon into D ion-permeable and li-ion-permeable
particulates supported on a surface of an accumulator in the form of a mesh,
rods, sheets, or membranes, or within a gelatin-like matrix. Deuterons and
lithons are produced by electrolyte ionization in a liq. contg. high purity
D2O, and net elec. charge on a D-permeable and lithon-permeable particulate is
controlled by allowing neg. charged OD- radicals to accumulate on the surface
of the particulates that balance out the pos. charged deuterons and lithons".
(Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasegawa M, Hosono N;                   Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 414,399, 27-Feb-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:255493 (1991).
"Process for storing hydrogen, and apparatus for cold nuclear fusion and
method for generating heat energy, using the process".
** "A process for storing H comprises placing a H storing member in a H gas
atm. and generating a discharge in the H gas atm., thereby occluding the H in
the H storing member. An app. for cold fusion by using the above process is
also claimed". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ishikawa Y, Ogata H, Saho N, Mihara Y;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,276,990, 13-Nov-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:255488 (1991).
"Nuclear fusion at room temperature".
** "In the nuclear fusion based on the electrolysis of heavy H2O, a
D-absorbing cathode has a porous structure. To increase the absorption rate of
O [sic], small amt. of As, CN-, S2- and/or Cl- is added to the heavy H2O".
(Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ishikawa Y, Ogata H, Saho N, Mihara Y;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,276,992, 13-Nov-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:255487 (1991).
"Deuterium absorption in nuclear fusion".
** "In nuclear fusion, D is absorbed, in vapor phase, by a neg.-biased
material (e.g. Pd). The material may be a film formed by chem.-vapor or
sputter deposition in a D atm." (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;                   Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,311,792, 27-Dec-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:255498 (1991).
"Method of cold fusion".
** D2 gas or plasma state D or ionized D gas is absorbed into a H2-absorbing
alloy. Pd may be loaded inside and/or on the surface of the alloy. The method
does not necessarily require electrolysis. Thus, a H2-absorbing alloy is
exposed to D2 gas to absorb as much as 1000 times the vol. of the alloy, to
cause cold nuclear fusion The heat evolved by the cold fusion can be extd. via
heat exchangers". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motomiya T;                   Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,293,692, 04-Dec-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:255491 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion"
** "Cold nuclear fusion includes: (a) introducing a D gas (ca. 1E-03 Torr)
into a vacuum chamber contg. a planar or curved cathode plate from an elec.
conductor (e.g., P2) which is likely to form a hydride, and a needlelike anode
from a refractory elec. conductor; (b) applying d.c. to form an elec. field of
ca. 30 V/Angstrom between the electrode tips for the ionisation of D; and (c)
accelerating D ions toward the cathode plate; so that the plate absorbs and
enriches D ions". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nakanishi F, Tatsumi M, Tada K;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,287,289, 27-Nov-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:255490 (1991).
"Power generator based on cold nuclear fusion"
** "A power generator based on cold nuclear fusion which involves electrolysis
of D2O is characterized in that D and O generated by the electrolysis are
burned back to D2O, which is returned to the electrolysis tank".
(Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noninski V, Noninski Kh;               PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 01,493, 20-Jul-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:2554496 (1991).
"Method and device for the determination of the obtained energy during
electrolytic processes".
** "A method and app. for use in detg. the quantity of energy obtained during
electrolytic processes is disclosed. The app. includes a Dewar vessel contg.
a measured quantity of H2O. An electrolyte cell is hermetically sealed in the
vessel. A plurality of thermocouples is positioned within the vessel for
purposes of measuring temps. within the vessel. A magnetic stirrer is mounted
in the bottom of the vessel. The app. can be used in cold fusion exts.".
(Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoessow GJ;                          PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 02,360, 30-Jun-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:2554497 (1991).
"Electrochemical nuclear process and apparatus for producing tritium, heat,
and radiation".
** "A process for the prepn. and recovery of T, heat energy, and radiation
energy by electrolysis of a liq. medium contg. D2O in an electrolytic cell
having a cathode of Pd, or certain other elements by operating the process at
ca. 10-300 degC and an app. for this process are described the cathode
comprises a central solid geometrical mass and the anode is an open top
cup-shaped vessel positioned adjacently below and encircling the cathode.
(Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaffer G;                             PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 01,037, 13-Jul-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:2554492 (1991).
"Chemo-nuclear fusion methods".
** "A method of causing D mols. to combine to become He atoms in the presence
of a Pd catalyst comprises providing a reactor chamber contg. D2O and a Pd
catalyst, introducing controlled amts. of D into the chamber so that the D
mols. are absorbed by the Pd catalyst where the Pd catalyst executes a
simultaneous shift of 2 electrons, leaving 2 stripped D nuclei trapped in
single Pd clathrate cages. The juxtaposed D nuclei in a single cage and having
the effect of the absorption energy exerting tremendous compressive forces
collapse to form an alpha-particle and release relativistic energy as
gamma-ray or kinetically as heat. Finally, the evolved heat is transferred to
perform useful work". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanaka M, Hattori S;          Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,278,189, 19-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:255489 (1991).
"Power generator and heater based on cold nuclear fusion".
** "A power generator based on cold nuclear fusion comprises: (1) a device for
electrolysis of D2O; (2) a steam generator utilizing hot D2O; (3) a steam
turbine; (4) a steam condenser; (5) a pump to send H2O from the condenser to
the steam generator; (6) a means to burn D with O; (7) A steam heater; and (8)
a pump to send D2O from the steam generator and the steam heater to the
electrolysis device. A heater based on cold nuclear fusion comprises: (1) a
device for electrolysis of D2O; (2) a 1st means to heat a fluid with hot D2O
or D2O steam from the electrolysis device; (3) a means to burn D with O; (4) a
2nd means to heat the fluid or a 2nd fluid requiring higher temp., with the
D2O steam from the combustion means; and (5) a pump to send D2O from the 1st
and 2nd heating means to the electrolysis device" (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.19 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio3 now full
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio3 now full
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 15:58:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
Ho ho, wonder how many of you know the reference. Never mind, a man must have
his little joke. This is to let you know that I have, even now, sent off the
file BIBLIO3 to the archive. It is now 150 kb, which I have decided is the
limit, so it'll now stay as is, and I'll put all subsequent items into the
next one, BIBLIO4, at present an empty shell.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FBI Reference "Hot List" Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FBI Reference "Hot List" Program
Date: 19 Jul 91 05:23:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <9107161352.AA06276@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
	(Terry Bollinger) writes:
>
>Hi folks,
>
>I may have inadvertantly stirred up a bit of controversy of an unintended
>sort with my passing comment about FBI lists, so let me briefly explain:
>
>Several years ago (during the Reagan administration) the FBI began a program
>of actively working "with" libraries to find cases where researchers (esp.
>non-USA researchers) were looking extensively at topics such as nuclear
>technology.
 
This has been a common practice that goes way way back and is much more
global than the FBI.  For example, they were obtaining the names of
individuals interested reading books on in making home brew bombs during
the more radical periods of a recent anti-war period, and I speculate
they snooped to discover those interested learning about making "shine"
during the prohibition period.
 
On the other side the CIA recruits a number of "readers" that read tons of
garbage to discover plots, groups, movements, and even ciphers.
 
Just samosamo.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.19 /  morrison@vxpri /  Cold Fusion Update No. 5
     
Originally-From: vac+@cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate)
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison - COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 5
Subject: Cold Fusion Update No. 5
Date: 19 Jul 91 18:04:09 GMT
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 17:18:41 +0200
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

 
I am posting this for Douglas Morrison,
 
    -- Vince
 
 
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 17:18:41 +0200
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Subject: Cold Fusion Update No. 5
To: vincent.cate%sam.cs.cmu.edu@MINT.decnet.cern.ch
 
Dear E632 and WA84 Colleagues,                              7 July 1991.
 
                      COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 5
 
             REVIEW OF SECOND ANNUAL COLD FUSION CONFERENCE.
 
SUMMARY
   Over 200 people attended the Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion at Como
which last 5 complete days. 58 talks were given plus 5 "Survey" talks plus
two Round Table discussions and one Press Conference. No startling new
positive results were presented though Believers considered good progress
had been made. A few careful experiments gave negative results. A couple of
the more interesting positive experiments refused to describe details because
of "patent restrictions". The Kamiokande detector has a very high reputation.
After not finding anything with Titanium, a switch to electrolysis with
Palladium produced some neutrons causing excitement and discussion. The major
problem of Cold Fusion - the disagreement of the amount of heat claimed and
the corresponding expected number of nuclear products - still exists.
Surveys still indicate other major problems, particularly reproducibility.
A Third Annual Conference is planned.
 
SUBJECTS;
 1. MAJOR RESULTS
    1.1  Excess heat
        1.1.1 McKubre, SRI + EPRI
        1.1.2 Droege, Batavia, Ill.
        1.1.3 Szpak, San Diego
        1.1.4 Liaw, Hawaii
        1.1.5 Fleischmann and Pons,
    1.2. Neutrons
        1.2.1 Kamiokande, Japan
        1.2.2 Scaramuzzi, Frascati
        1.2.3 Taiuti, Genoa
        1.2.4 Bertin, Gran Sasso
    1.3. Tritium
        1.3.1 Will, NCFI
    1.4. Helium
        1.4.1 Miles, Naval Weapons Research Center, China Lake, Ca.
    1.5 Rates of tritium, neutrons and helium
        1.5.1 Cecil, Colorado
    1.6 Surface or Bulk effect
 2. REVIEWS
    2.1 Menlove - survey of neutron detection
    2.2 Scaramuzzi - Survey on Gas-loading Experiments
    2.3 Ikegami - Research in Japan
    2.4 Tsarev - Research in the Soviet Union
    2.5 Li - Research in China
    2.6 Schlapbach - Hydrogen and its Isotopes in and on Metals.
 3. THEORY
 4. GERISCHER - Review by a Neutral Person
 5. ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS
 6. OTHER
     6.1 Third Annual Conference
     6.2 National Cold Fusion Institute
     6.3 Pons and Fleischmann, Jones
     6.4 Books
     6.5 Money
 7. CONCLUSIONS
 
1 MAJOR RESULTS
               Many results were presented and a hundred pages of notes taken.
It is impractible to present them all, especially as many were very small
experiments which did not fulfil the criteria established at the BYU meeting
which encouraged only major experiments looking at several pieces of evidence
simultaneously. To appreciate the flavour of the Second Annual Conference,
a selection of major experiments where normal controls had been performed,
are discussed here plus a few others chosen for historical reasons. Please
send me documents if you feel there is an error in this. My apologies to
people not mentioned.
 
    1.1 EXCESS HEAT
        1.1.1 McKubre, SRI + EPRI
                           Mike McKubre presented a large experiment by
Cold Fusion standards. This was perhaps the most impressive positive result.
There were measurements of calorimetry, tritium, neutrons, gammas and
autoradiography. No evidence was found for neutrons or gammas. Some indications
for tritium formation but not "evidence". Some positive indication in one out
of 50 audioradiograms.
    The hypothesis was that positive results were obtained only with a high
D/Pd loading, about 1.0 and some 100 - 120 experiments were performed on
loading.
    A closed calorimeter was used as this eliminates most of large corrections
for heat losses. An "isothermal" flow calorimeter was used and some 30
experiments performed. There were still some problems with heat losses, eg
flow streamlining at points where temperature was measured. The bath is about
a meter square and contains four cells. The conditions could be varied widely,
pressure from 40 to 10000 psi, 30 to 600 mA/cm2 and up to 6400 mA/cm2,
0.1 to 100 Watts, runs were 1000 to 2000 hours. It seems that Pd rods were
used eg 3 mm diameter and 3 cm long.
   Results for one rod were shown giving 8 or 9 bursts of heat in 2000 hours
in total 45 MJ per mole of Pd. Excess power was often about 10%. One rod
appeared to have a threshold of 300 mA/cm2. Another rod (results not shown) had
an excess of < 250%. No negative heat bursts were found. No excess bursts were
observed before certain "initial conditions". Did not observe bursts when
D/Pd loading was < 0.9.
   No bursts were observed when operating with H2O but Mike said that the
amount of running was inadequate.
Question(Bockris) Reproducibility? Ans; 10 successful runs if apply criteria
- initial time was 300 hours for first burst.
Question(Bush) If use PdCl to blacken electrodes, time to start is only 2 hours.
Ans. Often have shiny rods afterwards (and some blackened).
      Note that these were not constant temperature calorimeters as at Harwell
and therefore the corrections for temperature measurements could still be
reduced.
      In private conversation, if one takes the total power out and the total
power in over the entire run, the excess was between 1% and 2 to 3%.
 
     1.1.2 DROEGE, Batavia, Il.
                 This calorimeter constructed by Tom and Lee Droege, was the
finest presented to the conference. It is a closed calorimeter and has inner
and outer shells which are held at constant temperature. Being a null-balance
technique (like the Wheatstone bridge) it has no heat loss errors to worry
about and correct for by assumptions or by special analyses.
   It is highly automated, eg by servo-controlled thermo-electric devices.
When operated at 10 Watts, long-term drifts are only 1 mWatt or less.
Depending on the "noise" from the cell, measurement limits are from
4 to 10 mWatts.
   The calibration is done in a blind manner - heat bursts whose size is
unknown to the operator, are introduced by a random number generator and the
output is then studied to determine the size of the burst - ingenious!
   A continuous measurement is made of the absorbed deuterium. D/Pd values
of between 0.6 and 1.1 were recorded - grinding and polishing the surface
appeared to increase the loading.
   Many anomalous heat effects were observed, but on further study rational
explanations were found. The authors write "It is disturbing that as the
sensitivity of our apparatus is increased, the anomalous heat effect seems
to become smaller and smaller. This is one of the signatures of Pathological
Science".
   The final result was zero +/- 0.2% or in terms of watts, 0.2 W/cm3.
 
     1.1.3 SPZAK, San Diego
                            S. Szpak et al. of the Naval Ocean Systems Center,
claimed that reproducibility could be greatly increased by a special
preparation technique - preparing the Pd electrodes by the electrodeposition
from Pd++ salts in the presence of evolving deuterium. The reproducibility
was measured by observing tritium. However the amount of tritium involved
was small and when asked about errors, correction for enrichment and checks on
tritium contamination of the Pd, it appeared that the controls and checks had
had been partially but not yet fully performed.
 
     1.1.4 LIAW, Hawaii
                        Previous Cold Fusion meetings have been electrified by
claims of excess heat of over 600% over input power when a molten salt
technique was used at 370 C. These claims were repeated and it was said 4He
had been measured but not 3He, though it was concluded that the 4He excess was
slight and could be ambient gas. The questioning afterwards was unusually
critical. It was pointed out that the 4He level was ten millions time less
than that of Miles. Dr. Bush questioned the base line of the excess heat
calculation. Fritz Will said he was impressed by the experiments but worried
that very little Deuterium dissolves in Pd at 370 C - was told that the D/Pd
loading was about 0.1 up to 0.3 or 0.4. It was answered that there had been
two positive experiments and 12 others (the impression was that the first two
had apparently given excess heat but it had not been possible to reproduce
this effect since). It was also replied that there was no correlation between
current density and excess heat.
 
     1.1.5 FLEISCHMANN AND PONS
                                Stan Pons said that the apparatus and
calorimeter had been modified but the conclusions were not significantly
modified - the biggest change mentioned seemed to be that the top of the
cell now had a silver mirror to reduce heat losses. Most of the talk was a
list of sources of heat loss and how to correct for them - the phrase
"non-linear regression analysis" occured frequently.
    The second half of the talk was unusual as it was handed over to Dr.
Hansen. He introduced himself as a physicist from the Fusion Energy Council
of the State of Utah who had been asked to analyse the non-released data of
Pons and Fleischmann (a no-win situation as he said). He had taken selected
data, 8 runs of which 2 were blank. Five of the six remaining showed
definitive excess heat and the sixth was unclear - it looked like modest
effects. Did a non-linear regression analysis with Pons and Fleischman and
Chaves and Walling. The excess heat was 6000 eV per Pd atom which is a 1000
times greater than chemical energy. He thought Pons and Fleischmann knew
why the cells worked so well.
    In answer to questions, it was said that the electrodes were an alloy
of silver, about 10% but many alloys had been tried. The excess heat was 1.2
to 1.4 watts for an input power of about 6 watts. It was replied that as the
rods are 1mm diameter and 1.25 cm long, the Pd volume is only 1/100 of a cc
and hence the power per cc is large, about 100 Watts. When asked if the
electrodes were prepared in a special way, the answer was "Maybe". Several
times the point was made that one only obtained excess heat
when the D/Pd loading was above 0.9, but when asked how the loading was
measured, it was answered that electro-chemical techniques were being
used, the measurements were being made now but there was good reason to
believe that they were 1.0 to 1.1.
    Quite a few Believers complained of the lack of new information and
the non-answering of certain questions. Basically the talk was very similar
to last year's. No mention was made of the large series of 32 and then 64 cells
that had been set up early last year at NCFI. Many times it had been said that
if they changed to a cell which is (a) closed, and (b) in constant temperature
baths,then all these many large corrections for heat losses would be avoided
and the analysis would be very simple. This may have been partially answered
when they said they wished a cell of a simple design so that many tests could
be made.
     In the poster session, a brief paper was presented where results of
measurements of gammas were given, the gammas being of 2.20 MeV from capture
of thermalised neutrons in water. They had concluded that measurements of the
very weak spectrum of gammas was not possible using NaI detectors in the
presence of the dominant background due to the daughter products of the
Uranium and Thorium decay chains, but that one should use instead high
resolution(but low sensitivity) germanium detectors. The spectra shown had
sharp peaks though they were mainly background. The peak from neutrons was
small. The paper did not show whether these neutrons were from the
cell or from general background. No rates were given, though later Martin
quoted a figure of 5 to 50 neutrons/sec - however the efficiency is not
known, but it is clear that there is no agreement with the normal experimental
results that give a billion billion neutrons per second for a Watt of d-d
fusion. The full paper with all experimental details is awaited.
 
  1.2 NEUTRONS
         1.2.1 KAMIOKANDE
                 Have great admiration for this Japanese experimental team
working on detection of neutrinos from Surpernovae and Solar Neutrinos (see CERN
preprint PPE/91-104 that have just finished on this subject). They are a large
group, adequately funded, who do careful work, many calibrations, and who
publish generously and reply frankly to questions. They have obtained
excellent results. Steve Jones and Howard Menlove have been putting Cold Fusion
cells inside the detector since January. Even with the surrounding salt
solution for the neutrons, the volume taken up is small relative to the 3000
tons of water and does not interfere with the detection of Solar Neutrinos.
The idea is that any neutrons produced would be slowed down and interact with
chlorine in a container filled with salt water, giving gammas which would
create electrons which give Cherenkov light which the photomultipliers on the
walls recognise. Have always felt that if Kamiokande detected neutrons at the
low level as Jones and Menlove described, then this confirmation would be
decisive.
     The first talk on the Sunday morning at 09.00 hours was by Dr. Ikegami
from the Fusion Research Institute(almost all "hot' fusion) in Japan - he has
the special responsibility of co-ordinating Cold Fusion research in Japan.
He finished his review by suddenly showing a newspaper cutting of two weeks
ago which he translated as saying that Kamiokande had found neutrons!
      Facts were few but with Howard Menlove's help it was possible to
establish;
1) Initial experiments were made with Titanium and gas filling with as far as
possible the same conditions as previously and where random neutrons and
also bursts of neutrons had been claimed. In the clean low-background
Kamiokande detector, no evident signal of neutrons were found over several
months, but as Steve Jones says, the analysis is not yet complete.
2) A new set of experiments were started using Palladium and electrolytic
cells. It was here that some six bursts of neutrons were recently detected
3) The bursts of neutrons were from 2 up to 6 neutrons per burst.
     Some comments can be made;
a) previously bursts of about 50 neutrons were claimed - it was said that the
new number is only a tenth of that previously claimed - however some
correction for the detection efficiency may be required which might or might
not change this conclusion.
b) Suggested that the observation is consistent with a small contamination of
Uranium or Plutonium which occasionally fissions. The contamination could be
in the palladium or the D2O but not in the Titanium or H2O.
   When Uranium fissions it gives about 2 to 3 neutrons on average, but
the spread is 1 to 6 - as observed (note happened to see that the probablilty
of 7 neutrons is about 1%), again some correction for efficiency of neutron
detection may be needed. Plutonium gives a higher average number of neutrons.
Another possibility is 252Cf which fissions at a higher rate and hence a
very small contamination (very difficult to detect) could explain the
observation.
    Now this is a hypothesis, that the neutrons come from uranium or other
contamination and give fusion reactions, but as it is quite possible. It should
be eliminated before claiming a new Cold Fusion effect. This is surely being
done - eg by replacing the D2O by H2O and the palladium by another metal. Note
that Kamiokande is possibly one of the most sensitive detectors of very small
amounts of uranium or plutonium!
    In previous correspondance, Steve Jones said one should wait for the full
analysis before drawing any conclusions, and this is correct in general, but
the publication (unknown to Steve) in a newspaper and the presentation at a
conference, rather cancel that argument.
   If it should turn out that all the experiments with Titanium and with
palladium that previously gave claims of random neutrons and bursts of neutrons
fail to be repeated when placed in the low-background, high-efficiency detector
that is Kamiokande, the natural conclusion is that they are unlikely to exist.
    Would like to add a further important comment; Kamiokande can detect the
Cherenkov light from electrons produced by gammas. It is suggested by some
that since not enough neutrons and tritons are produced by Cold Fusion, then
the third reaction,
          d + d   ====>   4He  +  Gamma of 23.8 MeV
must be dominant(though many experiments have shown it is only ten millionth
of the others). If this were true, then such high energy gammas would be
easily detectable in Kamiokande. They seem not to have been observed. This
would appear to close that loophole. Some escape from this difficulty by
postulating that the 23.8 MeV of energy does not appear as a gamma but the
lattice absorbs the energy. This is considered by most as impossible as the
reaction time is less than ten to the power -20 seconds while the time for the
lattice to transmit energy is ten to the power -10 seconds. This factor of ten
thousand million might seem to kill the idea, but see Section on Theory below.
The Kamiokande result should eventually give a limit on how often the
gamma appears as a gamma and how often its energy is spread over the lattice.
     Thus it may be that in a few weeks time the Kamiokande experiment may
give strong evidence in favour of neutron production, or it may be able to
deliver what some would consider to be a fatal blow to Cold Fusion;
but True Believers will probably still believe. At present it appears to have
provided evidence that no random neutrons or bursts of neutrons have been
found coming from cells previously claimed to give positive effects.
 
     1.2.2 SCARAMUZZI, FRASCATI
                               Dr. Scaramuzzi has continued measurements of
neutrons from cells with Titanium loaded from D2 gas and temperature cycled.
After the first experiments in April 1989 where only a single BF3 counter was
used, the counting efficency has been improved, but it has still proved
difficult to reproduce the earlier results. Now a third generation of
experiments is under way looking for short bursts of neutrons in the Menlove
manner (rather than the long bursts originally claimed). To lower the background
the experiments have been performed in the Gran Sasso tunnel, however the
reduction is much less than would be expected and there must be a suspicion that
gammas are being measured rather than neutrons (indispensible pulse shape
analysis was not mentioned). Reproducibility is still a problem but three
short Menlove-type bursts have been recorded but they occur at a temperature
of -120 C in apparent contradiction with the value of -30 C published earlier -
this was mentioned but not cleared up.
 
     1.2.3 TAIUTI, GENOVA
                          This experiment is unusual in that great care
has been taken to reduce background, in particular the indispensible
gamma - neutron discrimination is achieved by pulse-shape, energy and neutron
life-time analysis. Further there are anti-coincidence detectors to detect
bursts from cosmic rays. The Scaramuzzi technique was tried by cooling Ti loaded
with D2 gas at 20 bar, and warming up. No neutrons were found. With Ti powder
the low upper limit of E-25 dd fusions/s is found (initially Jones et al.
reported E-23).
 
      1.2.4 BERTIN, GRAN SASSO
                               Dr Bertin recalled that in April 1989, a result
was obtained on neutron production with Jones-type cells in the Gran Sasso
tunnel and the rate was in good agreement with the results of Jones et al.
However the reader of these notes may remember that at the Santa Fe meeting
in May 1989, Yves Declais pointed out that the background rate was very high
so that what was being measured must have been gammas. The numbers given by
Dr. Bertin seemed to confirm this. He described how in the interim they have
now developed an excellent system of measuring neutrons with 6Li glass as
well as NE213 scintillator and pulse-shape analysis so that the contamination
of gammas can confidently be expected to be small. New results should be
available soon.
 
   1.3 TRITIUM
        1.3.1 WILL, NCFI
                         Fritz Will and Katherina Cedzynska presented results
from the National Cold Fusion Institute (other than the work of Pons and
Fleischmann). They concentrated on achieving high D/Pd loadings, tritium and
neutron measurements. This was because they had found that if D/Pd < 0.7 then
they found no effects but if D/Pd > 0.8 then they found effects. They used a
volumemetric method with a sealed cell to measure the loading.
   With 2mm diameter rods of 3 cm length, it took 2 to 4 days to achieve
loadings of 1.0, a saturation value, but the rods were not uniformly loaded.
Later some members of the audience said they were surprised that such high
loadings were obtained - they were told the answer was a secret following
the patent attorney's request.
    Light water controls were run simultaneously with heavy water experiments.
    Neutrons were measured with two 3He counters and bursts of up to 280 n/s
were obtained. Only triples or quads were counted in 40 microseconds. There were
a factor of 2.3 more with deuterium than with hydrogen.
    Tritium was measured in the gas, electrolyte and in the metal. The
background rate was unusually low, 27 dpm/ml. Dr. Cedzynska said in four out
of 8 experiments the tritium count was above background, a few hundred dpm/ml.
Dr. Will said that latterly four out of four cells gave tritium in each of
gas, electrolyte and metal with deuterium but not with hydrogen. Yields were
4.3 to 11 E10 atoms of tritium per cm3 of Pd in the Pd, but less in the gas
phase, few times ten to the eight.
    There was a tentative result of excess heat measured in one of four cells
with a small current density.
    The t/n ratio was ten million, but unreliable.
    It was replied that the effect did not seem to be a surface one.
 
   1.4 HELIUM
        1.4.1 MILES, Navel Weapons Center, China Lake, Ca.
                                                           Dr. Miles said that
if few neutrons and tritons are observed, then by elimination, 4He must be
produced. During episodes of excess heat, effluent gas samples were sent to
Univ. of Texas at Austin by Bush et al. for analysis. 4He was found with
deuterium but not with hydrogen. The mass spectrometer could separate 4He
and D2 peaks.
      When asked by David Worledge whether helium diffusion through the
glass walls could explain the results, and why was no helium found with
hydrogen, Dr. Miles replied that 1000 times more atoms of hydrogen wanted to
escape through the walls than helium atoms wanted to enter and hence the
atmospheric helium could not enter to contaminate the samples.
      From an earlier preprint it may be read that the 4He detection limit is
0.14 Watts which corresponds to 2 E12 atoms of 4He in a 500ml flask. The 4He
observed corresponded to 0.14 to 0.52 watts.
 
    1.5 MEASUREMENTS OF RELATIVE RATES OF TRITIUM, NEUTRONS AND HELIUM
         1.5.1 CECIL, Colorado
                               Ed Cecil et al. have measured d-d reactions
at low energy, 170 to 2000 eV in the cm with beams of deuterons of 2 to 15 keV
in the lab. using a Cockcroft-Walton accelerator. They measured the cross
sections for the three reactions;
 
       d  +  d    =====>   3He  +   n                   (1)
 
                  =====>    t   +   p                   (2)
 
                  =====>   4He  +   Gamma(23.8 MeV)     (3)
 
They also fired the deuterons on to a 6Li target and measured p, alpha and
gamma production. Down to the lowest energy they found the t to n ratio for
reactions (1) and (2), was unity with no indication of any rise at lower
energies. Also the rates agreed very well with theoretical calculations.
All the other reactions were also in agreement with expectations, in particular
4He production was much less(ten million times) than tritium and neutron
production as would be expected since it is an electromagnetic process and
the others are strong reactions).
     Morrison said that these results went down to the lowest values possible
experimentally, but some people thought that at the still lower energies of
Cold Fusion it might still be possible to produce a factor of ten million.
However there are two pieces of evidence against this;
     (1) Models of the burning of stars such as our Sun are very successful
and involve still lower energies - any factor of even ten times would show
up in astrophysical observations such as the neutrinos from Supernova 1987A
observed by Kamiokande which agree to a factor of two in estimating 3 E54
neutrinos produced.
     (2) Muon catalysed fusion proceeds at effectively zero energy and
people who work on it find the normal ratio of 1 ; 1 ; (very small),
for reactions 1 to 3 resp.
   Fritz Will commented that a crystal lattice was different. Morrison
replied that the time of the interaction was ten billion times faster
than the lattice response time.
    It was interesting that these results of Cecil et al. were never
referred to again at the meeting.
 
   1.6 SURFACE OR BULK EFFECT
                              This was one of the more controversial
questions among Believers. Some such as John Bockris, strongly supported
surface effects with Pd and Ti, others such as Fritz Will, considered it
was not a surface effect. Some use Pd rods, others use Ti powder. Many
arguments and theories were advanced, but what was noteworthy was the absence
of direct evidence - for example, no one presented a measured "effect" as
a function of the surface to volume ratio.
 
2. EXPERIMENTAL REVIEWS
 
         2.1 MENLOVE - Survey of Neutron Detection
                                                 Howard Menlove said that in
Ed Storms's review there 38 papers with positive results and 44 with negative
results. At Como there were 38 papers and 5 posters and 2/3 gave positive
results. The source rates of neutron production varied from 1/100 to 100 000
neutrons/sec. This either reflects the equipment is faulty or the source is
non-linear. He reviewed types of detectors and gave a list of a dozen
different ways of getting false positive results. He then talked mainly of
the Los Alamos experiments.
 
        2.2 SCARAMUZZI - Survey of Gas Loading Experiments
                                                           Dr. Scaramuzzi
listed the large number of parameters that must be chosen and controlled.
He said the experiments are complex but concluded that despite this,
gas-loaded experiments are better controlled than electrolytic ones.
 
        2.3 RESEARCH IN JAPAN
                              Dr. Ikegami said some 20 groups were working
on Cold Fusion, 12 on neutrons, 4 on excess heat and the others on charged
particles, helium etc. They can get their metals free of charge and the
Fusion Institute(essentially hot fusion) helps with meetings etc. Many
positive results but most of the experiments are small, except Kamiokande.
 
        2.4 RESEARCH IN THE SOVIET UNION
                                        Dr. Tsarev said that the first
conference of Cold Fusion workers was in March 1991 in Dubna where 45 institutes
were represented, but with zero funding. After the initial interest some got
positive results but then stopped perhaps because of the mass media.
Positive and negative results were obtained but generally only the former
were published. He then gave a long list of groups and results. A Dubna
group that was well-known for its excellent work on muon-induced fusion,
found no effect four times and put the strong limit of E-25 d-d fusions/s
but then tried the Menlove type of experiment and analysis and claimed
bursts of neutrons.
 
        2.5 RESEARCH IN CHINA
                          Dr. Li said that the attendance at the meeting in 1990
was 28 groups with 77 persons on 10 May 1990, while in 1991 there were two
meetings, one for the South-West with 5 groups on May 4th and one in Beijing
on May 15 with 7 groups; so it can be seen that the numbers are shrinking
with time. Some groups found effects but sometimes could not reproduce and
stopped, others continued and tried new techniques. Several used simple
inexpensive plastic detectors such as CR39 which gave tracks for charged
particle detection.
 
       2.6 SCHLAPBACH - HYDROGEN AND ITS ISOTOPES IN AND ON METALS
                                         Prof. Schlapbach of Friburg
gave a very serious, witty and cultured talk which seemed to please
everyone. He gave many technical points and his written version
is awaited. He recommended reading "Topics in Appld. Physics", vol 63, 1988.
Among the points made were;
   If the metal surface is oxidised this can create a barrier which could
greatly reduce the rate at which hydrogen enters
   explained in detail that the isotopes of hydrogen diffuse at different speeds
in metals and hence this will give an isotopic separation
   at high loadings of deuterium in palladium, > 1, the d and Pd ions are
closer together but never close enough to cause fusion
   intermetallic compounds can take up more hydrogen - his preference was
LaNi5 which expands 25% in volume, but it is very brittle
   also Ca3Pd2, where one can achieve Ca3Pd2H7
   the Pd-hydrogen system was very well studied
   in answer to a question - if you wanted a non-equilibrium state, would
expect to occur near the surface not in bulk. The best bet would be to study
rare earths.
 
3. THEORY
       Many theories of Cold Fusion were presented and often strongly supported
during various question times. A review of the theories was given by Dr.
Preparata with a sub-title "Possible and Impossible Theories". He presented
the problems faced by theory to fit all the experimental results including
the t/n ratio of E+7 - he almost sounded like an arch-sKeptic. He required
a "possible" new theory to explain the new results without un-explaining
the old.
     He required there to be deep holes of 100eV and 2Ang. wide, one per Pd
atom - this is to penetrate the potential barrier. Theories which cannot
do this are "impossible" - he quoted the theories of Schwinger, Bush, and
Chubb and Chubb as being impossible.
     To explain the relative absence of tritium and neutrons compared to the
excess heat assumed to come from fusion, he said that the dominant reaction
must be (3) ie 4He plus energy of 23.8 MeV. Since such high energy gammas
are not observed, the energy is taken up by the lattice. As the reaction time is
very fast, E-21 seconds, the lattice must react quickly and he calculated
that for a lattice spacing of 3 Angstroms, this means the energy must move
at a thousand times the velocity of light - this surprising effect he justified
by asking the audience to remember EPR. Afterwards someone asked him about the
EPR paradox as he thought matter and energy could not go faster than light.
Dr. Preparata replied they were the same thing as there was no release of
information as in Quantum Mechanics. (Comment - was at the Symposium in
memory of John Bell and thought the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox had been
resolved by the Aspect experiment and by considering Quantum Mechanics was
dominant over Locality).
     Fritz Will also asked if there was a problem in the fast release of energy
in E-21 seconds. He was told there was no problem as the transfer was
between wave functions.
     John Bockris pointed out that his theory was for a bulk effect and was fine
for Palladium rods, but was not good for other metals such as Titanium powder,
and people had talked about steel? The behaviour of hydrogen isotopes is quite
different in different metals. Dr Preparata said he will get to that, he did
not know the facts for Titanium etc.
 
4. GERISCHER - REVIEW BY A NEUTRAL PERSON
                                          Prof. M Gerischer of Berlin is
a distinguished Physical Chemist who specialises in Electro-chemistry and is
an old friend of Martin Fleischmann.
     He said he was invited at rather short notice and had been busy reading
since as he had done no experiment on Cold Fusion.
     In general he noted that there had been great initial enthusiasm but when
the big labs could not reproduce the results, this died away though a few groups
continued. At this meeting had heard a lot of new information. He divide his
talk into pros and contras
   4.1 General
Pro; anomalous phenomen observed widely - excess heat, n, t, 4He only with
deuterium not with hydrogen
Contra; Comparisons of D2O and H2O often not performed. In many experiments no
effects found. Contrary to what was said, people are more inclined to publish
positive than negative results.
Pro; t and n found
Contra; the t/n ratio found is not the expected 1;1.
Pro; Calorimetric measurements show occasional large bursts of excess heat
Contra; Amounts of nuclear reactions observed not of the same level as would
be expected for fusion. Often no time coincidence between excess heat and
nuclear products
Pro; 4He now supposed to be the main source of heat with 23.8 Mev from
d + d ===> 4He + gamma of 23.8 Mev. The 4He was found in the evolved gases
and very little in the metal
Contra; Quantity of 4He too small to account for excess heat claims
Question; Why does electrochemistry give more anomalous effects than gas phase?
Question 1; Where does the helium originate? If in the volume then the 4He
should be found in the metal rather than in the gas. But Miles found in the gas.
Question 2; tritium is found in the electrolyte - this suggests it is a surface
effect. need more rigourous system of analysis.
Question 3; Role of Lithium? Are impurities essential? as a monolayer? LiH is
a product
Question 4; Is it justified to relate heat to volume? -is risky. If relate heat
to surface - is misleading. Therefore now relate heat to input.
Question 5; Reproducibility? It is essential to be able to convince people.
Little bit sad but we do not seem to see it very often. Are conditions which
improve reproducibility to be kept secret?
Question 6; If heat generation proved, what are the prospects for applications
as a source of energy? Basic problem of the Carnot cycle - need more energy out
than energy in, therefore 100% is not breakeven point. A system works more
efficiently at higher temperature, but the amount of deuterium in metals
decrease with increasing temperature. Must know concentration of
deuterium in all materials and experiments.
 
CONCLUSIONS; What would be really convincing?
   There is not sufficient evidence for phenomenon that could be attributed
to nuclear processes.
   However there are many inconsistencies that should be settled if confirmation
of beliefs of the church are to be accepted.
   Shocked that people work on experiments where the products are allowed to
escape. Think will only reach any conclusions with closed systems where no
products escape.
   More effort should be made to look for 4He.
   Test runs with D2O should be done fully and in parallel with H2O.
   All fragmentary results will not solve the problems.
 Doubt if we will reach full harmony but we can hope.
 
5. ROUND TABLE DISCUSIONS
                            The first Round Table was before Prof. Gerischer's
talk and was entitled "Similarities and Differences in Cold Fusion Experiments"
With such an encouraging title I spent some going through the papers I had
filled the boot of my car with in the hope of making a serious detailed
contribution.
    The Chairman, David Worledge made a serious review of Cold Fusion, not too
different from that of Prof. Gerischer. However no one replied to all the
questions he had raised and the round table was a disappointment although
David tried.
    The Second Round Table was the concluding item of the meeting with Martin
Fleischmann as the Chairman. Like the first Round Table, it never had a
consistent pattern - one person would say something, the next would say the
opposite and no one would object or try to reconcile because no one seemed
to be aware there was any contradiction. Many fine sentiments were expressed
but everyone remained camped in their experiment or theory. For example no one
said he would stop using open calorimeters although the wish had often been
expressed.
    The first Annual meeting finished with a standing ovation. That did not
happen this time, indeed there was rather a sober attitude though the Believers
were determined to carry on.
 
6. OTHER
     6.1 THIRD ANNUAL CONFERENCE
                                 It was announced that in view of the progress
made a Third Annual Conference on Cold Fusion would be held. It would be in
Japan, probably September or October 1992. The news was greeted warmly.
 
     6.2 NATIONAL COLD FUSION INSTITUTE
                                        Although in theory the NCFI is
closed and no more money is coming from the State of Utah, the University
of Utah is quietly providing money to allow it to tick over since the rent
has been paid for some time in advance. Staff has been greatly reduced.
 
     6.3 PONS AND FLEISCHMANN, JONES
                                     Stan and Martin were in great form at the
Conference. Stan is working near Nice. A publication suggested that he was
working for a Japanese company. Martin is still based at Southampton.
Steve was busy during the conference working in Japan on Kamiokande.
 
     6.4 BOOKS
               The battle of the books is hotting up.
    Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle" seems to be selling in Britain
and the States. Frank is now writing a postscript for a Penguin paperback
and may include some parts from this Update. The book was not too popular
with certain people at the Second Annual Conference and I did not see
anyone carrying it though several said they had read it.
    Eugene Mallove's book "Fire from Ice - Searching for the Truth behind
the Cold Fusion Furor", is now published. Gene is a True Believer and has
written a lively book praising Cold Fusion and attacking Sceptics. Some people
at the conference were seen proudly carrying the book.  He had what
Believers called favourable reviews in important US papers. Unlike Frank's
book it is not scientific. It will be interesting to see which sells better.
    Gene has quit his job as Chief Scientific Writer at MIT, apparently not
because of his book but because of some Cold Fusion related matters.
    Gary Taubes's book is in an advanced stage and should be out this year -
it is liable to be critical of Cold Fusion Believers. Being probably
non-scientific and smoothly written, it will again be interesting to see how
the sales compare.
 
     6.5 MONEY
              Some of our Japanese colleagues were greatly angered by an
article that $25 million had been given to Cold Fusion. The real sum from
the Fusion Institute is only for meetings etc. and is rather little.
   The biggest source of funds now is probably the Electrical Power Research
Institute which has given $3 million over several years.
   In many countries such as the Soviet Union, no money has been allocated
to Cold Fusion, the workers have done it mainly in their spare time and
with material gleaned from many sources. Some US government agencies do
fund Cold Fusion.
   Incidently many people have asked me how I am paid for attending these
meetings and are surprised when I say I pay everything out of my own pocket
and nothing from CERN or any other organisation, so that I am truely neutral.
 
7. CONCLUSIONS
              This was very different from the First Annual Cold Fusion
Conference where hopes were high and the media was everywhere. Now it was a more
restrained gathering. Believers who had been accustommed to expressions of doubt
and sometimes even ridicule, from their neighbours, were pleased to be back in
a company where they were appreciated and where people took their work
seriously. However the early enthusiasm has gone and very few considered that
Cold Fusion would be a source of useful power soon - maybe 5 or 10 years if
the problem of reproducibility has been solved. Was frequently asked if
hearing all these positive results had not changed my opinion of Cold Fusion,
but replied that there were a tremendous number of experiments on fusion
such as those described by Ed Cecil, and experiments on hydrogen isotopes
in metals all performed before 1989, apart from the negative experiments on
Cold Fusion.
    Perhaps the most decisive result will turn out to be that in a really
reliable detector, Kamiokande, the groups that had previously reported
random neutrons and bursts of neutrons with Titanium and gas, now cannot
find anything.
    Will there be a Third Annual Conference - probably!
 
                                            (C)        Douglas R. O. Morrison
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmorrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.19 / JOSEPH CHEW /  ITER news
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ITER news
Date: 19 Jul 91 20:41:22 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

The following is the meat of a DOE news release (7/10/91) regarding
the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER.  That's
hot fusion, to be performed in a t<deleted>k, so those of you with
virulent feelings on those topics may want to press 'n' now.  There
is only trivial technical content, but you may be interested in the
exposition of the rather convoluted management-diplomacy aspects.
 
> The design itself {engineering design, the conceptual design phase
> having ended in 1990 -jc} will be conducted by a multinational team
> located in three co-centers:  San Diego, California; Garching, Germany;
> and Naka, Japan; led by a director from the European Communities who
> will reside in San Diego, and supported by each party's home team.
> The project will be overseen by a council of the parties, the ITER
> Council, chaired by the Soviet Union and co-chaired by Japan.  The
> project will be supported by an international Technical Advisory
> Committee, chaired by the U.S., and a Management Advisory Committee,
> chaired by the Japanese council co-chair.  The ITER Council will be
> headquartered in Moscow.
 
--Joe
Strategically placed flunky, Accelerator and Fusion Research Division
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: ITER news
     
Originally-From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ITER news
Date: 20 Jul 91 20:49:00 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <15540@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes:
> The following is the meat of a DOE news release (7/10/91) regarding
> the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER.
 
> > The design itself {engineering design, the conceptual design phase
> > having ended in 1990 -jc} will be conducted by a multinational team
> > located in three co-centers:  San Diego; Garching; Naka,
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Argh! So they couldn't decide on a single design site, eh?
This doesn't bode well for the overall project, if the
members are unable to make such tough decisions. After all,
when they actually build the _device_, it has to go to one
site! (Unless its the worlds first distributed processing tokakmak! :-)
 
 
Actualy, I've even heard some suggestions that there will
be separate devices at several sites...
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.21 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Correction, please; more heavy heat
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correction, please; more heavy heat
Date: 21 Jul 91 11:58:56 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Then we have Chuck Sites, alias chuck@coplex.com:
>>   The excess heat that Pon's and Fleischmann saw was real (did I get him
>>right Dieter? ;-).
>You got Fleischmann right, but now you mangle Pons; he is not in the genitive
>normally. Sorry to be a stickler.
 
Ha ha ha.. I can't believe I missed that.  ;-)
 
> Chuck goes on:
And on, and on and on...
 
>>    Dale did bring up one point where he points out; this ignores
>>how charges interact over the long range across a metal lattice.
 
[Long range effects of charge, verses short range effects of charge]
 
>etc etc. Chuck, you make all this needlessly complicated. There is no need to
>go into QM states, band theory and all that stuff. Try to see the forest, not
>the atoms in the trees.
 
This is were I think we may differ.  To understand a conductor requires
looking at the system by QM.  There are consiquences if electrons do
not quantum-mechanically interact.  Voltage, and current are long range
measurements of charge difference, and electron flow. In almost all cases
this is true. This may be a case where it's un-true, and we have electrons
and protons responding to the charge difference.  However, one big difference
is the interial mass of the proton charge carrier, and this means that
a proton current responce would be slow.  Some 1800 time slower compaired
to the electron current.  Thus to a person looking at electron flow
outside of the hydrated metal, there should be no appreciable difference in
current or voltage.
 
>There are no deuterons being pushed into Pd: it is
>deuterium atoms. As I said in my last submission, this D is thought to break
>up into an electron and a deuteron, but we can even ignore that. Let me try
>again. In the case of electrons (i.e. normal electric current), a voltage is
>the force that drags the little buggers through the metal, and the electrons'
>progress causes the metal to heat up, by bumping into the metal atoms. You get
>no further information at this level, by going into the QM details of this
>process; the heat energy is exactly equal to the IE work done by you, the
>dragger, the applier of that voltage. OK.
 
Well, part of the question of heat generation problem has to do with
how electrons bump into atoms.  What one normally thinks is that a coliding
electron jiggles the atom, but with metals and thier heavy nuclei, it
only jiggles the electron orbits of that atom.  This jiggle can be passed
down the chain as a phonon, or the energy can be released as a photon.
For that matter, the electron can be totally ejected if it's close enough
to the surface.  Or the QM state transition from conduction band to
valance band releasing a photon. All of these situations describe "Heat".
 
> Now in the case of D-charging, by
>providing a high concentration of D atoms at the Pd surface (either by
>electrolysis or high-p D2 gas), we effectively push D into the metal. Let's
>even forget the dissociation into e and d; these D atoms make their way into
>the interior of the Pd. They start with some highish energy at the surface
>and, bumping into metal atoms on the way, impart some of this to the metal. As
>they get further inside, and have lost the energy, they get as much as they
>give, on average. The heating of the metal here comes from the "pushing" work
>done at the surface.  As I say, this is a part of the I*dE, where dE is the
>electrolysis overpotential - another part goes into the electrolyte, which
>also heats up a bit.
 
While I agree that overpotentials are important to infusing D atoms into
Pd (Or what hydrated metal have you) lattice interior, the destinction
between H atoms, and H ions becomes fuzzy.  Let me remove one fallicy
right here, deuterium, deuterons, and even D2 can exist simultaniously
in Pd. However, I believe deuterons are the favored state.  Now I will default
to you on one point; the over-potentials. In one of my earliest follow-ups
I implied that H would infuse into the metal surface by coulumb force, and
this could be considered an H current, and it could. However, it ignores
the energy balance required to drive H in the metal. So there is no net heat
gain there.  Where "Heavy Heat" becomes important is not at the surface, but
in the interior of the metal-hydride system, when D ions are moved by charge
differential, and influx of faster moving electrons.
 
>I have strong reservations about socalled excess heat and would love to see a
>a rational explanation, but this is not it, mate.
>                                                                      Dieter
 
This may not be it, but we're trying.
Have fun,
Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Correction, please; more heavy heat
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correction, please; more heavy heat
Date: 21 Jul 91 21:55:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Jul21.115856.8953@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
>>etc etc. Chuck, you make all this needlessly complicated. There is no need to
>>go into QM states, band theory and all that stuff. Try to see the forest, not
>>the atoms in the trees.
>
>This is were I think we may differ.  To understand a conductor requires
>looking at the system by QM.  There are consiquences if electrons do
>not quantum-mechanically interact.  Voltage, and current are long range
>measurements of charge difference, and electron flow. In almost all cases
>this is true. This may be a case where it's un-true, and we have electrons
>and protons responding to the charge difference.  However, one big difference
>is the interial mass of the proton charge carrier, and this means that
>a proton current responce would be slow.  Some 1800 time slower compaired
>to the electron current.  Thus to a person looking at electron flow
>outside of the hydrated metal, there should be no appreciable difference in
>current or voltage.
 
      Not true.   It does not matter as to the details of the charge carriers
      inside of the black box (cell).  Outside the blace box, measuring the
      electrons tells one how much energy went into the box.  If
      protons were moving, it would affect the external electrical
      measurements.
 
      There is also another big difference, the positive charge carriers
      have nowhere to go.  My guess that the fraction of the current
      carried by positive charges (assuming that the charge is not
      completely screened by the mass of electrons whizzing by) is extremely
      small.
 
                              dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.22 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Correction, please; more heavy heat
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correction, please; more heavy heat
Date: 22 Jul 91 21:13:35 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <1991Jul21.115856.8953@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>>
>>>etc etc. Chuck, you make all this needlessly complicated. There is no need to
>>>go into QM states, band theory and all that stuff. Try to see the forest, not
>>>the atoms in the trees.
>>
>>This is were I think we may differ.  To understand a conductor requires
>>looking at the system by QM.  There are consiquences if electrons do
>>not quantum-mechanically interact.  Voltage, and current are long range
>>measurements of charge difference, and electron flow. In almost all cases
>>this is true. This may be a case where it's un-true, and we have electrons
>>and protons responding to the charge difference.  However, one big difference
>>is the interial mass of the proton charge carrier, and this means that
>>a proton current responce would be slow.  Some 1800 time slower compaired
>>to the electron current.  Thus to a person looking at electron flow
>>outside of the hydrated metal, there should be no appreciable difference in
>>current or voltage.
 
>      Not true.   It does not matter as to the details of the charge carriers
>      inside of the black box (cell).  Outside the blace box, measuring the
>      electrons tells one how much energy went into the box.  If
>      protons were moving, it would affect the external electrical
>      measurements.
>      There is also another big difference, the positive charge carriers
>      have nowhere to go.  My guess that the fraction of the current
>      carried by positive charges (assuming that the charge is not
>      completely screened by the mass of electrons whizzing by) is extremely
>      small.
 
  That is exactly the point.  If the circuit for a hydrogen current is
incomplete and thier are no QM electron-proton interactions internally to
the conductor, then the voltage setup by the external EMF will not be
effected.  Further since we are under the assumtion that electrons are not
effected (which could be wrong, that is freely admitted) as they make their
way through the conductor, current will not change.
 
  I like your black box analogy, which you say; if protons were moving,
it would effect the external electrical measurements.  True, but only
when the protons move out of the black box, just like the electrons do.
External the black box, if protons do not move out of the box
the net charge that electrons have to move through is unchanged.
If the electrons and protons in the box do not interact Quantum-mechanically
then there is no resistance.  Thus inside the black box protons can move,
and still not effect measured values.
 
>                              dale bass
Have fun,
Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.26 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 573 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 573 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 17:11:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here's a small offering; the quiet before the storm I've been threatening (and
threatened) with for a while, i.e. the issues of FT and JFE, full of cnf
papers. When I get hold of them, we'll top the 600 mark.
Anyway, two more patents and no grumbles and vile accusations from me this
time, as Jones et al are the inventors, and Belton (from Australia) at least
thought up a variation - which again amounts to self targeting and won't make
him rich either. Meyerhof critically looks at neutron emission statistics and
gives us (i.e. you, the would-be neutron measurer) a way of testing whether
your measurements are to be trusted; they must conform to the Poisson
distribution. Then we have a couple of Japanese papers which, like the
patents, I won't try to read, on neutron detection cum chi-square testing (a
parallel to Meyerhof here), and a charged particle measurement that is thought
to have succeeded but, given the level of 1/100 of Jones et al, others might
have called that a failure. I suppose the emissions were well above the low,
low background, even though small. Hm. It's this sort of paper that makes it
hard to answer the question (it's been put to me) "Out of the X papers you
have, how many gave positive results?".
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 26-Jul. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 573
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belton GR;                        PCT Int. Appl. WO 90 13,124, 21. April 1989.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:17343 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion method and apparatus".
** "A method and app. are described for generating thermal energy by cold
fusion by increasing the activity of a monoat. D species to a level at which
there is significant cold fusion. The method and the app. comprise contacting
Pd or any other material capable of taking up D with a gaseous atm. comprising
D and subjecting the gaseous atm. to an elec. field to generate a sufficiently
high activity of the monoat. D species to achieve nuclear fusion reactions in
the Pd".       (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.)                                  ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones SE, Palmer EP, Czirr JB, Rafelski J, Price R;
PCT Int. Appl. WO 90 13,125, 26. April 1989.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:17342 (1991).
"Piezonuclear fusion"
** "Several methods of loading a host material with D and promoting nuclear
cold fusion either by elec. current or heating and cooling are claimed. The
loading methods include electrolysis of D2O, exposure to D, thermal cycling of
host material under D, catalytic infusion etc". (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.) ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meyerhof WE;                  J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett. 153 (1991) 391.
"Statistical analysis of a 'cold fusion' experiment".
** Meyerhof looks at the results of Yagi et al, which these authors take as
evidence for cold fusion neutron emission. If it were, it would have to follow
normal neutron emission statistics in the form of Poisson distributions of the
number of counts found in a given time interval; certainly the background
counts should follow this. Analysis of the results of Yagi et al show that
only one set fits this requirement clearly, one is a borderline case and one
(the background!) does not fit it at all. All neutron measurement ought to
undergo such analysis, says M, to ascertain its trustworthiness. He further
points to recent results (Aberdam et al) setting the cold fusion upper limits
at a very low 1E-26 fus/s/pair.                                  Jan-91/Apr-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oyama Y;                                  Hoshasen 16 (1990) 15 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:17192 (1991).
"Very low level flux neutron measurement with an NE213 liquid scintillator".
** "Tech. details of an NE213 liq. scintillation detector system is described
from the viewpoint of very low-level flux n measurements such a cold fusion
expt. Characteristics of the NE213 detector system are investigated for the
background pulse shape discrimination, stability and shielding. The detection
limit of the present system is 0.1 n/s/source due to the detector efficiency
and background. This limit will be extended to 0.001-0.01 n/s/source by using
coincidence and anticoincidence detectors. A multichannel scaling technique is
also applied to perform a chi-square test in comparison with Poisson
distribution. A series of expts. are arranged with chi-square values to see
reproducibility of n detection." (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.)                ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taniguchi R, Yamamoto T;                  Hoshasen 16 (1990) 29 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:17193 (1991).
"High sensitivity measurement of charged particles using a silicon surface
barrier detector".
** "A Si surface barrier detector (Si-SSD, charged particle detector), is
rather insensitive to background radiation. The detection of a few charged
particles emitted in electrolytically induced cold nuclear fusion was
attempted using the Si-SSD attached near to the thin foil Pd cathode which
formed the bottom of an electrolysis cell. Using the pulsed electrolysis
technique, the background and foreground data were measured alternately. The
expt. results, counting rate and the energy spectrum suggested that the some
[sic] species of nuclear reaction occurred in the cathode. The reaction rates
were 2 orders of magnitude lower than that reported by S.E. Jones et al
(1989)."             (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.)                            ?/?
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.27 / Barry Merriman /  More on Mills&Farrell theory
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Mills&Farrell theory
Date: 27 Jul 91 01:27:34 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

I just got a letter from Randell Mills, in which he updates the
status of their research. Points of interest, experimentally:
 
(1) He says he has spectroscopic data showing that normal hydrogen
can be made to fall into below-ground-state energy levels, and will
be presenting this soon.
 
(2) He syas others have replicated his initial excess-heat producing
experiments.
 
(3) He says they have a working prototype power reactor (based
on principle (1), I gather), using light water, which produces enough
excess power for effective conversion of heat to electricity.
 
 
Hmm. Interesting. I'd like to see the spectral data. To me, that is
the real test, since such data can be quite precise.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.29 / Dieter Britz /  More heavy heat
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More heavy heat
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 14:59:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Chuck Sites chuck@coplex.com quotes me
 
>>etc etc. Chuck, you make all this needlessly complicated. There is no need to
>>go into QM states, band theory and all that stuff. Try to see the forest, not
>>the atoms in the trees.
 
and then counters
 
>This is were I think we may differ.  To understand a conductor requires
>looking at the system by QM.
 
Yes, Chuck, and in fact books are written on just what electrons do inside
metals. Certainly we need to understand all that, and also how ions move in an
ionic conductor. Agreed. BUT: we don't need to invoke all this fascinating
stuff in order to explain what you are talking about. Let me give you an
analogy. Forests and trees have been mentioned a couple of times. Let's say we
wanted to know how much forest there will be left in Tasmania by the year
2000. We can find out roughly how much there is now, and the rate at which it
is being cut down. We also have (I assume) a rough idea of the rate of
regrowth. This all boils down to a fairly simple calculation. As to regrowth,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CALCULATION, we do not have to go into the cellular
structure or biochemistry of trees - although this is an important research
area from other viewpoints.
 In the same way, in order to calculate the heat generated by electrons
bumping through a metal, we don't need to invoke QM; the simple power relation
P = I*E will do the job. We have no such simple law for deuterons moving
through PdD, but - and please note, Chuck! - we do know that any heat that
will be caused by such movement of deuterons, is not derived from thin air
(i.e. "excess", unaccounted for, etc) but comes from known sources, viz., (a
part of) overpotential*current or kinetic energy of D2 gas molecules. It
doesn't matter, as it all goes into the large in/out pot. Here is another way
of putting it: if there is no exotic process such as cold fusion, or any other
"hitherto unknown nuclear reaction" taking place, and you did a calorimetry
experiment, you would find that the cell would give off precisely as much heat
as you put in, minus the corrections such as that for water electrolysis,
evaporation etc. There would be deuterons moving in the Pd, but no unaccounted
heat. In fact, the light water controls (should) show exactly this and please
note that if you postulate exotic processes for deuterons moving in Pd, you
also have to do the same for protons; AND it would have to happen every single
time, not just in four cells out of 100...
 You keep on about voltage and current. Although it is probably true that the
preferred state for D in Pd is deuterons and electrons moving independently,
the overall process of deuterium moving into the Pd is the movement of both of
these, more or less together. This is, from a distance as it were, the same
as neutral D moving through the Pd.
 
Cameron Randale Bass crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU writes
>      have nowhere to go.  My guess that the fraction of the current
>      carried by positive charges (assuming that the charge is not
>      completely screened by the mass of electrons whizzing by) is extremely
>      small.
 
I am a pedant and must correct this. Early on in this discussion, I did some
back-of-the-envelope calculations of the deuteron current flowing in the Pd as
it is being charged. Just as with electrons, where current in Amps is given
by Coulombs/s, you could express deuteron flow in A, to get a handle on the
magnitude. Take this example:
We have a Pd foil of thickness d (in m), and at some time, there is a uniform
D-gradient across it; i.e. at the charging side, we have full loading, let's
say D/Pd = 0.8, and at the other, we have zero loading. There is then a
loading gradient across the foil of 0.8/d (units 1/m). We can convert this to
a D-concentration gradient in mol/m**3/m or mol/m**4: the molar volume of Pd
is close to 10 cm**3, so the concentration of D at full (0.8) loading is
0.8*0.1 mol/cm**3 or (in SI units) 0.8E05 mol/m**3. So the concentration
gradient dC/dx across the film is 0.8E05/d mol/m**4. Now the flux f in moles
per metre, from the diffusion law, is f = D * dC/dx, and what with D = 2E-11
m**2/s, this gives 1.6E-06/d mol/s/m**2. So far, so good. Each deuteron has
unit positive charge, and we can convert this molar flux into a charge flux,
by multiplying by the Faraday constant, close to 1E05 (it's 96487). The new
units are then Coulomb/s/m**2, which we may, if we like, call A/m**2: this
comes to 0.16/d A/m**2. Now let the film be 1 mm or 1E-03 m, and we get a
deuteron "current" of 160 A/m**2 - not "extremely small", and it'd be bigger
if the film is thinner. At the same time, there is the same electron current
moving through the metal.
 So there.
 As an aside: Chuck might now be interested in looking up the electrical
resistivity of PdD, and calculating the heating effect (I*E) of such a current.
I expect that the heating effect for the deuteron current would be 1800 times
that, giving a total of 1801 times I*E. Go for it.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.29 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 576 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 576 papers on cnf)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 15:00:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
why not dole 'em out to you in dribs and drabs, as I get them? Here are three
"real" items plus two commentaries.
 Myers et al have really tried to superload D into Pd, and found out that you
can do it at low temperatures, i.e. below 120K or so. At this temperature,
there is a qualitative change but below it, you can get superstoichiometric
D/Pd levels, as distinct from compressed D2 in voids etc. Just the same, they
observe no evidence for cold fusion. The Rafelski et al article might have
ended in the "peripheral" section (4), as background for muon catalysed
fusion, except that it does have a couple of pages devoted to our sort of cold
fusion, and presents a very clear view of how one might approach the theory.
Schwinger, who has previously contributed to the debate, once again points out
the uselessness of over-simple models, and names resonance as a possible route
to cold fusion - in his case, his favourite, d-p fusion. It is interesting
that a field as radical as cold fusion has so quickly got into a rut, almost
everyone doing experiments the way others have done them. Why has noone
followed Schwinger's tip-off and tried out electrolysis in various H2O/D2O
mixtures? Why follow FPH's set-up, or Jones+'s witches' brew slavishly? Just
about all gas-phase experiments use the same sort of temperature cycling that
the Italians introduced. Doesn't anyone have a new idea? At least some of the
maverick Japanese and Russians have done something different, if a little
crazy. Ah well.
 After this little steam-letting, on with the show. The two Japanese papers
were pointed out to me by Dick Forman, who also sent me the English abstracts.
I have got hold of the actual papers and looked at them - for all the good
that did me, as they have very little not written in Japanese, even the
figures (which can tell a story) are mostly in Japanese. However, I take it
that these are no more than commentaries, so they go into section 3. Correct
me if I'm wrong, all you Japanese readers out there.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 29-Jul. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 576
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myers SM, Richards PM, Follstaedt DM, Schirber JE; Phys. Rev. B43 (1991) 9503.
"Superstoichiometry, accelerated diffusion, and nuclear reactions in
deuterium-implanted palladium".
** Samples of Pd foil, both vacuum annealed and untreated, were exposed to
a deuterium beam at 10keV and 41K, and 30keV and 81K. At temperatures below
about 120K, the authors find that Pd can absorb more than unity D/Pd ratio of
deuterium. When the beam is turned off, however, the emission of neutrons has
the same spectrum as that of the background. Thus, for this fairly short-term
experiment, the upper cold fusion limit is about 1E-21..1E-20. The paper goes
into some interesting detail about deuterium diffusion in Pd and its
temperature dependence.                                          Jul-90/Apr-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafelski HE, Harley D, Shin GR, Rafelski J;          J. Phys. B24 (1991) 1469.
"Cold fusion: muon-catalyzed fusion".
** This is a longish and up-to-date review of muon-catalysed fusion. It does,
however, briefly mention Jones+(89)-type cold fusion, and presents very
clearly some of the theoretical approaches to its explanation. The authors,
like others before them, come up with an effective electron mass of about five
times normal, as a requirement, if this is invoked as explanation. Worth
reading, if not new.                                                       ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schwinger J;                                 Prog. Theor. Phys. 85 (1991) 711.
"Nuclear energy in an atomic lattice".
** A brief note of criticism of simple physics theories to dismiss cold
fusion. The simple models sometimes used may be missing something. JS here
looks at causality. Taking as an example the d-p fusion reaction (which he has
suggested as the more likely culprit), this has a stable bound state: (3)He.
There may, thus, be a resonance between p-d and (3)He, rather than the causal
sequence d+p --> He. JS concludes that research evidence is required, not
simple theory.                                                   Jan-91/Apr-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ikegami H;                             Oyo Buturi 60 (1991) 212 (in Japanese).
"Present and future of cold fusion - nuclear products from cold fusion".
** Hot fusion is at a turning point, and FPH's announcement of cold fusion
came at an opportune time. This article discusses magnetic fusion research and
summarises cold fusion results. There is an English-abstract section of this
Japanese-language journal.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oyama N, Hatozaki O;                   Oyo Buturi 60 (1991) 278 (in Japanese).
"Present and future of cold fusion - nuclear fusion induced by electrochemical
reaction".
** Another wrap-up paper. This one appears to give some background information
on electrochemistry, and summarises cold fusion results such as emissions and
heat observations. The journal has an English-language abstract section.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: More heavy heat
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More heavy heat
Date: 29 Jul 91 17:21:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3AE262A1C0DF0026C4@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
 
>Cameron Randale Bass crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU writes
>>      have nowhere to go.  My guess that the fraction of the current
>>      carried by positive charges (assuming that the charge is not
>>      completely screened by the mass of electrons whizzing by) is extremely
>>      small.
>
>I am a pedant and must correct this. Early on in this discussion, I did some
>back-of-the-envelope calculations of the deuteron current flowing in the Pd as
>it is being charged. Just as with electrons, where current in Amps is given
>by Coulombs/s, you could express deuteron flow in A, to get a handle on the
>magnitude. Take this example:
>We have a Pd foil of thickness d (in m), and at some time, there is a uniform
>D-gradient across it; i.e. at the charging side, we have full loading, let's
>say D/Pd = 0.8, and at the other, we have zero loading. There is then a
>loading gradient across the foil of 0.8/d (units 1/m). We can convert this to
>a D-concentration gradient in mol/m**3/m or mol/m**4: the molar volume of Pd
>is close to 10 cm**3, so the concentration of D at full (0.8) loading is
>0.8*0.1 mol/cm**3 or (in SI units) 0.8E05 mol/m**3. So the concentration
>gradient dC/dx across the film is 0.8E05/d mol/m**4. Now the flux f in moles
>per metre, from the diffusion law, is f = D * dC/dx, and what with D =
 2E-1>m**2/s, this gives 1.6E-06/d mol/s/m**2. So far, so good. Each deuteron
 has
>unit positive charge, and we can convert this molar flux into a charge flux,
>by multiplying by the Faraday constant, close to 1E05 (it's 96487). The new
>units are then Coulomb/s/m**2, which we may, if we like, call A/m**2: this
>comes to 0.16/d A/m**2. Now let the film be 1 mm or 1E-03 m, and we get a
>deuteron "current" of 160 A/m**2 - not "extremely small", and it'd be bigger
>if the film is thinner. At the same time, there is the same electron current
>moving through the metal.
 
      In keeping with the march of the crazed pedants ...
 
      I do not see how classical diffusion is happening in
      one direction across the face (or foil) at full loading.  You are
      maintaining the gradient against the diffusion.  This would
      only apply if you turned the current off, in which case the
      large 'currents' of deuterium are experimentally observed (and only
      for very short times since the gradient drops rapidly).    This seems
      to me a misuse of the diffusion law.
 
      But I do agree with you the deuterium 'current' can be substantial
      if 'loading' is achieved in several days.  Assume 1 cm^3 of deuterium
      unloaded.  Since there are about 5.1E24 atoms of Pd per kg and the
      density of Pd is 1.2E4 kg/m^3, a 1 cc cube would have around
      6.1E22 atoms.  At a 0.8 D loading, this would imply about 4.8E22
      positive charges.  Since the elemental charge is 1.6E-19C, this
      implies that about 7.7E3 Coulombs are available for charge
      carrying per cc.  If the current in the cube is 500 mA (pulling a
      number from thin air since I cannot remember representative
      numbers for the P/F experiments), that represents 0.5 C/s.  If
      the 'loading' occurs over 4 hours, then the 'current' would
      be doubled.  If the loading occurs over 4 weeks the deuterium
      'current' would average to 6 mA (with a very small 'current' after
      the initial period).
 
      However, this has nothing to do with the original assertions of
      missing electrical power which continue to be untrue in this setting.
 
                                           dale bass
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.31 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Proceedings available
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proceedings available
Date: 31 JUL 1991 00:12:30

 
RE:  Proceedings available
 
Proceedings from the 1990 `cold fusion' conference, "Anomalous
Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems," held at Brigham
Young University, AND proceedings from the 1988 Muon-Catalyzed
Fusion Conference held in Sanibel Island, Florida are available
for purchase.
 
The `cold fusion' proceedings (American Institute of Physics
Proceedings No. 228) are approximately 1000 pages and cost
$75.00.  The muon-catalyzed proceedings (American Institute of
Physics Proceedings No. 181) are approximately 470 pages and cost
$40.  The set may be purchased for $90.00.
 
Please call Nanette Hamm at (801) 378-4516, if you are interested
in purchasing either one or both of these proceedings.
 
 
Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.07.31 / Daniel Fischer /  Re: Proceedings available
     
Originally-From: p515dfi@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proceedings available
Date: 31 Jul 91 10:53:47 GMT
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, Bonn

In article <322jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>The `cold fusion' proceedings (American Institute of Physics
>Proceedings No. 228) are approximately 1000 pages ...
Fine, but what's the essential conclusion: is there a new phenomenon or not?
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenp515dfi cudfnDaniel cudlnFischer cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.03 / Russ George /  Cold Fusion Conf.- Italy
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Conf.- Italy
Date: 3 Aug 91 04:13:39 GMT
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS, (415) 969-7853

Anyone have info on the recent conference in Italy on Cold Fusion.
Were the Russian's there, I'd think so after having just committed
big bucks for research in the field.
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.03 / Richard Ristow /  Re: More heavy heat
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Originally-From: Richard Ristow <sjsca4!uunet!brownvm.brown.edu!AP430001>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More heavy heat
Date: 3 Aug 91 05:00:17 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Here I go again, being excessively wordy and spreading UN-truths. :-)
 
   Forest, from trees, to cellular biology?  If I were a forester, I would see
the forest. If I were lumberjack, I would see the trees.  If were a cellular
biologist, I guess I would see cells.  If I were a cellular biologist lost
in a forest, I think I could appreciate all three and still be lost.  :-)
 
   The real question that was presented was, can hydrogen, deuterium,
etc, move through a lattice without quantum-mechanical interactions between
the lattice electron and hydrogen. I think the answer to that problem is
yes.  Simply looking at the mobility of hydrogen in Pd, indicates that
if there are QM interactions  occur infrequently compared to what normally
occurs with chemical bonds.  Most of the work I've read on the subject
indicates deutrons are the favored electronic state in Pd metal. So you
have to ask yourself; Is there anything *strange* about this?
 
   In earlier posts, I've stressed a problem in Ohm's law.
The reason I banged on Ohm's law (V=IR) was to show how dependent this
equation is upon electron interaction with the nucleus of the conductor.
That is, resistance (R) occurs when some quantum-mechanical interaction
causes electrons to loose (release) energy by a QM state transition.
This is all deeply involved in calorimetry, so let me discuss this
and respond to an earlier post.
 
Originally-From: Richard Ristow <sjsca4!uunet!brownvm.brown.edu!AP430001>
 
>Ohm's law does hold for a range of common substances under common conditions,
>but that's all one can say.  It fails for any semiconductor device containing
>a junction, for electrochemical cells, for any arc, for arcs at low pressure
>such as the neon bulb in an ordinary circuit tester, even for the filament
>of an incandescent lamp (because the operating temperature range of the
>lamp filament is wide enough to cause an important resistance shift).  If
>a material or device obeys Ohm's law, then it's an "Ohm's law resister",
>and if it doesn't it isn't.
 
I see your point, some energy (P t = VI t) as in the neon lamp example,
is converted in such away that simple resistive heating is not a good
description.  Energy can be converted from one form to another that may
not fit the model established by Ohm.  Perhaps I harped on Ohm's law a
little more than I should have.  Really it should be modified to
say electrical energy (VI t) can not be converted to another form without
quantum-mechanical interaction. (By QM interaction, I mean the energy
state of the electron is changed).
 
In the case of a calorimeter and joule heating, these are deeply related
to the treatment of the system as an "Ohm's law resistor".  Let me present
one such design.  There are others to be sure, but this is the simplest
I could think of that demonstrates the classic relation.
 
Calorimeter design.
 
                 +----------( Amp-meter ) -----+---------------( + )
     Stering     |                             |
       rod    T1 |                             | (Volt-meter)
        |      | | +---------------------------+---------------( - )
        |      | | |      T2
+---+   |      | | |       |    +---+
|   |~~~|~~~~~~|~|~|~~~~~~~|~~~~|   |     Q = Heat in calories
|   |   |      | | |       |    |   |     m = mass of the water bath
|   | (-+-)  +-|-|-|-+     |    |   |     T = Temperature
|   |   |    | | | | |     |    |   |     V = Voltage
|   | (-+-)  | | A C |     |    |   |     I = Current
|   |   |    | | A C |     |    |   |     J = Proportionality Constant
|   | (-+-)  | 0     |     |    |   |     t = Time.
|   |   |     \_____/      |    |   |     c = Specific heat capacity of bath
|   | (-+-)                0    |   |     W = energy
|   |                           |   |
|   +---------------------------+   |
+-----------------------------------+
 
Conditions:
 
(1) The reaction chamber has very thin walls.
(2) A free floating starafoam lid is placed on the water bath.
(3) The reaction chamber is below the water line of the water bath.
(4) The starting tempature of the reaction chamber, and water bath are equal.
 
A coulumb of charge transferred in one second constitutes on amp of current
and is given by the relation W = VIt.  From Ohm's law, V=IR, so
W = I^2 R t.  Now, Joules law states that the heat of a conductor is
directly proportional to the resistance of the conductor, square of the
current and the time the current is maintained.  Heat energy is given
as W = JQ, so Q = W/J.  Now the quantity of heat required to warm a given
mass through a temperature change of Delta T is, Q = mc Delta T.
so, m c Delta T = W/J, so,
 
                     2
                    I R t      V I t
Q = m c Delta T  =  ------  =  -----      J = 419 Joule / Calorie.
               2      J          J
 
Assuming that calorimeter is perfectly insulated, and temperature at
T2 reflects the tempature of the total water bath, then we can say
that any energy released by the reaction cell is either from the
power source or if excess heat is found, then it must be from the
stored energy of the reactants in the reaction camber. Thus one
would measure three values, and calculate the expected value, and
actual values.
 
Time    Temp    Energy in:   Energy should be:     Actual energy:
(t)     (T2)     (V I t)      (m c Delta T J)     (m c Delta T2 J)
 
  Now, there are a lot of corrections (energy accounting) that can be
applied to what heat energy should be, for example the work required to
separate H2O into H gas and O gas is one energy consuming chemical
process. Gas recombination is the opposite. I refer people to the N. Levis
et al. paper in Science (I don't have the reference handy but I believe
it published in 89), or even P&F second paper, if one wishes to understand
how complicated energy accounting can be.  It's one reason why CNF, as claimed
by the "believers", is controversial (gee, why do they have to be believers and
not a scientist?)  With well measured cold-fusion experiments, the result
is a net increase, usually between 10-15% on the measured side compared to
what energy should be, sometimes with excursions up to 50-75% and some claim
600%.  Now if you have accounted for all of the chemical potential, resistance
heating, and miscellaneous outside sources of heat, then your only conclusion
can be its a nuclear source of heating, some unknown chemical source, or some
unknown other source.  In the case of "Heavy Heat" I'm suggesting that *part*
of the heat balance comes from quantum state transitions of a proton band like
structure. So, I guess it qualifies as other.
 
    Anyway, the bottom line is that calorimetry expects resistance as in
V I t = I^2 R t = (m c Delta T)/J.  Anything above that base-line deserves
a serious treatment as a heat source.
 
  Dale Bass has made good constructive critisim to some of the claims I've
made.  They are certainly needed to keep one on track.  Too much fantisizing
can lead one to believe that just about any idea is true. So P=IV is the
power delivered to the system by an external EMF.  Well, I must ask this.
V = w/q where w=work done in moving a charge q, which is almost always an
electron by the way.  An electron is just one charge carrier, a proton,
deteron, or triton, can be another. Normally, these charge carriers, are
relatively un-mobile because they're QM bound to some molecule, or electrically
neutralized by an orbiting electron.  If neither of these situations is
true, protons can act like highly mobile charge carrier, with the difference
compared to electrons being it's inertial mass, and opposite sign
of charge.  I think we can all agree on that.  Now if we have deuterons
in a conducting metal that are in a similar condition, then it too can act
as charge carrier. The description of a charge particle moving through
a conductor without QM interaction sound alot like the behavior of electrons
moving through a super-conductor.  So perhaps, while the electrons are
in a simple conductive state, the protons move in a super-conducting
state. It seems reasonable to me, that a proton conduction state would
only last as long as the lattice was aligned perfectly with the electrical
field. In such a field the proton could go ballistic, and build allot of
momentum in the process, simultaneously, picking up a QM resonance state
from the periodic potential of the lattice. The result would be that
at a disturbance in lattice, like a grain boundary, the pertibation would cause
several electron state changes as the proton plows through the electron
orbital of the lattice nuclei.  And simultaneously, the proton would release
this built up resonance energy.  So Dale, let me turn the table on you and ask
were does the energy come from given the situation described above?
It has to come from the electrical energy supplied P t = V I t, but, it isn't
until that energy is transformed to some other form that any measurable effect
will be seen.  Thus, a double conduction phenomenon, does not violate the
conservation of energy, it simply improves the efficiency that electrical
energy is transformed to other forms, more importantly heat.
 
   How does an EMF work?   An EMF acts like a PUSH and PULL pump for charge.
But in almost all cases, electrons are the only charge particles that have
the mobility to respond to the charge difference.  Consider a simple chemical
battery.  At the battery cathode, negative ions collect, causing electrons to
be pushed to the negative poll.  Similarly, at the anode, positive ions form
which will pull electrons from the positive poll.  If you connect an ordinary
metal wire between the two polls, electrons migrate through the conduction
bands of overlapping p and d electron orbital of the metal lattice. If
these conduction electrons have a QM state change, the energy of the electrons
is converted to some other form. It's this process that causes an incredible
diversity of effects, from the emmision of light from a tungsten filament,
to the piezo electric effect, to the complex QM processes that appears as
heat.
   Thus voltage is the amount of the charge differential the EMF maintains,
and current is the amount of mobile charge carriers the EMF can supply, or
absorb.  This defines the potential "power" that the EMF can supply,
thus P(potential)=V I (potential).  Now if we have a perfect conductor
between the positive and negative polls, the response to a fluctuation
in voltage is purely reflected in current and a fluctuation in current
induces a change in voltage.  This describes the power dilvered to the
external system as in P=IV.  When a circuit is made, the power dissipated,
or energy transformed by QM interaction, can be given as P(Transformed)
= I^2 r.  Power transformed by the circuit is what causes the voltage
and current changes that one measures. This is what makes superconductors
so interesting; power is not transformed. So between the (+) and (-)
polls of the EMF, charge moves, but P=IV does not change anywhere
except for the EMF which is what maintains the power in the first place!
 
  Do I have it right Dale, or is this an untruth? If so, could you
please explain to me how an EMF works or where I've gone astray.
Anyway if I have, it certainly makes for an interesting discussion
in physics.
 
Diter Britz writes,
>and we get a deuteron "current" of 160 A/m**2 - not "extremely small", and
>it'd be bigger if the film is thinner. At the same time, there is the same
>electron current moving through the metal.
>So there.
> As an aside: Chuck might now be interested in looking up the electrical
>resistivity of PdD, and calculating the heating effect (I*E) of such a current.
>I expect that the heating effect for the deuteron current would be 1800 times
>that, giving a total of 1801 times I*E. Go for it.
 
Ok, I'll bite.  Interesting calculation by the way.  I never thought about
looking at the problem that way, so perhaps looking at the forest, isn't
such a bad way after all.  Ok, let me make some general assumptions to do
the calculation. Assume, the 1mm thick sheet, has the dimensions such
that the total mass is equal to 1gm of Pd. Also, the voltage across
the system is 12 Volts.  From this, the potential power capable of being
delivered is, P = VI.  So, 12V*160A = 1920 watts, or 1920 Joule/sec. From
(m c Delta T) J = V I t, then (Delta T) / t = V I / J m c.  I don't have
the specific heat of Pd, but for the sake of argument let's assume it's
equivalent to Platinum (Pt), 0.0317 cal/g degree C. Thus, (1920 J/s)/
(419 J/cal * 0.0317 cal/Degree C) = 144.6 degrees/sec! Geez. That's hot!
Lets make sure of this by unit analysis:
 
              Joules     Coulomb
              ------   x -------
Degrees C     Coulomb      sec                  Delta T
---------- = ----------------------------- =   ---------
  sec         kg x cal           Joules           sec
             ---------        x --------
              kg x Degree C,     cal
 
Let's try the same with a current for the potential for at the tetrahedral
sites potential, or (160A/0.02V) = 3.2 Watts.  Delta T/sec = 0.241 Degrees/s.
Let's look at a typical 1000w Hair dryer. The heating elements, weighs say
100g. so, Delta T/sec = 0.712 Degrees/s. These make for interesting ball
park figures.  There is one item that must be *stressed*. This is only the
potential power that could be released, assuming 100% conversion of electrical
energy to measurable heat, and the heat is totally contained in the conductor.
 
Dale Bass replies to Dieter's message,
      implies that about 7.7E3 Coulombs are available for charge
      carrying per cc.  If the current in the cube is 500 mA (pulling a
      number from thin air since I cannot remember representative
      numbers for the P/F experiments), that represents 0.5 C/s.  If
      the 'loading' occurs over 4 hours, then the 'current' would
      be doubled.  If the loading occurs over 4 weeks the deuterium
      'current' would average to 6 mA (with a very small 'current' after
      the initial period).
 
Just to me abuse numbers and draw a base line.
From (Delta T) / t = V I / J m c, 500ma gives 0.004 Degrees/s. and
6mA gives 4.3E-4 Degrees/s.  Small, but look at it over a 4 week period.
 
      However, this has nothing to do with the original assertions of
      missing electrical power which continue to be untrue in this setting.
 
I must admit, that when I talked to Terry about the proton resistance idea,
he immediately pointed out, that there is a problem if you consider total
energy of the system as a black box.  By the process I've described,
no stored energy of chemical or nuclear potential is released.  I agree.
All I'm really suggesting is that this process is so efficient for conversion
of electrical energy to heat energy, that simple corrections (energy
accounting) could miss this, and cause what appears to be a net heat
gain.  This argument is all based on the idea that the H in Pd/H goes
to a semi-superconducting state, but a proton is a fermion, and a deuteron
is a boson, so which do you think would achieve that super conducting
state first?
 
Well, have fun,
Chuck
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudfnRichard cudlnRistow cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.05 / Dieter Britz /  Crazed pedant strikes again
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crazed pedant strikes again
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 14:25:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes
 
>      In keeping with the march of the crazed pedants ...
>
>      I do not see how classical diffusion is happening in
>      one direction across the face (or foil) at full loading.  You are
>      maintaining the gradient against the diffusion.  This would
>      only apply if you turned the current off, in which case the
>      large 'currents' of deuterium are experimentally observed (and only
>      for very short times since the gradient drops rapidly).    This seems
>      to me a misuse of the diffusion law.
>
>      But I do agree with you the deuterium 'current' can be substantial
>      if 'loading' is achieved in several days.  Assume 1 cm^3 of deuterium
>      unloaded.  Since there are about 5.1E24 atoms of Pd per kg and the
>      density of Pd is 1.2E4 kg/m^3, a 1 cc cube would have around
>      6.1E22 atoms.  At a 0.8 D loading, this would imply about 4.8E22
>      positive charges.  Since the elemental charge is 1.6E-19C, this
>      implies that about 7.7E3 Coulombs are available for charge
>      carrying per cc.  If the current in the cube is 500 mA (pulling a
>      number from thin air since I cannot remember representative
>      numbers for the P/F experiments), that represents 0.5 C/s.  If
>      the 'loading' occurs over 4 hours, then the 'current' would
>      be doubled.  If the loading occurs over 4 weeks the deuterium
>      'current' would average to 6 mA (with a very small 'current' after
>      the initial period).
 
I was too brief, and didn't explain why I used the foil model. This can be
either a foil whose back is not in contact with electrolyte or, e.g., a thin-
walled tube with air on the inside. In both cases, there would be outgassing
at that face, and a gradient across the diffusion path. A bit more realistic
(and in fact the basis for this model) is the initial charging period, when
you are loading into uncharged metal. At very short times, you have a very
thin film (of thickness SQRT(pi*D*t)) and - mathematically - very large fluxes
or, if you like, currents. In fact, the current cannot exceed the charging
current and is limited to that value. So you might get, for a short time,
deuteron currents up to, say 1A/cm**2, what the calorimetrists call heroic
levels.
 I like your cube calculation, though, it's a nice example of seeing the
forest. I notice that Chuck hasn't come back with more Schroedinger equations,
so maybe we've convinced you?
 
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.07 / Dieter Britz /  Crazed pedant strikes again XXIV
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crazed pedant strikes again XXIV
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 13:45:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) again:
 
>   The real question that was presented was, can hydrogen, deuterium,
>etc, move through a lattice without quantum-mechanical interactions between
>the lattice electron and hydrogen. I think the answer to that problem is
>yes.
 
The answer is no; QM is not an effect that turns on and off, it's an attempt
at a description of nature at the atomic scale. Certainly electrons and
deuterons interact with the metal nuclei, and this can be described by QM
(i.e. we can have a go at it) but the point is that for this discussion, it's
not relevant.
 
>   In earlier posts, I've stressed a problem in Ohm's law.
..
>This is all deeply involved in calorimetry, so let me discuss this
 
No, it's not deeply involved in calorimetry in this context; see below.
 
>Diter Britz writes,
 
Ouch! That's 'Dieter', my good man, but I forgive you. The name has given me
endless trouble in Australia, it's been spelled at least 6 different ways.
Also, Lewis is not Levis. Pardon my pedantry.
 
>> As an aside: Chuck might now be interested in looking up the electrical
>>resistivity of PdD, and calculating the heating effect (I*E) of such a
 current.
>>I expect that the heating effect for the deuteron current would be 1800 times
>>that, giving a total of 1801 times I*E. Go for it.
 
>Ok, I'll bite.  Interesting calculation by the way.  I never thought about
>looking at the problem that way, so perhaps looking at the forest, isn't
>such a bad way after all.  Ok, let me make some general assumptions to do
>the calculation. Assume, the 1mm thick sheet, has the dimensions such
>that the total mass is equal to 1gm of Pd. Also, the voltage across
>the system is 12 Volts.  From this, the potential power capable of being
>delivered is, P = VI.  So, 12V*160A = 1920 watts, or 1920 Joule/sec. From
>(m c Delta T) J = V I t, then (Delta T) / t = V I / J m c.  I don't have
>the specific heat of Pd, but for the sake of argument let's assume it's
>equivalent to Platinum (Pt), 0.0317 cal/g degree C. Thus, (1920 J/s)/
>(419 J/cal * 0.0317 cal/Degree C) = 144.6 degrees/sec! Geez. That's hot!
 
Connecting this with the above remark of deep involvement in calorimetry, you
seem to have reduced the electrochemical cell to a thin sheet of palladium.
We do not apply the full cell voltage across this sheet but to the whole cell.
I looked up the resistivity of Pd (in "The Elements" by John Emsley, very nice
book) and it's 1.08E-07 ohm*m. Let's convert that to the deuteride, which at
max loading is known to have 1.8 times that, and convert to ohm*cm, giving
close to 2E-05 ohm*cm. Let's now assume a 1 cm cube of Pd as the cathode, and
a current of 1 A going through the cell. This will cause a total cell voltage
of 10-20 V or a total input power of 10-20 W. How much of this might there be
dissipated in the Pd cube? Well, we multiply the resistivity figure (which
now, for that cube, gives us simply 2E-05 ohms) by 3600 (I am not sure this is
right but let's assume it for the moment; my earlier 1800 figure was for
protons) because we expect a higher resistance for deuterons, by a factor of
the ratio (deuteron mass/electron mass) and we get 0.072 "ohm". What with the
current of 1A, this gives 0.07 V across the cube or 0.07 W heating it up. This
is a maximum calculation, assuming as it does that all of the 1A goes into
charging the cube, i.e. that there is a deuteron current or flux of 1 A into
the block. This will not be so, and certainly not through the whole cube
but it's a maximum figure. 0.07 W is not a lot and if you repeat your
calculation, you'll get a less amazing figure for your heating rate. The rest
of the 10-20 V will be sitting at the electrochemical interfaces (about 3-4 V,
I think, with the overvoltages), plus (most of it) across the electrolyte,
which does indeed get heated up considerably at high currents.
 
Where are we now? I hope I have convinced you that your heavy heat will amount
to no more than a tiny fraction of the total heat dissipated by the cell, and
so cannot account for any excess heat people might find. All this by looking
at trees. Furthermore, even if this heavy heat were a significant fraction of
the total, it would still not be "excess" in the sense of unaccounted; it
comes from the input energy, and so is entirely accounted for. Excess heat
means that, having accounted for all known, conventional processes such as
water electrolysis, ohmic power dissipation, evaporation, recombination if
any, deuteride formation - all chemical and non-nuclear physical processes -
we get heat given off in excess of what we put in, then there must be another
process we have missed. The argument goes that what has been observed is so
large that it cannot be of chemical origin, ergo it must be nuclear.
 
Please note, Chuck, that this is not a put-down. Your thoughts of heat from
the flow of heavy positive charges are indeed interesting; they are just not
relevant here.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.07 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 579 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 579 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 13:46:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here we go again. The Kosyakhkov (I've previously misspelled him Kosyachkov,
sorry Kossy) is another in a series, have only just got hold of it. These
people do not seem to know about self targetting, and think they have cold
fusion, whereas it is in fact warm, and known since the '50's.
 The two electrochemical papers might be better placed in Section 4, as
peripheral to cold fusion, but they are both clearly inspired by cold fusion,
even citing FPH, so I put them into the main section. Cold fusion, as a field,
has now matured to the point where people are doing more fundamental studies
instead of searching for emissions or heat. If cold fusion later is proven to
be a mistake, we will smile at that last statement.
 The peripheral items by Mathews+ and Mouze+ may or may not excite you. Those
with dates and times in their lab books might want to look up the times of the
solar flares. Maybe this will explain a whole heap of neutron bursts, who
knows? There seem to be some theories about, too, about cosmic influx setting
cold fusion going, so again this might be interesting. I get this from Eugene
Mallove's book (see below). The Mouze is a long way from cnf but just of
semantic interest (to me at least).
 Yes, I have Mallove's book and am reading it as fast as I can. I'm almost
half-way through and will report when I finish it. So far, it's a very
polished effort, and obviously by a proponent of cnf, though he did not
suspend disbelief entirely.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 7-Aug. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 579
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kosyakhkov AA, Cherepin VT, Kolotyi VV, Kisurin KK;
Fiz. Tverd. Tela 32 (1990) 3672 (in Russian).
"Neutron yield in the deuterium ion implantation into titanium".
** This team investigates cold fusion by means of their magnetic discharge
pump, sending an ionised deuterium beam at 8 keV at a Ti target. The Ti is
grounded and Penning discharge results in the target bombardment. Despite the
neutron detector not being positioned optimally because of the pump's
geometry, clear neutron emission is seen upon this bombardment. The authors
take this as confirmation of cold fusion (it is not).            Jul-89/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson DR, Tierney MJ, Cheng IF, Van Dyke LS, Espenscheid MW, Martin CR;
Electrochim. Acta 36 (1991) 1515.
"Use of a coulometric assay technique to study the variables affecting
deuterium loading levels within palladium electrodes".
** The problem of the determination of deuterium loading is looked at here.
One way is to reverse the electrolytic current, and to measure the total
charge needed to drive out the deuterium again. This is carefully compared
with the rough-and-ready method of wiping and weighing. Some interesting
results are obtained. At no current densities did the loading (D/Pd) exceed
0.73 or so; for light water, H/Pd was 0.8; the wipe&weigh method gives much
the same result; gas bubbles, or gas dissolved in the electrolyte do not
significantly interfere with the measurements. Two electrochemical poisons
were also tried, since some workers believe that these might force a higher
D/Pd ratio. Neither thiourea nor As2O3 succeeded in this.        Jul-90/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Szpak S, Gabriel CJ, Smith JJ, Nowak RJ; J. Electroanal. Chem. 309 (1991) 273.
"Electrochemical charging of Pd rods".
** It is of interest to cold fusion experimenters using electrolysis, how long
it takes to charge a Pd rod and what the electrode potential is as function of
current density and time. This paper goes into excruciating detail on all
processes taking place, complete with a set of rate constants, all unknown.
The model is then solved numerically, putting in some sets of values. There
are no firm conclusions but the paper gives valuable detail of the many
reactions contributing to deuterium charging of Pd.              Oct-90/Jul-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathews T, Venkatesan D;                                Nature 345 (1990) 600.
"Unique series of increases in cosmic-ray intensity due to solar flares".
** This paper states that the second half of 1989 was the most prolific period
of particle production by the Sun since monitoring began in 1957. Flares
lasting several hours are pictured, and a table given of the dates and times
and intensities. Six such events are listed. Attas et al, Nature 344 (1990)
390 have correlated such flares with neutron bursts observed in their "cold
fusion" cells, so these data should be noted by cold fusion researchers.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mouze G, Ythier C;                 Rev. Roum. Phys. 35 (1990) 563 (in French).
"Les nucleons de valence et la fission nucleaire asymetrique".
** Among other things, this paper discusses the production of transuranium
elements such as 108, by the bombardment of, say, Pb or Bi with ion beams of
Ar or Fe. In some cases, these will fuse to the super-heavies, and some of
these processes have apparently been dubbed 'cold fusion'  by some workers.
It may be that energies like 300 MeV are low, compared to those usually used,
and that this gave rise to the term. It is interesting as an example of prior
use of 'cold fusion'.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.10 / John Prentice /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 10 Aug 91 16:58:20 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug10.082652.28433@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
>This is just pure BULL-SHIT. If you knew the subject, you wouldn't even
>make this stupid comparison.  You have apparently bought the media's twisted
>and very un-informed views.  Go back and research the subject.  You need your
>slap on the knee opions humbled.  To start with, you may want to read
>Mallove's book "Fire from Ice".
>
 
I read both Frank Close's book and a fair amount of Mallove's book.  Close's
book is a bit jerky, but is well researched and rather convincing.  Mallove's
book struck me as silly.  Close at least entertains the notion that something
may be going on with cold fusion, though he is by now convinced it is
not nuclear (and he is in pretty good company).  Mallove virtually slobers
over the notion that cold fusion is real.  This is a book for believers.
It STARTS with the premise that cold fusion is real and never builds a
convincing case.  Further, it is written by a science *writer*, not a
scientist.  It really shows.  His book struck me as being more an attempt
at boosterism than an attempt at producing a scholarly account of cold
fusion.
 
As for this posting above, come on, give us a break.  There are alot more
people than just the media who have concluded that cold fusion has no
scientific validity.  There do appear to be interesting things happening
with bursts of heat, but to continue to argue that this is fusion is
astonishing.  What is it about this subject that makes people so
religous about the idea that it is *fusion* that is occuring.  They
may be things going on that are every bit as interesting, but not nuclear.
But the belivers prefer to have the tail wag the dog.  They are trying
to jerk physics to fit into this phenomena, not because the data
suggests that you should, but because they want to believe that it is
fusion and not some other process that is happening.  It is lousy science.
 
The criteria for proving me wrong is very simple.  Produce a working
cell that can be reproduced and that will pass an examination by any
competent lab.  Since no one has been able to do this, despite many
trying, it hardly seems worth expending money in this field at the
expense of more credible science.  That may be a hard thing for
believers to accept, but this ain't religion, its science.
 
John
--
John K. Prentice                         john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of New Mexico
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.10 / Daniel Riley /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: riley@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Daniel S. Riley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 10 Aug 91 18:09:48 GMT
Organization: Cornell Theory Center

In article <1991Aug9.224407.3875@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <htxPC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest)
 writes:
>>By CHRIS TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer
[...much elided...]
>>   Parker said the center has offered to have a staff member go
>>over the data with Mallove.
>>   ``We don't feel comfortable releasing all the books to him,''
>>Parker said. ``We think they need to be interpreted for him and to
>>do that would take a good deal of our time.''
 
>Sounds like the catholic church and the bible :-)
>This is more damning than anything Mallove has said....
 
Not really.  These are probably your typical physics lab notebooks,
full of false starts and wrong conclusions and barely legible scrawls.
It usually takes a fair bit of explanation before someone outside the
group can correctly interpret such notebooks, and, given all the
controversy surrounding the topic, I can understand MIT being wary of
misinterpretation.
 
--
-Dan Riley (riley@theory.tc.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley)
-Wilson Lab, Cornell University
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenriley cudfnDaniel cudlnRiley cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.10 / Bruce Walker /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bruce@contingency.think.com (Bruce Walker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 10 Aug 91 20:52:19 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA

There was an interview with Mallove on NPR Morning Edition on Friday
morning.  The reasons for his resignation seem to raise some serious issues
of integrity among those researching cold fusion at MIT.  Most of this was
from incidents early on in the cold fusion saga.
 
His claim is that MIT had such a stake in hot fusion (funding), that they
really wanted to see cold fusion go away.  He cited one example of
scientists changing the data on a graph between a draft copy of the paper
and the final paper.  The draft copy showed evidence of excess energy,
albeit within experimental error.  The final copy showed no excess energy,
and the scientists involved refuse to give a reason for moving the data.
One of them was quoted (my paraphrasing) "Well, it wasn't clear where the
points should have been in the first place.  It's nothing more than that."
What kind of science is that?  Either you have data, or you don't.  I have
no problem with error bars, or something like, "we had forgotten to correct
for X", but if you have no idea where your points should be, you probably
shouldn't be publishing your "results".
 
Anyway, it was this incident which caused him to ask for the notebooks of
the experiment to look at the data, but he was refused access to them.
 
The other incident talked about in the interview was more political: how
one of scientists granted an interview to the Boston Herald (I think this
was about April/May of '89), accusing Pons & Fleishman of fraud and
something along the lines of falsifying data.  This made a big splash in
the papers, but the quoted scientist repeatedly denied that he said those
things to the reporter after the aritcle was written, making the Herald
look silly.  The reporter released tapes of the interview to Mallove, and
he certainly did say them (excerpts were played on NPR).
 
--
--Bruce Walker
  Thinking Machines Corp., Cambridge, MA
  bruce@think.com; +1 617 234 4810; WT1M
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnWalker cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.11 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 11 Aug 91 02:50:31 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1991Aug10.165820.18536@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
 
   The criteria for proving me wrong is very simple.  Produce a working
   cell that can be reproduced and that will pass an examination by any
   competent lab.  Since no one has been able to do this, despite many
   trying, it hardly seems worth expending money in this field at the
   expense of more credible science.  That may be a hard thing for
   believers to accept, but this ain't religion, its science.
 
   Hmmm... The criteria for proving you wrong requires doing research
that you are claiming should not be done?  Getting from one out of ten
or even one out of a hundred to one hundred per cent reproducible is
where most researchers spend most of their time.  But even if some
phenomena only happens one time out of a million under some set of
conditions, it is no less real.  If a baseball player claims he can
knock the ball out of the park, do you require that he do so on each
pitch?
 
There have been a lot of phenomena where the establishment refused for
a long time to even listen to evidence.  Convincing these supposed
scientists that there was something that needed investigating was a
bigger problem than doing the research once it was permitted by the
establishment.  I remember when you could almost literally get lynched
for trying to research ball lighting, even if you had seen the real
stuff.
 
   (High flying aircraft finally ended that.  The Air Force didn't
want to hear how impossible it was when they were losing aircraft to
it.  I always have to laugh when some saucer freak dismisses Project
Blue Book as a cover-up.  There were a lot of "scientists" who would
have been happier if Blue Book found little green men instead of
concluding that ball lightning was a real phenomena that could and did
destroy aircraft.)
 
     I feel I have to keep jumping on people who say that cold fusion
has been all smoke and no fire, because many are guilty of confusing
the order in which things happen in science.  The usual cycle is:
 
         A.  Initial observation
         B.  Theory to explain what was observed
         C.  New protocol based on new theory (which often says that
                 the original experiment was fatally flawed)
         D.  Confirmation or disproof of the new theory in B.
 
         Repeat B through D until confirmation of some new theory then
return to A.
 
    The initial experiments in an area often bear no relation to
the final sucessful experiments.   (My favorite example of this is the
discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts.  The original observation
was that there were regions where NO radiation was observed, since the
counters were saturating.)
 
     By my count there are several new modes of fusion which have been
proposed and detected as part of the cold fusion research.  (And some
old ones such as self targeting.)  The fact that none of these has
been matched to the initial observations does not make that work
worthless, it just means that there is still lots more work to be
done.
 
   (For those who want to hold my feet to the fire, the clearest
evidence is for fractofusion, unheard of before cold fusion research.
Also, the predicted rates for picofusion have increased to the point
of bare detectability--or well above if you take the Jones volcanic
tritium results as evidence of picofusion.  If you want a third, try
the recent correlations between solar flares and cold fusion results.)
 
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.11 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 11 Aug 91 10:02:44 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
 
 
>I read both Frank Close's book and a fair amount of Mallove's book.  Close's
>book is a bit jerky, but is well researched and rather convincing.  Mallove's
>book struck me as silly.  Close at least entertains the notion that something
>may be going on with cold fusion, though he is by now convinced it is
>not nuclear (and he is in pretty good company).  Mallove virtually slobers
>over the notion that cold fusion is real.  This is a book for believers.
 
Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle" is a very good look at the contoversy
in cold fusion. His history is excellent. But after the 2.2Mev gamma peak
controversy, thats where he stops.  Forget any of the newer results. There
not there.  Mallove's book, on the other-hand, has a much broader scope of
the subject, not just the controversy.  He discribes a lot of results that
have appeared since the trashing P&F took in Nature about there nuclear
measurements.  Some more interesting than P&F's original electrolysis
experiements.
 
>As for this posting above, come on, give us a break.  There are alot more
>people than just the media who have concluded that cold fusion has no
>scientific validity.
 
Unfortunalty the media follows magazines like Nature, which is bias
against cold fusion. Just read there past editorials.  So if you do
get good convencing results for cold fusion forget publishing it in
Nature. It just won't happen.
 
>There do appear to be interesting things happening
>with bursts of heat, but to continue to argue that this is fusion is
>astonishing.   What is it about this subject that makes people so
>religous about the idea that it is *fusion* that is occuring.  They
>may be things going on that are every bit as interesting, but not nuclear.
 
Your right.  Heat burst do not immediatly imply fusion.  However, if
you see small anomolys nuclear events in similar systems as the heat
bursts, wouldn't you be suspecious that these observations are correlated?
Especially if you can't explain the heat burst by any other known means.
 
> It is lousy science.
 
Far from it.  It's the cutting edge of science in condensed matter.
 
>John
>--
>John K. Prentice                         john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
>Department of Physics and Astronomy
>University of New Mexico
 
Have Fun,
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.11 / John Prentice /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 06:20:36 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <EACHUS.91Aug10205031@Dr_No.mitre.org> eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert
 I. Eachus) writes:
>In article <1991Aug10.165820.18536@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
>
>   The criteria for proving me wrong is very simple.  Produce a working
>   cell that can be reproduced and that will pass an examination by any
>   competent lab.  Since no one has been able to do this, despite many
>   trying, it hardly seems worth expending money in this field at the
>   expense of more credible science.  That may be a hard thing for
>   believers to accept, but this ain't religion, its science.
>
>   Hmmm... The criteria for proving you wrong requires doing research
>that you are claiming should not be done?  Getting from one out of ten
>or even one out of a hundred to one hundred per cent reproducible is
>where most researchers spend most of their time.  But even if some
>phenomena only happens one time out of a million under some set of
>conditions, it is no less real.  If a baseball player claims he can
>knock the ball out of the park, do you require that he do so on each
>pitch?
>
 
Quite true, but as a scientist you also have to know when the smart money
is to call it quits.  Cold fusion is interesting in that the efforts are
centered on debating how small a measured effect can be before you just
call it zero.  You can never entirely prove that an effect is NOT there,
because detectors fluctuate, even around zero.  But you can put upper
limits on it and the upper limits established for cold fusion are as
close to zero as any sane person would ever want (certainly for neutrons,
gammas, and He).  But instead of accepting this is reasonable proof that
the effect is a mirage, the believers make up new physics.  Close perhaps
asks the question best, when is the absence of evidence actually evidence
of absence?
 
As a scientist, you have limited resources and limited time.  You have
to decide what research is worth pursuing and what isn't.  Cold fusion
has consumed tens of millions of dollars and countless hours of researchers
all over the world, including some of the best and the brightest.  Yet
there are still no reproducable experiments and most scientists would
argue that there is still no data that can survive scrutiny that suggests
there is any reason for believing there is fusion occuring.  Many theories
have been suggested (Julian Schwinger's for example, though Schwinger
was quick to point out to me when I talked to him a couple years ago
that his was a plausibility argument, not a theory) for how fusion might
occur in the solid state, but most require postulating new types of
fusion for which the only experimental evidence would be the cold fusion
experiments.  Yet the cold fusion experiments have yet to produce any
convincing evidence of any kind.  It is a circular argument.  This kind
of wierd reasoning was much in evidence during the early cold fusion
days when the experimentalists would point to the theoreticians as
support while the theoreticians were pointing to the experimentalists
for support.  The most glaring example of that was when P&F tried to
explain anyway positive heat production for cells using ordinary water.
 
If scientists want to continue to look at cold fusion, that is their right
and they may yet find something.  One can never say with 100% certainty
that something is NOT happening.  But at the same time, you have to
at some point decide that the probability is too small to make it
worthwhile.  After all, if I bounce a tennis ball against a wall,
there is indeed a finite probability that it will eventually quantum
tunnel through it.  The arguments being used for continued cold fusion
research would seem to  suggest that I should set up an experiment and
see if indeed my tennis ball *does* go through eventually.  But even if
it did, so what?  What would I have learned that was worth the wait?
 
In either case, the real question is money.  Science budgets are
shrinking and there is enormous competition for research dollars.  Cold
fusion has already consumed enormous resources, at the expense of other
research that is scientifically sound and which has real payoffs.
Given the lack of evidence for cold fusion, there is no credible
argument for continued funding of this research on any large scale.
If NSF or someone wants to fund an individual researcher in this area,
fine.  But it should be done on the merits of the research, the
potential for successful completion of the research, and it should
be weighed against the merits of all the other competing proposals
out there.  It most certainly shouldn't receive any special treatment,
pro or con, however.  I rather suspect against those criteria, few
funding agencies are going to feel that cold fusion deserves much,
if any, money.
 
John
--
John K. Prentice                         john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of New Mexico
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.12 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 579 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 579 papers on cnf)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 13:58:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
well, back from the weekend and I've read The Book. As you will see, I like
it. I disagree with John Prentice (john@spectre.unm.edu):
 
>I read both Frank Close's book and a fair amount of Mallove's book.  Close's
>book is a bit jerky, but is well researched and rather convincing.  Mallove's
>book struck me as silly.  Close at least entertains the notion that something
>may be going on with cold fusion, though he is by now convinced it is
>not nuclear (and he is in pretty good company).  Mallove virtually slobers
>over the notion that cold fusion is real.  This is a book for believers.
>It STARTS with the premise that cold fusion is real and never builds a
>convincing case.  Further, it is written by a science *writer*, not a
>scientist.  It really shows.  His book struck me as being more an attempt
>at boosterism than an attempt at producing a scholarly account of cold
>fusion.
 
I wonder whether we read the same book. I was prepared to read a silly book, I
had heard it was by a firm believer, but I was pleasantly surprised by its
reasonableness. It is not silly; Mallove does not say that it is conventional
d-d fusion (as most thoughtful believers now don't, they claim an unknown
nuclear reaction); he overstates his case but is not unconvincing (I express
this carefully, still being a skeptic), and is both a writer and a scientist
(that term is not reserved for theoretical physicists alone). The account is
scholarly and gives very fair airing to the skeptics' arguments. I find him a
bit too enthusiastic on hot fusion, being skeptical of that future vision both
in terms of attainability and - if so - desirability. I find his belief in the
emission results unconvincing, but he is correct in writing that many groups
now report such things as neutrons and tritium, and even some helium. These
people are not ALL bumblers. Maybe solar flares will explain all these
results, and maybe they are all within background or noise limits (and maybe
not). I have much more trouble with the small but remarkable body of excess
heat results; these remain to be explained away.
 Mallove does not eulogise the cold fusion researchers; Fleischmann and Pons,
as well as Jones, come in for criticism as well as the opposition. He is most
critical of journals such as Nature, and if his allegations are true, this is
deserved. I have myself thought Nature a bit over the top in its treatment of,
say, Beneviste in 1988. They accepted the paper (Davenas et al, Nature 333
(1988) 816), accompanied by an editorial, and then sent a team to France to
debunk the work. Not nice. Cold fusion has been snidely pronounced dead
several times by Nature.
 A nice thing about the book is that it is occasionally ironic but never
nasty. Let this be an example to all of us. Mouth frothing, dripping vitriol
and law suits will not help to find the explanation of this phenomenon, but
polite listening to the "others" may.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 12-Aug. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 579
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallove E; "Fire from Ice: searching for the truth behind the cold fusion
furor", John Wiley 1991. ISBN 0-471-53139-1.
** The book appears to be up to date to early 1991. It is clearly written by
a "believer" in "cold fusion"; this is stated bluntly in the Preface and again
and again in the text. Nevertheless, the book gives fair coverage to the
skeptics' complaints and is well written. Mallove is both a professional
writer and a scientist, and goes into some technical detail in places. He
rightly argues against the facile dismissal of cold fusion by the "experts",
who often use simplistic approaches and prove nothing. He believes that there
is now a mass of evidence for both excess heat and emission of neutrons and
tritium; the emissions are arguable but the excess heat observed by several
apparently competent groups is indeed hard to explain away. The book gives a
time-sequence of the story, and also deals with the prehistory of cold fusion,
i.e. the 1926-7 papers of Paneth et al, the Swedish (Tandberg) work of the
'thirties, and muon catalysed fusion (the original "cold fusion"). The related
feld of cluster impact fusion is covered. Fractofusion is not, apart from a
single paragraph (quoting a US expert), and the Soviet workers do not appear
in the book at all.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kobayashi M;         Annu. Rep. Res. Reactor Inst., Kyoto Univ. 23 (1990) 188.
"Decrease in deuterium content of heavy water in contact with air".
** Heavy water in contact with air containing light water vapour rapidly
becomes contaminated with it. K investigated the speed of this process and
found that a sample of D2O open to the air at 21.5 degC and 70% humidity went
from an initial 97.7 at% D to 13% in about 10 hours; the process has a half
life of about 3 h. Temperature and humidity (and undoubtedly, convection of
the air) all affect the exchange rate. There is also an apparently rapid
equilibrium, H2O + D2O --> 2 HDO, so that after the 10 hours, only 1.6 % of
the water was in the form of D2O, 20.8% present as HDO.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.12 / Steve Simmons /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 12 Aug 91 12:35:55 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

In article <htxPC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest) writes:
 
>By CHRIS TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer
 [...much elided...]
>   Parker said the center has offered to have a staff member go
>over the data with Mallove.
>   ``We don't feel comfortable releasing all the books to him,''
>Parker said. ``We think they need to be interpreted for him and to
>do that would take a good deal of our time.''
 
In article <1991Aug9.224407.3875@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
 
>Sounds like the catholic church and the bible :-)
>This is more damning than anything Mallove has said....
 
riley@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Daniel S. Riley) writes:
 
>Not really.  These are probably your typical physics lab notebooks,
>full of false starts and wrong conclusions and barely legible scrawls.
>It usually takes a fair bit of explanation before someone outside the
>group can correctly interpret such notebooks, and, given all the
>controversy surrounding the topic, I can understand MIT being wary of
>misinterpretation.
 
I can understand that wariness, but they'd have been better
served in releasing the data.  Given
 
  (a) MITs large public stake in hot fusion,
  (b) even the proponents of cold fusion say it's a process which seems
      to work intermittently,
  (c) there are accusations of supression and change of data on MITs
      part,
  (d) MIT refuses to release some of the data
 
even the coolest head would admit there is an appearance of impropriety.
The misinterpretation MIT gets from this will grossly exceed any that
comes from the lab notebooks.
--
  [referring to A/UX development] "With our new divisional structure, we've
  put in place an organization that can walk and chew gum at the same time."
	-- Jim Groff, a marketing director at Apple.  Quoted in UniNews, 7/8/91
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenscs cudfnSteve cudlnSimmons cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.12 / Peter Wayner /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: wayner@CS.Cornell.EDU (Peter Wayner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 12 Aug 91 14:04:17 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
 
>I can understand that wariness, but they'd have been better
>served in releasing the data.  Given
 
>  (a) MITs large public stake in hot fusion,
 
It might good at this time to point out that the university is
made up of people and the people are the ones with biases. It is
easy to argue that MIT has a large stake in COLD fusion because
several of its professors have written papers on the theory of
COLD fusion. They may have even filed patent applications, but my
memory is fuzzy on this area. These professors believe.
 
Other professors, however, believe differently. It is not an MIT
thing. It is a professor X and professor Y thing.
--
Peter Wayner   Department of Computer Science Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14850
EMail:wayner@cs.cornell.edu    Office: 607-255-9202 or 255-1008
Home: 116 Oak Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850  Phone: 607-277-6678
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwayner cudfnPeter cudlnWayner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.12 / John Prentice /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 12 Aug 91 10:24:32 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug11.100244.25149@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
>Unfortunalty the media follows magazines like Nature, which is bias
>against cold fusion. Just read there past editorials.  So if you do
>get good convencing results for cold fusion forget publishing it in
>Nature. It just won't happen.
>
 
It puzzles me why people are so hung up about publishing in Nature anyway.
This is not the journal that comes to mind when scientists think about
condensed matter *or* fusion.  It made some sense in the beginning because
it has a general readership, but at this point, one would expect people
to be past that and wanting to publish in more significant journals devoted
to these specialized topics.  That is not meant as a criticism particularly,
just that it strikes me as odd.  I certainly can't see losing sleep over the
editoral policies of Nature when it is such a minor player.  But if the
problem is that *no* reputable journals will accept cold fusion research,
then perhaps that should be telling you something.
 
>
>Your right.  Heat burst do not immediatly imply fusion.  However, if
>you see small anomolys nuclear events in similar systems as the heat
>bursts, wouldn't you be suspecious that these observations are correlated?
>Especially if you can't explain the heat burst by any other known means.
>
 
I have yet to hear of any reproducable and verified evidence of nuclear
events from a cold fusion cell.  I have on the other hand heard a great
deal of claims which have since been retracted or refuted.  Cold fusion
has been a rather severe introduction for a lot of scientists into just
how difficult measurements of neutrons and whatnot are, particularly
when you are looking so close to zero.  If such evidence *does* exist
and can be verified, then the scientific world will take notice of it.
But there is a big difference between claiming to see something and others
being able to reproduce the experiment.  There are still reputable
labs like Los Alamos looking into cold fusion, if there is good evidence
of nuclear events, I suspect they would be more than happy to travel
to the lab making the claim and take a look.  So far I haven't noticed
anyone booking airplane reservations.
 
>
>Far from it.  It's the cutting edge of science in condensed matter.
>
 
Very, very few condensed matter physicists would agree.
 
Look, if cold fusion is this exciting and this promising, why then
is there no interest in it?  Nothing excites scientists more than
the prospect of discovery, yet most of the scientific establishment
has turned away from cold fusion.  One can ascribe it to conspiracy,
but the truth is it is because there is no evidence of fusion occuring.
There may be solid state or chemical reactions occuring, the heat
bursts are suggestive something is happening (if indeed a consensus
ever develops that these heat bursts are real), but frankly, whether
these are nuclear, chemical, or whatever, it is not a phenomena that
stands out amongst all the other phenomena out there to investigate.
The only reason this field ever achieved any prominence at all was
because P&F made wildly exaggerated claims for heat production (which
it later turned out they had not actually measured.  Rather they
somewhat creatively extrapolated their data to what they thought would
be possible with big cells).  Had they not done so and had not caused
a big media splash, this field would still be a scientific back water
where a few people did research and wrote an occasional paper.  Now
that the fury is over with nothing to show for it, it is again a
scientific backwater.  Some good science may yet come of it, but
few today would suggest you are going to produce power stations with this
phenomena.  If you take that aspect away, this just isn't that interesting
a problem, whether it is real or not.
 
John
--
John K. Prentice                         john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of New Mexico
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.12 / Steve Simmons /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 12 Aug 91 15:11:34 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

wayner@CS.Cornell.EDU (Peter Wayner) writes:
 
>It might good at this time to point out that the university is
>made up of people and the people are the ones with biases. It is
>easy to argue that MIT has a large stake in COLD fusion because
>several of its professors have written papers on the theory of
>COLD fusion. They may have even filed patent applications, but my
>memory is fuzzy on this area. These professors believe.
 
All institutions are made up of people.  We usually cite the
institution when the person speaking in some way officially represents
that institution.
 
The person who is claiming the notebooks are not proper reading is Ron
Parker.  He is listed as being director [sic] of "MIT's Plasma Fusion
Center".  This man is making an official statement from an MIT group
which has a clear stake in hot fusion (note the word "Plasma").  He is
restricting access to the notebooks of other scientists.  As such, it
is an MIT official acting on behalf of his institution.
--
  [referring to A/UX development] "With our new divisional structure, we've
  put in place an organization that can walk and chew gum at the same time."
	-- Jim Groff, a marketing director at Apple.  Quoted in UniNews, 7/8/91
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenscs cudfnSteve cudlnSimmons cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.13 / Paul Schauble /  Doug Morrison #5 wanted
     
Originally-From: PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Doug Morrison #5 wanted
Date: 13 Aug 91 04:22:12 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I had downloaded Doug Morrison's Cold Fusion Review #5 to read it. Somehow,
I lost my copy and this site has expired that article. Could someone please
mail me a copy or point me at an archive?
 
    Thanks,
       ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPLS cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.13 / Dieter Britz /  Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 13:42:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice):
 
>It puzzles me why people are so hung up about publishing in Nature anyway.
>This is not the journal that comes to mind when scientists think about
>condensed matter *or* fusion.  It made some sense in the beginning because
>it has a general readership, but at this point, one would expect people
>to be past that and wanting to publish in more significant journals devoted
>to these specialized topics.  That is not meant as a criticism particularly,
>just that it strikes me as odd.  I certainly can't see losing sleep over the
>editoral policies of Nature when it is such a minor player.  But if the
>problem is that *no* reputable journals will accept cold fusion research,
>then perhaps that should be telling you something.
 
Wrong on two counts, John. If you have a hot item in any kind of science,
Nature is the best vehicle for it, since it is read by just about every
scientist in the world. To publish it in a specialist journal could be a kind
of burial. At least, it would take some time to diffuse out to others. Nature
is far from a minor player. "At this point" - well, that was at the beginning,
wasn't it? Just right for Nature.
Your second error is that, on the contrary, reputable journals do publish cold
fusion papers. In my field, there is no better journal than J. Electroanal.
Chem., and quite a few cnf articles have appeared in it - and more are on the
way. There are many other rep. j's in my bibliography. How about Z. Phys.,
Phys. Rev., Phys. Rev. Lett., Phys. Lett., Il Nuovo Cimento, etc (just a
small sample)?
 
>Look, if cold fusion is this exciting and this promising, why then
>is there no interest in it?  Nothing excites scientists more than
>the prospect of discovery, yet most of the scientific establishment
>has turned away from cold fusion....
 
You must be joking, mate! I have collected close to 600 published papers,
involving who knows how many scientists, all excited by the prospect of cold
fusion. Sure, some have turned away, being convinced there is, after all,
nothing in it. But a lot have not. It has been said again and again: this
thing, though possibly completely crazy, if true, is potentially so important
that we cannot just ignore it. I haven't done any lab work on cold fusion and
don't intend to, but I certainly am going to keep my eye on it. I may turn
away from it when and if I see a rational explanation for the (admittedly few)
solid excess heat results.
 
One thing I don't understand is why people get so hot under the collar about
this. If you don't like cold fusion, why not just go away and ignore it? OK,
you're going to tell me about the vast resources wasted on it; compared with
other fields, the money has been peanuts. This is OK; cnf is not going to be
cleared up by throwing money at it, and I think it's best handled by a horde
of low-budgetted groups. Few people are forced to do it (some are, I know).
There are scientific spin-offs as well; lots of people are learning how to do
calorimetry, how (not) to measure neutrons, etc.
 
Come off your high horse, John.
 
PS to all: the singular is "phenomenon", plural "phenomena".
 
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.13 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 580 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 580 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 18:28:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
cleaning-up time. Going through the bibliography, I found that the Assmann
item below is not in it, and I thought I had fired that one off some time ago;
those two temperatures are very familiar. Neither was the Myers in the list,
and I know I sent that one; the other items in the same package are in there,
but not the Myers. I have no explanation for it, and hope that there are no
other errors of this sort, but here are the two items, again in the case of
Myers. If you have these yourself, just ignore them. As I find no Assmann at
all, I count it as well.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 13-Aug. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 580
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assmann H, Hofer G, Hoffmann R, Martin J;
Ger. Offenl. DE 39163397 A1, 19-May-89.
"Verfahren und Einrichtung zur Fusion von leichten Atomkernen"
(Method and apparatus for the fusion of light nuclei)
** .. especially of deuterium nuclei, from an electrolyte containing these, or
tritium, or lithium ions, in heavy water or superheavy water, etc. The special
feature here is that the anode is made out of a material, such as Au, Pt or
Pd, and is heated to over 100 degC, preferably to 1000 degC, in order to
partly disslove and deposit on the Pd cathode, so as to activate it.      ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myers SM, Richards PM, Follstaedt DM, Schirber JE; Phys. Rev. B43 (1991) 9503.
"Superstoichiometry, accelerated diffusion, and nuclear reactions in
deuterium-implanted palladium".
** Samples of Pd foil, both vacuum annealed and untreated, were exposed to a
deuterium beam at 10 keV and 41K, and 30 keV and 81K. At temperatures below
about 120K, the authors find that Pd can absorb more than unity D/Pd ratio of
deuterium. When the beam is turned off, however, the emission of neutrons has
the same spectrum as that of the background. Thus, for this fairly short-term
experiment, the upper cold fusion limit is about 1E-21..1E-20. The paper goes
into some interesting detail about deuterium diffusion in Pd and its
temperature dependence.                                          Jul-90/Apr-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.13 / John Prentice /  Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
Date: 13 Aug 91 19:08:45 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

As I said originally, I have nothing against people doing research in
this field.  I just don't think there is an evidence to compell special
funding of it.  As for Nature and whatnot, I also never said reputable
journals don't publish cold fusion results.  Concerning whether Nature
is the place to publish or not, it is hardly my call.  But Nature is
hardly the only place to publish fast breaking results.  That is the
whole reason for Physical Review Letters and endless numbers of
other "letter" sections to journals.  As for the possibility of a
"hot item" being buried in one of these journals, that strikes me
as betraying a very poor understanding of how science works.  Hot items
get picked up real quickly and broadcast over the net, the telephone,
and from countless conversations.  Where you publish them is largely
irrelevant.
 
Look, I hope you are right and cold fusion turns out to save the world.
 
John
 
--
John K. Prentice                         john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of New Mexico
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.13 / Vincent Cate /  Re: Doug Morrison #5 wanted
     
Originally-From: vac+@cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Doug Morrison #5 wanted
Date: 13 Aug 91 21:09:13 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>I had downloaded Doug Morrison's Cold Fusion Review #5 to read it. Somehow,
>I lost my copy and this site has expired that article. Could someone please
>mail me a copy or point me at an archive?
 
The most recent one can be FTPed from:
 
furmint.nectar.cs.cmu.edu:
/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/vac/ftp/morrison/update.5
 
Others are in that directory.
 
    -- Vince
 
PS Furmint is 128.2.209.111
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.14 / John Prentice /  Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
Date: 14 Aug 91 00:29:04 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <2F1F20D601DF00AB5E@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>
>You must be joking, mate! I have collected close to 600 published papers,
>involving who knows how many scientists, all excited by the prospect of cold
>fusion. Sure, some have turned away, being convinced there is, after all,
>nothing in it. But a lot have not.
>
 
One comment about this.  600 published papers is not very many for a field
that was supposed to be a revolution.  There were over 400 papers submitted
to Physical Review Letters and Phys Rev B concerning high temperature
superconductivity in the first 6 months *alone* after it was announced by
Bednorz and Muller.  Since that time the number has grown to well over
ten thousand and I would bet there are very few that had to be later
retracted.  This doesn't prove anything, but it does give some perspective
to the claim of 600 papers in the last two years in cold fusion.  A rate
of 25 papers a month in a field that is supposed to be turning physics on
its head is hardly anything to brag about.
 
If cold fusion is indeed what its proponents claim it to be, then they will
have the last laugh and skeptics like me will look silly.  I hope
that happens, it would be a pretty neat thing and if it produced a power
source that could be harnested for industrial use, that would be even
better.  I don't feel too worried about having egg on my face however.
There may be something happening in cold fusion cells, there may not be.
But what I see is alot of people wishing it were true as opposed to a
strong scientific argument proving that it *is* true.  Until the scientific
evidence is produced to give any reason whatsoever to believe this is a
nuclear event, it will remain wishful thinking.  So keep plugging away
in the lab and produce some real evidence.  Then there will be something
to get excited about.  But pardon the bulk of the scientific community
for their skepticism or even antagonism.  This field has been rife with
shody work, spectacular claims, and a total disregard for the normal
process of vetting out scientific results.  You don't have to be a rocket
scientist to see why people are a bit touchy about it.
 
John
--
John K. Prentice                         john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of New Mexico
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.14 / Van Snyder /  Re: Wood ash more radioactive than power plant sludge
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Wood ash more radioactive than power plant sludge
Date: 14 Aug 91 07:25:52 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

From Science News, 10 August 1991, pg 95: (regarding wood ash)
.."With the exception of some very low California readings, all measurements
of ash with fallout-cesium exceeded -- by some 100 times or more -- the levels
of radioactive cesium that may be released from nuclear plants (about 100
picocuries per kilogram of sludge)...
   "... Already many companies are recycling this unregulated ash in
fertilizers.  The irony ... is that federal regulations require releases from
nuclear plants to be disposed of as radioactive wastes if they contain even
1 percent of the cesium and strontium levels detected in the ash samples from
New England.  If ash were subjected to the same regulations ... its disposal
would cost U.S. wood burners $30 billion annually."
 
So where is the jerk who was looking for a good boycott here about 2 months
ago?  This is perfect for him.
 
--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.14 / Mark North /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 14 Aug 91 15:09:51 GMT

eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>     I feel I have to keep jumping on people who say that cold fusion
>has been all smoke and no fire, because many are guilty of confusing
>the order in which things happen in science.  The usual cycle is:
 
>         A.  Initial observation
>         B.  Theory to explain what was observed
>         C.  New protocol based on new theory (which often says that
>                 the original experiment was fatally flawed)
>         D.  Confirmation or disproof of the new theory in B.
 
>         Repeat B through D until confirmation of some new theory then
>return to A.
 
Yes, but in this case there was no A.
 
>     By my count there are several new modes of fusion which have been
>proposed and detected as part of the cold fusion research.  (And some
 
Name one.
 
>   (For those who want to hold my feet to the fire, the clearest
>evidence is for fractofusion, unheard of before cold fusion research.
 
It's statements like this that make me wonder about your objectivity.
Since you obviously haven't researched the subject very well how can
you go around lecturing us on how we should approach this issue? I suggest
you read "High-Energy Processes Accompanying the Fracture of Solids", Klyuev,
V.A., et al in Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett 12(11), November 1986 if you want to
learn more about fractofusion. Following the citations in this paper you will
learn about the mechanism of fractofusion called fractoemission, a well known
and well researched phenomenon.
 
Incidently, fractofusion is hot fusion not cold and not mysterious and not
useful for energy production.
 
>Also, the predicted rates for picofusion have increased to the point
>of bare detectability--or well above if you take the Jones volcanic
>tritium results as evidence of picofusion.  If you want a third, try
>the recent correlations between solar flares and cold fusion results.)
 
I never heard of picofusion could you provide a reference?
 
Are you suggesting that the correlation between solar flares and 'cold fusion
results' are evidence for something other than misinterpretations of the
neutron background by people barely literate in the field?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
Date: 15 Aug 91 09:31:05 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
 
>In article <2F1F20D601DF00AB5E@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>>
>>You must be joking, mate! I have collected close to 600 published papers,
>>involving who knows how many scientists, all excited by the prospect of cold
>>fusion. Sure, some have turned away, being convinced there is, after all,
>>nothing in it. But a lot have not.
>>
 
>One comment about this.  600 published papers is not very many for a field
>that was supposed to be a revolution.  There were over 400 papers submitted
>to Physical Review Letters and Phys Rev B concerning high temperature
>superconductivity in the first 6 months *alone* after it was announced by
>Bednorz and Muller.
 
I remember this very well.  About 2 years prior, there were alot of
rumors floating around about HTSCs in our chem dept. There was an
increase it the tempature SC materials from 20 degrees kelvin to 27.
The excitement was real, and sceptics were everywhere you asked. The
point about this is, such hints tipped off people to what was possible if
the problems were understood.  HTSCs as far as the science community
was concerned, was waiting to happen.  This was not true of Cold Fusion.
The infamous March 23 anouncement was spontanious, and was probably driven
to an early release by patent concerns by UofU over BYU.  So the tip off
was made, not to the science community but to JQ public across the
world.  All of the sudden nuclear scientists are faced with the
somewhat difficult science of metal hydrides with JQ public breathing
down thier backs asking "what do you know about cold fusion in metal
hydrides."  This doesn't make it an easy subject to study.
 
>Since that time the number has grown to well over
>ten thousand and I would bet there are very few that had to be later
>retracted.  This doesn't prove anything, but it does give some perspective
>to the claim of 600 papers in the last two years in cold fusion.  A rate
>of 25 papers a month in a field that is supposed to be turning physics on
>its head is hardly anything to brag about.
 
There would probably be hundreds if not thousands more, if Nature
and the like did not whimsicaly claim cold-fusion dead.  Who
knows were the subject would have lead.  I've heard heard cold
fusion called dead. I've heard it compaired to N-rays.  I've heard it
called Pathalogical science. I've heard it called 'Pie in the sky'
dreams. I've heard it called fraud.  I've heard it called 'the work of
sharletons [sp]'. I've heard it called lousy science. I've heard it
compared to astrology. I've heard alot worse than this.  These are all
comments from people that do not know what the hell they're talking
about and are simply repeating the crap they've heard. If you through that
crap into the politics of a university, you tell me, how are you going
to get any work done? Second, how are you going to publish any work and
not get the scorn of your fellow scientists who are hearing the same junk.
This stuff has got to end.
 
  There is some very good and not very shody evidence that suggest if you
know how to tweek a metal hydride system just right, it can cause cold
fusion/and/or excess heat.  What the conditions are that causes these effects
are unknown but experiments are getting better all the time.  As these
improve so is theory.  So let's cut the crap and see where it goes.
I'm sorry John if this was excessivly flame like, It's just that I
feel people studying the subject need a fair shake, and thier papers
a good read.
 
>John
>--
>John K. Prentice                         john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
>Department of Physics and Astronomy
>University of New Mexico
 
Have fun,
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / John Prentice /  Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
Date: 15 Aug 91 14:13:51 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug15.093105.1183@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
>
>  There is some very good and not very shody evidence that suggest if you
>know how to tweek a metal hydride system just right, it can cause cold
>fusion/and/or excess heat.  What the conditions are that causes these effects
>are unknown but experiments are getting better all the time.  As these
>improve so is theory.  So let's cut the crap and see where it goes.
>
 
I would have no problem with this except for the use of the term "fusion".
If we want to say that we are seeing anomalous bursts of heat, then fine.
What I don't like is the jump to calling it fusion when in fact there is
no evidence for it.  Heat is not evidence for fusion, as we all know.  It
is tempting, as has been done so often in this field, to postulate all
sorts of exotic and never observed fusion mechanisms to explain the lack of
any normal fusion signatures in these experiments, but it is this approach to
the subject that causes it to be rejected so out of hand.  There is simply
no compelling reason to jump to such exotic explanations, particularly when
so little is known about normal processes in condensed matter.  You don't
have to study much physics to quickly realize that nearly all our theories
for condensed matter depend on the use of symmetries which are idealizations
of real crystalline materials.  In reality, dislocations and other things
which cause symmetry breaking are rife in solids and these lead to many
interesting effects which we are only now beginning to probe (this is where
condensed matter physics gets HARD).  The same is true I expect of
solid state chemistry, though it is not a field I know much about.  But
given this limited understanding of solid materials, it seems extraordinary
to me that people are so quick to dismiss out of hand any explanation for
heat bursts in these cells other than fusion.  We latch onto fusion because
it is a neat thought and has all sorts of ramifications which make the
field luster a bit more than it might if we postulated a less dramatic
origin for the effect (provided this effect is real).  One would also be
tempted to say that alot of people latch onto fusion as an explanation
simply because they don't know squat about it.  Certainly that was
painfully obvious of P&F who didn't even know what energy to look for
fusion neutrons at.
 
Let me relate something I witnessed at an American Vacuum Society
meeting.  Some electrochemists (oddly enough) came up with an interesting
method for imaging surface atoms by using Rutherford backscattering.
The idea was the electrons ejected from beneath the surface layer of
a crystalline solid would, when viewed from above the surface, project
shadows where the surface atoms were.  Elegant and very simple idea.
They had beautiful looking pictures and I listened to their talk because
it was impressive looking research.  On the other hand, I had up to
that point not bothered to read their paper in Science or look carefully
at what they were showing as results.  I listened to their talk and was
most impressed.  But then the question and answer session started and
a fellow got up and asked a simple question.  He made the point that
their pictures implied crystalline structures for fairly well understood
materials which were entirely different than what scientists had thought
them to be based on decades of x-ray crystallography and other techniques.
Either one had to accept the new and utterly bizarre structures that
these fellows were postulating or you had the minor problem that their
results implied electrons were quite happily tunneling right through
the nucleus of the surface atoms.  At this point, the fellow who had
given the talk changed from being utterly in control of his subject to
being way out of his depth.  Instead of conceding the error or at
least noting that their might be problems, he attempted to construct a
defense for why the electrons were indeed tunneling through the nucleus.
I recall him trying to cite Feynman's Lectures on Physics (written for
freshmen!) to construct some sort of exotic uncertainty argument.  The
bottom line was that he was full of it.  The physicist who had questioned
him was quite right, there was something major wrong with the results
they were getting.  I don't know how this all finally worked out, it may
well be that this technique has gone on to be credible.  But the point
I am making is that when the researcher was challenged with the fact that
his data was in complete variance with decades of research and virtually
all we know about quantum mechanics and nuclear physics, his first line
of defense wasn't to concede the problem, it was to reach for new
physics and exotic explanations.  This little incident occurred not
long after the P&F flap and I have to admit it did little to impress
me with electrochemists (which wasn't fair of course).  But more importantly,
it gave me a wonderful insight into much of the thinking surrounding
cold fusion.  I am SURE that electrons don't tunnel through the nuclei
of solids at the energies these guys were at.  The problem with cold
fusion is that nobody can be 100% sure that something exotic isn't
happening in a cold fusion cell, but then we are yet to assemble convincing
evidence that ANYTHING unusual is happening in cold fusion cells.  There
is just enough evidence to keep the question open, yet there is still no
reproducability and the effects are not dramatic, whatever they are.  So
one has to keep an open mind to the possibility that something is
happening.  But whereas the Rutherford backscattering folks were
seeing *something*, it was not true that they were seeing what they
thought they were seeing (allowing of course for the possibility that
the young fellow giving the talk was just flustered and that there might
be a decent explanation or interpretation of the results which he failed
to convey.  As I said, I haven't pursued it).  It is most distressing
however when the first line of defense when problems are pointed out is
to leap to overturn all that is known about physics.  One can hardly be
surprised by the reaction that provokes.  And that reaction was provoked
in the cold fusion saga by plenty of people who looked long and hard for
the effect and cannot be dismissed out of hand the way Chuck is doing.
 
The bottom line, at least as far as I am concerned and as far as most
other scientists I know are concerned is that this is a perfectly
reasonable field to do research in, if you strip away the insistence
on trying to force the square peg of fusion into the round hole of
cold "fusion" cells (or if you are going to do that, do it only after
truly convincing evidence is presented to suggest there is any reason
whatsoever for thinking fusion is occuring).  I think people would be
far more receptive to this whole enterprise if the researchers in it
were to back up a step and take a more objective and less religious
view of it (and I may be being unfair here since this disscussion
over the last few days appears to not have involved a single cold
fusion researcher, but rather lots of enthusiasts - correct me if I
am wrong).  We need to establish there are any real effects at all
before we start trying to establish what might be causing them.  Why
that statement should be regarded as anything other than the obvious
way to do science is truly beyond me.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 15 Aug 91 15:02:22 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <north.682182591@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>
> ...
>
>>Also, the predicted rates for picofusion have increased to the point
>>of bare detectability--or well above if you take the Jones volcanic
>>tritium results as evidence of picofusion.  If you want a third, try
>>the recent correlations between solar flares and cold fusion results.)
>
>I never heard of picofusion could you provide a reference?
 
He must be referring to pycnofusion, fusion at high density, from the Greek
word pycno meaning thick or dense.  (This is one case where spelling matters,
since pico is a prefix meaning 10^{-12} from a French word for tiny loops
used as edging on lace.)  There are references to this terminology in the
work of Jones and his colleagues on possible fusion from geologic processes.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.16 /  rcs@la.tis.com /  transmutation
     
Originally-From: rcs@la.tis.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: transmutation
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 00:07:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I've been thinking about transmutation, for producing Pt or Au, perhaps
from W or Hg.  (It seems a bit less impossible now that laser isotope
separation is available.)  Some obvious schemes are
 
(a) accelerate protons (or alphas, or deuterons) directly into a target;
(b) accelerate protons into an intermediate target of Be, and direct
    the resulting neutrons into the final target material;
(c) as (b), but mixing together the target material, the Be, and a
    neutron moderator;
(d) place the target in a conventional reactor for a few months to
    absorb neutrons.
 
How much does a gram of neutrons cost?
 
Rich Schroeppel
rcs@la.tis.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrcs cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: ITER news
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ITER news
Date: 15 Aug 91 07:19:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <15540@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>The following is the meat of a DOE news release (7/10/91) regarding
>the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER.  That's
>hot fusion, to be performed in a t<deleted>k, so those of you with
>virulent feelings on those topics may want to press 'n' now.  There
>is only trivial technical content, but you may be interested in the
>exposition of the rather convoluted management-diplomacy aspects.
 
Joseph, love your intro!  It's not such a difficult arrangement to
develop for that community.  They are practiced artisans, considering
the t*k is similarly convoluted in design and growing more so with each
merger.
 
>> headquartered in Moscow.
 
The Russians gave it birth:  Moscow is a fitting place for its burial.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 15 Aug 91 07:24:04 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Aug10.165820.18536@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
>In article <1991Aug10.082652.28433@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>>
>>This is just pure BULL-SHIT. If you knew the subject, you wouldn't even
>>make this stupid comparison.  You have apparently bought the media's twisted
>>and very un-informed views.  Go back and research the subject.  You need your
>>slap on the knee opions humbled.  To start with, you may want to read
>>Mallove's book "Fire from Ice".
 
>          .    ..      .  .        .   .  ..  .. . .They are trying
>to jerk physics to fit into this phenomena, not because the data
>suggests that you should, but because they want to believe that it is
>fusion and not some other process that is happening.
 
My understanding is that "other processes" fail to account for the
time integrated release of excess energy that occasionally occurs.
 
> It is lousy science.
 
I don't think it is lousy "science", it is rather undeveloped or
wanting technology.  After the technical effects are enhanced and the
technical problems overcome, THEN there may be the abundant evidence
that the "science sleuths" apparently need.  Hot fusion has a
serious technology problem, too.
 
>The criteria for proving me wrong is very simple.  Produce a working
>cell that can be reproduced and that will pass an examination by any
>competent lab.  Since no one has been able to do this, despite many
>trying, it hardly seems worth expending money in this field at the
>expense of more credible science.  That may be a hard thing for
>believers to accept, but this ain't religion, its science.
 
You seem to be mixing technological proof of principle with science.
"IF" the technology does succeed it will probably be in a country
such as Japan that at least recognizes that it exists and that it is
the closest means or method that can pull this rabbit out of the
hat.  Once done there will be plenty of time and effort required to
work out the physics.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 15 Aug 91 07:29:05 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Aug11.062036.24967@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
>In article <EACHUS.91Aug10205031@Dr_No.mitre.org> eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org
 (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>>In article <1991Aug10.165820.18536@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
>>>   .. . ...   Since no one has been able to do this, despite many
>>>   trying, it hardly seems worth expending money in this field at the
>>>   expense of more credible science.  That may be a hard thing for
>>>   believers to accept, but this ain't religion, its science.
 
>>,   .     .     . .  .. ... . . ..If a baseball player claims he can
>>knock the ball out of the park, do you require that he do so on each
>>pitch?
 
>Quite true, but as a scientist you also have to know when the smart money
>is to call it quits.  Cold fusion is interesting in that the efforts are
>centered on debating how small a measured effect can be before you just
>call it zero.  .. .
>As a scientist, you have limited resources and limited time.  You have
>to decide what research is worth pursuing and what isn't.  Cold fusion
>has consumed tens of millions of dollars and countless hours of researchers
>all over the world, including some of the best and the brightest.  Yet
>there are still no reproducable experiments and most scientists would
>argue that there is still no data that can survive scrutiny that suggests
>there is any reason for believing there is fusion occuring.
 
What is amazing is that the Hot Fusion program DOES produce reproducible
results  although it is reproducibly *nothing*  and one must note they
don't speed 10's of millions and years to obtain these results.  Rather
they spend decades and tens of Billions.  Do they carefully choose which
machine is the most advanced in terms of requiring the most future
expenditures and the longest path to commercial operation (if ever)..
                       ** YES they do **
                       ** and they did.**
 
>In either case, the real question is money.  Science budgets are
>shrinking and there is enormous competition for research dollars.
 
Of course there is the SSC: another science "giga$-enterprise"???
Perhaps the NMPhysics Department can fill us in on their role in
"advancing science" for a dime.
 
>John K. Prentice                         john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
>Department of Physics and Astronomy      University of New Mexico
 
     It takes a lot of jack asses to build a mule headed team.
     The mule team here is any Government BIG PHYSICS program.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / John Prentice /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 15 Aug 91 17:32:37 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <3819@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>He must be referring to pycnofusion, fusion at high density, from the Greek
>word pycno meaning thick or dense.  (This is one case where spelling matters,
>since pico is a prefix meaning 10^{-12} from a French word for tiny loops
>used as edging on lace.)  There are references to this terminology in the
>work of Jones and his colleagues on possible fusion from geologic processes.
>
 
What is the status of Jones' work?  I had understood that his neutron
measurements, at least as originally reported, did not hold up against
scrutiny (I don't wish that to sound derogatory, I just can't think of
another way to say it).  Have they managed to get new results that
strengthen their evidence for geologic fusion?
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / John Prentice /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 15 Aug 91 17:39:38 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug15.072905.12233@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>
>What is amazing is that the Hot Fusion program DOES produce reproducible
>results  although it is reproducibly *nothing*  and one must note they
>don't speed 10's of millions and years to obtain these results.  Rather
>they spend decades and tens of Billions.  Do they carefully choose which
>machine is the most advanced in terms of requiring the most future
>expenditures and the longest path to commercial operation (if ever)..
>                       ** YES they do **
>                       ** and they did.**
>
 
Proving what?  This is utterly irrelevant.  This isn't exactly the
argument I would construct for supporting funding of cold fusion.
In effect you seem to be saying that we should throw good money after
bad.  Also, don't suppose that I am supporting hot fusion in favor
of cold fusion.  I frankly don't have an opinion on the hot fusion
program other than a general dislike of big science at the expense of
small science.
 
Beyond that, your statement is mostly half truths.
 
>
>Of course there is the SSC: another science "giga$-enterprise"???
>Perhaps the NMPhysics Department can fill us in on their role in
>"advancing science" for a dime.
>
 
Huh?  How did we get from the merits of cold fusion (a science question)
to big versus little science (a political question).  I personally don't
favor the SSC, but it has nothing to do with whether cold fusion results
are real or smoke.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / John Prentice /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 15 Aug 91 17:46:22 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug15.072404.12159@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>
>You seem to be mixing technological proof of principle with science.
>"IF" the technology does succeed it will probably be in a country
>such as Japan that at least recognizes that it exists and that it is
>the closest means or method that can pull this rabbit out of the
>hat.  Once done there will be plenty of time and effort required to
>work out the physics.
>
 
Well Paul, if you or the Japanese can make money off cold fusion, I salute
you.  As for whether I am mixing technological proof of principle with
science, that is an interesting perspective.  I think you have the cart
before the horse.  Generally you want to prove an effect exists before you
start scaling up industrial applications.  Frankly, if the Japanese want
to spend money on this, I think it is great.  They might even get as far
as they have with their rocket program.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.15 / Jim Carr /  Jones' work (was Re: Former Spokesman Blasts ...)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones' work (was Re: Former Spokesman Blasts ...)
Date: 15 Aug 91 21:03:31 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Aug15.173237.4900@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
>
>What is the status of Jones' work?  I had understood that his neutron
>measurements, at least as originally reported, did not hold up against
>scrutiny (I don't wish that to sound derogatory, I just can't think of
>another way to say it).  Have they managed to get new results that
>strengthen their evidence for geologic fusion?
 
Jones' original numbers did not stand up to the experiment run at Yale
with Moshe Gai that used Jones' cells.  They also do not stand up to the
results I heard Steve Jones report at last fall's meeting of the Division
of Nuclear Physics, but that is a different experiment.  (I think Bill
Johnson reported on Steve's talk at another meeting held at about the
same time, last October.)
 
Anyway, they have done experiments in a mine near Leadville CO.  The site
is 600 m deep.  They see bursts of ~100s of neutrons with a system that
gives them singles and a trigger on coincidences in a 128 micro-s window
so they can identify bursts with a high confidence level.  They used two
different kinds of detectors, both segmented and designed to be noise
resistant.  Bursts of 150 to 200 are seen in Titanium (this was not an
electrolysis experiment) compared to about 30 from a typical cosmic ray
event.  Background is <100 n/hour, mostly random, so the bursts really
stand out in his graphs; he reports 0.7 coincident counts/hr but I don't
recall if that is 0.7 n/hr from bursts or 0.7 bursts/hr.  There was a
separate experiment running (at the same location but on the surface I
think) that was looking at high-E cosmic rays so that they could compare
notes and say that there were not any unusual cosmic ray events related
to the bursts they saw.  The time averaged rate for neutrons is probably
several orders of magnitude less than the original report for electrolysis.
Looks hard to ignore, but also does not look like it needs new physics
to explain it.
 
I know Steve reads this sometimes, so perhaps he can add some numbers.
 
I cannot give you a reference other than Bull.Amer.Phys.Soc. vol. 35,
pg 1673 (1990) abstract DC11.  My comments above are based partly on the
abstract and partly on my notes from the meeting that I scribbled around
it.  One note says to see J.Fusion Energy, where this work may have been
published in the year since the meeting.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 16 Aug 91 00:27:03 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Aug15.173938.7869@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
Prentice) writes:
>
>I frankly don't have an opinion on the hot fusion
> program other than a general dislike of big science at the expense of
> small science.
>
 
I don't think you should lump the fusion program in with other big
science projects like SSC, Hubble, etc. The fusion program is
not a search for abstract knowledge---its a direct effort to
develop the future power supply For All Mankind (TM). As such, I
think it deserves its big budget (and more).
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.16 / John Prentice /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 16 Aug 91 02:27:34 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug16.002703.1667@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>I don't think you should lump the fusion program in with other big
>science projects like SSC, Hubble, etc. The fusion program is
>not a search for abstract knowledge---its a direct effort to
>develop the future power supply For All Mankind (TM). As such, I
>think it deserves its big budget (and more).
>
 
Your point is well taken.  My apologies.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.16 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: transmutation
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: transmutation
Date: 16 Aug 91 15:33:30 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <9108152213.AA11646@rhmr.com> rcs@la.tis.com writes:
 
>I've been thinking about transmutation, for producing Pt or Au, perhaps
>from W or Hg.  (It seems a bit less impossible now that laser isotope
>separation is available.).........
 
>(a) accelerate protons (or alphas, or deuterons) directly into a target;
>(b) accelerate protons into an intermediate target of Be, and direct
>    the resulting neutrons into the final target material;
>(c) as (b), but mixing together the target material, the Be, and a
>    neutron moderator;
>(d) place the target in a conventional reactor for a few months to
>    absorb neutrons.
 
>How much does a gram of neutrons cost?
 
>Rich Schroeppel
 
 
 
 
I am far from expert in this area, so my assumptions are probably off
the mark numerically - but I don't think they are far enough off to
make any difference.
 
WRT d) I'd guess that the price of fissionable material is on the
order of $10,000 per kilo and that the neutron yield is about 1% of
the fissionable mass.  That makes the cost of neutrons from this source
about $1 million per kilo.  This makes for very expensive Platinum.
 
If I am in error, please correct me.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: transmutation
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: transmutation
Date: 16 Aug 91 20:13:14 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <9108152213.AA11646@rhmr.com> rcs@la.tis.com writes:
>
> I've been thinking about transmutation, for producing Pt or Au, perhaps
> from W or Hg.  (It seems a bit less impossible now that laser isotope
> separation is available.)  Some obvious schemes are
>
 
Probably not practical, since the neutron sources are expensive
and not available in bulk.
 
If you want gold, a better bet is to getlow grade ore (which is
abundant at gold mines), put it into a large plasma torch to
inonize the ore, and then separate the gold out using magnetic fields.
 
I haven't done the calculations, but I'm told this would just about
break even, and could be scaled up to practical levels. The dirt is
essentially free; only cost is electricity to fire the torch.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Cold Fusion Conference Proceedings
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Conference Proceedings
Date: 16 Aug 91 23:26:28 GMT

 
August 15, 1991
 
RE:  AIP Proceedings of International Conference on Nuclear
Effects in Deuterium-charged Solids ("Cold Nuclear Fusion")
 
Dear Colleague,
 
An international conference was held at Brigham Young University
in October 1990 to address "Anomalous Nuclear Effects in
Deuterium/Solid Systems."  The Proceedings of this workshop are
now available, published by the American Institute of Physics,
Proceedings No. 228 (1991).  The preface from this approx. 1000-
page proceedings is enclosed to provide a brief overview of the
meeting and the status of the field.
 
We purchased extra copies of the Proceedings which are now
available while they last at a cost of $68 each including
shipping.  Interested parties may make a check payable to S&J
Scientific Co., P.O. Box 7410, University Station, Provo, Utah,
U.S.A. 84602.
 
I wish you success in your research endeavors.
 
Best Regards,
 
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics
 
Enclosure
 
 
PREFACE
 
An international gathering of over 150 scientists scrutinized
observations of low-level nuclear effects associated with
deuterium loaded into various solids.  The emphasis was on
nuclear physics and geophysical experimental data with
theoretical issues also explored.  The subjects of calorimetry
and electrochemistry were discussed only as adjuncts to
investigations of nuclear reaction products.  The workshop was
sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute, the U.S.
Dept. of Energy Advanced Energy Projects Division, and Brigham
Young University.
 
Nearly seventy papers were presented, with discussions divided
into five broad categories with chairs indicated:
 
1.  Neutron Emission Studies:  W. Meyerhof (Stanford), K.
Nagamine (U. Tokyo), A. Vitale (U. Bologna), K. Wolf (Texas A&M),
F. Scaramuzzi (Frascati), H. Menlove (LANL), V. Tsarev (Lebedev
Physical Inst.)
 
2.  Charged Particle Detection:  J. Ziegler (IBM), E. Cecil
(Colorado School of Mines)
 
3.  Tritium/Helium Studies:  G. Miley (U. Illinois), N.
Hoffman (Rockwell Int'l.), M. Srinivasan (BARC, India)
 
4.  Fusion in the Planets:  F. Goff (LANL), E.P. Palmer
(BYU), G. McMurtry (U. Hawaii)
 
5.  Theory:  J. Rafelski (U. Arizona), V. Belyaev (Dubna),
Y. Kim (Purdue), E. Tabet (INFN, Italy)
 
Sixty-seven papers are included in these proceedings, arranged in
alphabetical order under each category.  We thank reviewers of
the papers for their efforts and note that the screening allows
for some rather unusual ideas to be presented in the proceedings.
 
Neutrons.  Significant improvements in neutron detectors and
signal/noise ratios were reported.  Techniques now include
plastic and liquid scintillators often in conjunction with
neutron-capture detection using lithium-doped glass or
helium-3-filled proportional counters.  Time-of-flight and
pulse-digitization techniques are also employed.  Groups in the
United States (S. Jones [BYU], H. Menlove & T. Claytor [LANL], K.
Wolf [Texas A&M]), Italy (A. Bertin [Bologna], F. Scaramuzzi
[ENEA, Frascati] and F. Celani [INFN, Frascati]), Argentina (J.
Granada [Centro Atomico Bariloche] and China  (R. Zhu [Inst. of
Atomic Energy, Beijing]) reported on neutron studies in
deep-underground locations.  Observations of neutron emissions
from D2-gas-loaded metals, D2O-electrolysis cells, and
d-ion-implanted metal foils, in low background environments (very
low cosmic-ray fluxes particularly) and with redundant detectors
confirmed earlier observations, with rates broadly consistent
with the early Jones (BYU) et al. report.
 
Neutron bursts of the order of a few hundred neutrons produced in
about 100 u sec, consistent with early observations of Menlove
(Los Alamos) et al., were also reported in detectors of various
types, including segmented neutron counters in underground
locations.  R. Anderson discussed the need for redundant
detectors and exclusion of cosmic-ray effects based on negative
experiments carried out at Los Alamos one year ago.  In fact,
redundant detectors, exclusion of cosmic-rays, adequate hydrogen
controls and improved reproducibility based largely on controlled
sample preparation techniques were of paramount importance in
recent experiments.
 
Charged Particles.  Several experimenters reported searches
for energetic charged particles from deuterium-loaded metal
foils.  E. Cecil (Colorado S.M.), G. Chambers (NRL), and R.
Taniguchi (ARL, Japan) observed charged particles having a few
MeV energy using silicon surface-barrier detectors, while K. Wolf
(Texas A&M) has not found any evidence as yet.  X.Z. Li (Tsinghua
U., China) reported numerous ion tracks in etched plastic
detectors exposed to deuterided Pd, and showed a dramatic slide
of etched tracks that had the appearance of arising from a
localized ``burst'' of ions.
 
Tritium/Helium-4.  Reports of tritium production from
deuterided metals and of tritium contamination in metal samples
generated considerable discussion at the workshop.  The
possibility of tritium contamination leading to false readings
emerged as a drawback of this technique, and K. Wolf in
particular reported the presence of tritium contamination in
as-received palladium samples.  Noting that he had not seen
evidence for tritium production for many months, E. Storms (LANL)
showed experimental evidence that tritium loaded into palladium
diffuses out almost exclusively to the gas phase under cathodic
potential in an electrolytic cell, whereas several experiments
finding tritium show significant amounts of tritium in the
electrolyte.  Preliminary results from experiments carried out at
the National Cold Fusion Institute of the U. of Utah were
originally interpreted as evidence for low-level tritium
production in electrolytic cells, but this turned out to be due
to a calibration problem for colored solutions.  However, M.
Srinivasan (BARC), T. Claytor (LANL), and O. Matsumoto (Aoyama
Gakuin U.) continue to find evidence for tritium production.  In
addition, helium-4 production in a molten-salt electrolytic cell
was reported by B. Liebert (U. Hawaii), with two caveats:  a
control with light hydrogen had not yet been done, and the amount
of helium-4 above that in the as-received metal was too small to
account for observed ``excess heat'' by a factor of about 10^8.
Geophysical Investigations.  P. Britton (Reiss Foundation)
reported evidence for increasing helium-3 and tritium with depth
in bore holes in the Hamilton shear zone.  P. Palmer (BYU)
reviewed the geophysical `cold fusion' hypothesis, which was
responsible for the inception of cold fusion experiments at BYU
in 1986.  F. Goff (LANL) presented evidence for several tritium
units in ``magmatic'' water from Mt. St. Helens.  He and G.
McMurtry (U. Hawaii) collected samples from the Pu'u O'o vent of
the Hawaiian volcano Kileau which will be analyzed for tritium
content.  Their adventure was the subject of a most interesting
after-banquet slide and video talk by Prof. McMurtry at Robert
Redford's Sundance Resort on the second night of the conference.
 
Theory.  Lines of thought relevant to the very puzzling
observations of low-level nuclear reactions in deuterided metals
include:  micro-hot fusion, or fractofusion, electron screening,
low-energy nuclear resonances, neutron-transfer (Oppenheimer-
Phillips) reactions, coherent fusion mechanisms, nucleation
centers in metal lattices, reactions associated with phase
changes, formation of metallic deuterium, fusion catalyzed by
di-quarks or new particles.  A few participants, notably P.
Hagelstein (MIT) and A. Takahashi (Osaka U.), explored the novel
concept that nuclear reactions other than two-body
deuteron-deuteron fusion might account for observations of
neutrons and charged-particles having energies greater than 3 MeV
reported at the workshop.  Such models also allow for a large
tritium-to-neutron ratio (roughly 10^8 is reported by some
researchers) without invoking an anomalous branching ratio for
d-d fusion favoring the tritium channel.
 
Conclusions.  Several features emerge from the ensemble of
studies presented at the BYU workshop.  Observed nuclear particle
emissions are episodic, with episodes typically lasting minutes
or hours.  Rates of particle emission vary greatly from episode
to episode, with some observed rates now several orders of
magnitude above the instrumental sensitivity.  Detectors
dedicated to the study of these effects are improving as are
signal/noise ratios.  However, an immediate ``trigger'' mechanism
remains elusive, as does a coherent model for the observations.
Observed effects seem to be related to {\bf changing}
temperatures and d/metal ion ratios (highly non-equilibrium
conditions); very little evidence has emerged for a correlation
between nuclear effects and high d/palladium loading ratios.
 
Negative experiments were discussed at the meeting, many of which
pursued the notion that high d/Pd loading was essential.  Still,
it was recognized that observations must be checked in sensitive
detectors by skeptical observers.  In this spirit, an offer was
extended by Y. Totsuka (U. Tokyo) for use of the deep-underground
Kamiokande detector, a 4500-ton water-Cerenkov system now used
for neutrino studies.  S. Jones and colleagues accepted the offer
on condition that several weeks (rather than days) be allotted to
the tests.  The tests should be completed by Summer 1991.
 
It is clear that a robust community intends to pursue the study
of anomalous nuclear effects in deuterium/solid systems.  We
expect that the sensitivity of detectors will continue to be
improved, accelerating progress in experiments.  Hopefully the
interaction between theorists and experimenters will lead to
increased understanding and corresponding control of what appears
to be a new and intriguing regime for nuclear reactions.
 
We thank, in particular, Nate Hoffman (Rockwell International),
and Nanette Hamm (BYU) for their dedicated assistance in making
the conference a success.
 
Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
 
Franco Scaramuzzi
ENEA, Frascati
 
David Worledge
Electric Power Research Institute
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.17 / Patrick Smith /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: p-smith@giga.slc.unisys.com (Patrick J. Smith @kronos)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 17 Aug 91 22:05:39 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah

In article <1991Aug15.173237.4900@ariel.unm.edu>, john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
>
> What is the status of Jones' work?  I had understood that his neutron
> measurements, at least as originally reported, did not hold up against
> scrutiny (I don't wish that to sound derogatory, I just can't think of
> another way to say it).  Have they managed to get new results that
> strengthen their evidence for geologic fusion?
>
> John
 
 
Some time ago Jones et al were, as I understood it, going to search
for cold fusion neutrons with the Kamiokande (sp?) detector in Japan.
Dieter Britz, I think, felt that if there were indeed neutron
emissions at the claimed rates, they would certainly be observed.  So
whatever happened?
 
-Patrick
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.19 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
Date: 19 Aug 91 04:51:32 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

First, I want to appoligize to John for going off on him in the flamey manor
I did.  There were a few thing said and a few subjects spoke of that kind
of ruffled my feathers.  Since I have been so vocal in my support of the
science of cold fusion, you may want to know where I stand on the issue.
Am I "believer" ?  Well, I've read enough that makes me believe that
deterium fusion in Pd possible. I've also read enough papers to make me
believe the reports of excess heat in hydrated metals.  So based on those
criteria, I guess I'm a believer.  At the same time, like John, I go into
skeptical mode when read theories that imply excess heat in PdD(x) is
caused by the cold fusion of deterium in the metal.  I expressed some
of those beliefs in my "Heavy Heat" postings.
 
  I can understand why someone would think this excess heat is caused
by fusion.  They are similar systems and you really have to ask yourself,
are these related?  From the nuclear evidence, they are not.  They are
not, until some exotic process is used to tie the two effects together.
What I think is interesting in this debate is how well we know the means
by which deuterium nuclei interact in close proximity, and how little we
know about how they interact over the extended distances of a lattice.
As I said once before, this is the cutting edge of condensed matter
science. Who knows where it will go.
 
   Anyway, part of my debate was how certain science publishers have
a bias against publishing any cold fusion positives.  My objection
to this still stands.
 
Happy Experimenting,
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com |Ph 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.19 / Andrew Case /  Plasma Focus
     
Originally-From: acase@nextweek.Reed.Edu (Andrew Case)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Plasma Focus
Date: 19 Aug 91 18:15:15 GMT
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

 
	Greetings. I am an undergrad at Reed College, and I am looking at
possible thesis topics. The most interesting one that I have found so far is
the construction and operation of a Plasma Focus. One implementation of this
device is discussed in Am. J. Phys 56 (1), January 1988 pp 62 by S. Lee et al.
The device is the United Nations University/International Centre for
Theoretical Physics Plasma Fusion Facility (UNU/ICTP PFF). The only piece of
equiptment needed for this that I do not know to be readily available is a
Maxwell Capacitor. I have asked around the Physics department here and no one
seems to know what a Maxwell Capacitor is. The only other information I have is
that the one needed for this device is a 30 microFarad capacitor operating at
15 kV. If anyone knows anything about Maxwell capacitors, or anything about
constructing a plasma focus (specifically whether or not this is a suitable
thing for an undergrad thesis) I would love to hear from you. My email address
is acase@reed.edu
 
Thanks!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenacase cudfnAndrew cudlnCase cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.19 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Plasma Focus
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Plasma Focus
Date: 19 Aug 91 23:04:57 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

{E-mail croaked, so let's try this.}
 
>no one seems to know what a Maxwell Capacitor is.
 
I've got a hunch they're referring to a capacitor from Maxwell
Laboratories, which makes, among other things, high-voltage
apparatus.  You should be able to find their address in Physics
Today ads or somesuch. I think they're in San Diego.
 
>the construction and operation of a Plasma Focus.
 
You might try writing to Andy Sessler
AMSessler@lbl.gov
who is one of many people interested in the subject.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.19 /  ameij@vax.oxfo /  A Simple Challenge in Reply
     
Originally-From: ameij@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Simple Challenge in Reply
Date: 19 Aug 91 11:21:17 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <1991Aug15.093105.1183@coplex.com>, chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
>   There is some very good and not very shody evidence that suggest if you
> know how to tweek a metal hydride system just right, it can cause cold
> fusion/and/or excess heat.  What the conditions are that causes these effects
> are unknown but experiments are getting better all the time.  As these
> improve so is theory.  So let's cut the crap and see where it goes.
> I'm sorry John if this was excessivly flame like, It's just that I
> feel people studying the subject need a fair shake, and thier papers
> a good read.
>
 
Good. Great. Brilliant. So, can you let me know how to construct the system and
do the tweaking, and I will follow your instructions and produce some cold
fusion? I promise to use only and exactly the materials and methods you
specify.
 
If I can do it I will be convinced.
 
If I can't, or you can't, I will not be convinced.
 
If you won't ....
 
 
 
Ian Johnston
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenameij cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.16 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jackson@ttidca.TTI.COM (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 16 Aug 91 15:03:25 GMT
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica

Robert I. Eachus writes:
>>Also, the predicted rates for picofusion have increased to the point
>>of bare detectability--or well above if you take the Jones volcanic
>>tritium results as evidence of picofusion.
 
Picofusion aside, I am interested in the Jones' volcanic tritium
results. Over a year ago I and another on this group asked about
the progress of ongoing work based on the bold prediction about
volcanic tritium in Jones' original cold fusion paper. Dr. Jones
himself posted here to the effect that they were setting up to make
measurements and to stay tuned. If there have been results, could
someone summarize them. If positive, I would have expected a blaze of
publicity, but I haven't heard a thing.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.20 / John Prentice /  Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
Date: 20 Aug 91 08:55:14 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug19.045132.5144@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>First, I want to apoligize to John for going off on him in the flamey manor
>I did.  There were a few thing said and a few subjects spoke of that kind
>of ruffled my feathers.
>
 
I would like to apologize also if I have insulted anyone.  It may not
show in my postings, but I respect any well thought out position.  There
is a tendency in science to go for the jugular in debates like this,
with the expectation that your opponent will do the same.  It is very
apparent in my postings to this and other newsgroups.  It is not always
the friendliest approach to things however.  Please take in the spirit
of healthy debate, not as an attempt to impose an orthodoxy on my part.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.20 / Steve Simmons /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 12:48:49 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

 
Caveat -- there are no flames of anybody in this posting except maybe
for our news media that only understands extremes.
 
jackson@ttidca.TTI.COM (Dick Jackson) writes:
 
>Dr. Jones
>himself posted here to the effect that they were setting up to make
>measurements and to stay tuned. If there have been results, could
>someone summarize them. If positive, I would have expected a blaze of
>publicity, but I haven't heard a thing.
 
Dr. Jones seems one of the few worth respecting.  I would expect him
to do his experiment, refine it until he gets a result he trusts, and
then submit his paper to the journal(s) he feels appropriate.  "A
blaze of publicity" does not seem to be his style.  Perhaps he's
avoiding it by the obvious method of keeping his mouth shut until
he's sure?  Would that others did the same.
--
When Charlemagne returned from a campaign and discovered his wife in bed with
one of his ministers, he said to the man, "I don't understand.  I **have** to
sleep with her."   -- as told by Roy Richter (rrichter@ph.gmr.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenscs cudfnSteve cudlnSimmons cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.20 /  sprott@128.104 /  Re: Plasma Focus
     
Originally-From: sprott@128.104.39.173
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Plasma Focus
Date: 20 Aug 91 12:35:43 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin, Plasma Physics

I assume a Maxwell Capacitor is one manufactured by Maxwell Labs, 8888 Balboa
Ave., San Diego, CA 92123 (619)279-5100.  Any energy storage capacitor of
similar energy should suffice.  Aerovox and Sangamo also make them, I think.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensprott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasma Focus
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Plasma Focus
Date: 20 Aug 91 07:07:09 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Aug19.181515.26410@reed.edu> acase@reed.edu writes:
>
>	Greetings. I am an undergrad at Reed College, and I am looking at
>possible thesis topics. The most interesting one that I have found so far is
>the construction and operation of a Plasma Focus.  .. . The only piece of
>equiptment needed for this that I do not know to be readily available is a
>Maxwell Capacitor. I have asked around the Physics department here and no one
>seems to know what a Maxwell Capacitor is.
 
A Maxwell capacitor is the best energy storage capacitors made for their
class.  Allen Kolb (the T-tube -- NRL) founded the company now in San
Diego, CA.
 
>                 . .            ..The only other information I have is
>that the one needed for this device is a 30 microFarad capacitor operating
>at 15 kV.
 
One cap "can", about waist high should do, but I would use a 20 KV unit of
5-10 kJ  and then operate it up to 15 KV (about half energy capacity).
That will extend its life, which will be otherwise very short because of
the low inductance load and the high peak currents reached -- and there
may be some current reversal (fast oscillitory recharge) as well.
 
>  .. .                    .     ..        .     .....   .  anything about
>constructing a plasma focus (specifically whether or not this is a suitable
>thing for an undergrad thesis) I would love to hear from you. My email address
You will need a least a an simple vacuum pump in fair shape with some kind
of cylinder or bell jar to hold vacuum and keep the air pressure off the
"button gun".  Also you will need to do machining to fabricate the copper
or brass strong parallel ground plate that covers the capacitor and to
which the vacuum cylinder fits.   The Center conductor will feed a spark
gap switch better a circular rail gap for inductance purposes and you will
need to machine and fit NEMA G10 insulator (see your local industrial
plastics store)  and also you will need copious amounts of vacuum epoxy.
 
You can bring the ground to the upper switch plate level with heavy brass
posts (or threaded stock -- see your local screw company), and then the
feed plate would mount nearly flush with the button attached to the upper
switch assembly.  The whole rig can be more or less coaxial with the
capacitor.  You will need an isolating trigger pulse to fire the spark
gap and you will need another long feed to the capacitor from the power
supply.
 
Now for the most important part.   Join a health club and work out for a
month at your local gym.  Then fetch the hundreds of solid concrete
blocks (your local cement company) that it will take to enclose this
nasty electron accelerator inside its own closet, but with enough space
to work around the device.
 
The dangers are:  concrete block transport can wrench a back for some
months.  The electrical shock can blow out sections of your arm if you
crowbar the charged capacitor, or kill if you ground it with your full
body.  The energetic electrons will generate from 100kev to 500 kev
X-rays if your device works.  If you load in a bit of deuterium, these
accelerated electrons will knock neutrons off the deuterium so you can
experience a bit of danger from induced nuclear radioactivity.
                                      :-)
                     Then run down the street yelling
                         Eureka!  Hot fusion ... .
 
Is it a fraud???  of course not there exists solid evidence of neutrons
a reaction product of DD fusion...   :-(  just kidding.
 
>constructing a plasma focus : (specifically whether or not this is a
>suitable thing for an undergrad thesis)
 
As for 'should an undergraduate attempt it?'.. well why not.. we need
genetic filters, and who knows this might launch you on a fruitful
and important career.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.20 /   /   Wishful thinking by a believer
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Wishful thinking by a believer
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 23:43:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones gives a fine example of how wishful thinking leads to a
choice of words that leads to a confusion of fact and fancy.  In his
recent summary of the BYU conference procedings he says:
 
"X.Z. Li (Tsinghua U. China) . . . showed a dramatic slide of etched
tracks that had the appearance of arising from a localized 'burst' of
ions."
 
I believe "burst" as it has been used on this forum implies a number of
events occuring in a small time span, but of course track detecters do
not preserve any information about the time of the ionizing events recorded.
I believe the best explaination of the dramatic slide is that the track
detector recorded a decay relating to fission rather than fusion.  It is
well known that palladium contains enough fissioning impurities to account
for many (if not all) of the observations of charged particle emissions
from "cold fusion" electrodes.
 
Believers may chalk this up as a "positive" observation of cold fusion, but
in reality it is just another example in which an experimental technique
is pushed into a realm where it cannot provide sufficiently definitive
information to resolve the question being investigated.  It certainly does
nothing to show that ions were emitted in a "burst" or that these ions
arose from a cold fusion event.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.20 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 20 Aug 91 22:16:07 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
In article <north.682182591@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
 
   It's statements like this that make me wonder about your
   objectivity.  Since you obviously haven't researched the subject
   very well how can you go around lecturing us on how we should
   approach this issue? I suggest you read "High-Energy Processes
   Accompanying the Fracture of Solids", Klyuev, V.A., et al in Sov.
   Tech. Phys. Lett 12(11), November 1986 if you want to learn more
   about fractofusion. Following the citations in this paper you will
   learn about the mechanism of fractofusion called fractoemission, a
   well known and well researched phenomenon.
 
    This makes me wonder about your objectivity...  I had heard of
fractoemission prior to the cold fusion hoopla, but I had not seen any
papers which took the next step and said that ions accelerated via
fractoemission could or would cause self-targeting fusion.  Does this
paper specifically propose this?
 
   Incidently, fractofusion is hot fusion not cold and not mysterious and not
   useful for energy production.
 
   Huh?  What has this got to do with anything I was saying.  I would
hope that the results of good research would not be mysterious.  I
would never expect research to result in useful energy production.  At
best, if a researcher discovers a mechanism which produces energy,
engineering may or may not turn it into a useful energy source.  But
that is a different field.
 
   I never heard of picofusion could you provide a reference?
 
   Some one else posted a pointer to pycnofusion, I've seen both names
used for fusion due to extreme pressure not high temperatures.  I
first saw picofusion suggested thirty years ago as an ignition
mechanism for stars.
 
   Are you suggesting that the correlation between solar flares and
   'cold fusion results' are evidence for something other than
   misinterpretations of the neutron background by people barely
   literate in the field?
 
   I am suggesting that where there is a correlation between results
with controls and solar behavior, then there is a need to explain the
connection.  For example, a higher cross-section for some reaction,
say muon catalyzation, might explain the correlation if the only
source of muons was solar flares.  Most of the worthwhile neutron
results I have seen involved, at a minimum, a control in the form of a
second detector.  (And a lot of withdrawn reults didn't.  Neutron
counting at low levels is an art.)
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.20 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Plasma Focus
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Plasma Focus
Date: 20 Aug 91 23:15:18 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     Paul gave a good overview for this type of work, but I will make
one additional suggestion.  Never, never leave one of these capacitors
around without a (100 Megohm or so) resistor across it.  Among other
things they can pick up enough charge from the air to do you serious
damage.  (Adding a circut which will discharge it in about 10 minutes
through a 10 watt resistor when you depower a relay adds a lot of
convenience.)  You may feel very silly if you have to do some
calculations to figure out how many days to wait before you can find
out what went wrong, such as a connection coming loose inside the
shield, but it beats the hell out of going inside and looking for a
15KV loose wire, or worse yet having the device trigger as you open
the shield.
 
    (Yes, I have left a lab with a sign on the door: Do Not Enter
Before Tuesday...  The relay suggested above stuck open, and a long
weekend seemed like a better solution than finding out on Friday why
the previous shot had failed. The apparatus I was working with had the
capacitor directly connected to the electrodes with a side trigger
which initiated the arc.)
 
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.20 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
Date: 20 Aug 91 22:39:02 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1991Aug14.002904.9263@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
 
   One comment about this.  600 published papers is not very many for a field
   that was supposed to be a revolution.  There were over 400 papers submitted
   to Physical Review Letters and Phys Rev B concerning high temperature
   superconductivity in the first 6 months *alone* after it was announced by
   Bednorz and Muller.
 
    Very definitely NOT true.  There were hundreds of papers submitted
following the first CONFIRMATION of their work, but for the first ten
months, it was "just another irreproducible result."  The party
started after the first confirmation was published.
 
   Since that time the number has grown to well over ten thousand and
   I would bet there are very few that had to be later retracted.
 
   Huh?  You think that the structural theories appeared without a lot
of false starts, irreproducable results, and wrong guesses?  (No
complaints, scientific progress requires this sort of guessing.)  I
think what you may be saying is that there were very few published
papers later retracted.  However, I saw a lot of embarrassing
preprints that managed to get overcome by events before actual
publication.  In fact, there were several labs that had about ten
preprints for each published High-Temperature Superconductivity paper.
(Again no complaints, in many cases the later papers built on the work
that the first papers seemed to report.  In some cases these earlier
results got published only as one line of data in some other paper if
at all.  Zeroing in on the right formula and preparation technique
would result in a new Tc every week.)
 
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.21 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 590 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 590 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:38:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here we go again. I reproduce a number of patents as is out of Chem. Abstr.
plus three "real" papers. The patents are in the slimy parasite class, but
some of them do try to come up with a variation of their own, notably the one
(Kanno) suggesting ultrasound, presumably with the idea that this might make
some deuterons bump brutally into others. Patents - when one is not angry at
parasitism - can be fun to read. I am amused at the way these seem, e.g., to
have invented the "application of electric voltage", etc.
Ichimaru did some Monte Carlo computations for fusion rates, notably in what
he regards as a realistic scenario, i.e. about 10Mbar applied to liquid
hydrogen. It does produce 10 kW/cm**3 of power, so maybe he's right. Otherwise
we could provoke a supernova progenitor - but stand well back. The Soviet
papers say very little. The authors of the Bushuev et al say that they got
these neutron bursts in April-May 1989 but at the time did not consider them
of interest, publishing only now, having heard about others seeing bursts.
 
An aside: anyone out there know the price of Mallove's book? I got it from the
USA but they haven't told me yet how much it cost. I may need this info;
thanks in advance.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 21-Aug. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 590
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antonov AV, Benetskii BA, Ginodman VB, Zherikhina LN, Klyachko AV,
Konobeevskii ES, Mordovskoi MV, Popov VI, Rozantsev AI, Tskhovrebov AM;
Sov. Phys. Lebedev Inst. Rep. 1990 (5) 52.
Originally: Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. 1990(5) 38.
"An attempt to observe cold thermonuclear fusion during the electrolysis of
heavy water".
** Not simply neutron emission is needed to confirm cold fusion, but n
emission with the correct spectrum; notably, a peak at 2.5 MeV. Two
electrolysis cells were used. In one, 1 g of Pd plate of 5 cm**2 area was the
cathode in an electrolyte of D2O + 30% D2SO4, and a current of 20-300 mA; in
the other a 7g Pd plate of the same size in D2O + 7% LiOD and a current of 2A.
Neutrons were measured from scintillation of a stilbene crystal plus zero-
crossing gamma discrimination and gamma background correction. In both cases,
electrolysis was performed for one hour with the cell in the detector space,
and for one hour with the cell well away from it, alternating thus for 58
and 90 hours, respectively. Nothing significant was detected. The addition of
a BF3 detector to stretch neutron bursts and prevent saturation still did not
produce evidence of cold fusion.                                     Mar-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bushuev VS, Ginodman VB, Zherikhina LN, Kuznetsov SP, Lapushkin YuA,
Matvienko IP, Nikitenko AI, Perekrestenko AD, Saposhnikov NP, Tolokonnikov SM,
Tskhovrebov AM;
Sov. Phys. Lebedev Inst. Rep. 1990 (5) 57.
Originally: Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. 1990(5) 41.
"Some results obtained by detecting nuclear radiation during heavy-water
electrolysis".
** Thermal neutrons and, simultaneously, gamma emissions, were measured at a
number of electrolysis cells using various Pt anode shapes and different-size
Pd foil cathodes, in heavy water and 30% D2SO4 or 7% LiOD. Neutrons were
detected by an array of six (3)He counters around the water-filled region,
shielded by paraffin and protected from external neutron background by a
shield of borate polyethylene and grounded aluminium. A gamma-ray counter was
mounted above the cell. The Pd was baked in vacuum at 500-600 degC for a few
hours before, and was electrolytically saturated with D before radiation
measurement commenced, in some cases. Measurements took place around the clock
for several days, with removal of the cell before, during and after the run,
for a background check. Some irreproducable neutron bursts were seen with the
larger Pd electrodes. No strong conclusions can be reached.           Mar-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ichimaru S;                                J. Phys. Soc. Japan 60 (1991) 1437.
"Cold nuclear fusion in pressurized liquid metals".
** The author develops a theoretical model for the rate of p-d and p-Li fusion
under widely different conditions: solar interior, the white-dwarf progenitor
of a supernova, a metal hydride and pressurised liquid hydrogen. The
Schroedinger equation, Coulomb repulsion, electron screening and careful Monte
Carlo simulations lead to a table of fusion rates. For metal hydrides
containing both deuterons and protons, the rates approach those of Jones et
al, but might be reduced by some orders of magnitude. The highest rates are
obtained for liquid DH and LiH under pressures of the order of 1E07 bar. This
system is the author's main interest, and he concludes that it may be feasible
to extract energy, e.g. around 10 kW/cm**3, from such systems.   Feb-91/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Igarashi M;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,280,086, appl. 21-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37282 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion and apparatus".
** "In cold nuclear fusion based on the electrolysis of heavy H2O, an ionic
conductor placed between anode and cathode contains D+, and the cathode is
formed of a material (e.g. Li) which can store H. The ionic conductor may also
contain T+". (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.).                                   ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,297,093, appl. 11-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37284 (1991).
"Method of cold fusion".
** "A cathode consisting of a Pd container or Pd tube contg. pressurized D2 is
exposed to D+ ions or D plasma atm. or subjected to accelerated driving of D.
Thus, an elec. current is applied to a Pt anode and a Pd pipe cathode contg.
pressurized D gas, then cold fusion occurs at a high probability at the
surface or inside of the Pd pipe cathode. The same effect can be achieved by
exposing the Pd cathode to D2O or D plasma gas and accelerated driving of D
ions." (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.)                                          ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,306,192, appl. 19-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37287 (1991).
"Method of cold fusion".
** "At least the cathode plate to be immersed in heavy water is of Ti
material. The electrodes can be an alternative to precious metal electrodes.
Thus, a Ti plate, preferably porous Ti cathode and a Ti plate of Pt-plated Ti
plate anode are immersed in heavy water, and elec. current is applied to the
electrodes to cause cold fusion at the cathode. The cathode can be a Pd-plated
Ti plate". (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.)                                      ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kanno Y;                Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,281,185, appl. 21-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37283 (1991).
"Acceleration of cold nuclear fusion by ultrasound".
** "Cold nuclear fusion based on electrolysis of D2O is accelerated by
applying ultrasound to D2O" (quoted from Chem. Abstr.).                    ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobunaga H;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,297,094, appl. 11-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37285 (1991).
"Method for hydrogen nuclear fusion".
** "In cold fusion by applying elec. voltage between a pair of electrodes
immersed in heavy water, an elemental metal selected from alkali metal, alk.
earth metal, rare earth elements, Sc, V, Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, Nb, Hf and Ta is used
as the cathode material. Thus, a Au anode and a La cathode are set in a
container holding heavy water contg. a metal salt. When 20 V const. potential
was applied between the electrodes, H2 (sic) bubble appeared on the cathode
surface in several minits [sic] suggesting initial sorption of D+ ions within
the cathode, and emission was obsd. of n, gamma-rays and heat. When Mn was
used as the cathode, bubbles appeared immediately, but no n and gamma-emission
were obsd. Metals capable of forming hydrides seemed to be able to cause cold
fusion". (Quoted from Chem. Abstr., including "(sic)" but not "[sic]").    ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobunaga H;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,297,095, appl. 11-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37286 (1991).
"Method for hydrogen nuclear fusion".
** "In nuclear fusion by applying elec. voltage between a pair of electrodes
immersed in heavy water to cause cold fusion at the cathode, an alloy contg.
>=1 of rare earth elements, Mg, Ni, Co, Fe and Ti is used as the cathode
material. Thus, a Au anode and a LaNi5 cathode are set in a container holding
heavy water contg. a metal salt. When 20 V const. potential was applied, H
bubbles appeared on the LaNi5 cathode surface suggesting initial sorption of
D+ ions in the cathode, and emission was obsd. of n, gamma-rays and heat. No n
and gamma-rays were obsd. with a stainless steel (SUS 304) cathode. Metal
capable of forming hydrides seemed to be able to cause cold fusion". (Quoted
from Chem. Abstr., including "(sic)" but not "[sic]").    ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takahashi A;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 06,491, appl. 04-Jun-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37288 (1991).
"Nuclear fusion device".
** "Ti or Pd adsorbed H, D or T is irradiated with electromagnetic wave, or
exposed to an elec. field or magnetic field to cause nuclear fusion. Thus, a
cyclindrical cathode composed of Au or Pt is covered with a light-transmitting
cover such as heat-resistant glass, and sealed with a heat-resistant bottom
plate. The anode consisting of Ti or Pd is placed in an environment mainly
composed of H, D or T. D.c. is applied to the electrodes. D2 evolved by the
electrolysis is adsorbedinto the anode, and compacted among the elemental
lattices up to a level of 10**2, and when irradiated at the specific
condition, causes nuclear fusion producing (3)He and n".
(Quoted from Chem. Abstr.).                                                ?/?
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.21 / Terry Bollinger /  A quite mundane explanation...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A quite mundane explanation...
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 23:57:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
I'd best retract my implicit declaration of Marty Hoag, the HECN Postmaster,
as a "prankster," or he may with justification pull the plug on me for real.
 
Seems Marty was getting repeated bounce-backs when he tried to forward my
mail, and finally had to remove me.  The only message I got was the last
one about getting unplugged (I have no idea why), so from my end it looked
as though the unplugging came first.
 
The root cause?  I had thought the postings were being routed directly to
me, but they actually were being routed through my old Contel name and
computer.  GTE finally pulled the plug on it last week, and Voila! -- no
more fusion postings + one unexpected automatic removal notice.
 
Do I feel like a fool?  Darn right!  Reminds me of my graduate school days
in which it was sometimes sooooooo tempting to say "I *know* this code is
right -- it really MUST be a bug in the compiler this time!"
 
....
 
By the way:  Congrats to any folks out there from the Soviet Union on
the successful restoration of your legitimate government.  I suspect
that there have been more people than you might ever have imagined who
have been hoping and praying for you, and who share in your joy.  I don't
mind saying that I had tears in my eyes when I first heard the good news
of the restoration this morning.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.21 / Edwards G /  Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: tedwards@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU (Edwards Thomas G S1A x8297)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 21 Aug 91 19:28:57 GMT
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD

I've seen some articles in the general science press indicating that
iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
of contracting, and that this may have significant effects on theories
of the Earth's core.
 
 
Just out of curiosity, could this have anything to do with
CF?
 
-Tom
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentedwards cudfnEdwards cudlnG cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.21 / John Prentice /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 21 Aug 91 21:38:08 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <615@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU> tedwards@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Edwards Thomas
 G S1A x8297 ) writes:
>I've seen some articles in the general science press indicating that
>iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
>of contracting, and that this may have significant effects on theories
>of the Earth's core.
>
>
>Just out of curiosity, could this have anything to do with
>CF?
>
 
Just how much pressure are we talking about in the earth's core and whatnot?
You would have to have tens of megabars to compress the crystal lattice of
materials like palladium close enough that the atoms (and any
deuterium or triton bound to lattice sites) would be as close as in normal
gaseous deuterium.  To bring the probability of fusion up to a level
that would account for any significant heat or tritium production in the
earth would require much more pressure yet (assuming that something
weird isn't happening in the solid, i.e., Schwinger's hypothesis for
example).  Are there any credible theories for normal solid state
fusion reactions occurring under extreme pressure (ignoring the ones
created to support cold fusion claims) ?  What was the state of the
thinking BEFORE cold fusion got going?  Also, I know that experiments
were done on cold fusion cells at megabar type pressures (as I recall),
but they didn't produce anything.  Any new results either way?
Just curious.
 
Aside from all this, let's hear one for democracy in the Soviet Union!
This is a day to remember!
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.22 / Dieter Britz /  Fractofusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fractofusion
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 14:28:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>    This makes me wonder about your objectivity...  I had heard of
>fractoemission prior to the cold fusion hoopla, but I had not seen any
>papers which took the next step and said that ions accelerated via
>fractoemission could or would cause self-targeting fusion.  Does this
>paper specifically propose this?
 
I have the paper of Klyuev et al, in Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 12(11) (1986) 551,
and it says right on the first page
 
    It was assume [sic], for example, that, as a deuterium-containing
    material is fractured, regions with a high energy density are
    produced in the fracture zone, or as a result of acceleration
    processes the walls of a crack are bombarded with a stream of
    accelerated deuterons, then it might be possible to observe the
    emission of neutrons from the reaction D(d,n)He(3)....
 
Now we can argue whether this is cold fusion or self targeting hot fusion,
but it certainly must count as a prior observation of presumed fusion in a
crystal lattice, made in 1986. I am of course not certain whether the effect
described here does in fact exist - there is evidence both pro and con. The
team that this paper came from have fired off a row of papers in 1989, trying
various ways to induce fracture, and seem always to observe neutrons.
Recently, Golubnichii et al (it was a recent update of my bibliography) found
correlated neutron and acoustic emissions, an important result. In the West,
attempts at fractofusion have not been so successful.
 It is possible to regard fractofusion (or maybe that should be
fractosomething) as a separate phenomenon, whose reality or otherwise may say
little about the reality of "conventional" cold fusion.
 
A note about the term "cold fusion". The original FPH paper does say right in
the title that what was observed was the "fusion of deuterium". In FPALH,
however, the authors say that there should have been a "?" at the end, but was
inadvertently left out. I observe that the more thoughtful "cold fusion"
workers now have retreated to an "unknown but definitely nuclear process", but
this is not as catchy as "cold fusion". This has therefore become a label,
without precise meaning, to designate this kind of as yet undefined
phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasma Focus
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Plasma Focus
Date: 22 Aug 91 09:56:02 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <EACHUS.91Aug20161518@Dr_No.mitre.org> eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert
 I. Eachus) writes:
>
>     Paul gave a good overview for this type of work, but I will make
>one additional suggestion.  Never, never leave one of these capacitors
>around without a (100 Megohm or so) resistor across it.  Among other
>things they can pick up enough charge from the air to do you serious
>damage.  (Adding a circut which will discharge it in about 10 minutes
>through a 10 watt resistor when you depower a relay adds a lot of
>convenience.)  You may feel very silly if you have to do some
>calculations to figure out how many days to wait before you can find
>out what went wrong, such as a connection coming loose inside the
>shield, but it beats the hell out of going inside and looking for a
>15KV loose wire, or worse yet having the device trigger as you open
>the shield.
 
One should use a 200 hundred watt CERAMIC few hundred ohm resistor
wired in parallel for each 10 kilojoules of capacitor energy storage.
The discharge crow bar should be wired in series with the shorting
high voltage solenoid switch in the charging supply.  There is usually
enough room to mount them on a plastic plate screwed inside the back
door of the chassis.  Also a 1/8 inch piece of polyethylene should be
mounted to the inside of the back door by masking it with teflon tape
or an overlapping bead of silicon rubber around the insulation sheets
edges.
 
IN ADDITION a NEMA G10 rod of good length (1 meter) should be mounted
to the gound plate PERMANANTLY with number one welding cable of
sufficient length to allow easy reach of most of the high voltage
points on the bank or transmission line.  It should be used ALWAYS
after first checking to see that the bank is discharged and that
the charging line is in place.  The best way is to test charge the
bank to 20 to 50 volts and then throw the "dump" switch while noting
the increase in voltage with charging and the sudden decrease
to zero (less than 5 volts) with the activation of the dump crowbar.
Now holding the insulating end of the grounded (low bank side) crowbar
rod, touch the high side.  If there is no "pop" you are probably
now quite safe.  Now wire the high and low sides together to prevent
electrolytic recharging and to save some idiot discomfort that wanders
in off the street and decides to sit on your caps to eat lunch.
 
 
Actually the foil capacitors will not pick up charge from air barring
a lightning strike.  Foil and ESPECIALLY electrolytic caps will
"recharge" due to incomplete reorientation of the electric dipoles at
the time of the initial discharge.  In fact a preppy sci gag was to mold
aluminum foil to  the bottom of a rectagular candy dish or clean ash
tray (the latter is becoming rare around sci labs in the US).   Attach
a high voltage lead (like from the car ignition wire for example)  and
then the bowl cavity with molten paraffin and a goodly portion of old
fashion TIDE laundry powder.  Stir throughly, adding tide until settling
has it near or just at the top of the paraffin.  Then place a  piece of
aluminum foil over the surface of the tide and paraffin and apply a
voltage of something under the breakdown (negligable leakage), but say
15 to 20 kV.
 
Now allow the puddle to cool throughly in chilly air for several hours
with the voltage still applied.  After it hardens, wearing rubber gloves
break the mold, shave of the aluminum foil and shape it into a "used
bar of soap".  Then put it on the bathroom sink.   What will happen as
that those picking it with wet hands will allow a transfer of surface
charge to leak off temporarily neutralizing the surfaces charges.  The
amazing thing is the "trick" can work multiple times, perhaps on the
order of fifty shocks can be deliver given a sufficient time to
recover.   It illustrates a nasty side of electrolytic capacitors.
 
>    (Yes, I have left a lab with a sign on the door: Do Not Enter
>Before Tuesday...  The relay suggested above stuck open, and a long
>weekend seemed like a better solution than finding out on Friday why
>the previous shot had failed. The apparatus I was working with had the
>capacitor directly connected to the electrodes with a side trigger
>which initiated the arc.)
 
A number of people that clean labs, can't read.  A number of college
grads do read but have a mental block about reading another word.  If
you are really worried about making a good shorting contact, silver
solder a heavily gold plated silver shorting plate for certain contact
on both the shorting rod and to each of the strategic points on the
bank or load or transmission line.
 
On the other hand that might attract cocaine sniffing gold bugs with
hack saws.           :-(
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.22 / John Prentice /  Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 20:32:48 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <28156307EBBF00FEAF@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>
>I have the paper of Klyuev et al, in Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 12(11) (1986) 551,
>and it says right on the first page
>
>    It was assume [sic], for example, that, as a deuterium-containing
>    material is fractured, regions with a high energy density are
>    produced in the fracture zone, or as a result of acceleration
>    processes the walls of a crack are bombarded with a stream of
>    accelerated deuterons, then it might be possible to observe the
>    emission of neutrons from the reaction D(d,n)He(3)....
>
 
Let me ask a naive question.  The energies associated with the binding
of atoms in a crystal are a few eV or so.  How can fracture, which is
just the breaking of those bonds, lead to energies sufficient to cause
fusion?  Certainly there is insufficient energy just in the breaking of
the bonds, by many orders of magnitude.  Beyond that, crack propogation in
a solid occurs at maybe 5 km/sec tops.  A proton moving at this velocity
has a kinetic energy of half an electron volt.   The energy density in
the process zone of a crack is what, maybe at most 100 ev/cm**3 ?  These
are not very impressive numbers by fusion standards.  So what is the
theoretical argument for fractofusion?
 
I offer this with the caveat that these are just back of the envelope
numbers and I haven't read any of the fractofusion papers.  Just
curious.
 
Along these lines also, let me expand on my comment yesterday about
the compression of crystal lattices under pressure.  My question was
motivated by a back of the envelope calculation, not anything
real complicated.  Average lattice spacings in crystalline solids are
3 or 4 angstroms.  The bulk modulus of steel (or iron) is about 10**12
dynes/cm**2 (and considerably less for softer materials - the bulk
modulus is just the ambient density times the square of the ambient
bulk sound speed).  If you assume linear elasticity, which is what
will happen unless there is damage done to the crystal, then the stress
is equal to the bulk modulus times the strain.  The strain is just the
change in the lattice spacing divided by the ambient spacing.  So,
with all those explanations, a stress of 1 megabar (10**12 dynes/cm**2)
will produce a strain of 1.  That is alot of strain which should
collapse the lattice to distances probably less than an angstrom.
But this is about the distance of diatomic deuterium, as I recall.
So it is not clear to me, based on this simple calculation, how you
would get wavefunction overlaps which would significiantly raise the
probability of fusion.
 
I suspect others have done more precise calculations of all this stuff
however and I don't claim to have any special knowledge of this subject.
Maybe someone who has looked more closely at this problem can answer
these questions.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.21 / John Prentice /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 21 Aug 91 21:38:08 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <615@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU> tedwards@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Edwards Thomas
 G S1A x8297 ) writes:
>I've seen some articles in the general science press indicating that
>iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
>of contracting, and that this may have significant effects on theories
>of the Earth's core.
>
>
>Just out of curiosity, could this have anything to do with
>CF?
>
 
Just how much pressure are we talking about in the earth's core and whatnot?
You would have to have tens of megabars to compress the crystal lattice of
materials like palladium close enough that the atoms (and any
deuterium or triton bound to lattice sites) would be as close as in normal
gaseous deuterium.  To bring the probability of fusion up to a level
that would account for any significant heat or tritium production in the
earth would require much more pressure yet (assuming that something
weird isn't happening in the solid, i.e., Schwinger's hypothesis for
example).  Are there any credible theories for normal solid state
fusion reactions occurring under extreme pressure (ignoring the ones
created to support cold fusion claims) ?  What was the state of the
thinking BEFORE cold fusion got going?  Also, I know that experiments
were done on cold fusion cells at megabar type pressures (as I recall),
but they didn't produce anything.  Any new results either way?
Just curious.
 
Aside from all this, let's hear one for democracy in the Soviet Union!
This is a day to remember!
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.21 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 590 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 590 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:38:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here we go again. I reproduce a number of patents as is out of Chem. Abstr.
plus three "real" papers. The patents are in the slimy parasite class, but
some of them do try to come up with a variation of their own, notably the one
(Kanno) suggesting ultrasound, presumably with the idea that this might make
some deuterons bump brutally into others. Patents - when one is not angry at
parasitism - can be fun to read. I am amused at the way these seem, e.g., to
have invented the "application of electric voltage", etc.
Ichimaru did some Monte Carlo computations for fusion rates, notably in what
he regards as a realistic scenario, i.e. about 10Mbar applied to liquid
hydrogen. It does produce 10 kW/cm**3 of power, so maybe he's right. Otherwise
we could provoke a supernova progenitor - but stand well back. The Soviet
papers say very little. The authors of the Bushuev et al say that they got
these neutron bursts in April-May 1989 but at the time did not consider them
of interest, publishing only now, having heard about others seeing bursts.
 
An aside: anyone out there know the price of Mallove's book? I got it from the
USA but they haven't told me yet how much it cost. I may need this info;
thanks in advance.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 21-Aug. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 590
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antonov AV, Benetskii BA, Ginodman VB, Zherikhina LN, Klyachko AV,
Konobeevskii ES, Mordovskoi MV, Popov VI, Rozantsev AI, Tskhovrebov AM;
Sov. Phys. Lebedev Inst. Rep. 1990 (5) 52.
Originally: Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. 1990(5) 38.
"An attempt to observe cold thermonuclear fusion during the electrolysis of
heavy water".
** Not simply neutron emission is needed to confirm cold fusion, but n
emission with the correct spectrum; notably, a peak at 2.5 MeV. Two
electrolysis cells were used. In one, 1 g of Pd plate of 5 cm**2 area was the
cathode in an electrolyte of D2O + 30% D2SO4, and a current of 20-300 mA; in
the other a 7g Pd plate of the same size in D2O + 7% LiOD and a current of 2A.
Neutrons were measured from scintillation of a stilbene crystal plus zero-
crossing gamma discrimination and gamma background correction. In both cases,
electrolysis was performed for one hour with the cell in the detector space,
and for one hour with the cell well away from it, alternating thus for 58
and 90 hours, respectively. Nothing significant was detected. The addition of
a BF3 detector to stretch neutron bursts and prevent saturation still did not
produce evidence of cold fusion.                                     Mar-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bushuev VS, Ginodman VB, Zherikhina LN, Kuznetsov SP, Lapushkin YuA,
Matvienko IP, Nikitenko AI, Perekrestenko AD, Saposhnikov NP, Tolokonnikov SM,
Tskhovrebov AM;
Sov. Phys. Lebedev Inst. Rep. 1990 (5) 57.
Originally: Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. 1990(5) 41.
"Some results obtained by detecting nuclear radiation during heavy-water
electrolysis".
** Thermal neutrons and, simultaneously, gamma emissions, were measured at a
number of electrolysis cells using various Pt anode shapes and different-size
Pd foil cathodes, in heavy water and 30% D2SO4 or 7% LiOD. Neutrons were
detected by an array of six (3)He counters around the water-filled region,
shielded by paraffin and protected from external neutron background by a
shield of borate polyethylene and grounded aluminium. A gamma-ray counter was
mounted above the cell. The Pd was baked in vacuum at 500-600 degC for a few
hours before, and was electrolytically saturated with D before radiation
measurement commenced, in some cases. Measurements took place around the clock
for several days, with removal of the cell before, during and after the run,
for a background check. Some irreproducable neutron bursts were seen with the
larger Pd electrodes. No strong conclusions can be reached.           Mar-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ichimaru S;                                J. Phys. Soc. Japan 60 (1991) 1437.
"Cold nuclear fusion in pressurized liquid metals".
** The author develops a theoretical model for the rate of p-d and p-Li fusion
under widely different conditions: solar interior, the white-dwarf progenitor
of a supernova, a metal hydride and pressurised liquid hydrogen. The
Schroedinger equation, Coulomb repulsion, electron screening and careful Monte
Carlo simulations lead to a table of fusion rates. For metal hydrides
containing both deuterons and protons, the rates approach those of Jones et
al, but might be reduced by some orders of magnitude. The highest rates are
obtained for liquid DH and LiH under pressures of the order of 1E07 bar. This
system is the author's main interest, and he concludes that it may be feasible
to extract energy, e.g. around 10 kW/cm**3, from such systems.   Feb-91/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Igarashi M;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,280,086, appl. 21-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37282 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion and apparatus".
** "In cold nuclear fusion based on the electrolysis of heavy H2O, an ionic
conductor placed between anode and cathode contains D+, and the cathode is
formed of a material (e.g. Li) which can store H. The ionic conductor may also
contain T+". (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.).                                   ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,297,093, appl. 11-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37284 (1991).
"Method of cold fusion".
** "A cathode consisting of a Pd container or Pd tube contg. pressurized D2 is
exposed to D+ ions or D plasma atm. or subjected to accelerated driving of D.
Thus, an elec. current is applied to a Pt anode and a Pd pipe cathode contg.
pressurized D gas, then cold fusion occurs at a high probability at the
surface or inside of the Pd pipe cathode. The same effect can be achieved by
exposing the Pd cathode to D2O or D plasma gas and accelerated driving of D
ions." (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.)                                          ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,306,192, appl. 19-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37287 (1991).
"Method of cold fusion".
** "At least the cathode plate to be immersed in heavy water is of Ti
material. The electrodes can be an alternative to precious metal electrodes.
Thus, a Ti plate, preferably porous Ti cathode and a Ti plate of Pt-plated Ti
plate anode are immersed in heavy water, and elec. current is applied to the
electrodes to cause cold fusion at the cathode. The cathode can be a Pd-plated
Ti plate". (Quoted from Chem. Abstr.)                                      ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kanno Y;                Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,281,185, appl. 21-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37283 (1991).
"Acceleration of cold nuclear fusion by ultrasound".
** "Cold nuclear fusion based on electrolysis of D2O is accelerated by
applying ultrasound to D2O" (quoted from Chem. Abstr.).                    ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobunaga H;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,297,094, appl. 11-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37285 (1991).
"Method for hydrogen nuclear fusion".
** "In cold fusion by applying elec. voltage between a pair of electrodes
immersed in heavy water, an elemental metal selected from alkali metal, alk.
earth metal, rare earth elements, Sc, V, Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, Nb, Hf and Ta is used
as the cathode material. Thus, a Au anode and a La cathode are set in a
container holding heavy water contg. a metal salt. When 20 V const. potential
was applied between the electrodes, H2 (sic) bubble appeared on the cathode
surface in several minits [sic] suggesting initial sorption of D+ ions within
the cathode, and emission was obsd. of n, gamma-rays and heat. When Mn was
used as the cathode, bubbles appeared immediately, but no n and gamma-emission
were obsd. Metals capable of forming hydrides seemed to be able to cause cold
fusion". (Quoted from Chem. Abstr., including "(sic)" but not "[sic]").    ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobunaga H;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,297,095, appl. 11-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37286 (1991).
"Method for hydrogen nuclear fusion".
** "In nuclear fusion by applying elec. voltage between a pair of electrodes
immersed in heavy water to cause cold fusion at the cathode, an alloy contg.
>=1 of rare earth elements, Mg, Ni, Co, Fe and Ti is used as the cathode
material. Thus, a Au anode and a LaNi5 cathode are set in a container holding
heavy water contg. a metal salt. When 20 V const. potential was applied, H
bubbles appeared on the LaNi5 cathode surface suggesting initial sorption of
D+ ions in the cathode, and emission was obsd. of n, gamma-rays and heat. No n
and gamma-rays were obsd. with a stainless steel (SUS 304) cathode. Metal
capable of forming hydrides seemed to be able to cause cold fusion". (Quoted
from Chem. Abstr., including "(sic)" but not "[sic]").    ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takahashi A;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 06,491, appl. 04-Jun-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 115:37288 (1991).
"Nuclear fusion device".
** "Ti or Pd adsorbed H, D or T is irradiated with electromagnetic wave, or
exposed to an elec. field or magnetic field to cause nuclear fusion. Thus, a
cyclindrical cathode composed of Au or Pt is covered with a light-transmitting
cover such as heat-resistant glass, and sealed with a heat-resistant bottom
plate. The anode consisting of Ti or Pd is placed in an environment mainly
composed of H, D or T. D.c. is applied to the electrodes. D2 evolved by the
electrolysis is adsorbedinto the anode, and compacted among the elemental
lattices up to a level of 10**2, and when irradiated at the specific
condition, causes nuclear fusion producing (3)He and n".
(Quoted from Chem. Abstr.).                                                ?/?
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.21 / Terry Bollinger /  A quite mundane explanation...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A quite mundane explanation...
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 23:57:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
I'd best retract my implicit declaration of Marty Hoag, the HECN Postmaster,
as a "prankster," or he may with justification pull the plug on me for real.
 
Seems Marty was getting repeated bounce-backs when he tried to forward my
mail, and finally had to remove me.  The only message I got was the last
one about getting unplugged (I have no idea why), so from my end it looked
as though the unplugging came first.
 
The root cause?  I had thought the postings were being routed directly to
me, but they actually were being routed through my old Contel name and
computer.  GTE finally pulled the plug on it last week, and Voila! -- no
more fusion postings + one unexpected automatic removal notice.
 
Do I feel like a fool?  Darn right!  Reminds me of my graduate school days
in which it was sometimes sooooooo tempting to say "I *know* this code is
right -- it really MUST be a bug in the compiler this time!"
 
....
 
By the way:  Congrats to any folks out there from the Soviet Union on
the successful restoration of your legitimate government.  I suspect
that there have been more people than you might ever have imagined who
have been hoping and praying for you, and who share in your joy.  I don't
mind saying that I had tears in my eyes when I first heard the good news
of the restoration this morning.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.22 / John Prentice /  Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 21:19:16 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug22.203248.5236@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
>Along these lines also, let me expand on my comment yesterday about
>the compression of crystal lattices under pressure.  My question was
>motivated by a back of the envelope calculation, not anything
>real complicated.  Average lattice spacings in crystalline solids are
>3 or 4 angstroms.  The bulk modulus of steel (or iron) is about 10**12
>dynes/cm**2 (and considerably less for softer materials - the bulk
>modulus is just the ambient density times the square of the ambient
>bulk sound speed).  If you assume linear elasticity, which is what
>will happen unless there is damage done to the crystal, then the stress
>is equal to the bulk modulus times the strain.  The strain is just the
>change in the lattice spacing divided by the ambient spacing.  So,
>with all those explanations, a stress of 1 megabar (10**12 dynes/cm**2)
>will produce a strain of 1.  That is alot of strain which should
>collapse the lattice to distances probably less than an angstrom.
>
 
Let me correct this paragraph, which is wrong.  I am assuing linear
elasticity which isn't valid for such large pressures.  Looking in
Zel'dovich and Raizer's book (volume 2) "Physics of Shock Waves and
High-Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena", they note on page 690 that
for the cold compression of iron by 7% requires a pressure of
1.31e+05 atm (0.129 Mbar) and for compression by a factor of 1.5,
you need 1.36e+06 atm (1.3 Mbar).  This will take you down from say
4 angstrom spacing to 2.6 angstroms.  Diatomic deuterium is about
half an angstrom as I recall in the gaseous phase.  Concerning the
lattice behavior at very high pressures (hundreds of megabars), for
iron Zel'dovich and Raizer give a curve on page 693 that gives
roughly an order of magnitude compression at around 1000 Mbars.
The rate law derived from statistical theories (which is thought to
overestimate the pressure) at these extreme pressues gives the
pressure proportional to the 5/3 power of the density (or inverse
to the volume to the 5/3 power).
 
Zel'dovich and Raizer is an old book and much new has been learned
about solids at high pressure.  However I think these numbers are
correct enough for these crude back of the envelope arguments.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.22 / Michael Lorton /  Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
     
Originally-From: mlorton@sraopus.si.sra.com (Michael Lorton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rejection of John Prentice's Rejections of everything
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 21:51:14 GMT
Organization: Systems Research and Applications Corp.

 
For those of us who make the mistake of believing what we read and
see in the mass media, could some summarize the state of
cold-fusion research.  The newspapers hint that it is as dead as
phrenology.  I hope not: I would really like to power my car for
twenty years with 2cc of tapwater.  Is that going to happen?
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmlorton cudfnMichael cudlnLorton cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.23 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 590 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 590 papers on cnf)
Date: 23 Aug 91 00:46:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <28A0797B149F00FB1B@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
 
>Ichimaru did some Monte Carlo computations for fusion rates, notably in what
>he regards as a realistic scenario, i.e. about 10Mbar applied to liquid
>hydrogen. It does produce 10 kW/cm**3 of power, so maybe he's right.
 
>Ichimaru S;                                J. Phys. Soc. Japan 60 (1991) 1437.
>"Cold nuclear fusion in pressurized liquid metals".
>** The author develops a theoretical model for the rate of p-d and p-Li fusion
>under widely different conditions: solar interior, the white-dwarf progenitor
>of a supernova, a metal hydride and pressurised liquid hydrogen. The
>Schroedinger equation, Coulomb repulsion, electron screening and careful Monte
>Carlo simulations lead to a table of fusion rates. For metal hydrides
>containing both deuterons and protons, the rates approach those of Jones et
>al, but might be reduced by some orders of magnitude. The highest rates are
>obtained for liquid DH and LiH under pressures of the order of 1E07 bar. This
>system is the author's main interest, and he concludes that it may be feasible
>to extract energy, e.g. around 10 kW/cm**3, from such systems.   Feb-91/May-91
 
 
This can't be right.  The interior of Jupiter contains very large amounts
of hydrogen at many tens of megabars.  Were DH reactions to occur
at this rate at 10 Mbar, Jupiter should be heated internally a rate
of on the order of watts/cc (and likely much more, since the pressure
at the center is 100 Mbar.)  This is many orders of magnitude more heat
than is observed being radiated from the planet.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.23 / Richard Ristow /       Re: Fractofusion, and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Richard Ristow <sjsca4!uunet!brownvm.brown.edu!AP430001>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Fractofusion, and cold fusion
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 19:04:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On Thu, 22 Aug 1991 14:28:54 GMT,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> wrote,
 ...
>Now we can argue whether [fracto-fusion as described] is cold fusion or self
>targeting hot fusion,
 ...
>A note about the term "cold fusion". The original FPH paper does say right in
>the title that what was observed was the "fusion of deuterium". In FPALH,
>however, the authors say that there should have been a "?" at the end, but was
>inadvertently left out. I observe that the more thoughtful "cold fusion"
>workers now have retreated to an "unknown but definitely nuclear process", but
>this is not as catchy as "cold fusion". This has therefore become a label,
>without precise meaning, to designate this kind of as yet undefined
>phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Dieter Britz is correct that "cold fusion" has become an imprecise term for
"fusion or possible fusion phenomena under unusual conditions", but I have
to consider this rather a pity.  "Cold fusion" seems to me to have started
with a clear, precise meaning:  fusion reactions between nucleons whose
thermal energy is too low to overcome the normal Coulomb barrier between
them.  (Here I mean the thermal energy of individual nucleons;  I gather
that at least some magnetic-confinement fusion reactors are meant to
operate with an AVERAGE thermal energy -- temperature -- too low to
overcome the Coulomb barrier, relying on reactions between nucleons at
the high-energy tail of the distribution.  This is still "hot" fusion.)
I gather that the term was originally coined to describe muon-catalyzed
fusion.  "Cold fusion" in this precise sense is classically impossible;
it relies on the nucleons being in sufficient proximity, for sufficiently
long, that there is a significant rate of fusion from quantum tunnelling.
In muon-catalyzed fusion, this is (or would be) achieved by deuteron-
muon "atoms" that, because of the muon, are electrically neutral but,
because of the muon's large mass compared to an electron, are physically
small enough to approach another nucleon to within tunnelling distance.
The controversial cold fusion in palladium is presumed, if real, to result
from some solid-state quantum effect producing a similar electromagnetic
"screening".
 
If I understand correctly, fracto-fusion (again, if real) is presumed to
occur when deuterons are accelerated to energies exceeding the Coulomb
barrier by some process at the fracture face;  it should therefore be
unequivocally classed as "hot fusion".
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ristow     AP430001@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU    Bitnet: AP430001@BROWNVM
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnRichard cudlnRistow cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 23 Aug 91 00:18:07 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <615@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU> tedwards@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU (Edwards Thomas
G S1A x8297) writes:
 
> iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
> of contracting, and that this may have significant effects on theories
> of the Earth's core.
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, could this have anything to do with
> CF?
 
Probably about as much as the fact that water starts to expand when you
_cool_ it past 35 degrees F.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasma Focus
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Plasma Focus
Date: 22 Aug 91 09:56:02 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <EACHUS.91Aug20161518@Dr_No.mitre.org> eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert
 I. Eachus) writes:
>
>     Paul gave a good overview for this type of work, but I will make
>one additional suggestion.  Never, never leave one of these capacitors
>around without a (100 Megohm or so) resistor across it.  Among other
>things they can pick up enough charge from the air to do you serious
>damage.  (Adding a circut which will discharge it in about 10 minutes
>through a 10 watt resistor when you depower a relay adds a lot of
>convenience.)  You may feel very silly if you have to do some
>calculations to figure out how many days to wait before you can find
>out what went wrong, such as a connection coming loose inside the
>shield, but it beats the hell out of going inside and looking for a
>15KV loose wire, or worse yet having the device trigger as you open
>the shield.
 
One should use a 200 hundred watt CERAMIC few hundred ohm resistor
wired in parallel for each 10 kilojoules of capacitor energy storage.
The discharge crow bar should be wired in series with the shorting
high voltage solenoid switch in the charging supply.  There is usually
enough room to mount them on a plastic plate screwed inside the back
door of the chassis.  Also a 1/8 inch piece of polyethylene should be
mounted to the inside of the back door by masking it with teflon tape
or an overlapping bead of silicon rubber around the insulation sheets
edges.
 
IN ADDITION a NEMA G10 rod of good length (1 meter) should be mounted
to the gound plate PERMANANTLY with number one welding cable of
sufficient length to allow easy reach of most of the high voltage
points on the bank or transmission line.  It should be used ALWAYS
after first checking to see that the bank is discharged and that
the charging line is in place.  The best way is to test charge the
bank to 20 to 50 volts and then throw the "dump" switch while noting
the increase in voltage with charging and the sudden decrease
to zero (less than 5 volts) with the activation of the dump crowbar.
Now holding the insulating end of the grounded (low bank side) crowbar
rod, touch the high side.  If there is no "pop" you are probably
now quite safe.  Now wire the high and low sides together to prevent
electrolytic recharging and to save some idiot discomfort that wanders
in off the street and decides to sit on your caps to eat lunch.
 
 
Actually the foil capacitors will not pick up charge from air barring
a lightning strike.  Foil and ESPECIALLY electrolytic caps will
"recharge" due to incomplete reorientation of the electric dipoles at
the time of the initial discharge.  In fact a preppy sci gag was to mold
aluminum foil to  the bottom of a rectagular candy dish or clean ash
tray (the latter is becoming rare around sci labs in the US).   Attach
a high voltage lead (like from the car ignition wire for example)  and
then the bowl cavity with molten paraffin and a goodly portion of old
fashion TIDE laundry powder.  Stir throughly, adding tide until settling
has it near or just at the top of the paraffin.  Then place a  piece of
aluminum foil over the surface of the tide and paraffin and apply a
voltage of something under the breakdown (negligable leakage), but say
15 to 20 kV.
 
Now allow the puddle to cool throughly in chilly air for several hours
with the voltage still applied.  After it hardens, wearing rubber gloves
break the mold, shave of the aluminum foil and shape it into a "used
bar of soap".  Then put it on the bathroom sink.   What will happen as
that those picking it with wet hands will allow a transfer of surface
charge to leak off temporarily neutralizing the surfaces charges.  The
amazing thing is the "trick" can work multiple times, perhaps on the
order of fifty shocks can be deliver given a sufficient time to
recover.   It illustrates a nasty side of electrolytic capacitors.
 
>    (Yes, I have left a lab with a sign on the door: Do Not Enter
>Before Tuesday...  The relay suggested above stuck open, and a long
>weekend seemed like a better solution than finding out on Friday why
>the previous shot had failed. The apparatus I was working with had the
>capacitor directly connected to the electrodes with a side trigger
>which initiated the arc.)
 
A number of people that clean labs, can't read.  A number of college
grads do read but have a mental block about reading another word.  If
you are really worried about making a good shorting contact, silver
solder a heavily gold plated silver shorting plate for certain contact
on both the shorting rod and to each of the strategic points on the
bank or load or transmission line.
 
On the other hand that might attract cocaine sniffing gold bugs with
hack saws.           :-(
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.21 / Edwards G /  Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: tedwards@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU (Edwards Thomas G S1A x8297)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 21 Aug 91 19:28:57 GMT
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD

I've seen some articles in the general science press indicating that
iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
of contracting, and that this may have significant effects on theories
of the Earth's core.
 
 
Just out of curiosity, could this have anything to do with
CF?
 
-Tom
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentedwards cudfnEdwards cudlnG cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.22 / Dieter Britz /  Fractofusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fractofusion
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 14:28:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>    This makes me wonder about your objectivity...  I had heard of
>fractoemission prior to the cold fusion hoopla, but I had not seen any
>papers which took the next step and said that ions accelerated via
>fractoemission could or would cause self-targeting fusion.  Does this
>paper specifically propose this?
 
I have the paper of Klyuev et al, in Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 12(11) (1986) 551,
and it says right on the first page
 
    It was assume [sic], for example, that, as a deuterium-containing
    material is fractured, regions with a high energy density are
    produced in the fracture zone, or as a result of acceleration
    processes the walls of a crack are bombarded with a stream of
    accelerated deuterons, then it might be possible to observe the
    emission of neutrons from the reaction D(d,n)He(3)....
 
Now we can argue whether this is cold fusion or self targeting hot fusion,
but it certainly must count as a prior observation of presumed fusion in a
crystal lattice, made in 1986. I am of course not certain whether the effect
described here does in fact exist - there is evidence both pro and con. The
team that this paper came from have fired off a row of papers in 1989, trying
various ways to induce fracture, and seem always to observe neutrons.
Recently, Golubnichii et al (it was a recent update of my bibliography) found
correlated neutron and acoustic emissions, an important result. In the West,
attempts at fractofusion have not been so successful.
 It is possible to regard fractofusion (or maybe that should be
fractosomething) as a separate phenomenon, whose reality or otherwise may say
little about the reality of "conventional" cold fusion.
 
A note about the term "cold fusion". The original FPH paper does say right in
the title that what was observed was the "fusion of deuterium". In FPALH,
however, the authors say that there should have been a "?" at the end, but was
inadvertently left out. I observe that the more thoughtful "cold fusion"
workers now have retreated to an "unknown but definitely nuclear process", but
this is not as catchy as "cold fusion". This has therefore become a label,
without precise meaning, to designate this kind of as yet undefined
phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.23 / Edwards G /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: tedwards@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU (Edwards Thomas G S1A x8297)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 23 Aug 91 17:53:51 GMT
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD

In article <1991Aug21.213808.9845@ariel.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John
 Prentice) writes:
>In article <615@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU> tedwards@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Edwards Thomas
 G S1A x8297 ) writes:
>>I've seen some articles in the general science press indicating that
>>iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
>>of contracting, and that this may have significant effects on theories
>>of the Earth's core.
>>Just out of curiosity, could this have anything to do with
>>CF?
>Just how much pressure are we talking about in the earth's core and whatnot?
>You would have to have tens of megabars to compress the crystal lattice of
>materials like palladium close enough that the atoms (and any
>deuterium or triton bound to lattice sites) would be as close as in normal
>gaseous deuterium.
 
Oh yeah, the exapnsion of Iron hydrides requires immense pressure...
it has been seen in diamond pressure cells.
I don't think it has anything to do with CF, but wondered if someone
else (more knowledgable) did.
 
Plus I think the nature of Iron contributed to this phenonmenon, and
I'm not sure if palladium would do the same thing.
 
There were articles in Science News and Nature on this I believe.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentedwards cudfnEdwards cudlnG cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.23 / rolfe petschek /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 19:49:38 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <615@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU> tedwards@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Edwards Thomas
 G S1A x8297 ) writes:
>I've seen some articles in the general science press indicating that
>iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
>of contracting, and that this may have significant effects on theories
>of the Earth's core.
 
At constant temperature or entropy (or a variety of other things) it is
well established that *any* material (with the sole constraint that it
have positive temperature as do all things which have pressures per se)
will contract on increasing the pressure.  This is a direct consequence
of the second law of thermodynamics and if you have evidence to the
contrary it would be appreciably more interesting than anything so
boring as cold fusion.  In particular breaking the second law presumably
would allow you to make a perpetual motion machine of the second kind
(heat in, energy out, no other changes.)  This is even better than cold
fusion.  We might run out of deuterium one day.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrpetsche cudfnrolfe cudlnpetschek cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.23 / Mark North /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 23 Aug 91 19:53:55 GMT

eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
 
>In article <north.682182591@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
 
>   It's statements like this that make me wonder about your
>   objectivity.  Since you obviously haven't researched the subject
>   very well how can you go around lecturing us on how we should
>   approach this issue? I suggest you read "High-Energy Processes
>   Accompanying the Fracture of Solids", Klyuev, V.A., et al in Sov.
>   Tech. Phys. Lett 12(11), November 1986 if you want to learn more
>   about fractofusion. Following the citations in this paper you will
>   learn about the mechanism of fractofusion called fractoemission, a
>   well known and well researched phenomenon.
 
>    This makes me wonder about your objectivity...  I had heard of
>fractoemission prior to the cold fusion hoopla, but I had not seen any
>papers which took the next step and said that ions accelerated via
>fractoemission could or would cause self-targeting fusion.  Does this
>paper specifically propose this?
 
You really should read this paper. It is an experimental paper in which
they propose D-D fusion as the cause for the neutron results that they
present. Sorry I can't be more specific I don't have the paper in front
of me. It is in English by the way.
 
>   I never heard of picofusion could you provide a reference?
 
>   Some one else posted a pointer to pycnofusion, I've seen both names
>used for fusion due to extreme pressure not high temperatures.  I
>first saw picofusion suggested thirty years ago as an ignition
>mechanism for stars.
 
OK. I've heard comments that the D loading in Pd is equivalent to some
enormously high pressure. This isn't relevant. What is relevant is the
distance between two D's. In Pd they are farther apart than in D2. What's
the equivalent pressure of 2 D's in a D2 molecule? Pretty high, I bet, but
not relevant. If this doesn't address your point please disregard.
 
>   Are you suggesting that the correlation between solar flares and
>   'cold fusion results' are evidence for something other than
>   misinterpretations of the neutron background by people barely
>   literate in the field?
 
>   I am suggesting that where there is a correlation between results
>with controls and solar behavior, then there is a need to explain the
>connection.  For example, a higher cross-section for some reaction,
>say muon catalyzation, might explain the correlation if the only
>source of muons was solar flares.  Most of the worthwhile neutron
>results I have seen involved, at a minimum, a control in the form of a
>second detector.  (And a lot of withdrawn reults didn't.  Neutron
>counting at low levels is an art.)
 
Neutron counting at low levels is *difficult* but I wouldn't say it was
an art. There are many gotch-ya's. Considering all the wild claims that
have been made over this issue at this point I wouldn't trust any
neutron results reported by anyone with less than 20 years continuous
experience in the field.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.23 / Bruce Scott /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 23 Aug 91 19:58:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

[this from bscott@lyman.pppl.gov. However, due to news problems I've
reposted it -- jsm@beam.princeton.edu. Please reply to him]
 
There might be reasonably wide interest in the status of TFTR. I
am a visitor to PPPL, but I know a number of the theory and TFTR
people here quite well, which enables me to give reasonably informed
comment. It is true that the extent to which a breakeven goal has
priority in the new run(s) on TFTR does fluctuate with time, but it is
and has been one of the important ones. The latest (5.8.91) PPPL
Hotline has as lead article the gist of the immediate objectives. Ken
Young, head of TFTR Diagnostics, is quoted: ``The overall physics
purpose for the upcoming run is to study the transport properties of
the plasma... [heat, momentum, particles, etc] In addition, we will be
studying wall conditioning technique to find ways of reaching higher
values of Q, and we will be increasing the ICRF [Ion Cylcotron
Resonant Frequency] heating power''. So one comment that the main
benefit is technological may be partially correct, but the issue is a
clean edge since tritium handling waits until 1993 (see below). Note
that the breakeven goal (high Q) is clearly stated as well. But note
that the first issue is physics: transport study. Inhomogeneous,
turbulent transport in 3D geometry is the reason fusion has become so
difficult: data on the details of the dynamics is scarce because of
the relative inaccessibility (heat as well as physical access). I
think we will not get much farther than now until the computer
hardware advances (the promised Teraflop Revolution) take place. Much
of the theory, particular analytical, is in the realm of philosophy,
since the hard calculations needed are intractable to analytical
methods. (My computational bias shows here.)  Without data or stronger
numerics, progress in physics is nearly impossible. The lack of
understanding of tokamak plasmas shouldn't be such a surprise in this
light. Another important physics goal in these runs is data on the
behavior of hot alpha particles in the plasma (D+D does produce a
non-negligible amount: TFTR got 60 kW of fusion power from that last
year), about which very little is known. For any reactor to work, this
area must become well understood.  Hence, these efforts, which are not
wasteful.
 
On the subject of D + T runs. This is planned for the year 1993-4 (the
FY), and it is semi-political. Aside from alpha particle physics and
tritium handling, this will be used to support ITER and/or BPX as a
successor. But that's too far in the future to tell yet.
 
On the future of the lab, well, one can't predict the future. But as
far as next year is concerned, the massive haemorrage is in remission,
with overall fusion getting what it asked for (337M if I remember
right) from both Houses. My concern is that this increase is for
machines, with theory taking another cut. This reached the phase of
shutting down some groups entirely. It is correct that fusion is in no
shape to advertise as an area with a future, especially for theorists.
Even numerical support is suffering. This may just be the result of
having pro-oil politics in Washington for the last 10+ years.
 
For replies, I am here (bscott at theory.pppl.gov) until 5.9.91. After
28.9.91 I am back at the address below.
 
Gruss,                                                The deadliest
Bruce Scott                                        bullshit is odorless
Max Planck Institut fuer Plasmaphysik                and transparent
Boltzmannstr. 2
W8046 Garching                                        -- W. Gibson
Deutschland
e-mail: bds at dgaipp1s.bitnet (again after 28.9.91)
FAX (0 89) 3299-2850
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.23 / Mark North /  Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
Date: 23 Aug 91 20:33:00 GMT

john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
 
>In article <28156307EBBF00FEAF@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>>
>>I have the paper of Klyuev et al, in Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 12(11) (1986) 551,
>>and it says right on the first page
>>
>>    It was assume [sic], for example, that, as a deuterium-containing
>>    material is fractured, regions with a high energy density are
>>    produced in the fracture zone, or as a result of acceleration
>>    processes the walls of a crack are bombarded with a stream of
>>    accelerated deuterons, then it might be possible to observe the
>>    emission of neutrons from the reaction D(d,n)He(3)....
>>
 
>Let me ask a naive question.  The energies associated with the binding
>of atoms in a crystal are a few eV or so.
 
This is true.
 
 >How can fracture, which is
>just the breaking of those bonds, lead to energies sufficient to cause
>fusion?  Certainly there is insufficient energy just in the breaking of
>the bonds, by many orders of magnitude.
 
Well, of course, one broken bond does not lead to one fusion. The idea
is that a macroscopic fracture (10's to 100's nm) will result in an
enormous electric field across the crack for a short time. (Until the
'capacitor' shorts itself out). (The field can be as great as 10^10 volts/
meter). During this time there is sufficient time for a D+ ion to accelerate
enough to fuse with another D embedded in the surface of the crack. I have
a paper in press right now which details all this. The bottom line is that
given some fairly reasonable assumptions and a sufficiently stressed metal
lattice a few neutrons/sec from a PFH type electrode could be observed at
least until all the stresses were releaved.
 
>Beyond that, crack propogation in
>a solid occurs at maybe 5 km/sec tops.
>A proton moving at this velocity
>has a kinetic energy of half an electron volt.
 
The crack propagation velocity is only relevant to the length of time the
fields are present. In our paper we show that a D+ might attain 10kev
before the field shorts out (very upper upper limit).
 
>The energy density in
>the process zone of a crack is what, maybe at most 100 ev/cm**3 ?  These
>are not very impressive numbers by fusion standards.  So what is the
>theoretical argument for fractofusion?
 
Our paper is in the form of a Technical Report of the NOSC and has not
been printed yet. However, if anyone is interested I would be happy to
fax the relevant pages (about 5 or 6, I think).
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.23 / Thomas Wieske /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: umisef@mcshh.hanse.de (Thomas Wieske)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 23 Aug 91 14:59:04 GMT

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>In article <615@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU> tedwards@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU (Edwards Thomas
>G S1A x8297) writes:
 
>> iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
>> of contracting, and that this may have significant effects on theories
>> of the Earth's core.
>>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, could this have anything to do with
>> CF?
 
>Probably about as much as the fact that water starts to expand when you
>_cool_ it past 35 degrees F.
 
Well, I can explain THAT phenomena to you! Now please YOU explain the other
one to ME!
 
Ey, this wasn't meant to be agressive, but we should perhaps keep in mind
that not everything must be as we think. Perhaps it HAS something to do
with it, and you just scared someone away from inventing something...
By the way, you know Maxwells demon? It is proved that he can in no way
violate the second sentence (argh, my English must get better) of thermo-
dynamics, BUT ONLY IF YOU STATE THAT THIS SENTENCE IS TRUE! So it still may
be or not, who knows?
 
Ciao, Bernie
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenumisef cudfnThomas cudlnWieske cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.24 / John Prentice /  Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
Date: 24 Aug 91 18:47:48 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <north.682979580@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
>
>Well, of course, one broken bond does not lead to one fusion. The idea
>is that a macroscopic fracture (10's to 100's nm) will result in an
>enormous electric field across the crack for a short time. (Until the
>'capacitor' shorts itself out). (The field can be as great as 10^10 volts/
>meter). During this time there is sufficient time for a D+ ion to accelerate
>enough to fuse with another D embedded in the surface of the crack. I have
>a paper in press right now which details all this. The bottom line is that
>given some fairly reasonable assumptions and a sufficiently stressed metal
>lattice a few neutrons/sec from a PFH type electrode could be observed at
>least until all the stresses were releaved.
>
>  [stuff deleted]
>
>The crack propagation velocity is only relevant to the length of time the
>fields are present. In our paper we show that a D+ might attain 10kev
>before the field shorts out (very upper upper limit).
>
 
Interesting idea, I would like to see your paper.  In advance of that,
I guess the questions that most strike me are how long do the high
electric fields exist?  Recombination rates for the surface ions in a
conductor are pretty fast as I recall.  Is there really time to accelerate
a D+ ion to any significant velocity?  What is the number density of
D+ ions you would expect and why should a free D+ ion (which I assume
is there because it was in the lattice and was knocked free when the
crack propagated) to scatter off a D atom (or D+ ion) on the surface?
It would be more likely to scatter off the dangling bonds from the
crystal lattice itself would it not?  Also, how much scattering will
the free D+ do with other atoms or electrons in the crack opening?
How long before the free D+ encounters an electron and becomes
electrically neutral?  All these sorts of things considered, it
would seem an astonishing coincidence to have fusion occur in
a system like this except at truly infinitesimal levels.  I would like
to see a preprint of your paper however, since I am just mentioning
the things that strike me off the top of my head, as opposed to having
done any significant calculations.
 
The more serious question I would ask is the generic one that has to
be asked of all these fusion theories.  Why?  Unless one is truly sure
you have seen unambiguous evidence of nuclear reactions, then there
is nothing to suggest that exotic fusion mechanisms actually occur.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.24 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 24 Aug 91 20:34:10 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

 
    > I've seen some articles in the general science press indicating that
    > iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
    > of contracting...
 
Is this REALLY what the articles said?
 
Perhaps they only said that
 
   hydrogen, when under immense pressures, will combine with iron to form
   iron hydrides. The reaction entails an increase in volume.
 
which would simply mean that the iron hydrides take up more space than the
original iron alone---but, of course, less than the iron+hydrogen
that combined to form them.
 
 Jorge Stolfi
 Department of Armchair Fusion
 DEC Systems Research Center
 stolfi@src.dec.com
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Hey, I only work here.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.24 / Mark North /  Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Former Spokesman Blasts MIT's Rejection of Cold Fusion
Date: 24 Aug 91 18:19:47 GMT

north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
 
>Neutron counting at low levels is *difficult* but I wouldn't say it was
>an art. There are many gotch-ya's. Considering all the wild claims that
>have been made over this issue at this point I wouldn't trust any
>neutron results reported by anyone with less than 20 years continuous
>experience in the field.
 
OK, 10 years. That should cover all my friends and collegues including
myself 8^).
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.25 / John Moore /  Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
Date: 25 Aug 91 04:24:48 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <0zrb4dm@lynx.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
]In article <north.682979580@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
]>john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
]>
]>Well, of course, one broken bond does not lead to one fusion. The idea
]Interesting idea, I would like to see your paper.  In advance of that,
]I guess the questions that most strike me are how long do the high
]electric fields exist?  Recombination rates for the surface ions in a
]conductor are pretty fast as I recall.  Is there really time to accelerate
]a D+ ion to any significant velocity?  What is the number density of
 
Keep in mind that the D+ ion need be accelerated to a few tens to hundreds
of eV in order to have a significant hot fusion cross section.
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326        Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are all my fault, and no one elses.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.25 / John Prentice /  Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fractofusion (and high pressure fusion)
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:13:25 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug25.042448.4212@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>
>Keep in mind that the D+ ion need be accelerated to a few tens to hundreds
>of eV in order to have a significant hot fusion cross section.
>
 
Quite true, though 10 keV is on the low end.  That said, I am not sure
whether you are agreeing with me or correcting me with your posting.  My
question is two fold, in essence.  First, is the number density of free
atoms and electrons (or whatever type) in the crack opening sufficiently
small that you will avoid colliding with them long enough to achieve a
kinetic energy of 10 keV or so?  Second, if the answer to the first question
is yes, then that means the probability of colliding with another D or
D+ is itself infinitesimal.  Quite apart from whether the cross-section
for a fusion reaction in a scattering event for a single collision is
high enough, you still have to hit one.  If the idea is that you instead
hit a D embedded in the surface lattice, I guess I find that even less
likely.  If they are D atoms in the lattice, then the only interaction
they have with a free D+ is very weak van der Waals dipole attraction
(the potential well is about 20 meV deep - note, that is milli, not
million).  If they are D+ atoms in the lattice, then there is enormous
electrostatic repulsion.  But the claim is that the free D+ will
be accelerated because there are strong electrostatic fields near
the surface caused by the fracturing of the metal.  Now, for these
to be attracting a D+ and not repelling it, you have to some how or
another have gotten a net negative charge on the surface.  Ignoring
the surface chemistry of this question and accepting that it is
true, then you have these enormous attractive forces which
presumeably arise because there are now negative ions at lattice
sites.  The source of these negative ions cannot be the D atoms (since
it was not involved in the bonds which were sheared by the fracture),
so they must be ions of the original crystalline metal lattice.
Would not the D+ then be attracted to these lattice sites and away
from the D atoms or D+ ions still trapped in the lattice?  It would
seem that the chances of a D+ hitting a D or D+ on the surface (or
even a few crystal planes deep) would be fantastically small.  One
can imagine that once in a blue moon you might, but I have a hard
time believeing that probabilities are anything but astronomically
small.
 
I would wish to emphasize this point however.  Just because you might
be able to accelerate a D+ to fusion type energies in a vacuum in
these electrostatic fields, that doesn't mean you can do it in this
environment and even if you do, you still have to hit something.
But most important of all, in the complicated N body environment of
a crack, you can't look at this as a two body scattering problem.
You have to look at it as an N body problem.  In this particular
environment, I simply don't believe your scattering cross-section
will be much above zero for a dd reaction at energies in the keV
range.  If somebody can show me a quantum mechanical scattering
calculation to the contrary (or even a back of the envelope
classical scattering calculation), then I may be willing to change
my opinion.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.25 / Mark Muhlestein /  Latest on Fleischmann and Pons
     
Originally-From: mmm@icon.com (Mark Muhlestein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest on Fleischmann and Pons
Date: 25 Aug 91 21:02:03 GMT
Organization: Sanyo/Icon International, Inc., Orem, Utah

I found the following AP story interesting:
August 25, 1991:
 
***** BEGIN ARTICLE *****
 
Researchers mum on fusion
 
Cold fusion researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann are
working on a new experiment in energy in southern France, according to
the Utah Attorney General's Office.
 
But who's funding it, where it's being conducted and what the project
involves are secrets Deputy Attorney General Joe Tesch said he's
been sworn to protect.
 
"All I can say is it has to do with basic scientific research into
energy," said Tesch, who recently returned from Nice, where Pons has
been living since last fall.  "I can't say who's employing them, what
they're doing or where."
 
Tesch said both researchers now are employed by a "consortium" that he
cannot identify, even to say whether it is composed of individuals or
organizations.
 
He did say their research did not specifically focus on cold fusion,
although the electrochemists continue to conduct experiments in the
controversial phenomenon in their spare time and with their own
money.
 
***** END OF ARTICLE *****
--
 
	Mark Muhlestein @ Sanyo Icon
 
uunet!iconsys!mmm  or  mmm@icon.com
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.25 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Latest on Fleischmann and Pons
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest on Fleischmann and Pons
Date: 25 Aug 91 21:52:31 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Aug25.210203.28687@icon.com> mmm@icon.com (Mark Muhlestein)
writes:
> I found the following AP story interesting:
> August 25, 1991:
>
> ***** BEGIN ARTICLE *****
>
> Researchers mum on fusion
..
> But who's funding it, where it's being conducted and what the project
> involves are secrets Deputy Attorney General Joe Tesch said he's
> been sworn to protect.
..
> "All I can say is it has to do with basic scientific research into
> energy," said Tesch, who recently returned from Nice, where Pons has
> been living since last fall.  "I can't say who's employing them, what
> they're doing or where."
..
 
If they were really doing basic research, there would be no need
to be so secretive about it---so they must be planning to have
a payoff in the near future. Or perhaps this is just disinformation,
to throw other CF researchers off their track. Doesn't sound
particularly scientific to me. Perhaps they've formed a consortium
with Joseph Newman :-)
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.26 / Jyrki Kuoppala /  Cold fusion in 1956?
     
Originally-From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion in 1956?
Date: 26 Aug 91 00:11:21 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

From Arthur C. Clarke's 1986 preface to his book "Glide Path":
 
"Yet perhaps Luie's most important achievement - and here I'm wearing
my science-fiction hat again - was the discovery of cold (room
temperatute!) nuclear fusion.  ("The catalysis of nuclear reactions by
mu mesons," University of California Radiation Laboratory Report 3620,
10.12.56.)  As he once patiently explained to me, it is very unlikely
that this will lead to results of practical value.  Well, the great
Lord Rutherford said exactly the same thing about atomic energy back
in the 1930s...
 
Nuclear-powered scooters, anyone?"
 
Any more information on this?
 
//Jyrki
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjkp cudfnJyrki cudlnKuoppala cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.26 /  Albatross /  Re: Latest on Fleischmann and Pons
     
Originally-From: alberti@cs.umn.edu (Albatross)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest on Fleischmann and Pons
Date: 26 Aug 91 06:36:38 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In <1991Aug25.215231.14953@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry
 Merriman) writes:
>In article <1991Aug25.210203.28687@icon.com> mmm@icon.com (Mark Muhlestein)
>writes:
>> Researchers mum on fusion
>> But who's funding it, where it's being conducted and what the project
>> involves are secrets Deputy Attorney General Joe Tesch said he's
>> been sworn to protect.
>> "All I can say is it has to do with basic scientific research into
>> energy," said Tesch, who recently returned from Nice, where Pons has
>> been living since last fall.  "I can't say who's employing them, what
>> they're doing or where."
>..
>If they were really doing basic research, there would be no need
>to be so secretive about it---so they must be planning to have
>a payoff in the near future. Or perhaps this is just disinformation,
>to throw other CF researchers off their track. Doesn't sound
>particularly scientific to me. Perhaps they've formed a consortium
>with Joseph Newman :-)
 
Or, what I consider more likely, when too much professional skepticism emerged
in Utah, they found more gullible buyers, er, ah, somewhat more open minded
supporters elsewhere.  Face it, if "Dyanetics" can be a million-seller, P&F
can find a handful of rich folks with money to toss their way.
--
Bob Alberti  Computer & Information Services U of MN // aka: Albatross| Unitar-
Internet:    alberti@boombox.micro.UMN.EDU        \\//      Images BBS| ian/
Disclaimer:  My employer does not mean what I say. //   (612) 884-7951| Univer-
Welcome Genevieve Kathryn Alberti and Leo Robert Alberti born August 3! salist!
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenalberti cudlnAlbatross cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.26 / S Bougerolle /  Re: Latest on Fleischmann and Pons
     
Originally-From: steveb@cernvax.cern.ch (Steve Bougerolle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest on Fleischmann and Pons
Date: 26 Aug 91 08:51:09 GMT
Organization: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

In <1991Aug25.210203.28687@icon.com> mmm@icon.com (Mark Muhlestein) writes:
 
>Cold fusion researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann are
>working on a new experiment in energy in southern France, according to
>the Utah Attorney General's Office.
 
Translation:  They're collecting solar energy on the beach.
 
>But who's funding it, where it's being conducted and what the project
>involves are secrets Deputy Attorney General Joe Tesch said he's
>been sworn to protect.
 
Translation:  The French won't extradite them.
 
>"All I can say is it has to do with basic scientific research into
>energy," said Tesch, who recently returned from Nice, where Pons has
>been living since last fall.  "I can't say who's employing them, what
>they're doing or where."
 
Translation:  Pons blew town with a lot of money and spends his time
watching girls suntan on the plage.  Nice has a very nice plage.  It's
hardly at the forefront of physics, though...
 
Now, if he were in Marseille things would look a bit different... But Nice??
 
>Tesch said both researchers now are employed by a "consortium" that he
>cannot identify, even to say whether it is composed of individuals or
>organizations.
 
Perhaps the Nice tourist office wants to attract a Cold Fusion conference.
 
>He did say their research did not specifically focus on cold fusion,
>although the electrochemists continue to conduct experiments in the
>controversial phenomenon in their spare time and with their own
>money.
 
Ah-hahhhhh!  There we have it!  Only, that should say "with the money they
looted from their sponsors".
 
I'm a Canadian citizen who lives in France and works in Switzerland.  Good
luck suing me for libel...
 
Nice is a very pleasant place to visit, incidentally.
 
--
_|\ |V| /|_  Steve Bougerolle, U. of British Columbia Physics Dept.
\  \| |/  /   and the OPAL experiment, CERN, Geneva CH
 >_______<    STEVEB@CERNVAX.UUCP  STEVEB@CERNVM.CERN.CH
     !        STEVEB@SLACSLD.BITNET  45388::STEVEB (HEPnet)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensteveb cudfnSteve cudlnBougerolle cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.26 /  /  reply
     
Originally-From: ames!CDDIS.GSFC.NASA.GOV!SCHULTZ
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: reply
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 13:52:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 Fri, 23 Aug 1991 19:04:18 GMT
Richard Ristow <sjsca4!uunet!brownvm.brown.edu!AP430001>, writes,
 
>"Cold fusion" seems to me to have started
>with a clear, precise meaning:  fusion reactions between nucleons whose
>thermal energy is too low to overcome the normal Coulomb barrier between
>them.  (Here I mean the thermal energy of individual nucleons;  I gather
>that at least some magnetic-confinement fusion reactors are meant to
>operate with an AVERAGE thermal energy -- temperature -- too low to
>overcome the Coulomb barrier, relying on reactions between nucleons at
>the high-energy tail of the distribution.  This is still "hot" fusion.)
>I gather that the term was originally coined to describe muon-catalyzed
>fusion.  "Cold fusion" in this precise sense is classically impossible;
>it relies on the nucleons being in sufficient proximity, for sufficiently
>long, that there is a significant rate of fusion from quantum tunnelling.
 
By this definition, then the Sun would be a cold fusion reactor, since
(by my understanding) the temperature at the core of the sun, about
10 million degrees more or less, is not sufficient to allow hydrogen
nuclei to overcome the Coulomb repulsion to fuse together at any
significant rate. My understanding is that the Sun shines because the
enormous pressure at the core compresses the hydrogen to very high density
so that nuclei suffer many many collisions every second, with a very very
small probability of fusion occuring by quantum mechanical tunneling with
each collision, sort of the same thing as bouncing a baseball against a
wall zillions of times in the hope that it will eventually tunnel through
and appear on the other side. The product of many many collisions per
second times a very very small probability of tunneling thus leads to
a measurable fusion rate, not too fast and not too slow.
 
Dan Schultz,                                        *Clouded out in*
Space Telescope Operations Control Center           *   Mazatlan   *
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md          * July 11,1991 *
SCHULTZ@CDDIS.GSFC.NASA.GOV
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenSCHULTZ cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.26 / Terry Bollinger /  Hmm.
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hmm.
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 15:36:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On 25 Aug 91 21:02:03 GMT mmm@icon.com (Mark Muhlestein) wrote:
 
> I found the following AP story interesting:
> August 25, 1991:
.....
> Cold fusion researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann are
> working on a new experiment in energy in southern France, according to
> the Utah Attorney General's Office...  "All I can say is it has to do
> with basic scientific research into energy," said Tesch... "I can't say
> who's employing them, what they're doing or where."
>
> Tesch said both researchers now are employed by a "consortium" that he
> cannot identify, even to say whether it is composed of individuals or
> organizations.
 
Now I wonder:  If they are not working on cold fusion, but they are looking
at energy-related issues, what in the *world* might this mysterious little
consortium be looking at?
 
(... and lest my passing comment start up any highly unwarrented rumors, I
most certainly do *not* know anything whatsoever about the aforementioned
"consortium." Also, I also strongly suspect that they are just being very
careful not to say "cold fusion" because the phrase has gotten such a bad
reputation in the last few months...  Nonetheless, I'd be most curious to
know if they have any polyacetylene specialists working for them.  ;-)  )
 
 
At any rate, I remain highly skeptical of most of what is has gone on
(and is still going on) in "cold fusion."  The only thing I can think of
that would be truly impressive at this point in the game would be massive
reproducibility of some unambiguously interesting effect -- a feeling I
suspect is strongly shared by a lot of other people.
 
I don't recall if I've ever mentioned it to this group as a whole, but
"A Twist of Ribbon" was the result of an attempt to *disprove* the idea
of cold fusion -- not prove it!  My methodology for such a disproof was
to take the most promising approaches I could find (e.g., the PEP reaction
was sufficiently interesting to rekindle some interest in me as to the
need for such a disproof), and then try to show some fairly fundamental
reason why such a thing (preferably generalized as an entire class of
phenomena) could not possibly occur without resulting in contradictions
with experimentally verified rules and theories.  If you would like to
see a fairly readable example of how I have used such methods in the past,
try looking up my "A Pox on Virtual Neutrons!" email that I sent to this
group early last year.
 
I was having pretty good luck with such disproofs, too, until I ran across
polyacetylene-style band solitons and tried to find ways to disprove their
relevance for bands of heavier particles such as neutrons, protons, and
deuterium atoms.  The problem is really quite simple -- band solitons are
the only readily accessible phenomenon I know of that produce physical
effects that are mathematically described by singularities.  And when
physicists or mathmeticians say "singularity," what they *really* mean
is "Let's punt on this one!..."
 
So until folks stop punting and develop a more complete model for poly-
acetylene-style band solitons, it makes it really difficult for a poor,
bewildered information specialist such as me to disprove the idea that
such regions might exert an odd effect or two when applied to particles
such as neutrons that have non-trivial structures and quantum numbers.
 
I remain confident that I'm just suffering from massive ignorance, but
since a quite thorough search of the Library of Congress was unable to
alleviate said ignorance, I finally tossed out my poor little bone to
this group for what I thought would be rapid dismantling.  Sigh.  To date
the most profound insight that I have received into the failings of Twist
is that a stretchy ribbon looks a *WHOLE LOT* like a bungee cord...   :-)
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold fusion in 1956?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in 1956?
Date: 26 Aug 91 13:28:39 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Aug26.001121.22741@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
 writes:
>From Arthur C. Clarke's 1986 preface to his book "Glide Path":
>
>"Yet perhaps Luie's most important achievement - and here I'm wearing
>my science-fiction hat again - was the discovery of cold (room
>temperatute!) nuclear fusion.  ("The catalysis of nuclear reactions by
>mu mesons," University of California Radiation Laboratory Report 3620,
>10.12.56.)  As he once patiently explained to me, it is very unlikely
>that this will lead to results of practical value.  Well, the great
>Lord Rutherford said exactly the same thing about atomic energy back
>in the 1930s...
>
>Nuclear-powered scooters, anyone?"
>
>Any more information on this?
 
Clarke is referring to Luis Alvarez's discovery of muon-catalyzed fusion.
This is where a muon, which acts like a very massive electron, brings
the nuclei close together so they can fuse.  The factor of 200 in mass
makes for a corresponding decrease in the "Bohr radius" so the molecular
separation is reduced and the fusion probability increases exponentially.
 
The theoretical papers of the time (by Jackson in US and Zel'dovich in
USSR) served as the basis for Jones' work on the subject.
 
Clarke is 'wearing his sci-fi hat' since I doubt many would agree that
this is Alvarez's biggest discovery and it is a *big* stretch to call
this room temperature fusion since the accelerator needed to make the
muons requires a very large room -- and would not fit on a scooter!
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.26 / John Prentice /  Re: Cold fusion in 1956?
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in 1956?
Date: 26 Aug 91 14:13:34 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1991Aug26.001121.22741@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
 writes:
>From Arthur C. Clarke's 1986 preface to his book "Glide Path":
>
>"Yet perhaps Luie's most important achievement - and here I'm wearing
>my science-fiction hat again - was the discovery of cold (room
>temperatute!) nuclear fusion.  ("The catalysis of nuclear reactions by
>mu mesons," University of California Radiation Laboratory Report 3620,
>10.12.56.)  As he once patiently explained to me, it is very unlikely
>that this will lead to results of practical value.  Well, the great
>Lord Rutherford said exactly the same thing about atomic energy back
>in the 1930s...
>
>Any more information on this?
>
 
The idea of muon catalyzed fusion go back to Charles Frank in the mid
1940's (who first conceived of the idea of myonic hydrogen) and later
theoreticians including Andrei Sakhorov, Yu Zeldovich, and Gershtein
looked at the efficiencies of expected muon catalyzed fusion.  The
effect was actually observed in 1956 by Luis Alvarez, as you noted
above.  Alvarez observed a track in a bubble chamber photograph that
he didn't understand and at first thought he had discovered a new
particle.  A colleague however correctly identified the track as that
of pd fusion.  Alvarez and Edward Teller worked together on this, and
being unaware of the work of the Soviets, they announced the discovery
of the phenomena, thinking they had stumbled onto the answer to the
world's energy problems (sound familiar?).  J. David Jackson, a
Canadian theoretical physicist, read about this in the New York Times
and sat down to do a careful theoretical evaluation of the phenomena.
He fairly quickly found that more energy was needed to create the
muons that was being liberated by the muon catalyzed fusion.
 
That, in a nutshell, is what happened.  Steve Jones, by the way, is
an expert in this field (which is still an active one).  If you
want more information, you might want to look in any of the current
cold fusion books that are out.  Luis Alvarez talks about it in his
autobiography ("Alvarez.  Adventures of a Physicist", Basic Books,
1987) as well, including some kind words about the research Jones
is doing in the field.  By the way, I would highly recommend Alvarez's
book in general.  It is a throughly delightful book.  Alvarez was
one of the most interesting and wide ranging of the postwar physicists.
 
John
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.26 / Edwards G /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: tedwards@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU (Edwards Thomas G S1A x8297)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 26 Aug 91 17:58:23 GMT
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD

In article <1991Aug24.133410.28664@src.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
 Stolfi) writes:
>    > I've seen some articles in the general science press indicating that
>    > iron hydrides, when under immense pressure, actually expand instead
>    > of contracting...
>Perhaps they only said that
>   hydrogen, when under immense pressures, will combine with iron to form
>   iron hydrides. The reaction entails an increase in volume.
 
That probably is a more exact description of the chemical reality, but
here are some quotes from the Science News Article...
 
"Intense pressure usually makes a material shrink.  But when three
geophysicists recently subjected iron and hydrogen to a
pressure of 35,000 atmospheres, their sample expanded 17 percent."
 
"For their experiments, the researchers first placed a small sample
of iron into a diamond anvil cell, then filled the cell with hydrogen
gas and squeezed the sealed sample between the tips of the avil's
two diamonds until the iron suddenly expanded. 'It puffed up like
a sponge absorbing water', says Hemley.  At the same
time, the sample's smooth surface became rough and grainy."
 
"The researchers think the hydrogen settles into the octahedral
spaces between the iron atoms, altering their bonds, and causing the
sample to swell.  The iron sops up so much hydrogen that there is
almost one hydrogen atom for every iron atom."
 
So yes, the iron expands, when exposed to hydrogen under pressure.
And no, I'm fairly sure this has nothing to do with (normal) cold
fusion, but I figure it might be a straw someone might be interested in
grasping for...
 
More details in July 26 Science.
 
-Tom
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentedwards cudfnEdwards cudlnG cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.26 / S Bougerolle /  cancel <6728@cernvax.cern.ch>
     
Originally-From: steveb@cernvax.cern.ch (Steve Bougerolle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <6728@cernvax.cern.ch>
Date: 26 Aug 91 20:50:09 GMT
Organization: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

cancel <6728@cernvax.cern.ch> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensteveb cudfnSteve cudlnBougerolle cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.27 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 27 Aug 91 03:19:42 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

 
    > [Science News:] "Intense pressure usually makes a material
    > shrink. But when three geophysicists recently subjected
    > iron and hydrogen  to a pressure of 35,000 atmospheres,
    > their sample expanded 17 percent."
 
Well, the reporter may have got his basic facts right, but his comment
above are quite misleading.  The "sample of iron and hydrogen" did
not expand; only the iron did.
 
    > then filled the cell with hydrogen gas
 
This is wrong; the July/26 Science article says the H2 was either
liquid or solid at the range of pressures used.
 
    Jorge Stolfi
    stolfi@src.dec.com
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: My employer is not in the iron hydride business.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.27 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Iron hydrides and high pressures?
Date: 27 Aug 91 07:47:28 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek) writes:
 
>At constant temperature or entropy (or a variety of other things) it is
>well established that *any* material (with the sole constraint that it
>have positive temperature as do all things which have pressures per se)
>will contract on increasing the pressure.  This is a direct consequence
>of the second law of thermodynamics and if you have evidence to the
>contrary it would be appreciably more interesting than anything so
>boring as cold fusion.  In particular breaking the second law presumably
>would allow you to make a perpetual motion machine of the second kind
>(heat in, energy out, no other changes.)  This is even better than cold
>fusion.  We might run out of deuterium one day.
 
Well, as far as the second law, I would like to inject a comment if
I may.  I took some "Heat" on this idea, but I would like to bring it
up again. In these extremes of pressure in a lattice, it is very
possible that H-lattice bonds are disallowed by QM. The result would
be expansion of the lattice bonds as H is pushed in.  I think the
problem just depends on which level you look at it.
 
>--
>Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
>Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
>Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
>Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
 
Have Fun,
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 27 Aug 91 12:34:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <13495@idunno.Princeton.EDU> bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
 writes:
>[this from bscott@lyman.pppl.gov. However, due to news problems I've
>reposted it -- jsm@beam.princeton.edu. Please reply to him]
>
>Ken Young, head of TFTR Diagnostics, is quoted: ``The overall physics
>purpose for the upcoming run is to study the transport properties of
>the plasma... [heat, momentum, particles, etc] In addition, we will be
>studying wall conditioning technique to find ways of reaching higher
>values of Q, and we will be increasing the ICRF [Ion Cylcotron
>Resonant Frequency] heating power''.
 
Studies won't fix the inherent defects in the machine.  The plasma is
resistive, it has radial conductivity (themal) gradients, and the
wall is an immense source of impurities and only deteriorates with
time and increased load (as would be the case in an ignition).
Knowing precise details of transport can not be employed to turn off
these lethal characteristics of the tokomak design.  What's needed
is a workable and more advanced magnetic concept.  As for breakeven?;
it would be nice to increase temperature, MAGNETIC PRESSURE and plasma
density, but since the Tokamak is severely limited its adiabatic
compression ratio (less than ONE !! ), that stable source of heating
is nearly trivial.  What is needed is a pressure bearing wall that
traps the flux orders of magnitude better than copper, that is
impervious to radiant and particle fluxes, that improves with loading
and a physical embodiment that where the boundary pressure (vertical
field - not the toroidal field internal to the plasma ring) can be
pressurized the limits of our ability to generate fluid pressure, not
solid conducting "COIL" pressure.
 
>  .. .  .   .. ..  ..  ..     .        .      But note
>that the first issue is physics: transport study. Inhomogeneous,
>turbulent transport in 3D geometry is the reason fusion has become
>so difficult: data on the details of the dynamics is scarce because
>of the relative inaccessibility (heat as well as physical access).
>I think we will not get much farther than now until the computer
>hardware advances (the promised Teraflop Revolution) take place.
 
That is only true given we are stuck with a primitive embodiment
for magnetic fusion like the tokomak.  As a plasma physics research
vessel it has served, but now it's time for a hard look at the body
of information it has rendered.  It requires a kind of quarter back
view so that the whole reality comes through, not just the jumble of
myriads of sometimes interesting but often irrelevant details.  Then
it must be realized that all the best physics and numerical studies
in the UNIVERSE are not going to over come the impossible engineering
defects of this or it's generation of mag fusion physical embodiments.
 
>                            .. .  . For any reactor to work, this
>area  [ of alpha heating and burn dynamics ]  must become well
>understood.
 
I don't agree.
Perhaps this is necessary for an optimized, better or more efficiently
operating machine, but not for the first production power generators.
 
I agree one of the biggest defects of the tokamak is its enourmous
cost and size, for it has become the property of the powerful empire
builders, bureaucrats, and politicians looking for pork barrel.  They
get more action out of spending dollars "around", to the cement and
steel companies, etc.  Although it requires some minimal physics to
keep up the science illusion, it doesn't require theorists..     :-(
Besides a theorist may come up with a better and simpler idea.
 
That's interesting, isn't it.  This dinosaur is finally nipping at
its physicist parents.  It certainly did a job on the physicists and
mathematicians of alternate or advanced fusion concepts.  Apparently,
it doesn't want any nest egg sucking mammals evolving (by analogy).
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.27 / Jon Webb /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: webb+@cs.cmu.edu (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 27 Aug 91 20:14:05 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

One thing that has always bothered me about the posts by Paul Koloc
attacking the Tokamak is this: there is a theorem of differential
geometry that says that any continuous (and differentiable?) vector
field mapped onto an object topologically equivalent to a sphere must
have a point where it is zero.  (This is why you can stick a pin in a
balloon and not pop it, if you know where to stick it.)  Now, in
practical terms, this means that the magnetic field confining the plasma
must have zero strength at some point if it is in the shape of a sphere
or a cylinder or anything similar.  Tori don't have this problem, hence
the preference for the Tokamak.
 
Paul, what's your answer for this rather fundamental problem?
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.27 / John Logajan /  Self targetting
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Self targetting
Date: 27 Aug 91 18:52:53 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I'm not sure what the term "self-targeting" means, but I've seen it
a few times on this newsgroup.
 
What would happen, say, if you took a deuterium loaded palladium
rod, and injected a high voltage step function pulse train into
one end of the rod (ala a transmission line.)
 
There would be an intense voltage gradient traveling down the
length of the rod (and reflecting back) at each step edge.
 
Would this migrant voltage gradient increase "self-targeting"
(whatever it is) between neighboring deuterons?
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.27 / Barry Merriman /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 27 Aug 91 19:38:57 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Aug27.123427.19779@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
M. Koloc) writes:
 
> Studies won't fix the inherent defects in the machine.[Tokamak]
.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
> |                                                         +Commercial*
> | Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
> | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
> | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
> +---------------------------------------------------------************
 
Perhaps you could give us an annual update on the status of
the PLASMAK (TM), and Prometheus II, Ltd?
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.28 / Barry Merriman /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 28 Aug 91 00:05:11 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Aug27.201405.194821@cs.cmu.edu> webb+@cs.cmu.edu (Jon Webb)
writes:
> One thing that has always bothered me about the posts by Paul Koloc
> attacking the Tokamak is this: there is a theorem of differential
> geometry that says that any continuous vector
> field mapped onto an object topologically equivalent to a sphere must
> have a point where it is zero.
 
> Paul, what's your answer for this rather fundamental problem?
 
I'll answer for him: the PLASMAK(TM) _magnetic_ geometry he proposes
is a toroidal
geometry---its just the containment mechanism is different, relying
on a wall made of plasma, and a second outer wall made of gas (plus
presumably a final outer wall made of metal). I gather that image
currents in the plama wall and gass pressure in the gaseous wall
provide the confinement.
 
But, even beyond that, your theoreom has no relevance as long
as there is some other mechanism providing confinement where the magnetic
field does not. (For on extreme, consider inertial confinement;
also mirrors use electrostatic confinement to a certain extent, to
help plug the ends.)
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.28 / Robert Eachus /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 28 Aug 91 01:15:42 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
    I'll take a shot at this one.  Back in the sixties it was know
that you can't contain a plasma (even in a toroid) by magnetic
pressure alone.  (In fact the papers which "proved" that ball
lightning couldn't exist depended on such proofs.)  But only a few
people took that one step further forward and thought about what else
you can use.  There are three "alternatives."  One is to use electric
fields directly as part of the containment, the second is to design the
container so that the electric field deflection keeps the plasma away
from the points where the magnetic field is weak.
 
   However, the third has always seemed to me to be the most
interesting: go ahead and build a machine big enough that the
"leakage" is less than the power generated.  This was the main idea
behind some of the straight compression devices that got axed in favor
of the Tokamak.  I see no inherent physics reason why this can't be
done right now, but the political reason is the killer.  The first
machine would cost tens of billions (can't build a small one and scale
up), and it would almost certainly be a finanical failure.  (The
subsequent machines built with the knowledge learned from the first
would certainly be cheaper to build and run.)
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.28 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Self targeting
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Self targeting
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 16:10:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
>I'm not sure what the term "self-targeting" means, but I've seen it
>a few times on this newsgroup.
 
In the 1950's, people experimented with deuteron beams, at keV energies,
aimed at metal targets. The metal absorbs deuterium which partly diffuses
into it, partly concentrates near the surface. After a while, newly arriving
deuterons from the beam hit deuterons sitting there, i.e. collisions between
the same species, or self targeting (I've occasionally misspelled that as
"targetting"). At keV energies, this gives you fusion (the hot variety)
and neutrons, etc., all well known and quantified since the '50's. The
connection with cnf is that many teams got the idea that a deuteron beam
might be a good way to load deuterium into Pd or Ti, and so it is. To prove
cold fusion, however, you have to turn the beam off before you measure (or
take note of) neutrons, etc, otherwise you'll confuse self targeting effects
with cnf. Not all teams realised this, not knowing about ST, and thought they
got cold fusion. The same goes for plasma beams and discharge pumps etc.
 Interesting what this subject does for you: a couple of years ago I had never
heard of ST, and here I am pontificating on it, and its literature.
 
>What would happen, say, if you took a deuterium loaded palladium
>rod, and injected a high voltage step function pulse train into
>one end of the rod (ala a transmission line.)
 
>There would be an intense voltage gradient traveling down the
>length of the rod (and reflecting back) at each step edge.
 
>Would this migrant voltage gradient increase "self-targeting"
>(whatever it is) between neighboring deuterons?
 
Given the above, you might now join me in a simple "no"; it's a different
scenario, as it were - which is not to say it wouldn't give you fusion. A
somewhat similar thing was done by Wada and Nishizawa in 1989, and they got
neutrons. They passed an electric arc between two d-charged Pd rods. Kim has
now explained the neutrons as a simple ST effect. Of course, if your pulse
train could stimulate fusion as such, you might not care whether it's cold or
self targeted; you'd rush off and patent it, and then calculate the energy
economics of it. Most likely, you'd be running at a loss, more energy in than
out. Paul Koloc can probably tell you off the back of an envelope, not me.
You could just try it, of course. It's been done with an electric current (it
didn't work) but not with sharp pulses, you never know.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.28 / Dieter Britz /  RE: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: TFTR status
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 16:12:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: webb+@cs.cmu.edu (Jon Webb)
 
>One thing that has always bothered me about the posts by Paul Koloc
>attacking the Tokamak is this: there is a theorem of differential
>geometry that says that any continuous (and differentiable?) vector
>field mapped onto an object topologically equivalent to a sphere must
>have a point where it is zero.  (This is why you can stick a pin in a
>balloon and not pop it, if you know where to stick it.)
 
Sounds very dignified, complex, and surely wrong. Assuming (as you do) a
spherical balloon, all points on it would be equivalent and you'd bust it.
I hope the Tokamak way of life is not based on such arguments...
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.28 / Dieter Britz /  Self targeting (me at me)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Self targeting (me at me)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 16:13:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I just wrote and posted, referring to electric current through metal
deuteride:
>You could just try it, of course. It's been done with an electric current (it
>didn't work)
and straight afterwards, saw my annotation of the very paper, by Perfetti et
al, 1989. I am wrong: they did get neutrons. They passed 10A, the wire got hot
(100 degC) and, with a delay of about 2 min, neutrons. This could have a
number of other explanations but I'm just the humble abstractor and don't have
to decide anything. The authors consider the current just as a way of heating
up the wire.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.28 /   /   Self-Targeting
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Self-Targeting
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 20:40:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan asks about self-targeting and then proposes doing it by
sending a pulse down a deuteron-loaded transmission line.  First off,
self-targeting in an historical context is a technique used in neutron generator
s employing the d + d reaction.  Basically you accelerate deuterons and bombard
a suitable target material which retains some of the dueterons which are
embeded in the target.  Hence the target becomes load with deuterons which
the beam "itself" put there.  That is the sense of "self-targeting".
 
Now on to your proposal to use a transmission line to apply a pulse
to a metal containing deuterium as a way of accellerating deuterons
into deuterons.  I am not sure that your scheme is any more far fetched
than fracto-fusion.  In some sense the issues are the same. Does the
electric field actually get to the deuterons in the metal?  And if it
does is the relaxation time before the field dies away long enough for
the deuterons to gain enough energy to produce fusion at a significant
rate.  The problem is all the electrons that are free to move in response
to the field, you know the conduction electrons.  They, being lighter
than deuterons by a factor of 4000, can be expected to respond faster.
I believe in the case of the tranmission line at least, this has the
result that the deuterons inside the conductor will not see much of
the electric field.
 
Dick
Dick Blue
NSCL at Michigan State University
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.28 / Colin Henderson /  Re: Cold fusion in 1956?
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in 1956?
Date: 28 Aug 91 12:42:30 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1991Aug26.001121.22741@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki
Kuoppala) writes:
> From Arthur C. Clarke's 1986 preface to his book "Glide Path":
>
> "Yet perhaps Luie's most important achievement - and here I'm wearing
> my science-fiction hat again - was the discovery of cold (room
> temperatute!) nuclear fusion.  ("The catalysis of nuclear reactions by
> mu mesons," University of California Radiation Laboratory Report 3620,
> 10.12.56.)  As he once patiently explained to me, it is very unlikely
> that this will lead to results of practical value.  Well, the great
> Lord Rutherford said exactly the same thing about atomic energy back
> in the 1930s...
>
> Nuclear-powered scooters, anyone?"
>
> Any more information on this?
>
 
Ask them at BYU and Tucson, Ariz. They know LOTS about it there!
 
> //Jyrki
"Luie" must refer to Luis Alvarez, who discovered muon catalysed
fusion thereabouts. First published in Phys Rev 105:1127-1128 in 1957.
This was fusion of protons with the naturally occuring amount of
deuterium in the hydrogen of the bubble chamber they were using to do
experiments with koans (the beam was contaminated with pions and hence
muons.
 
The fusions left a curious signature, which Alvarez eventually
explained. Anyhow, there is no chance of pd muon-catalysed fusion
being used to produce energy. However, muon-catalysed fusion between
deuterium and tritium has been seen to produce up to 150 fusions per
muon. Breakeven requires about 500 fusions, owing to the high cost in
production of muons. The possibility of energy production is being
determined at the moment at LAMPF, RAL, PSI and Leningrad. At the
moment, things don't look too good --- it seems as if they'll miss
breakeven by a mere factor of two. That field is most
certainly not dead, though. There is a general feeling that anything
might turn up.
 
It seems rather odd that there is so much hoo-ha about cold fusion and
mag conf fusion but muon-cat fusion is at present not very well known.
(to non MCF-ers)
 
As regards the scooters, well, if you don't mind driving one weighing
several hundred tons and large enough to carry a 400 MeV proton
accererator, you've got wheels!
 
Are there any others involved in MCF research in this newsgroup?
 
By the way, a good readable paper on MCF came out in Nature in 1986:
S.E. Jones, Nature vol 321, pp329-332.
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnHenderson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.28 / Barry Merriman /  Re: RE: Self targeting
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RE: Self targeting
Date: 28 Aug 91 20:12:58 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <232177771C9F01307C@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
<BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>
>. They passed an electric arc between two d-charged Pd rods. Kim has
> now explained the neutrons as a simple ST effect. Of course, if your pulse
> train could stimulate fusion as such, you might not care whether it's cold or
> self targeted; you'd rush off and patent it, and then calculate the energy
> economics of it. Most likely, you'd be running at a loss, more energy in than
> out.
 
You can't quit do this on the back of an envelope, because it requires
knowing the cross sections for transferring energy to various
species (the lattice, electrons, the targets, etc). However, at least
in the case of "accelerator fusion" (blast a D loaded solid target
with another D (or T) beam) you can't get net energy, because too
much energy is lost to heating up the target material, particulalry
the electrons in the target material.
 
The reason so much energy is lost to heating up cold electrons is that
the coulomb (i.e. E-field mediated) collision frequency goes
like 1/T^(3/2), and so is big at low T. I.e., you make a lot of coulomb
collisions against cold material, and so transfer a lot of energy
to the cold medium (rather than to the minority of taget D's themselves).
 
Thus, its generally better to slam hot material against hot material,
since there is less energy transfer to the background through weak
(non-fusion) collisons. That is exactly what one does in a  hot plasma.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.29 / Keith Mancus /  Muon-catalyzed fusion - does it *have* to run at efficiency < 1?
     
Originally-From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon-catalyzed fusion - does it *have* to run at efficiency < 1?
Date: 29 Aug 91 20:00:23 GMT
Organization: MDSSC

 
	A number of people, both here on the net and in print, have stated
that muon-cat fusion cannot be pratical because of the horribly poor
efficiencies of the muon creation system.  I've been wondering if this
is a fundamental problem, or simply a commentary on the state of the art
in muon sources.  If most of the rest energy (mass) of the muons is coming
from kinetic energy of accelerated particles, it's not hard to see the
problem.  Can muons be created in a way that emphasizes the rest-energy of
existing matter (of the target?) as the source muon rest-mass?
 
	-Keith Mancus <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
 
Disclaimer: I do not represent NASA or McDonnell Douglas in any way.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmancus cudfnKeith cudlnMancus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.30 / Jim Carr /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion - does it *have* to run at efficiency < 1?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion - does it *have* to run at efficiency < 1?
Date: 30 Aug 91 13:56:17 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

A muon is like a heavy electron and, like the electron, can only be created
if (1) its antiparticle is made simultaneously or (2) its antineutrino is
made simultaneously.  Pair production is not practical since phase space
arguments will always favor the production of the (lighter) electron.  That
leaves us with the muon equivalent of beta decay, or production with a
beam of muon neutrinos ;-)
 
Beta decay also favors the electron except, other things being equal, some
special cases like the decay of the pion where other considerations come
into play.  So it is the case that the muon comes from the rest mass of a
particle, unfortunately it is a particle that we have to make.....
 
The issue of cost effective acceleration of protons to quite high energy is
outside my expertise.  It is certainly the case that the current machines
at LAMPF and TRIUMF and PSI are not nearly as efficient as a single purpose
machine would be, but I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that estimates have
been made as part of the break-even calculations.  A factor of 2 might not
be out of the reach of a new breakthrough like the RF quadrupole, however.
You do need more than the `minimum' energy since you need a bit of momentum
to help colimate the secondary and tertiary beams.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 30 Aug 91 06:03:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Aug27.201405.194821@cs.cmu.edu> webb+@cs.cmu.edu (Jon Webb)
 writes:
>One thing that has always bothered me about the posts by Paul Koloc
>attacking the Tokamak is this: there is a theorem of differential
>geometry that says that any continuous (and differentiable?) vector
>field mapped onto an object topologically equivalent to a sphere must
>have a point where it is zero.  (This is why you can stick a pin in a
>balloon and not pop it, if you know where to stick it.)  Now, in
>practical terms, this means that the magnetic field confining the plasma
>must have zero strength at some point if it is in the shape of a sphere
>or a cylinder or anything similar.  Tori don't have this problem, hence
>the preference for the Tokamak.
>
>Paul, what's your answer for this rather fundamental problem?
 
Spheromaks and PLASMAK(tm) plasma configurations are "spheroidal"
(a kind of fat very plump set of nested tori); they are NOT "spherical"
 
The zero point exists at points on the polar axis and intercepting a
taut imaginary membrane that would "bag" the external flux surface,
but NOT follow the polar dimples or depressions.  The concept is
similar in a sense to the human body in that you can stick things in
apertures at both ends of the gut without actually penetrating into
the body cavity itself or here, the Kernel plasma ring by analogy.
Furthermore, due to the high divergence of the flux at the poles,
there is a strong divergence pressure term so that the pressure rises
above the bounding fluid or conducting shell pressure just a short
distance into the magnetic cusps along the polar axis as measured
from the ends.  In practice, with a plasma shell or Mantle, the
natural divertor effect generates plasma jets blowing OUT of the
cusps, (much like magnetic stars).
 
That is to say stellorators, tokamaks, spheromaks and PLASMAK(tm)
magnetic field, plasma and current topologies are similar.  It's just
that the more advanced concepts have less solid state current and
more plasma current:
 
Stellarators            -  no plasma current
Tokamaks                -  toroidal plasma current
Spheromaks              -  toroidal and poloidal plasma current
PLASMAK magnetoplasmoid -  toroidal, poloidal + vertical field
                               plasma current
 
The latter embodiment also exhibits hyperconductivity and exceptionally
low transport, and it is quickly but adiabatically compressible
to Kernel (central) plasma ring) pressures on the order of a hundred
thousand atmospheres.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 30 Aug 91 06:10:04 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Aug27.193857.24401@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>In article <1991Aug27.123427.19779@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
>M. Koloc) writes:
>> Studies won't fix the inherent defects in the machine.[Tokamak]
 
>Perhaps you could give us an annual update on the status of
>the PLASMAK (TM), and Prometheus II, Ltd?
 
It's tough going, but we are alive, and probably doing about average
for a group interested in advancing an alternative concept to tokfusion.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 30 Aug 91 06:29:39 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <EACHUS.91Aug27211542@Dr_No.mitre.org> eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert
 I. Eachus) writes:
>
>    I'll take a shot at this one.  Back in the sixties it was know
>that you can't contain a plasma (even in a toroid) by magnetic
>pressure alone.  (In fact the papers which "proved" that ball
>lightning couldn't exist depended on such proofs.)  But only a few
>people took that one step further forward and thought about what else
>you can use.  There are three "alternatives."  One is to use electric
>fields directly as part of the containment, the second is to design the
>container so that the electric field deflection keeps the plasma away
>from the points where the magnetic field is weak.
>
>   However, the third has always seemed to me to be the most
>interesting: go ahead and build a machine big enough that the
>"leakage" is less than the power generated.  This was the main idea
>behind some of the straight compression devices that got axed in favor
>of the Tokamak.  I see no inherent physics reason why this can't be
>done right now, but the political reason is the killer.  The first
>machine would cost tens of billions (can't build a small one and scale
>up), and it would almost certainly be a finanical failure.  (The
>subsequent machines built with the knowledge learned from the first
>would certainly be cheaper to build and run.)
 
We think the PLASMAK(tm) approach is clever since the compression
can be applied by ordinary fluid means, and that means the bursting
strength of high grade steels are the limit, ... except that with
inertial techniques applied for a few milliseconds, even those limits
could be exceeded.  Fortunately, that doesn't appear to be necessary
at this juncture, and we think that D-^3He can be burned with an
expenditure of three to four years and 25 million dollars
(unaccelerated).  Because such extraordinary pressures and pressure
heating can be reached, the actual fusion engine should fit within
a good size living room.  No allowance for the exhaust volume, however.
 
Who's interested and has that kind of mad money???  NASA we hope, and
if they are, the Air Force can't be far behind.  Who knows, maybe an
individual with deep pockets can save the day.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.30 / Barry Merriman /  Funding (was Re: TFTR status)
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Funding (was Re: TFTR status)
Date: 30 Aug 91 20:47:47 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Aug30.062939.13655@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
M. Koloc) writes:
> Who's interested and has that kind of mad money???  NASA we hope, and
> if they are, the Air Force can't be far behind.  Who knows, maybe an
> individual with deep pockets can save the day.
 
Have you made much effort to secure private funding? Given that
certain folks will gamble away $10 million a year at Monte Carlo,
pay $35 for Donald Trumps yacht, or pay $100 million for a painting,
its very conceivable that one would gamble $25 million on the
future energy source for all mankind.
 
Here's a tip: if you want to locate folks interested in funding fusion,
get in touch the office of technology transfer at U of Utah, and
get a list of people who made inquiries about privately funding cold fusion
research.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.08.31 / Paul Houle /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 31 Aug 91 00:39:47 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

 
       Actually,  Paul,  you'd probably be better off asking for 25 billion
dollars,  because they'd probably believe you more that way.  It seems to me
that there are quite a few organizations (NSF, NASA, Air Force, etc.) that
give out grants on the order of $25M -- But I suspect that the present
governmental establishment doesn't really want fusion in three years.  For
one thing,  all of the people who are trying to build tokamaks and other
'big science' fusion projects would be out of a job pretty quick.  Also,  the
introduction of a totally new power source could literally turn the world
power structure upside down;  never mind the fact that you can load it with
D+T and use it as a really good neutron source for cooking plutonium in your
basement.
 
 
	If you can construct a PLASMAK reactor using,  say,  D+He3 as fuel,
this would be really impressive,  but wouldn't immediately go into practical
commercial use because He3 is rare and hard to make -- Big PLASMAK reactors
based on a different fuel cycle could probably be used to breed He3 somehow.
 
	If you were able to build a protium-boride reactor,  this would
probably see immediate commercial results,  because you could use decaborane
or other borane compounds as fuel.  As such,  borax in places like Death
Valley would suddenly become an instant national resource.  For the amount of
power that p+B generates,  it isn't unreasonable to think of boiling it out
of seawater.
 
        Have you ever considered any sort of public stock offering?  Or do
you see the risks of the loss of control to be too high for that to be
worth trying?  Public stock offerings seem to have worked pretty well for
biotech companies in the 1980's,  but I don't know how well you could do
with a potential applied physics product in the 1990's.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenpahsnsr cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: TFTR status
     
Originally-From: mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR status
Date: 1 Sep 91 23:29:57 GMT
Organization: Univ of Calif, San Diego

pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) writes:
>        Actually,  Paul,  you'd probably be better off asking for 25 billion
> dollars,  because they'd probably believe you more that way.  It seems to me
> that there are quite a few organizations (NSF, NASA, Air Force, etc.) that
> give out grants on the order of $25M -- But I suspect that the present
> governmental establishment doesn't really want fusion in three years.  For
> one thing,  all of the people who are trying to build tokamaks and other
> 'big science' fusion projects would be out of a job pretty quick.
 
I doubt it would be this bad.  If fusion were to be proven to be easy with
this new technique the power and importance of _any_ fusion specialtists
would be enormously enhanced.  I.e., who would Matsushita/Toyota ( 1/2 :-) )
hire as consultants?  Eli Lilly & Co. haven't been destroyed by Genentech,
after all.
 
> Also,  the
> introduction of a totally new power source could literally turn the world
> power structure upside down;  never mind the fact that you can load it with
> D+T and use it as a really good neutron source for cooking plutonium in your
> basement.
 
The prospect of newly poor Arab masses seething in discontent, playing
with $500/kg plutonium is unsettling.
 
 
 
 
 
Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.02 / Barry Merriman /  Insulating properties of cold plasma
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Insulating properties of cold plasma
Date: 2 Sep 91 02:41:02 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

 
In the PLASMAK (TM) design, the primary confinement vessel
is a blanket of cold plasma. But what keeps this cold plasma
from seeping in and diluting the hot plasma?
 
The problem is that cold plasma is much more collisonal than hot
plasma (since collision frequency goes like 1/T^(3/2)), so a
cold bit of plasma at the hot/cold boundary sees a lot of collsions
on its cold side, but few collisions on its hot side---so it
tends to be pushed into the hot zone.
 
Seems like this could tend to put out a PLASMAK fire,
which has an ultra hot kernel plasma and a cold blanket plasma.
(Sure, the magnetic field is there to prevent such mixing,
but that never stopped the plasma before :-)
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.04 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 579 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 579 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1991 02:02:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
mostly patents, and you may read all about "the application of an electric
field", and how this produces ions in a plasma (?), and a cooker I wouldn't
buy myself. As before, I quote these direct from CA, having lost interest in
spending money on them and reading useless stuff.
The Mazitov is not new, and I don't count it. I did that one some time ago but
never updated my entry for it, now done. As you know, I quote the abstract
source (CA or PA mostly) if I have not seen an article myself, but remove that
quote when I catch up with it and do the translation etc, so I know personally
what is in it. I don't know any Chinese (or Japanese), so I have to make do
with the Yang item as is. The Beuhler et al on CIF continues that saga,
thought to be related to cold fusion in some ways.
 If you're awake, you may notice that there is a problem with my total count.
It's not my arithmetic that's crook, the reason is that I have been reading
through the big list, and found quite a few entries I now don't accept, and
erased them; i.e. conference proceedings and Reports. You can disagree with me
on these but I don't want 'em in my bibliography. Papers read at conferences
are not properly reviewed and usually - if they're any good - later appear in
proper journals. The same thing goes for Reports. If they don't appear later,
then they didn't survive and don't deserve inclusion, do they? This eliminated
about 14 entries or so. I have replaced the archived files with purged new
versions as well - this impinged mainly on BIBLIO1A, -B and -2, as well as
fixing up a few minor mistypings.
 Still waiting with teeth agnashing for those issues of Fusion Technol and
J. Fusion Energy...
 There is widespread feeling that the Como conference was the signal for a
resurgence of cnf confidence, and some conversions or part-conversions. The
person whom I took to be the token skeptic, Prof. Gerischer, a very big name
indeed in electrochemistry, is said to have become a "possibilist", i.e. he
no longer rejects cnf outright; there are others. Also, I smell a new bout of
experiments in the air. So my publication statistics curve, which (in terms of
submissions, a better indicator of interest than publication) which shows
clear signs of a dying research field, may revive and stabilise. We'll see.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 2-Sep. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 579
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fujishima A, Ito K;             Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 06,490, 5-Jun-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59226 (1991).
"Controlling cold nuclear fusion based on electrochemistry".
** "In controlling cold nuclear fusion based on electrochem., a cathode contg.
a temp.-controlling device is used to adjust the temp. of the anode".
(Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;                   Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,304,393, 18-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59228 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion based on heavy-water electrolysis".
** "Cold nuclear fusion is based on the electrolysis of D2O and uses cathodes
from Ni or a Ni-Pd alloy". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;                   Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,307,093, 22-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59227 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion based on heavy-water electrolysis".
** "In cold nuclear fusion, pressured O or its plasma is introduced into a
container made of Pt, Ti or a Pd-Ti alloy. Nuclear fusion is caused on the
inner wall of the container. Alternatively, the container is filled with a
powder of Pt, Ti, or the Pd-Ti alloy before the introduction of D or its D
plasma. Voltage may be applied to the D plasma, forming D ions". (Quoted from
CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuwano Y, Nasako K, Fujitani S, Yonezaki T, Furukawa A, Yonezu I, Moriwaki K,
Kameoka S, Saito T, Furukawa S;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,280,088, 20-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59220 (1991).
"Systems for cold nuclear fusion, heat transport, and thermoelectric cells".
** "In a cold-nuclear-fusion-system, in which an anode from an O-generating
metal (e.g. LaNi5), and a H-absorbing cathode are placed in electrolyte-contg.
D2O: (1) the cathode is formed of a H-occluded alloy; and (2) an elec. field
is applied between the electrodes. A D-compd. (e.g. D2S) may be added to the
electrolyte. A heat-transport system uses heat generated by the cold-fusion
system, and the H gas adsorbed [sic] and released by the H-occluded alloy is
employed as a heat-transfering [sic] medium. A thermoelec.-cell system
comprises the cold fusion system and a thermoelec. cell". (Quoted from CA)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mazitov RK;                      Koord. Khim. 15 (9) (1989) 1294 (in Russian).
"On the detection of cold nuclear fusion".
** Writing at about t = 2 months into the cold fusion affair, Mazitov makes
three points about radiation detection:
1. If there be fusion, there will be primary emissions (neutrons, gammas,
protons and (3,4)He and T nuclei), as well as secondaries (the above plus beta
particles) from the interaction of primaries with cell materials, such as the
metal hydride itself. He calculates that a neutron peak can reasonably be
expected at about the energy Jones+(89) found, although with largish
uncertainties.
2. The radiation background level will often be very unstable, thus
confounding the measurements at these very low levels, due to radon, which is
everywhere.
3. Past experiments, conducted in basements, may have had high radon levels
and widely fluctuating background.
His prescription is to have exactly the same physical arrangement of the cell
during background and cold fusion measurement; to ensure a stable atmosphere
around the cell cum detector to ensure constant radon levels; to keep the cell
physically constant throughout the experiment (no dropping D2O level etc) to
minimise changes in the interactions of primaries with the cell.  May-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikami A, Kuroki K, Furukawa S, Nasako K, Yonezu I, Moriwaki K;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,306,194, 19-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59223 (1991).
"Apparatus for cold nuclear fusion and heat-transport system".
** "The app. consists of a cathode-comprising tank from a H-absorbing metal,
D2O contg. an electrolyte, and a cathode immersed in the D2O, while elec.
insulated from the tank. Nuclear fusion of D is conducted in the cathode with
the application of an elec. field between the electrodes. A heat-transport
system is based on the absorption and releasing of H (heat-transfering medium)
by the H-absorbing metal". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nakano H;                     Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 02,690, 31-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59224 (1991).
"Deuterium-absorbing materials in cold nuclear fusion".
** "A D-absorbing material (e.g. Pd) used in cold nuclear fusion has an
amorphous structure. Nuclear fusion of D atoms has increased efficiency".
(Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ogata H, Saho N, Ishikawa Y, Mihara Y;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,276,989, 5-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59218 (1991).
"Apparatus for nuclear fusion at room temperature".
** "The app. comprises a container for heavy H2O, electrodes placed in the
heavy H2O, an elec. power source, a means to circulate the heavy H2O between
the container and a heat exchanger, and a system of a heating medium, which
comments [sic] the heat exchanger and a power-extn. compartment".
(Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onchi M, Tarui H, Kuroki K;    Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 07,113, 5-Jun-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59225 (1991).
"Cooker based on cold nuclear fusion".
** "The title cooker comprises an outer container and an inner container for
cooking  materials, where the space between the 2 containers is filled with
D2O. An anode (e.g. Pt) to generate O and a cathode from a H-absorbing
material (e.g. Pd) are placed in the D2O, close to the inner container, and an
elec. field is applied between the 2 electrodes to cause the electrolysis of
D2O".  (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saho N, Ogata H, Ishikawa Y, Mihara Y;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,276,991, 5-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59219 (1991).
"Apparatus for nuclear fusion at room temperature".
** "The app. which comprises a heavy-H2O container, electrodes placed in the
container, and an elec. power source, is characterized in that: (1) a coolant
fills the cathode interior; and (2) the coolant-circulation system includes
means to condense the coolant vapor, and to ext. power. The b.p. of the
coolant may be set lower that that of heavy H2O". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsuda S, Nakamura N, Nakano S; Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,302,693, 17-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:59221 (1991).
"Apparatus for cold nuclear fusion using solid bodies".
** "The app. comprises a solid body contg. a large amt. of D, and a means to
supply excitation energy to the body. The solid body may be of C, Si, Ge, Sn
or Pb. The energy may be supplied by heating, elec.-field application,
electromagnetic-wave application, and/or supersound application". (Quote from
CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yang F;                    Nucl. Tech. (China) 13(12) (1009) 705 (in Chinese).
Cited in Phys. Abstr. 94(1407):101095 (1991).
"On cold fusion".
** "The work on so-called cold fusion is reviewed. The prospects for
cluster-impact fusion and the importance of studying the interactions between
cluster molecules (or atoms) and solids are described. (5 refs.)".
(Direct quote from PA).                                               ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beuhler RJ, G. Friedlander G, Friedman L;       Acc. Chem. Res. 24 (1991) 198.
"Fusion reactions in dense hot atom assemblies generated by cluster impact".
** Mostly a polemic description of the authors' previous work on cluster
impact fusion (CIF), which has stirred up some controversy. Here, the argument
of shaped charges is advanced to explain the anomalously high reaction rates,
and criticims by others is refuted. One other laboratory that has reproduced
CIF is cited. There is what appears to be a clear relation between the proton
emission count and cluster beam energy.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.03 /  SkyNet /  Re: How to build a big bomb?
     
Originally-From: skynet@neuro.usc.edu (SkyNet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to build a big bomb?
Date: 3 Sep 91 01:06:43 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <27054@well.sf.ca.us> smernit@well.sf.ca.us (Susan Mernit) writes:
 
>I want to know how to make a big bomb.  The bigger the bang, the better.
>How do I do it?
 
Well, first you get a near critical mass of U-235 or Pu-239.  Mold this stuff
into a big ball.  Now, surround the ball with beryllium.  Wrap the whole thing
in a heart shaped batch of 5 mm/usec explosive with the sphere just touching
the apex of the heart.  Slather a batch of 10 mm/usec explosive uniformly over
this assembly.  Set a detonator at the base of the heart shaped device thus:
 
                           *   *
                      *           *
                  *                 *
               *    <==10mm/usec==>  *
             *           *    *       *     **********************************
           *         *           *     *    *           U-238                *
         *        *                *    *   *    ************************    *
       *       *            * *     *   *   *    *                      *    *
      *     *             *     *  *    *   *    *                      *    *
|DETONATOR| <==5mm/usec==> U-235 *     *    *    *      Li6-D           *    *
      *     *             *     *  *    *   *    *                      *    *
       *       *            * *     *   *   *    *                      *    *
         *         *               *    *   *    ************************    *
           *          *          *     *    *           U-238                *
             *            *   *       *     **********************************
               *     <==10mm/usec==> *
                  *                 *
                      *           *
                           *   *
 
|<================first stage===========>|  |<=======second stage===========>|
 
Set a second charge of Li6-D wrapped in a thick layer of U-238 next to the
device already constructed.  When the detonator is set off there will be a
short sequence of events whereby the U-235 (or Pu-238) is compressed to a
prompt supercritical state, mucho neutrons will escape from the first stage
and bathe the second stage in a high neutron flux.  The Li6-D will convert
to T-D at high pressure and temperature.  The U-238 will fast fission.  If
you use enough U-238 the T-D will be almost completely burned in a fusion
reaction before the device disassembles.  It is a relatively simple matter
to model and optimize these parameters on modern desktop computer systems.
 
Depending on how much U-238 and Li6-D you put in this device you will get a
varying amount of visible light flash, thermal radiation, neutrons & blast.
 
In the words of the original designer -- this device is VERY VERY LOUD!!!
Unfortunately, some persistent toxic byproducts are produced by fission in
the U-235 and U-238 portions of this assembly.  If you make the device too
big you may also: (1) strip the atmosphere off the planet, (2) ignite some
components of the atmosphere, or (3) generate undesired seismic activities.
 
You should probably keep a safe distance from the device when it explodes.
You may also need some special federal, state, and local permits to build,
maintain, transport, or operate one of these devices.  The local branch of
the NRA should be a good place to go for initial advice on licensing.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenskynet cudlnSkyNet cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.03 /  oxbrow /  Re: How to build a big bomb?
     
Originally-From: raob@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (.richard oxbrow.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to build a big bomb?
Date: 3 Sep 91 02:21:06 GMT
Organization: Dept. of EEEng, University of Melbourne

In article <35519@usc.edu> skynet@neuro.usc.edu (SkyNet) writes:
>In article <27054@well.sf.ca.us> smernit@well.sf.ca.us (Susan Mernit) writes:
>
>>I want to know how to make a big bomb.  The bigger the bang, the better.
>>How do I do it?
>
>Well, first you get a near critical mass of U-235 or Pu-239.  Mold this stuff
>into a big ball.  Now, surround the ball with beryllium.  Wrap the whole thing
>in a heart shaped batch of 5 mm/usec explosive with the sphere just touching
>the apex of the heart.  Slather a batch of 10 mm/usec explosive uniformly over
>this assembly.  Set a detonator at the base of the heart shaped device thus:
>..
>You should probably keep a safe distance from the device when it explodes.
>You may also need some special federal, state, and local permits to build,
>maintain, transport, or operate one of these devices.  The local branch of
>the NRA should be a good place to go for initial advice on licensing.
 
 
If you need a source for the weapons grade U and Pu we have this stuff lying
around in the desert that we would like to get rid of. All you need to do
is sneak around the two guards and sift over 3,300 sq kms of desert to find the
stuff.  (there is an easy to find the Pu)
 
	richard/..
richard oxbrow			   |internet    raob@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU
dept. ee eng,  uni of melbourne    |uunet       ..!uunet!munnari!mullian!raob
parkville, victoria         3052   |fax         +[613] 344 6678
australia               	   |phone       +[613] 344 6782
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenraob cudfn cudlnoxbrow cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.02 / Colin Henderson /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion - does it *have* to run at efficiency < 1?
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion - does it *have* to run at efficiency < 1?
Date: 2 Sep 91 12:19:33 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1991Aug29.200023.2471@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
 mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283) writes:
> 	A number of people, both here on the net and in print, have stated
> that muon-cat fusion cannot be pratical because of the horribly poor
> efficiencies of the muon creation system.  I've been wondering if this
> is a fundamental problem, or simply a commentary on the state of the art
> in muon sources.  If most of the rest energy (mass) of the muons is coming
> from kinetic energy of accelerated particles, it's not hard to see the
> problem.  Can muons be created in a way that emphasizes the rest-energy of
> existing matter (of the target?) as the source muon rest-mass?
>
> 	-Keith Mancus <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
>
> Disclaimer: I do not represent NASA or McDonnell Douglas in any way.
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnHenderson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.02 / Colin Henderson /  Re: Muon-catalysed fusion. The problems are physical
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalysed fusion. The problems are physical
Date: 2 Sep 91 12:36:07 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1991Aug29.200023.2471@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
 mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283) writes:
> 	A number of people, both here on the net and in print, have stated
> that muon-cat fusion cannot be pratical because of the horribly poor
> efficiencies of the muon creation system.  I've been wondering if this
> is a fundamental problem, or simply a commentary on the state of the art
> in muon sources.  If most of the rest energy (mass) of the muons is coming
> from kinetic energy of accelerated particles, it's not hard to see the
> problem.
>
 
[Sorry about the previous posting... my newsreader ate my text,
somehow, but made a backup.]
 
The cheapest way to make a muon is to make pions, by smiting nuclei
with charged particles. The pions will decay 999 times out of 1000
into muons and muon neutrinos. You can't make muons directly, because
they don't feel the strong force.
 
A pion has rest mass circa 140 MeV, so with momentum considerations
one needs only 280 MeV to make a pion. (Not all that energy needs to
come from the accelerated particle, some can come from the energy of
the nucleons. We have made pions with our piddling 200 MeV cyclotron
here.)
 
Now comes the crunch. We need negative muons, hence negative pions.
Unfortunately, the reactions involved (considering pion production to
be a quasifree process) are:
 
p  +  n  -->  n  +  n  +  pi+   (and other gunk)
p  +  p  -->  p  +  n  +  pi+       ditto
 
(more involving different final & initial states, but basically the
same)
 
and
 
p  +  n  -->  p  +  p  +  pi-
 
So pi+ have more reaction channels, and are less suppressed by coulomb
considerations. So the production cross-section for pi- is down at
least by a factor of four on the pi+. So we pick a resonance energy
for pi production. If all protons made pions, then one would require
some 1.4 GeV for one negative pion, and this is probably an
underestimate, even using a neutron rich target such as Tritium.
 
Now we have to consider competing channels, such as pickup (p+n-->d),
knockout (p+N-->p+N) etc, etc, etc. And THEN you have the hassle of a
lot of the hard-won pi- getting gobbled up by the target nuclei before
they've had time to decay into muons and muon neutrinos.
 
So a lot of the inefficiency in pion production is in the physics, and
there's nowt we can do about it. I have heard estimates ranging
between 10 and 5 GeV per muon. I don't think anyone's even got 10 GeV
yet. Correct me if I'm wrong. Of couse, it might be better to use,
say, alphas instead of protons, meaning more neutrons.
 
So the problems facing MCF come from both ends: it's unlikely we'll be
able to make muons for less than 5 GeV, and the catalyst loss rate
(muons sticking to the alpha after fusion) doesn't seem likely to be
decreased much below 0.5%. But there's still a helluva lot we don't
know about the process, so there's lots of room for research. I would
back MCF as a far worthier cause that Cold fusion, at any rate.
Inertially confined fusion is still the most attractive, because
there's nothing in the physics prohibiting it from going.
 
 
 
> Can muons be created in a way that emphasizes the rest-energy of
> existing matter (of the target?) as the source muon rest-mass?
 
Yeess... as I said, you can utilise the energy of the nucleons in the
nucleus and borrow from Heisenberg. (It's called subthreshold pion
production.) But the cross-sections drop so low ( about 60 microbarn
for 200 MeV protons on lead) that you lose out in another way,
totally. If there's an alternative way, then it conflicts with the
standard model of quarks and stuff.
 
Someone else mentioned RF quads. What are those? What do they do?
(sounds like a focussing magnet)
 
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnHenderson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.04 / John Prentice /  Re: How to build a big bomb?
     
Originally-From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to build a big bomb?
Date: 4 Sep 91 09:22:59 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

>In article <27054@well.sf.ca.us> smernit@well.sf.ca.us (Susan Mernit) writes:
>
>I want to know how to make a big bomb.  The bigger the bang, the better.
>How do I do it?
>
 
Good luck and watch out for the air strikes headed your way :-) .
 
John
--
John K. Prentice                         john@spectre.unm.edu (Internet)
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of New Mexico
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnPrentice cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.04 / K Eriksson /  Pair creation (Was: Muon-catalyzed fusion)
     
Originally-From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pair creation (Was: Muon-catalyzed fusion)
Date: 4 Sep 91 06:37:14 GMT
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden

In article <4071@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>A muon is like a heavy electron and, like the electron, can only be created
>if (1) its antiparticle is made simultaneously or (2) its antineutrino is
 
I knew about antiparticles, but how are antineutrinos paired with "ordinary"
matter particles?
 
--
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!ske
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenske cudfnKristoffer cudlnEriksson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Insulating properties of cold plasma
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Insulating properties of cold plasma
Date: 5 Sep 91 04:50:46 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Sep2.024102.1859@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>In the PLASMAK (TM) design, the primary confinement vessel
>is a blanket of cold plasma. But what keeps this cold plasma
>from seeping in and diluting the hot plasma?
>
>The problem is that cold plasma is much more collisonal than hot
>plasma (since collision frequency goes like 1/T^(3/2)), so a
>cold bit of plasma at the hot/cold boundary sees a lot of collsions
>on its cold side, but few collisions on its hot side---so it
>tends to be pushed into the hot zone.
 
You raise an important point.  Basically what you say is true.
Consider the mean free path is extremely short and the cold plasma
is on the high density (insulating) side of the Paschen curve.
Consequently, the problem reduces for simplicity to looking at
transport across vacuum-field/plasma edge of the "cold side (Mantle)"
If "T" (temperature is low) then we have a NOT much better situation
then if this boundary was a colder liquid or solid boundary as is
the case for most old style fusion reactor pretenders.
 
>Seems like this could tend to put out a PLASMAK fire,
>which has an ultra hot kernel plasma and a cold blanket plasma.
>(Sure, the magnetic field is there to prevent such mixing,
>but that never stopped the plasma before :-)
 
It may have been stopped in cases of naturally occurring PLASMAK(tm)-
like magnetoplasmoids giving them 4 or 5 orders of magnitude increase
in lifetime over ordinary magnetized plasmas of the same inductance
of the ordinary type incorporating thermal electron currents to which
you refer.
 
The engineering physics that goes into to producing the fix for this
problem isn't so difficult, once you figure out what the fix is and
then get the hang of incorporating the fix into the magnetoplasmoid's
physical embodiment.
 
The idea is to take advantage of a special density and charge
distribution found at the vacuum edge of the plasma that is due to the
difference in Larmor radii between electrons and ions.  To do this the
vacuum magnetic field neutralizing current is produced in a thin sheet
located within the ion layer.  Here it only requires that one species,
namely the electrons, at that surface carry the vacuum magnetic field
neutralizing current AND do so by being very energetic (high gamma -
runaway + relativistic).  This current carrying layer of hot electrons
will be collisionless, and will have the 5 or 6 orders of magnitude
conductivity enhancement over copper (or a thermal electron plasma)
which is necessary to prevent diffusion, either of the magnetic field
into the plasma or converse of plasma diffusion into the vacuum field.
 
Look at it this way, we simply raise the temperature of the boundary
or edge layer of electrons to order 10 MeV.  That is a BIG "T^(3/2)"
contribution.
 
And indeed, it does seem to work.  Although only hyperconducting and not
superconducting, still the conductivity is high enough to exclude field
and consequently to ACT like a superconducting current sheet.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: Pair creation (Was: Muon-catalyzed fusion)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pair creation (Was: Muon-catalyzed fusion)
Date: 5 Sep 91 18:02:16 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <5860@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:
>
>I knew about antiparticles, but how are antineutrinos paired with "ordinary"
>matter particles?
 
In this case, we need the concept of lepton number, which knows about
"electron"-type but does not care if the particle is an electron or
neutrino (it does care if it is muon or muon neutrino).  The point is
that the `pair' you create need not be of otherwise `equal and opposite'
particles.  The diagram for the process is
 
                                                >   electron (e-)
                                               /
                                              /
                                             /
                                            /
       vector boson (W-)  >----------------*
                                            \
                                             \
                                              \
                                               \
                                                <   anti neutrino (nu-bar)
 
where the boson connects to the other particles involved in the decay.
(It was this kind of picture I was trying to convey in words in my
posting.  The boson is the intermediary in the decay and cannot exist
for more than an extremely short period of time, so there must be a
similar pair on the left side.  Since the boson carries charge, the
pair on the right must involve a change in charge, as drawn.)
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Insulating properties of cold plasma
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Insulating properties of cold plasma
Date: 5 Sep 91 20:54:56 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Sep05.045046.4296@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
Koloc) writes:
> The idea is to take advantage of a special density and charge
> distribution found at the vacuum edge of the plasma that is due to the
> difference in Larmor radii between electrons and ions.  To do this the
> vacuum magnetic field neutralizing current is produced in a thin sheet
> located within the ion layer.  Here it only requires that one species,
> namely the electrons, at that surface carry the vacuum magnetic field
> neutralizing current AND do so by being very energetic (high gamma -
> runaway + relativistic).  This current carrying layer of hot electrons
> will be collisionless, and will have the 5 or 6 orders of magnitude
> conductivity enhancement over copper (or a thermal electron plasma)
> which is necessary to prevent diffusion, either of the magnetic field
> into the plasma or converse of plasma diffusion into the vacuum field.
 
I can see that this hyperconducting layer would stop diffusion of magnetic
field lines, as they are excluded by the layer. But its not
clear to me that plasma would not diffuse across the layer---are you
assuming that the plasma is hot enough to be ideal, and so bound
to its (trapped) field lines?
 
Also, what keeps the hyperconducting layer in place? Electrostatic
attraction?
 
(reminds
me of the old joke about turtles holding up the earth....maybe
its hyperconducting sheets all the way down...:-)
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.06 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography; a correction
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography; a correction
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 13:45:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
Todd Green of Western Australia has kindly pointed out an error in the biblio-
graphy; the following item is the correct one. It previously had the author
Watanabe missing:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takahashi A, Takeuchi T, Iida T, Watanabe M;
J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 27 (1990) 663.
"Emission of 2.45 MeV and higher energy neutrons from D2O-Pd cell under
biased-pulse electrolysis".
** The authors update an earlier report, submitted to Fusion Technol., of
positive cold fusion results; here, they obtained neutron emissions at 2.45
MeV and at higher energies 3-7 MeV, from biased-pulse electrolysis of 0.2-0.4
M LiOD in D2O, with a Pd cathode. Biased-pulse means alternating higher with
lower current densities, e.g. 0.8A with 0.5A at about 2 cm**2, each level for
a couple of minutes or so. Light irradiation simultaneous with either the
high- or the low-level currents was also tried. Water temperature was measured
with a thermocouple, neutrons by a cross-checking system of a (3)He with a
NE213 detector, and tritium in aliquots taken from the electrolyte (to be
reported later). The emissions at higher energies cannot be explained by
hitherto known fusion reactions.                               May-90/Jul-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have corrected it in the archive file BIBLIO1B. No longer will I sneer at or
gloat over mistakes I find in Chem. Abstracts - well, not this week anyway.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.06 / Bob Pendelton /  Testing , any traffic on the group?
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Testing , any traffic on the group?
Date: 6 Sep 91 14:37:49 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

Since moving to a new job I haven't been able to get any news from
this news group. At the risk of getting deluged please send me
personal mail telling me if you saw posting.
 
 
		Thanks
 
			Bob P.
 
			bobp@hal.com
 
--
 
| Bob Pendleton              | Engineering Anethema:                     |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.07 / David Brahm /  Muon production for muon-catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Muon production for muon-catalyzed fusion
Date: 7 Sep 91 02:07:14 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

 
  In article <1991Aug29.200023.2471@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Keith Mancus
  <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov> asked why muons must be produced so
  inefficiently, preventing muon-catalyzed fusion breakeven.
 
  [I'm cross-posting to sci.physics, hoping for feedback from heavy
  ion collision, FEL, and superconductor folks.]
 
The most recent numbers I have (several years old, from LAMPF and PSI) give
an energy output per muon of 2.6 GeV (about 25 times the muon rest mass).  A
Monte Carlo simulation of a deuteron beam on a deuterium ("active") target
(favors low isospin: d + d -> Delta -> pi- -> mu-) predicted a muon could be
produced for every 2 GeV of beam energy[1].  Thus, _if_ accelerators made
deuteron beams at nearly 100% efficiency, breakeven would be achieved.  In
fact, accelerators are only about 10% efficient.
 
Another consideration is the muon current required.  A full-scale power plant
(1 GW) would need something like 6x10^18 muons/s = 1 amp.  That's possible
(the LHC is proposed to have 1 amp of beam current), but expensive.  The
LAMPF and PSI machines produce about 1/1000 of that.
 
So we might be able to make really efficient large accelerators some day, but
it's worthwhile thinking about other ways to make muons.  Here are some of my
own ideas, wacky as they may be :-)  They fit into two basic categories: via
pions or direct.
 
I) Via Pions:
 
  1) Heavy ion collisions:  Pions are the ultimate crap from most hadronic
     reactions.  Are these more efficient than d + d ?
 
  2) Free proton laser:  Like a FEL, but wiggling a proton instead of an
     electron.  Unfortunately, you lose a couple gamma-factors since the
     proton is so heavy, so I calculate the magnets must be about 1 Angstrom
     apart.
 
II) Direct Production:
 
  1) Gamma-ray lasers (from SDI no doubt) scattered from a target or an
     electron beam.
 
  2) Electron decay (!)  e- -> mu- + nu_e + nu_mu-bar, which occurs (instead
     of muon decay) when the electron fermi energy exceeds the muon mass.
     You can't squeeze the electrons in bulk because of Coulomb repulsion,
     but small bunches would work (3x10^4 e- per bunch by my calculation).
     Perhaps this could be done by routing electrons along pinched magnetic
     field lines, as occur in Type II superconductors.
 
There seems to be some flexibility in nature for both these categories.  The
pion is a strange and mysterious object, simultaneously the mediator of the
strong nuclear force, the pseudo-Goldstone boson of flavor chiral symmetry,
and a light-quark composite.  Surely in one of these guises we can find a
more efficient production mechanism.  Also, the convenient existence of
massless neutrinos allows conversion of electrons to muons, if only they can
be energetically coaxed.  Any ideas out there?
 
[1] M. Jandel, M. Danos, & J. Rafelski, "Active Target Production of Muons
    for Muon Catalyzed Fusion", Phys. Rev. C37:403 (1988).
 
--
Staccato signals of constant information,  |  -- David Brahm
A loose affiliation of millionaires and    |  (brahm@coil.caltech.edu)
  billionaires and Baby ...                |---------------------------
These are the days of miracle and wonder,  | Disclaimer:  I only speak
And don't cry, Baby, don't cry, don't cry. |   for the sensible folks.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbrahm cudfnDavid cudlnBrahm cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.09 / Paul Sidnell /  Current status/News
     
Originally-From: pauls@penguin.inmos.co.uk (Paul Sidnell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Current status/News
Date: 9 Sep 91 12:51:13 GMT
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK

 
As an interested bystander without the technical knowledge to grasp much of
the detail in this news group, I would be very interested if someone could
post a brief summary of the current status of fusion research, who's building
what, what is the best energy yeild so far etc.  Is there enough happening
for someone to make this a regular "news" feature ?
 
Thanks in advance
   Paul
 
 ...___...  ...___...  ...___...  ...___...  ...___...          Iceberg ?
Paul Sidnell, Software Group,      | Phone 0454 616616     |  What iceberg ?
INMOS Ltd. 1000 Aztec West,        | UK: pauls@inmos.co.uk |      ....
Almondsbury, Bristol, BS12 4SQ, UK | US: pauls@inmos.com   | Oh, THAT iceberg.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpauls cudfnPaul cudlnSidnell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.09 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Insulating properties of cold plasma
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Insulating properties of cold plasma
Date: 9 Sep 91 05:38:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Sep5.205456.15639@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1991Sep05.045046.4296@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
>Koloc) writes:
>> The idea is to take advantage of a special density and charge
>> distribution found at the vacuum edge of the plasma that is due to the
>> difference in Larmor radii between electrons and ions.  To do this the
>> vacuum magnetic field neutralizing current is produced in a thin sheet
>> located within the ion layer.  Here it only requires that one species,
>> namely the electrons, at that surface carry the vacuum magnetic field
>> neutralizing current AND do so by being very energetic (high gamma -
>> runaway + relativistic).  This current carrying layer of hot electrons
>> will be collisionless, and will have the 5 or 6 orders of magnitude
>> conductivity enhancement over copper (or a thermal electron plasma)
>> which is necessary to prevent diffusion, either of the magnetic field
>> into the plasma or converse of plasma diffusion into the vacuum field.
 
>I can see that this hyperconducting layer would stop diffusion of magnetic
>field lines, as they are excluded by the layer. But its not
>clear to me that plasma would not diffuse across the layer---are you
>assuming that the plasma is hot enough to be ideal, and so bound
>to its (trapped) field lines?
 
Actually, the plasma Mantle sees little field since it is nearly completely
neutralized by the boundary relativistic electrons in the ion layer at
the sharp boundary vacuum field edge.  All that is required is that the
electrons be highly conducting (hot if you will), and then the ions are
trapped electrostatically. Pretty nifty, as they say in the old flicks.
 
>Also, what keeps the hyperconducting layer in place? Electrostatic
>attraction?
 
It sits in a notch produced by the sharp edge of the neutralized
vacuum magnetic field (sharply falling off outwardly because of
neutralization) and the electrostatic field (increasing from the
vacuum field side outwardly within the ion layer up to the electron
the edge of the much thinner but dense electron dominant layer).
 
However, this is not the only criteria necessary for suvival of this
special boundary current.  It must also be constantly refocused into
a thin sharply defined sheet.  This happens because of the differential
outward pressure of the magnetic boundary on electrons of a range of
velocity (mass).  The outward force is m(vXB) and consequently the
higher the mass (velocity) the more outward force is experienced.
Since the change of magnetic moment (inductive EMF) drives the current
more on the inside of the sheet where the particle density is low,
they experience a net acceleration (increase in mass).  The increased
magnetic pressures pushes them outward to the outside sheet surface
where the acceleration is clamped by greatly weakened magnetic field
and also the higher particle density generates net drag (deceleration).
Then under the influence of the stronger electric field the hyper-
conducting electrons are pulled inward where they are again accelerated.
Those residing with the intermediate most surface experience neither a
net gain nor a net deceleration (on the time average).
 
>
>(reminds
>me of the old joke about turtles holding up the earth....maybe
>its hyperconducting sheets all the way down...:-)
 
Are you confused?  I thought the turtles switched to pizza.
 
Perhaps you are thinking of hyperMATTER, a substance that can be
formed when ordinary matter is compressed so thin it loses all
volumetric measure; then "Quantum mechanically :-)" jumps to hyper
space (a two dimensional universe).  Of course as you know all matter
and energy of the current three space universe came into existence
when a local instability broke the plane (which closed fortunately)
and bits of the hyper matter dust, each no larger than a pizza,
radiated energy from their edges.  This energy then decomposed into
three D particles and fields, forming a myriad of quasars which
then eventually settled into galaxies as the hyperenergy was spent.
The homage paid to pizza by turtles is due to this first state of 3D
disarray and flying hyperpizzas.  Why turtles??  They are spheromak
like in that they have shells, although I'm not sure how conducting
they are.  Still they must be close to divine if they have a shell.
Enough silliness.
 
Have you set up and then volume integrated a Spheromak for its total
energy??  The Spheromak should be in force equilibrium with moderate
to rich sheared toroidal magnetic helicity (Taylor state) and highly
conducting boundary at an uniform 1 atmosphere of isobaric pressure
(measuring .5 tesla at the equator).
 
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.10 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 589 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 589 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 14:28:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here we go again. You'll note a well known name among the bunch, I've dabbled
in history. There are a lot of papers in Japanese for which I simply reproduce
the Chem. Abstr. abstract, not knowing any Japanese; I didn't even see these
papers. They do all seem to be discussion/reviews.
 I did see the Filimonov, which comes up with another fluctuational model for
fusion, involving shock waves and soliton-like behaviour. Russell continues to
develop his dineutron/neutrino model and now finds that it might account for
the missing emissions. This leaves some missing helium (although the China
Lake people reckon they have found some) which Russell imagines to be somehow
swept out of the metal. The Roumanian pair, Palibroda and Glueck, have done
what must be a single preliminary experiment, and I am not clear what sort of
neutron detector they use, or even whether there was more than one. They have
an idea that electrode poisoning is the secret and did appear to find neutrons
substantially above the background.
 T. Braun continues his annotated bibliography, finding more or less what I
find (a bit less, but he does catch a few I miss, so I am grateful). Kim et al
give some theoretical support to CIF, the other "affair", thought to be
related to CNF. We must now imagine the D2O clusters as needle-shaped, hitting
point first. Sounds just a bit fishy to me but they do have to explain that 25
orders of magnitude anomaly, somehow.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 10-Sep. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 589
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britz D;                                              Centaurus 33 (1990) 368.
"Cold fusion: an historical parallel".
** The experiment of Wada and Nishizawa (1989) was preceded by a very similar
one, almost 60 years previously. John Tandberg, the Swedish chemist
electrically exploded a Pd wire electrolytically charged with deuterium, in
order to provoke d-d fusion. The paper provides a translation of the Swedish
description of this work, and discusses the parallel.            Nov-90/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filimonov VA;             Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 16(20) (1990) 29 (in Russian).
"Mechanism of cold nuclear fusion".
** A thermodynamic theory, involving conditions far from equilibrium, where
there is a high probability of d-cluster formation and shock fronts arising at
phase boundaries; the clusters may have some properties of solitons, and
consitions may arise in which hot deuterons can overcome the Coulomb barrier
and fuse. The conditions for this are that the material have weakly bound
and mobile deuterons, that there be phase boundaries and that it be mono- or
polycrystalline, with a minimum of defects.                      Feb-90/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hirabayashi T, Yoshida Y, Aradono Y;
Genshiryoku Kogyo 37(4) (1991) 31 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:58485 (1991).
"Verification of room temperature nuclear fusion. 2".
** "A review with 44 refs. is given on the verifications of room temperature
nuclear fusion (RTNF) by the electrolysis method and by heavy hydrogen gas dry
pressurization method, exptl. results of the verification of RTNF by new dry
methods, and exptl. results disproving the RTNF". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimura T;                     Genshiryoku Kogyo 37(4) (1991) 49 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:58487 (1991).
"Current problems and future of room temperature nuclear fusion".
** "A review with 26 refs. is given on the measurement of n, effect of cosmic
radiation, effect of environmental radioactivity, and problems in measurement
of very low level n in room temp. nuclear fusion". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palibroda E, Glueck P;        J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett. 154 (1991) 153.
"Cold nuclear fusion in thin foils of palladium".
** A 20 mu-thin foil of Pd was electrolytically charged with deuterium from an
electrolyte 0.1M LiOD in D2O, and then poisoned with thiourea. Neutrons were
measured with a (ZnS(Ag)?) detector not sensitive to gamma rays, another one
being placed at 1.5 m for background monitoring. Counts were integrated over
10 min intervals. The cell was double-walled and inside a thermostat, with a
recombination catalyst feeding the evolved gases back into the cell. There
were 7 periods of neutron emissions, lasting from 3.2 to 12.7 hours each, with
a neutron intensity from 1.8 to 140 (mean) times the background, or up to 300
times maximum. These emissions convert to fusion rates up to 1E-18 /s/pair.
The background was fairly constant throughout at about 112+-12 counts during
inactive periods, and raised slightly to 216+-46 during active periods. No
temperature data is reported, and no controls. The team will now attempt to
make the experiment reproducible; they speculate that the poisoning did the
trick.                                                                Mar-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Jr JL;                                Ann. Nucl. Energy 18 (1991) 305.
"Proposed heat producing nuclear reaction for cold fusion".
** Russell has a theory to explain the anomaly of excess heat without
energetic emissions. None of the standard nuclear reactions fill the bill;
there is a good discussion of what one would get from charged particles at
given energies (gamma, x-rays, etc), none of which is observed. Russell's
model of a small dineutron/dineutrino population, which possibly allows d-d
fusion to (4)He with transfer of the excess energy to the lattice as heat.
This implies amounts of He commensurate with that heat, but Russell muses that
helium might be "swept" from the Pd somehow. The model does not lead to any
useful suggestions for experiment except perhaps to look for energetic sonic
emissions, one per fusion.                                            Oct-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tachikawa E;                  Genshiryoku Kogyo 37(4) (1991) 11 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:58483 (1991).
"Outline of room temperature nuclear fusion".
** "A review with no refs. is given on nuclear fusion energy, room temp.
nuclear fusion, and the trend of the research on room temp. nuclear fusion".
(Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda T;                     Genshiryoku Kogyo 37(4) (1991) 40 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:58486 (1991).
"Theory of room temperature nuclear fusion".
** "A review with 42 refs. is given on 2-body collision nuclear fusion by the
shielding of the Coulomb field, collective nuclear reaction, and apparent room
temp. nuclear fusion". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoshida Y, Aradono Y, Hirabayashi T;
Genshiryoku Kogyo 37(4) (1991) 21 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:58484 (1991).
"Verification of room temperature nuclear fusion. 1".
** "A review with 16 refs. Means to detect room temp. nuclear fusion (RTNF)
(measurements of n, p, T, and x-ray, etc) and the reaction system for RTNF are
discussed". (Quoted from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braun T;                        J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett. 153 (1991) 1.
"World flash on cold fusion. No. 9".
** As the name implies, no. 9 in the series.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braun T;                        J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett. 154 (1991) 1.
"World flash on cold fusion. No. 10".
** No. 10 in the series.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braun T;                      J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett. 154 (1991) 237.
"World flash on cold fusion. No. 11".
** No. 11 in the series.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE, Rabinowitz M, Chulik GS, Rice RA;      Mod. Phys. Lett. B5 (1991) 427.
"Theories of cluster-impact fusion with atomic and molecular cluster beams".
** An attempt to explain the CIF enigma: too-high fusion rates by about 25
orders of magnitude and the fact that while D2O clusters do it, D atomic
clusters do not. The authors' theory accounts roughly for the experimental
claims, and some speculation is indulged in for fine-tuning, such as needle-
shaped D2O clusters impinging point first.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.10 /  SkyNet /  Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: skynet@neuro.usc.edu (SkyNet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 10 Sep 91 08:09:58 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

What is the present status of research directed at generating D-T fusion
temperatures and pressures using conventional high explosives to implode
an appropriate series of multi layer (hi/lo Z) liners to eventually shock
compress and heat an appropriate fusion fuel core?
 
There was a report of some low yields 10**2 to 10**7 neutrons generated
by D-T fusion fuel cores following spherical explosive driven implosion
(Qingdong-D, Jichang-Z, Zuo-LG, Hongzhi-J.  "Fusion Produced by Implosion
of Spherical Explosive"  Shock Compression of Condensed Matter.  1989.
Schmidt-SC, Johnson-JN, Davison-LW (eds).  Elsevier Science Publishers
B.V. 1990.  pp. 771-774).  There are also a reasonably large number of
theroetical and modeling papers suggesting this process may be feasible.
 
However, I have not seen explosive driven fusion results discussed at any
great length in the literature.  My concern, if this process really works,
is whether it has any implications for nuclear proliferation?  What if it
occurs to someone to design explosive driven fusion targets with a U-238
tamper to hold the device together once the fusion reaction is initiated?
I know the claimed yields are not large enough (yet) to successfully make
a first pass at producing enough fast fission reactions in a U-238 tamper;
however, if the yields are only marginally increased from the currently
claimed upper limits, then it would become possible to construct a fusion
weapon without using any controlled special nuclear materials.  This is a
potentially hazardous situation.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenskynet cudlnSkyNet cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.10 / Curtis Yarvin /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 10 Sep 91 16:42:48 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science

In article <35730@usc.edu> skynet@neuro.usc.edu (SkyNet) writes:
|What is the present status of research directed at generating D-T fusion
|temperatures and pressures using conventional high explosives to implode
|an appropriate series of multi layer (hi/lo Z) liners to eventually shock
|compress and heat an appropriate fusion fuel core?
|
|There was a report of some low yields 10**2 to 10**7 neutrons generated
|by D-T fusion fuel cores following spherical explosive driven implosion
|(Qingdong-D, Jichang-Z, Zuo-LG, Hongzhi-J.  "Fusion Produced by Implosion
|of Spherical Explosive"  Shock Compression of Condensed Matter.  1989.
|Schmidt-SC, Johnson-JN, Davison-LW (eds).  Elsevier Science Publishers
|B.V. 1990.  pp. 771-774).  There are also a reasonably large number of
|theroetical and modeling papers suggesting this process may be feasible.
|
|I know the claimed yields are not large enough (yet) to successfully make
|a first pass at producing enough fast fission reactions in a U-238 tamper;
|however, if the yields are only marginally increased from the currently
|claimed upper limits, then it would become possible to construct a fusion
|weapon without using any controlled special nuclear materials.  This is a
|potentially hazardous situation.
 
Not really; even if such a device were possible, the technology needed to
construct it (microsecond timing of high explosive detonators) is likely
greater than the expertise needed to steal or enrich uranium.  Iraq has
enough U-235 for a bomb or two, but it hasn't managed to build one yet.
 
However, non-fission-initiated thermonuclear reactions would (correct me if
I'm wrong) have essentially no fallout, so they would be safe for
non-military duties of the Project Plowshare type: digging new Panama Canals,
and so forth.  It might also be possible to produce a low-yield
thermonuclear device for tactical military use.
 
c
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencgy cudfnCurtis cudlnYarvin cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.11 / John Connor /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: connor@neuro.usc.edu (John Connor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 11 Sep 91 08:58:24 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <85642@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>Not really; even if such a device were possible, the technology needed to
>construct it (microsecond timing of high explosive detonators) is likely
>greater than the expertise needed to steal or enrich uranium.  Iraq has
>enough U-235 for a bomb or two, but it hasn't managed to build one yet.
 
This assumption is part of my problem with current "controls" on export of
critical nuclear weapons design technologies.  No one really needs to deal
with the problem of simultaneously setting off multiple detonators unless
they are trying to duplicate the original design of a Fat Man (Model 1561)
style high explosive implosion driven fission bomb.  Given open literature
on high explosive driven implosion techniques for use in compressed matter
studies or generation of megagauss magnetic fields, there is absolutely no
reason (except illiteracy) for using more than one detonator in generation
of a well focused set of convergent imploding spherical shock waves.  Even
if one were able to reconstruct a fat man bomb, how many people have a way
to deliver a 10,800 lb iron bomb?  If you could deliver one, the weapon is
so poorly designed that you could never adequately predict the yield - and
there would be an unacceptably high probably the device would fizzle.  If
you could deliver something that heavy, I'd much rather replicate a device
like the Mark 41 (10,671 lbs) with 1,000 times the yield (24 MT) of a 1561.
 
>However, non-fission-initiated thermonuclear reactions would (correct me if
>I'm wrong) have essentially no fallout, so they would be safe for
>non-military duties of the Project Plowshare type: digging new Panama Canals,
>and so forth.  It might also be possible to produce a low-yield
>thermonuclear device for tactical military use.
 
Well, this is a very sad misconception.  The key concept is the design of any
thermonuclear weapon is to wrap the Li6-D core in an active U-238 tamper.  The
fast fissions induced by the fission trigger device and by the neutrons which
are liberated by the D-T fusion reactions in the U-238 tamper are essential in
initially triggering the fusion reactions and in retarding device disassembly
until most of the D-T fuel is consumed.  The fast fission reaction products in
the U-238 tamper are as dirty as any products generated in other U-235/Pu-239
based devices.  Unfortunately, substantially more fission reactions occur in a
thermonuclear device than in a fission only device.  One possible exception is
the enhanced radiation device (neutron bomb) which may achieve it's effects by
reducing the thickness of the U-238 tamper -- thereby capturing fewer neutrons
in the tamper (consequently liberating more neutrons from the device surface),
substantially reducing the explosive yield, and increasing the amount of waste
tritium released [characteristics were desribed in old Ted Taylor Sci American
article].  The bottom line is that fusion weapons still generate large amounts
of extremely dirty U-238 fission products.  The Peacefull Nuclear Explosions
(PNE) program tried to make the use of such devices acceptable by capturing as
much of the dirtiest fission products in underground cavities formed when the
device was detonated -- but I wouldn't want such unhealthy fission products in
the ground anywhere near a previously inhabitable region.
 
JC
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenconnor cudfnJohn cudlnConnor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.11 / Curtis Yarvin /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 11 Sep 91 16:24:00 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science

In article <35773@usc.edu> connor@neuro.usc.edu (John Connor) writes:
>In article <85642@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>>However, non-fission-initiated thermonuclear reactions would (correct me if
>>I'm wrong) have essentially no fallout, so they would be safe for
>>non-military duties of the Project Plowshare type: digging new Panama Canals,
>>and so forth.  It might also be possible to produce a low-yield
>>thermonuclear device for tactical military use.
>
>Well, this is a very sad misconception.  The key concept in the design of any
>thermonuclear weapon is to wrap the Li6-D core in an active U-238 tamper.
 
You missed the original posting; sure, this is how A-bombs are built today,
but someone was saying that, given advances in conventional explosive
technology, it may be possible to build a thermonuclear device _without_ the
fissioning tamper.
 
He gave references, too.  Could someone dig them up and confirm or deny his
conclusions?
 
c
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencgy cudfnCurtis cudlnYarvin cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 11 Sep 91 21:57:09 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <11SEP91143037@pierre.mit.edu> chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS
617-253-4157) writes:
 
> Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive
> elements. When you want to design an experiment with this the safety people
> go bonkers.
>
 
 
I thought T was one of the least dangerous elements. Its true the saftey
people go bonkers, but I'm guessing that is because its easy to leak
T (its a tiny molecule, like to contaminate water,  reactive)---not
because its so dangerous when leaked. I've heard you can drink
a glass of tritiated water with little ill effect, since the
T passes out of the body before being absorbed into permanent
tissues (not that I recommend it). And the decay mode for T is
not particulalry damaging to biological organisms. I'n not
saying its harmles, just that its much less dangerous than strontium,
plutonium, etc.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Is the magnetic moment of alphas in ITER conserved?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is the magnetic moment of alphas in ITER conserved?
Date: 11 Sep 91 21:50:52 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Sep11.191054.5425@agate.berkeley.edu>
newton@garnet.berkeley.edu writes:
> Just a quick question:
>
> Can one consider the magnetic moment, mu, of alphas to be conserved
> with ITER parameters?
 
 
Well, the larmor radius will be about 10 cm, while the
characteristic length for the field to change is around 1m,
so the magnetic moment is probably not conserved very well.
 
In fact, the Iter Physics docs say 1--3% of the alphas will be lost
due to ripples in the magnetic field---so ceratinly that population doesn't
conserve its moment!
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / John DeArmond /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 12 Sep 91 02:24:15 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications, The South's First Commercial Public Access
 Unix

cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
 
>|however, if the yields are only marginally increased from the currently
>|claimed upper limits, then it would become possible to construct a fusion
>|weapon without using any controlled special nuclear materials.  This is a
>|potentially hazardous situation.
 
>Not really; even if such a device were possible, the technology needed to
>construct it (microsecond timing of high explosive detonators) is likely
>greater than the expertise needed to steal or enrich uranium.  Iraq has
>enough U-235 for a bomb or two, but it hasn't managed to build one yet.
 
Not really.  While I agree that the hazard ranks down around that of a
meteor impacting earth, the technology involved in weapons initiators is
fairly common knowledge even if some people who have that knowledge don't
realize it.
 
Example.  My wife works for Dornier Medical Systems.  Dornier invented
the kidney stone Lithotripter.  This device, for those who have never
heard of it, uses high energy spark discharges to generate shock waves
that are focused in situ on kidney stones and fracture them.  A couple of
days ago I got a technical tour of the American facility.  As the engineer
showed me the diagrams of the shock wave generator, I had to blink once or
twice to remind myself that I was not looking at an initiator.  Information
on the actual detonators, the only missing piece in this puzzle,
is available in public literature as is the rest of the implosion design.
 
>However, non-fission-initiated thermonuclear reactions would (correct me if
>I'm wrong) have essentially no fallout, so they would be safe for
>non-military duties of the Project Plowshare type: digging new Panama Canals,
>and so forth.
 
No.  A significant portion of the fallout from a weapon consists
of  neutron-activated isotopes from materials in the vicinity of
the explosion.  While the bomb would be cleaner than a fission
detonated device, it would still generate a lot of fallout.
Then of course if a U-238 tamp is used, we're back to where we
were before regarding fallout.
 
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | "It's not a bald spot, its a solar panel for a
jgd@dixie.com                 |  a sex machine."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjgd cudfnJohn cudlnDeArmond cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / M Robinson /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: robinson@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 12 Sep 91 05:50:01 GMT
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley

In article <21721@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
|>This device, for those who have never
|>heard of it, uses high energy spark discharges to generate shock waves
|>that are focused in situ on kidney stones and fracture them.  A couple of
|>days ago I got a technical tour of the American facility.  As the engineer
|>showed me the diagrams of the shock wave generator, I had to blink once or
|>twice to remind myself that I was not looking at an initiator.
 
So, is this why you need krytrons?  I've never been able to figure that out.
 
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson                             USENET:  ucbvax!cogsci!robinson
                                             ARPA: robinson@cogsci.berkeley.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrobinson cudfnMichael cudlnRobinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.11 / CHUCK PARSONS /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 11 Sep 91 19:30:37 GMT
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science

In article <85769@brunix.UUCP>, cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes...
>In article <35773@usc.edu> connor@neuro.usc.edu (John Connor) writes:
>
>You missed the original posting; sure, this is how A-bombs are built today,
>but someone was saying that, given advances in conventional explosive
>technology, it may be possible to build a thermonuclear device _without_ the
>fissioning tamper.
>
  The T-D reaction produces a lot of neutrons. It is not going to be a
clean explosion. Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive
elements. When you want to design an experiment with this the safety people
go bonkers.
 
  That is not to say it couldn't be a lot cleaner than a fission device.
But there is still going to be many curies of radiactive stuff
created and released. A key point would be to absorb the neutrons
cleanly.
 
Regards, chuck@mitlns.mit.edu  (lns is Lab for Nuclear Science)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnCHUCK cudlnPARSONS cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.11 /  newton@garnet. /  Is the magnetic moment of alphas in ITER conserved?
     
Originally-From: newton@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is the magnetic moment of alphas in ITER conserved?
Date: 11 Sep 91 19:10:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

Just a quick question:
 
Can one consider the magnetic moment, mu, of alphas to be conserved
with ITER parameters?
--
 
<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>
|newton@garnet.berkeley.edu |
<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudennewton cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.13 / Mike Pelt /  Re: Tritium
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Tritium
Date: 13 Sep 91 18:31:39 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <11SEP91143037@pierre.mit.edu> chuck@pierre.mit.edu writes:
>Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive elements. When you
>want to design an experiment with this the safety people go bonkers.
 
This conflicts with what I've been told by friends in the Health
Physics field. It is also not consistent with the known activity of
tritium, the kind of emission (weak beta), and the biological
persistence of hydrogen.  (There's no concentration mechanism; water
comes, water goes, with a very high turnover.)
 
--
Mike Van Pelt            Paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde,
Headland Technology      Go soak your head in a good strong insecticide,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com        Slosh it around and impregnate your brain
..ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp    With dichlordiphenyltrichloroethane.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / John Connor /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: connor@neuro.usc.edu (John Connor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 12 Sep 91 13:19:20 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <> robinson@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson) writes:
>So, is this why you need krytrons?  I've never been able to figure that out.
 
No.  The kind of people trying to get krytrons appear to be interested in
duplicating the the original Fat Man (Model 1561; 10,800 lb; 23 Kt yield)
high explosive driven implosion based fission bomb detonated over Nagasaki
on July 16, 1945.  This was a highly unreliable device with unpredictable
yield in large part because of the difficulty of simultaneously detonating
the large number of detonators spread over the surface of the device.  In
my opinion, such amateur nuclear weapons designers would do well to study
the open literature on high explosive implosion devices which can be set
off using a single detonator; thereby bypassing any potential problems in
simultensously triggering multiple detonators.  Krytrons would be used to
make such simultaneous detonation more likely.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenconnor cudfnJohn cudlnConnor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / John DeArmond /  Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
     
Originally-From: jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
Date: 12 Sep 91 14:25:24 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications, The South's First Commercial Public Access
 Unix

chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157) writes:
 
>clean explosion. Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive
>elements. When you want to design an experiment with this the safety people
>go bonkers.
 
Dead wrong.  Not even close.  Tritium presents about the least radiation
hazard of all isotopes, probably only surpasses in lack of hazard by
C-14.  H-3's lone beta lacks the energy to penetrate a solution or solid.
That's why it's used in almost all luminous applications.  There are
curies of H-3 in luminous exit signs as used on airliners and some motels.
My mil-spec analog dial watch contains glass tritium gas and phosphor on
each hand and for each number.  According to the specification it contains
about 500 mCi.  Another indication of how wrong you are is to examine
the table of exempt quantities of radioactive materials.  H-3 is at the top
of the list.
 
Large physical quantities (huge radiological quantities) are controlled
because H-3 is a weapon component but that has NOTHING to do with it's
radiological properties. The quantities you and I can obtain are more than
enough for almost any conceivable experiment.
 
John
 
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | "It's not a bald spot, its a solar panel for a
jgd@dixie.com                 |  a sex machine."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjgd cudfnJohn cudlnDeArmond cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / Henry Spencer /  Re: Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
     
Originally-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
Date: 12 Sep 91 16:37:11 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <21735@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
>>... Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive
>>elements. When you want to design an experiment with this the safety people
>>go bonkers.
>
>Dead wrong.  Not even close.  Tritium presents about the least radiation
>hazard of all isotopes, probably only surpasses in lack of hazard by
>C-14.  H-3's lone beta lacks the energy to penetrate a solution or solid.
 
If it's inside you, that is entirely irrelevant.  Tritium is classed as
very dangerous not because its radiation is penetrating, but because the
stuff is so readily transformed into water and taken into the body.
 
>That's why it's used in almost all luminous applications.  There are
>curies of H-3 in luminous exit signs as used on airliners and some motels.
 
There is a very large difference between walking past an encapsulated exit
sign and *working* with raw tritium or tritium compounds.  Again, the hazard
is absorption, not radiation.
--
Programming graphics in X is like       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finding sqrt(pi) using Roman numerals.  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / Mark North /  dieter's biblio
     
Originally-From: north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: dieter's biblio
Date: 12 Sep 91 17:19:04 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

Can someone post the ftp address of Dieter's bibliography, I seem to
have lost it.
 
Thanks,
 
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / CHUCK PARSONS /  Re: Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
     
Originally-From: chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
Date: 12 Sep 91 19:19:22 GMT
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science

In article <21735@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes...
>chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157) writes:
>
>>clean explosion. Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive
>>elements. When you want to design an experiment with this the safety people
>>go bonkers.
>
>Dead wrong.  Not even close.  Tritium presents about the least radiation
>hazard of all isotopes, probably only surpasses in lack of hazard by
>C-14.  H-3's lone beta lacks the energy to penetrate a solution or solid.
>That's why it's used in almost all luminous applications.  There are
>curies of H-3 in luminous exit signs as used on airliners and some motels.
 
Bzzt, your statement has some validity, but is a vast over statement.
Most of the world measures quantities by weight not curies. 1 gram of
tritium, small by the standards _of_ _this_ _group_ has about 10,000 curies
of activity. The beta emitted by tritium is only 18KeV very low
yes, _but_
 
  1. Tritium is a gas, few other sources are. Hence you can breath it.
  2. Tritium is explosive when mixed with room air, few other
     radioactive sources are, in the state they come in. (True, however
     people in this group might want to grind them up and put them stars)
 
  3. The by product of Tritium burning is water, extremely easily
    absorbed by the body.
  4. Once it is inside you 18KeV is plenty to cause damage.
 
  Combine these factors and you come out with a _uniquely_ dangerous
source. Compare it to say a cobalt 60 source. You can't have
a gas leak with a cobalt 60 source! At Brookhaven National Lab
an experiment needed a few liters of tritium for a gas target. They
had to jump through hoops. The Brookhaven Saftey office was concerned
about radiation exposure not building a bomb. A few litters of T2
is about a gram.
 
 
 
  It is simple to figure out the activity of Tritium. The 1/2life is
12.3 years. Atomic number is 3. 1curie=3.7E10 decays per second. Lets just
take the _average_ activity over 12.3 years.
 
  6.023E23/3 gives 2E23 atoms per gram
 
  1/2*2E23=1E23 the number that decay in 12.3 years
 
  1E23/12.3/365.25/24/60/60 = _average_ of 2.6E14decays/second
 
  2.6E14/3.7E10 = 7,000 curies per gram.
 
 
  Now how does that compare with 1gram of natural uranium?  Ok,Ok how does
that compare with 1gram of U235? How about 1gram of Radium?
1Gram of plutonium? True if you are a medical physicist these are not what
you consider common sources, but what sources were most of the readers of
this group likely to think about?
 
>My mil-spec analog dial watch contains glass tritium gas and phosphor on
>each hand and for each number.  According to the specification it contains
>about 500 mCi.
 
  Or about 70 _micro_ grams
 
>Another indication of how wrong you are is to examine
>the table of exempt quantities of radioactive materials.  H-3 is at the top
>of the list.
 
  Listed by weight or activity?
 
>
>Large physical quantities (huge radiological quantities) are controlled
>because H-3 is a weapon component but that has NOTHING to do with it's
>radiological properties. The quantities you and I can obtain are more than
>enough for almost any conceivable experiment.
>
  1 gram is not a large physical quantity by my standards. It is not
nearly enough to build a bomb. Try and get a permit for a 10,000 curie
source. Come on, the post was about building a bomb! you are going to
need _pounds_ of tritium!
 
Chuck@mitlns.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenchuck cudfnCHUCK cudlnPARSONS cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / John Moore /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 12 Sep 91 17:20:36 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <21721@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
]No.  A significant portion of the fallout from a weapon consists
]of  neutron-activated isotopes from materials in the vicinity of
]the explosion.  While the bomb would be cleaner than a fission
]detonated device, it would still generate a lot of fallout.
 
Which gets back to a question I had a while back: how much neutron activation
radiation hazard is induced by the explosion of a "neutron bomb?" It is
just a thermonuclear device with enhanced neutron yield, with a large
neutron flux hitting the ground (since that's where it's target is). Shouldn't
this cause the area to become radioactive by neutron activation?
 
Another question: in a moist climate, how far do the neutrons travel
through the air before they become thermalized... and what difference
does this make?
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin   - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / CHUCK PARSONS /  Re: Muon-catalysed fusion. The problems are physical
     
Originally-From: chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalysed fusion. The problems are physical
Date: 12 Sep 91 21:22:53 GMT
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science

In article <200981.28c24c57@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin
 Henderson) writes...
>In article <1991Aug29.200023.2471@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
 mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283) writes:
>> 	A number of people, both here on the net and in print, have stated
>> that muon-cat fusion cannot be pratical because of the horribly poor
>> efficiencies of the muon creation system.  I've been wondering if this
>> is a fundamental problem, or simply a commentary on the state of the art
>> in muon sources.  If most of the rest energy (mass) of the muons is coming
>> from kinetic energy of accelerated particles, it's not hard to see the
>> problem.
>>
>
>
>The cheapest way to make a muon is to make pions, by smiting nuclei
>with charged particles. The pions will decay 999 times out of 1000
>into muons and muon neutrinos. You can't make muons directly, because
>they don't feel the strong force.
>
>A pion has rest mass circa 140 MeV, so with momentum considerations
>one needs only 280 MeV to make a pion. (Not all that energy needs to
>come from the accelerated particle, some can come from the energy of
>the nucleons. We have made pions with our piddling 200 MeV cyclotron
>here.)
>
>
>p  +  n  -->  p  +  p  +  pi-
>
>So pi+ have more reaction channels, and are less suppressed by coulomb
>considerations. So the production cross-section for pi- is down at
>least by a factor of four on the pi+. So we pick a resonance energy
>for pi production.
 
  True? I don't doubt it, but I'm a bit surprised. At higher energies
(10GeV/nuclon) you produce equal numbers of plus and minus pions.
 
>some 1.4 GeV for one negative pion, and this is probably an
>underestimate, even using a neutron rich target such as Tritium.
>
 In our experiment at BNL with 14.6GeV/nucleon Silicon beams
for a central event we get about 30-40 pi minus particles. So
you might say we've achieved 1muon/10GeV. Of course many events
are not central, but the number/participent is about the same.
So for a thick target you could come close.
 
>there's nowt we can do about it. I have heard estimates ranging
>between 10 and 5 GeV per muon. I don't think anyone's even got 10 GeV
>yet. Correct me if I'm wrong. Of couse, it might be better to use,
>say, alphas instead of protons, meaning more neutrons.
 
>> Can muons be created in a way that emphasizes the rest-energy of
>> existing matter (of the target?) as the source muon rest-mass?
>
>Yeess... as I said, you can utilise the energy of the nucleons in the
>nucleus and borrow from Heisenberg. (It's called subthreshold pion
>production.) But the cross-sections drop so low ( about 60 microbarn
>for 200 MeV protons on lead) that you lose out in another way,
>totally. If there's an alternative way, then it conflicts with the
>standard model of quarks and stuff.
 
  I thought the real problem wasn't just producing muons at lets
say .1% to 1% efficiency as above (15GeV/muon) but that _compounded_
by the inefficiency of the acceleration process. You lose
tons in RF losses in the cavities.  Can you accelerate particles to
 >100MeV at greater than .1% efficiency??
 
 
Regards, Chuck@mitlns.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenchuck cudfnCHUCK cudlnPARSONS cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / CHUCK PARSONS /  Re: Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
     
Originally-From: chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
Date: 12 Sep 91 20:53:23 GMT
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science

In article <12SEP91141922@pierre.mit.edu>, chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS
 617-253-4157) writes...
>  2. Tritium is explosive when mixed with room air, few other
>     radioactive sources are, in the state they come in. (True, however
>     people in this group might want to grind them up and put them stars)
 
>1Gram of plutonium? True if you are a medical physicist these are not what
>you consider common sources, but what sources were most of the readers of
>this group likely to think about?
 
   Just wanted to let people know that I replied to this on rec.pryotechnics
I didn't notice that folloups were directed to this group. Hence
'this group' refers to rec.pyrotechnics rather sci.physics.fusion
 
Regards, Chuck@mitlns.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenchuck cudfnCHUCK cudlnPARSONS cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium misinformation (was Re: Status of Fusion)
Date: 12 Sep 91 19:49:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
>chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157) writes:
>>Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive
>>elements.
 
>Dead wrong.  Not even close.  Tritium presents about the least radiation
>hazard of all isotopes, probably only surpasses in lack of hazard by
>C-14.  H-3's lone beta lacks the energy to penetrate a solution or solid.
 
Caulk it up to the hysteria of the times.  In previous years we were
informed that plutonium was the most poisonous element known to man.  It
is actually only mildly poisonous.  Then there were the non-radioactive
deadly poisons scares, such as dioxin -- now the original dioxin danger
reports are being retracted, oops sorry for the scare, folks.
 
Then there were PCB's.  PCB's were killing us!  Well, no, PCB's were merely
accumulating because of their relative inertness.  In fact, the only
significant toxicity associated with PCB's were those subjected to
extreme heat, such as fire, in which they were transformed from PCB's
to something else.
 
Don't forget DDT.  DDT like the PCB's could exist in the environment for
a few weeks before it decomposed.  Therefore it tended to accumulate.
It wasn't that it was doing any harm, it was that it existed to be measured
and therefore shot waves of hysteria through the usual hysteria crowd.
 
If bird egg shells were thin and DDT was found in the eggs, then it must
be the DDT that caused the thinning -- never mind that the incidence of
thin egg shells did not go up from historical times before DDT -- never
mind that controlled scientific studies on various birds found that massive
dosages of DDT had no thinning effect.
 
In Sri Lanka, before the advent of DDT usage, there were over 2 million
cases of malaria a year.  The usage of DDT brought that number down to
less tha 100 a year.  THen DDT was banned.  In two years the number of
malaria cases was back up to 2 million a year.  Thank god for the
environmentalist hysterics!
 
You can read about all these amazing "gifts" bestowed upon us by the
hysteria mongers by getting a copy of Dixie Lee Ray's 1989 book,
"Trashing the Planet."
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / Gregory Hammett /  Re: Is the magnetic moment of alphas in ITER conserved?
     
Originally-From: ghammett@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Hammett)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is the magnetic moment of alphas in ITER conserved?
Date: 12 Sep 91 04:56:44 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

It is nice to see some questions about magnetic fusion on this
network.  Barry usually does a good job of answering (and asking)
questions, but I think his answer regarding conservation of the
magnetic moment needs some corrections:
 
The gyroradius of a 3.5 MeV alpha particle in a 5 Tesla magnetic field
is more like 5 cm (not the 10 cm you quote).  (I don't remember ITER's
exact field, but I am fairly certain it is over 5 Tesla.)  The magnetic
field strength basically has a 1/R variation, where R is major radius,
and I am fairly certain that the minimum R in Iter is over 2 meters,
not the 1 meter you quote.  So the ratio p/R, (gyroradius over R) is more
like .025 than the .1 you quoted.
 
But the precise number is not the real issue.  The real key is that
adiabatic invariants like the magnetic moment are extremely well
conserved unless there is a large enough resonant perturbation.  The
history of this goes back to the 1950's (or at least early 1960's) and
some earlier papers by Kruskal, by Kulsrud, by Northrup, and perhaps
others.  Some of these early papers proved something like: "There
exists an adiabatic invariant whose variation in time is very small,
of order exp(-R/p).  I.e., since exp(-R/p) has no Taylor series
expansion in p/R, the adiabatic invariant is conserved to all orders
in p/R."  For ITER, exp(-R/p) = exp(-40) = 4*10**(-18) is a tiny
number.  One catch is that the expression for the magnetic moment (0.5
m vperp**2/B) is only the leading order term for the exact adiabatic
invariant, and there are slight higher-order corrections, but these
are frequently ignorable.
 
In more modern language, an adiabatic invariant is like a KAM
surface in a hamiltonian map.  Adding perturbations to the map will
create islands and cause stochastic motion, but only in the vicinity
of the "resonance" of the perturbation. Away from these resonances
(i.e., away from the islands) one still has good KAM surfaces from
which the orbits can't deviate (thus conserving some "adiabatic
invariant").
 
It is true that there will be some losses of alphas (your quote of
1-3% sounds about right) in ITER due to "ripple" of the magnetic
field.  But this ripple (the small deviation of the magnetic field
from being toroidally symmetric) causes a resonant perturbation
with the bouncing motion of trapped particles which breaks the
the second adiabatic invariant.  The first adiabatic invariant
(essentially the magnetic moment) is still very well conserved.
 
A very nice paper which reduces the ripple-induced transport problem
to an iterated Hamiltonian map is by Goldston, White, and Boozer, in
Physical Review Letters, V. 47 p. 647 (1981).  Another paper which
gives more insight into the ripple process is by Goldston and Towner,
Journal of Plasma Physics V. 26 p. 283 (1981).  There should be
references on adiabatic invariants in most plasma textbooks (including
Miyamoto's or Schmidt's books).
 
I sat down to write a short little note and ended up with a novel...
 
****************************************
Greg Hammett	hammett@theory.pppl.gov
Research Staff Physicist
Princeton University Plasma Physics Lab
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenghammett cudfnGregory cudlnHammett cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.12 / Tony Lezard /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 12 Sep 91 18:13:02 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

reiser@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes:
 
> What's the final word on this topic?
>
> I assume this newsgroup should know.
>
> Are there people still trying to find "cold fusion" and try to prove it
> exists? or... I s it been relagated to the trash heap of bogus technology
> that never really worked in the first place?
 
Cold fusion is alive and well and living in sci.physics.fusion. The folk
there would answer your query far better than I.
 
Followups directed to sci.physics.fusion.
 
--
Tony Lezard <Lazy Rodent> IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@ukc.ac.uk
OR EVEN arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk if all else fails.   "Greenness disintegrates..."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentony cudfnTony cudlnLezard cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.13 / CHUCK PARSONS /  Drinking Tritium Oxide
     
Originally-From: chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Drinking Tritium Oxide
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 18:34:13 GMT
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science

In article <1991Sep11.215709.11175@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes...
>In article <11SEP91143037@pierre.mit.edu> chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS
>617-253-4157) writes:
>
>> Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive
>> elements. When you want to design an experiment with this the safety people
>> go bonkers.
>>
>
>I thought T was one of the least dangerous elements. Its true the saftey
>people go bonkers, but I'm guessing that is because its easy to leak
>T (its a tiny molecule, like to contaminate water,  reactive)---not
>because its so dangerous when leaked. I've heard you can drink
>a glass of tritiated water with little ill effect, since the
>T passes out of the body before being absorbed into permanent
>tissues (not that I recommend it). And the decay mode for T is
>not particulalry damaging to biological organisms. I'n not
>saying its harmles, just that its much less dangerous than strontium,
>plutonium, etc.
>
 
 I've done the following calculation I think it is correct to factors
of two. I didn't worry about small factors.
 
  1gram trituim is aprox 10,000 curies
     (see previous post average over 12 years is 7,000...)
 
  1 glass of tritium oxide (a little heavier than normal water)
   weighs 220 grams to pick a convient number.
 
  ==> This is 60 grams of tritium or 600,000 curies
 
  Tritium decays releasing a beta with endpoint energy of
   about 18,000 ev.  I don't remeber the phase space enough
   to calculate the average energy. I will use 10,000 ev. I
   wouldn't be surprised if this is wrong by a factor of 2.
 
   6E5 curies * 3.7 Decays/sec/curie * 1E4eV/decay * 3600sec/hr *24hr/day
 
    == 1.9E25 eV/day
 
Now:
   1eV=1.6e-19 joules.
 
  1.9E25eV/day*1.6E-19joules/ev = 3,000,000 joules per day
 
1 Gray or Rad = 1J/kG  lets take 100kG/person (football players)
 
 
  So your drink will give you 30,000 Rads per day
 
 
50% mortality rate is 250 to 300 Rads.  I think you are pretty
much dead meat.
 
 
The quality factor for beta radiation is 1 so 30,000 Rads is
3 million rems.  Unless they lowered it the total allowable
yearly occupational dose is 5rems. So even a milligram (1/220,000) is
a problem at 13 rems per day.
 
Even ingesting 1 gram (not 220) of the water is going to kill you.
Since it is going to take a week or two for your body to over all
the fluid in it.
 
 
Tritium is a radiological hazard, it may not be more dangerous than
plutonium. It depends, on the form. If the plutonium is plated on
a metal substrate and over plated with nickel it is probably safer
than a ballon full of tritium. If the tritium is part of solid
compound that can't be easily decomposed then it is certainly safer
than a bowl of plutonium dust.  Tritium gas or tritium oxide is
certaintly not safe in even small (milligram) quantities.
 
Regards, Chuck@mitlns.mit.edu
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchuck cudfnCHUCK cudlnPARSONS cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.14 / John McCauley /  Re: Drinking Tritium Oxide
     
Originally-From: jsm@beam.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Drinking Tritium Oxide
Date: 14 Sep 91 03:41:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

A couple more comments about Tritium, then some confusion I have about
chuck@pierre.mit.edu's calculation about the dose from T20.
 
Tritium has a very short Biological half live around 12 days. This means
that if you ingest 1 g of Tritium in 12 days you will then have only 0.5 g in
your body, the rest winding up in sweat, water vapor, and urine. So if
you've been exposed to Tritium, the treatment is to load you up with
Beer or other chemicals to encourage hydrogen exchange. It's no fun --
you would probably be placed in a 120 degree F steam bath with 100 percent
humidity round the clock to make you sweat as well. I can imagine that
under such care the Biological half life could be cut in half.
 
Strontium-90 can be mistaken by the body as Calcium. Hence it has a
long Biological half-life and is probably far more dangerous than Tritium.
However, there are tritiated Amino acids that might wind up in someone's
DNA and have a hard time coming out.
 
As far as Tritium needed for weapons, I think the global Tritium inventory
is about 100 kg for 20,000 or so H bombs (including SU). So 5g or so is
a typical amount. Note that most of the Tritium in a modern three stage
weapon is produced by bombarding Lithium-6 with neutrons. However, Tritium
in gas form may also be used in the core of the first fission stage to
help liven things up.
 
There are variable-yield mostly-fission (?) weapons that may use
Tritium to control the yield -- if there is no Tritium inside the core
you might get 10 kT. Flip the switch, heat up the Uranium (or Titanium)
getter to boil off some Tritium into the central core, and your weapon
in a matter of seconds becomes a 100kT device. Check your favorite
bomb book for details.
 
Now, here is my confusion about chuck's article:
 
In article <13SEP91133413@pierre.mit.edu> chuck@pierre.mit.edu writes:
(analysis of daily dose from a glass of T20)
>
>  So your drink will give you 30,000 Rads per day
>
>
>50% mortality rate is 250 to 300 Rads.  I think you are pretty
>much dead meat.
>
>
>The quality factor for beta radiation is 1 so 30,000 Rads is
>3 million rems.  Unless they lowered it the total allowable
>yearly occupational dose is 5rems. So even a milligram (1/220,000) is
>a problem at 13 rems per day.
 
These aren't the units I use: I guess 1 Rad = 100 rad:
 
	Dose (in rem) = QF x Dose (in rad).
 
		and
 
	1 rad = 100 erg/gm (== 0.01 joule/kg)
 
Anyway I also get ~3 Mrem/day. I also remember that the LD50/30
(dosage that kills 50% of the people exposed to such a dose in 30 days)
is around 300 rem or 300 rad from gammas.
 
	Scott
 
P.S. Did you know Tritium is used in Oil Exploration?
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.15 / Jim Bowery /  Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please drop it so they don't
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1991 01:42:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Connor writes:
>the large number of detonators spread over the surface of the device.  In
>my opinion, such amateur nuclear weapons designers would do well to study
>the open literature on high explosive implosion devices which can be set
>off using a single detonator; thereby bypassing any potential problems in
>simultensously triggering multiple detonators.  Krytrons would be used to
>make such simultaneous detonation more likely.
 
This whole discussion, as interesting as it may be, is really not
something that should be conducted on such an easily accessed
international medium.
 
In particular, the idea of using high explosives to achieve
fusion without fissionable materials is something
that never should have been considered a legitimate technology
to develop in the first place, classified or not.  There may
be things that are best left undiscovered, even if you don't
believe The Atom Bomb is one of them.  Secondly, to discuss even the
potential existence of this technology, whether or not it has been
shown to be more difficult than first imagined, is a bad idea
even if you haven't been bound by a clearance.
 
Our national labs aren't God despite what Teller and his minions
would like us to think.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Drinking Tritium Oxide -- A little perspective
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Drinking Tritium Oxide -- A little perspective
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 15:38:11 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

chuck@pierre.mit.edu writes:
>I think you are pretty much dead meat.
>
>Tritium is a radiological hazard, it may not be more dangerous than
>plutonium.
 
You might want to compare this to drinking a glass of gasoline or a glass
of anti-freeze.
 
At about any dosage level you can think of, I'm pretty sure I can think of
some industrial or household chemical that is as deadly.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.14 / CHUCK PARSONS /  Re: Drinking Tritium Oxide
     
Originally-From: chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Drinking Tritium Oxide
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1991 20:40:43 GMT
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science

In article <14091@princeton.Princeton.EDU>, jsm@beam.Princeton.EDU (John Scott
 McCauley Jr.) writes...
>A couple more comments about Tritium, then some confusion I have about
>
  Just want to say at the outset that I found this to be a useful informative
post. I'd like to thank Scott for pointing out my unit error. However as
Scott notes, despite writing "rad" where I meant "gray" the calculations
and results are correct because I did use 1J/kg(==1gray) and 1REM=100*QF*#grays
 
>Tritium has a very short Biological half live around 12 days. This means
>that if you ingest 1 g of Tritium in 12 days you will then have only 0.5 g in
>your body, the rest winding up in sweat, water vapor, and urine. So if
 
  I didn't know an exact figure, though of course it must vary a lot. I
figured it would be a couple of weeks from my mass/(liquid intake)
ratio.  That is why I only used one day for the calculation.
 
>
>Strontium-90 can be mistaken by the body as Calcium. Hence it has a
>long Biological half-life and is probably far more dangerous than Tritium.
>However, there are tritiated Amino acids that might wind up in someone's
>DNA and have a hard time coming out.
 
  Definetely true, and this helps make tritium safer. Tritium gas and
Tritium oxide are particularly dangerous because they are easily leaked
(especially gas) and easily absorbed (T20). People as we know do stupid
things, a friend of mine at BNL drinks out of a beaker. Of course its one
he reserves _only_ for his coffee, but the chances that someone else might
pick it up and use it for something else without realizing that are scarey.
Hence something that looks tastes and feels like ordinary distilled
water is particularly dangerous. Tritium Oxide _evaporates_!!! I
don't think Strontium 90 does. Tritium is dangerous because it is a lot easier
in the lab to screw up and get it inside you or the cleaning people.
 
>
>As far as Tritium needed for weapons, I think the global Tritium inventory
>is about 100 kg for 20,000 or so H bombs (including SU). So 5g or so is
  I didn't know the actual figures are these correct? Can any one
explain the need for 5grams of tritium? I suppose its because its
easy to get a neutron out, so it helps prime the Li6.
 
>a typical amount. Note that most of the Tritium in a modern three stage
>weapon is produced by bombarding Lithium-6 with neutrons. However, Tritium
 
  Yes but the origional posting was talking about  a _non_ coventional
bomb specicfically not requiring an atomic bomb to initiate it. Thus
you don't have the neutrons for the Li6 without a lot of Tritium.
>
>There are variable-yield mostly-fission (?) weapons that may use
>Tritium to control the yield -- if there is no Tritium inside the core
>you might get 10 kT. Flip the switch, heat up the Uranium (or Titanium)
>getter to boil off some Tritium into the central core, and your weapon
>in a matter of seconds becomes a 100kT device. Check your favorite
>bomb book for details.
 
  Too scary for me. I can just see the artillery guys deciding whether
they want the hole to include Queens or just Manhatten.
 
>
>Now, here is my confusion about chuck's article:
>
>In article <13SEP91133413@pierre.mit.edu> chuck@pierre.mit.edu writes:
>(analysis of daily dose from a glass of T20)
>>
>>  So your drink will give you 30,000 Rads per day
                                       ****
                                      should be GRAYS, my mistake.
>>
>>
>>50% mortality rate is 250 to 300 Rads.  I think you are pretty
                                   ****This is correct
>>much dead meat.
>>
>>
>>The quality factor for beta radiation is 1 so 30,000 Rads is
                                                       **** Should be Grays
>>3 million rems.  Unless they lowered it the total allowable
>>yearly occupational dose is 5rems. So even a milligram (1/220,000) is
>>a problem at 13 rems per day.
>
>These aren't the units I use: I guess 1 Rad = 100 rad:
>
>	Dose (in rem) = QF x Dose (in rad).
>
>		and
>
>	1 rad = 100 erg/gm (== 0.01 joule/kg)
 
  Sincere apologies, you are absolutely correct I try to use SI units
but only made half the transition. I was using Grays, wrote  rads
  1Gray==1J/kg=100Rad.
Rest is the same. I prefer Grays myself since 1J/Kg is easy to remember.
Of course then you have to remember the 100 when converting to rems.
 
>
>Anyway I also get ~3 Mrem/day. I also remember that the LD50/30
>(dosage that kills 50% of the people exposed to such a dose in 30 days)
>is around 300 rem or 300 rad from gammas.
>
>	Scott
  Here we differ slightly, my source (Particle Properties Data Booklet
April 1990) says LD50/30 is 250-300 rems from _ionizing_ radiation measured
internally on the bodies centerline. Of course thats the whole idea of rems it
should be the same, and most of the ionization from the gammas will be
from the electrons released.
 
>
>P.S. Did you know Tritium is used in Oil Exploration?
 
 Yes, Schlumberger Co. made a fortune on it. You use it with an tiny
accelerator (only about foot long) to make a neutron source.
 
Regards, chuck@mitlns.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnCHUCK cudlnPARSONS cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.14 / CHUCK PARSONS /  cancel <13SEP91133413@pierre.mit.edu>
     
Originally-From: chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <13SEP91133413@pierre.mit.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 91 21:34:44 GMT
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnCHUCK cudlnPARSONS cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.14 / CHUCK PARSONS /  Drinking Tritium Oxide (repost with unit correction)
     
Originally-From: chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS 617-253-4157)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Drinking Tritium Oxide (repost with unit correction)
Date: 14 Sep 91 21:35:29 GMT
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science

 
 As was pointed out to me I wrote down the wrong units. I wrote Rads twice
where i meant Grays. The following is the same post just substitiuting the
word gray for rad in two out of three places. The numbers and conclusions
were correct.
 
In article <1991Sep11.215709.11175@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes...
>In article <11SEP91143037@pierre.mit.edu> chuck@pierre.mit.edu (CHUCK PARSONS
>617-253-4157) writes:
>
>> Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive
>> elements. When you want to design an experiment with this the safety people
>> go bonkers.
>>
>
>I thought T was one of the least dangerous elements. Its true the saftey
>people go bonkers, but I'm guessing that is because its easy to leak
>T (its a tiny molecule, like to contaminate water,  reactive)---not
>because its so dangerous when leaked. I've heard you can drink
>a glass of tritiated water with little ill effect, since the
>T passes out of the body before being absorbed into permanent
>tissues (not that I recommend it). And the decay mode for T is
>not particulalry damaging to biological organisms. I'n not
>saying its harmles, just that its much less dangerous than strontium,
>plutonium, etc.
>
 
 I've done the following calculation I think it is correct to factors
of two. I didn't worry about small factors.
 
  1gram trituim is aprox 10,000 curies
     (see previous post average over 12 years is 7,000...)
 
  1 glass of tritium oxide (a little heavier than normal water)
   weighs 220 grams to pick a convient number.
 
  ==> This is 60 grams of tritium or 600,000 curies
 
  Tritium decays releasing a beta with endpoint energy of
   about 18,000 ev.  I don't remeber the phase space enough
   to calculate the average energy. I will use 10,000 ev. I
   wouldn't be surprised if this is wrong by a factor of 2.
 
   6E5 curies * 3.7 Decays/sec/curie * 1E4eV/decay * 3600sec/hr *24hr/day
 
    == 1.9E25 eV/day
 
Now:
   1eV=1.6e-19 joules.
 
  1.9E25eV/day*1.6E-19joules/ev = 3,000,000 joules per day
 
1 Gray or Rad = 1J/kG  lets take 100kG/person (football players)
  *********** from origional post the origin of the mistake, it should be
1 Gray or 100 Rads = 1J/kG  lets take 100kG/person (football players)
          ^^^
 
 
  So your drink will give you 30,000 Grays per day
                                     ^^^^^ changed from Rads
 
50% mortality rate is 250 to 300 Rads.  I think you are pretty
                                 ^^^^ This one is correct.
much dead meat.
 
 
The quality factor for beta radiation is 1 so 30,000 Grays is
                                                     ^^^^^ changed from Rads
3 million rems.  Unless they lowered it the total allowable
yearly occupational dose is 5rems. So even a milligram (1/220,000) is
a problem at 13 rems per day.
 
Even ingesting 1 gram (not 220) of the water is going to kill you.
Since it is going to take a week or two for your body to over all
the fluid in it.
 
 
Tritium is a radiological hazard, it may not be more dangerous than
plutonium. It depends, on the form. If the plutonium is plated on
a metal substrate and over plated with nickel it is probably safer
than a ballon full of tritium. If the tritium is part of solid
compound that can't be easily decomposed then it is certainly safer
than a bowl of plutonium dust.  Tritium gas or tritium oxide is
certaintly not safe in even small (milligram) quantities.
 
Regards, Chuck@mitlns.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnCHUCK cudlnPARSONS cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.14 / Mark North /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 14 Sep 91 21:41:41 GMT

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
 
>Which gets back to a question I had a while back: how much neutron activation
>radiation hazard is induced by the explosion of a "neutron bomb?" It is
>just a thermonuclear device with enhanced neutron yield, with a large
>neutron flux hitting the ground (since that's where it's target is). Shouldn't
>this cause the area to become radioactive by neutron activation?
 
There is a rule of thumb for neutron activation -- Only those isotopes with
a half life on the order of the activation time will become significantly
activated. In the case of the neutron bomb I would expect a *very* highly
activated area for a *very* short time. Comments welcome.
 
>Another question: in a moist climate, how far do the neutrons travel
>through the air before they become thermalized... and what difference
>does this make?
 
The amount of moisture around makes a significant difference in how far
the neutrons can propagate. In very dry air neutrons can thermalize in
a few tens of meters. In moist air a factor of 10 reduction would not be
unreasonable to expect.
 
Remember this, however, neutron propagation follows an exponential decrease.
Not a range cutoff like charged particles. Hence, with a very large source
significant activation could occur quite a distance from the initial
source. Again comments welcome.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.14 / Mark North /  Re: Tritium
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium
Date: 14 Sep 91 22:00:17 GMT

mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
 
>In article <11SEP91143037@pierre.mit.edu> chuck@pierre.mit.edu writes:
>>Tritium BTW is one of the most dangerous radioactive elements. When you
>>want to design an experiment with this the safety people go bonkers.
 
>This conflicts with what I've been told by friends in the Health
>Physics field. It is also not consistent with the known activity of
>tritium, the kind of emission (weak beta), and the biological
>persistence of hydrogen.  (There's no concentration mechanism; water
>comes, water goes, with a very high turnover.)
 
This is correct. But not the whole story. Actually, Tritium is one of the
least and most dangerous of radioactive materials depending upon
circumstance. The betas are very weak and non-penetrating. As long as the
tritium is outside the body there is no problem. Even ingesting into the
digestive tract is not particularly bad but inhalation is a definite
problem. Overall, though, I think the major concern of tritium is
one of chronic exposure (inside the body.)
 
I would be very cautious of the Health Physics folks. On the one hand they
can be quite reactionary and on the other quite ignorant. Let me give you
examples.
 
In our last radiation lecture given by the HP folks a question on our 'test'
was 'How many kinds of radiation are there?' I answered 'two.' Thinking
charged and uncharged. The answer was four -- alpha, beta, gamma and neutron.
When I asked the 'instructor' about the difference about charged and
uncharged interaction with matter and the differences in cautionary
methods he didn't have a clue. This was the ignorance example.
 
In the reactionary case: I was working with a heavy duty PuBe source one day
and made sure it was less than 2mr/hr everywhere where non-radiation workers
had access to. (This is the level non-radiation workers are allowed to
sustain without damage -- according to regulations based on years of
data and analysis). Being conscientious, I left the survey meter in the hall
outside the lab. It read .5 mr/hr at all times. Apparently the sight of it
caused some concerned calls, etc. I was told never to do that again. As a
consequence I cannot know what dose those poor bastards are getting because
I'm not allowed to measure it where it matters to them. To be fair to the
HP folk I'm not entirely sure that wasn't a political decision by upper
management but they had to have concurred, it seems to me.
 
Before any radophobes start jumping down my neck hole please research the
dose one gets on a cross country airplane trip. Or by living in Denver.
 
Mark
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.15 /  SkyNet /  cancel <35891@usc.edu>
     
Originally-From: skynet@neuro.usc.edu (SkyNet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <35891@usc.edu>
Date: 15 Sep 91 06:46:04 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenskynet cudlnSkyNet cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.15 / Paul Houle /  Re: Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't
Date: 15 Sep 91 18:25:16 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

 
	Jim asks us a very tough question in his last post;  is it
responsible for us to discuss the possibility of the pure fusion bomb
on the net?
 
	In a time when the danger of nuclear war is on the verge of
radically exploding (MAD is easy to analyze,  any game theory freaks
out there should try their hand at about ten nuclear powers of
varying strengths and alignments and possible coalitions <Country A,B
and C know that they can get together and nuke Country D to the ground
and only take limited damage>),  the pure fusion bomb seems to me to
represent a special threat,  to reside at the center of the innermost
circle of hell because it would move the technology of proliferation
from that of processing uranium and plutonium to a new technological
basis.  Prehaps advanced supercomputing could form a part of this
technological base,  and prehaps it might involve the acquistion of
large (kg-ish) quantities of tritium,  advanced detonics,  electronics
or material fabrication technology.
 
	If large quantites of tritium are necessary (more than a few
grams),  this doesn't really affect the required technical base all that
much because the practical ways to make lots of tritium today need a
nuclear reactor which requires a nuclear base infrastructure.  (Note
that a practical direct-fusion weapon might be a fusion-fission device
with a natural uranium (cheap and easy to make and get) blanket)  Otherwise,
a number of essentially civilian technologies would need to be restricited
to prevent the development of direct-fusion weapons.
 
	My .sig to the contrary,  I despise Edward Teller and the cult of
the hydrogen bomb,  but I find myself tempted to say something that is
horribly like something Teller would say.  If the direct-fusion bomb is
possible,  it exists in the potentiality of the universe,  than it is
very possible that our national laboratories (which I believe are rushing
headlong onto at least one line of direct-fusion development) or another
power could develop it.  Shouldn't we be able to at least discuss this
device before it becomes a horrifying reality?
 
--
Official Edward Teller Fan Club -- "De Hydrodgen vomb is verry gud thing"
Alphaville,  USA 87801             "We do not say why,  we say because."
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpahsnsr cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.16 / ken blackler /  Re: Current status/News
     
Originally-From: kb@jet.uk (ken blackler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Current status/News
Date: 16 Sep 91 09:17:57 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

 
THIS IS A RE-POST as I seem to have had distribution problems!
 
In <1991Sep9.125113.2141@inmos.co.uk> pauls@penguin.inmos.co.uk (Paul Sidnell)
 writes:
 
>As an interested bystander without the technical knowledge to grasp much of
>the detail in this news group, I would be very interested if someone could
>post a brief summary of the current status of fusion research, who's building
>what, what is the best energy yeild so far etc.  Is there enough happening
>for someone to make this a regular "news" feature ?
 
>Thanks in advance
>   Paul
 
I am not very up on the best results gained by other experiments but here are
 the
best JET (Joint European Torus) results, which are I think currently the best
 ;-)
JET, aproject funded by 14 european countries  is currently the worlds biggest
fusion experiment, but it is given much competition from many other sites around
the world ( who will hopefully also reply !)
 
    Best plasma temperature: 300 Million desgrees C
  Best central plasma density: 4*10e20 m-3
 Best Energy Confinement Time: 1.18 seconds
 
The best fusion rate is:  7*10e16 fusions per second
              producing:  3.7*10e16 neutrons per second
 
This is equivalent to 40kW of fusion power.
We are currently using Deuterium and plain Hydrogen as fuel.
If JET were to use a 50:50 mixture of Deuterium:Tritium this would
increase to a few Tens of Megawatts of fusion power which is nearly
equal to the power currently used to heat the plasma.
 
Behind all this is the fact that we still put more energy in than is produced
in the fusion reaction, the plasma does not 'Ignite' and become self heating,
which is what would be required in a 'real reactor'. It is generally accepted
 that
JET ( and all current experiments) are all too small to behave as real reactors,
since it is easier to contain a plasma in a larger tokomak ( basically a
 doughnut shape)
than in a small one (because the bends are less tight).
 
Thus there is currently discussion going on for a project to follow on from JET
 and
other current work. This new project will either be another European project
 called NET,
or an inter-continentaly funded project called ITER.
This device is likely to be twice the size of JET, be able to sustain fusion for
 up to
an hour at a time, and to generate 1000MW of energy.
It is very possible that ITER would not be a single machine but several in
 different
places all looking at different design and physics prolems ( and competing which
 is probably
good for the science! ).
 
I hope this is of help to you, and any others who have read it. I hope also that
 it is
technically correct, I have lifted it directly from the latest JET publicity
 brochure!
 
If you want more details then write to our Publicity Department at:
 
                  Publicity Department
                  JET Joint Undertaking
                  Abingdon
                  Oxfordshire
                  England
                  OX14 3EA
 
If you EMAIL any questions to me I will attempt to find someone more qualified
 than me to answer
them, and if they may be of general interest I will post them to this news
 group.
 
If nobody else at JET responds to this question I shall attempt in a COMPLETELY
 UNOFFICIAL role
to post any new JET results when they are announced to the world.
 
There now follows a standard disclaimer:
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenkb cudfnken cudlnblackler cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.16 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 595 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 595 papers on cnf)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1991 16:26:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
I have a small heap of patents here, which I fire off separately; I also have
a few "real" papers but don't want to mic them with these things. All but one
of the patents were lodged within an amazingly short time after the F&P press
conference and one has good cause to put them into the slime-mold category,
i.e. parasitic (I don't even know whether slime-mold is a parasite, I might be
doing it a great wrong by comparing it with these patents).
 A note: last time, I included a paper written by me, and the reference was
Centaurus 33 (1990) 368; the item ends with subm/publ dates Nov-90/Sep-91. I
neglected to say that this, despite looking wrong, is correct; the journal is
about one year behind with its publishing schedule. Sorry to focus on myself.
 Back soon with the good stuff.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 16-Sep. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 595
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fukami A, Kumafuji H;            Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,35,193 3-Jul-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:80705 (1991).
"Lanthanum nickel cathode for electrolytic exothermic tritium formation".
** "The cathode consists of Pd-coated LaNi5 alloy used in (3)H-formation by
electrolyzing an electrolytic soln. contg. D2O and small amt. base with a Pt
anode and a cathode to produce larger energy than required for the
electrolysis. The cathode may be built in a porous Al2O3 container instead of
Pd-coating. The cathode had high H absorption".         (Direct quote from CA)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;                   Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,298,891, 15-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:80698 (1991).
"Nuclear fusion reactor".
** "A nuclear fusion reactor includes (1) a compartment for forming a plasma
from O2O [sic] or D, (2) a compartment for accelerating D ions in the plasma,
(3) a compartment for projecting this D ion beam toward a metal target (e.g.
Pd), and (4) a target support as well as a heat exchanger."
(Direct quote from CA)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshi AV;                               PCT Int. Appl. WO 90 13,127 18-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:80697 (1991).
"Electrolytic apparatus for dissociation of compounds containing hydrogen
isotopes".
** "An improved app. is described for high temp. electrolytic decompn. of
compds. contg. H isotopes, e.g. D. The app. includes a solid state electrolyte
capable of conducting O, H+, Li or Na ions, an anode porous to O adherent to
one surface of the solid state electrolyte, and a H-absorbing cathode such as
Fe, Ti, Mg, Ni, Pd or their alloy, adherent to another surface of the solid
state electrolyte. The app. is placed in a  H isotope medium and 1-2 V of d.c.
passed through the electrodes. Upon application of this voltage D2 is absorbed
in the cathode. Once the satn. of D2 in cathode occurs fusion begins to take
place, thus releasing heat energy. A cold fusion process using a molten
electrolyte is also claimed".                          (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kumafuji H, Fukami A;            Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,35,192 3-Jul-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:80704 (1991).
"Uranium cathode for electrolytic exothermic tritium formation".
** "The cathode consists of Pd-coated U used in (3)H-formation by
electrolyzing an electrolytic soln. contg. D2O and small amt. base with a Pt
anode and a cathode to produce larger energy than required for the
electrolysis. The cathode may be built in a porous Al2O3 container instead of
Pd-coating. The cathode had high H absorption".         (Direct quote from CA)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tosaka S;                       Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,33,687 13-Feb-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:80703 (1991).
"Laminated electrode structure for cold fusion".
** "The electrode consists of >= 1 Pd layer and >= 1 Pt layer via a continuous
pore-having porous elec. insulating layer. The Pd layers may be connected with
outer electrode layers. The electrode had wide Pd area for high-efficiency
cold fusion".                                           (Direct quote from CA)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamaguchi E, Nishioka T;        Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,20,696 19-Jun-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:80700 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion".
** "D ions are generated in vacuum (<= 1E-4 torr), accelerated at >= 1 keV,
and projected at a fixed target contg. Pd, Ni, Ti, graphite and/or B nitride
so that nuclear fusion of D is caused at <= 1000 degC. An app. for cold
nuclear fusion contains means to generate and accelerate D ions and a fixed
target".                                                (Direct quote from CA)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohmori T, Sakamaki K, Hashimoto K, Fujishima A;         Chem. Lett. (1991) 93.
"Ex situ observation of electrochemically hydrogenated palladium using a
scanning tunnelling microscope".
** An expensive and nifty tool was used here to find that palladium undergoes
lattice expansion and acquires a nodule-like surface structure, upon being
hydrogenated by electrolysis.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.16 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 16 Sep 91 15:29:10 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <14093@princeton.Princeton.EDU> jsm@beam.Princeton.EDU (John Scott
 McCauley Jr.) writes:
>In article <35773@usc.edu> connor@neuro.usc.edu (John Connor) writes:
>
>But precision explosive coordination technology is probably used
>many places in a modern weapon! Here are some examples:
>
>1. Preventing Predetonation of the Fusion Stage
>
>One of the key concerns in bomb design is 'predetonation', the risk that
>a bomb component explodes before it is supposed to. A modern three-stage
>weapon is quite complex. It wouldn't suprise me at all if the fusion
>stage is protected from the first fission stage (by a Uranium gamma mirror?)
>during the early stage of the explosion to prevent it from going off too soon.
>When the fission stage reaches optimum power, a precision chemical
>explosive perhaps moves the gamma mirror so the fusion stage gets
>maximum irradiation at the best time.
 
 
 
Precision chemical explosives detonate at the rate of 30,000 feet per
second.
 
Given dimensions on the order of a foot, it's going to take 30 usec, to
get that Uranium mirror out of the way.
 
It's my impression that things happen much faster than that.
 
 
I'll just repeat these comments respecting the remainder of the posting.
 
 
Incidentally, the latest novel by Clancy - The Sum of All Fears - has a
fairly accurate description of how one of these things really works.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.16 / LT USN /  Re: Tritium
     
Originally-From: norton@manta.NOSC.MIL (LT Scott A. Norton, USN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium
Date: 16 Sep 91 14:59:16 GMT
Organization: Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command

What makes tritium tough to deal with is that as a beta source, you
have to be careful with your detector.  Its shielded by water, so
you have to wait for a spill to dry.  You can't protect your detector
with a piece of paper, and you have to put the detector close to the
source, so you easilly contaminate the detector.
 
Scott Norton  norton@nosc.mil
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudennorton cudfnLT cudlnUSN cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1991 14:29:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul A. Houle writes:
 
>        My .sig to the contrary,  I despise Edward Teller and the cult of
>the hydrogen bomb,  but I find myself tempted to say something that is
>horribly like something Teller would say.  If the direct-fusion bomb is
>possible,  it exists in the potentiality of the universe,  than it is
>very possible that our national laboratories (which I believe are rushing
>headlong onto at least one line of direct-fusion development) or another
>power could develop it.
 
The classic argument against Teller was that it was undesirable to
be the FIRST to realize the potententiality of the universe called
the hydrogen bomb because:
 
1) Being in posession of the fission bomb, we had an adequate defense
to cover the gap between the time intelligence discovered an enemy
H-bomb technology and the time we could ramp up our own H-bomb.
 
2) Pursuing an H-bomb program ourselves could decrease the time before
which the world would be forced to confront the dilemma it creates.
 
Teller's argument, in the final analysis, boils down to this:
 
The advantage of delaying the imposition of H-bomb technology on the
world is more than offset by the advantage of being sure that we
are first in posession of its capabilities.
 
I'm not here to argue one side or the other of the old H-bomb debate.
 
I am here to argue that in the case of conventionally triggered
H-bombs as compared to the H-bombs we currently posess, Teller's
argument is clearly wrong.
 
>Shouldn't we be able to at least discuss this
>device before it becomes a horrifying reality?
 
We certainly should be able to discuss anything we want.
 
Whether we should CHOOSE to do so is another thing.
 
I'm not calling for a restriction on free speech.
 
I'm calling for an act of moral restraint.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.16 /  meharp01@ulkyv /  Re: Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: meharp01@ulkyvx.bitnet
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't
Date: 16 Sep 91 20:53:11 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <m0kLbjE-0000GfC@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
> John Connor writes:
>>the large number of detonators spread over the surface of the device.  In
>>my opinion, such amateur nuclear weapons designers would do well to study
>>the open literature on high explosive implosion devices which can be set
>>off using a single detonator; thereby bypassing any potential problems in
>>simultensously triggering multiple detonators.  Krytrons would be used to
>>make such simultaneous detonation more likely.
>
> This whole discussion, as interesting as it may be, is really not
> something that should be conducted on such an easily accessed
> international medium.
>
> In particular, the idea of using high explosives to achieve
> fusion without fissionable materials is something
> that never should have been considered a legitimate technology
> to develop in the first place, classified or not.  There may
> be things that are best left undiscovered, even if you don't
> believe The Atom Bomb is one of them.  Secondly, to discuss even the
> potential existence of this technology, whether or not it has been
> shown to be more difficult than first imagined, is a bad idea
> even if you haven't been bound by a clearance.
>
> Our national labs aren't God despite what Teller and his minions
> would like us to think.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
> PO Box 1981                                   Science and
> La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I think this attitude is pretty naive.  It WILL be discovered, whether you like
it or not.  National Labs are self-perpetuating entities that must discover
things to survive.  Stopping discussion on this net will not even slow it down.
 
Besides, even though we probably don't have to worry about The Red Menace
anymore, there'll always be an enemy.  Our government doesn't know how to
function without one.  Therefore, weapons research will always be there.
 
Mike Harpe
University of Louisville
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmeharp01 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.16 / Russ George /  anyone have an e-mail address for stan pons?
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: anyone have an e-mail address for stan pons?
Date: 16 Sep 91 23:45:44 GMT
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS, (415) 969-8238

anyone out there have an e-mail address for stan pons in the south
of france.  also hope to reach guilianno preparata at the univ. of
milan and martin fleischmann at south hampton.???
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 /  khoo@husc3.har /  RE: PLEASE DROP IT SO THEY DON'T
     
Originally-From: khoo@husc3.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: PLEASE DROP IT SO THEY DON'T
Date: 17 Sep 91 02:04:02 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

I don't think it is safe to discuss specific techniques for fusion detonation
on the net.  The articles on the different ways to implode a D-T sphere might
give the wrong people the wrong ideas.
 
I'm from a "non-aligned" country and read this newsgroup for fun.
Who knows who else might be out there reading this newsgroup for more
sinister purposes.  The last thing anyone wants to see is an engineering
student from a totalitarian third world government, going home with new ideas
on how to build a nuclear device.
 
So please for the sake of future world security, refrain from discussing
detonating devices on the net.
 
--
khoo@husc3.harvard.edu      Lawrence Khoo       Computer Consultant
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenkhoo cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 / John Connor /  cancel <35946@usc.edu>
     
Originally-From: connor@neuro.usc.edu (John Connor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <35946@usc.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 91 07:20:28 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenconnor cudfnJohn cudlnConnor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 / John Connor /  cancel <35949@usc.edu>
     
Originally-From: connor@neuro.usc.edu (John Connor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <35949@usc.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 91 08:08:05 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenconnor cudfnJohn cudlnConnor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 /  annala /  Re: Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: annala@alhena.usc.edu (annala)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't
Date: 17 Sep 91 08:34:13 GMT
Organization: Department of Biological Sciences, USC, Los Angeles, CA 90089

In article <...> khoo@husc3.harvard.edu writes:
>I don't think it is safe to discuss specific techniques for fusion detonation
>on the net.  The articles on the different ways to implode a D-T sphere might
>give the wrong people the wrong ideas.
 
For many years nuclear safeguards policy rested on the erroneous belief
reactor grade plutonium produced by the normal operation of the uranium
fuelled commercial power reactors could not be used to construct atomic
bombs.  Dr. Amory B. Lovins (Consultant to Friends of the Earth/London)
thoroughly debunked this myth in the following review article:
 
      Nuclear weapons and power-reactor plutonium
      Nature, Vol. 283, Feb 28 1980, Page 817-823
 
I highly recommend that anyone who might consider objecting to discussing
the implications of high explosive implosion initiated fusion bombs take a
couple of minutes to read this article so that they will understand how
important it is for professional and amateur scientists to understand any
advances in technology which might serve to undermine the effectiveness of
current nonproliferation controls.
 
In my opinion, the only effective way for a modern pluralistic society to
protect itself against the dangers of modern technology would be for the
citizenry to become sufficiently educated about risks; and for these same
individuals to urge politicians and diplomats to develop more effective
monitoring and control mechanisms for materials and technologies which
might be used to fabricate fusion weapons without fission triggers.
 
Unfortunately, it seems to me early fusion weapon system designers have
focused exclusively on fast fission driven implosion systems instead of
examining alternative initiation techniques including explosive driven
implosion systems.  This narrow focus may have initially resulted from
the fact that the original designers (Ulam, Teller) were trying to find
a configuration of one or more fission triggers to shock compress while
heating T-D fuel to high pressure and temperature.  They had access to
fission trigger devices but only limited computer modeling capability.
 
Now that technology has progressed to the point that we can distribute
basic physics modeling over a network of high performance unix computers
on high performance local area networks -- and we know a lot more about
the conditions required to initiate fusion reactions -- plus convergent
spherical shock wave generators and effects are openly discussed in the
literature -- we are in a much better position to evaluate an alternate
initiation technology ==> high explosive implosion.
 
My first efforts at producing a two dimensional model suggets that with
the use of a U-238 tamper (an approximation to the natural or depleted
uranium driver layer) in a high explosive driven system with a T-D core
(simple modification to a code I wrote in 1978 to model the common fast
fission driven systems) suggests a low yield thermonuclear device could
be easily produced.  This appears as a consistent and unsettling result.
It means fission triggers are not needed as initiators for fusion bombs.
As a consequence, current nuclear weapons controls may be ineffective.
 
My core question is:  how do we monitor and control efforts to develop
high explosive driven thermonuclear weapons materials and technologies?
If we quash this discussion in all public forums then how will we ever
generate enough interest on the part of policymakers to carefully look
into invoking appropriate rules to protect the interest of our society?
 
AJ
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenannala cudlnannala cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 / A Annala /  test
     
Originally-From: annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J. Annala)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: test
Date: 17 Sep 91 08:52:00 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenannala cudfnA cudlnAnnala cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 /  annala /  cancel <35951@usc.edu>
     
Originally-From: annala@alhena.usc.edu (annala)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <35951@usc.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 91 14:31:04 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenannala cudlnannala cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 / John Moore /  Re: Please drop it so they don't (was: explosive initiated fusion)
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't (was: explosive initiated fusion)
Date: 17 Sep 91 16:04:23 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <35951@usc.edu> annala@alhena.usc.edu (annala) writes:
]My first efforts at producing a two dimensional model suggets that with
]the use of a U-238 tamper (an approximation to the natural or depleted
]uranium driver layer) in a high explosive driven system with a T-D core
](simple modification to a code I wrote in 1978 to model the common fast
]fission driven systems) suggests a low yield thermonuclear device could
]be easily produced.  This appears as a consistent and unsettling result.
]It means fission triggers are not needed as initiators for fusion bombs.
]As a consequence, current nuclear weapons controls may be ineffective.
 
I do not have the nuclear physics background to evaluate this. However,
if true, it is truly scary.
 
I have considered the following hypothesis:
  Assume a device that can kill 1 person, anywhere on earth, that costs
$10.00 and is readily available. Consider further that it acts at a distance
and is undetectable. Would the human race survive? Let us hope that
technology doesn't produce some equivalent of this!
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin   - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.14 / John McCauley /  Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
     
Originally-From: jsm@beam.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Fusion Produced by Spherical Explosive Driven Implosion
Date: 14 Sep 91 04:56:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <35773@usc.edu> connor@neuro.usc.edu (John Connor) writes:
>
>This ... is part of my problem with current "controls" on export of
>critical nuclear weapons design technologies.  No one really needs to deal
>with the problem of simultaneously setting off multiple detonators unless
>they are trying to duplicate the original design of a Fat Man (Model 1561)
>style high explosive implosion driven fission bomb.
 
But precision explosive coordination technology is probably used
many places in a modern weapon! Here are some examples:
 
1. Preventing Predetonation of the Fusion Stage
 
One of the key concerns in bomb design is 'predetonation', the risk that
a bomb component explodes before it is supposed to. A modern three-stage
weapon is quite complex. It wouldn't suprise me at all if the fusion
stage is protected from the first fission stage (by a Uranium gamma mirror?)
during the early stage of the explosion to prevent it from going off too soon.
When the fission stage reaches optimum power, a precision chemical
explosive perhaps moves the gamma mirror so the fusion stage gets
maximum irradiation at the best time.
 
2. Preventing Predetonation of the Core From Noise Neutrons
 
The predetonation of the critical mass by 'noise' neutrons was apparantly
a big concern to the Manhattan project. The chain reaction can start
any time the bomb is in a critical configuration. However, to get a
good yield, the chain reaction must start when the core is optimally
compressed. So my guess is that the critical mass is shielded from
the Neutron initiator (a Po-Be source?) until the bomb is as supercritical
as it is going to get. Then the shielding is removed really quickly
(very likely with a precision explosive) and the supercritical mass is
flooded with neutrons.
 
[Stray neutrons can also be caused by the Alphas (from U or Pu decay)
reacting with trace light atoms in the core. (Be + alpha -> n + whatever).
For this reason, the U or Pu must be *very* pure to get a good yield).]
 
3. Timed Blast Doors in Weapons Effects Tests
 
I've also heard stories of weapons-effect tests in which a satelite
is placed in an underground, high vacuum tunnel several hundred yards
away from a bomb. Between the bomb and the satelite lies a huge blast
door. The door can be closed very quickly by a precision chemical explosion.
The bomb is detonated. Hard radiation travels to the satelite. The
door explosive is then detonated just in time for the blast wave from
the bomb to be deflected. Hence, the satelite survives for later
analysis.
 
I think the government has good reason for keeping controls on precision
explosive coordination technology.
 
	Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 /  CDF1@psuvm.psu /  RE: PLEASE DROP IT SO THEY DON'T
     
Originally-From: CDF1@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: PLEASE DROP IT SO THEY DON'T
Date: 17 Sep 91 14:32:58 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1991Sep16.220403.3427@husc3.harvard.edu>, khoo@husc3.harvard.edu
says:
 
>I don't think it is safe to discuss specific techniques for fusion detonation
>on the net.  The articles on the different ways to implode a D-T sphere might
>give the wrong people the wrong ideas.
 
If the information is available on the net, it is available to the public
from many other non-net sources.  If it isn't then the poster has violated
national security (in the form of putting classified material on the net) or
has violated proprietary agreements.
 
>I'm from a "non-aligned" country and read this newsgroup for fun.
>Who knows who else might be out there reading this newsgroup for more
>sinister purposes.  The last thing anyone wants to see is an engineering
>student from a totalitarian third world government, going home with new ideas
>on how to build a nuclear device.
 
I don't buy it.  As stated above, the country's intelligence community can
get it anyway.  Plus, the stuff here is not technical enough to allow
the development of the weapon.
 
>So please for the sake of future world security, refrain from discussing
>detonating devices on the net.
 
net.censors???
 
+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|       *-=Carl Fago=-*             |                                 |
|  cdf1@psuvm.psu.edu - Internet    | This space under construction.  |
|  WULFGAR - Delphi  C.FAGO - GEnie |                                 |
+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenCDF1 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.17 / A Annala /  cancel <35954@usc.edu>
     
Originally-From: annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J. Annala)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <35954@usc.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 91 14:30:04 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenannala cudfnA cudlnAnnala cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.19 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 599 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 599 papers on cnf)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1991 02:29:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here are the "real" papers I promised a day or so ago. If you are checking my
count, I again must have dropped one somewhere, or counted one too many, so I
get 599 instead of 600. Gnash your teeth, if it helps.
 The Iguchi is mostly in Japanese and appears to be largely a recipe for a
good neutron counting setup. He/she did try it out on a cold fusion run and I
THINK I see some neutrons, at the customary 3-4 sigmas above background,
confirming the theory, that it is the background that stimulates cold fusion.
 I like the Kobuchey et al paper, as it shows some initiative. Instead of the
conservative Pd bulk metal, these people used a Pd complex, essentially
consisting of lumps of 561 Pd atoms kept as such. This must help speed up
the deuteriding process. TB's will be pleased to know that this apparently
carefully done experiment gives reasonably strong evidence of tritium
production. Those who are betting on an aneutronic, atritonic nuclear process
must, however, think again. And of course, if tritium, then where are the
protons? If, that is, we are proposing d-d fusion...
Another thing that ought to happen in Pd, if there be energetic particles
produced is their impinging on Pd, producing some close isotopes like Rh (one
proton knocked out) or Ag (one inserted). Rolison and O'Grady have a go at
looking for these two elements before and after. They find that both
accumulate at the surface, to rather large atomic percentages; but this
happens both in heavy and light water. So they put it down to migration to the
surface. Hmm. Kuehne writes a fairly uncritical review, and Lipson et al
carry on the good fracto-work, now using ultra-sound and cavitation. Their
explanation, especially of the after-effect, is a bit unconvincing but they do
say that more work is needed. Nature reports Mallove's resignation from MIT.
We'll be hearing more from this affair, I am sure.
 The two Hagi papers might interest cold fusion experimenters.
 My disparaging remarks about slime molds have earned me two emails from
people who know them well. It seems that they are indeed not parasitic and
quite interesting creatures to boot. They like oat flakes, same as me. So I
should not compare them with parasitic cold fusion patents, and promise to
stop.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 18-Sep. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 599
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iguchi T;         Ionizing Radiation (Hoshasen) 16(3) (1990) 22 (in Japanese).
"Measurement of a very small yield of neutron using a moderating-type (3)He
gas counter".
** The English summary tells us that by combining thermal n detectors such as
BF3 gas cum (3)He gas counter, etc, with n moderators, the neutron detection
efficiency the higher energies can be increased. Such apparatus is described
here, and tried out on a cold fusion experiment. The rest is in Japanese, but
I recognise "64-bit * 2K", "ADC", and a background of 0.086 c/s and what looks
like a cold fusion n detection 3.8 sigmas above this. There is an interesting
Fig. 7, comparing different workers' measurements; if only I knew some
Japanese.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kochubey DI, Babenko VP, Vargaftik MN, Moiseev II;
J. Molec. Catal. 66 (1991) 99.
"Enrichment of deuterium with tritium in the presence of a palladium-561 giant
cluster".
** Pd561Phen60(OAc)180, i.e. the complex formed of (ideally) 561 Pd atoms,
60 molecules of 1,10-phenanthroline and 180 acetic ester groups, with the Pd
atoms forming a central densely packed structure. This is a catalyst for some
chemical reactions, and also can absorb hydrogen up to a 1:1 H/Pd ratio. The
authors decided to use this instead of Pd metal, in a cold fusion experiment.
They expect this dense Pd cluster not to be subject to cracking. The complex
was exposed to D2 gas at atmospheric pressure for 1-11 days, after which the
D2 was purged with Ar, passed over a Pt/Al2O3 catalyst with oxygen, and the
resulting D2O analysed for tritium. Results show tritium levels at twice and
five times the background after resp. 5 and 11 days exposure. Careful checks
exclude artifactual tritium sources. Using H2 gas gave exactly the same as the
background; using H2 with cluster previously exposed to D2 (but purged) gave
some tritium, indicating incomplete purging; D2 used after exposure to H2 gave
less tritium than when it was used with fresh complex.                Jun-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuehne RW;                                       Phys. Lett. A 155 (1991) 467.
"Cold fusion: pros and cons".
** A sort of review of the cold fusion scene, stating some of the arguments
for and against, as marshalled by the various authors. K himself refrains from
suggestions, beyond the odd calculation or small comment. 99 refs.
                                                                 Jun-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipson AG, Klyuev VA, Deryagin BV, Toporov YuP, Sirotyuk MG, Khavroshkin OB,
Sakov DM;                   Pis'ma Zh. Teo. Fiz. 16(9) (1990) 89 (in Russian).
"Observation of neutrons from cavitation action on substances containing
deuterium".
** Heavy and light water cells, with and without suspensions of LaNi5 or
LaNi5Dx particles, were subjected to a Ti vibrator and ultrasound, while
neutrons were measured by a block of 7 proportional counters immersed in an
oil bath and shielded by 1mm of Cd; overall efficiency: 1%. The ultrasound
vibrations induce cavitation. For D2O, and D2O plus LaNi5Dx suspension,
cavitation produces neutrons at about 4 sigmas above the background, and this
ceases when the ultrasound is turned off. For a suspension of LaNi5, neutrons
are only detected after the ultrasound is turned off - the "after-effect". For
D2O, the authors suggest that cavitation promotes Ti deuteride formation at
supersaturation, which is stopped by hydroxide layers formed when cavitation
ceases. In the case of a LaNi5 suspension, there is no deuteride formed during
cavitation, but when this ceases, relaxation of surface stresses might allow
deuteride formation at near-surface Stokes defects, and thus fracto-fusion.
Lastly, the LaNi5Dx suspension again shows neutrons during cavitation, not
connected with surface cracking, but rather with collapsing voids on the
particles' surface; this ceases with cavitation cessation, explaining the lack
of after-effect. More experiments are needed to clear this up.   Jul-90/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolison DR, O'Grady WE;                            Anal. Chem. 63 (1991) 1697.
"Observation of elemental anomalies at the surface of palladium after
electrochemical loading of deuterium or hydrogen".
** The main result of this paper is the detection of significant traces of the
elements Rh and Ag at the surface of Pd after electrolysis. An electrolyte
containing Li2SO4, which etches the cell's glass less than the basic LiOD, was
used, and XPS surface analysis. Both Rh and Ag did indeed accumulate at the
surface, to several at%. If a nuclear reaction takes place in the Pd, the
interaction of resulting energetic particles with Pd might produce such
elements. However, this happened for both heavy and normal water and R&O'G
conclude that Rh and Ag were initially present in the Pd at much lower levels,
and migrated to the surface during electrolysis. They were able to exclude
electrolytic deposition from the electrolyte.                    Nov-90/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anderson C;                         Nature (London) 353 (1991) 98 (12-Sep-91).
"Cold fusison tempest at MIT".
** Report of Eugene Mallove's resignation from the MIT news office, with some
of the charges Mallove levels at some MIT workers, in his letter of
resignation. A MIT spokesman declines to comment but says that no complaints
are dismissed out of hand. Mallove remains a lecturer in science journalism at
MIT.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Papers peripheral to cnf
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagi H;                                           Mater. Trans. 31 (1990) 842.
"Boundary conditions in electrochemical measurements of diffusion coefficients
of hydrogen in alpha-palladium".
** Various boundary conditions at the electrolytic charging/permeation of Pd
with hydrogen lead to correspondingly different models. Constant potential
charging is confirmed to be equivalent to holding a constant H concentration
at the inside of the surface, while constant current gives a constant flux of
H into the surface. The diffusion coefficient of H in low-charged
(alpha-phase) Pd was found to be (3-5)E-11 m**2/s, and shows Arrhenius
behaviour over the temperature range 275-345 K.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagi H;                                           Mater. Trans. 31 (1990) 954.
"Diffusion coefficient of hydrogen in palladium films prepared by RF
sputtering".
** Stimulated by reports of cold fusion, Hagi now measures D for H in Pd in
the form of a thin film, produced by sputtering. The diffusion coeff is
expected to be different in such a film, from its value in bulk Pd. It was
determined in the temp. range 278-323 K by electrochemical stripping of the
charged film. The boundary condition here is zero H2 concentration at the Pd
surface, during stripping. Maximum loading was inferred to have been about
0.8. D (298K) was 3.8E-11 m**2/s, in good agreement with previously found
values for the bulk metal. D was dependent on film thickness up to about 0.7
mu, and constant therefrom. Thinner films --> smaller D values.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.19 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1991 21:05:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mike Harpe writes:
>I think this attitude is pretty naive.  It WILL be discovered, whether you
like
>it or not.  National Labs are self-perpetuating entities that must discover
>things to survive.  Stopping discussion on this net will not even slow it
down.
 
There are 2 issues:
 
1)  Although voluntary restriction of public discussion of this
subject won't slow down any development efforts that may be going on
at the national labs, it WILL reduce the exposure of this idea
to the evolutionary pool of minds out there.  Ulitimately, I fear
that pool a lot more than the national labs.  At the frontier,
evolution always beats central planning.
 
2) It is perfectly reasonable to advocate that the US should cease
developing this technology.  Democracy isn't dead, yet.  Your attitude
toward the national labs is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
I didn't focus on issue #2.  The first two people who responded to
my raising of issue #1 insisted on making #2 the centerpiece of
their discussion -- probably because it is easier to pull Teller's
old arguments out of the file drawer and rebroadcast them than it
is to to discuss #1.  Interestingly, the only person to recognize
the importance of what I'm saying ignored #2 and focused on #1.
 
Please, respond to issue #1.
 
PS: I would prefer the national labs continue operating the way they
        are at present in this technology.  We are always guaranteed that
        someone who knows nothing but how to crawl on top of a bureaucracy
        will steal all the money from people who know how to build things
        that work, and then use that money to further his empire.  The only
        greater force in the universe is Compound Interest.
 
 
Annala writes:
 
>My core question is:  how do we monitor and control efforts to develop
>high explosive driven thermonuclear weapons materials and technologies?
 
The CIA et al are paying attention to this technology, as they
should be.
 
>If we quash this discussion in all public forums then how will we ever
>generate enough interest on the part of policymakers to carefully look
>into invoking appropriate rules to protect the interest of our society?
 
This is a legitimate complaint, but it's not all that important.
 
Historically, our policymakers have been absolutely obsessive about
"national security" issues like this.  They don't need our encouragement
to look into these zero-sum issues.  They are zero-sum people.
 
They need encouragement to look into positive-sum issues like why
our fusion program is in worse shape than NASA and what we can do
to break up the log-jam.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.18 /  zzz@zzz.ucsd.e /  Re: Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: zzz@zzz.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't
Date: 18 Sep 91 01:13:12 GMT
Organization: zzz

In article <35953@usc.edu> annala@alhena.usc.edu (annala) writes:
>My first efforts at producing a two dimensional model suggets that with
>the use of a U-238 tamper (an approximation to the natural or depleted
>uranium driver layer) in a high explosive driven system with a T-D core
>(simple modification to a code I wrote in 1978 to model the common fast
>fission driven systems) suggests a low yield thermonuclear device could
>be easily produced.  This appears as a consistent and unsettling result.
>It means fission triggers are not needed as initiators for fusion bombs.
 
My adviser has confirmed this, saying at one point, "I don't remember just
what's classified or not anymore...one doesn't necessarily need a fission
first stage to start a thermonuclear bomb, just alot of *********."
 
"*******" was not "explosive".
 
Of course, I think it's still probably easiest to use first stage
fission.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenzzz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.20 /   /   Electrochemistry isn't simple, is it?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Electrochemistry isn't simple, is it?
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1991 19:29:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The most recent posting by Deiter Britz contained an item that got me
started thinking again. (Watch out!)  The abstract of a paper by Hagi
which discusses the boundary conditions on H charging of Pd says,
"Constant potential is equivalent to holding constant the H concentration
at the inside of the surface, while constant current gives a constant
flux of H into the surface."
 
In the paper by Miles, et al. on the China Lake cold fusion results, they
analyze their data using the equation:
 
         X = K deltaT/(E  -  EsubH)I
 
where the numerator is supposed to be the measured heat out of the cell
and the denominator is supposed to be the power input that is converted
to heat.  I assume that this would be correct if the electrolysis of
water were the only chemical process involved with the EsubH times I
being the power input going to dissociate the water into oxygen and
hydrogen (deuterium).
 
My problem is that I don't believe this approach is correct.  There is
another reversible(?) process taking place in the cell that must be
accounted for in the energy accounting.  Power is required to maintain
a flux of hydrogen moving into the Pd and power is recovered when that
flux is reversed, is it not?  Then if a cell is operated at constant
current don't we have a situation inwhich the potential changes allowing
the concentration of hydrogen in the Pd to rise or fall?  Miles X
parameter is meaningless as a measure of "surplus" heat production
unless there is some way to correct for variations in the H concentration
in the Pd.  That may explain why his data wanders all over the map.
The presents of an electrode which stores a part of the evolving gas
and releases some of what has been stored in an irregular manner is
not described as simply as some would have us think.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL                  "Peggy isn't simple!  That's why she has the
                       other babies beat a mile."
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.19 / John Moore /  Re: Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't
Date: 19 Sep 91 13:53:38 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1991Sep18.011847.24976@network.ucsd.edu> zzz@zzz.ucsd.edu writes:
]In article <35953@usc.edu> annala@alhena.usc.edu (annala) writes:
]>My first efforts at producing a two dimensional model suggets that with
]>the use of a U-238 tamper (an approximation to the natural or depleted
]>uranium driver layer) in a high explosive driven system with a T-D core
]
]Of course, I think it's still probably easiest to use first stage
]fission.
 
However, the point from a nuclear proliferation viewpoint is that one
does not need U235 to build the bomb, making acquisition of materials
much easier. I believe that it is relatively easy to breed tritium.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin   - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.18 / kenton yee /  Re: PLEASE DROP IT SO THEY DON'T --- Are you joking or what?
     
Originally-From: kyee@bnlux1.bnl.gov (kenton yee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PLEASE DROP IT SO THEY DON'T --- Are you joking or what?
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1991 14:21:41 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

In article <1991Sep16.220403.3427@husc3.harvard.edu> khoo@husc3.harvard.edu
 writes:
>I'm from a "non-aligned" country and read this newsgroup for fun.
>Who knows who else might be out there reading this newsgroup for more
>sinister purposes.  The last thing anyone wants to see is an engineering
>student from a totalitarian third world government, going home with new ideas
>on how to build a nuclear device.
>So please for the sake of future world security, refrain from discussing
>detonating devices on the net.
>khoo@husc3.harvard.edu      Lawrence Khoo       Computer Consultant
 
Don't be ridiculous... any engineering student knowledgeable enough
to make use of the ideas expressed here will know where to
look in the *published*, publicly available literature to get
vastly more imfo than expressed here...
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenkyee cudfnkenton cudlnyee cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.21 /  KLAURENS /  Re: Tritium
     
Originally-From: pklauren@nmsu.edu (KLAURENS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium
Date: 21 Sep 91 19:36:52 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

Where do tritium crystals come in.  My Beretta 9mm has capsules of
tritium crystals in the sights for night shooting.  They glow rather
nicely, and I've never seen any health warnings.  In fact I've heard
nothing but praise about them.
 
Doc
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpklauren cudlnKLAURENS cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.20 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: National labs (was Re: don't post Bathtub H-bomb discussions)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: National labs (was Re: don't post Bathtub H-bomb discussions)
Date: 20 Sep 91 16:27:09 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>>National Labs are self-perpetuating entities that must discover things
>>to survive.
 
The former point?  All entities attempt to be self-perpetuating, but it
must look easier from the outside than it does from in here. The latter
is kinda the idea behind the funding of science and has been shared now
and then by researchers in other environments.  If you want to start
laying moral judgements about _what_ they discover, well, I'm a minor
bureaucrat (and a fairly patriotic one at that), not a priest.
 
Allow me to interject a few facts.  There are several national labs,
which I define as Department of Energy-funded research centers (i.e.,
not including the Centers for Disease Control and similar entities
funded by other agencies).  By my casual count, there are 11 (LBL, SNL,
LLNL, LANL, BNL, ANL, PNL, Fermi, SSC, PPPL, and SLAC) that are either
multipurpose or nonweapons single-purpose in nature.  Six of the 11,
as far as I know, don't take in any classified work.  Others, esp.
LANL, SNL, and LLNL, get substantial money from the DOE defense activity
and from DOD and perform classified work in secure environments.
 
They support a wide variety of big and little research programs.  Some
pure science and some are applied.  Some of the applied ones have
immediate civilian applications.  Some programs are open and some are
classified.  Some of the classified ones get declassified; they may
or may not turn out to be too specialized to be relevant to civilian
projects. Often nonclassified research benefits from facilities or
nonclassified information that come straight out of the defense work.
 
In other words, don't turn your back on a broad generalization; it might
up and bite ya.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.23 /  ellegaard@nbiv /  recombiner for closed cells
     
Originally-From: ellegaard@nbivax.nbi.dk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: recombiner for closed cells
Date: 23 Sep 91 17:55:20 GMT
Organization: Niels Bohr Institute and Nordita, Copenhagen

We are a group of students trying to make a careful study of anomalous
heat effects in the deuterium - palladium system with electrolysis
We work with closed cells, but our recombiners give out in less
than a week. We have tried with platinum on asbestos, palladium
on carbon felt (fuel cell) and platinum blacked platinum wire.
Does anyone have any hints how to keep our cells going longer.
The Cold Fusion Group NBI.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenellegaard cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.24 / John Serafin /  PBS' NOVA title "Confusion in a Jar" Dec 31
     
Originally-From: jpser@cup.portal.com (John Paul Serafin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PBS' NOVA title "Confusion in a Jar" Dec 31
Date: 24 Sep 91 06:05:41 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The Septeber issue of "Lockheed Today" has a list of NOVA programs for
1991 and 1992.   The December 31 episode is titled "Confusion in a Jar".
Presumably it will be a rebroadcast of the show from this spring with
reporting on events subsequent to the previous broadcast.
The precise date of broadcast may vary with station.
John Serafin         | Operating a bike is more like driving than riding.
jpser@cup.portal.com | Operating a car is more like riding than driving.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjpser cudfnJohn cudlnSerafin cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.25 / Ryk Spoor /  Re: Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: resst11@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't
Date: 25 Sep 91 06:12:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

>In article <m0kLbjE-0000GfC@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
>> This whole discussion, as interesting as it may be, is really not
>> something that should be conducted on such an easily accessed
>> international medium.
 
	That's a pretty naive idea... and VERY pointless. If that
technology IS being researched, you can bet it will be publicly available
VERY quickly, and in a much more unified, compact, and technical format
than ANYONE will get here over the Usenet.
	I happen to have, somewhere in my boxes of stuff, a poster that
was made over 10 years ago. The poster gives full, detailed, practical
instructions on how to construct your very own thermonuclear device
(estimated yield 20 megatons). (It even came with a money-back guarantee!)
It was written up, I believe, by some physics/engineering majors at
RPI.
	The same thing will happen with this if it becomes practical.
 
>> In particular, the idea of using high explosives to achieve
>> fusion without fissionable materials is something
>> that never should have been considered a legitimate technology
>> to develop in the first place, classified or not.  There may
>> be things that are best left undiscovered, even if you don't
>> believe The Atom Bomb is one of them.  Secondly, to discuss even the
 
	Oh, please! That sounds like the technophobic cliche, or the
old line from HPL horror stories: "Things Man was Not Meant to Know."
 
	You can't just research the "nice" subjects, I'm afraid.
Nor can you try to ignore something that WILL be researched. You
can't tell what might come out of that apparently-useless line
of research. Something might emerge from a weapons-research project
which has great bearing on both peacetime applications and/or on
basic theory.
 
 
                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenresst11 cudfnRyk cudlnSpoor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.25 / Ryk Spoor /  cnf (Cold Fusion)
     
Originally-From: resst11@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cnf (Cold Fusion)
Date: 25 Sep 91 06:21:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

 
	I had been under the impression that cnf was deader than the Dodo;
judging from the fact that there are papers, NEW papers, on it being listed
here, I must conclude that my information on this was at the least premature.
 
	Could someone Email me (or post,if it's of enough general interest)
a basic "state of the field" summary? Is there such a thing as cnf? Or
is there any evidence to show that it MIGHT exist? Or are all these people
basically wasting their time?
 
 
                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenresst11 cudfnRyk cudlnSpoor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.25 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 604 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 604 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1991 14:56:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
I've been working on some Russians. The Bashkirov+ might be interesting, as it
seems to have correlated emissions; unfortunately, it's not a quality work, so
we can't regard it highly. A pity, as I feel that only correlations will prove
a point now. The Collins et al might have ended as a "peripheral" paper, but
for its conclusion, which makes it a cnf-proper paper. Electrochemists like
 meare uncomfortable about the claim that a current is equivalent to a pressure,
but Collins et al seem to confirm this, so maybe F&P are right. The Russian
team (it's OK to say "Russian" now), Lipson et al, continue their fracto-work,
now with abrasion as the mechanical stimulation. They continue to find
neutrons, using what I take to be fairly simple means, though. Nefedov writes
an interesting report of Soviet work (well, Kazakhstan is not in Russia), and
is happy that it mostly does not confirm cnf. Oyama et al think they've found
excess heat but I disagree; looks to me pretty close to zero, on average and
it's a warning that you can expect temperature gradients in an electrolytic
cell. The Hirai is definitely a peripheral paper, might interest seekers for
tritium.
 I should add that I had missed the Oyama+ item somehow, and Todd Green of
Western Australia gave me the tip-off. Thanks, mate, I welcome these tip-offs.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 25-Sep. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 604
 
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bashkirov YuA, Baranova RKh, Bazanin BG, Kazakova VM;
Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 16(19) (1990) 51 (in Russian).
"Observation of neutron emission from electrolysis of heavy water".
** Cathodes of Pd (0.5 mm) and Ti (1 mm) and anodes of Pt or Au were
electrolysed in 0.1-0.15 M LiOH and LiOD, at 150 mA/cm**2. Near the
electrolysis cell were placed two neutron detectors; one a type SNM-56
containing 97% He and 3% Ar, the other an organic scintillation soup widely
used in physics to detect high-energy neutrons. With low-noise
photomultipliers, this allowed the team to detect the lower-energy neutrons
expected from cold fusion. There was a temp. probe in the cell. For Pd, in
heavy water, neutron emission showed a steady increase over the background,
around double. The Fig. shows two bursts at 10-100 times the background,
simultaneously on both detectors. At the same time (in most cases but not all)
there was a temp. spike of a few degrees. A Ti cathode also emitted the larger
steady neutron flux (the paper does not mention bursts for Ti).  Jun-90/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collins GS, McGhee G, Shropshire SL, Jang H-J, Fan J, Schuhmann RB;
Hyperfine Interactions 60 (1990) 663.
"Electrolytic loading of hydrogen in metals studied by PAC".
** PAC (perturbed gamma-gamma angular correlation) measurement was used to
study the nature of hydrides of Pt and Ni, produced by electrolysis. In the
case of Ni, 30% of the metal had been transformed into the NiH beta-phase.
Normally, about 6 kbar of H2 pressure is required for this and this lends some
weight to the claims that electrolysis is equivalent to high pressure.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipson AG, Klyuev VA, Toporov YuP, Deryagin BV;
Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 16(17) (1990) 54 (in Russian).
"Neutron generation by mechanical activation of metal surfaces".
** Another in the fracto-fusion series. Here the team used mechanical abrasion
of sample disks (30 mm diameter, 20 height) of Ti and LaNi5, to a depth of
1mm. After 1 min of this, 1ml of D2O was placed on the abraded surface; all
this was done in air, rel. hum. 30%, room temp. The samples were placed into
a block of 7 neutron detectors of the type NWJ-62, with an efficiency of about
1%, the whole being shielded by 1 mm Cd metal. With the H2O controls, the
samples did not emit neutrons above background; with D2O, however, in the case
of deuterated Ti samples (though not with Ti itself), and the LaNi5 alloy,
emitted neutrons at around 3-4 sigma above background. The difference between
Ti and TiDx is that the latter has more crystal defects, which lead to
microcracks. Abrasion removes impervious hydroxide films.        Jun-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nefedov VI;    Vestnik Akad. Nauk SSSR 1991(1) 49 (in Russian).
"Cold nuclear fusion?"
** A review, paying special attention to work in the Soviet Union. Early
history is mentioned, e.g. one V.P. Alikin (1970, newspaper reports only), who
electrolysed (heavy?) sulphuric acid at Fe, but also used metal hydrides by
gas absorption. In 1986, Deryagin had trouble getting their fracto-work
published. This has been actively pursued in 1989 (and later). Several Soviet
institutions had a go, notably a large effort at Kharkov, with negative
results). The author leaves no doubt that he is a skeptic. He writes that
Soviet efforts are in harmony with the rest of the world, that is, the results
are mostly negative. The work at the Physics-Energy Instiute at Obninsk is
cited as an example of a responsible approach. These workers appeared to
observe high neutron fluxes from several meters, but on investigating found
that this was due to electromagnetic interference. Nefedov concludes with some
philosophising, making comparisons with parapsychology and some comments on
science sociology.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oyama N, Ohsaka T, Hatozaki O, Kurasawa Y, Yamamoto N, Kasahara S, Ohta N,
Imai Y, Oyama Y, Nakamura T, Shibata T, Imamura M, Uwamino Y, Shibata S;
Bull. Chem. Soc. Japan 63 (1990) 2659.
"Electrochemical calorimetry of D2O electrolysis using a palladium cathode -
an undivided, open cell system -".
** Palladium rods of 2mm and 6mm dia. were first heated in air at 1540 degC
for 1 h, quenched in D2O, and then heated in vacuum at 600 degC for 6 h and
cooled in a D2 gas atmosphere. The paper does not make clear whether the same
treatment, but using H2O and H2 gas, was used for the controls. The rods were
then used in electrolysis of H2O and D2O containing 0.1 M LiOH or LiOD.
Current densities were 60-300 mA/cm**2. Two temperature probes were placed in
the undivided cells and the evolved gases' volume measured to monitor
electrolysis efficiency, from which the degree of recombination could be
estimated. Even for fully immersed cathodes, there was around 2-5%
recombination, presumably from gases present in the electrolyte. Cell
temperature changes were measured by means of a thermistor, and calibration by
electric heating. A loading of about 0.65 was achieved. The figures show
excess heat, corrected for water electrolysis. For heavy water, there is great
scatter and it appears that the points average out to about zero, as they also
do for light water, where there is less scatter. The authors, however, list
the high points of excess heat in their Table, going up to "42% excess heat".
One of the interesting effects is the difference between the two temp. probes,
showing clearly that there are large temp. gradients in the cells. The authors
do not conclude that they have evidence for cold fusion, pointing to the need
for measurements of correlated independent parameters.           Apr-90/Sep-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hirai E, Matsuoka N, Takashima Y;
Radioisotopes (Hoshasen) 39 (1990) 503 (in Japanese, English summary).
"Volume reduction and tritium retention factor in electrolytic enrichment of
water".
** "Volume reduction (N), tritium retention factor (R), tritium concentration
factor (Z) and apparent separation factor (beta) were measured on the large
and small electrolytic cell systems. The relative variation of R was smaller
than that of Z. So, it is recommended to use R in calculation of tritium
concentrations in water samples. Furthermore, it was empirically revealed that
R can be obtained only from N if a reliable beta-value is previously known.
Therefore, it is possible to obtain R without electrolysis of the tritium
standard solution. Taking into account the above facts, the so-called
non-spike analysis of tritium, in which electrolytic enrichment and liquid
scintillation counting are combined, becomes practicable." (Quoted from
English summary)
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.15 /  SkyNet /  cancel <35893@usc.edu>
     
Originally-From: skynet@neuro.usc.edu (SkyNet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <35893@usc.edu>
Date: 15 Sep 91 07:10:01 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenskynet cudlnSkyNet cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.15 /  SkyNet /  cancel <35895@usc.edu>
     
Originally-From: skynet@neuro.usc.edu (SkyNet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <35895@usc.edu>
Date: 15 Sep 91 07:23:07 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenskynet cudlnSkyNet cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.25 / H Henson /  Re: cnf (Cold Fusion)
     
Originally-From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cnf (Cold Fusion)
Date: 25 Sep 91 22:25:42 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Re this subject, _if_ cnf is for real (I happen to still think there is
something real going on) then I suspect that there is a major uncontrolled
factor involved which makes the results intermittent.  People saw solid
state semiconductor effects in the 30s,but they were not reproducible,
because the purity of the materials were not controllable.  I suspect
that something similar is going on with cnf.  Anybody want to make a
list of possibilities?   Keith Henson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenhkhenson cudfnH cudlnHenson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.26 / Dieter Britz /  No, electrochemistry isn't simple - but not that hard, either.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No, electrochemistry isn't simple - but not that hard, either.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1991 14:16:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> (Dick Blue):
 
>In the paper by Miles, et al. on the China Lake cold fusion results, they
>analyze their data using the equation:
>
>         X = K deltaT/(E  -  EsubH)I
>
>where the numerator is supposed to be the measured heat out of the cell
>and the denominator is supposed to be the power input that is converted
>to heat.  I assume that this would be correct if the electrolysis of
>water were the only chemical process involved with the EsubH times I
>being the power input going to dissociate the water into oxygen and
>hydrogen (deuterium).
 
>My problem is that I don't believe this approach is correct.  There is
>another reversible(?) process taking place in the cell that must be
>accounted for in the energy accounting.  Power is required to maintain
>a flux of hydrogen moving into the Pd and power is recovered when that
>flux is reversed, is it not?  Then if a cell is operated at constant
>current don't we have a situation inwhich the potential changes allowing
>the concentration of hydrogen in the Pd to rise or fall?  Miles X
>parameter is meaningless as a measure of "surplus" heat production
>unless there is some way to correct for variations in the H concentration
>in the Pd.  That may explain why his data wanders all over the map.
>The presents of an electrode which stores a part of the evolving gas
>and releases some of what has been stored in an irregular manner is
>not described as simply as some would have us think.
 
This is similar to the recent postings on "heavy heat", i.e. you are invoking
possible other processes taking place in the system. As with that idea, yours
falls down. Sure, there is movement of deuterium in the Pd and sure, this may
cause heating effects. All these, together with those from electrons moving in
the metal (resistive heating) and ions in the electrolyte (ditto), are driven
by the overvoltage. The total power being pushed into the cell is I*E. If
there were no chemical reaction using up some of it, the kdT term should be
exactly equal to IE. But (when the metal is fully deuterated) there is the
electrolysis of water, whose power requirement is I*1.54; this power does not
appear as heat but goes into the energy-carrying gases D2 and O2. This
swallowed power must therefore be subtracted, and the factor X = kdT/I(E-1.54)
should be equal to unity, if no other processes take place. Some have indeed
verified this for control cells, using, say, H2O and/or a Pt cathode. If X > 1
you have "excess heat", i.e. there is another heat-producing process.
 My point is that the sorts of effects you are musing on are fully accounted
for. The fact that X is "all over the place" says something about temperature
fluctuations and -gradients in the cell, I think. This seems to be underplayed
in my view. The recently posted paper by Oyama et al is a case in point. They
had two temperature probes in their cell, one below and one above the Pd
cathode. If you look only at the one above, wow, excess heat! The other one,
alas, heat deficit. Average the two (by eye) and it looks like X = 1. The
authors used the "good" one, and tabulated its high points. Had I been the
referee...
 There is one possibility of an effect along your suggested lines. If the
deuterium concentration in the Pd were to fluctuate, even at long electrolysis
times - i.e. we don't HAVE steady state - then you would get release and
absorption of the reaction enthalpy of formation and decomposition of PdDx,
i.e. x varying. E.g. alpha-phase/beta-phase transitions. If, during a given
time interval, there is a net change in the stochiometry (x), there would be
a definite heat "gain" or "loss" (I am not sure which way around it would be
for x around 0.72). This can't go on indefinitely though and eventually the
effect would have to reverse, since one does, in the long run, converge to a
fairly constant loading.
 All this points to the necessity of time-integration of heat; picking highs
off a measurement sequence is deceptive (I am using a mild word here).
 Having said all this, let me add that I'm glad that there are people out
there racking their brains for an explanation for these effects.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.26 / Michael Attas /  Choosing a metal for cold-fusion work
     
Originally-From: Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Choosing a metal for cold-fusion work
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1991 22:36:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Fusioneers:                                     1991 September 27
 
Here are some comments from Roger Dutton, the metallurgist in our small
"Cold Fusion" Collaboration.  They are inspired by a few remarks which
appeared here over the last little while (thanks to Dieter Britz, among
others).  My role is email conduit, in both directions. -- Mike Attas
 
 
               "So why use a metal that soaks up deuterium?"
    "Why not one that keeps it near the surface, like Fe or Cu or Pt?"
 
At first sight, the idea of using a metal that does not "soak up
deuterium", i.e., the diffusion of deuterium is low, sounds like a sensible
way to go.  For such metals, the production of a deuterium-rich surface
layer may be feasible and the possibility (as some would claim) of surface-
activated cold fusion enhanced.  A few words of caution seem appropriate,
with focus on the word "soak".  With respect to the latter, we must
distinguish between rapid diffusion and high solubility.  It turns out that
at temperatures below about 800RC, the hydrogen diffusion coefficient is
higher in iron that in palladium (by a factor of about 50 at room
temperature).  This is largely because iron is body-centred-cubic (bcc)
(another fast-diffusion example of interest would be the hydride-forming
niobium, which is also bcc), while palladium is face-centred-cubic (fcc)
(i.e., close packed).  In contrast, copper (also fcc) is a slower diffuser
than palladium (about 500 times less).  Thus, if you want to create a
deuterium-rich surface layer, and keep it there, iron would be a poor
choice and copper a good choice (other good choices would be austenitic
stainless steel, gold, aluminum).  However, if cold fusion requires high
deuterium loading, then the solubility must be a major consideration.  This
is where the hydride formers have a huge advantage over non-formers, such
as iron, copper and platinum.  Some figures will illustrate this.  At room
temperature and one atmosphere of pressure, the solubility of hydrogen in
iron is about 3 x 10-6 atomic% (copper and platinum are less than this).
In contrast, solid palladium hydride with an atomic composition of at least
50% is produced under the same conditions.  Perhaps we could help matters
by heating iron up a bit (being an endothermic occluder, solubility
increases with temperature).  At about 1100RC, the solubility increases to
3 x 10-2 atomic% (about 104 higher than at room temperature, but still very
low compared to palladium).  Perhaps we could increase the pressure a bit.
In order to get the concentration up to 3 x 10-2 at room temperature, the
hydrogen pressure would have to be increased to about 108 atmospheres
(solubility increases approximately with the square root of the pressure).
Not much of an advantage (compared to a hydride former) of conducting
experiments at such prohibitively high pressures.  Perhaps a better route
would be to inject deuterium ions into the surface layer using an
accelerator.  Unfortunately, as iron does not form deuterides, when the
solubility limit is reached, the deuterium precipitates as a molecular gas
bubble.  If the radius of the bubbles is very small, very high gas
pressures are possible.  Note that the equilibrium pressure in an internal
bubble in a solid is given by the well-known "soap bubble" formula, 2 times
the specific surface energy of the solid divided by the radius of the
bubble.  For example, the pressure can be sufficiently high in a very small
(circa 10 Angstroms) bubble to condense the gas as a liquid or solid (such
observations of liquid and solid bubbles have been made, but for the inert
gases, as I recollect).  However, for bubbles of larger radii, the pressure
will be reduced as the yield point of the metal is exceeded and the bubble
expands by plastic deformation of the matrix.  The generation of extremely
high pressures (in small bubbles) requires far from equilibrium conditions,
such as quenching a gas-saturated specimen from high temperatures, or the
use of accelerated ion beams.  Under equilibrium conditions, the gas
pressure in the bubble cannot exceed the external gas pressure (or
equivalent fugacity in an electrochemical cell).
 
In summary, the low solubility of deuterium in endothermic occluders such
as iron, copper and platinum does not facilitate a high lattice loading,
even for the surface layers.  It might be possible to create a
supersaturated solution by using an ion beam at cryogenic temperatures,
where the diffusion rate of deuterium is low enough to suppress the
kinetics of bubble formation.  In addition, it so happens that the
diffusion rate of deuterium in iron is higher than in palladium, which
makes it more difficult to maintain a surface layer (let alone suppress
bubble formation).
 
Class me as a metallurgical possibilist.
 
 
==================
       Michael Attas          Analytical Science Branch
       Pinawa, Manitoba       AECL Research, Whiteshell Laboratories
       Canada  R0E 1L0        (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited)
                                     (204) 753-2311 Ext. 2796
       attasm@wnre.aecl.ca (or .cdn)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenattasm cudfnMichael cudlnAttas cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.27 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 611 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 611 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1991 14:43:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
full marks to the Novosibirskers Azhannikov and Kezerashvili (surely they are
Georgians?) for deviating from custom and trying something new (and publishing
in English) even though their work leaves something to be desired. I don't
think that simply adding the signals from 6 neutron counters, is as good as
using coincidence on all of them. They did seem to find some neutrons, and
claim that hydrogen controls, with the same temperature rises, don't emit
neutrons. Chambaud+ have another go at screening theory and, even though they
are generous, it won't work. The Forrat patent, besides using a solid
electrolyte, also looks forward to reaping the nuclear emissions, which most
seekers of excess heat have overlooked or even hoped wouldn't be emitted, if
you know what I mean. The Wadsworth et al patent, on the other hand, is the
usual waffle. The Kawai paper, in Japanese, ought to ring a few alarm
bells, and may fan the flame of the unfortunate bomb craze that has been going
on this group; Kawai wants to amplify neutron flux by a knock-on effect in U.
Cold fusion-triggered mini-bombs, anyone? I believe in fact that one aspect of
Fleischmann's sometime strange behaviour is due to his worry that the
militarists are interested in cnf, and he may well be right. What's more, I am
with him. I begrudge those people every dollar, kr or DM they get from us tax
payers, to find more ways to kill people. On with the matter at hand. Rugari
et al had a small error in an earlier paper and published an erratum. I
suggest you append it to the original item, as I will. Seifritz of Switzerland
examines about 8 explanations of cold fusion, and all (including one of his
own) fail the test of experimental evidence, or likelihood.
 I have been moaning about not having seen a great heap of published papers in
Fusion Technology and J. Fusion Energy. These journals have been circulating
in Copenhagen for some months now, and I am last in line. So I have imposed
monumentally on a friend elsewhere to copy these papers for me, and should
soon get at least some of them. So watch this space, as they say.
 Also, I regularly get email asking about how to get hold of the bibliography,
and I send 'em the instructions for accessing the archive. I might make up an
abbreviated text of these, and post them regularly to this group - say, once
a month.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 27-Sep. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 611
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arzhannikov AV, Kezerashvili GYa;                 Phys. Lett. A156 (1991) 514.
"First observation of neutron emission from chemical reactions".
** A pair of nuclear physicists from Novosibirsk have had a go at cold fusion,
and report their first results. Two chemical reactions were used as a test:
in the first test, solid LiD granules were dropped gradually into a test tube
containing D2O; in the second, a mixture of zinc metal and the complex
beta-trans-Pd(ND3)2Cl2 (both deuterated as shown, and hydrated, ..NH3..) were
ground to a powder and dropped into the tube. Temperature changes were
monitored. Neutrons were measured using 6 (3)He counters with pulse height
discrimination and calibration, to optimise these. The 6 counters' signals
seem to have been added. Results: for LiD into D2O, temperature rose to 70
degC, the neutron emissions rose from background to about 1.7 times, and
showing some spikes not seen in the background. For the complex powder, the
temperature rose to 250 degC and the emission/background ratio to about 2.
The paper concludes that these chemical reactions caused neutron emission but
offers no explanations for the effect.                           Oct-90/Jul-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chambaud G, Levy B, Esteve JG;                    Phys. Lett. A156 (1991) 395.
"Estimate of Ti effects on D-D fusion".
** A theoretical attempt to explain both cold fusion and cluster impact fusion
claims, by looking at possible screening effects in Ti. In the employed model,
Ti-D and D-D interactions are taken as additive, and this leads to an
overestimate of the tunnelling rate. Nevertheless, this turns out too low to
account for observation claims.                                  Oct-89/Jul-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forrat F;                                  Fr. Demande FR 2,647,943 06-Jun-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(10):101349 (1991).
"Reactor for electrolytic nuclear fusion in solid electrolyte".
** "The title reactor comprises a solid electrolyte, e.g. glass, crystal,
ceramics, electrolytically or chem.-vapor deposited film. An a.c. current is
applied to generate fusion and heat energy is recovered by a fluid. The
reactor can be used for isotope prodn." (Quoted direct from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kawai H; Kinki Daigaku Genshiryoku Kenkyusho Nenpo 27 (1990) 19 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(10):100641 (1991).
"Profile of the cold nuclear fever".
** A review of cold fusion. K reckons that about half of cnf experiments have
positive results, and suggests using cathodes of graphite or U, both of which
absorb hydrogen. Using enriched U would also cause neutron multiplication,
making it easier to detect them. DTO could also be used, to enable the more
favoured dt fusion reaction. (Abbreviated quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rugari SL, France RH, Lund BJ, Smolen SD, Zhao Z, Gai M, Lynn KG;
Phys. Rev. C43 (1991) 2899.
"Erratum: Upper limits on emission of neutrons from Ti in pressurized D2 gas
cells: A test of evidence for 'cold fusion'".
** Equation 6 in the named paper , ibid 43 (1991) 1298, was incorrect and is
corrected here.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seifritz W;                         GIT Fachz. Lab. 35 (1991) 114 (in German).
"No end to cold fusion" (Kalte Fusion und kein Ende).
** Prof. Seifritz, who has earleir weighed in with a theory he himself here
describes as improbable, lists some of the attempts at explaining cold fusion,
and comments on them. The greatest attention is given to Bockris's dendrite
"theory" and his theory that cnf is fusion of spin-polarised nuclei,
explaining the anomalous branching ratio. Neither theory is watertight. All
explanations fall down on the experimental evidence in some way. S has the
impressive that all try to explain some specific effect - i.e. every theory,
a different effect. The bottom line that we do not know whether cnf is real or
not.                                                                  ?/Feb-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wadsworth ME; Guruswamy S, Byrne JG, Li J;
Can. Pat. Appl. CA 2,023,216, 15-Aug-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(10):100641 (1991).
"Method of preparing electrodes for use in heat-generating apparatus".
** "An improved method of treating material for use in a heat-generating
method involving the absorption of H isotope into the material comprises
treating the material to substantially remove impurities in the surface region
and then depositing a thin film of a substance capable of absorbing on the
surface of the material. An optional addnl. treatment is to substantially
remove H already absorbed in the material, then heat the material in an atm.
of H isotope to percharge the material with the H isotope. A method of
producing electrode and method of enhancing absorption are also claimed".
(Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.27 / Dieter Britz /  How to get the archived bibliography files
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to get the archived bibliography files
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1991 14:44:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I get asked regularly how to get the archived bibliography files. Here is how:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Use the userid
anonymous and your e-mail address as the password.  Once connected, enter
cd fusion
to access the fusion archives.  Then you may enter
dir fusion.bib*
to get a listing of the bibliography files.  To transfer each file use
GET (ie. mget fusion.bib*  or  get fusion.biblio1a  etc.).
Enter  quit to terminate ftp.
 
2. Via LISTSERV, which means you get it sent by email. To first find out what
is in the archive, send an email to listserv@ndsuvm1.bitnet, with a blank
SUBJECT line, and the "message" consisting of the command
index fusion
You get a largish list of all files available. To get any one of these files,
you then send to the same address the command, e.g.,
get fusion 91-00487
get fusion biblio1a
etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.27 / John Moore /  Re: Choosing a metal for cold-fusion work
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Choosing a metal for cold-fusion work
Date: 27 Sep 91 18:48:41 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1010*attasm@wnre.aecl.ca> Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
 writes:
]stainless steel, gold, aluminum).  However, if cold fusion requires high
]deuterium loading, then the solubility must be a major consideration.  This
]is where the hydride formers have a huge advantage over non-formers, such
]as iron, copper and platinum.  Some figures will illustrate this.  At room
]temperature and one atmosphere of pressure, the solubility of hydrogen in
]iron is about 3 x 10-6 atomic% (copper and platinum are less than this).
]In contrast, solid palladium hydride with an atomic composition of at least
]50% is produced under the same conditions.  Perhaps we could help matters
]by heating iron up a bit (being an endothermic occluder, solubility
]increases with temperature).  At about 1100RC, the solubility increases to
]3 x 10-2 atomic% (about 104 higher than at room temperature, but still very
]low compared to palladium).  Perhaps we could increase the pressure a bit.
]In order to get the concentration up to 3 x 10-2 at room temperature, the
]hydrogen pressure would have to be increased to about 108 atmospheres
](solubility increases approximately with the square root of the pressure).
 
If you are doing electrolysis, the "pressure" is very much higher. I believe
it is possible to charge many metals (including iron) to much higher
atomic ratios with electrolysis than is possible any other way.
 
Nickel is another hydride maker by the way, that I believe can hold more
hydrogen that Pd (although its been a couple of years since I checked).
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin   - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.28 / JOSEPH CHEW /  ITER wins a round over BPX, maybe (the fight surely continues)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ITER wins a round over BPX, maybe (the fight surely continues)
Date: 28 Sep 91 16:10:55 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

I picked this up from What's New, the American Physical Society
gossip column, and excerpt it here without comment (tokamak-allergy
sufferers, press 'n' or take a Benadryl now).
 
> WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 27 September 1991              Washington, DC
 
> The Princeton Burning Plasma Experiment was still twitching four
> days later when Secretary of Energy Watkins met with the Fusion
> Energy Advisory Committee. His blunt assessment of prospects left
> no choice but to concentrate on ITER as the next step after TFTR.
 
> Robert L. Park  (202) 232-0189      The American Physical Society
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.09.30 / Greg Hansen /  Fusion Reactors
     
Originally-From: Greg.Hansen@p0.f3.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Greg Hansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Reactors
Date: 30 Sep 91 09:16:43 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:282/3.0 - Nicks Nest, Vadnais Hgts MN

 
What's the current state of research in fusion reactors, and what designs are
being used?  How is the reaction started and contained, and how is it converted
to electrical energy?  I'm especially interested if MHD generators have been
considered.
 
Thanks, anyone, for the update.
 
 
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
 * Origin: Nick's Nest  (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
 
 
 
 
--
Greg Hansen
Internet: Greg.Hansen@p0.f3.n282.z1.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Greg.Hansen@p0.f3.n282.z1.fidonet.org
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenHansen cudfnGreg cudlnHansen cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.01 / ken blackler /  Re: Fusion Reactors
     
Originally-From: kb@jet.uk (ken blackler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Reactors
Date: 1 Oct 91 12:32:11 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <4587.28E6F3F5@ofa123.fidonet.org> Greg.Hansen@p0.f3.n282.z1.fidonet.org
 (Greg Hansen) writes:
 
 
>What's the current state of research in fusion reactors, and what designs are
>being used?  How is the reaction started and contained, and how is it converted
>to electrical energy?  I'm especially interested if MHD generators have been
>considered.
>
>Thanks, anyone, for the update.
 
At JET - The Joint European Torus - we use a torus, which is basically a hollow
 'ring donut'
shaped vessel. This is surrounded by many coils carrying a large electrical
 current, thus
producing a graduated magnetic field within the vessel. The effect of this is
 that any fast
moving charged particle is held in a well of magnetic flux surfaces.
We then inject a mixture of two isotopes of hydrogen, presently Deuterium and
 straight
Hydrogen, although Tritium will soon be used. This is then heated ohmically by
 inducing
an electrtical current in the gas - using more very strong magnetic fields.
This ohmic heating is then supported by various Radio Frequency methods,
 basically very
high power radio waves are transmitted into the plasma where that resonate with
 particular
ions / electrons and this heat them up. Similar to a microwave oven!
 
When the Plasma is hot enough fusion starts due simply to thermal collisions at
 high speed.
 
How is it converted to electricity? Well at the moment we still have to put more
 energy in
to heat the plasma than is measured as being emitted in neutons and heat. JET (
 and all the
other projects around the world) are currently only experimental devices and to
 make a real
reactor produce energy one needs to find a way of (for instance) trapping the
 enormous energy
that is held by the neutrons produced during the fusion reaction. Various
 schemes are under
discussion but probably new advances in materials science will yield the final
 answer to this
one.
 
Someone else will have to answer about MHD generators.
 
 
        Hope this is helpful, it can't of course be rigorous.
 
                            Ken Blackler, kb@jet.uk (+44) 235 464743
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkb cudfnken cudlnblackler cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.01 / ken blackler /  Re: Fusion Reactors
     
Originally-From: kb@jet.uk (ken blackler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Reactors
Date: 1 Oct 91 14:46:38 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

 
I'm reposting this because I edited the previous posting on an X-terminal
with a greater than 80 column width! Sorry... :-)
 
>In Greg.Hansen@p0.f3.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Greg Hansen) writes:
 
 
>>What's the current state of research in fusion reactors, and what designs are
>>being used?  How is the reaction started and contained, and how is it
 converted
>>to electrical energy?  I'm especially interested if MHD generators have been
>>considered.
>>
>>Thanks, anyone, for the update.
 
At JET - The Joint European Torus - we use a torus, which is basically a hollow
'ring donut' shaped vessel. This is surrounded by many coils carrying a large
electrical current, thus producing a graduated magnetic field within the vessel.
The effect of this is that any fast moving charged particle is held in a well
of magnetic flux surfaces. We then inject a mixture of two isotopes of hydrogen,
presently Deuterium and straight Hydrogen, although Tritium will soon be used.
This is then heated ohmically by inducing an electrtical current in the gas
- using more very strong magnetic fields.
This ohmic heating is then supported by various Radio Frequency methods,
basically very high power radio waves are transmitted into the plasma where that
resonate with particular ions / electrons and this heat them up.
Similar to a microwave oven!
 
When the Plasma is hot enough fusion starts due simply to thermal collisions at
high speed.
 
How is it converted to electricity? Well at the moment we still have to put more
energy in to heat the plasma than is measured as being emitted in neutons and
heat. JET (and all the other projects around the world) are currently only
experimental devices and to make a real reactor produce energy one needs to find
a way of (for instance) trapping the enormous energy that is held by the
 neutrons
produced during the fusion reaction. Various schemes are under discussion but
probably new advances in materials science will yield the final answer to this
one.
 
Someone else will have to answer about MHD generators.
 
 
        Hope this is helpful, it can't of course be rigorous.
 
                            Ken Blackler, kb@jet.uk (+44) 235 464743
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkb cudfnken cudlnblackler cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.01 / Barry Merriman /  BPX dead
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BPX dead
Date: 1 Oct 91 20:12:22 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

 
Rumor has it the the Burning Plasma Xperiment (which
used to be Compact Ignition Tokamak, CIT) has died its final
death, at the hands of some budgetary committe (projected cost
around 1 billion $), and perhaps the secreatry of energy.
 
Thus TFTR -> ITER, with no BPX in between.
 
Whats the word at Princeton, who has the most to lose from this
development?
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.04 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Choosing a metal for cold-fusion work
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Choosing a metal for cold-fusion work
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 05:49:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Roger Dutton, via Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
 
>               "So why use a metal that soaks up deuterium?"
>    "Why not one that keeps it near the surface, like Fe or Cu or Pt?"
 
>In summary, the low solubility of deuterium in endothermic occluders such
>as iron, copper and platinum does not facilitate a high lattice loading,
>even for the surface layers.
 
My point is this. When you do an experiment, unless you are st the stage where
you are simply after data and have no theory/idea whatever, you usually start
from an idea, and do experiments that might throw light on it. FPH clearly
believe that that figure of 1E27 atm is important. Others believe that the
high loading possible in Pd is important. My observation is that for 2.5 years
now, almost everyone has not tried to follow a theory/idea, but has been in
the data-gathering phase, and it is time to do some thinking and designing of
experiments with definite aims. If you think high loading is important (but
why should it? The theorists were quick to point out that d-d distance in PdDx
is 5-6 times that in D2 gas) then by all means use a D-swallower like Pd. The
1E27 school of thought, though, implies something else. It implies that at a
sufficiently high overvoltage you have, at equilibrium, in the metal,
deuterium in a state corresponding to a fugacity of 1E27 which, while not
being equal to a pressure of that many atm., amounts to something like very
high compression. Working against the establishment of this equilibrium state
is the diffusion of D into the metal; you have to wait until the bulk is full
of it, before you get that state. If you subscribe to this "theory", then you
would be better off with a metal that does not absorb deuterium very much and
in which D has a low diffusion rate, so that you very quickly approach this
equilibrium, high-energy, state. Here, metallurgists like Dutton can help.
 If, on the other hand, high loading is the game, well, I believe Ti is better
(if you can get any D into it at all, not easy, say Rugari et al). If you
believe in dendrites (in the face of Close's demolition of that idea), then
the metal might be secondary; dendrites will probably grow anywhere; on the
other hand, some metals might even be better dendrite-growth bases than
others, quite independent of their deuterium-absorbing ability. If you believe
in a surface- or near-surface effect, as I say, a large surface would be
favourable. And so on; choose your theory, design your experiment. It would be
nice to see other than mere reenactments of FPH, Italian or Russian. The
Russians, too, have not shown much imagination. If you really believe your
results (and if you publish them, you ought to...) then you have these
results. In the Russian case, they say they can provoke fusion by mechanical
action, such as pellets shot at LiD crystals. They have a theory:
fracto-fusion. Clearly, it doesn't matter in what way you apply this
mechanical action, but they seem to think it does, and are trying all sorts of
ways, like ultrasound, ball-milling, etc etc. All a waste of time, given their
first results. Golubnichii et al were a notable exception: if it be true that
it is cracks, then the neutrons should be emitted at the same time as crack
formation, and therefore should be correlated with the sound of crack
formation; they seem to have confirmed it. This is the sort of thing I would
like to see more of.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.04 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 618 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 618 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 05:49:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
I have now received the great heap of recent papers out of JFE and FT, and I
get a small sample off my chest here; all theory papers, might as well lump
them. As I am no theorist, I don't have much to say about them and won't say
it, except that I like the Kim item, in that it does suggest a number of ways
of optimising cold fusion, which few people have tried.
More on the way.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 2-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 618
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush RT, Eagleton RD;                           J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 397.
"'Cold nuclear fusion': A hypothetical model to probe an elusive phenomenon".
** CNF differs from hot ditto by using subtle effects such as tunnelling,
instead of brute force. This must be assisted by something, which needs to be
explained, as well as the known facts (?) such as excess heat, few neutrons,
coming in bursts, low x-ray and gamma-ray yields, tritium production,
irreproducability and the lack of nuclear signature. Boson clumping is
suggested as a jumping-off point for discussion; i.e. the tight clumping of
deuterons in the lattice. Helium-4, and some of the other properties of cnf
can be accounted for by this model.                                   ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collins GS, Walker JS, Norbury JW;              J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 409.
"Deuteron tunnelling at electron-volt energies".
** Not much more than a conjecture at this stage, this paper tries to find a
tunnelling mechanism to explain cnf. Looking at states of helium-4 other than
the 23.84 MeV one, it is found that the preferred reaction might be d-d
tunnelling, combined with electron-conversion, the three becoming (4)He at
20.1 MeV, which then goes on to become tritium, protium, energetic electrons
and small amount of (4)He. A direct test of this conjecture would be the
search for electrons at energies of 3.7 or 23.8 MeV.                  ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danos M;                                        J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 413.
"Coulomb-assisted cold fusion".
** So far, theory and experiment are at variance in cold fusion. Danos tries
to find a mechanism that bridges the gap. We have a three-body problem here:
the two fusing particles plus the catalyst. The three then share the resulting
energy. Using a WKB solution of the wave equation, the result is an enhanced
fusion rate, in line with experimental evidence. Just what reactions result
from the fusion is left open.                                         ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE;                                         J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 423.
"New cold nuclear fusion theory and experimental tests".
** In a previous Report, Kim has suggested that the FPH effect may be due to
neutron-induced tritium-deuterium fusion. Here, this process is described,
independently of the FPH electrolysis, as well as for that situation.
Background neutrons break up Li, in the electrolyte, producing (4)He and T.
The tritium penetrates the Pd cathode, alongside deuterium from the
electrolysis. D-T fusion then releases more neutrons to make a chain reaction,
also forming (4)He. The rather doubtful FPH paper is quoted as evidence: MS
showing some (4)He; but the excess heat is also consistent with this
suggestion. More evidence comes from the inability of NaOD solution to show
any cnf. This theory leads to a list of suggested ways to improve the yield,
and a number of tests of this theory, such as varying the Li isotope ratio,
evidence for (4)He, neutrons at about 14 MeV.                         ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jensen LC, Mortensen KS;                        J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 417.
"Beyond fusion, annihilation reactions of confined hydrogen".
** This baffled abstracter quotes the conclusion: "Antineutrons can enter into
a region of confined hydrogen or deuterium and cause annihilation reactions.
These annihilation reactions are the likely mechanism of mass changing to
energy. Large particles change to energy by multiplicity of less energetic
positron-electron annihilations". Etc. Using the FPH result of 40000 n/s (but
later modified by those authors), J&M conclude that PdDx is a good place for
the formation of and reaction between antiparticles and normals.      ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muguet FF, Bassez-Muguet M-P;                   J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 383.
"Ab initio computations of one and two hydrogen or deuterium atoms in the
palladium tetrahedral site".
** Another look at the Coulombic repulsion barrier, but here with the
assumption, that at high loadings, some tetrahedral sites may be occupied,
instead of just the octahedral sites, generally assumed. The authors state
that it is now clear that a loading greater than 0.8 is essential for cnf.
Here, then, are reported initial calculations on tetrahedral occupancy. The
results say that this effect would not increase screening and thus tunnelling
anywhere near enough to account for cnf. However, vibrational and other
electric-field effects have not been included in the model.          ?/Dec-90.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wei S-H, Zunger A;                              J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 367.
"Instability of diatomic deuterium in fcc palladium".
** (fcc = face centred cubic). Using the all-electron full-potential
semirelativistic linearized augmented plane wave (LAPW) method, including
interelectronic Coulomb and exchange-correlation interactions (I am quoting),
an accurate solution to the electronic Schroedinger problem for a static
periodic atomic configuration of the combined (Pd,H) system is obtained. The
question is: what is more stable in the (Pd,H) system, H2 molecules or H+
ions? What is the d-d distance? The answer is that H2 does not form in the
lattice, being very unstable, and d-d distance is much greater than in D2 gas.
Therefore, explanations of cold fusion do not lie in diatomic deuterium but
elsewhere; perhaps conditions at grain boundaries or defects.         ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salvarezza RC, Montemayor MC, Fatas E, Arvia AJ;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 313 (1991) 291.
"Electrochemical study of hydrogen absorption in polycrystalline palladium".
** This team used cyclic voltammetry and an impedance analyser to investigate
the mechanism and kinetics of electrolysis at Pd in 0.1M NaOH. There are some
good references, e.g. Breiter (1978) on the mechanism. No really useful
conclusions are reached but an attempt is made to throw light on the rate of
loading of hydrogen into Pd.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.04 /   /   Reaction Enthalpy for PdD
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Reaction Enthalpy for PdD
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 05:50:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter in his reply to my question about the electrochemistry confirms
that some of the input energy for a cold fusion cell goes into the formation
of the deuteride, unless of course the concentration of dueterium in the
Pd remains constant.  At issue than, I think, is whether the assumption
of constant concentration is meet by the experimental conditions underwhich
supplus heat seems to appear.  My sense is there is enough about these
experiments that indicates that something is not well controlled.  It would
seem prudent to get a better grip on the concentration parameter, as one
example, before too much faith should be placed in the results.  I don't
believe that it would take a constant flux of deuterium inbound to cause
problems with the measurements.  It could be that repeated cycles of
rising and lowering of the concentration are involved.  If this sort
of thing is going on, more care would be required in using "blanks"
and/or runs with H2O to establish baselines and confirm calibrations.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL         Not responsible for MSU football!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.06 / Donn Seeley /  'they haven't heard of our good ideas yet'
     
Originally-From: donn@uunet.uu.net (Donn Seeley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 'they haven't heard of our good ideas yet'
Date: 6 Oct 91 07:02:50 GMT
Organization: UUNET Communications Services

Those two bad boys of electrochemistry have vamoosed.  Sayonara.
Hasta la vista.  It seems that the state government is turning its
fiscal largesse to more practical projects, such as promoting school
prayer, attacking a woman's right to an abortion and welcoming
other states' toxic wastes.  Judging by Friday's Deseret News
(10/4/91, p. 1), Messieurs Fleischmann and Pons are glad to be rid
of Utah:
 
	'The message to Utah is this:  We really can't do any more
	for you,' said Fleischmann ... in a Deseret News interview
	at Pons' home a few miles from the French Riviera.  'It
	would be best for us to come to some agreement to part
	company.  Don't bother us anymore.'  ...
 
	... [T]he pair say they're still ... legally bound to
	conduct cold fusion experiments in defense of the state's
	and university's patents on their discovery -- without any
	equipment or money from Utah.
 
I bet there are plenty of chemists who would have been quite happy
with a $5 million grant and an institute set up just to conduct
work in their field.  Whose fault is it that this was never parlayed
into Big Money?
 
The article goes on to say that Pons has sent a letter to the U
lawyers stating that he and Fleischmann can't continue patent work
without more money.  The U attorney in the case did not want to
comment on specifics at this time, but did point out that both Pons
and Fleischmann are still considered U faculty, and Pons is receiving
'some payment' (Deseret News's words).  Pons complained that the
budget he sent to to the U never received a response, other than
'demands for more patent work' (DN's words).  There's a hint of
the old Pons in one comment:
 
	The electrochemist also complained that university faculty
	have requested access to their U labs to inspect some of
	the equipment used by the two scientists.
 
	'I think this is ludicrous; I do not think that they are
	qualified ... nor are they inclined to provide the necessary
	support for our patents: why should they be?' Pons wrote.
 
What will P&F do once they have finally cut their ties to Utah?
 
	The pair have been working on experiments which they say
	will dwarf cold fusion at an international research center
	near Nice.
 
(Okay, I'll say it: it can't be that hard to dwarf cold fusion. :-)
 
	'People will hear more of us.  Not yet, but in about a
	year's time, I can assure you of that,' a feisty Fleischmann
	said.  He scoffed at rumors that he is too ill to work.
 
	Added Pons, 'They haven't heard of our good ideas yet.'
 
Some folks might say that's part of the problem...
 
The News article came with a box full of little bulleted comments
extracted from the interview...  Here are a few:
 
	[F & P] opposed announcing their discovery through a press
	conference on March 23, 1989, but agreed to it when patent
	attorneys argued that it was necessary.  ...
 
	They opposed the establishment of the National Cold Fusion
	Institute.  They wanted the $5 million allocated by the
	Legislature to be used first for patent defense; second,
	for grants for fusion researchers.  ...
 
	Lack of confidentiality at NCFI and continual opposition
	to their work resulted in them leaving Utah in order to
	continue research.
 
The latter goes well with another comment:
 
	In October 1989, they joined NCFI on the condition that
	their work would be independently reviewd by other members
	of the NCFI research group.  'People have said we were
	secretive.  That is absolutely untrue.'
 
They make only one claim about results:
 
	By June 1990, they could invariably drive their experiments
	to the boiling point.  An independent review confirmed the
	high heat releases of the experiments.  'The magnitudes
	were such that the technological implications cannot be
	ignored.'
 
If they were so successful, and were so open with other NCFI members,
one wonders why no one else at NCFI succeeded in duplicating these
(ah) clearly reproducible results.
 
If P & F are no longer willing to contribute to cold fusion patent
defense, and the state is no longer willing to spend money on cold
fusion research, I have to wonder: what could it hurt to bag the
useless patent applications and release the data to the public?
Future scholars of pathological science, if no one else, would be
forever grateful, and the stain on the U's reputation would at
least be whitewashed.  The new administration could consider this
a goodwill gesture to the community...
 
Whatever else they did, they certainly made Utah a lot livelier,
 
Donn
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.06 / Bruce Dunn /  Linear Explosive Fusion
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Linear Explosive Fusion
Date: 6 Oct 91 14:31:44 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

 
     Take a small H-bomb.  To the fusion core, attach a thick walled pipe made
of appropriate tamper material.  Fill the core of the pipe with fusionable
material.  When the bomb goes off, can a self-sustaining explosive fusion
reaction propogate down the pipe?  If so, one could envision a canal-digging
device in which a small underground fission device (sited for radiation
containment) initiates a linear fusion reaction down the core of a pipe laid
along the route of the canal.  Feasibility?
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.06 / Ryk Spoor /  Re: Linear Explosive Fusion and CNF
     
Originally-From: resst11@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Linear Explosive Fusion and CNF
Date: 6 Oct 91 15:06:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <7747@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>     Take a small H-bomb.  To the fusion core, attach a thick walled pipe made
>of appropriate tamper material.  Fill the core of the pipe with fusionable
>material.  When the bomb goes off, can a self-sustaining explosive fusion
>reaction propogate down the pipe?  If so, one could envision a canal-digging
>device in which a small underground fission device (sited for radiation
>containment) initiates a linear fusion reaction down the core of a pipe laid
>along the route of the canal.  Feasibility?
 
	Sounds very interesting. The major problem I envision with this scheme
is that even if this scheme works as you envision (the fusionables detonate
all along the pipe), you'd only end up with a lot of very broken rock
and not much of a channel unless the BOOM was REALLY big. And with a really
large explosion, what do you do to protect anything in the local area?
Most canals and such aren't going to be built in ultradeserted areas.
I have a nasty vision of a sort of linearly-stretched mushroom cloud along
a 50-mile path. Ouch.
 
	ON the subject of Cold Nuclear Fusion... I wrote a post a while back
asking for a basic rundown of the field. IS there any current evidence that
promotes belief in the existence of non-muon catalyzed CNF? I've seen new
papers on it appearing, but are these basically "face-savers" or is there
enough continuing hard results to encourage more work?
	My prior post got no, nil, zero response. If no one wants this
stuff posted, fine, just Email me. I don't have time to wade through
the 600 CNF articles (got my own research projects to do ;) ), and I'd
really appreciate someone who HAS looked over the field recently giving
me a quick rundown on the State of the Art.
 
 
				Sea Wasp
				  /^\
				  ;;;
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenresst11 cudfnRyk cudlnSpoor cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.07 / Steve Crocker /  THE MIZUNO EXPERIMENT
     
Originally-From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: THE MIZUNO EXPERIMENT
Date: 7 Oct 91 03:59:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

 
Is anybody here familiar with the work of Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno of
Hokkaido University, Japan. Supposedly earlier this year he
conducted a cnf experiment which supprised everybody by staying
hot for about 2 days after being disconnected from the electrical
input. The report I saw was based on an article in the September
issue of Bungeishunju magazine, a Japanese monthly. Does anyone
here know of this work? Any opinions?
     Thanks,
     Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenaq817 cudfnSteve cudlnCrocker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.07 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 624 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 624 papers on cnf)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 13:58:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
the promised next batch, again all theoretical. At last, the Hagelstein, out
in print. This bunch is, in fact quite interesting; theorists are doing some
thinking, and comeing up with novel ideas (I didn't say crazy). E.g. the
Ragheb and Miley: the d nucleus is not a point but a stretched dumbbell, and
the proton can be outside the Coulomb barrier, while the neutron is inside it.
Zhu et al echo some Russian theorists invoking dynamical effects, like
vibration or fluctuation; some of the time, some d's just might be moving fast
enough to bump hard enough into other d's, if the velocity distribution is
such that it can happen.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 7-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 624
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagelstein  PL;                                 J. Fusion Energy 9 (1991) 451.
"Coherent fusion theory".
** The long-awaited and much quoted Hagelstein theory, published at last. It
is the theory of coherent fusion in which, instead of the emission of a single
gamma packet, a large number of lower-energy photons are emitted, coherently.
Hagelstein considers electron involvement, i.e. electron-X fusion into a
short-lived neutral species (X might be p, d or Li+), which then can fuse with
another charged species. This is beta fusion. In the case of X=p, and the
virtual neutron fusing with d, the product is tritium and no proton. Reactions
starting with X=d are also possible, but X=p is favoured.             ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ragheb M, Miley GH;                             J. Fusion Energy 9 (1991) 429.
"Deuteron disintegration in condensed media".
** Another novel theory. The authors point out that the deuteron is one of the
few nuclei in which the proton and neutron are loosely bound, with a largish
mean distance between them. When a deuteron approaches another nucleus X, the
protron turns away from X (polarisation), and the deuteron might cleave, the
neutron entering X (with the proton still outside the Coulomb barrier) and the
proton flying off. If X is another deuteron, this makes a triton. X might also
be a Pd isotope, making another one plus a proton. This would explain the
strange branching ratios found for cold fusion, which then in fact is better
classified as a fission reaction (fission of the original deuteron), or a
neutron capture reaction. The corrected gamma spectrum of FPH (Petrasso+, 89)
even shows some evidence of the reaction with Pd. Other possible reactions of
this type might be with (3)He (--> (4)He + p) and with (9)Be (--> 2(4)He + t).
In all cases, the products are not those expected from conventional d-d
fusion. The theory is experimentally testable.                        ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tajima T, Iyetomi H, Ichimaru S;                J. Fusion Energy 9 (1991) 437.
"Influence of attractive interaction between deuterons in Pd on nuclear
fusion".
** Another paper calculating the rate of (possibly enhanced) d-d fusion in a
PdD lattice. The authors here invoke the 10 d-shell electrons of Pd, a
dielectric constant and effective electron mass. They find that screening
does enhance the fusion rate significantly by as many as 40 orders of
magnitude, and the preferred rate, based on some knowldge of parameters, is
consistent with experimental findings (Jones+). But the d's have to be on the
hop (itinerant) and this explains why the reaction stops when the current is
off. The p-d fusion rate is comparable to d-d, d-t is not much faster, while
d-(3)He is negligible.                                                ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takahashi H;                                    J. Fusion Energy 9 (1991) 441.
"Dynamical screening of potential by mobile deuteron and fusion rate of
accelerated deuteron in PdDx".
** Like the Tajima et al work, this paper stresses that deuterons under motion
are better than stationary d's. In fact, d-d screening is not only done by
electrons but by moving deuterons as well. Takahashi develops his previous
model further and finds that, for accelerated deuterons, fusion might occur
at observed rates. The acceleration might be provided by the joint movement of
groups of deuterons, creating a sort of whip, or surfing, effect.     ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turner L;                                       J. Fusion Energy 9 (1991) 447.
"Peregrinations on cold fusion".
** Peregrination: journey, travel. Have deuteron, will travel? Turner turns to
thoughts of potential barriers in PdD lattices, and resonance effects to
enhance d-d tunnelling. The many-body nature of the lattice make resonance
effects possible, and thus cold fusion, maybe. Just as an electron going
through a double slit makes an interference pattern, so deuterons moving
through the lattice might do so, in a complicated manner. Cold fusion might
result from the interference, and one should perhaps look for patterns of
fusion sites. The walk through these musings ends on a careful note; cold
fusion has not been verified but if it is, this theory might help.    ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhu S-B, Lee J, Robinson GW;                    J. Fusion Energy 9 (1991) 465.
"Non-Maxwell velocity distributions in inhomogeneous materials".
** Physicists generally assume, say the authors, that the Maxwell distribution
of gas particle velocity v, falling off exponentially with v**2/T (T=temp.),
also applies to liquids and solids. With a supercomputer, one can examine
this, and this has been in progress for some years here. They have applied
their techniques to deuterons in a PdD lattice, and find a non-Maxwellian
velocity function for the d's, as they move away from their potential minima.
The tails of the distribution correspond to temperatures at least 10 or up to
100 times ambient, and this would enhance the fusion rate by many 10's of
orders of magnitude. So how do we know, ask the authors, that Fleishman [sic],
Pons and Hawkins do not have something new?                           ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.08 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 632 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 632 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 20:30:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
eight more, now getting partly off our high horse of theory. AbuTaha, who has
previously expounded his mech. stress idaes, expounds them some more. The
Japanese item is in Japanese, so I just give the CA abstract; the patent is
one of those parasitic jobs. Knapp et al have had a go at detecting protons
but failed to; they also tried hard to superload Pd but again failed, like
most careful workers. It does seem that you can't get more than a D/Pd loading
of about 0.8, unless you strongly believe in cold fusion. If you liked the
Lomovskii et al paper (I posted it some time ago) but weren't able to read the
Russian, you can now read it in English, it's the same work. It is interesting
in that it uses a Pd colloid or suspension, maybe a good idea if you believe
that it's a surface effect. Simple thermodynamic arguments are enough for
Rittner and Meulenberg to explain cnf away; this sort of thing does not,
however, account for steady state effects, like those found by Belzner et al.
Rieker et al have, however, found interesting artifact possibilities when
measuring radiation emissions. Glubnichii et al, on the other hand, again find
emissions, as well as some tritium; if only these papers were more rigorous,
one could believe them.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 8-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 632
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AbuTaha AF;                                     J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 391.
"Cold fusion - engineering perspectives".
** AbuTaha further develops his theory that 'cold fusion' is not fusion, but
the release of embrittlement energies, i.e. of energy stored after crack
formation. Crack propagation can then suddenly or over a time period release
large amounts of energy, up to the FPH claim of 4 MJ/cm**3 in metals such as
Pd and Ti or Ni. This can explain all, including the FPH melt-down (AbuTaha
describes an explosive event, due to hydrogen embrittlement, observed in the
early 1970's). He clearly believes that this phenomenon can be used, but we
must learn to control and optimise it.                                ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enyo M;                   Kagaku  to Kogyo (Tokyo) 44 (1991) 47 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(12): 121407 (1991).
"Is the cold fusion reaction possible?"
** "A review, with 18 refs., on feasible cold fusion reactions, detection and
measurement of neutrons, tritium and excess heat, theor. treatment of
electrochem. models and their fundamental understanding". (Direct quote from
CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golubnichii PI, Koval'chuk EP, Merzon GI, Filonenko AD, Tsarev VA, Tsarik AA;
Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 16(21) (1990) 46 (in Russian).
"Detection of neutrons and tritium from solid palladium targets by
electrolytic deuterium charging".
** A 7 cm long Pd wire of area 10 cm**2 was prepared by deposition from a
PdCl2 solution (they don't say deposited onto what), and used as cathode in
0.1M LiClO2 in D2O. 10 neutron detectors were used, and tritium analysed in
the gas phase. There were several neutron events during electrolysis, several
times the background levels, some of them coinciding with cell temperature
rises. In another experiment, one tritium event coincided with a temperature
rise, and some neutron events did as well.                       May-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;                   Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,306,193, 19-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(12): 122213 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion based on heavy-water electrolysis".
** "In cold nuclear fusion based on D2O electrolysis, a cathode bar from a H
absorbing metal (and Pd) is used, and a Pt coated Ti anode plate is placed
around the cathode bar". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knapp JA, Guilinger TR, Kelly MJ, Doyle BL, Walsh D, Tsao SS;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 371.
"Thin-foil electrochemical cells: high-sensitivity fusion tests and in-situ
beam measurements of deuterium loading".
** Again, the statement that emitted protons ought to be more easily detected
than neutrons because of the much lower background. Also, a thin foil's D
content can be easily monitored using a suitable ion beam, and thus the claim
tested, that high loadings D/Pd > 1 can be achieved. This was done in this
work, in which in situ measurements were performed, while the experiment ran.
The ssb detector is mounted up close to the back of the foil cathode, with
0.5 A/cm**2 flowing. It would detect not only the 3.02 MeV protons but also
1.01 MeV tritons (if any) or the (perhaps) ca. 1 MeV (4)He's, if any. A pulse
height spectrum collected over 23.2 h showed nothing better than background.
In the other part of the experiment, a 3 MeV (3)He ion beam was shot at the
back of the foil under electrolysis, resulting in backscattered 14 MeV protons
from reaction with deuterium in the foil. Calibration with known metal hydride
foils showed a loading peaking at around 0.8. This can be assumed to hold not
only for the top 2 mu thus analysed, but for the whole 25 mu foil thickness,
because the back of the foil was coated by d-impervious Au. Other experiments
showed that (1)H is indeed absorbed preferentially over deuterium.    ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lomovsky OI, Eremin AF, Boldyrev VV;
Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Chem. Sci.) 102 (2) (1990) 173.
"Isotope heat effect in reactions involving hydrogen evolution on palladium
catalyst particles".
** This is almost word for word the paper by the same authors in Dokl. Akad.
Nauk SSSR Fiz. Khim. 309 (1989) 879, already abstracted (note that I spelled
the first author Lomovskii, following convention, as he himself does not).
Here, you can read it in English. Palladium is a catalyst for the oxidation of
formaldehyde by Cu++ in an aqueous solution:  2CH2O + Cu++ --(Pd)-> Cu + H2 +
2HCOO- + 2H2O. A mechanism for this reaction is proposed. The role of the Pd
is the transport of electrons from site to site, to facilitate the
intermediate reactions. When H2O was replaced by D2O, calorimetry showed some
heat effects that are not simply explained by the thermodynamics of the
reaction, and may have connection with cold fusion.              Aug-89/Apr-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rieker A, Speiser B, Mangold K-M, Hanack M;   Z. Naturforsch. 46B (1991) 1125.
"Potential error sources in combined electrochemistry/neutron detection
experiments".
** A long electrolysis of a 0.1M LiOD solution in D2O was run, with a Pd rod
as cathode, Pt as anode, the two electrodes in separate arms of a U-shaped
cell, so that the gases are led off separately. Two separate scintillation
neutron counters are used, and pulse-shape analysis used to distinguish
between neutrons and gammas. The cell was periodically inserted into the
detector space for 1000 s, and taken out for 1000 s. Total electrolysis time:
75 h. There was a 2% neutron level fluctuation, and it appeared that, when the
cell was "in", neutrons were up by, on average, by 2.7%. However, at the same
time, gammas were down. This was attributed to an effect on the
photomultiplier amplification, changing the discrimination, and this was
confirmed by trying the alternation with a heated resistor instead of the
cell. The authors point out that exterior effects of magnetic and
electrostatic fields on photomultiplier tubes are well known. Another effect
they observed is that the total cell voltage rose with cell temperature, and
this could be controlled by sparging the anode compartment with N2. They write
that the FPH paper did not account for this effect. Thus, they have discovered
two artifacts that might fake cold fusion results.                Jan-91/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rittner ES, Meulenberg Jr A;                    J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 377.
"A chemical interpretation of heat generated in 'cold fusion'".
** A non-(hitherto unknown nuclear) explanation is attempted for the FPH
disparity between the heat and neutron flux. D2-O2 recombination can easily
account for the excess heat claimed by FPH; D-D recombination (by
decomposition of the PdDx, releasing the D, as suggested by Pauling), can
explain the melt-down and explosion of the large cathode of FPH. No nuclear
reactions need be invoked.                                            ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.09 / Steven Bellovin /  building H-bombs
     
Originally-From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: building H-bombs
Date: 9 Oct 91 03:36:18 GMT

I just saw a news report saying that the U.N. inspectors in Iraq found
some lithium-6, and plans to produce ~100 kilos a year of the stuff.
The obvious conclusion is that they were working on H-bombs, too.
My question is this -- about how much Li-6 does a bomb take?  (Obviously,
it's yield-dependent; I'm looking for a range.)  The inspector
declined to answer that question, saying that he wasn't supposed to
know the answer.  That wording leads me to suspect that a rough
guess is fairly well-known....
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensmb cudfnSteven cudlnBellovin cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.10 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 642 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 642 papers on cnf)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 14:24:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here we go again, another 10, experimentals this time. I am pleased to see
some more daring approaches; two of these papers have looked for p-d fusion,
as well as d-d. Since all this work was done a year or more ago, my comments
about the conservatism of cold fusion workers are out of date, and I stand
corrected.
 We have some "quality" papers (my own opinion): the Menlove et al (positive),
Dignan et al (negative) and Fleming et al (negative). The Menlove team tells
all, in great and impressive detail. They do find bursts, at up to two orders
of magnitude above background, which I like to see for "real", i.e.
convincing, signals. What is more, they seem to have eliminated all possible
artifacts. Fleming et al claim only about 2% resolution for heat, using their
rather good calorimeter. How in the world do FPALH-90 get their 0.1%? Using
mass spectrometry to find tritium is futile, say Kay et al. I THINK you can
get high-sensitivity MS that can resolve the very small difference between
neutron and proton masses, but few have access to these.
 More coming.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 10-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 642
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dignan TG, Bruington MC, Johnson RT, Bland RW;  J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 469.
"A search for neutrons from fusion in a highly deuterated cooled palladium
thin film".
** This group tried to create conditions for optimal cold fusion. They believe
that deuteron implantation at low temperatures might provide such conditions,
because high d densities can be achieved, and that high-energy implantation
is likely to put d's into the most suitable sites in the metal lattice. A thin
Pd-Ir (90:10) film was cooled to 77K and implanted at 1000 eV with a
neutralised deuterium beam. Neutrons were detected with a moderator/absorber
(0.1 m**3 of paraffin) with NaI at its centre. If all the deuterium atoms
stuck to the film, a surface loading D/Pd of 50 would have been reached; the
approximately measured figure was about 9. The gamma spectrum from moderated
neutrons measured during the experiment was the same as the background one.
                                                                      ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ewing RI;                                       J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 473.
"High-sensitivity neutron detectors used at Sandia National Laboratories to
monitor and diagnose 'cold fusion' experiments: negative results".
** A multidisciplinary group has tried out every type of cold fusion
experiment known to them, for which positive results have been claimed, in an
underground site with low background neutron count (10 c/h) and using high
efficiency (9-10%) detectors. This counter can detect < 100 c/h and bursts of
< 35 counts. Nothing was detected. The counter has 22 (3)He proportional
counter tubes embedded in polythene, connected so as to form three independent
neutron detectors. One detector at a time did show random signal artifacts,
but coincidence on all three eliminated these. Spurious counts can arise from
acoustic disturbances, electrical discharges across insulators, electronic
noise and cosmic showers.                                             ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleming JW, Law HH, Sapjeta J, Gallagher PK, Marohn WF;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 517.
"Calorimetric studies of electrochemical incorporation of hydrogen isotopes
into palladium".
** Novel open and sealed calorimeters were designed. In the sealed design, no
reaction product is lost, and the heat of hydrogenation is accounted for
within 2%. Electrolyses were run for 1-40 days, at constant current. The
electrolyte was 0.1M LiOD or LiOH. The calorimeter was a Setaram HT 1000
functioning as a heat flow isothermal calorimeter. It could provide space for
two separate cells, whose heat output could be measured differentially. In
this mode, sensitivity was 10 microwatt. For a single cell, this increased to
2.5 milliwatt. For the open (differential) designs, no excess heat was found.
The sealed single-cell designs also balanced the output against the input to
within 2.2% of total integrated heat. The small deviation (positive) can be
explained by the different responses of the top and bottom of the cells. The
paper thus does not support cold fusion.                              ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henderson RA, Czerwinski KR, Hall HL, Lesko KT, Norman EB, Sur B, Hoffman DC;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 475.
"More searches for cold fusion".
** This team, from the Nuclear Sci. Div. LBL, tried to find neutrons, gammas
and induced radioactivity, i.e. part of the expected signature of cold fusion.
A 1mm, 50 mm long Pd wire, as well as a 8 mm, 25 mm long rod were used as
cathode, and also two Ti cathodes; one a 1 cm**3 cube, one a 10*10, 80 mm
long rod. Electrolyte: 0.1M LiOD, from Li metal (enriched to 99.3% (6)Li) in
99% pure D2O, as well as the Jones+ "soup" complete with poison. Neutrons were
detected with a NE-213 liquid scintillator with pulse shape discrimination,
and by a Kodak dosimeter, and by looking for induced radioactivity in the Pd
cathodes. A NaI detector took care of gamma counting. All this was done in a
special low-background lab, where the bg was 0.118+- 0.001 n/s. In each of the
FPH- and Jones-style experiments, 10% H2O was also added to have a go at the
p-d reaction. During various periods of 2.5 and 17 days at a stretch, no
radiation of any kind was found, neither from the pure-D2O nor from the 10%
H2O cells. So the upper limits of cold fusion, set by the one-sigma level
above detector limit, were 3E-23 and 3E-24 fus/pair/s for the Pd wire and
rod, respectively, and this does not support cold fusion claims, being below
even the Jones+ results by one order of magnitude.                   ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kay BD, Lykke KR, Buss RJ;                      J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 491.
"Problems with the mass spectrometric determination of tritium from cold
fusion".
** This study caused the retraction of a claim for the MS detection of
tritium, say the authors but give no names. There are 11 different chemical
reactions that can give rise to species with mass close to that of tritium
(e.g. HD2+, D3+). So MS detection of tritium is ambiguous.            ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kogashi S;
J. Inst. Electron. Inf. Commun. Eng. (Japan) 73 (1990) 1311 (in Japanese).
Cited in Phys. Abstr. 94(1409):114582 (1991).
"Present status of cold fusion research".
** "Cold fusion has not been proved yet scientifically judging from the
principle that scientific truth is reproducible by test. It has been reported
that a large amount of tritium is produced from a multilayer sandwich
structure of heavy-hydrogen-adsorbed [sic] Pd films and Si films by sending an
electric current to the structure, which has been attracting interest of
people concerned including researchers in the field of semiconductor
engineering (38 refs.)". (Direct quote from PA).                      ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lin T-L, Liu C-C;                               J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 487.
"Cold fusion experiment at Department of Nuclear Engineering, National
Tsing-Hua University".
** Thermalised neutrons are easier to detect than fast ones, and efficiency is
important in low-level measurements. The right amount of moderator is also
important: too little, not enough moderation; too much, no neutrons come out.
This pair electrolysed 0.1M LiOD in D2O at a Pd rod 5 mm by 80 mm. Thermal
neutrons were detected by one (3)He and one BF3 detector, with H2O the
moderator. The neutron signal was pulse-distribution discriminated. Besides
the two neutron counters, a Ge detector looked for gamma emissions. Before
applying the current to the cell, the backgrounds were measured. During a
run of about 24 h, with increasingly higher current densities, two neutron
bursts were detected by the (3)He tube but not by the BF3 counter; the latter
did have a much lower sensitivity, but an artifact cannot be ruled out. There
is no mention of gamma results. More work is needed.                  ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Menlove HO, Fowler MM, Garcia E, Miller MC, Paciotti MA, Ryan RR, Jones SE;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 495.
"Measurement of neutron emission from Ti and Pd in pressurized D2 gas and D2O
electrolysis cells".
** LANL and Brigham Young get together to measure neutron bursts and randoms
from a variety of sample types, such as D2 gas mixed with Pd and Ti chips,
sponge, crystals and powder, as well as electrolysis in D2O at cathodes of Ti,
Pd and V. Four separate neutron detectors were used, all based on (3)He tubes.
These were placed 1-2 m from each other, in an underground, low-background
lab. There is a lot of detail on the neutron detection technique, which can
exclude common noise sources such as electrical noise, rf interference and
cosmic showers, and uses correlation to distinguish between real neutron
bursts and artifacts. Also, there was an acoustical detector attached to the
sample bottle, to detect cracking of the Ti samples.
 Control runs had tubes of Ti in air, or cells without electrodes, or cells
with H2O instead of D2O. The electrolytes were the Jones+ soup as well as
others. Everything is tabulated for the reader.
 Neutron bursts were detected from Ti in D2, and also from Ti in a 50:50 mix
of D2:H2 (to test for p-d fusion). No bursts from dummy controls.
Random-neutron counts were also seen from Ti+D2, but not from controls. The
electrolysis runs showed some 3-sigma random emissions and one showed bursts,
going on for some days. So, out of 42 carefully done experiments, 14 produced
significant neutron emissions, mostly in the form of bursts, by up to two
orders of magnitude above the background. The bursts are consistent with the
fracto-fusion idea, although no bursts correlated with cracking noises. The
random emissions cannot be the sum of small bursts, so neutrons are emitted by
two separate processes, maybe. The common denominator between them is
nonequilibrium. Future work is planned, to characterise the materials used and
to improve the detection to the point where energy spectra can be obtained.
                                                                      ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parish TA, Perry RT, Wilson WB;                 J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 479.
"Neutron sources and spectra from cold fusion".
** The feasible, known fusion reactions would produce neutrons, which would be
thermalised and produce secondaries. This paper sets out to calculate expected
spectra of these emissions; experimentalists will thus know what to look for,
i.e. as shown in the four Figs in this paper.                         ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers VC, Sandquist GM;                        J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 483.
"Cold fusion reaction products and their measurement".
** General remarks about the difficulties and some of the pitfalls of
low-level emission measurement. With gammas, electrical equipment tends to
adsorb some Rn decay products. There is a Figure showing a measurement near
such equipment, with another measurement away from the equipment, subtracted.
This shows a "gamma" peak at 2.2 MeV. The same happens with neutron detectors.
So this type of detection is suspect. Tritium, too, has its pitfalls, since
there will be some in the D2O initially.                              ?/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.09 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Current cnf status
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Current cnf status
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 13:47:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: resst11@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor):
>	ON the subject of Cold Nuclear Fusion... I wrote a post a while back
>asking for a basic rundown of the field. IS there any current evidence that
>promotes belief in the existence of non-muon catalyzed CNF? I've seen new
>papers on it appearing, but are these basically "face-savers" or is there
>enough continuing hard results to encourage more work?
>	My prior post got no, nil, zero response. If no one wants this
>stuff posted, fine, just Email me. I don't have time to wade through
>the 600 CNF articles (got my own research projects to do ;) ), and I'd
>really appreciate someone who HAS looked over the field recently giving
>me a quick rundown on the State of the Art.
 
Well, I am the one with the 600+ papers you are too lazy to read {:] and I
was hoping someone else would answer your question. You have to realise that
you'd get a different assessment from every person. There are those who claim
that there are over 200 positive papers, i.e. 200 experiments say yes yes yes
to cold fusion. I have been through the list, and out of something like 250
experimental papers, I personally regard about 30-40 as "quality" work. Out of
this group, there are about 10 positive ones. Again, just what is "positive"
is a matter of taste. The TB will race for his/her word processor at the
tiniest neutron emission, or doubtful mass spectrum pimple. These 10 or so are
mostly excess heat or correlations. This is not much out of 600+ papers, but I
can't give a "conventional", i.e. non-(hitherto unknown nuclear reaction),
explanation for results of, say, Belzner et al or even FPALH-90. I personally
say that a lot of shoddy work has been done, and ought not to be used to
support cnf. E.g., a fraction of ion implantation or deuteron beam or -plasma
work, where the people did not realise that while bombardment is on, we all
know that you get fusion, since the 1950's. You have to turn the beam off and
if you THEN still get fusion, it's cold. A lot of neutron measurers didn't
know the many pitfalls of this, so if you read that a single (3)He tube showed
several bursts of neutron, don't make up a new burst theory of cold fusion,
but suspect that the people were not aware of the sensitivity to vibration of
this detector.
 My own summing up is that the great bulk of cold fusion work came out
negative, and that of the claims of positive results, the bulk is doubtful.
Nevertheless there is a tiny residue of positive results that seem to support
cold fusion. You may or may not regard as significant the fact that some great
names seem to have become what has been called "possibilists", i.e. they think
cnf is possible, maybe. E.g. can we argue with Nobel Prize winner Schwinger?
Or the eminent electrochemist Gerischer, now a possibilist? It is said that
the Como conference has produced some conversions from categorical rejection
to possibilism. This must mean that there were presentations of carefully done
work which, I assume, will eventually appear as "real" publications.
 There is a need for the TB's to prove their case; they can't leave it up to
others to disprove it. So they have to come up with a formula for reliably
reproducing what they claim to find. But, as I have said before, they might
not care or might not even want this at all, if they're chasing patents and
expect to get rich.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.09 / John McCauley /  Re: BPX dead
     
Originally-From: jsm@carl.pppl.gov (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BPX dead
Date: 9 Oct 91 19:24:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

In article <1991Oct1.201222.4527@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>Whats the word at Princeton, who has the most to lose from this
>development?
>
 
It depends who you ask. BPX had advocates and naysayers here as well. I
liked the original CIT -- ignition and second stability research.
 
BPX (aka BIG PAPER EXPLOSION) died of Big Science Funding Disease (BSFD).
BSFD runs as follows:
 
1) Scientists dream up large science project
2) Scientists mount political effort to get project approved (testimony
   in front of congressional committees)
3) Congress approves design study, scientists design project
4) Congress waivers on funding construction, fund enough to keep project
   alive. Politics and bad science enter here.
5) Scientists resubmit same proposal with different name
6) Goto step 4) unless a: congress funds construction or b: project dies.
7) Large science project built with obselete technology with large cost
   overruns.
 
[Note: By Congress, I also mean DOE to some extent. Frequently Congress gives
	DOE full discretion over where to spend money.]
 
 
So, I am glad that BPX is dead -- it was on the drawing board too long.
If BPX hadn't died and full construction funding started tomorrow, then
by 1996 you'd have a tokamak designed with 1986 technology.
 
I'd rather have a machine designed in 1995 and built in 2000. This design
will have learned things from:
 
	1) Jet and TFTR tritium experiments
	2) Alcator C-MOD
	3) Advances in magnet technology (High Tc superconductors?)
 
However to do this, all money must be in hand by 1996! Projects like
these have to be funded on a five year basis rather than on a
yearly basis as is currently done.
 
The SSC also suffers from BSFD and will probably be canned or wind up
a pork fest.
 
Now, as far as the future of PPL:
 
1) TFTR won't to full tritium (i.e. 50-50 DT.) as that makes the machine
   too hot to service.  However, trace tritium could be done and is
   perhaps the only really interesting thing left for TFTR to do.
 
2) "Cheap" (less than $150m) modifications may be done -- adding a
   divertor, increasing fields to 7T, 40 MW ICRF, computer upgrades,
   etc.
 
3) TFTR has already gone way over its design life of 7 years. Other
   machines at TFTR may get more attention.
 
	Hope this clears some things up!
 
		Scott
 
P.S. Glad to see that some people from Jet seem to be on the net now.
 
P.P.S. Here is an example of what you wind up with: TFTR currently depends
on a $17m computer system built by SEL (taken over by Gould).  I think it
is the only one of its kind still running. Vaxen hadn't been announced
back then.  BPX's computers probably would have been a DecNet of MicroVax I's
running VMS 4.0.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: BPX dead
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BPX dead
Date: 9 Oct 91 23:08:35 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1018@carl.pppl.gov> jsm@carl.pppl.gov (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
writes:
 
[ due to time delay between design and construction]
 
> BPX's computers probably would have been a DecNet of MicroVax I's
> running VMS 4.0.
 
That in itself is sufficient reason to kill the project :-)
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.10 /  Falconer /  Re: building H-bombs
     
Originally-From: rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Falconer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: building H-bombs
Date: 10 Oct 91 01:13:46 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ, CSC Dept, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

 
In article <15615@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
>I just saw a news report saying that the U.N. inspectors in Iraq found
>some lithium-6, and plans to produce ~100 kilos a year of the stuff.
>The obvious conclusion is that they were working on H-bombs, too.
>My question is this -- about how much Li-6 does a bomb take?  (Obviously,
>it's yield-dependent; I'm looking for a range.)  The inspector
>declined to answer that question, saying that he wasn't supposed to
>know the answer.  That wording leads me to suspect that a rough
>guess is fairly well-known....
 
 
 
	I would venture a WAG (wild-ass guess, natch) that one could
obtain about a megaton yield out of a hundred kilos of Li6. But this,
for most purposes short of citybusting a megalopolis, is overkill. If
the fission triggers for this were available (assuming, as always, that
nobody in the real world is using this conventional initiation of fusion
that's been bandied about) it would make a couple of smaller devices. I
would think that it's easier to mass-produce Li6 than certain fissionable
materials - I'm surprised that that's all they felt they needed, given
the scale and scope of the rest of the Iraqi program. Perhaps they were
unwilling to commit substantial resources to this pending an actual test
of a prototype H-bomb.
 
 
 
 
 
--
||||||   Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU  --  (Falconer)  |||||||
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrteasdal cudlnFalconer cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.10 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 644 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 644 papers on cnf)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 14:27:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
a minipackage this time, want to get this out of the way quickly. It was touch
and go whether or not to include the Rees talk, but I did, as you see. I am
surprised at his attribution of the idea (and observation) of "fractal fusion"
to US workers; this is wrong. His remarks about FPH's lack of evidence of
nuclear products is also a little below the belt; his team has no such
evidence, either. The Filimonov explains itself. The Arata+Zhang correction is
to be built into the paper; it does not, of course, count as a paper. The
Miley comment will interest some of you. He makes the point that Fleischmann
has been accused of holding back information, but the Patents people accuse
him (them) of the opposite, and they might be in trouble.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 10-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 644
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arata Y, Zhang Y-C;                           Fusion Technology 19 (1991) 196.
"Corrigendum".
** ... to the article by these authors in the same journal 18 (1990) 95. In
the Fig. 14 caption, "3 min" should have been "3 mm".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filimonov VA;             Pis'ma Zh. Teor. Fiz. 16(19) (1990) 42 (in Russian).
"On the probability of cold nuclear fusion".
** The probability of the energy jump required for d-d fusion is very small.
Two groups of hypotheses put forward: Coulomb barrier penetration enhancement
by structure defects, and subtle interactions in solids or plasmas to lower
the Coulomb barrier, do not answer the problem. A new theory is presented
here. The large energy gap is proposed to be subdivided into a number of
sub-levels. The probability of traversing the total gap by successive jumps
up the sub-levels is larger than that for the single jump. For this to occur,
there must be self-organisation in the medium, and these sub-levels must
exist. Shock waves, solitons and directional propagation all play a part in
the process. More work will follow.                              Jun-90/Oct-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rees LB;                                       J. Fusion Energy 10 (1991) 111.
"Cold fusion: what do we know? What do we think?"
** Evidently the transcript of a talk given at a meeting, this paper gives
some of the historical background of the Jones+ paper. The work arose out of
frustration with muon catalysed fusion, which appears to be stuck at about
1/10 the yield required for break-even, with little improvement in sight. The
geological evidence for (3)He and - especially - tritium out of a volcano is
mentioned, and the Jones+ paper discussed in a less formal manner. Two
theories to explain cold fusion are mentioned. One is that of piezofusion
(Jones) which predicts a non-bursty neutron emission, and a greater p-d fusion
rate than d-d; the other is what Rees calls "fractal fusion" and attributes to
USA workers; in reality, fracto-fusion - if indeed a real phenomenon - was
discovered in the USSR in 1986. This would bring forth neutron (and other)
bursts, as some cold fusion workers seem to find, including the Jones group.
The results of Pons and Fleischmann are dismissed, for lack of evidence of
products of the nuclear reaction and secondary x-rays.                ?/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miley G;                                        Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 541.
"Comments".
** FT's editor, George Miley, tells why FT continues to focus on cold fusion,
after a discussion on this. It seems that the journal has played a role in
creating some patents problems, by prior disclosure. For the time being, FT
will continue with cnf.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.10 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: building H-bombs
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: building H-bombs
Date: 10 Oct 91 15:05:38 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <28f3a94a.1002@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU
 (Falconer) writes:
>
>In article <15615@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
 writes:
>>I just saw a news report saying that the U.N. inspectors in Iraq found
>>some lithium-6, and plans to produce ~100 kilos a year of the stuff.
...........
>>My question is this -- about how much Li-6 does a bomb take?
 
>	I would venture a WAG (wild-ass guess, natch) that one could
>obtain about a megaton yield out of a hundred kilos of Li6.
 
I'll venture a better guess that the number is more like ten kilos, and
this puts a different light on the Iraqi production plans.
 
There was a story in today's Oregonian which had reference to an
un-named source who claimed the number might be as small as 1 or 2
kilo's.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.10 / Paul Koloc /  Re: 'they haven't heard of our good ideas yet'
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 'they haven't heard of our good ideas yet'
Date: 10 Oct 91 04:55:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Oct6.070250.22710@uunet.uu.net> donn@uunet.uu.net (Donn Seeley)
 writes:
 
  [speaking of p&f + patents]. .
> I have to wonder: what could it hurt to bag the useless patent
> applications and release the data to the public?
 
They would not be under any obligation to prepare such "data" for
release.
 
Actually, patents are a legitimate means of publishing information of
conceptual physical embodiments which are novel and useful.
 
If the P&F inventors have such an embodiment and it is useful then
patents are the preferred means of publication as far as a legal
description of what the invention is and what it claims is new and
useful.  If it is not useful (doesn't work) any other means of
publication would probably not be of interest to them or to most others.
In that case the patent applications would be abandoned by the parties
before issue and they will not issue.
 
Unfortunately, tokamak could be on the same road as cold fusion seems
to be (down hill).  Of course, it has a huge inertia and loads of
managed data, so it may still take decades to play out.
 
                           Yep!   My favorite word
                                 TOKAMAK (1963)
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.10 / Kevin Quitt /  Re: building H-bombs
     
Originally-From: kdq@3D.com (Kevin D. Quitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: building H-bombs
Date: 10 Oct 91 18:57:33 GMT
Organization: 3D systems, inc. Valencia CA

In article <10517@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
 writes:
>In article <28f3a94a.1002@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU
 (Falconer) writes:
>>
>>In article <15615@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
 writes:
>>>I just saw a news report saying that the U.N. inspectors in Iraq found
>>>some lithium-6, and plans to produce ~100 kilos a year of the stuff.
>............
>>>My question is this -- about how much Li-6 does a bomb take?
>
>>	I would venture a WAG (wild-ass guess, natch) that one could
>>obtain about a megaton yield out of a hundred kilos of Li6.
>
>I'll venture a better guess that the number is more like ten kilos, and
>this puts a different light on the Iraqi production plans.
 
    Do you mean 1MT from 10Kg of Li6, or 10Kg of Li6 per year?
--
 _
Kevin D. Quitt              srhqla!venus!kdq     kdq@3D.com
3D systems, inc.            26081 Avenue Hall    Valencia, CA 91355
VOICE (805) 295-5600 x430   FAX (805) 257-1200
 
                96.37% of all statistics are made up.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenkdq cudfnKevin cudlnQuitt cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.10 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: building H-bombs
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: building H-bombs
Date: 10 Oct 91 22:31:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1991Oct10.185733.28239@3D.com> kdq@3D.com (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
>In article <10517@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
 writes:
>>
>>I'll venture a better guess that the number is more like ten kilos, and
>>this puts a different light on the Iraqi production plans.
>
>    Do you mean 1MT from 10Kg of Li6............
 
 
 
Yes.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.11 / Barry Merriman /  the soul of a new Tokamak
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: the soul of a new Tokamak
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 00:20:56 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

 
The word on the street seems to be this:
 
The fusion budget will get ~5% annual growth for the next few
years. This is not enough money to sustain construction
of a major new machine, so BPX is dead in the US.
(BPX = 300M$/yr for 3--5 years).
 
Italy wants to build a BPX-like machine, and they have the $.
(the $ are left over from their recently canceled fission program,
which lost support with the people.) However, Euratom will not
let them build the machine.
 
So, US has the desire for BPX, but no $, Italy has the $, but
lacks a site. The natural thing is for the two to team up---but
they were apparently unable to agree on machine specs, and so that effort
died. (what does this sort of thing forbode for ITER?...)
 
As it stands, there is some money left over from BPX design, as well
as enough growth to support a modest new machine as a next step for
the US program. (Modest = 3--400M$ over a few years). Thus, folks are
scrambling to come up with a concept for this new machine which they
have suddenly been awarded as a windfall from the death of BPX.
 
Iter lives on in its own universe, unaffected by these developments.
 
Thats the impression I get, at least.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.11 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 650 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 650 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 17:51:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
it's Friday afternoon and I'll send these off before I go. All theory stuff,
and some of you might be excited. E.g. by Hawkins, who brings in fire balls,
and atmospheric conditions (and a surprise title). Or baryon nonconserevation
and pions, by Kenny; or the virtual mono- or multi-neutron theory of Mayer and
Reitz, able to explain what some believe to be the experimental facts. Well,
some might disagree, some do find helium, and Menlove et al finds neutrons
both in bursts and random, non-bursty emissions. Hm.
More next week. I'll also update the BIBLIO4 archived file now.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 11-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 650
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bunch KJ, Grow RW;                             Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 2131.
"Self-consistent field calculations on diatomic hydrogen in a potential well".
** Diatomic dd in a well, i.e. in an octahedral or tetrahedral site in the
PdDx lattice, or in a defect or crack, are looked at here. The Schroedinger
equation for such a pair plus electron cloud (an overall neutral region) is
solved by the Method of Roothaan and Blinder. Results show that the dd pairs
are squeezed together in the well, but not enough to explain cold fusion. The
model can however be adjusted and might be useful anyway.        Nov-90/Jul-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dienes JK;                                      Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 543.
"On nuclear reactions in defects".
** The object of this analysis is to see whether atoms can approach very
closely to each other as a result of lattice slip processes. The model of
Frenkel and Kontorova, considered an early example of soliton behaviour, is
extended here. It appears that close approach is indeed possible, in a self
organised wave propagation process. This hangs together with crack-induced
fusion, and the burst nature of fusion, claimed by some observers, including
the large bursts of Arata and Zhang and the DeNinno group.       Jun-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawkins N;                                     Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 2112.
"Possible natural cold fusion in the atmosphere".
** Atmospheric disturbances, electron bonding (Cooper pairs), Abrikosov
electron vortices (AEV), free floating fire balls and more are invoked here
along with the proposition that such atmospheric phenomena may cause or help
along cold fusion. For example, there seems to be some evidence that cold
fusion cells "work" during electrical storms, due to the influx of AEV's
between the cathode and anode. More work is needed, says H.      Nov-90/Jul-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny JP;                                       Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 547.
"Electropionics and fusion".
** Kenny states that pions (pi mesons) undoubtedly must be involved in the
cold fusion interaction, having an interaction range about 7 times that of
the 7 times heavier protons or neutrons. A model of anomalous nuclear
resonances is developed, involving pions. Deuterium fuses into an excited
resonant species with a half life of the order of days, and this might explain
some of the anomalies seen in cnf. Decay products might be pions, kaons
(decaying to leptons), deuterons and dibaryons, or even phonons as suggested
by Schwinger. Baryon nonconservation and quarks are invoked as well. Cold
fusion demands a new physics and this may be it.                 Jun-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayer FJ, Reitz JR;                             Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 552.
"Nuclear energy release in metals".
** A new "scenario" is proposed that might explain what is known about cold
fusion and can suggest new directions for cnf experiments. The knowns are
(all approx.) neutrons: 1000/s; tritium: 1E11/s; little or no (3)He or (4)He;
no d-t neutrons or gammas; everything comes in bursts. The lack of energetic
secondaries, often cited as THE major problem, is significant. There is some
recent speculation about the brief combination of an electron with protons,
deuteron or triton, making a virtual mono-, di- or tri-neutron. This might
last about 60 microsec, enough time to do stuff. These might incidentally
explain the anomalously high diffusion rate of hydrogen (isotopes) in Pd.
Virtual trineutrons could react with (106)Pd but there is not enough tritium.
Virtual dineutrons cannot do this, but can react with some impurities that
are deposited during electrolysis, such as Pt, U. The scenario can be tested
by controlling impurity types and levels. It is also consistent with known
facts of cnf, as well as with the related field of cluster impact fusion,
also anomalous.                                                  Oct-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeliger D, Meister A;                         Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 2114.
"A simple plasma model for the description of d-d fusion in condensed matter".
** The authors first consider previous attempts to account for enhanced fusion
rates in PdDx, such as the expected rate in D2 gas, electron screening, ion
screening and fluctuation tunnelling. They then develop a new model, which
takes the transport itself of d-d pairs through the lattice to be important.
This implies that it is during charging that fusion is enhanced. At a time
corresponding to about one charging time constant, the fusion rate goes
through a broad maximum and declines towards zero at full loading. This is in
fairly good accord with the authors' own experiments (see also Bittner et al,
ibid p.2119) and those of others. The model is only a start but does not
invoke unknown nuclear processes.                                Aug-90/Jul-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salvarezza RC, Montemayor MC, Fatas E, Arvia AJ;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 313 (1991) 291.
"Electrochemical study of hydrogen absorption in polycrystalline palladium".
** Fundamental study, using cyclic voltammetry, impedance spectroscopy and
x-ray diffraction, of the various surface and bulk processes involved in the
electrolysis of water at Pd and absorption of H into the lattice.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.11 /   /   "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 17:53:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Deiter Britz, in his most recent bibliography update, gives "thumbs up"
to the paper by the Menlove, Jones team in which they claim to have
observed neutron bursts from a fracto-fusion-type experiment done in a lead
mine to reduce background.  When ever I hear about neutron bursts I cold
shudder goes down my spine because bursts are commonly an indication of
electronic noise in nuclear detection systems.  I suspect that is the
problem with the Menlove experiment as I shall now explain.
 
I had heard that initially the experimenters (Menlove, et al.) had problems
with their detectors due to the high humidity in the lead mine.  That bit
of information triggered a respone in some of my little gray cells so that
I recalled an experience from my distant past when I too had difficulty
with a counter operating in 90%+ rel humidity.  For those not up on the
operation of proportional counters let me explain the problem.  The anode
wire of the counter is biased at high voltage through a high resistance.
A coupling capacitor connects that biased anode to the input (nominally
at DC ground) of a sensitive preamplifier.  Anything which can generate
noise on the anode gets greatly amplified and appears at the amplifier
output as a pulse or, very commonly, a burst of pulses. (Note the word
burst!)  Now back to the problem of high humidity.  The coupling capacitor
has a dc bias of perhaps 2 kV across it.  Surface leakage currents on
that capacitor can be a very significant noise source, and high humidity
can result in lots of surface leakage across said capacitor.
 
Now all that remains is to explain why efforts to discriminate against
noise burst may not be as effective as the experimenters assert.  The
arguements given concerning statistical confidence limits concerning
the bursts are based an a key assumption that there is no physical
link that can produce correlated signals in two or more counters.  All
that is need to correlate noise signals is some shared DC ground at
a common bank of instruments or a common AC power source.  The type
of signals we are dealing with have frequency components into the
100 MHz range so that it is easy to get coupling between circuits.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL                       It's all in the noise!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.12 / Lawrence Foard /  Re: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 650 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 650 papers on cnf)
Date: 12 Oct 91 12:06:52 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

In article <008B88C3CDDF002A1B@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>
>Hello all,
>it's Friday afternoon and I'll send these off before I go. All theory stuff,
>and some of you might be excited. E.g. by Hawkins, who brings in fire balls,
>and atmospheric conditions (and a surprise title). Or baryon nonconserevation
>and pions, by Kenny; or the virtual mono- or multi-neutron theory of Mayer and
>Reitz, able to explain what some believe to be the experimental facts. Well,
>some might disagree, some do find helium, and Menlove et al finds neutrons
>both in bursts and random, non-bursty emissions. Hm.
>More next week. I'll also update the BIBLIO4 archived file now.
>                                                                        Dieter
 
This stuff is really starting to sound bizarre.
 
>2. Published articles, letters
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bunch KJ, Grow RW;                             Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 2131.
>"Self-consistent field calculations on diatomic hydrogen in a potential well".
>** Diatomic dd in a well, i.e. in an octahedral or tetrahedral site in the
>PdDx lattice, or in a defect or crack, are looked at here. The Schroedinger
>equation for such a pair plus electron cloud (an overall neutral region) is
>solved by the Method of Roothaan and Blinder. Results show that the dd pairs
>are squeezed together in the well, but not enough to explain cold fusion. The
>model can however be adjusted and might be useful anyway.        Nov-90/Jul-91
 
Lets see it shows that Cold fusion doesn't work, but if we fudge it a bit we
might be able to get a few million more for research.
 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hawkins N;                                     Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 2112.
>"Possible natural cold fusion in the atmosphere".
>** Atmospheric disturbances, electron bonding (Cooper pairs), Abrikosov
>electron vortices (AEV), free floating fire balls and more are invoked here
>along with the proposition that such atmospheric phenomena may cause or help
>along cold fusion. For example, there seems to be some evidence that cold
>fusion cells "work" during electrical storms, due to the influx of AEV's
>between the cathode and anode. More work is needed, says H.      Nov-90/Jul-91
 
ummmm this sounds like something out of a Frankenstein movie. Doesn't it just
seem a bit more likely that the instruments could be effected by
thunderstorms?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kenny JP;                                       Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 547.
>"Electropionics and fusion".
>Cold
>fusion demands a new physics and this may be it.                 Jun-90/May-91
 
I bet holding power crystals next to cold fusion cells placed under pyramids
also helps :-) Why all the effort to explain something when there isn't even
decent evidence for its existance.
 
--
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact".   ------
Hackers do it for fun.  | First they came for the drug users, I said   \    /
"Profesionals" do it for money. | nothing, then they came for hackers,  \  /
Managers have others do it for them. | I said nothing... STOP W.O.D.     \/
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenentropy cudfnLawrence cudlnFoard cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.09 / Dave Richards /  Re: Please drop it so they don't
     
Originally-From: daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please drop it so they don't
Date: 9 Oct 91 18:03:55 GMT
Organization: Humble Excerpts, Inc., Costa Mesa, CA

>>Shouldn't we be able to at least discuss this
>>device before it becomes a horrifying reality?
 
In article <m0kMZfe-0000DHC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
>We certainly should be able to discuss anything we want.
>Whether we should CHOOSE to do so is another thing.
>I'm not calling for a restriction on free speech.
>I'm calling for an act of moral restraint.
 
Seems like a subtle distinction.  Talking about things that go
boom is fun and instructive.  The people that need to show some
moral restraint are those psychopaths that would actually build
and use such a device against other people.  And they won't use
any restraint, so advising them to do so is rather useless.  It
is rather like saying, "don't discuss knives on the net, because
you may give someone the idea to stab somebody."
 
Dave
 
"You can't legislate morality" -- presidential candidate George Bush
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendaver cudfnDave cudlnRichards cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: building H-bombs
     
Originally-From: mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: building H-bombs
Date: 14 Oct 91 22:23:09 GMT
Organization: Univ of Calif, San Diego

arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) writes:
> In article <28f3a94a.1002@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU
 (Falconer) writes:
> >
> >In article <15615@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
 writes:
> >>I just saw a news report saying that the U.N. inspectors in Iraq found
> >>some lithium-6, and plans to produce ~100 kilos a year of the stuff.
> ............
> >>My question is this -- about how much Li-6 does a bomb take?
>
> >	I would venture a WAG (wild-ass guess, natch) that one could
> >obtain about a megaton yield out of a hundred kilos of Li6.
>
> I'll venture a better guess that the number is more like ten kilos, and
> this puts a different light on the Iraqi production plans.
>
> There was a story in today's Oregonian which had reference to an
> un-named source who claimed the number might be as small as 1 or 2
> kilo's.
 
Come, on now.  We're scientists.  We should be able to figure it out!
 
Just figure out where the energy goes.  Each nucleus of 6Li makes X amount of
fusionable material, and you know the Q value of the total fusion chain
from Hydrogens to Helium.  Say 50% of the bomb energy comes out in fusion,
and plug in the numbers.  E = delta m c^2.
 
Put in 1/4 of a megaton of fusion energy, figure out the number of reacting
Hydrogens, go back to figure out the number of Lithiums.
 
I don't have any of the nuclear data here, so I can't do it, but it should be
possible in a couple of minutes.
 
> Arnold Frisch
> Tektronix Laboratories
 
 
Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.15 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: building H-bombs
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: building H-bombs
Date: 15 Oct 91 15:41:31 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

 
 
In article <1991Oct14.222309.26082@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt
 Kennel) writes:
>arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>> In article <28f3a94a.1002@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU
 (Falconer) writes:
...........
>> >>My question is this -- about how much Li-6 does a bomb take?
 
>> >	I would venture a WAG (wild-ass guess, natch) that one could
>> >obtain about a megaton yield out of a hundred kilos of Li6.
 
>> I'll venture a better guess that the number is more like ten kilos, and
>> this puts a different light on the Iraqi production plans.
 
>Come, on now.  We're scientists.  We should be able to figure it out!
 
>Just figure out where the energy goes.  Each nucleus of 6Li makes X amount of
............
>Put in 1/4 of a megaton of fusion energy, figure out the number of reacting
>Hydrogens, go back to figure out the number of Lithiums.
 
>I don't have any of the nuclear data here, so I can't do it, but it should be
>possible in a couple of minutes.
 
The problem here is that we don't know the efficiency of the fusion
process - how much of the Hydrogen is actually converted to Helium.
 
On the other hand, we do know something about the physical size of
fusion bombs.
 
Lithium Hydride has a specific gravity of about .8.  This means that
100 kilos occupies a volume of 220/62.5/.8 = 4.4 cubic feet.  This
seems impossibly large to me, while the .44 cubic feet needed for 10
kilos does not.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.16 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 655 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 655 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 16:17:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
may as well get these off, leaving only another 5 in the heap. This lot is
quite - well - "interesting". Matsumoto continues to surprise us. Now he taps
gravity energy, by the collapse of quad neutrons, just like neutron starts on
their last legs. We must rewrite physics, he says. He also finds experimental
evidence, in the form of damage to his Pd rods, confirming beyond any doubt
his nattoh and iton theory. Bittner et al, more soberly, reckon that cold
fusion happens only if there is gross deuterons movement (see their theory
paper on p.2114 same journal), and therefore there should be a maximum fusion
rate somewhere during charging, because clearly the effects of moving
deuterons (decaying all the time) and the chance of their bumping into each
other (increasing all the time) work against each other. Their experiment
confirms the theory. I find their charging time constant on the low side and
assume they have used a rather high diffusion coefficient, and they must have
completely saturated their electrode (i.e. several time constants), to get x =
0.8. But their papers do explain some observations, i.e. the long electrolysis
times and the fact that cnf seems to die down again, as some claim. What with
the periodic removal of the cell from the neutron detection space etc, this
one goes into my "quality work" list, and makes that 11 positives out of about
40 such papers. Their theory, by the way, is reminiscent of Chuck Sites's
stuff of a few weeks ago, except that he was suggesting that deuteron flow
itself causes heat, while Bittner et al say it enables cold fusion.
 Kim's theory seems to him to answer a lot of questions; unfortunately, he
has, I think, overlooked a simple point, made by Frank Close about the
dendrite theory: The total cell voltage is a few Volt, so where should these
high voltages come from? Correct, you might get a high voltage gradient, and
10**9 V/m seems impressive, but the total actual voltage cannot be more than a
few, so no sparks, no acceleration to anything more than a few eV, goodbye
theory. Anyone want to argue? Y.E. Kim, are you there?
 Finally, the Takaga et al, certainly not a quality work. No controls, not
even a background measurement, a few neutron excursions, could be due to
anything. A single scintillation detector was used. Sorry, we are not amused.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 16-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 655
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bittner M, Ludwig G, Meister A, Mueller J, Ohms D, Paffrath E, Rahner D,
Schwierz R, Seeliger D, Stiehl P, Wiesener K, Wuestner P;
Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 2119.
"Evidence for the production of d-d fusion neutrons during electrolytic
infusion of deuterons into a palladium cylinder".
** This team has previously described their method, without many results, and
also has a theory (same journal, p.2114). Here, they report their experimental
results. Electrolysis at their chunky Pd cathode (32.1 mm diameter, 19.3 mm
long) was kept up for 606 h, at 4A (i.e. ca. 0.5/cm**2) in 3M LiOD and D2O.
The electrolyte was topped up regularly, and the temperature and cell voltage
measured. The cell was periodically removed from the neutron detectors for one
hour, so that there was a total of 110 hours of neutron measurements and 116
hours of background measurement. Weighing after the experiment showed that a
D/Pd loading of 0.801 had been achieved. During the first 220 h, effect and
background are the same, then the effect increases to up to 4 sigma above
background, and decreases again later, confirming these authors' theory on
that count, for a loading time constant of 350 h.                Aug-90/Jul-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE;                                         Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 558.
"Surface reaction mechanism for deuterium-deuterium fusion with a
gas/solid-state fusion device".
** Kim's previously proposed theory of a surface fusion mechanism is applied
here to the results of Claytor et al (preprint) said to demonstrate
reproducible tritium production from a gas/solid-state (G/S) device. The
theory also explains others' irreproducibility. The theory suggests that at
D2 bubbles at the cathode surface under electrolysis, or in pockets at the
solid state device, electric fields will accelerate deuterons to speeds
sufficient to cause fusion upon impact with others. Gas bubbles can cause high
electric gradients, up to 1E09 V/m, etc., and Kim also suggests that breaking
of electrolytic contact can lead to "huge" spark discharge currents. This is
followed by a mathematical development, leading to cold fusion rates similar
to those claimed by some. The theory leads to suggestions for optimisation of
the yield: an oxide coating, a pulsed voltage, surface asperities, control of
the size and number of the bubbles or pockets and a magnetic field to divert
electrons, which might interfere.                                Jul-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matsumoto T;                                   Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 2125.
"Observation of quad-neutrons and gravity decay during cold fusion".
** M's iton theory of cold fusion might also predict the emission of 4-neutron
nuclei, which would escape from the cell, to disintegrate in the emulsion of
the detector film. Nuclear emulsions left from the author's previous
experiments were carefully reexamined and some ring-shaped tracks found that
might be due to these quad neutrons undergoing microexplosions due to gravity,
like a neutron star, after being compressed to a single point. Theory says
that these quad neutrons have a life time of only 1E-23 s, and thus should not
reach the emulsion; their observation, however, means that this theory needs
to be modified. Cold fusion, then, because of the extremely high hydrogen
pressure, is a small-scale simulation of the processes taking place in a dying
star, and we are tapping gravitational energy here.              Sep-90/Jul-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matsumoto T;                                    Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 567.
"Microscopic observations of palladium used for cold fusion".
** The Nattoh model of cold fusion says that cnf takes place as a chain
reaction at grain boundaries. One of the candidates would be so energetic as
to leave behind marks of damage in the crystal structure of the Pd deuteride,
and M looks for evidence in this work, using microscopy. Pd rods, used as
cathodes in heavy as well as light water electrolysis, were cut in an axial
plane, and first looked at optically, then by SEM. In both H2O and D2O,
although the mechanism may be different, cold fusion takes place, and M finds
the tell-tale areas of damage.                                   Sep-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takagi R, Numata H, Ohno I, Kawamura K, Haruyama S;
Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 2135.
"Neutron emission during a long-term electrolysis of heavy water".
** A chunky (121.3 g, 21.1 mm dia., 32.4 mm long) Pd electrode was vacuum
annealed and then used as cathode in 0.1M LiOD, and subjected to a variety of
current densities from 0.05-102.4 mA/cm**2, over a long period, after
gas-charging in D2 at 1.2 atm. A single NE-213 detector measured neutron
emissions, and two thermocouples, one within the cathode bulk and one in the
electrolyte, the temperature. A Luggin capillary allowed measurement of
cathode potential plus iR drop. There were no neutron background measurements,
but the authors take this to be equal to the lowest emissions.  There were
some neutron emissions higher than others, including some spike-like
excursions, and the authors take this to be support for cold fusion. They also
noted some cathode potential swings and these tell them that cold fusion might
be a surface effect.                                             Dec-90/Jul-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.16 / Steve Robiner /  Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steve Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
Date: 16 Oct 91 00:52:14 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <9110111512.AA29889@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>of information triggered a respone in some of my little gray cells so that
>I recalled an experience from my distant past when I too had difficulty
>with a counter operating in 90%+ rel humidity.  For those not up on the
>operation of proportional counters let me explain the problem.  The anode
>wire of the counter is biased at high voltage through a high resistance.
OK.  Now this question has plagued me for the last time.  Why don't these
experiementors just use TWO detectors?  IF you get TWO simultaneous
bursts you know its the real thing, else its noise, or machine error.
 
N'est pas?
=steve=
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensrobiner cudfnSteve cudlnRobiner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.16 / Chuck Sites /  Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
Date: 16 Oct 91 18:12:13 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
 
 
>Originally-From: resst11@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor):
>>	ON the subject of Cold Nuclear Fusion... I wrote a post a while back
>>asking for a basic rundown of the field. IS there any current evidence that
>>promotes belief in the existence of non-muon catalyzed CNF? I've seen new
>>papers on it appearing, but are these basically "face-savers" or is there
>>enough continuing hard results to encourage more work?
>>	My prior post got no, nil, zero response. If no one wants this
>>stuff posted, fine, just Email me. I don't have time to wade through
>>the 600 CNF articles (got my own research projects to do ;) ), and I'd
>>really appreciate someone who HAS looked over the field recently giving
>>me a quick rundown on the State of the Art.
 
>Well, I am the one with the 600+ papers you are too lazy to read {:] and I
>was hoping someone else would answer your question. You have to realise that
>you'd get a different assessment from every person. There are those who claim
>that there are over 200 positive papers, i.e. 200 experiments say yes yes yes
>to cold fusion. I have been through the list, and out of something like 250
>experimental papers, I personally regard about 30-40 as "quality" work. Out of
>this group, there are about 10 positive ones. Again, just what is "positive"
>is a matter of taste. The TB will race for his/her word processor at the
>tiniest neutron emission, or doubtful mass spectrum pimple. These 10 or so are
>mostly excess heat or correlations. This is not much out of 600+ papers, but I
>can't give a "conventional", i.e. non-(hitherto unknown nuclear reaction),
 
Well, considering that quality of the bulk of positive reports, It will
leave one with a definite belief that something is there which is totally
in support of a TRUE cold fusion effect of D+D in specific condensed matter
systems.  I don't think any scientist upon study of this subject will
reject that fact.  Namely: A. Careful studies of neutron and charged
particle emissions of cold fusion cell, both electrolytic and compressed
gas, indicate something which emitts these particles, is being activated
the process. B. An excess of heat in PdD(x) above and beyond PdH(x) has
been seen which appears to defy any conventional explaination.
 
   On point B, there are two conclusions, either, 1. some very unusual
fermion/boson differentiation is being made in this condensed matter
state, or  2. there is truly a hitherto unknown nuclear effect. Conceivably
it could be a combination of both.  After reading most of the proceeding
from AIP conference proceeding: 228, that Dr. Jones advertised here
several months ago, as well as several other paper's Dieter has recommended
in this forum, I think there is a hell of alot more to Cold Fusion
than our first (1989) assumtions about the subject.
 
   Theoretically, what I think is going on with point B at this time is
difficult to describe.  I'm favoring the theory of S. Chubb & T. Chubb.
So far, these are the only people that have recognized banding effects
for mobile protons and deuterons through a lattice, and have recognized
the distinction of fermions vs. bosons in such a band state. In the API
preoceedings [mentioned above] is the paper:
 
"Lattice Induced Nuclear Chemistry"
 Scott Chubb and Talbot Chubb
 AIP Conference Proceddings 228
 Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems  1990
 ISBN 0-88318-833-3
 
   In the same book, if you really are interested in one of those difficult
 to refute experimental results, look at Eiichi Yamaguchi and Takashi Nishioka.
 "Nuclear Fusion Induced by the Controlled Out-Transport of Deuterons in
 Palladium".  They clain thier experiment is repeatable and generates
 burst of neutrons of between (1-2) x 10^6 n/s.  What I find interesting
 about this paper, is that thier experiment is based on the difusion of D
 through Pd, (something Dieter has harped me on). It shows not only an very
 significant heat rise, but a large burst of neutrons.
 
   Anyway, the science is there.  That's no joke.  However there has
 been a very bad joke played on the interested public and unfortunatly
 many in the science community as far as knowledge about this subject.
 I would hate to see a graduate student or a professor persuing the
 effect of Deuterium in metals turned down, because of an 1989
 controversy on whether cold fusion occurs.   The subject reamins
 interesting and possibly important to materials that are selected
 for fusion reactors and devices which handle H & D under pressure
 or electric current.
 
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com | 502-454-7218   Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the spam reaches spam Max |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.16 / Eliot Moss /  Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
     
Originally-From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
Date: 16 Oct 91 19:05:56 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)

In article <36603@usc.edu> srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steve Robiner) writes:
 
   OK.  Now this question has plagued me for the last time.  Why don't these
   experiementors just use TWO detectors?  IF you get TWO simultaneous
   bursts you know its the real thing, else its noise, or machine error.
 
   N'est pas?
   =steve=
 
Well, not necessarily if the two detectors have a common power supply -- there
can be substantial coupling via the common AC source, etc., which was pointed
out previously. One would have to demonstrate that noise pulses are
independent in the setup actually used in order to be completely convincing.
--
 
		J. Eliot B. Moss, Assistant Professor
		Department of Computer Science
		Lederle Graduate Research Center
		University of Massachusetts
		Amherst, MA  01003
		(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss@cs.umass.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmoss cudfnEliot cudlnMoss cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.16 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Protection.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Protection.
Date: 16 Oct 91 20:40:31 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

 
I am curious if the cold fusion researchers physically protect themselves
from possible effects of their experiments? Or perhaps the effects are too
small to worry about?
 
P.S. I see there are 650+ articles about cold fusion, do they all exist
in electronic form so that I can ftp them? If not is there a way to obtain
them for free?
 
A. Orenshteyn.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.17 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Suppliers.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Suppliers.
Date: 17 Oct 91 16:12:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Are there suppliers preferably in US so that I do not have to deal with
export/import restrictions which supply D2O and Pd and the appropriate
electolytes (BTW is there a finite list of these which people use?) ?
 
If so, what are the addresses, names, tel., fax., etc...?
 
WHAT ARE THE PRICES?
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.17 / Hank Roberts /  Re: building H-bombs
     
Originally-From: hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: building H-bombs
Date: 17 Oct 91 23:29:48 GMT

 
The wonderful, scary book _The Curve of Binding Energy_ about bomb
physicist Ted Taylor, (I believe I have his name right) includes
his conversation with author John McPhee, as they toured a nuclear
bomb museum near Alomogordo test site. The walk down the line of
devices, starting with mockups of the Hiroshima bombs.
 
As they get toward the end of the hall, Turner worries aloud that
the (very small) bomb models there should not be on display,
because they give a very clear picture of how little fissionable
material is required to make a bang.
"The size of a grapefruit" comes to mind as the volume of plutonium
needed.
 
That's for an A-bomb; add fusible material to boost the yield.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenhank cudfnHank cudlnRoberts cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.18 / Chuck Sites /  Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
Date: 18 Oct 91 01:43:09 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
 
>  When ever I hear about neutron bursts I cold
>shudder goes down my spine because bursts are commonly an indication of
>electronic noise in nuclear detection systems.  I suspect that is the
>problem with the Menlove experiment as I shall now explain.
 
>I had heard that initially the experimenters (Menlove, et al.) had problems
>with their detectors due to the high humidity in the lead mine.  That bit
>of information triggered a respone in some of my little gray cells so that
>I recalled an experience from my distant past when I too had difficulty
>with a counter operating in 90%+ rel humidity.  For those not up on the
>operation of proportional counters let me explain the problem.  The anode
>wire of the counter is biased at high voltage through a high resistance.
>A coupling capacitor connects that biased anode to the input (nominally
>at DC ground) of a sensitive preamplifier.  Anything which can generate
>noise on the anode gets greatly amplified and appears at the amplifier
>output as a pulse or, very commonly, a burst of pulses. (Note the word
>burst!)  Now back to the problem of high humidity.  The coupling capacitor
>has a dc bias of perhaps 2 kV across it.  Surface leakage currents on
>that capacitor can be a very significant noise source, and high humidity
>can result in lots of surface leakage across said capacitor.
 
 I just wanted to followup on string.  There has been some other posts
which have indicated that only 2 detectors were used. The apparatus
actually consisted of 2 rings of He3 tubes, the inner ring consisiting of
of 8 tubes embedded in a CH2 moderator, and the outer ring consisting of
48 tubes also in a CH2 moderator. In addition there was a veto-counter
external to the system consisting of 6 more He3 tubes to exclude external
sources. The total efficency the system for detecting neutrons was
44%.  In the neutron counting world, that's up there with the best.
 
  This experiment was very thorough.  It involved several runs of
D gas in Ti chip, was well as H gas, and mixxes of both. If there
had been a problem humidity causing false positives as Dick has asserted
here, then why is it that thier counts fall in relation to the amount
H in the system. If there was an electronic problem due to humidity
then why are there no counts above background counts with pure H?
 
  I think Dick has made a good point though, at least for the neutron
counting experimentalist out there. Watch out for those nasty
problems which can cause false positives, like the electronic
effects that can occur on counting systems as Dick has sugjested.
 
 
>Dick Blue
>NSCL                       It's all in the noise!
 
Have Fun,
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ait't over, It ain't over. Whats the score?|it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.18 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 662 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 662 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 14:41:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
the last of the heap, plus a couple of extras, including the Russian. I have
not been able to work out the derivation of "erzions"; no Russian root
suggests itself. Maybe it's from the Russian pronunciation of "Earth", since
there is much mention of the Earth's top layers etc. I mean the English word;
the Russian "zemlya" is no clue. In any case, a highly speculative "what-if"
paper. So is the Zakowicz, also postulating an effect that we don't know
exists.
Kim persues the free-lunch idea of high voltages from low; in this paper, the
author team even admit the problem but then dismiss it with a wave of the
hand. Again I ask, does anyone want to argue, e.g. the man himself, perhaps?
There are two papers on post-mortem studies of the metals used for cnf
experiments and it happens a corrosion/metallurgist contact of mine has just
made this point; why don't people... etc? No startling results, though.
Neither were there for the tritium search but the authors did find, I reckon,
an artifact that may have fooled others; the enrichment is a function of
whether the cell is open or closed. Two papers tell us that Johnson & Mathey's
Pd is not always what it is cracked up to be; the He contamination should
interest He searchers.
Finally, first prize to the Case and Boehm paper. Clearly and simply written,
it should be read by anyone trying to do cold fusion calorimetry. A pity it is
written in an off-the-beaten-track journal - although our librarian had no
trouble getting it.
 I now find that I have missed out on Part 2 of issue 3 of vol.9 of FT; there
is a lacuna of many pages, hopefully not all on cold fusion. This will take
about 4 weeks to get, I am told.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 18-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 662
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bazhutov YuN, Vereshkov GM, Kuz'min RN, Frolov AM;
Fiz. Plazmy Nekotor. Vopr. Obshch. Fiz. M. (1990) 67 (in Russian).
"Interpretation of cold nuclear fusion by means of erzion catalysis".
** Muons are known to catalyse cold fusion, and could, in principle, be the
cause of cold fusion, since they arrive at the Earth's surface in cosmic
showers. However, their short life time precludes this possibility, at least
at the claimed observation levels. But what if there were another, heavy and
negative particle with much longer life, in these cosmic showers? The authors
call these hypothetical particles "erzions", and postulate that they may have
been accumulating in the Earth's surface for a long time. Erzion catalysis
proceeeds just like muon catalysis, and if erzions are long lived, cold fusion
is explained, along with some other physical mysteries such as "Lebed-X3"
energy. The result would be (4)He, thus accounting for the dearth of neutrons;
some would however be emitted as secondaries.                              ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case M, Boehm R;
HDT (Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.) 151 (Heat Transfer Adv. Energy Syst.) (1990) 55.
"assessment of thermal energy output from electrochemical cells - a critical
review".
** An excellent and simply written description of the problems with cold
fusion calorimetry, and the types of calorimeters that have been used. Several
suggestions are made for better designs, and an error analysis for the three
main designs given. These errors are much larger than those claimed by
previous users of the designs. Good design suggestions include the use of
differential thermocouples, a differential design for a cooling jacket type
that uses only a calibration heater and three temperatures (or two
differences), and a good suggestion for better use of the (most accurate)
Seebeck effect design. A response simulation is also presented.            ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE, Rice RA, Chulik GS;                     Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 174.
"The role of the low-energy proton-deuteron fusion cross section in physical
processes".
** Drawing on Kim's idea of insulating bubbles causing high voltage discharges
at the cathode (which the authors discuss, dismissing the problems with this),
the paper examines the p-d fusion reaction theoretically. Using the Maxwell-
Boltzmann velocity distribution and some uncertain extrapolation, the result
is that at low energies, p-d fusion would dominate. This has implications not
only for cold fusion, but also for geophysics (geological heating) and may
even solve the solar neutrino problem. It impinges also on cluster impact
fusion.                                                          Feb-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kumar K, Hwang IS, Ballinger RG, Dauwalter CR, Stecyk A;
Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 178.
"Analyses of palladium cathodes used for heavy water electrolysis".
** Since the various cold fusion experiments' results have depended on the
particular palladium used, it is important to characterise it. This paper
reports a post-mortem examination of some cathodes after long electrolysis,
including one that showed positive results. The 4mm*10cm rods were vacuum
annealed for 196 h at 800 degC. They were examined later for D/Pd ratio,
microstructure, X-ray structure and chemistry. The loading was found to be
about 0.7. EDAX showed that the Johnson & Mathey supplied rods, supposed to be
cast, were in fact cold worked and heat treated. There were differences in the
grain structure between the top and bottom of the rods; at the top, there was
some Pd mixed with PdD0.7. This may be due to uneven current distribution. No
dendritic structures were seen on the surface. There was surface degradation.
The charging time was measured from evolved gas volumes, and had a time
constant of about 5 h (my estimate), being complete at 14-16 h. SIMS showed
traces of species with masses 3 and 4 but at very low level, and these
findings were not repeated.                                      Jul-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ritley KA, Lynn KG, Dull P, Weber MH, Carroll M, Hurst JJ;
Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 192.
"A search for tritium production in electrolytically deuterided palladium".
** Ten Pd cathodes were used in the electrolysis of both heavy and light water
containing 0.1M LiOD or LiOH, over an extended period. Some cells were closed
(with recombination) and some were open to a greater or lesser degree. The
metal, from Johnson & Mathey, was found to contain an initial impurity of
(4)He, to the extent of He/Pd of 3E-10. The cathodes were predeuterided in D2
gas before electrolysis. Aliquots were taken out for tritium analysis. Some
erratic tritium levels could be put down to counting errors, and the only
cells showing a tritium increase were the more or less open cells. This is due
only to selective escape of gases, as an experiment with a completely open
cell confirmed.                                                  May-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sevilla J, Fernandez F, Escarpizo B, Sanchez C; Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 188.
"Some characteristics of titanium and palladium samples used in cold fusion
experiments".
** Looking at the state of the cathode after a cold fusion experiment might be
fruitful. The authors have used a variety of techniques to do this, including
differential scanning calorimetry and SEM. It appears that electrolysis at Ti
does not enable deuterium to reach more than slight depths, and the overall
loading D/Ti was found to be 0.02, while higher-temperature gas charging
reached a value of 2. DSC confirmed this. Nevertheless, cold fusion was
equally successful in either case, implying that it is a surface effect. SEM
showed that gas loading caused little surface change, while electrolysis
caused surface cracking and polishing by bubbles, as well round craters; these
were larger for those samples where cold fusion had been observed.
                                                                 Feb-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zakowicz W;                                     Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 170.
"Possible resonant mechanism of cold fusion".
** Theoretical paper, looking for resonance effects, due to a combination of
the short-range attractive nuclear interactions at close distances and the
longer-range Coulombic repulsion. Solution of the Schroedinger equation yields
reasonable reaction rates for d-d fusion, and shows the importance of
screening. The remaining question is whether the resonance in fact exists.
Inclusions and dislocations in the Pd lattice would be detrimental to this
model, acting against resonance.                                 Apr-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.18 / Paul Dietz /  Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
Date: 18 Oct 91 13:19:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1991Oct18.014309.28095@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
 
>  This experiment was very thorough.  It involved several runs of
>D gas in Ti chip, was well as H gas, and mixxes of both. If there
>had been a problem humidity causing false positives as Dick has asserted
>here, then why is it that thier counts fall in relation to the amount
>H in the system. If there was an electronic problem due to humidity
>then why are there no counts above background counts with pure H?
 
Did they *measure* the humidity during the experiments?  If not,
how do we know it stayed the same?
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
Date: 18 Oct 91 17:11:58 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

I have not read the Jones paper on the experiments in the Leadville mine,
but I did hear his talk about same at the Division of Nuclear Physics
meeting last fall at Illinois.  He showed data that, to a theorist,
appeared to have reasonably convincing evidence of good coincidences
for neutrons that were only associated with the deuterated system and
were not related to cosmic ray events.  (reasonably convincing means
it is at least as solid as other stuff that is accepted uncritically
in this field when the results are not controversial)  However, the
data consist of VERY RARE bursts of a few hundred neutrons.
 
The instantaneous data rate may be 10^6 but I doubt if they saw 10^5
neutrons total over many months.  (I guess it is time to find that
journal in the library and see the final numbers.)  Anyway, this is
an unmeasurable amount of total heat energy even if it is interesting
physics.  Evidence for heat from test-tube fusion remains problematical.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46.186)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.19 /   /   One scientist (at least) is unconvinced.
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  One scientist (at least) is unconvinced.
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 00:13:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

<If you get TWO simultaneous bursts you know it's the real thing.>
 
Actually there are things you can do with the signal from a single
counter to help discrimination or real pulses from noise.  Usually
the noise pulses have a very different shape from the real events so
some simple form of pulse shape discrimination will help.  Secondly
when dealing with "bursts" a look at the time intervals between pulses
may show an "non-physical" distribution, as for example a string of
pulses all equally spaced in time is not likely to be a sign of a
series of nuclear reactions.  In the case of the lead mine experiment
I don't believe they even recorded the pulse-height spectra of the
pulses, so they are totally dependent on not having any cross talk
between detectors.  I have seen detectors pulse in synch with spot
welders in a factory a half mile away due to noise either radiated
or propagating on the power lines.  I wonder how clean the power
is in your typical lead mine?
 
<Well considering that quality of the bulk of positive reports,
<it will leave one with the definite belief that something is
<there which is totally in support of a TRUE cold fusion effect
<of D + D in specific condensed matter systems.  I don't think
<any scientist upon study of this subject will reject the fact
<.....
 
If you ignore the "low rate" experiments such as that of Menlove
and Jones, where really do we stand as far as the "facts" in support
of cold fusion?  How many experiments are there in which surplus heat
and a respectable output of nuclear radiation have been observed?
Since there have been several "quality" experiments showing surplus
heat and no radiation, it's pretty hard to believe that someone else
finds both radiation and heat.  Bursts of 10^6 neutrons per sec are
not easily overlooked!  Until there is something like consistant
results from several different experiments, it all still  smells
a bit pathological.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.19 /  Falconer /  A Hybrid H-Bomb Plausible?
     
Originally-From: rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Falconer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Hybrid H-Bomb Plausible?
Date: 19 Oct 91 02:21:30 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ, CSC Dept, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

 
 
	Okay, here's a tough question: I've been batting around the
idea previously aired in this group and in sci.military, about the
prospects for constructing hydrogen bombs using conventional high
explosive implosion. It has been observed that one can obtain high
densities (adequate for fusion) from HE compression, and that some
tests have shown low but still significant neutron yields in D-T
targets which were shock-compressed by classical spherical implosion.
 
	Here's the rub: the very high temperatures which would be
required to initiate a sizable fusion burn are probably (certainly?)
too high to be attained by the use of simple chemical explosives.
In most of the napkin H-bomb designs out there (Morland, Hansen), the
designers invoke the X-ray pulse off the fissioning primary as an
energy transport mechanism for fusion ignition.
 
	In the majority of the amateur fission-fusion-fission bomb
designs, the fusion assembly consists of several concentric cylinders:
the innermost is a thin fissile "sparkplug", around which is a thick
layer of fusion fuel (lithium deuteride and lithium hydride) which in
it turn is encased in a U-238 tamper. The detonating fission primary
induces formation of a (hot!) plasma around the secondary. This is due
to the impingement of X-rays arriving from the primary on the "hohlraum"
comprised by the fusion capsule inside the weapon casing.
 
	The formation of the plasma is a bit controversial, and I have
heard it plausibly argued that direct radiation pressure, asseverations
to the contrary, is still the compressive mechanism. For the record,
Howard Morland mentions magic ultradense styrofoam as the medium which
is flash-heated to plasma by the X radiation, said plasma then serving
as the compressor. In any case, we may simply postulate that the primary
does something with its X that compresses and heats the fusion capsule.
 
	Once this has made both fission and fusion viable, neutrons from
the primary pass through one end of the cylindrical core and strike the
compressed sparkplug, causing it to fission. Neutrons from this breed
tritium when they strike lithium nuclei. Under these conditions, the
tritium and deuterium can fuse, in one of the more energetic of the
fusion reactions (17.6 MeV per event). The high-energy neutrons which
are bred by the fusion reaction strike the compressed U-238 tamper and
fast fission it, resulting in an even higher yield. There can be more
stages (tertiary, quaternary, etc.) which undergo the same sequence in
their turn, with yield increasing geometrically as the number of stages.
 
	Now, how about this for a simpler design: take out the primary,
and surround the fusion secondary assembly with a sophisticated and
powerful implosion system. Light this off and compress the cylinders
to fission/fusion densities. Then, and this is a crucial step, use one
or more of the external high-voltage neutron sources normally utilized
as fission initiators in modern primaries. Arrange these to fire their
fast neutrons directly into the heart of the core (from the ends?).
This fissions the sparkplug, which begins the fusion burn, and so forth.
Certainly direct contact with fission heat should suffice to begin fusion!
 
	This seems roughly plausible, but no doubt there are physical
problems which I have overlooked in my ignorance. Can anyone critique
this set of assumptions, or the basic design philosophy?
 
 
 
 
--
||||||   Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU  --  (Falconer)  |||||||
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrteasdal cudlnFalconer cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.21 / Chuck Sites /  Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 16:47:15 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

In the interest of this thread, I thought it would be useful to reproduce a
portion of the Menlove et.el. paper published in the AIP Proceedings: 228.
For the sake of being brief, I'm just going to quote the abstract and the
portion which describes the detector systems.  I think it will answer some
of the questions brought up about the detector systems Menlove used in the
Leadville mine and specifically answers the criticisms about the detector
with respect to possible humidity and electrical noise problems.
 
 -----------------------( Begin Quote)----------------------------------------
 
              REPRODUCIBLE NEUTRON EMMISSION MEASUREMENTS
                  FROM Ti METAL IN PRESSURIZED D2 GAS
         H.O Menlove, M.A Paciotti, T.N Claytor, H.R. Maltrub,
                     O.M. Rivera, and D.G Tuggle.
                   Los Alamos National Laboratory
                        Los Alamos, NM 87545
                           S.E. Jones
                    Brigham Young University
                         Provo, UT 84602
 
                             ABSTRACT
 
 During the past year, we have measured emissions from samples of titanium (Ti)
metal and sponge in pressurized D2 gas. In January 1990, we improved our sample
preparation procedure and our detector sensitivity level so that measurements
are now reproducible, but not yet predictable. We have measured excess neutron
emissions from the majority of our most recent samples using our high-
sensitivity neutron detectors. The improved sensitivity in our new detector
system was obtained using low-radioactive background stainless steel tubes, a
small detector volume with high efficiency, and additional cosmic-ray shielding.
Our most sensistive detector consists of two independent segments making up
inner and outer rings of 3He tubes. The combined total efficiency is 44%. In
addition to inner and outer ring segments, we have three separate detector
systems operating in parallel control experiments to monitor enviromental
change. We have measured neutron bursts from a variety of samples containing
Ti metal and D2 gas. The low multiplicity bursts from 2 to 10 n, occur much
more frequently than the high multiplicity bursts. By measuring high-mass
samples (300g Ti) over several weeks, with many liquid nitrogen temperature
cycles, we have detected neutron emission above background from most samples
with a significance level of 3 to 9 Sigma.
 
I. INTRODUCTION
 
  At the time of the workshop on Cold Fusion Phenomena in Santa Fe, New Mexico,
May 23-25, 1989 we reported on measuring the emission of neutrons from
experiments involving titanium (Ti) metal in both pressurized gas and D2O
electrolysis type experiements. Additional data on our gas phase experiments
were presented at the NSF-EPRI workshop, Washington, DC, October 1989.
  Early experiments reporting neutron emission have been published by S.E.
Jones, A. Bertin, F. Scaramuzzi, V. Klyuev, J.P.K. Iyengar, K.L. Wolf, and
others.
  This paper presents an update on our experimental work covering a period
through September 1990. Experiments have been preformed at our original
underground laboratory at Los Alamos as well as at deeper underground tunnels
at Los Alamos and near Leadville, Colorado.
  The focus of our work for the past year has been to upgrade the sensitivity
and surety of our neutron detectors and to develope sample-preparation
procedures to give reproducibility in neutron emissions.
 
II. EXPERIMENTAL UPGRADES
 
A. Detectors
 
  We have designed several neutron detectors for measuring neutrons from cold
fusion type experiements. The high efficiency detectors based on 3He gas tubes
in CH2 moderator.  The total efficiency of our most advanced detector for
2.3 MeV (252 Cf) neutrons is 44%. The detector shown in Fig. 1 consists of two
independent segments making up inner and outer rings of 3He tubes. The inner
detector has nine He3 tubes and the outer detector has forty-two 3He tubes. The
low-background inner detector has a single count background of 90 counts/h and
a coincidence-count background of only 0.7 counts/h. The corresponding single
efficiency is 19%.
  Our initial tubes had aluminum walls for high thermal-neutron counting
efficiency; however, for low background counting, we are now using stainless
steel tubes to reduce the radioactive alpha-particle decay background. The
background was reduced by a factor of 5 by changing from aluminum to stainless
steel tubes. However radioactive decay from the tube walls gives no time-
correlated counts, so aluminum tubes give better neutron-burst detection
sensitivity than stainless steel because of their 5% higher efficiency.
  The 3He detector tubes are screwed directly into an aluminum-metal cavity
that is sealed to prevent rf noise penetration. Desiccant is added to keep
moisture out of the detector high-voltage area and to prevent any moisture
from the test cells from affecting the counting system. Four to six
AMPTEK A-III hybrid charge-sensitive preamplifier/discriminators are inside
this sealed cavity. They are placed at the base of the 3He counters to
eliminate analog-signal transmission lines that are prone to pick up noise.
  Time-corrrelated neutron counting is ideal for the neutron-burst results
that have been reported. Every neutron count that enters the circuitry triggers
the time-correlation counters that check whether there are any other neutron
counts within the selected time gate. We use a coincidence time gate of 128us,
which corresponds to over three times the neutron die-away time of the
detector. If two pulses are less than 4.5us apart, they are eliminated from
the coincidence gate by a predelay circuit that also eliminates fast
coincidence events ( < 4us) from electrical noise.
  The time-correlated (coincidence) count R is related to the number of
neutrons (N) that are detected by the equation
 
     N (N - 1)
R = -----------
         2
 
This relationship assumes that all N neutron events are processed through the
128us coincidence gate in a time less than the gate length. If a burst event
plus thermaliztion time lasts more than 128us, the value N will be under-
estimated.  The accidental coincidence counts are meassured by sampling the
same shift registers after a delay of 1ms following each signal pulse.
  To process the high throughput of neutrons from a burst in a short time
interval, we use up to six amplifier channels with clipping time constants of
180ns. To reduce deadtime losses, the neutron counts are stored in a
derandomizing buffer before the enter the shift-register electronics. Also,
all neutron counts trigger the time correlation circuit without waiting
through the gate time.
  For low-level neutron counting, it is necessary to distiguish true neutron
counts from spurious background noise.  Measures to accomplish this include:
 
  1. splitting the 3He tubes into inside and outside rings and checking that
     the inside/outside ratio is consistent with neutrons originating from the
     sample portion.
  2. splitting the signal output to long (128us) and short (32us) gates and
     checking that the count ratio is consistent with the detector die-away
     time (~50us), and
  3. adding an external bank of cadmium-covered 3He tubes with no CH2
     moderatorto count only electrical noise and not neutrons.  These external
     tubes run on the same high-voltage power supply as the primary detector
     and identify spurious electronic noise events. In practice, the veto
     events are less frequent than one per week.
 
  The high efficiency of our detector systems results in very good sensitivity
for low-level counting. In comparing the sensitivity of different detector
designes, a figure of merit is the efficiency E squared over the background
(E^2/B). The inside ring of the detector system shown in Fig 1. has an
efficiency of 19% and a background of 90 counts/h resulting in
 
E^2    0.0361
---- = ------ = 4.0 x 10^-4 h (single mode)
 B       90
 
However, our primary results are for neutron coincidence counting where
 
E^2    1.3 x 10^-4
---- = ------------ = 1.86 x 10^-3 h (coincidence mode)
 B        0.7
 
  In the underground tunnel at Los Alamos, the coincidence background is 0.03
counts/h and this figure of merit improves to
 
E^2    1.3 x 10^-4
---- = ------------ = 4.33 x 10^-2 h (coincidence mode)
 B        0.03
 
however this figure of merit is valid only when the background rate dominates
the signal.
  The coincidence-neutron background decreases by a factor of 70 in going from
the ground surface level to our underground laboratory. The background rate
dropes by a factor of 2x10^3 in the Los Alamos tunnel and by a factor of 10^5
in the Leadville tunnel 1750ft below the surface (see paper by S.E. Jones,
et. al., at this meeting)
 
 -------------------------( END QUOTE )----------------------------------------
Well folks, that describes the detector systems Menlove et. al. have been
using.  Skeptic or not, I think you will agree the system used is of the
highest caliber, so I think one can rule out a fault in the detector system
with a high degree of confidence.  Second, if there was a fault then why is
there such a large difference between counts for the D2 gas experiments and
the H2 gas control experiments always!  It makes me wonder who is being
pathalogical here, the skeptics or the cold fusion practictioners.  What
is more important is the question of what is going here? Something is
clearly being activated in the process of D2 gas cycling that is causing the
emission of neutrons.  Perhaps its time we start arguing about that instead
of whether cold fusion is real or not; or who's being pathalogical.
 
Have Fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com |Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over! It ain't over! Whats the score?|it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.22 / Dieter Britz /  RE: neutron measurement
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: neutron measurement
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 14:36:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dick Blue seems to know something about how to measure neutrons, and how not
to. He tells us that you can distinguish between neutrons from a nuclear
events and some types background ones, which will come with a different
interval distribution. OK, but this still does not prove that if you do have
the right distribution, you have a cold fusion event, or does it? How about
cosmic showers? Do they have a characteristic distribution, separable from
nuclear events? I would be surprised, though, if the background that arises
from radioactive traces in the concrete or metal shields would not act like
nuclear events, since these ARE nuclear events.
 The way I see it, you need a number of detectors, one at a sufficient
distance from the measuring cell so as not to detect anything from it, but
still so close that the background is the same (this itself might be a
difficult compromise to reach). Then you need to take the difference signal
between this, and all the detectors you have around the cell; I foresee
trouble here with scaling, the cell-detectors might have different
sensitivities from the far one. Then, to eliminate the sort of artifacts Dick
Blue mentions, that do not come from the background but from each detector,
you need to reject those signals that are not common to all cell detectors.
Is this correct? I can't always cut through the jargon used in papers, but I
can't remember reading a description of this, if it is correct.
 As I have said before, to be convincing, cold fusionists must come up with
signals that stick out from the background noise by at least one, preferably
two orders of magnitude, repeatedly, and demonstrably not due to artifacts.
It is not enough to say "we were very careful and we don't think these are
artifacts". The signals must be such that they compell others, even skeptics,
to believe in them. Not many cold fusion experiments have fulfilled these
requirement; you might say that none has.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.22 / Fred Gilham /  Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion
Date: 22 Oct 91 08:50:58
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

 
 
Does anyone know what the major obstacles to using hot fusion as a
controlled power source currently are?  Is it fair to say that there
are no major obstacles of a basic scientific nature, but just a matter
of improving the technology?  If not, what are those major obstacles?
 
I have heard so little lately about hot fusion that I'm wondering if
people have just given up on it as a relatively near-term (e.g. next
20 years or so) solution to energy needs.
--
-Fred Gilham          gilham@csl.sri.com
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengilham cudfnFred cudlnGilham cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.22 / Ted Dunning /  Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
     
Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine"
Date: 22 Oct 91 17:27:21 GMT
Organization: Computing Research Lab

 
In article <1991Oct21.164715.25945@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
 
   Path:
 nmsu!lynx!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.o
 hio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!coplex!chuck
   From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
   Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
   Date: 21 Oct 91 16:47:15 GMT
   References: <9110111512.AA29889@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <1991Oct18.014309.28095@coplex.com> <4804@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
   Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.
   Lines: 180
 
   In the interest of this thread, I thought it would be useful to reproduce a
   portion of the Menlove et.el. paper published in the AIP Proceedings: 228.
 
	... extract describing excellent neutron counting deleted ...
 
 
   ... It makes me wonder who is being pathalogical here, the skeptics
   or the cold fusion practictioners.
 
well, there are two _very_ different sorts of phenomenon being
claimed.  one is the very low level neutron emission which has been
typified by pretty decent scientific investigations and little hype
throughout this affair.  the other is the magic heat experiments which
have not been nearly so cut and dried.
 
   Perhaps its time we start arguing about that instead of whether
   cold fusion is real or not; or who's being pathalogical.
 
i would be happy to assert that something unusual is happening in
menlove and jones' experiments.  i think a lot of others would be,
too.
 
i am not at all convinced that there has been experimental work of
comparable stature done on pons and fleischmann style experiments.  in
fact, i am pretty well convinced that nearly all of the positive
experiments conducted in search of large amounts of excess heat have
been pretty shoddy in comparison.  this is not entirely true, but it
is very hard to find exceptions if only because they drown in a sea of
uncontrolled possibilities for confounding.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.23 / Dieter Britz /  FT?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FT?
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 14:24:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Does anyone out there have the address and telefax number of the journal
Fusion Technology, please? Please email me privately, as I would like to see
it before it would appear on the spf Digest with the usual delay. I had this
info once but have mislaid it, and do not have easy access to the journal.
Thanks in advance.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.23 / Troy Daniels /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: tdaniels@athena.mit.edu (Troy E Daniels)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 23 Oct 91 08:43:58 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <GILHAM.91Oct22085058@assault.csl.sri.com> gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred
 Gilham) writes:
>
>
>Does anyone know what the major obstacles to using hot fusion as a
>controlled power source currently are?  Is it fair to say that there
>are no major obstacles of a basic scientific nature, but just a matter
>of improving the technology?  If not, what are those major obstacles?
>
The main problem with hot fusion is that you take the reactants, heat
them up to the point were they can easily overcome the Coulomb barrier,
and before they have time to actually start a self-sustaining reaction,
everything drifts into the walls and disappears.
 
>I have heard so little lately about hot fusion that I'm wondering if
>people have just given up on it as a relatively near-term (e.g. next
>20 years or so) solution to energy needs.
>--
Actually, the big problem will probably be building the plants, rather
than figuring out how to build them.  Here at MIT, we have a research
fusion plant, which we could use to supply a large amount of our
power demands.  But to do so we need the approval of some committee,
and if we ask them, all the anti-nukers show up and protest.  So we
continue to run our plant, with the same risk of any bad accident,
and use the power generated to heat the atmosphere. :-(
 
>-Fred Gilham          gilham@csl.sri.com
 
Troy Daniels            +--------------------------------------------------+
                        | H H  AA  V   V EEEE    AA     DDD   AA   Y Y o o |
daniels@mitlns.mit.edu  | HHH AAAA  V V  EE     AAAA    D DD AAAA   Y   .  |
tdaniels@athena.mit.edu | H H A  A   V   EEEE   A  A    DDD  A  A   Y  --- |
 -----------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentdaniels cudfnTroy cudlnDaniels cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.23 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: bscott@carl.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 23 Oct 91 13:58:58 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institut fuer Plasmaphysik

In article <GILHAM.91Oct22085058@assault.csl.sri.com> gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred
 Gilham) writes:
>
>
>Does anyone know what the major obstacles to using hot fusion as a
>controlled power source currently are?  Is it fair to say that there
>are no major obstacles of a basic scientific nature, but just a matter
>of improving the technology?  If not, what are those major obstacles?
 
Caveat: I am only qualified to comment on magnetically confined
fusion ("magnetic bottles", e.g., tokamak, stellarator, etc.). Inertially
confined ("laser", to drive the implosion of the fuel pellet) fusion I
leave to an expert.
 
Physics: energy and particle transport are far larger than people
thought they would be when we were all struggling with MHD stability. We
know how to get a stable equilibrium now, but turbulent and more exotic
forms of "anomalous" transport are so poorly understood that I, for one,
expect very little progress on the physics side until we have been able to
do realistic dynamical simulations for at least several years (realistic:
at least a factor of 100 between the largest and smallest important
dynamical scales - refs 1--3, below, since this has not been grasped by
conventional wisdom). Add to this the physics of a plasma undergoing ignition:
what do those 3.5 MeV alphas actually do. This is a hot topic now, but
unfortunately, in addition to some very good work there is a lot of
politically motivated chaff, and its hard to separate those now unless you
are really in the inside (*scientifically*). For this reason, I can speak
in detail only with regard to the turbulence. Demands for political solutions,
probably sourced in Congress, have done a great deal of damage to the
maintainence of scientific credibility: when you create an atmoshpere in
which whatever answer (not "we don't really know", Congress/DOE forbid!)
to give the authorities is agreed on becomes mainstream thinking, you cannot
expect the best, honest scientists to have the most influence. Just look
at the annual reviews of physics in the next December Physics Today and see
just how political the fusion accounts appear in comparison to the others,
even high-energy. The reason is simple: we need a lot of money to do our
experiments, and we are forced to do this in a culture with a business/legal
mentality rather than a scientific one. And, don't forget, everyone remembers
that the promise was of a *reactor* to deliver power, not new physics.
Too bad, those were the cards we were dealt.
 
Engineering/technology: two that I know of. (1)High-field magnets are
very expensive. Power economy requires high power density, but stability
requires gas pressure (prop to density*temperature) to be no larger than
a few per cent of magnetic pressure (prop to field strength squared).
Don't expect immediate progress on constructing 100 or more kiloGauss
(10 or more Tesla) magnets from the high-Tc superconductors. (2)Extraction
of heat energy from the device, assuming that you have a working reactor.
I know very little about the details of this, but it is a major issue
in the ITER efforts (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor).
Someone better informed could give comment.
 
>I have heard so little lately about hot fusion that I'm wondering if
>people have just given up on it...
>as a relatively near-term...
 
No, but we realise that we have a multi-decade timescale even to
understand the physics, so public statements wild enough to make the
press are absolute, purest bullshit.
 
People find this situation very hard to accept (esp. in the US, snake oil
is much more part of the culture than hard, realistic, long-term thinking),
which is why there was such a flap over the cold fusion fantasy. The fact
that this newsgroup is democratic and unmonitored (I hope this does *not*
change) explains why this is also true here.
 
(1) B. Scott, Journal Comput. Phys. vol 78 p 118 (Sep 1988).
(2) B. Scott, H. Biglari, et al., Physics of Fluids B vol 3 p 51 (Jan 1991).
(3) B. Scott, "The Mechanism of Self-organisation in Drift-wave Turbulence",
     submitted to Physics of Fluids B.
 
--
Gruss,                                  The deadliest bullshit is
Bruce D. Scott                           odorless and transparent
bds at dgaipp1s.bitnet                      -- W Gibson
Max Planck Institut fuer Plasmaphysik
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.23 / Gregory Hammett /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: ghammett@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Hammett)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 23 Oct 91 13:59:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1991Oct23.084358.28498@athena.mit.edu> tdaniels@athena.mit.edu (Troy
 E Daniels) writes:
>
>Actually, the big problem will probably be building the plants, rather
>than figuring out how to build them.  Here at MIT, we have a research
>fusion plant, which we could use to supply a large amount of our
>power demands.  But to do so we need the approval of some committee,
>and if we ask them, all the anti-nukers show up and protest.  So we
>continue to run our plant, with the same risk of any bad accident,
>and use the power generated to heat the atmosphere. :-(
>
 
Just to clarify things, MIT does not have a "research fusion plant"
which produces net energy.  No fusion reactor in the world has yet
reached Q=1, where as much fusion energy is produced as it takes to
heat up the plasma.  I.e., no one is producing net energy yet.
Furthermore, in order to produce a significant amount of fusion energy
with existing research devices, one needs to use Tritium fuel.  Only
the TFTR tokamak at Princeton and the Joint European Tokamak in
England will use tritium any time soon.  TFTR will be the first to do
serious tritium work, in 1993 according to the present schedule,
although JET may do a little bit of tritium for publicity purposes in
the next few months.
 
Daniels is correct when he says that the main problem with fusion is
that the heat leaks out much faster than we would like, so it takes a
lot of power to keep it hot enough to fuse.  The problem is somewhat
analogous to airplane drag induced by turbulence: if the flow remained
laminar then airplanes would need very little power to fly.  Despite
the turbulent plasma, TFTR and JET will probably get "close" to Q=1
(within a factor of 2) over the next few years when they use tritium.
The U.S.  and others are working on designs for prototype reactors
which would actually ignite (i.e., be self-heating so that Q>>1).
For a review of the present status of fusion research, take a look at
the book "Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy", by Robin Hermann
 
Greg Hammett	ghammett@princeton.edu
Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory
*******************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenghammett cudfnGregory cudlnHammett cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.23 / Colin UCT /  Neutron Energy, Glow Theory, Diquarks, and CF.
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron Energy, Glow Theory, Diquarks, and CF.
Date: 23 Oct 91 17:05:29 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

What would convince me that d-d fusion is going on in cold fusion
would be a measurement of the energy of the neutrons in the burst.
They should all be at around 2.6 MeV. This seems to me to be an
obvious measurement to make. Has anyone done that yet? I can see that
the poor statistics might well preclude such a measurement, though.
Are there other obvious problems with measuring the neutron energy?
 
p.s. Cold fusion interests me. Not enough to go and read the 600 odd
papers, but I enjoy reading this group.
 
I _did_ come across one paper about CF which I found entertaining. It
was in Il Nuovo Cimento vol 102a no. 5 (nov 89) Shaw et al.: Scenario
for Cold Fusion by Free Quark Catalysis. The authors explore the
possibility of free stable anti-up diquarks (Q) existing in the palladium,
or whatever, which would favour the reaction d+d-->4He+gamma. Very
little tritium, and bursts of neutrons with a three body energy
spectrum.
 
Of course, the whole thing was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and they suggest
stockpiling Q matter, to make a viable energy source.
 
Apparently, Qs are allowed by Glow theory, (broken QCD), which was
developed to be consistent with "GUTs such as SU(5), SO(10) or E(6)"
 
The theory is probably no more whacky than the things some of the
others have come up with to explain CF!
--
Colin Henderson       (unconvinced)
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnUCT cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.23 / Gregory Hammett /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: ghammett@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Hammett)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 23 Oct 91 16:33:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1991Oct23.084358.28498@athena.mit.edu> tdaniels@athena.mit.edu (Troy
 E Daniels) writes:
>
>Actually, the big problem will probably be building the plants, rather
>than figuring out how to build them.  Here at MIT, we have a research
>fusion plant, which we could use to supply a large amount of our
>power demands.  But to do so we need the approval of some committee,
>and if we ask them, all the anti-nukers show up and protest.  So we
>continue to run our plant, with the same risk of any bad accident,
>and use the power generated to heat the atmosphere. :-(
>
 
I made some comments on the above misunderstanding in my previous
message.  A few additional points:  MIT does have some small research
devices for studying plasma physics and fusion energy, but they do not
make net energy.  Futhermore, they pose virtually no safety hazard to
the external community.  They make a very small level of neutrons, but
not enough to pose any hazard.  They do make a fair amount of x-rays,
which is why there is some shielding around their devices.  But there
are lots of dentist offices in Cambridge that also make x-rays.  So
the Cambridge anti-nukers have nothing to fear from the fusion
research at MIT.
 
I appreciate Daniels interest in fusion, but I just wanted to set the
record straight.
 
Greg Hammett	ghammett@princeton.edu
Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory
**********************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenghammett cudfnGregory cudlnHammett cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.23 / Curtis Yarvin /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 23 Oct 91 16:38:40 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science

In article <1042@carl.pppl.gov> bds@dgaipp1s.bitnet writes:
|In article <GILHAM.91Oct22085058@assault.csl.sri.com> gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred
 Gilham) writes:
|>
|>
|>Does anyone know what the major obstacles to using hot fusion as a
|>controlled power source currently are?  Is it fair to say that there
|>are no major obstacles of a basic scientific nature, but just a matter
|>of improving the technology?  If not, what are those major obstacles?
|
|Engineering/technology: two that I know of. (1)High-field magnets are
|very expensive. Power economy requires high power density, but stability
|requires gas pressure (prop to density*temperature) to be no larger than
|a few per cent of magnetic pressure (prop to field strength squared).
|Don't expect immediate progress on constructing 100 or more kiloGauss
|(10 or more Tesla) magnets from the high-Tc superconductors. (2)Extraction
|of heat energy from the device, assuming that you have a working reactor.
|I know very little about the details of this, but it is a major issue
|in the ITER efforts (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor).
|Someone better informed could give comment.
 
What about neutron irradiation of the tokamak structure?  Will the whole
thing have to be replaced every other year, or have I been listening to too
many left-wing crackpots again?
 
c
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencgy cudfnCurtis cudlnYarvin cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.23 / Mike Pelt /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 23 Oct 91 23:58:33 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <15866@princeton.Princeton.EDU> ghammett@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
 (Gregory Hammett) writes:
>In article <1991Oct23.084358.28498@athena.mit.edu> tdaniels@athena.mit.edu
 (Troy E Daniels) writes:
>>and if we ask them, all the anti-nukers show up and protest.
 
>So the Cambridge anti-nukers have nothing to fear from
>the fusion research at MIT.
 
Logical and reasonable, but neither logic nor reason have ever
stopped the anti-nukers from protesting before.  Based on some
statements from Erlich, et. al., during the early days of the
cold fusion flap, they're probably already stockpiling "Fusion
Kills" picket signs, just in case.
 
I'm interested in what Troy Daniels means by generating power -
presumably, that's just recovering some of the otherwise-wasted
power that went in; last I heard, fusion was just approaching
scientific break-even, and nowhere near engineering break-even.
I'm sure we all would have heard if there had been any great
breakthrough since then.
--
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
Headland Technology/Video 7               No whimper, no blast.
..ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp                  His life's goal accomplished,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                         Zero risk at last.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.23 / Troy Daniels /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: tdaniels@athena.mit.edu (Troy E Daniels)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 23 Oct 91 20:01:01 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <15862@princeton.Princeton.EDU>, ghammett@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
 (Gregory Hammett) writes:
|> In article <1991Oct23.084358.28498@athena.mit.edu> tdaniels@athena.mit.edu
 (Troy E Daniels) writes:
|> >
|> >Actually, the big problem will probably be building the plants, rather
|> >than figuring out how to build them.  Here at MIT, we have a research
|> >fusion plant, which we could use to supply a large amount of our
|> >power demands.  But to do so we need the approval of some committee,
|> >and if we ask them, all the anti-nukers show up and protest.  So we
|> >continue to run our plant, with the same risk of any bad accident,
|> >and use the power generated to heat the atmosphere. :-(
|> >
|>
|> Just to clarify things, MIT does not have a "research fusion plant"
|> which produces net energy.  No fusion reactor in the world has yet
|> reached Q=1, where as much fusion energy is produced as it takes to
 
I said that?  It seems I did.  Next time I post, I think that I'll try
to be awake :-)
 
What I intended to say was that while our plant takes in more energy
that it puts out, it does put some out.  So the logical thing (to me,
at least) would be to use what power we do get out, which would reduce
the amount of power we need from other sources.  But instead we heat
the atmosphere.  And it still gets COLD here in winter :-)
 
 
 
|> Greg Hammett	ghammett@princeton.edu
|> Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory
|> *******************************************************
|>
Troy Daniels             /----------------------------------------------\
tdaniels@athena.mit.edu | Everyone only flames when provoked.            |
daniels@mitlns.mit.edu  |  The question is what constitutes provocation. |
 -----------------------+-----------------------------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentdaniels cudfnTroy cudlnDaniels cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.24 / James Crotinger /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@icf.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 24 Oct 91 05:50:16 GMT

tdaniels@athena.mit.edu (Troy E Daniels) writes:
> What I intended to say was that while our plant takes in more energy
> that it puts out, it does put some out.  So the logical thing (to me,
> at least) would be to use what power we do get out, which would reduce
> the amount of power we need from other sources.  But instead we heat
> the atmosphere.  And it still gets COLD here in winter :-)
 
  I think that you are perhaps confusing MIT's fission reactor with
their tokamak. The only measurable heat that could be extracted from
the tokamak would be that generated by its magnets, etc. Alcator C-MOD
will produce a significant numbers of neutrons even without
tritium---from a radiation hazard standpoint (I was astonished at the
thickness of the walls when they built the building). But from the
standpoint of recoverable heat, they're zilch. I suppose they could
try to recover the heat from the magnet cooling cycles, but it's not
clear that that would be practical---it would be far from steady
state, and the design of those systems was not done with that purpose
in mind.
 
  While at MIT (I finished a Ph.D. at the Plasma Fusion Center in
'89), I did hear of proposals to use the heat from MIT's nuclear
reactor.  They have a research reactor which produces in the
neighborhood of 10 MWth (at least it used to--I'm not sure if they're
still allowed to use the high grade fuel that they used to use).  This
reactor does run almost contuously, and the heat is vented to the
atmosphere by a big heat exchanger near NW12. I think MIT tries to
call as little attention to this reactor as possible, which may
explain why they don't try converting it over to help heat the
buildings in that area of campus.
 
  Jim
 
--
 --------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@icf.llnl.gov   P.O. Box 808;  L-472 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(415) 422-0259     Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.24 / Radha Venkat /  Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
     
Originally-From: radhika@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us (Radha Venkat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Date: 24 Oct 91 21:30:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton High School, Princeton, New Jersey

Hello!
 
I am a high school student on a quest for information.
 
I am writing an article on PPPL for a school journal. I already have much of
the necessary information. What I was wondering though, was about the
status of Q=1.
 
I worked at the Labs this summer, and I had the opportunity to talk to
many physicists and engineers. I was given to know that the current
predictions of breakeven are quite optimistic. Is it true that much of
the energy going to contain a plasma is NOT counted in Q? That Ohmic
heating is the only source considered? This would put the program's
predictions in a very bad light.
 
I would appreciate any help I could get on this issue. I can be reached
at radhika@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us.
 
Thanks!
 
-----
Radha Venkat, Princeton High School
DNS: radhika@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us      UUCP: ...!princeton!phsbbs!radhika
Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for this message.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenradhika cudfnRadha cudlnVenkat cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.25 / Dieter Britz /  FT?.........!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FT?.........!
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 16:22:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Last week I asked
>Does anyone out there have the address and telefax number of the journal
>Fusion Technology, please? Please email me privately, as I would like to see
>...
>Thanks in advance.
 
and have now got it. Thanks everybody.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.25 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 669 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 669 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 16:27:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
Seven more. The Budnikov was hard work, being unusually long for a Russian
paper, and it ended up saying next to nothing. Kaushik et al will excite the
TB, they found some Ti chips that emitted some tritium, AND some active chips
fogged X-ray film; they also found neutrons. No controls, though; a pity. The
Lipson et al continues the Russian fracto-effort, here another theory, as
good, I guess, as any other. It makes use of some earlier non-cnf work from
the same lab, which goes into "miscellaneous". We now have a few virtual
particles to explain cnf: virtual dineutrons (I think the anti-diquarks are
also virtual) and here virtual supercondensates. "Virtual" is of course just
a way of saying I know these things are not stable and shouldn't exist, but
let's say they exist for just a teeny short time, huh? Matsuda et al carry on
the grand tradition of looking for He (as did Paneth in 1926), and despite a
very careful experiment, find nothing significant. The Noninski pair challenge
a negative excess heat result, reckoning that Albagli et al did in fact find
an excess but suppressed it. We await an answer. The same might be said about
the Williams et al [1989] work but - significantly - the effect went away when
they used a better calorimeter. I had thought that Russel Jr invented the idea
of virtual dineutrons but here I find that it dates back further; I get this
from the Pokropivnii+ paper, another one (they call them bineutrons and I did
not want to change the name). It appears that Timashev [89] might have been
the first to relate these elusive virtuals to cold fusion. The patent - well,
it's another one.
 You can expect more next week, I have a new issue of FT here, against all
expectation.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 25-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 669
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budnikov AT, Danilov PA, Kartamyshev GA, Katrich NP, Seminozhenko VP;
Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh., Ser. Fiz. Radiats. Povr. Radiats. Mat 1990(1) 81 (in
Russian).
"Study of gases evolving from palladium, nickel and copper, bombarded with
D+ ions, from palladium saturated with gases by heavy water electrolysis and
by heating in deuterium".
** The three metals Pd, Ni and Cu were bombarded by D+ ions in a vacuum; other
metal samples (Pd) were used as cathodes in heavy water electrolysis or
charged in D2 gas. These were then placed in a high vacuum pumping system and
the desorption of gases from the metals followed by mass spectroscopy. Masses
of 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 were found, as well as higher. The authors exclude, on no
basis that this abstractor can see, species containing tritium, ascribing all
to combinations of H and D; He is excluded because it does not desorb from
within a metal by simple pumping.                                     Dec-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaushik TC, Shyam A, Srinivasan M, Rout RK, Kulkarni LV, Krishnan MS,
Malhotra SK, Nagvenkar VB;                   Indian J. Technol. 28 (1990) 667.
"Preliminary report on direct measurement of tritium in liquid nitrogen
treated TiDx chips".
** D2 gas was prepared by electrolysis of D2O, and analysed for tritium
contamination; a t/d ratio of 1E-13 was found and attributed to the Pd cathode
used for the electrolysis, previously used for a cold fusion experiment. Ti
chips were treated with nitric and sulphuric acids followed by water, to
remove surface oxides. Batches of the chips were evacuated at  850 degC for
2h, cooled to 600 degC and exposed to D2 gas at 1 bar. Loading, measured by
weight, was only 0.05 (D/Ti) but assumed much higher at the Ti surface. A bank
of 10 BF3 neutron counters was set up around the liquid nitrogen cell, with
paraffin block moderators; the background count was 5 c/s. Two plastic
scintillators were placed away from the cell to monitor the background. The
Ti chips were dropped into liquid nitrogen and allowed to warm up to room temp
upon nitrogen evaporation; the cycle was repeated 4-5 times per batch. One
such batch of 100 chips was thus cycled, and there was no indication from the
scintillators, but the BF3 detectors showed a signal 15 times the background,
implying a burst of about 10000 neutrons during the 5 min interval. Repetition
of this, with more chips, was not successful. One way to detect tritium was to
detect the K x-ray emissions expected from the Ti if they contained tritium;
some signals above background were found by this inaccurate method. Another,
better detector was also used, and many chips were found with above-background
tritium signals, going up to a factor of about 5 (4 chips). Some high-activity
chips were placed between medical x-ray films, and produced images. Although
no untreated chips were measured for tritium, it is considered unlikely that
there was any tritium surviving the vacuum heating.              Oct-90/Dec-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipson AG, Kuznetsov VA, Deryagin BV;
Dokl. Akad. Nauk. Fiz. Khim. 318(3) (1991) 636 (in Russian).
"Scenarios of 'cold nuclear fusion' by concentration of elastic energy in
crystals".
** Another in the fractofusion series. Here the authors draw upon earlier work
on mechanical crushing of crystals, where the L-factor was conceived, i.e. the
compressional resistance of the material. This leads to the idea of nonuniform
absorption of elastic energy in isolated crystal microregions, called
supercondensates. Application of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and some
mathematics leads to a life time of such (virtual) supercondensates of about
1E-22 s, and further development makes fractofusion feasible by this
mechanism. It might be helpful to apply lasers to metal deuterides for extra
compression and possibly the production of quarks, perhaps observed by Shaw et
al for cryo-shocked Nb spherules.                                     Jan-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matsuda J-I, Matsumoto T, Nagao K;                  Geochem. J. 24 (1990) 379.
"An attempt to detect (3)He from the cold nuclear fusion".
** The reactions p-d-->(3)He, d-d-->(3)He+n and d-d-->t+p all eventually lead
to (3)He, since t decays to (3)He also. A high sensitivity mass spec can
detect down to 3E04 to 3E06 He atoms, say the authors, which is inferior to
neutron detection but better than for heat, gamma or tritium. Electrolytes of
LiOH (in H2O) and LiOD (D2O) were electrolysed at a 10*15*0.2 mm**3 Ti plate,
which had been preheated at 800 degC in vacuum for 1 h to reduce its He
content. Currents up to 250 mA were applied to the cells, and the cathodes
analysed for He after runs of from 2 to 18 h. The VG5400 MS was set at such a
sensitivity as to be able to distinguish between (3)He and HD. The samples
were heated to 1000 degC for 20 min to drive out the He, which was passed over
a Ti-Zr getter to remove impurities, and through charcoal at liquid N2
temperature to remove Ar, Kr and Xe. No significant differences between
controls and D2O runs were found, and the results lie close to the detection
limits, setting an upper bound to cold fusion of 30/s, much smaller than FPH's
40000/s but larger than Jones+'s. The results show a much higher level of
(4)He by a factor of about 3E04 but again, with no difference between controls
and D2O runs.                                                         Sep-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noninski VC, Noninski CI;                       Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 579.
"Comments on 'measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma-ray emission
rates, other fusion products, and power in electrochemical cells having
palladium cathodes'".
** The paper by Albagli et al, F. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 133, is commented
upon here. Albagli et al did an open-cell calorimetry comparison, and the
paper shows a drift in cell temperature, and the heat required to keep the
cell at the same temperature. They attribute this to loss of solvent. Noninski
and Noninski point out that this is not valid and that there in fact was
evidence of excess heat in that paper.                           Nov-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pokropivnii VV, Ogorodnikov VV;
Pis'ma Zh. Teor. Fiz. 16(21) (1990) 31 (in Russian).
"The bineutron model of cold nuclear fusion in metals".
** Supported by earlier Soviet theoretical work, the authors propose the
hypothetical formation of quasistable bineutrons; these are put into the
context of the nucleonic (neutron, deuteron and biproton) isotope family. If
bineutrons have sufficient life times, they might undergo the fusion reactions
d+2n-->t+n or d+2n->(4)He+e. The bineutrons can be formed by electron capture
by protons, and the chemistry of the environment enters here: high electron
pressure and density are favourable. Some thermodynamical calculations
indicate that Pd and Nb are particularly good metals in whose deuterides this
might happen. Highly energetic electrons might derive from the fracto-effect
(electrons accelerated across cracks) or from the high voltage fields at
cathode surfaces. The hypothesis suggests test experiments as, e.g. varying
the accelerating voltages in some manner, or admixture of different
neutron-rich impurities to optimise the process.                 Aug-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steinert C;                              Ger. Offenb. DE 3,923,468, 15-Jul-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(14):146547 (1991).
"Fusion reactor".
** "A nuclear fusion reactor concept based on cold fusion is described. The
reactor comprises a series of fusion chambers sepd. by expansion chambers.
Electrodes serve as hydrodynamic seals for the entrance and outlet of
electrolytes from the fusion chambers. The fusion chambers also connected to
each other, e.g. by capillary tubes. The expansion rooms have
pressure-sensitive windows for irradn. with laser beams, surrounding the
fusion chambers is moderator". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuznetsov VA, Lipson AG, Klyuev VA, Sakov DM, Toporov YuP, Simakov YuS;
Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR. Div. Chem. Sci. 37(7) (1989) 1340.
Original Russian: Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, Ser. Khim. 37(7) (1989) 1466.
"Size reduction of metal-halide crystals".
** This work measures the surface area of various alkali metal halide crystal
particles undergoing crushing in a ball mill. S rises to a maximum and stays
there. This is related to the L-factor, which is the energy required to
compress a unit mass of the crystal to the size of the unit cell. From this,
the maximum S for a new crystal can be predicted.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.25 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 25 Oct 91 15:47:56 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>Here at MIT, we have a research fusion plant, which we could use to
>supply a large amount of our power demands.
 
Let's see Harvard top *that*!  :)
 
Seriously, ignition and self-sustaining "burn" are the goals of the
generation of experiments now on the drawing board, such as the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and the
politically beseiged Burning Plasma Experiment (BPX).  I'm pretty
sure that neither of them includes a plan for turning the radiation
into heat energy into electricity.  Whole-system breakeven and
production of electricity would be left to the next-generation
"demo" reactor, assuming that the results from ITER et al. offer
sufficient technical and economic encouragement to build the "demo."
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.28 / Dieter Britz /  How to get the archived bibliography files
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to get the archived bibliography files
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:50:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I get asked regularly how to get the archived bibliography files. Here is how:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Use the userid
anonymous and your e-mail address as the password.  Once connected, enter
cd fusion
to access the fusion archives.  Then you may enter
dir fusion.bib*
to get a listing of the bibliography files.  To transfer each file use
GET (ie. mget fusion.bib*  or  get fusion.biblio1a  etc.).
Enter  quit to terminate ftp.
 
2. Via LISTSERV, which means you get it sent by email. To first find out what
is in the archive, send an email to listserv@ndsuvm1.bitnet, with a blank
SUBJECT line, and the "message" consisting of the command
index fusion
You get a largish list of all files available. To get any one of these files,
you then send to the same address the command, e.g.,
get fusion 91-00487
get fusion biblio1a
etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.28 / Dieter Britz /  Trouble in the archives
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trouble in the archives
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:52:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Last Friday, I updated the fourth segment of the bibliography and sent it off
to the archive; unfortunately, it got a bit scrambled (by me). I have fixed it
now. If you have retrieved the file BIBLIO4 since then, you'd better do it
again. Sorry about this. I have a program that adds new items to existing
ones, but I fed it with the wrong "new items" file, and the categories got
mixed up.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.28 / Chuck Sites /  Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine (Neutron counts vs. Heat)"
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutron Bursts in a Lead Mine (Neutron counts vs. Heat)"
Date: 28 Oct 91 05:45:52 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes:
 
 
>In article <1991Oct21.164715.25945@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
 
 
>   ... It makes me wonder who is being pathalogical here, the skeptics
>   or the cold fusion practictioners.
 
>well, there are two _very_ different sorts of phenomenon being
>claimed.  one is the very low level neutron emission which has been
>typified by pretty decent scientific investigations and little hype
>throughout this affair.  the other is the magic heat experiments which
>have not been nearly so cut and dried.
 
I agree. These are two very different results that claim the same
physical effect as there basis. It seems to me that of all the claims
that have been made to date, low level neutron counting at the "Jones"
level is the one which has gained the most repectability.  IMHO Jones
is right on the money and there are very good experiments that support
his initial claims.  You are also correct in pointing out that the claims
of excess heat are one of the more problematic claims made in this
field. Yet these claims still pursist and are being published, not in
science journals, but in patents. (The idea being; who cares if it's fusion
or not. Patent it. It's an energy source).  So I agree with you on the
statement: that the heat experiments are not so cut and dried as the
work of Jones, Menlove, Wolf, Scaramuzzi, Klyuev, ect., ect.
 
>   Perhaps its time we start arguing about that instead of whether
>   cold fusion is real or not; or who's being pathalogical.
 
>i would be happy to assert that something unusual is happening in
>menlove and jones' experiments.  i think a lot of others would be,
>too.
 
Again, I agree.  With respect to the work of Jones and the rest,
The science effected is not the energy field, but is more the
astrophysics, and planetary science fields.  Politically there's
no reason to reject work towards that effect and yet some hold-outs
still do because of a Cold Fusion stigma. Thats wrong, and these
folks need to be informed of such.
 
>i am not at all convinced that there has been experimental work of
>comparable stature done on pons and fleischmann style experiments.  in
>fact, i am pretty well convinced that nearly all of the positive
>experiments conducted in search of large amounts of excess heat have
>been pretty shoddy in comparison.  this is not entirely true, but it
>is very hard to find exceptions if only because they drown in a sea of
>uncontrolled possibilities for confounding.
 
I wonder what you mean by shoddy. Open cell vs. Closed Cell?  What
qualifies shoddy work from irrefutable work?  What makes a good
calorimetric experiment? Work by Huggin, Scott, and P&F as well as
the NCFI, and others indicate the exsistance of excess heat is real
in the electrolysis of D2O in a Pd/Pt system. I also follow other
works that claim excess heat in electrolysis, but the above three
seem to be the folks to follow with regard to excess heat.
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com |Ph:502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.28 / Paul Jong /  Re: Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: pdejong@fwi.uva.nl (Paul Gerard de Jong (N90))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion
Date: 28 Oct 91 10:00:04 GMT
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam

tdaniels@athena.mit.edu (Troy E Daniels) writes:
 
[stuff deleted]
>Actually, the big problem will probably be building the plants, rather
>than figuring out how to build them.  Here at MIT, we have a research
>fusion plant, which we could use to supply a large amount of our
>power demands.  But to do so we need the approval of some committee,
>and if we ask them, all the anti-nukers show up and protest.  So we
>continue to run our plant, with the same risk of any bad accident,
>and use the power generated to heat the atmosphere. :-(
 
Do you guys at MIT really have an operational fusion plant ? If so: Hip
Hip Hooray!!! for you guys.
What's its typical 'up' time ?
       its efficiency ?
       etcetera ?
I'm very interested to know more.
 
Bart van Deenen on my friend pdejong's account
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpdejong cudfnPaul cudlnJong cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.29 / ken reed /  cancel <1991Oct29.120805.3108@jet.uk>
     
Originally-From: kr@jet.uk (ken reed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1991Oct29.120805.3108@jet.uk>
Date: 29 Oct 91 14:36:49 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

cancel <1991Oct29.120805.3108@jet.uk> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
--
- Ken Reed, Joint European Torus, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK
  kr@jet.uk
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenkr cudfnken cudlnreed cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
 ___________ / Paul Koloc /  CF petition
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: CF petition
Date: 29 Oct 91 04:07:07 GMT
Date: _________________________________
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

 
I have been requested to float the petition herein below to the net
by Jed Rothwell and Eugene Mallove.  For further information directly
contact:
 
          uunet.UUCP!CompuServe.COM!72240.1256 (Jed Rothwell)
 
          Jed Rothwell
          Cold Fusion Research Advocates
          2060 Peachtree Industrial Court
          Suite 312-F
          Chamblee, Georgia 30341
          Phone: 404-451-9890
          Fax: 404-458-2404
          CompuServe: 72240,1256
=====================================================================
 
                         ***    A PETITION    ***
 
Submitted to the Science, Space and Technology Committee,
The House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
 
      We, the undersigned scientists, engineers, and interested citizens,
respectfully request that the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, hold intensive hearings on the topic of the new physical
phenomenon that is referred to generally as cold fusion. The purpose of
these hearings, which in depth and breadth should go far beyond the hearing
of the Committee that occurred in April 1989, should be to assess the
enormous body of scientific evidence that has accumulated and continues to
accumulate since that time, both in U.S. and foreign laboratories, public
and private.  These hearings should occur as soon as possible, because the
lack of funding in the United States is seriously blocking research.
 
      We are convinced that a new physical phenomenon of potentially
enormous scientific and technological significance has been discovered and
verified -- even though its precise physical mechanism is not fully understood
at present, a typical circumstance in science. We believe that it will be
imperative for the Congress to recommend immediate, significant funding for
cold fusion research and development. This research has been substantially
hampered in the United States by the negative and presently untenable
conclusions of the ERAB "Cold Fusion Research" report that was performed for
the Department of Energy in 1989. We recommend that the Committee examine
and formally reject the conclusions of that report. We also advocate that
the Committee recommend adequate funding for cold fusion research in the
United States at an initial annual rate of not less than $10 million.
 
Signed
 
Name: _____________________________________________________
 
Affiliation: ______________________________________________
            (For identification purposes only, does not indicate
             support of the petition by the organization)
 
 
Date: _________________________________
 
 
====================================================================
 
PETITION RESPONDENTS  45 names as of October 23, 1991
 
Bass, Dr. Robert                Registered Patent Agent 29,130
Bockris, Dr. John O'M.          Texas A&M University
Bressani, Dr. T.                Dep. Di Fisica Sperimenatale, U. Torino, Italy
Brosius, Mr. Allen O.           Fusion Information Center
Bush, Dr. Robert T.             California State Polytechnic University
Carver, Mr. Dean W.             Fusion Information Center
Chubb, Dr. Scott R.             Private Citizen; Naval Research Laboratory
Dart, III, Mr. Henry P.         Attorney, geologist
Del Giudice, Mr. Emilo          Instituto Nationale Fisca Nucleare, Italy
Drexler, Mr. Jerome             Drexler Technology Corporation
Eagleton, Dr. Robert D.         California State Polytechnic University
Epstein, Mr. Paul D.            Epstein & Fass Associates
Evans, Mr. Charles A.           Manager, University of Utah Research Park
Faile, Mr. Samuel               Cold Fusion Products
Fox, Dr. Harold L.              Fusion Information Center
Fredley, Mr. Donald L.          Eden Barn Industries
George, Mr. Russ                Research Inc.
Goldes, Mr. Mark                Magnetic Power, Inc.
Handel, Dr. Peter H.            University of Missouri, St. Louis
Hawkins, D.Sc., Dr. Gerald S.   Smithsonian (Ret.) Prof. Astro., Boston U.
Kidd, Jr., P.E., James A        Private citizen; U.S. Army Materials Tech Lab.
Kolm, Dr. Henry H.              M.I.T. Senior Scientist (emeritus), Lecturer
Labitt, Mr. Melvin              Massachusettes Institute of Technology
Liaw, Dr. Bor Yann              University Of Hawaii at Manoa
Mallove, Dr. Eugene F.          Starbound/Cold Fusion Research Advocates
Mayer, Dr. Fredrick J.          Mayer Applied Research, Inc.
McNally, Jr., Dr. J. Rand       Fusion Energy Consultant
Musgrave, Dean S.               Director, Ultrafibre, Inc.
Najarian, M.D., Mr. Thomas      -
Paddock, Mr. David A.           Engineer
Platt, Mr. Deane H.             Systems Analyst
Pope, Ms. Paulette              Vice President, TDC, Inc.
Quintana, Mr. Lawrence G.       Los Alamos National Laboratory
Rothovius, Mr. Andrew E.        Columnist, Peterborough (NH) Transcript
Rothwell, Mr. Jed               Cold Fusion Research Advocates
Scribner, Mr. Cliff J.          Motorola, Inc. Mechanical Engineer
Staker, P.E., Dr. Michael R.    Private citizen; U.S. Army Materials Tech Lab.
Stempfer, Mr. Frank N.          Eden Barn Industries
Storms, Dr. Carol               Los Alamos National Laboratory
Stout, P.E., Roger Paul         Motorola, Inc. Advanced Packaging Design
Tibbals, Mr. E. C.              Vaughn Precision Products, Inc.
Unck, Ms. Donna                 University of Utah Research Park
Valenzuela, Mr. G. R.           Naval Research Laboratory, Wash. DC.
Xue, Dr. She-Sheng              Instituto Nationale Fisca Nucleare, Italy
Yansen, Mr. Don E.              Crossroads Technology
 
=========================================================================
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudszL 
------------------------------
1991.10.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CF petition
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF petition
Date: 29 Oct 91 21:46:14 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Oct29.040707.11562@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
M. Koloc) writes:
>
> I have been requested to float the petition herein below to the net
> by Jed Rothwell and Eugene Mallove.]
 
 
>
>                          ***    A PETITION    ***
>
> Submitted to the Science, Space and Technology Committee,
> The House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
>
>       We, the undersigned scientists, engineers, and interested citizens,
> respectfully request that the House Committee on Science, Space, and
> Technology, hold intensive hearings on the topic of the new physical
> phenomenon that is referred to generally as cold fusion.
 
 
This seems, to me, ridiculous. Why do scientists who _claim_ to have good
evidence to appeal directly to politicians for their grant money,
rather than the usual peer review granting agencies.
 
I say that lobbying congress is the last refuge of a scoundral.
 
As followers of this group know, there is *no* compelling evidence
that CF could be an important energy resource, and very little
evidence that it exists at all.
 
If the US progress is impeded relative to other countries, why don't
those other countries have demo Mr. Fusion devices (and come to think
of it, whatever happened to Pons' CF water heater he used to show?).
 
I think it is reasonable that ~ $10M/year _total_ be allocated towards
resolving the riddles of "excess heat" and other anomalies, if for no other
reason than to learn more about making measurements in solid state/chemical
systems.
 
However, I would exclude all the signees of the petition
from receiving any of the funds---their political whining demonstrates a
lack of scientific integrity :-).
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.30 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: CF petition
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF petition
Date: 30 Oct 91 04:00:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

If CF is so promising, and so proven, why not let industry fund its
research? If it is not quite proven, why go to Congress and not to NSF?
 
Raul
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.30 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 679 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 679 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 23:37:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
here is the promised bunch; now my desk is clear. It's a mix of theory and
experiments. At last we have the maverick Mills (and Kneizys); the theory
leads to unusual experiments and the authors report huge excess heats. The
calorimetry doesn't quite convince me, though. TB's are of course free to take
this as Evidence. I find myself wondering whether Mills is not putting us on,
especially reading the numerological section of this paper. Read it yourself
to see what I mean. Cedzynsa et al find no tritium; Rajan et al no neutrons or
tritium but maybe some medical film fogging (and maybe not). Kim continues to
propagate his surface fusion theory, the Chubb brothers their own Bloch
condensate matter; Fonda and Shaw (at last I got the paper!), with no tongues
in cheeks as far as I can see (someone reckoned this recently) consider
antidiquark catalysis, and why not? Giordano et al can explain The Explosion
of FPH, by hot spots melting the Pd chunk; and Preparata as well as Seeliger
summarise some cold fusion theories, from opposite sides of the TB/Skeptic
fence, I believe.
 I include once again two peripheral papers, on CIF, which is drawn more and
more together with CNF - at least by Kim.
 I'll now send off an update of the archived biblio4 - without mistakes this
time, I hope.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 30-Oct. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 679
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedzynska K, Barrowes SC, Bergeson HE, Knight LC, Will FG;
Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 108.
"Tritium analysis in palladium with an open system analytical procedure".
** Palladium from three different suppliers (45 samples in all) were subjected
to open-cell electrolysis, as done by Wolf et al, with the aim of throwing
light on tritium analysis. This was done on both the cathode materials and the
electrolyte. There was no evidence of any tritium being produced but some
evidence of possible artifacts and even artifactal low readings. Feb-91/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb TA, Chubb SR;                              Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 93.
"Cold fusion as an interaction between ion band states".
** The authors add to their theory of cold fusion, in which they propose an
interaction between deuteron and (4)He++ ion band states and a new form of
matter, namely ion band state matter or Bose Bloch condensate matter. This
leads to the release of heat as observed by FPH but not to high-energy
particle emission, thus accounting for this phenomenon. The theory also says
that pretreatment of the Pd with He improves its cold fusion performance; also
it suggests experiments with silver, in which similar processes ought to take
place, even though Ag does not form a deuteride. The theory suggests the way
to improve reproducibility, by control of the (4)He level.       Feb-91/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fonda L, Shaw GL;                               Fizika (Zagreb) 22 (1990) 371.
"Deuteron cold fusion by anti-diquark catalysis".
** In case cold fusion is real, the authors speculate on a possible mechanism,
being the catalysis of d-d fusion by the anti-diquark Q with charge -4/3 and
large mass, forming (in analogy with muons) the triatomic molecules dQd by
Coulombic shielding; these could then fuse. The requirements for this scenario
are the -4/3 charge, sufficient stability of Q and a mass of a few GeV. Of the
three fusion reaction paths (yielding (4)He, (3)He+n and t+p, respectively,
plus the rereleased Q), the (4)He branch would be strongly favoured. Formation
of the dQd group would be much faster than the analogous dmud group in muon
catalysis because the first product, dQ would have a charge of -1/3 and would
attract the second d, unlike the neutral dmu. Where do these Q's come from?
"Quarked" atoms (4)HeQ, may exist within transition metals the with properties
like H; once released from these, a Q can catalyse a number of d-d fusions and
finally either escape from the metal or be sequestered into a metal atom. This
predicts a large localised burst of neutrons, calculated roughly to be 1E05 to
1E06 n/s/Q, and separated in time by 1E-06-1E-05 s. Finally, these neutrons
would not have a fixed energy of 2.45 MeV but  a three-body spectrum (the Q
makes off with some). If these Q's in fact exist and can be found and
harnessed, we can get clean energy from cold d-d fusion.         Oct-89/Jan-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giordano N, Arico AS, Antonucci V;              Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 105.
"Thermal effects during the electrolytic charging of deuterium in the
palladium lattice".
** The absorption of deuterium into Pd may be an uneven process, producing
small centres (clusters) of deuteride, and local overheating at length scales
small with the electrons' mean free path. This will delay heat conduction, and
large internal temperatures may be attained. This effect may explain some of
the cold fusion observation and, although it could not account for a sustained
excess heat as claimed by FPH, might enter into the process inducing cold
fusion.                                                          Sep-90/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE;                                       Mod. Phys. Lett. A6 (1991) 1053.
"Time-delayed apparent excess heat generation in electrolysis fusion
experiments".
** The 12 orders of magnitude discrepancy between the neutron flux and
observed excess heat in cold fusion electrolysis is explained here in terms of
a time-delayed chemical effect; namely repeated cycles of deuterium absorption
and desorption. This cycle shows hysteresis, from which Kim concludes that
excess heat can apparently appear in the form of bursts, during the absorption
stage. This raises the Pd internal temperature, initiating the (cooling)
desorption phase. Kim makes some calculations based on the experiments of
Scott et al [1990] and concludes that this model can account for the observed
(about) 10% excess heat. Kim reiterates his high-field-gradient model of
surface fusion, along with his gas bubble arguments in the present connection.
The model also suggests that the Pd internal temperature should be measured as
a test.                                                               Nov-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE;     Laser Interaction and Related Plasma Phenomena (Eds. Hora, Miley,
Plenum Press)  9 (1991) 583.
"Fission-induced inertial confinement hot fusion and cold fusion with
electrolysis".
** In a volume otherwise devoted to inertial confinement fusion, Kim presents
his surface reaction mechanism for cold fusion by electrolysis. Support for
low-energy anomalous branching ratios comes from cluster impact fusion, also
showing such anomalies. Whisker formation at the electrode surface is invoked,
leading to high voltages across small D2 gas bubbles generated by
electrolysis; these then aid fusion as in the Bockris dendrite theory. The
neutrons released from this fusion might then initiate a fission/fusion chain:
n+(6)Li --> (4)He+T;  T+D --> (4)He+n (14.07 MeV); the last-emitted neutron
will restart the cycle. Observations are so far not consistent with this,
however. The paper continues with conventional fusion, suggesting an
alternative to the magnetic or inertial confinement approaches used at
present.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mills RL, Kneizys SP;                            Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 65.
"Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate
electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion".
** This paper starts with a long theoretical part, introducing the Mills and
Farrel theory (published in a book). It seems that cold fusion shows that,
since the Schroedinger equation does not explain it, this equation is not
applicable to cold fusion. M&F's theory, on the other hand, is. It leads to
shrunken hydrogen atoms; absorption of energy quanta at 27.21 eV can push
electrons down to a lower shell, and these shrunken atoms are then able to
approach closer to one another. The theory predicts certain optimal conditions
such as the presence of K or Rb ions. This is followed by an experiment with
a Ni cathode in a K2CO3 electrolyte in H2O, and rather simple calorimetry. The
results are massive excess heats, up to nearly 4000%, but no excess with a
Na2CO3 control. A Rb electrolyte works also. The theory also explains why it
works for Pd in D2O, and the skew branching ratio.               Feb-91/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparata G;                                     Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 82.
"Some theories of 'cold' nuclear fusion: a review".
** A review paper. The experimental reports are classified into the F-P, BYU,
TAMU, BNL and CHY (Caltech-Harwell-Yale) lines and are briefly described. The
positive results throw up the two problems of the Coulomb barrier and the fact
that the PdDx lattice seems to behave differently from vacuum. The main
theories that attempt to get around these problems are outlined. In summary,
P concludes that experimental failure may have to do with failure to reach a
loading of 1+. Fractofusion is not mentioned.                    Jan-91/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajan KG, Mudali UK, Dayal RK, Rodriguez P;     Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 100.
"Electromigration approach to verify cold fusion effects".
** It is well known that the application of an electric field to a metal bar
produces a large concentration gradient of interstitial ions along the length
of the bar. This can be exploited in cold fusion electrolysis, by applying an
electric field along the length of the Ti rod during the electrolysis. This
will then produce a strong nonequilibrium deuterium concentration in the rod.
This was tested by an experiment. A 500 mV static field produces a ratio of
[d](one end)/[d](other end) of 1E10, which is large and might enhance fusion.
A well shielded NE-213 neutron detector was used, along with superheated drop
drop neutron detectors placed around the cell. Post-mortem tritium assays were
carried out, and the Ti rods placed close to medical x-ray films overnight.
No significant neutrons or tritium were measured. The films did, however,
show some faint fogging, not shown by unused Ti controls. The question is
whether this can be something picked up from the D2O. It is also concluded
that the nuclear reactions taking place are aneutronic.          Dec-90/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeliger D;                          Isotopenpraxis 26 (1990) 384 (in German).
"Physical problems of the investigations into nuclear fusion in condensed
media".
** A commentary on cold fusion as of Dec-89. The experimental evidence is
reported. Drawing on prior work by Jarmie, S then makes some rough
calculations of low energy fusion, and concludes that the branching ratios may
well differ from the high-energy cases, thus perhaps enhancing weak branches
like the (4)He one. A host of other fusion reactions is considered, including
a number involving Li. There is a summary of some theories, including the more
speculative ones like Hagelstein's and Walling & Simons'. The fractofusion
work in the USSR is mentioned and considered plausible. 114 refs.     Feb-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE, Rabinowitz M, Bae YK, Chulik GS, Rice RA;
Mod. Phys. Lett. B5 (1991) 941.
"Cluster-impact nuclear fusion: shock-wave statistical analysis".
** The authors explain CIF in terms of shock waves, and propose that the model
can explain all puzzling features of CIF, which has had several confirmations,
despite some doubts. Essentially, the tip of the cluster becomes a plasma upon
impact and a shock wave is produced in this plasma by the trailing portion of
the cluster. Calculations support the reality of CIF.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE, Rice RA, Chulik GS, Rabinowitz M;     Mod. Phys. Lett. A6 (1991) 2259.
"Cluster-impact fusion with cluster beams".
** This theory accounts not only for the observed results, but also for the
refutation by Fallavier et al [1990]. Frozen needle-shaped clusters and the
presence of heavy atoms such as O (as in D2O) can enhance the fusion rate from
such beams. An experimental test is suggested, and a tenuous connection with
cold fusion is made.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
 ___________ / Paul Koloc /  CF petition
     
Originally-From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: CF petition
Subject: CF petition
Date: 30 Oct 91 13:55:38 GMT
Date: 29 Oct 91 04:07:07 GMT
Date: _________________________________
Organization: GM Research Labs
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

Hmmmmmm.  The people at the bottom of this posting wouldn't have any
financial ulterior motive for this 10 million dollar request, now would
they?  Seems a bit premature to (a) suggest hearings (especially after
there was one that didn't conclude that we spend 10 million dollars) and
(b) request 10 million dollars before we find out from the hearings
if its needed.  I know I know - this just can't wait.  Why not
try spending federal dollars on research instead of provost toilets or
alumni regalia.  Or, seriously and better yet, get some private
source of funds.  Ten million means nothing to corporations funding
research (perhaps even some of those listed below), especially
if there is money to be made.  Obviously, not (m)any corporations
spending *their* money (and not the taxpayers') think much of your alchemy.
 
 ------------------------ Original Grovelling Article---------------
Path: rphroy!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!tulane!ukma!nsisrv!mimsy!prometheu
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: CF petition
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.040707.11562@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: 29 Oct 91 04:07:07 GMT
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.
Lines: 116
Xref: rphroy sci.physics.fusion:2215 sci.physics:18854
 
 
I have been requested to float the petition herein below to the net
by Jed Rothwell and Eugene Mallove.  For further information directly
contact:
 
          uunet.UUCP!CompuServe.COM!72240.1256 (Jed Rothwell)
 
          Jed Rothwell
          Cold Fusion Research Advocates
          2060 Peachtree Industrial Court
          Suite 312-F
          Chamblee, Georgia 30341
          Phone: 404-451-9890
          Fax: 404-458-2404
          CompuServe: 72240,1256
=====================================================================
 
                         ***    A PETITION    ***
 
Submitted to the Science, Space and Technology Committee,
The House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
 
      We, the undersigned scientists, engineers, and interested citizens,
respectfully request that the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, hold intensive hearings on the topic of the new physical
phenomenon that is referred to generally as cold fusion. The purpose of
these hearings, which in depth and breadth should go far beyond the hearing
of the Committee that occurred in April 1989, should be to assess the
enormous body of scientific evidence that has accumulated and continues to
accumulate since that time, both in U.S. and foreign laboratories, public
and private.  These hearings should occur as soon as possible, because the
lack of funding in the United States is seriously blocking research.
 
      We are convinced that a new physical phenomenon of potentially
enormous scientific and technological significance has been discovered and
verified -- even though its precise physical mechanism is not fully understood
at present, a typical circumstance in science. We believe that it will be
imperative for the Congress to recommend immediate, significant funding for
cold fusion research and development. This research has been substantially
hampered in the United States by the negative and presently untenable
conclusions of the ERAB "Cold Fusion Research" report that was performed for
the Department of Energy in 1989. We recommend that the Committee examine
and formally reject the conclusions of that report. We also advocate that
the Committee recommend adequate funding for cold fusion research in the
United States at an initial annual rate of not less than $10 million.
 
Signed
 
Name: _____________________________________________________
 
Affiliation: ______________________________________________
            (For identification purposes only, does not indicate
             support of the petition by the organization)
 
 
Date: _________________________________
 
 
====================================================================
 
PETITION RESPONDENTS  45 names as of October 23, 1991
 
Bass, Dr. Robert                Registered Patent Agent 29,130
Bockris, Dr. John O'M.          Texas A&M University
Bressani, Dr. T.                Dep. Di Fisica Sperimenatale, U. Torino, Italy
Brosius, Mr. Allen O.           Fusion Information Center
Bush, Dr. Robert T.             California State Polytechnic University
Carver, Mr. Dean W.             Fusion Information Center
Chubb, Dr. Scott R.             Private Citizen; Naval Research Laboratory
Dart, III, Mr. Henry P.         Attorney, geologist
Del Giudice, Mr. Emilo          Instituto Nationale Fisca Nucleare, Italy
Drexler, Mr. Jerome             Drexler Technology Corporation
Eagleton, Dr. Robert D.         California State Polytechnic University
Epstein, Mr. Paul D.            Epstein & Fass Associates
Evans, Mr. Charles A.           Manager, University of Utah Research Park
Faile, Mr. Samuel               Cold Fusion Products
Fox, Dr. Harold L.              Fusion Information Center
Fredley, Mr. Donald L.          Eden Barn Industries
George, Mr. Russ                Research Inc.
Goldes, Mr. Mark                Magnetic Power, Inc.
Handel, Dr. Peter H.            University of Missouri, St. Louis
Hawkins, D.Sc., Dr. Gerald S.   Smithsonian (Ret.) Prof. Astro., Boston U.
Kidd, Jr., P.E., James A        Private citizen; U.S. Army Materials Tech Lab.
Kolm, Dr. Henry H.              M.I.T. Senior Scientist (emeritus), Lecturer
Labitt, Mr. Melvin              Massachusettes Institute of Technology
Liaw, Dr. Bor Yann              University Of Hawaii at Manoa
Mallove, Dr. Eugene F.          Starbound/Cold Fusion Research Advocates
Mayer, Dr. Fredrick J.          Mayer Applied Research, Inc.
McNally, Jr., Dr. J. Rand       Fusion Energy Consultant
Musgrave, Dean S.               Director, Ultrafibre, Inc.
Najarian, M.D., Mr. Thomas      -
Paddock, Mr. David A.           Engineer
Platt, Mr. Deane H.             Systems Analyst
Pope, Ms. Paulette              Vice President, TDC, Inc.
Quintana, Mr. Lawrence G.       Los Alamos National Laboratory
Rothovius, Mr. Andrew E.        Columnist, Peterborough (NH) Transcript
Rothwell, Mr. Jed               Cold Fusion Research Advocates
Scribner, Mr. Cliff J.          Motorola, Inc. Mechanical Engineer
Staker, P.E., Dr. Michael R.    Private citizen; U.S. Army Materials Tech Lab.
Stempfer, Mr. Frank N.          Eden Barn Industries
Storms, Dr. Carol               Los Alamos National Laboratory
Stout, P.E., Roger Paul         Motorola, Inc. Advanced Packaging Design
Tibbals, Mr. E. C.              Vaughn Precision Products, Inc.
Unck, Ms. Donna                 University of Utah Research Park
Valenzuela, Mr. G. R.           Naval Research Laboratory, Wash. DC.
Xue, Dr. She-Sheng              Instituto Nationale Fisca Nucleare, Italy
Yansen, Mr. Don E.              Crossroads Technology
 
=========================================================================
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
 
cudkeys:
cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudszL 
------------------------------
1991.10.30 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: CF petition
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF petition
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 14:25:31 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1991Oct30.040034.3967@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola):
> If CF is so promising, and so proven, why not let industry fund its
> research?
 
I didn't see anything in the petition that said they were not asking
industry for funding, nor did I see anything saying that they were not
asking the NSF. All I saw was a group of individuals exercising their
right to petition a government to change a policy they don't like.
 
I also see no conflict between excercising a basic human right and
"scientific ethics."
 
>If it is not quite proven, why go to Congress and not to NSF?
 
If you want action do you deal with the master, or the slave?
 
			Bob P.
--
 
| Bob Pendleton              | Engineering Anethema:                     |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.30 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: CF petition
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF petition
Date: 30 Oct 91 14:50:25 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1991Oct29.214614.18991@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>I say that lobbying congress is the last refuge of a scoundral.
 
 
I do not doubt that scoundrels seek refuge by lobbying congress.  It
is, however, often their *first* resort, not the last.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.31 / Dieter Britz /  Update updates
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Update updates
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 15:32:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
The following three items are not additions but changes to the bibliography. I
have received the English translations of the Golubnichii+, and Pokropivnii+
papers (too late to help me of course), and have added the translated-journal
references to the entries, as shown below. Then there is the Dudu et al paper,
which I have just (finally) got hold of; my previous text was taken from Chem.
Abstracts and is now my own. It's not a heavy-weight. The Dudu+ is in one of
earlier archived files and I'll track it down and alter it.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dudu D, Molea M, Pascalau I, Piticu I, Vata I;
Rev. Roum. Phys. 34 (1989) 229.
"Nuclear effects in the electrolysis of heavy water".
** Measured neutron flux on Pd and Ti cathodes in LiCl acidified to pH 1.5
by HCl, at currents of 0.1 - 1.5 A. The cathodes were a cyclinder of Ti,
10*20 mm, or a 16 g ellipsoid (lump?) of Pd. Cell temperatures were 20-90
degC. An NE-213 liquid scintillator neutron detector was used with pulse
shape discrimination, and shielded with paraffin and Pb. Alternate background
and cell measurements were taken for 3000-5000 s at a time (background by
replacing the cell with a dummy). From the detection of 95+-35 (Ti) and
167+-46 neutrons over resp. 660 and 1125 h, the maximum cold fusion rates
of around 1E-23 fus/pair/s were calculated.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golubnichii PI, Koval'chuk EP, Merzon GI, Filonenko AD, Tsarev VA, Tsarik AA;
Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 16(21) (1990) 46 (in Russian).
"Detection of neutrons and tritium from solid palladium targets by
electrolytic deuterium charging".
Translated in: Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 16(11) (1990) 826.
** A 7 cm long Pd wire of area 10 cm**2 was prepared by deposition from a
PdCl2 solution (they don't say deposited onto what), and used as cathode in
0.1M LiClO2 in D2O. 10 neutron detectors were used, and tritium analysed in
the gas phase. There were several neutron events during electrolysis, several
times the background levels, some of them coinciding with cell temperature
rises. In another experiment, one tritium event coincided with a temperature
rise, and some neutron events did as well.                       May-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pokropivnii VV, Ogorodnikov VV;
Pis'ma Zh. Teor. Fiz. 16(21) (1990) 31 (in Russian).
Translated in: Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 16(111) (1990) 819.
"The bineutron model of cold nuclear fusion in metals".
** Supported by earlier Soviet theoretical work, the authors propose the
hypothetical formation of quasistable bineutrons; these are put into the
context of the nucleonic (neutron, deuteron and biproton) isotope family. If
bineutrons have sufficient life times, they might undergo the fusion reactions
d+2n-->t+n or d+2n->(4)He+e. The bineutrons can be formed by electron capture
by protons, and the chemistry of the environment enters here: high electron
pressure and density are favourable. Some thermodynamical calculations
indicate that Pd and Nb are particularly good metals in whose deuterides this
might happen. Highly energetic electrons might derive from the fracto-effect
(electrons accelerated across cracks) or from the high voltage fields at
cathode surfaces. The hypothesis suggests test experiments as, e.g. varying
the accelerating voltages in some manner, or admixture of different
neutron-rich impurities to optimise the process.                 Aug-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.30 / SCHNALL RUSS /  Fusion Journal
     
Originally-From: rms@sppy00.UUCP (SCHNALL RUSS )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Journal
Date: 30 Oct 91 17:15:13 GMT
Organization: Online Computer Library Center, Dublin, Ohio.

One of the posters of this group had asked for the address of a journal
dealing specifically with fusion.  Could someone post this address to the
net.  I would be interested, and there may be other subscribers to this
group who would be interested.
 
Thanks!
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrms cudfnSCHNALL cudlnRUSS cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.31 / Terry Bollinger /  Beware the Unknown Petition...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Beware the Unknown Petition...
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 21:24:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On 29 Oct 91 04:07:07 GMT pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote:
 
> I have been requested to float the petition herein below to the net
> by Jed Rothwell and Eugene Mallove.  For further information directly
> contact:
>           uunet.UUCP!CompuServe.COM!72240.1256 (Jed Rothwell)
>
>           Jed Rothwell
>           Cold Fusion Research Advocates
>           2060 Peachtree Industrial Court
>           Suite 312-F
>           Chamblee, Georgia 30341
>           Phone: 404-451-9890
>           Fax: 404-458-2404
>           CompuServe: 72240,1256
 
For those of you who are thinking about signing this petition, I would
strongly suggest that you first call one of the numbers provided by Mr.
Rothwell and find out as much as you can about who he is, who is funding
his organization, and what the long-term objectives of his organization
may be.  I personally know absoutely nothing about either this person or
his organization, but a decade of living in the Washington D.C. area has
made me very cautious about petitions and advocacy groups, and especially
ones that promote fusion issues.  Mr. Rothwell has obviously made it quite
easy to contact him, so if you are interested I would suggest you take up
his offer for more information.
 
Under no circumstances whatsoever would I sign this particular petition,
because I believe the description it contains shows a disrespect for the
scientific process of verification and open replication of experiments.
I do *not* believe that funding is the "problem" in cold fusion -- I
suspect plain-old lack of wide-spread replication is the problem, period.
 
As an example of why I am cautious about the credentials and funding of
fusion advocacy groups, I would point out that both the publications
"Fusion" and "21st Century" are actually owned and operated by the Lyndon
LaRouche organization located in Louden County, Virginia.  Mr. LaRouche
is a very political fellow with novel views on just about everything from
local politics to the nature of Life, the Universe, and Everything.  He
is currently serving time for credit card fraud.  Seems that the courts
in Virginia found quite convincing evidence that his occasional runs for
president were being funded by rather outrageous overbilling of other
people's credit cards.  His physics knowledge is verbally extensive, but
conceptually about as coherent as scrambled eggs.  Ditto for the depth of
physics understanding of most of the folks in his organization, judging
from several encounters I've had over the years with some of its members.
 
My own philosophy on the issue is to totally discontenance any and all
"cold" (or hot!) fusion information from anyone with affiliations or
links to the LaRouche organzation or any of its several front organizations
(Fusion, 21st Century, and others).  That may well be overkill, but I see
no reason to waste time trying to analyze materials from an organization
whose core agenda is political, not technical, and whose willingness to
analyze data without bias is very, very minimal.
 
....
 
I should again point out that I do *not* have any reason to believe that
Mr. Rothwell is in any way associated with the LaRouche organization.  But
given the very definite existence of such politics-first fusion advocacy
organization and their strong interest in cold fusion, he definitely needs
to declare where he is coming from and the nature of his organization.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
				[Speaking only for myself, of course.]
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.31 / Russ George /  Is industry supporting work
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is industry supporting work
Date: 31 Oct 91 18:26:59 GMT
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS, +1 415 969 8238

Rumours are rampant that Toyota has been funding Fleischmann and Pons for
quite some time now.  The EPRI nuclear power group is also an industry
source of funding that has poured millions into the research.
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.10.31 / Bhagirath Joshi /  Re: CF petition
     
Originally-From: joshi@Alliant.COM ( Bhagirath Joshi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF petition
Date: 31 Oct 91 16:30:39 GMT
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.

In article <1991Oct30.040034.3967@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>If CF is so promising, and so proven, why not let industry fund its
>research? If it is not quite proven, why go to Congress and not to NSF?
>
>Raul
 
	The same could apply to hot fusion too. Even after spending
	all those monies over last Three to four decades nothing of
	substance has emerged.
 
	Bhagirath Joshi
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjoshi cudfnBhagirath cudlnJoshi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.01 /   /   Petition
     
Originally-From: <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Petition
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 17:37:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Barry Merriman writes:
 
>This seems, to me, ridiculous.  Why do scientists who_claim_ to
>have good evidence to appeal directly to politicians for their grant
>money, rather than the usual peer review granting agencies.
 
1.  I don't like politicians.  In addition, I don't like Barry Merriman
telling me who I can petition and/or why.
 
2.  I don't want any of the money.
 
3.  The conclusions of the ERAB "Cold Fusion Research" report have
effectively cut off government funds for any project remotely
connected to "cold Fusion".
 
4.  Those who feed from the government trough ought not complain
too loudly in these matters.
 
5.  If the "riddle of excess heat" turns out to be the energy source of the
future, I recommend that Merriman not be allowed to use it.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.02 /  Richard /  need an email address
     
Originally-From: "Richard Schroeppel" <rcs@cs.arizona.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: need an email address
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 03:33:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I need an email address for Paul M Koloc.  I've tried
pmk@prometheus.uucp and mimsy!prometheus!pmk, but they don't work.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrcs cudlnRichard cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.01 / Latvala Ari /  CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
     
Originally-From: latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala Ari)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
Date: 1 Nov 91 10:06:09 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology

 
Ref:	Dieter Britz / Cold fusion bibl additions /
	30 Oct 91 23:37:08 GMT
 
Sub:	Mills RL, Kneizys SP;"Excess heat production by the
	electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte
	and the implications for cold fusion",
	Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 65.
 
 
>ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
>here is the promised bunch; now my desk is clear. It's a mix of theory and
>experiments. At last we have the maverick Mills (and Kneizys); the theory
>leads to unusual experiments and the authors report huge excess heats. The
>calorimetry doesn't quite convince me, though. TB's are of course free to take
>this as Evidence. I find myself wondering whether Mills is not putting us on,
>especially reading the numerological section of this paper. Read it yourself
>to see what I mean.
..
>Mills RL, Kneizys SP;                            Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 65.
>"Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate
>electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion".
>** This paper starts with a long theoretical part, introducing the Mills and
>Farrel theory (published in a book). It seems that cold fusion shows that,
>since the Schroedinger equation does not explain it, this equation is not
>applicable to cold fusion. M&F's theory, on the other hand, is. It leads to
>shrunken hydrogen atoms; absorption of energy quanta at 27.21 eV can push
>electrons down to a lower shell, and these shrunken atoms are then able to
>approach closer to one another. The theory predicts certain optimal conditions
>such as the presence of K or Rb ions. This is followed by an experiment with
>a Ni cathode in a K2CO3 electrolyte in H2O, and rather simple calorimetry. The
>results are massive excess heats, up to nearly 4000%, but no excess with a
>Na2CO3 control. A Rb electrolyte works also. The theory also explains why it
>works for Pd in D2O, and the skew branching ratio.               Feb-91/Aug-91
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Gentlemen,
 
I do wonder, why above quoted paper has not resulted comments
on the sci.physics.fusion discussion group.
What for me, myself not having any qualifications in nuclear physics,
from pure pragmatig engineering point comes into mind, are following
points:
 
1.	Ni, K and H  are quite low cost materials.
2.	Claim of 40 times  (sic!) excess heat should leave some room for
	(eh, minor ?) calorimetry errors ?
3.	Leaving out deuterium would simplify commercial exploitation
	of phenomen.
 
So, my questions to professionals are:
 
Has this experiment been verified? Where? Where else?
If not, why ?
So:
1.	Has burden of wild claims tired research groups?
2.	Has somebody done test, but failed to verify claims?
	In that case, please point negative references.
3.	Does Mills et al. paper contain some exotic in Ni material
	preparation, which is not presented in paper?
 
Have a nice day!
--
Ari E. Latvala, HB 420, RIFIT/TUT, POB 553, SF-33101, TAMPERE, FINLAND
RIFIT (Research Institute for Information Technology),
TUT   (Tampere University of Technology), Hermitec HB 420
Tel: +358-31-161910 Fax: +358-31-162913, Internet: latvala@cs.tut.fi
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlatvala cudfnLatvala cudlnAri cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.01 / Jim Carr /  Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
Date: 1 Nov 91 14:27:09 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Nov1.100609.2351@funet.fi> latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala Ari)
 writes:
>
>Ref:	Dieter Britz / Cold fusion bibl additions /
>	30 Oct 91 23:37:08 GMT
>
>Sub:	Mills RL, Kneizys SP;"Excess heat production by the
>	electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte
>	and the implications for cold fusion",
>	Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 65.
 
>  ....
 
>Has this experiment been verified? Where? Where else?
>If not, why ?
 
Probably because this is the first most of us heard of it.  For example,
our library does not even get that journal -- for cost reasons it is
only held by the Univ. of Florida, which has a Nuclear Engineering Dept.
 
We do get the other journal, Fusion Energy.
 
Perhaps it is a surprise to you, but there are a amazing number of
papers published that appear in obscure places and are never cited,
if they are even read by anyone other than the referee and editor.
 
Speaking only for myself, the journal of Fusion Technology is not where
I would look for papers on electrochemistry or low-level detection of
nuclear by-products.  Our experimental group worked very hard in a
collaboration with local electrochemists and proved that there were no
proton-induced X-rays, or other X-rays for that matter, at any level
commensurate with the F&P(&H) hypotheses.  Nice work for a place with
an excellent football team, published in the Physical Review and not
contradicted by any observations worthy of submission as a Comment.
 
Our group is more likely to work on the 17 keV neutrino problem.  They
will return to test-tube fusion when a reproducible experiment is
published with anything more than the miniscule output of the Jones
experiment *and* the results are confirmed by an independent group.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.01 / Mark Epperson /  Re: CF petition
     
Originally-From: epperson@adobe.COM (Mark Epperson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF petition
Date: 1 Nov 91 17:28:41 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View

In article <1991Oct30.040034.3967@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
%If CF is so promising, and so proven, why not let industry fund its
%research? If it is not quite proven, why go to Congress and not to NSF?
%
%Raul
 
Indeed, lets leave this (possibly very important) issue a private
sector that can't see past the next quarter and an academic sector that
has it's own dubious agenda.  Believe it or not, these issues apply to every
individual on the planet and (in my mind) should not be left to the scientists
alone.
 
Mark Epperson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenepperson cudfnMark cudlnEpperson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.01 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Petition
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Petition
Date: 1 Nov 91 20:50:10 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <9111011652.AA02131@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
> Barry Merriman writes:
>
> >This seems, to me, ridiculous.  Why do scientists who_claim_ to
> >have good evidence to appeal directly to politicians for their grant
> >money, rather than the usual peer review granting agencies.
>
> 1.  I don't like politicians.  In addition, I don't like Barry Merriman
> telling me who I can petition and/or why.
>
> John Farrell
> Franklin & Marshall College
 
Well, use yourself as an example: what route are you taking? Are
you forming a group to lobby congress, or are you doing your experiments
and publishing them in appropriate journals.
 
If the latter, than you implicitly agree with me: that the burden is
on scientists to direct the course of basic research; encouraging
politicians to set research policies is not going to improve anything.
 
As for me telling, the only thing I'm telling is my opinion. I encourage
anyone to disregard it if they prefer.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.02 / Terry Bollinger /  Thanks...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks...
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 20:34:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
Just a quick "thanks" (and chuckle) to the group/person that sent me that
very nice paper on palladium chemistry.  It was much appreciated, and I
will be studying it in considerable detail.
 
The last address I sent out on this net is no longer valid, by the way.
Mail is still being forwared to me from there, but I am now in my
permanent home.  (My new address is available only upon request.)
 
....
 
For those of you who might be wondering, I have generally been absolutely
appalled at some of the cold fusion "theories" that have been getting
published in serious (?) journals.  The quad neutrons collapsing into mini
black holes surely represent the high [low?] water mark, rather easily
eclipsing the previous *un*published record that I believe was held by
Yours Truly for soliton-mediated baryon violation.
 
Higher points:  Chubb-Chubb is darned interesting and (I hope they will
not be offended) surprisingly similar to my own idea.  The major difference
is that they decided to focus on boson species of (H,D), while I decided
to focus on fermion species of (H,D).  I stand by my guns on that one,
though, since boson condensates generally exist *only* at very low
temperatures, while bands (fermion behavior) are much more forgiving
of higher temperatures.  Dr. Preparata seems to be munching on band-like
delocalization, but he really needs to read Dr. Bell's outstanding work
("Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics") before he tries to
invoke Bell's paradox to try to "explain" superluminal distribution of
fusion energy.  The recent "meson-like" use of odd quark combinations
to give fractionally charged oddball particles was interesting too, but
I find it a bit hard to swallow idea that particles that have yet to
appear in the world's largest particle accelerator's should mysteriously
decide to pop up in an a very-low-enegy electrochemical experiment.  Ditto
for such items as anti-neutrons, (bi/di)neutrons, and who knows what else.
 
Meanwhile, I've been looking a lot more at conventional physics lately, with
the intent of publishing an article or two on NON-"cnf" topics.  But I'm
still open to good, *reproducible* data.  (Anybody got any?)
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.01 / John Moore /  Re: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 679 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 679 papers on cnf)
Date: 1 Nov 91 16:50:45 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <F1A7C903BF1F007072@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
]here is the promised bunch; now my desk is clear. It's a mix of theory and
]experiments. At last we have the maverick Mills (and Kneizys); the theory
]leads to unusual experiments and the authors report huge excess heats. The
]calorimetry doesn't quite convince me, though. TB's are of course free to take
]this as Evidence. I find myself wondering whether Mills is not putting us on,
 
I would be interested in reading the experimental parts of this paper. Would
anyone be willing to fax me that part of the article (library access
here is a bit tough)? Thanks.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin   - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.02 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: CF petition
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF petition
Date: 2 Nov 91 20:29:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <22442@adobe.UUCP> epperson@adobe.UUCP (Mark Epperson) writes:
>In article <1991Oct30.040034.3967@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>%If CF is so promising, and so proven, why not let industry fund its
>%research? If it is not quite proven, why go to Congress and not to NSF?
>%
>%Raul
>
>Indeed, lets leave this (possibly very important) issue a private
>sector that can't see past the next quarter and an academic sector that
>has it's own dubious agenda.  Believe it or not, these issues apply to every
>individual on the planet and (in my mind) should not be left to the scientists
>alone.
>
>Mark Epperson
 
I agree with you that priorities should not be left to the scientists alone.
However, first we have to decide whether CF is real or not. Lawyers cannot
do this for us.
 
This should not be a problem for True Believers, that is, to convince
scientists. We are known to be quite gullible. :-). Just produce a setup
that produces neutrons and/or excesses heat and invite the scientific
community to see for themselves and to try to find where the error is,
if any.
 
Raul Baragiola
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.03 /   /   More questions about Menlove experiment
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  More questions about Menlove experiment
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 17:09:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Sites put an extensive quote from Menlove, et al. on the wire
to lay to rest some of my speculations about noise problems with 3He
gas counters.  Chuck then says:
 
<"... I think one can rule out a fault in the detector system with a
<  high degree of confidence.  Second, if there was a fault then why
<  is there such a large difference between counts for D2 gas
<  experiments and the H2 gas control experiments always?
 
As to the detector system,  my speculations were that humidity causing
electrical leakage and electrical connections providing common mode
noise coupling could produce false coincidences in the Menlove detection
system.  The quote given by Chuck Sites clearly confirms that some
steps were taken to deal with these problems, but we have no clear
proof that the efforts described were 100% successful.  For example,
some tubes covered with cadmium sheet were operated as veto counters
to eliminate coincidences due to signals coupled through the high
voltage supply which was apparently common to all detectors.  Very
few vetoes occured, however.  No mention is made of other possible
coupling paths such as the preamp power supplies and signal grounds.
And before I stop beating this horse, I will also point out that
this type of counter is sensative to microphonic noise.  Putting the
whole array in a common moderator presents potential problems on
that front as well.  Finally there is a clue that false coincidences
could still be a problem in that the first 4 microseconds of
the coincidence gate was not used.  What ever was being rejected
in that 4 microseconds might just get through occasionally due
to statistical fluctuations.  I don't think one can assign a
high degree of confidence to the low-count-rate results obtained
with this type of detector.  As to whether there is always a
large difference between experiments using D2 gas and H2 as a
control, the abstract that is quoted makes no mention of any
H2 control measurements.  Were there any such measurements made
with sufficient observation time to establish a clear difference?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.02 / John Moore /  Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
Date: 2 Nov 91 14:44:37 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1991Nov1.100609.2351@funet.fi> latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala Ari)
 writes:
]2.	Claim of 40 times  (sic!) excess heat should leave some room for
]	(eh, minor ?) calorimetry errors ?
 
Not if they calculate excess heat the way Fleischmann and Pons did. Their
calculation took heat out (calculated because with an open cell calorimeter
they could not directly measure it), subtracted electrical power in to
arrive a net excess heat. Then, they divided that by some other factor (I
forget which) to arrive at large numbers. Thus "200% excess heat" meant
perhaps 2% net excess heat. It was a very fishy way to present the numbers.
Since I don't have a copy of the latest paper, I don't know if they are
using the same inflated way of presenting results.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin   - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.03 / Carl Lydick /  Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
     
Originally-From: carl@sol1.gps.caltech.edu (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
Date: 3 Nov 91 17:59:39 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1991Nov2.144437.2759@anasaz>, john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>Keywords:
>
>In article <1991Nov1.100609.2351@funet.fi> latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala Ari)
 writes:
>]2.	Claim of 40 times  (sic!) excess heat should leave some room for
>]	(eh, minor ?) calorimetry errors ?
>
>Not if they calculate excess heat the way Fleischmann and Pons did. Their
>calculation took heat out (calculated because with an open cell calorimeter
>they could not directly measure it), subtracted electrical power in to
>arrive a net excess heat. Then, they divided that by some other factor (I
>forget which) to arrive at large numbers. Thus "200% excess heat" meant
>perhaps 2% net excess heat. It was a very fishy way to present the numbers.
>Since I don't have a copy of the latest paper, I don't know if they are
>using the same inflated way of presenting results.
 
P&F's technique was even worse than that.  They pumped energy into the system
for days until it equilibrated at a high-energy state, then made their
calculation using calculated heat out for the rest of the experiment (including
the period after they stopped applying energy, during which the system decayed
to its low-energy equilibrium state) divided by just the elecrical energy
applied to the system AFTER IT REACHED THE HIGH-ENERGY EQUILIBRIUM STATE.
Using a simliar technique, I can prove that ANY automobile has arbitrarily high
gas mileage:  Accelerate it to the highest speed it can achieve, measure the
amount of gasoline in the tank, run it for an arbitrarily short time, then put
it in neutral and shut off the engine.  After it stops, measure the amount of
fuel remaining in the tank.  Divide the distance traveled by the amount of fuel
used between measurements and, voila:  a car that gets 100,000,000,000,000,000
miles/gallon!
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
 
Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.04 /   /   Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Excess Heat
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 21:47:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Richard Schroeppel <rcs@cs.arizona.edu> asks why the paper by Mills
and Kneizys, Fusion Technology. 20 (1991) 65, has not received more
attention and if there has been any duplication.
 
1.  The paper was published in Fusion Technology.  Not many
institutions receive this journal--thus, not much attention.
 
2.   Mills, Kneizys, and Farrell are not calorimetry people. (Although,
when you get this kind of excess heat, how good do you have to be.
Furthermore, we had some excellent calorimetry people come in and
help us.)
 
3.  Mills and Farrell have tried to publish the theory elsewhere--Phys.
Rev. Lett.,  for example.  Some of the referees have been favorable
(very creative, intriguing, and so on).  But trying to publish a theory
that overturns Schrodinger mechanics is quite difficult (as you might
expect).
 
4.  Yes, we have had others duplicate the work.  One internationally
famous electrochemist has submitted his results to Nature.  As you
know, Nature has not published **any** positive cold-fusion research.
My guess is that this work will not be published in Nature either.
 
5.  I am not at liberty to give you the names of all who have had
positive results with our system (0.6 M K2CO3 with a Ni cathode and a
Pt anode).  To my knowledge, six labs have successfully repeated the
work.  I can give you the following :  V. C. Noninski (508)879-4457--his
work has been accepted for publication in Fusion Technology.  James
McBreen, Brookhaven National Labs (Upton, NY).
 
6.  The work reported in Fusion Technology was essentially a 100 mW
reactor.  We have had a 100 W reactor working for about one month.
30-50 W in, that is, (Vappl - 1.48) i  =  30-50 W.  100-120 W out.  There is
little or no recombination of hydrogen and oxygen.
 
7.  This week we should have a 1000 W reactor going.
 
8. We have **never** had a K+/Ni system that did not produce excess
heat (unless we poisoned the electrode).  As far as we can tell this
system is 100% reproducible.
 
Tips on repeating the experiment:
 
1.  Use normal water, H2O not D2O, unless you are looking for tritium
or neutrons.  Essentially all of the heat is **not** caused by fusion but
by some other physical process--namely shrinkage of hydrogen atoms
from the n = 1 state to the n = 1/2 state.  (I know this is hard to believe,
particularly for someone like me who has taught quantum chemistry
for 25 years, but life **is** stranger than fiction.)
 
2.  Ni foil or wire can be used.  The Ni should be clean.  Handle the Ni
carefully with cotton or plastic gloves.  Do **not** clean the Ni with
nitric acid or organic solvents.
 
3.  About 0.6 M K2CO3 is best.  Lower and higher concentrations work
but not as well.
 
4.  Use a current density of 1 ma/cm2 with a foil or 2 ma/cm2 with a
wire.  Most researchers are using current densities that are **too
high**.  The object is to form H atoms on the surface of the NiHx.
These H atoms then can undergo a catalytic shrinkage in the presence
of K+ (or other suitable ion).  If a high current density is used the H
atoms are forced off of the surface.  (The Ni does not enter into the
reaction, it simply is a surface on which the H atoms can form.)
 
5.  It is important to electropolish the Ni cathode before beginning the
calorimetry.  That is, run the electrolysis (preferably in the calorimetry
cell) for about half an hour to an hour with the Ni as the anode and the
Pt as the cathode.
 
 
Other possible systems:
 
Other possible systems:
 
Thousands of other systems are possible.  Unfortunately, most of these
are ions or ion combinations that are difficult or impossible to make.
We have tried many of the chemically reasonable ones and the K+
system works best.  Pd2+/ Li+ works, but not as well.  Note Pd2+,  not
Pd metal.  We believe that to the extent that Pd/Li+ works, it is Pd2+
on or near the surface of the Pd that is the active species.  Rb+ works,
but not as well.  Li+, Na+, Cs+ do not work.  Ti2+ does work.  Here
again, to the extent that Ti/D2 gives neutrons, we believe that the
active species is Ti2+.  (Whenever neutrons are given off, enormous
amounts of heat are given off as well.  The heat does not come from
the fusion itself but from shrinkage of the H atoms or D atoms to a size
sufficiently small that fusion can occur.  As far as we can tell, only an
extremely small fraction of the atoms shrink sufficiently for fusion to
occur.)
 
 
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.04 / A Annala /  Re: A Hybrid H-Bomb Plausible?
     
Originally-From: annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J. Annala)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Hybrid H-Bomb Plausible?
Date: 4 Nov 91 11:16:45 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <...> rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Falconer) writes:
>It has been observed that one can obtain high
>densities (adequate for fusion) from HE compression, and that some
>tests have shown low but still significant neutron yields in D-T
>targets which were shock-compressed by classical spherical implosion.
>	Here's the rub: the very high temperatures which would be
>required to initiate a sizable fusion burn are probably (certainly?)
>too high to be attained by the use of simple chemical explosives.
 
If conventional explosives have already been shown to be entirely
capable of initiating small scale fusion reactions -- then why do
you suspect they can't be scaled to higher yield military devices?
 
>	The formation of the plasma is a bit controversial, and I have
>heard it plausibly argued that direct radiation pressure, asseverations
>to the contrary, is still the compressive mechanism.
 
Try considering the possibility of shock compressing and heating your
fusion fuel by using the 2+ MeV prompt neutrons from the U-235 or Pu-239
fission events in your primary trigger device to cause fast fissions in
the U-238 wrapper of your second (fusion fuel) stage.  These neutrons
are traveling on average at 2 x 10^7 meters per second -- fast enough
to stay ahead of the expanding shock wave from your fission trigger.
 
 
>	Once this has made both fission and fusion viable, neutrons from
>the primary pass through one end of the cylindrical core and strike the
>compressed sparkplug, causing it to fission. Neutrons from this breed
>tritium when they strike lithium nuclei.
 
Why not just breed tritium with neutrons from your first stage trigger?
In any case, fast fission of U-238 doesn't liberate neutrons -- only
(U-238 + n ==> U-237 + 2n) and (U-238 + n ==> U-236 + 3n) liberate such
neutrons -- and these reactions don't have significant cross section
(are highly unlikely to occur) below 6.5 MeV and 11.5 MeV respectively.
Only a tiny fraction of U-235 or Pu-239 fission neutrons exceed 6 MeV.
 
>Under these conditions, the
>tritium and deuterium can fuse, in one of the more energetic of the
>fusion reactions (17.6 MeV per event). The high-energy neutrons which
>are bred by the fusion reaction strike the ... U-238 tamper and
>fast fission it, resulting in an even higher yield.
 
OK -- not much new here.
 
>	Now, how about this for a simpler design: take out the primary,
>and surround the fusion secondary assembly with a sophisticated and
>powerful implosion system. Light this off and compress the cylinders
>to fission/fusion densities. Then, and this is a crucial step, use one
>or more of the external high-voltage neutron sources normally utilized
>as fission initiators in modern primaries. Arrange these to fire their
>fast neutrons directly into the heart of the core (from the ends?).
>This fissions the sparkplug, which begins the fusion burn, and so forth.
>Certainly direct contact with fission heat should suffice to begin fusion!
 
KEY PROBLEM:  No high voltage neutron source is capable of generating
sufficient numbers of high energy neutrons to cause a significent number
of fission events in your "sparkplug" core device.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenannala cudfnA cudlnAnnala cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.04 / News ID /  Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
     
Originally-From: news@bbn.com (News system owner ID)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
Date: 4 Nov 91 18:06:30 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA

 
See:
 
"Lab of the Rising Microsuns", Research News, Science, 25 Oct 1991,
515-517. One of the ideas for the how of cluster impact fusion is a
mechanism of nano-scale shaped charge explosions.
 
Two things strikes me of this work:
 
The evolution of experimental and theoretical stage (issues of
replication in other labs, no good theories, and a resort to finding
new mechanisms to explain the results) for this seems similar to cold
fusion, but the hype-to-results ratio is lower. Thus, the large-scale
dismissal of their work has not occurred.
 
I think the fracto-fusion idea of cold fusion seems related to some of
the ideas they are coming up to explain cluster impact fusion.
 
Finally, they have begun an important experimental process -- time
correlation of specific species impacts with fusion-signatures.
 
 
Cheers,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennews cudfnNews cudlnID cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.04 / Mark North /  Re: CF petition
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF petition
Date: 4 Nov 91 21:43:12 GMT

joshi@Alliant.COM ( Bhagirath Joshi) writes:
 
 
>	The same could apply to hot fusion too. Even after spending
>	all those monies over last Three to four decades nothing of
>	substance has emerged.
 
Excuse me? 'Nothing of substance'? Please elaborate. Make your case.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.04 / Mark North /  Re: CF petition
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF petition
Date: 4 Nov 91 21:47:36 GMT

epperson@adobe.COM (Mark Epperson) writes:
 
>Indeed, lets leave this (possibly very important) issue [to] a private
>sector that can't see past the next quarter and an academic sector that
>has it's own dubious agenda.  Believe it or not, these issues apply to every
>individual on the planet and (in my mind) should not be left to the scientists
>alone.
 
So what? You want politicians to help scientists decide what is nature?
Please go on. I'm curious what's behind this comment. Help me to understand
your thinking.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.04 / Mark North /  Re: Petition
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Petition
Date: 4 Nov 91 22:40:17 GMT

J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
 
 
>Barry Merriman writes:
 
>>This seems, to me, ridiculous.  Why do scientists who_claim_ to
>>have good evidence to appeal directly to politicians for their grant
>>money, rather than the usual peer review granting agencies.
 
>1.  I don't like politicians.  In addition, I don't like Barry Merriman
>telling me who I can petition and/or why.
 
Politicians are people too. Just like everbody else (including me) they
can use some education. Concerning Mr. Merriman's comment: He didn't tell
you to whom you could petition and/or (sic) why. He was pointing out the
dangers of circumventing the peer review process. Do you want your tax
dollars spent on the whim of the ignorant?
 
>2.  I don't want any of the money.
 
This must be some sort of discaimer.
 
>3.  The conclusions of the ERAB "Cold Fusion Research" report have
>effectively cut off government funds for any project remotely
>connected to "cold Fusion".
 
This is totally wrong. You obviously don't even know what you are talking
about. Please tell me how you came to this totally bogus conclusion.
 
>4.  Those who feed from the government trough ought not complain
>too loudly in these matters.
 
Is this a 'comment' on Mr. Merriman's affiliation? Or what? What is your
point?
 
>5.  If the "riddle of excess heat" turns out to be the energy source of the
>future, I recommend that Merriman not be allowed to use it.
 
And if the "riddle of excess heat" as you call it turns out to be a crock
of shit will you be in line to hand out accolades to those who have warned
of the waste involved in chasing chimera? I thought not.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.04 / Mark North /  Re: Is industry supporting work
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is industry supporting work
Date: 4 Nov 91 21:56:55 GMT

bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George) writes:
 
>Rumours are rampant that Toyota has been funding Fleischmann and Pons for
>quite some time now.  The EPRI nuclear power group is also an industry
>source of funding that has poured millions into the research.
 
Rumours are always fun. Do you have some references for your assertion about
EPRI?
 
If not go away, if so please post.
 
BTW, rumours have no place on a sci.* group. (I.e., don't post them nor
their references, thank you).
 
 
 
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.04 / Mark North /  Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
Date: 4 Nov 91 22:13:29 GMT

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
 
>In article <1991Nov1.100609.2351@funet.fi> latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala Ari)
 writes:
>]2.	Claim of 40 times  (sic!) excess heat should leave some room for
>]	(eh, minor ?) calorimetry errors ?
 
>Not if they calculate excess heat the way Fleischmann and Pons did. Their
>calculation took heat out (calculated because with an open cell calorimeter
>they could not directly measure it), subtracted electrical power in to
>arrive a net excess heat. Then, they divided that by some other factor (I
>forget which) to arrive at large numbers. Thus "200% excess heat" meant
>perhaps 2% net excess heat. It was a very fishy way to present the numbers.
>Since I don't have a copy of the latest paper, I don't know if they are
>using the same inflated way of presenting results.
 
Not only do F&P know nothing of calorimetry of course, but they no nothing
of gamma spectroscopy or neutron counting and probably little else.
I'm sorry to spew out a bunch of very negative posts but this whole thing
is really getting ridiculous. John is quite right, the presentation was
very fishy. Nevertheless, some of us spent a good deal of time trying to
replicate the data -- no way. What burns my buns is that there are a goodly
number of folk out there who continue to wave smoke and mirrors at managers
with bucks and continue to be funded. So what do we have? The original
experiment (if I can dignify it with that name) has been shown to be totally
and thoroughly flawed, hence basically nonexistant. Yet there are many out
there who continue to point to it as *something important*. And many
managers who are taken in. (High risk *big* payoff). We might as well be
studying astrology since Nancy Reagan thinks it works.
 
Schroedinger's equation does not apply --- Indeed!
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Petition
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Petition
Date: 5 Nov 91 04:47:10 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <north.689294417@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
> J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
>
> >Barry Merriman writes:
>
> >>This seems, to me, ridiculous.  Why do scientists who_claim_ to
> >>have good evidence to appeal directly to politicians for their grant
> >>money, rather than the usual peer review granting agencies.
>
> >1.  I don't like politicians.  In addition, I don't like Barry Merriman
> >telling me who I can petition and/or why.
>
.
> >4.  Those who feed from the government trough ought not complain
> >too loudly in these matters.
>
 
Well, it is true I'm sloppin' at the government trough these days---but
hey, I'm young; maybe I'll  eventually grub elsewhere :-)
 
> >5.  If the "riddle of excess heat" turns out to be the energy source of the
> >future, I recommend that Merriman not be allowed to use it.
>
 
Then I'd better keep working on hot fusion so I have some future power! :-)
 
By the way, I'm not down on Mills/Farrel work; Their theory, while
intellectually interesting, leaves me a bit confused, but their
experiment---in which they theorize theyextract energy from a subground
state of hydrogen---seems solid in that (1) its (claimed to be) reproducible,
and (2) Spectroscopy can readily detect what transitions are made by the H,
if any, so you have a clean way to monitor.
 
So, I have no doubt we'll see the resolution of their experiment quite
soon.
 
However, it does seem unlikely that H could have a subground state, since
one would think most earthly H would be in its lowest energy state already.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.05 /  Rusty /  Re: A Hybrid H-Bomb Plausible?
     
Originally-From: rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Rusty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Hybrid H-Bomb Plausible?
Date: 5 Nov 91 07:22:16 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ, CSC Dept, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

 
In article <37112@usc.edu> annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J. Annala) writes:
 
>In article <...> rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Falconer) writes:
>
>>	Now, how about this for a simpler design: take out the primary,
>>and surround the fusion secondary assembly with a sophisticated and
>>powerful implosion system. Light this off and compress the cylinders
>>to fission/fusion densities. Then, and this is a crucial step, use one
>>or more of the external high-voltage neutron sources normally utilized
>>as fission initiators in modern primaries. Arrange these to fire their
>>fast neutrons directly into the heart of the core (from the ends?).
>>This fissions the sparkplug, which begins the fusion burn, and so forth.
>>Certainly direct contact with fission heat should suffice to begin fusion!
>
>KEY PROBLEM:  No high voltage neutron source is capable of generating
>sufficient numbers of high energy neutrons to cause a significent number
>of fission events in your "sparkplug" core device.
 
 
	Hmmmm. I've been mulling over several points you raised in your
post, all good ones, but this I find puzzling. External initiation by a
neutron source is apparently used in virtually all modern US stockpile
weapons (separate spherical primary designs). Why would this, a fairly
simple and workable system, not function when used in a linear implosion
configuration?
 
	There is a relevant side note: after I posted the above design,
not much more than a back-of-the-envelope hack, I was told that it is
referenced in a footnote of Chuck Hansen's _U.S. Nuclear Weapons_, and
I dug it out to have a look. Here's what I found - the footnote is for
the most part a discussion of cylindrical critical masses and linear
implosion techniques:
 
(Hansen:)	"Another possible method of igniting thermonuclear
explosions might be the substitution of conventional high explosives
for the fusion trigger. In this geometry, the HE compresses a fusion
fuel capsule composed of an outer U-238 pusher, a charge of lithium-6
deuteride fusion fuel, and a fissionable sparkplug (either U-235 or
Pu-239). [Emphasis mine - note the following...] An external neutron
generator serves as a source of neutrons to initiate fission in the
sparkplug."
 
	The footnote goes on to say the the concept has probably been
considered, and possibly tested on a small scale, by the Los Alamos
labs. It also says that the yield would likely be low and that scaling
the design to militarily useful size difficult, which is what I would
have expected. I commented when posting the design that its efficiency
would probably be lousy but that it would be comparatively simple to
construct - probably a task comparable to implementing a spherical
implosion fission bomb, but the blast would be larger. Any comments?
 
 
 
 
--
||||||||   Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU  --  (Rusty)  ||||||||
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrteasdal cudlnRusty cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.06 /  Richard /  mis-attribution
     
Originally-From: "Richard Schroeppel" <rcs@cs.arizona.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: mis-attribution
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 04:51:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
John Farrell of Franklin & Marshall College writes
 
> Richard Schroeppel <rcs@cs.arizona.edu> asks why the paper by Mills
  and Kneizys, Fusion Technology. 20 (1991) 65, has not received more
  attention and if there has been any duplication.
 
I did not ask this question.
 
Richard Schroeppel     rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrcs cudlnRichard cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.05 / T Neustaedter /  Re: Satellite Detection of Nuclear Weapons Tests -- VELA
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Satellite Detection of Nuclear Weapons Tests -- VELA
Date: 5 Nov 91 11:13:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1991Nov5.042854.8429@cbnews.cb.att.com>, annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J.
 Annala) writes:
> [why do nuclear bombs generate a double flash?]
> In other words I would suspect a double flash is the signature of a
> fusion bomb rather than a fission bomb.
 
Nope. The time between the detonation of the fission trigger and the
fusion booster is a few nanoseconds. Satellite platforms don't measure
flashes of that duration (at least, none that I know of).
 
I suspect you'll get more accurate descriptions, but the useful layman's
explanation is that the first flash is the actual detonation, where you
see radiation from the weapon itself before the atmosphere becomes opaque.
The second flash is the fireball, where you get a much larger radiating
surface generating black-body radiation at a lower temperature (air at
thousands of degress Kelvin heated by the bomb, rather than the millions
of degrees of the bomb itself).
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.06 / Dieter Britz /  RE:  More questions about Menlove experiment
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:  More questions about Menlove experiment
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 15:33:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dick Blue, <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> asks
 
>Chuck Sites put an extensive quote from Menlove, et al. on the wire
..
..
>with this type of detector.  As to whether there is always a
>large difference between experiments using D2 gas and H2 as a
>control, the abstract that is quoted makes no mention of any
>H2 control measurements.  Were there any such measurements made
>with sufficient observation time to establish a clear difference?
>
>Dick Blue
 
I've checked, and there were some. The gas phase experiments included two
with a D2:H2 mix, to test for p-d fusion; some bursts were seen here but not
as many as for the pure D2 trials. However, there is a note saying that they
have now done some pure H2 runs, and have not seen any neutrons over a period
of several months. Also, in the electrolysis experiments, some cells were run
with H2O + LiOH but the results are not stated; the authors do state that NO
electrolysis experiments with D2O were really successful; those signals that
were detected were too close to background to be sure.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.06 / Terry Bollinger /  Correcting an omission...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correcting an omission...
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 18:46:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
I made a passing comment a day or so ago that I thought Chubb-Chubb's work
on condensates was interesting, but neglected to mention that from what
I can gather Chuck Sites really did come up with a lot of quite similar
ideas very much on his own.
 
Chuck has made some mistakes on physics (I have told him of one or two
myself), but unlike a lot of folks out there who keep spewing out journal
papers, Chuck has continued to try hard *learn more* when given a clear
explanation of where there may be a problem in what he has said.  I think
that's darned admirable, and even if "cnf" proves a non-issue I hope that
Chuck will be able to produce a bonafide physics paper or two as a result.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.05 / John Moore /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 5 Nov 91 13:39:59 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <9111042115.AA03994@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
]6.  The work reported in Fusion Technology was essentially a 100 mW
]reactor.  We have had a 100 W reactor working for about one month.
]30-50 W in, that is, (Vappl - 1.48) i  =  30-50 W.  100-120 W out.  There is
]little or no recombination of hydrogen and oxygen.
 
This implies open cell calorimetry. A couple of questions:
  What are the values of Vappl and I?
  How do you know the levels of recombination?
 
]7.  This week we should have a 1000 W reactor going.
Wow!
 
]active species is Ti2+.  (Whenever neutrons are given off, enormous
]amounts of heat are given off as well.  The heat does not come from
]the fusion itself but from shrinkage of the H atoms or D atoms to a size
]sufficiently small that fusion can occur.  As far as we can tell, only an
]extremely small fraction of the atoms shrink sufficiently for fusion to
]occur.)
 
What is the source of energy in this system? Is it the energy difference
between H and H1/2? Do you get cooling when you turn it off, or does the
H stay at 1/2?
 
This sounds really interesting, and truly wierd.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin   - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.05 / John Moore /  Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: Re: CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
Date: 5 Nov 91 13:54:25 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <north.689292809@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
]john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
]>Not if they calculate excess heat the way Fleischmann and Pons did. Their
]>calculation took heat out (calculated because with an open cell calorimeter
]>they could not directly measure it), subtracted electrical power in to
]>arrive a net excess heat. Then, they divided that by some other factor (I
]>forget which) to arrive at large numbers. Thus "200% excess heat" meant
]>perhaps 2% net excess heat. It was a very fishy way to present the numbers.
]>Since I don't have a copy of the latest paper, I don't know if they are
]>using the same inflated way of presenting results.
 
After seeing the other paper... I remember one detail of F&P. They calculated
the electrical power in by subtracting 1.48 volts (the electrolysis energy
of D2O). This works fine if one assumes no recombination of D & O, which
is generally true (recombination of <5% seems reasonable). However, closed
cell calorimetry would have removed several nagging questions:
  (1) how much recombination did occur
  (2) how much heat left the system via evaporation and in the D & O gas
  (3) what the real concentration of D was in the solution (D2O left
      exposed to air rapidly trades D for H, resulting in significant loss of
      the D concentration
]Not only do F&P know nothing of calorimetry of course, but they no nothing
]of gamma spectroscopy or neutron counting and probably little else.
 
I disagree on calorimetry. It is pretty clear they DO understand
calorimetry - they just didn't do it carefully. Gamma spectroscopy and
neutron counting... you are correct.
 
]I'm sorry to spew out a bunch of very negative posts but this whole thing
]is really getting ridiculous. John is quite right, the presentation was
]very fishy. Nevertheless, some of us spent a good deal of time trying to
]replicate the data -- no way. What burns my buns is that there are a goodly
]number of folk out there who continue to wave smoke and mirrors at managers
]with bucks and continue to be funded. So what do we have? The original
]experiment (if I can dignify it with that name) has been shown to be totally
]and thoroughly flawed, hence basically nonexistant. Yet there are many out
 
Actually, I don't think many people pay much attention to the original F&P
experiment. Some of the subsequent experiments by other labs are more
interesting, however.
 
I also spent a bunch of time (and my own money) on the F&P system, although
I abandoned the effort before firing up a cell after it became clear how
difficult it was to reproduce the experiment.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin   - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 5 Nov 91 19:52:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>Essentially all of the heat is **not** caused by fusion but
>by some other physical process--namely shrinkage of hydrogen atoms
>from the n = 1 state to the n = 1/2 state.
 
I remain curious as to what happens to 1/2-state-H afterwards.
 
Surely there is a huge abundance of energy already available in all
of our terrestrial H stock.  But I assume that 1/2-state-H will
somehow return to higher states through normal thermal processes --
violating entrophy.
 
Or does it?  Is the process reversible only by extreme heat input?
Eventually the device gets clogged with sticky 1/2-state-H?
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.06 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Petition
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Petition
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 08:54:52 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
 
>J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
 
 
>>Barry Merriman writes:
 
>>>This seems, to me, ridiculous.  Why do scientists who_claim_ to
>>>have good evidence to appeal directly to politicians for their grant
>>>money, rather than the usual peer review granting agencies.
 
>>1.  I don't like politicians.  In addition, I don't like Barry Merriman
>>telling me who I can petition and/or why.
 
>Politicians are people too.
(Hahaha. Good line.)
 Just like everbody else (including me) they
 
>can use some education. Concerning Mr. Merriman's comment: He didn't tell
>you to whom you could petition and/or (sic) why. He was pointing out the
>dangers of circumventing the peer review process. Do you want your tax
>dollars spent on the whim of the ignorant?
 
What's ignorant about the detailed observation of neutrons, small
flucuation of tritium, observations of charged particles, and excursions
of heat coming from a condensed matter system, that apparently
is poorly understood? Even by you Mark.  As far as the peer review
process, it tends to be fair until something hits at the foundations
of our scientific thinking.  This is not bad by any mean, however,
when several good experimental works are presented that sugjest
something is occuring that is not by current theories fiesable,
it would seem to me that these are the kind of results that should
be published!  Ask yourself are you bashing the messenger at the
sake of the message?   Whats the message you ask?  Our current
understanding the interactions H & D in low energy condensed matter
system, may be totally off using conventional hot fusion ideas of
a D+D burn.
 
>>2.  I don't want any of the money.
 
>This must be some sort of discaimer.
 
>>3.  The conclusions of the ERAB "Cold Fusion Research" report have
>>effectively cut off government funds for any project remotely
>>connected to "cold Fusion".
 
>This is totally wrong. You obviously don't even know what you are talking
>about. Please tell me how you came to this totally bogus conclusion.
 
Well, from what I've heard its true. Because of the ERAB report to
the DOE, any CF work other than the small works of the national labs
to study the anomalies of D in solids, will not be funded.
 
[Other point deleated to save space]
 
>And if the "riddle of excess heat" as you call it turns out to be a crock
>of shit will you be in line to hand out accolades to those who have warned
>of the waste involved in chasing chimera? I thought not.
 
>Mark
 
The excess heat may not be fusion, and it may not be an unusal qunatum effect.
Regardless the results are there.  It behoves us as physicists to find
out where this anomaly comes from.
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites {mit-eddie}!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com PH: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over. It ain't over. Whats the score?|it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites {mit-eddie}!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.08 / Dieter Britz /  Perspectives
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Perspectives
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 01:36:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
 
>Not only do F&P know nothing of calorimetry of course, but they no nothing
>of gamma spectroscopy or neutron counting and probably little else.
>I'm sorry to spew out a bunch of very negative posts but this whole thing
>is really getting ridiculous. John is quite right, the presentation was
>very fishy. Nevertheless, some of us spent a good deal of time trying to
>replicate the data -- no way. What burns my buns is that there are a goodly
>number of folk out there who continue to wave smoke and mirrors at managers
>with bucks and continue to be funded. So what do we have? The original
>experiment (if I can dignify it with that name) has been shown to be totally
>and thoroughly flawed, hence basically nonexistant. Yet there are many out
>there who continue to point to it as *something important*. And many
>managers who are taken in. (High risk *big* payoff). We might as well be
 
If you are sure F&P know nothing about calorimetry, perhaps you will tell us
the problem with FPALH-90. I have my strong doubts about that claimed 0.1%
accuracy for the heat (Case & Boehm make that 50% or so) but have yet to find
the flaw in that paper or someone who has found it.
I agree they knew nothing about gamma or neutron measurements, and this is a
different ball game altogether. Let us not, however, go overboard here. F has
a strong reputation in several different areas in electrochemistry and P is
not bad either. Their error was to stray into areas in which they are amateurs
and not to take the time to find out more. They might have made other mistakes
as well...
 Another point that has been made before on this list/group is that noone, or
at least no organisation, has been forced to do a cold fusion experiment. F&P,
no matter that they might have been totally wrong, did believe they had
something, and you can hardly blame them for trumpeting about it. Were we now
all TB's, we would regard them as heroes and smile fondly at their first,
amateurish paper. So if you wasted time or money on cold fusion experiments,
blame yourself or maybe your boss.
 Here is a skeptic's thought on this: F&P had a hunch that you might get d-d
fusion in Pd. They tried it out and thought they succeeded, wrote a paper with
the words "cold fusion of deuterium" in the title (I am at home and can't
remember the exact phrase but it's close). They found some heat. Later, it
turns out that it can't be d-d fusion producing this heat; all agree on this.
So they (e.g. in FPALH-90) retreat to an "unknown nuclear process"; others
start to develop more or less bizarre theories of what might be happening.
Now, what are the chances that some exotic or bizarre new phenomenon will be
found by accident, under conditions thought to be favourable for a
hypothetical KNOWN process? How come most of these bizarre processes like
sub-basement orbitals or dineutrons or antidiquarks or - yes, Terry - matter
to energy, all find an ideal habitat in PdDx? OK, Mills+ is thought to go
better on Ni, I admit. None of this proves a thing, it's just a perspective.
 And we still have to explain (away) those few unchallenged positive results,
like Belzner+ or - now - Menlove+. It seems to be a harder job than it was to
explain polywater away. I have a little list of 10 positive results of what I
regard as "quality" work. I would cheerfully dismiss maybe 5-6 of these, as I
have been a bit generous but that still leaves something to be explained. My
feeling is that it WILL be explained, in terms of conventional, or maybe
fracto-, processes. Fracto- is not cold fusion, it's self targeting really.
 
 To the bomb makers on this list: I know this is a list about fusion but most
of us mean something other than fusion bombs, I am sure. Isn't there another
group like sci.military for you? You might feel much more at home there.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.06 / Jon Webb /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 6 Nov 91 14:01:56 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1991Nov5.195205.23370@ns.network.com>,
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
|> I remain curious as to what happens to 1/2-state-H afterwards.
|>
|> Surely there is a huge abundance of energy already available in all
|> of our terrestrial H stock.  But I assume that 1/2-state-H will
|> somehow return to higher states through normal thermal processes --
|> violating entrophy.
 
I'm curious about this, too, but I don't think it violates entropy for
the 1/2 state-H to return to normal H through, say, the absorption of
heat.  What Mills and Farrell are saying, I think, is that there is this
low-energy form of hydrogen which is accessible only through a special
device, which they have constructed.  If you include this low-energy
form of hydrogen in your calculation of the entropy of the universe,
you'll find that the universe is presently in a pretty high-entropy
state, and lots of energy is available, just as the introduction of a
spark makes lots of energy available on a planet where the atmosphere
consists of hydrogen and oxygen.  If we exploit this energy by
converting hydrogen to the 1/2 state eventually, after a very long time,
the universe will reach a new lower entropy state, where hydrogen is
distributed between the h 1/2 state and the normal state, and the heat
available in the universe is pretty low, and the Mills and Farrell
device will stop working.  But I think that will not occur until energy
from all other sources becomes unavailable, for example due to the stars
burning themselves out, and maybe even proton decay.  The staggering
implications of this make me think Mills and Farrell must be wrong, but
I suppose we'll find out in a year or two.
 
One thing I like about the Mills and Farrell theory is that it seems to
roughly explain the two kinds of cold fusion results (low-level neutron
radiation and large amounts of heat) in a single theory.  Sure, it goes
against known physics, but any theory that accounts for present results
(even Jones-type results) is going to have to revise physics somewhat.
(Cluster impact fusion and Jones-level radiation have become more
accepted than F-P heat not because present-day physics accounts for them
better, but because of the way the results have been presented and
because they seem to have less drastic political implications.)
 
 -- J
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 / Wilson Heydt /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 23:12:54 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1991Nov6.180951.1@acad2.alaska.edu> asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>
>ARE YOU AS DISGUSTED WITH NASA AS WE ARE? HELP US TO THE MOON
 
Aside from not liking to be souted at (and that's how all-caps posting
tend to make me feel), I suggest that any good, powerful rocket fuel
(and the appropriate oxidizer), plus an amatuer engine design is
almost sure to solve all your problems.  Just be sure to do the
testing well clear (like--several miles) of anyone not of your group.
 
	--Hal
 
--
=======================================================================
Hal Heydt                    |    Practice Safe Government
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |           Use Kingdoms
510-823-5447                 |     (seen on a bumper sticker)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenwhheydt cudfnWilson cudlnHeydt cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.06 /  asljl@acad2.al /  <None>
     
Originally-From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: <None>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:09:51 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

 
HEY YOU ALL OUT THERE
LISTEN UP I GOT SOME SERIOUS
QUESTIONS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR GOOD SERIOUS ANSWERS.
 
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF NASA?
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF PSI(E.S.P)
DO YOU HAVE PSI ABLITY
HOW WOULD YOU GET TO THE MOON?
 
THESE QUESTIONS ARE FOR ANYBODY IN ANY NEWSGROUP. WE ARE SERIOUS
ABOUT LEAVING EARTH AND STARTING A NEW COLONY THERE
WE HAVE ONE POSSIBLE ENGINE DESIGN BUT WE NEED THE HELP OF OTHERS
WHO FEEL AS WE DO. WE IS GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO FEEL THAT LIFE ON EARTH IS JUST
GETTING TO RIDICULOUS AND FEELTHIS,
 
ARE YOU AS DISGUSTED WITH NASA AS WE ARE? HELP US TO THE MOON
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenasljl cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 / Donald Ekman /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: ekman@wdl30.wdl.loral.com (Donald Ekman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 7 Nov 91 03:45:38 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <1991Nov6.180951.1@acad2.alaska.edu> asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>
>HEY YOU ALL OUT THERE
>LISTEN UP I GOT SOME SERIOUS
>QUESTIONS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR GOOD SERIOUS ANSWERS.
>
<stuff deleted>
>
>ARE YOU AS DISGUSTED WITH NASA AS WE ARE? HELP US TO THE MOON
 
Have a nice trip.
 
Don
--
Donald E. Ekman, Space Systems/Loral, Palo Alto, CA  ekman@wdl30.wdl.loral.com
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenekman cudfnDonald cudlnEkman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 /  Taipei /  test
     
Originally-From: LC-Fu Jen Catholic Univ.,AIESEC China(Taipei)
 <AIESECFJ@TWNMOE10.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: test
Date: Thursday, 7 Nov 1991 12:05:45 EST
Organization: Ministry of Education, Computer Center NETNEWS system V2.3

 TEST!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudlnTaipei cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 / Eliot Moss /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 7 Nov 91 13:44:49 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)

I think you have lower vs. higher entropy backwards -- or perhaps you meant
lower and higher *energy*. Anyway, trying to recall my engineering
thermodynamics course, which was a *long* time ago, it is generally easier to
extract energy from lower entropy states than from higher entropy ones. But I
suspect you were really talking about the amount of *energy* available in
going from the commonly occurring H state to the presumably less common
hypothesized 1/2 H state, right?
--
 
		J. Eliot B. Moss, Assistant Professor
		Department of Computer Science
		Lederle Graduate Research Center
		University of Massachusetts
		Amherst, MA  01003
		(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss@cs.umass.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmoss cudfnEliot cudlnMoss cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 / David Taylor /  Questions from a would-be duplicator of Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
     
Originally-From: dct@batman.cs.byu.edu (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions from a would-be duplicator of Mills et al. Ni/K experiment
Date: 7 Nov 91 15:43:58 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University -- Mathematics Department

> Tips on repeating the experiment
 
  <<Lots of juicy stuff deleted>>
 
     I am interested in giving this one a try, if I can get a few things
 cleared up. Unfortunately, I am more of a "dabbler" than a real physicist,
 but maybe the answers to these questions will help out real research
 teams. Anybody (especially Dr. Mills or Dr. Farrell) who thinks he knows
 the answers, please post or send E-mail. Thanks.
 
1. On page 72 of the paper published in Fusion Technology, v20, Aug. 1991,
 Mills states: "The removal of negative Fourier components of energy m X
27.2eV, where m is an integer, gives rise to a larger positive electric
field inside the spherical shell, which is a time-harmonic solution of
 Laplace's equations in spherical coordinates. In this case, the radius
 at which force balance and nonradiation are achieved is a(sub 0) / (m+1),
 where m is an integer. In decaying to this radius from the ground state,
 a total energy of [(m+1)(m+1) - 1] X 13.6eV is released. This process is
 hereafter referred to a hydrogen emission by catalytic thermal electronic
 relaxation (HECTER)."   Mills then gives examples of some catalysts that
 can be used (K, Li/Pd, Ti) to cause resonant shrinkage. He also lists
the potentials of the resonating cavities, which vary from 27.28 to 27.54
 eV. How close to the 27.2 eV value does one have to be? If not exactly
 on, why not?
 
2. If the answer given in question 1 is that the energy in the resonator
 cavity  does not have to be exact, why do we not see sub-ground hydrogen
 atoms in nature (or do we?)? For example, equations 92 and 98 give a
possible reaction that uses only free hydrogen (deuterium, in this case)
 and potassium ions to create H atoms with shrunken orbit spheres. Doesn't
 both potassium and hydrogen exist in the required states in seawater?
What about other reaction chains where all the products exist simulteneously
 and can combine to produce resonator cavities of ~ 27.2 eV?
 
3. None of the equations that describe the reaction used for this research
(potassium carbonate) mention the platinum anode. Is it really necessary to
 use such an expensive piece of wire, or would copper serve as well? If
 copper would be bad (for cathode muck buildup or other reasons), would
 platinum electroplated over copper work OK? How about using nickel for
 both the cathode and the anode and running high frequency AC?
 
4. Do the equations for D hold for plain old H? (I assume they do, since
 the extra neutron wouldn't do anything to the charge radius or whatever.)
 
5. When deuterium is used, tritium and protons are produced. What happens
when plain old hydrogen is used (as suggested in the recent post on repeating
 the experiment)?
 
Thanks for your assistance.
 
*****************************************************************
*  Soaring - the ultimate three  *   David C. Taylor            *
*  dimensional art form          *   dct@batman.cs.byu.edu      *
*****************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendct cudfnDavid cudlnTaylor cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 7 Nov 91 16:59:20 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1991Nov6.180951.1@acad2.alaska.edu>, by asljl@acad2.alaska.edu:
>
> HEY YOU ALL OUT THERE
 
Act'lly "YOU ALL" is spelled "y'all" and it's a very pretty word when
said in a quite and friendly sort of way. Shouting it, is not polite.
 
Seriously now, take this stuff over to talk.politics.space where it
belongs.
 
			Bob P.
 
P.S.
 
Thanks for the laugh, whoever you really are. I'm still chuckling.
--
 
| Bob Pendleton              | Engineering Anethema:                     |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Questions from a would-be duplicator of Mills et al. Ni/K
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions from a would-be duplicator of Mills et al. Ni/K
 experiment
Date: 7 Nov 91 18:30:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

 
I have this question about the Mills et al. experiment:
 
In electrolysis in carbonate solution, can't peroxycarbonate ions be
produced?  Would their recomposition account for the extra heat?
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 / Blair Houghton /  That ol'-fashioned pioneering spirit (Re: <None>)
     
Originally-From: bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: That ol'-fashioned pioneering spirit (Re: <None>)
Date: 7 Nov 91 18:35:56 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ

In article <1991Nov6.180951.1@acad2.alaska.edu> asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
                                                            ^^^^^^
>HOW WOULD YOU GET TO THE MOON?
>WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT LEAVING EARTH AND STARTING A NEW COLONY THERE
 
Are you sure it's a stretch?
 
				--Blair
				  "And once you're there,
				   won't you just want
				   to leave and go to Mars?
				   and once you're there..."
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbhoughto cudfnBlair cudlnHoughton cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.08 /   /   Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Excess Heat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 15:53:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
John Moore asks:
 
>What is the source of energy in this system?
 
Hydrogen energy levels are given by E(n)  = -13.6 eV/n**2.
H(n = 1) is at -13.6 eV.  Assume, for a moment, the wildly impossible--
that n can not only = 1, 2, 3, ... but that n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... .
Then, H(n = 1/2) is at 4(-13.6 eV) = -54.4.   Thus, the energy difference
between the two states is 40.8 eV.  That is, a 40.8 eV photon should be
given off in going to the n = 1/2 state.
 
At -54.4 eV this atom, should it exist, would be *very stable*.  After all,
the ionization energy of He is 24.6 eV.  That is, this atom should be
**extremely stable** and very small-- r =  (1/2) of the Bohr radius.
There would be no cooling when the electrolysis is stopped.  The only
way to get the atom to return to the n = 1 state is for it to absorb a 40.8
eV photon.
 
One can observe these 40.8 eV (and higher energy) transitions by
putting dental film next to the Ni cathode.  You have to remove the
film from the plastic and from the cardboard wrapping (in a dark
room).  The film must be wrapped in water tight material, but thin (so
that the 40.8 eV photons can penetrate).  (A condom works fine.)  The
whole experiment must be done in a dark room or dark container.
Suitable controls must be used--like Na2CO3 instead of K2CO3.
Electrolyze for a week or so, you will observe dark spots on the film
(K2CO3 solution only) indicating hot spots on the
cathode.  (This is, of course, not conclusive proof of these lower energy
states for hydrogen but we are getting there.)
 
 
>What are the values of Vappl and I (in the 100 W reactor)?
 
Vappl = 4 volts      I =  20 amps  We used a Kepco constant current
power supply, Model ATE6-50M.  This requires about 2000 meters
of 0.127 mm diameter Ni wire (Johnson Matthey).  We used
platinized Ti mesh anodes.
 
This is about 50 W,  (4-1.48)20  = 50 W.  At 50 W we get about 120 W
out.  (We applied no correction for heat taken away by the escaping
gases, which is considerable, so the actual output is probably greater
than 120 W.
 
Notes:
 
1.  When you run 100-200 mW reactors you have to use a well
insulated container with a cell constant of at least 20 C/watt.  We used
small dewar flasks.
 
2.  When you run a 100 W reactor you need a less well insulated cell--
about 0.5 C/watt.  We use a large nalgene beaker with a fitted nalgene
lid (with holes for letting the gases escape).
 
 
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.08 / Terry Bollinger /  A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 21:57:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
Many of you are familiar with Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle,"
which made the front page of the New York Times earlier this year with
its detailed revelations of behind-the-scenes activities in the early days
of "cold fusion."  I know of no other source that provides as much detail
about this rather mysterious period, and his book documents some striking
contrasts between public pronouncements about "cold fusion" and what was
actually going on in the background.
 
You may be surprised to know that Frank still reads all the net news on
"cold fusion" and has continued to investigate claims, sometimes with the
assistance of such net resources as our own renowned Dieter Britz and
others.  Following the appearance of the recent petition, he felt that
the issues involved were serious enough that he asked me to post some of
his comments on the net.  I think you will find them thought provoking.
 
I should of course note that the opinions and information that follow are
those of Frank Close, not Terry Bollinger.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
 
 ---------------------- BEGIN LETTER BY FRANK CLOSE ------------------------
 
Terry Bollinger has made some interesting observations about the cold fusion
petition. I would like to add some comments, having spent considerable time
investigating the origins and early work on test tube fusion during the
research for my book "Too Hot to Handle."  During that episode I learned
several things that convinced me that the original claims made by and on
behalf of Fleischmann and Pons were exaggerations at best.  Readers of the
book (or of the New York Times) will know that certain of the claims were
altered, with the result that the world gained an impression that there was
evidence for fusion when in fact such fusion had never been measured.  They
will also be aware that on occasions when information against the existence
of test-tube fusion has been obtained, pressure has come from lawyers
attempting to supress such information.  It is therefore ironic that some
members of the Utah Fusion Lobby like to propagate the myth that it is the
Scientific Establishment that is scurrilously trying to supress test-tube
fusion.
 
The signatories on the version of the petition that was sent out the net
include some people who have publicly stated that I and my book are part
of a DOE plot to supress or "rubbish" CNF, that I have been hired by my
"paymasters the DOE" to do this, that my book is part of an "International
Conspiracy [to deprive Fleischmann and Pons and Utah of patents]," and so
forth.  With such nonsenses served up by some Utah fusion lobbyists and
their supporters, it is hard for me to take any material put out by them
or on their behalf seriously. This is regrettable, because there are some
well-meaning and serious scientists who have been (and still are) studying
the behaviour of deuterium/hydrogen in metals, and these scientists are
suffering because of implicit association with these nonsenses.  Before
this episode becomes muddied by the half-truths and worse that have
typified some of the test-tube fusion saga, may I suggest that potential
signatories who wish to consider the petition responsibly should review
what the DOE report actually recommended.
 
The DOE did NOT recommend that there be no funding for CNF.  It merely
concluded that scientists wishing to study CNF should apply for funds,
just as is the norm in other areas of science. CNF TB's are asking for
SPECIAL treatment, and then crying foul when they are told to follow the
same rules that everyone else must follow.
 
The DOE panel encouraged collaborations;  the reasons for this are obvious
to any serious professional scientist.  Yet Menlove-Jones are almost unique
in having actually formed such a collaboration.  The lack of collaborations
involving expertise from a wide range of fields is noticeable, since much
of the research effort today is not qualitatively different from what was
going on in 1989.  Nonetheless, a considerable number of experiments have
been done, and several of them have been done in DOE labs.  It is thus
unrealistic to claim that CNF has not had been allowed a fair chance to
be assessed.
 
Five million dollars of taxpayers moneys went to support the NCFI -- less
lawyers fees -- and after extensive research there have been some interesting
claims of possible interest to materials science, though many would dispute
even this.  However, there have been NO replications of the range of the
grandiose claims that the U of U and Fusion Facts made for Fleischmann
and Pons.  Futhermore, let us not rewrite history.  Had FP claimed merely
to have found a new chemical battery and not claimed to have found evidence
for nuclear (fusion) products, the massive research effort and present
petition would never have been.  The whole saga originated with the claims
of FP, and the Congressional hearings kept referring to the "two [sic]
scientists."  Jones was at those hearing only in a secondary capacity, and
he made rather clear then (and he has repeated since) that there is little
if any relation between his experiments and scale of claims and those of FP.
Yet it is such trifling amounts of neutrons that are now being hyped by
desperate lobbyists (but not Jones) as if they relate to FP's discredited
claims.
 
One reason that FP's claims have not been reproduced is because those claims
were simply not true.  When the world was told that FP had seen gamma rays
as evidence of fusion, we all accepted that statement on trust.  We (and
maybe even Fleischmann) were not told that Pons had redrawn the axes on
his data such that a peak that had been measured with less than 2000 counts
at an energy that had nothing to do with fusion would appear to have its
number of counts inexplicably increased ninefold and its energy relocated
to where it would appear to be a bona fide fusion signal.  Thus we were
misled.  None of this was generally known until it was exposed by Bill
Broad of the New York Times, following my book earlier this year.  It was
certainly not being advertised when the Utah legislature voted its taxes
to support NCFI, nor when the lobbying of Congress was first made in April
1989.  Now that it is widely known, does anyone expect any greater support?
 
The long drawn out CNF affair has already threatened the image of science,
and petitions like this will aggravate that further. A recent example of
concern relating to the first point was Admiral Watkins' speech in May
where he said "two members of the scientific community made everyone in
white lab coats look fraudulent."  Perpetuating the myth that an energy
producing nuclear reaction was detected in a Utah test tube in 1989, and
then elevating it into a claim that it should take precedence over other
science in issues of funding, gives the subject little credit.
 
There will always be those who choose to believe in conspiracies, that
government labs are holding back with some great secret, and that the normal
channels have to be bypassed to obtain special treatment. The lobbyists
choose to ignore work detrimental to their beliefs from outside the U.S.,
such as the work at Harwell in the U.K.  Harwell's work was inaccurately
criticised in Eugene Mallove's "Fire From Ice" in order to support the
myth of CNF.  As one of Harwell's senior scientists said to me recently,
"Given the financial pressures we have been under, it beggars belief that
we would ignore a pot of gold if there were one."  TBs of the conspiracy
school will probably claim that this "proves" that Harwell have seen CNF
and are developing it in secret. If this is true, then presumably the
same must be the case for the U.S. DOE labs -- and thus Messrs Mallove,
Rothwell and friends need have no worries about CNF not being developed!
 
I am not a U.S. taxpayer, so I have no immediate say in how Congress
disposes of its (your) tax dollars.  However, I am fully aware that the
NSF and DOE are already under great strain trying to fund science without
having 10 million removed from their competitive coffers in order to fund
a venture whose existence derives from such dubious origins.  CNF as a
solution to the world's energy problems has ranged from a deception to
a joke.  It has provided much entertainment and also wasted much time
and money.
 
Is not enough enough?
 
 ----------------------- END LETTER BY FRANK CLOSE -------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.08 /  David Lawrence /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: David Lawrence Nadle
 <dln3%cunixf.cc.columbia.edu@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 23:35:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
>HOW WOULD YOU GET TO THE MOON?
 
     See a guy in Bensonhurst named Ralph Kramden. Or, save your
money and buy a clue.
 
 
 -----------------------------------------
Dave Nadle   <dln3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 / Steve Gombosi /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 7 Nov 91 19:32:45 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1991Nov7.034538.29332@wdl1.wdl.loral.com> ekman@wdl30.wdl.loral.com
 (Donald Ekman) writes:
>In article <1991Nov6.180951.1@acad2.alaska.edu> asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>>
>>HEY YOU ALL OUT THERE
>>LISTEN UP I GOT SOME SERIOUS
>>QUESTIONS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR GOOD SERIOUS ANSWERS.
>>
><stuff deleted>
>>
>>ARE YOU AS DISGUSTED WITH NASA AS WE ARE? HELP US TO THE MOON
>
>Have a nice trip.
 
Actually, I think they're already there...
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudensog cudfnSteve cudlnGombosi cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.07 /  ncolaco@umiami /  *Cold Fusion Info. Request*
     
Originally-From: ncolaco@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: *Cold Fusion Info. Request*
Date: 7 Nov 91 17:17:11 GMT
Organization: Univ of Miami IR

 
 
 
	        ****** AN URGENT REQUEST FOR HELP *****
 
	FELLOW NEWS USERS:
 
		I am presently in the process of doing a research
  	paper on Cold Fusion, or more specifically, " Is Cold Fusion
        possible ? "  I would greatly appreciate any information
	that you may have on the topic.  I would especially
	like to get my hands on a summary of S. Pons' and M. Fleischman's
	cold fusion experiments.
 
						Thank you,
						Noel Colaco
 
	(p.s. - the paper is not scientific, but should appeal
		to a more general audience)
        (p.p.s - in English,please)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenncolaco cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.08 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 07:11:25 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

<J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
 
>Thousands of other systems are possible.  Unfortunately, most of these
>are ions or ion combinations that are difficult or impossible to make.
>We have tried many of the chemically reasonable ones and the K+
>system works best.  Pd2+/ Li+ works, but not as well.  Note Pd2+,  not
>Pd metal.  We believe that to the extent that Pd/Li+ works, it is Pd2+
>on or near the surface of the Pd that is the active species.  Rb+ works,
>but not as well.  Li+, Na+, Cs+ do not work.  Ti2+ does work.  Here
>again, to the extent that Ti/D2 gives neutrons, we believe that the
>active species is Ti2+.  (Whenever neutrons are given off, enormous
>amounts of heat are given off as well.  The heat does not come from
>the fusion itself but from shrinkage of the H atoms or D atoms to a size
>sufficiently small that fusion can occur.  As far as we can tell, only an
>extremely small fraction of the atoms shrink sufficiently for fusion to
>occur.)
 
John,
  First I want to say thanks for the details on this excess heat
H2O/K experiment. I also have dabbled in something similar only
the elctrolye I was using was 2Na4B7O with an Ni/Cu alloy anode,
and Cu cathode. In my case, it was the anode that showed a signifcant
rise in heat with DC. Anyway, I have a couple of questions:
 
1. Have you ran any AC experiments like Ni/Ni, Ni/Pt, Pt/Pt experiments?
2. Are any salts formed on the cathode or electrode?.
3. Several months back you metioned KCl as an electrolyte. Do you
   think this is still a good electrolyte to reproduce your H2O
   experiment?
4. How far into and away from the metal/liquid interface do you
   expect the formation H (n=1/2) to exist. In otherwords when
   does the transition form this state to the metal band state
   occur, or the electrolyte conduction states?
 
The ideas you proposing sound interesting. Perhps revolutionary
if true. I look forward to reading yours & Mill's paper sometime
soon and perhaps learn a thing or two.
 
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College
 
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites {mit-eddie}!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \       Look folks, No double signature!       |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.08 / Dave Andrews /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: dandrews@bilver.uucp (Dave Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 8 Nov 91 14:25:15 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL

Has there been any isolation of this H1/2 ?  Have its chemical properties
been evaluated?
 
What is the valence of hydrogen-on-the-half-shell ?
 
- David Andrews
  peora!tarpit!bilver!dandrews
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendandrews cudfnDave cudlnAndrews cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.09 /   /   Farrell Clears the Air (or the Decks!)
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Farrell Clears the Air (or the Decks!)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 17:24:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Regardless of what you think of the Mills-Farrell theory, True Believers
in Cold Fusion should take note that either:
 
  1) The need to relate "excess heat" to nuclear processes involving
     deuterium is out the window.
OR
  2) The electrocalorimetry as practiced by Farrell and presumably
     by some others claiming positive results is so poorly understood
     that all bets are off.
 
Unless you think there is a slightly possibility that the Mills-
Farrell team is as wacko as experimentalists as I think they are as
theorists.  To help us resolve these questions I suggest one simple
addition to the Farrell 1000 W reactor.  My suggestion is that he
place the whole thing in a washtub full of water and that he keep
that tub filled with ice.  If he can demonstrait that his 1000 W
device can melt ice at an appropriate rate, I'll take back at least
half of all the negative things I have said about cold fusion.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL         "I do this after hours."
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.09 / James Nicoll /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 01:34:30 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1991Nov7.231254.4873@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson
 Heydt) writes:
>In article <1991Nov6.180951.1@acad2.alaska.edu> asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>>
>>ARE YOU AS DISGUSTED WITH NASA AS WE ARE? HELP US TO THE MOON
>
>Aside from not liking to be souted at (and that's how all-caps posting
>tend to make me feel), I suggest that any good, powerful rocket fuel
>(and the appropriate oxidizer), plus an amatuer engine design is
>almost sure to solve all your problems.  Just be sure to do the
>testing well clear (like--several miles) of anyone not of your group.
 
	A system of causing a delta vee to a cargo which requires the
mechanism which is supplying the delta vee to travel along with the cargo
has always struck me as inefficient; might it not be less wasteful to
design a system which accelerates the cargo to several tens of klicks a
second, while remaining more or less motionless itself? People might
want to look at the notes for Bull's Project Babylon, or even the old
HARP designs. If chemical charges won't do, the USA certainly has fission
and fusion explosives which should, given the correct design of the
propulsion system, provide more than enough motive power to the cargo,
albiet with perhaps some slight shifting of internal structure during
acceleration. I dimly recall seeing a figure of 50 km/s for one fission
driven stationary propulsion system, which would get the cargo to the
Moon in just about 125 minutes.
 
							James Nicoll
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjdnicoll cudfnJames cudlnNicoll cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.09 / Richard Mathews /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 9 Nov 91 02:11:48 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
 
>Hydrogen energy levels are given by E(n)  = -13.6 eV/n**2.
>H(n = 1) is at -13.6 eV.  Assume, for a moment, the wildly impossible--
>that n can not only = 1, 2, 3, ... but that n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... .
>Then, H(n = 1/2) is at 4(-13.6 eV) = -54.4.   Thus, the energy difference
>between the two states is 40.8 eV.  That is, a 40.8 eV photon should be
>given off in going to the n = 1/2 state.
 
A few questions:
 
What are the rules for orbital angular momenta for these fractional
states?  The usual rule that says you can have n**2 orbital angular
momentum states at each energy level obviously can't apply here.
 
For n = 1/large, the energy gain from dropping to a lower state can be
huge.  Only when the atom shrinks to about nuclear size will the
E = -13.6/n**2 formula break down.  The transitions to these states
must be strongly forbidden, or we would see them all the time.  And
the lower the state, the more strongly forbidden it must be to cancel
the thermodynamic encouragement to drop into such low states.  Is there
any claim as to what form that forbiddal might take?
 
A possible answer to both questions comes to mind: angular momentum
quantization requires a cluster of hydrogen atoms to all drop into the
lower state at the same time.  In effect each of 4 atoms at n=1/2 can
have only 1/4 of a legal angular momentum state.  But that doesn't
say what the angular momentum states look like or how they are linked.
 
Richard M. Mathews			 Freedom for Lithuania
richard@locus.com				Laisve!
lcc!richard@seas.ucla.edu
..!{uunet|ucla-se}!lcc!richard
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMathews cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.09 / Paul Houle /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 9 Nov 91 01:13:17 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

In article <1991Nov6.180951.1@acad2.alaska.edu> asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
 
>HEY YOU ALL OUT THERE
>LISTEN UP I GOT SOME SERIOUS
>QUESTIONS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR GOOD SERIOUS ANSWERS.
 
	Well,  I'm in a really serious mood TONIGHT,  so I'm all READY to
give you SERIOUS answers.
 
>
>WHAT DO YOU THINK OF NASA?
 
	I'm SURE that you already know that NASA has been bilking the
public into THINKING that we have a space PROGRAM based upon the use of
ROCKET travel.  Erich von Daniken and Emmanuel Velikovsky collaborated
on a paper [1] that proved that rocket TRAVEL outside the atmosphere IS
impossible.  After all,  there is nothing to push against in OUTER space.
 
	In a previous message,  several months ago,  I explained how the
theory of gravity control and EXTRADIMENSIONAL travel was developed during
the 1940s by ALBERT Einstein and Townsend BROWN.  The first SIGNIFICANT
test of THIS technology was performed in 1943 in the so-called PHILADELPHIA
EXPERIMENT.  The ROCKET stage of the APOLLO space vehicle was only for show,
BECAUSE it was only functional inside the Earth's ATMOSPHERE.  The real
drive unit was a completely SOLID-STATE gravitator device with a non-
operational weight of 16.5 pounds,  and an operational weight of seven
hundred trillion KILOGRAMS.  This DEVICE was cylinderical and aproximately
18 inches long and 3 feet in diameter.
 
	The operational speed of an APOLLO space capsule could potentially
GO as high as 1900 times the speed of LIGHT,  as PETR Beckmann could
explain.  THE drive system is that POWERFUL,  BUT,  without shielding
against ultracosmic RADIATION,  the capsule would DISINTEGRATE at interstellar
cruising speeds.  Such a powerful drive SYSTEM was used only because a
system at that SIZE is a net PRODUCER of energy,  not a CONSUMER.
 
	NASA has successfully sent men to PLUTO and the planet PENELOPE
(The 14th planet) using a slight refinement of this propulsion system.
All of NASA's functional PROGRAMS are secret,  as you already KNOW,  so
the things like the HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE,  Galileo and Magellan are
ALL there to keep the public and most of the non-illuminatus scientific
COMMUNITY deceieved.
 
>WHAT DO YOU THINK OF PSI(E.S.P)
 
	I first learned about PSI powers when a man named URI GELLER
came to our town and put on a show.  Using UNFATHOMABLE powers of the
mind,  this MAN could bend SPOONS,  lamp posts,  and EVEN small
automobiles.  After this,  I have experienced PSI powers very many
times.
 
>DO YOU HAVE PSI ABLITY?
 
	YES,  I got PSI abilites when I ate sixteen grams of BLUE-
STEMMED mushrooms under the tutelage of L. RON HUBBARD and Baghwan Shree
Ragneesh.  Today I can go out of my body and VISIT anywhere in the
entired UNIVERSE.  In fact,  I'm sitting in my SECRET LABORATORY right
now,  POSTING NEWS with my ASTRAL BODY.
 
	I also can control people's minds very easily by STARING
at them.  I can sit in the BUS and stare at the BACK OF SOMEONE'S
HEAD and mentally COMMAND them to scratch their head!  I ALSO can
ENHANCE my telepathic powers by eating DATURA root,  so I GROW
several DATURA plants in my back yard for this purpose.  I reccomend
that people who grow POT should grow DATURA instead,  because DATURA
produces a very pleasant EXPERIENCE and is entirely LEGAL to grow
anywhere in the WORLD.
 
	I also have powers of PSYCHOKENESIS that go beyond the power
of URI GELLER.  With two friends,  we have demonstrated HYPER POWERS
by using our combined flux of ORGONE RADIATION to stop a solar
eclipse that was going to happen on OCTOBER 21,  1987,  and documented
this in a major journal.  [2]
 
>HOW WOULD YOU GET TO THE MOON?
 
	ANTIGRAVITY technology is PRACTICAL but it is obsolete in
comparison to TRANSDIMENSIONAL integration,  which can move any
quantity of matter to the MOON or ANYWHERE in just SECONDS.
 
	A practical hyperspatial gate could be BUILT using QUARTZ
CRYSTALS,  lead and copper pipe,  and COMPUTER CIRCUITRY for about
$800.  The main expense is for a COMPUTER to literally WEAVE a new
pathway in the MATRIX STRUCTURE of space.  Although NO individual
processor is powerful ENOUGH to do this,  we have acheived gate
PROTOFORMATION by networking a COMMODORE 64,  a Coleco ADAM,  and
a Super Nintendo Game Boy (Interlinking them through ADAM NET).
 
	WE CANNOT push matter through this GATE,  only ENERGY for
now,  BUT adding a small PARTICLE accelerator,  built from a
television and a MICROWAVE OVEN,  cooled in a SEARS REFRIGERATOR
(treated with special plastic to form an orgone accumlator and
charged with CLOUDBUSTER electrodes from the SUN) could possibily
DEMATERIALIZE things on EARTH and reconstruct them on the MOON
or even MARS.
 
>
>THESE QUESTIONS ARE FOR ANYBODY IN ANY NEWSGROUP. WE ARE SERIOUS
>ABOUT LEAVING EARTH AND STARTING A NEW COLONY THERE
>WE HAVE ONE POSSIBLE ENGINE DESIGN BUT WE NEED THE HELP OF OTHERS
>WHO FEEL AS WE DO. WE IS GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO FEEL THAT LIFE ON EARTH IS JUST
>GETTING TO RIDICULOUS AND FEELTHIS,
 
	YES,  life on EARTH is rediculous.  THAT is why GOD gave us
HALLUCINOGENS.  [3]  Maybe going to the moon would be a good IDEA,
but try SMOKING DATURA SEEDS some time.
 
>
>ARE YOU AS DISGUSTED WITH NASA AS WE ARE? HELP US TO THE MOON
 
References---
 
[1] Velikovsky,  I. and Von Daniken, E.;  "Space travel is bunk!",  1955,
vol 23,  Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics.
 
[2] Beckmann,  Petr,  Hubbard,  R. L.,  and Zappa, F.;  "Psychic Trio uses
HYPER-POWERS to Prevent Lunar Eclipse";  December 5, 1987,  Weekly World
News
 
[3] Leary,  T.,  Lily, J. and Dass B. R.;  "LSD proven to be cure for
cancer"; vol 11, n.9,  Journal of transdimensional psychology.
 
 
 
--
Welcome to the Aramcheck network,  internet gateway to VALIS...
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpahsnsr cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.09 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 05:02:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <67167@bbn.BBN.COM> aboulanger@bbn.com writes:
>
>See:
>
>"Lab of the Rising Microsuns", Research News, Science, 25 Oct 1991,
>515-517. One of the ideas for the how of cluster impact fusion is a
>mechanism of nano-scale shaped charge explosions.
>
>Two things strikes me of this work:
>
>The evolution of experimental and theoretical stage (issues of
>replication in other labs, no good theories, and a resort to finding
>new mechanisms to explain the results) for this seems similar to cold
>fusion, but the hype-to-results ratio is lower. Thus, the large-scale
>dismissal of their work has not occurred.
>
>I think the fracto-fusion idea of cold fusion seems related to some of
>the ideas they are coming up to explain cluster impact fusion.
>
>Finally, they have begun an important experimental process -- time
>correlation of specific species impacts with fusion-signatures.
>
 
The Science article seems written by a believer, in the style of an epic
novel. My impression is that the experiments are indeed affected by fast
contaminants. The new timing results do not disprove this since they can
not resolve cluster breakdown near the end of the accelerator tube. To
see how sensitive these experiments can be to a spurious effect, imagine
that the signal observed is 23 orders of magnitude larger than predicted!
 
The article does not mention a theoretical paper also in Phys Rev. Letter
by Ritchie et al who seemed to prove that a hot spike produced on impact
could produce energetic deuterons. This paper had a remarkable good
agreement with the energy dependence of the Brookhaven experiments. But
this was accidental, since an error was made accidentally confusing
center-of-mass energy with lab energy. This theoretical paper was done by
first class physicists. The lesson is that it is not a valid argument to say
that such and such cnf experiments should be believed because they come
from competent scientists.
 
All theoretical studies involving molecular dynamics calculations show that
the local heating during impact is insufficient to develop a high energy
"tail" of deuterons with sufficient energy to explain the results. It is
thus even more unlikely that the shock waves that Y. Kim proposes can
produce more heating that the initial "Fermi shuttle" heating the deuterons
in collisions between heavier atoms (e.g. projectile O and target Ti).
 
An ingredient missing in these theories, though, is a possible enhancement
effect due to screening. Deuterons colliding in the field of a heavy atom
may get closer due to the partial screening of the repulsive Coulomb
potential by the target electrons. Since the target electrons are bound,
they can provide more screening that the nearly free valence electrons
which cause insufficient screening in cnf experiments.
 
To be convinced, many of us would like to see experiments with mass
selected clusters. This requires magnetic deflection AFTER acceleration
to remove fast neutrals and light fragment ions.  These fragment ions
originate from collisions with the slits, background gas, stray electrons
and also from spontaneous dissociation.
 
In conclusion, I believe that it was not responsible to state, without
giving sources or justification, that "Already a few optimists are saying
that the phenomenos -if it's real- may open a back door to fusion power."
 
Raul Baragiola
Univ. Virginia
to remove fast neutrals and light fr
these calculation include the description of shock waves (at least in the
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.09 / Jim Carr /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 9 Nov 91 17:28:12 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

I was glad to see that Frank had a letter posted raising concerns based
on the facts related to what was claimed and what was proved.
 
If the petitioners are successful in getting a hearing, I hope that it
includes Dingell and his group that investigated the David Baltimore
affair and those allegations of faked data.  If indeed any of the F&P(&H)
data were faked and/or misrepresented in the presentation to Congress
in 1989, it would seem that Congress would be interested in studying
that question too.  Perhaps a subpoena would finally bring the F&P lab
notebooks out for public scrutiny of what was done when and by whom.
 
But I doubt this is the scrutiny the petitioners seek.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.09 / M Robinson /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: robinson@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 9 Nov 91 20:24:50 GMT
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley

In article <9111081546.AA04686@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
 
>H(n = 1) is at -13.6 eV.  Assume, for a moment, the wildly impossible--
>that n can not only = 1, 2, 3, ... but that n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... .
[...]
>At -54.4 eV this atom, should it exist, would be *very stable*.  After all,
>the ionization energy of He is 24.6 eV.  That is, this atom should be
>**extremely stable** and very small-- r =  (1/2) of the Bohr radius.
 
So, lets just say, for the sake of amusement, we managed to accumulate
a liter or so of, say, H(n=1/8), and explosively compressed it.  Would it
go boom?
 
 
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson                             USENET:  ucbvax!cogsci!robinson
                                             ARPA: robinson@cogsci.berkeley.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrobinson cudfnMichael cudlnRobinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.09 / Les Earnest /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 22:30:29 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.

Jim Carr writes:
.  .  .
>If the petitioners are successful in getting a hearing, I hope that it
>includes Dingell and his group that investigated the David Baltimore
>affair and those allegations of faked data.  [.  .  .]
 
I certainly hope not -- Dingell is a political opportunist of the
McCarthy breed and chooses his positions based on potential leverage
rather than truth and justice.  The fact that he was on the right side
of the Baltimore case was coincidental.
 
--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.09 / John Moore /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 9 Nov 91 16:01:36 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <9111081546.AA04686@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
]
]John Moore asks:
]
]>What is the source of energy in this system?
]
]Hydrogen energy levels are given by E(n)  = -13.6 eV/n**2.
]H(n = 1) is at -13.6 eV.  Assume, for a moment, the wildly impossible--
]that n can not only = 1, 2, 3, ... but that n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... .
]Then, H(n = 1/2) is at 4(-13.6 eV) = -54.4.   Thus, the energy difference
>between the two states is 40.8 eV.  That is, a 40.8 eV photon should be
]given off in going to the n = 1/2 state.
Assuming that the /n**2 factor holds in the substates.
]
]One can observe these 40.8 eV (and higher energy) transitions by
]putting dental film next to the Ni cathode.  You have to remove the
]film from the plastic and from the cardboard wrapping (in a dark
]room).  The film must be wrapped in water tight material, but thin (so
]that the 40.8 eV photons can penetrate).  (A condom works fine.)  The
]whole experiment must be done in a dark room or dark container.
]Suitable controls must be used--like Na2CO3 instead of K2CO3.
]Electrolyze for a week or so, you will observe dark spots on the film
](K2CO3 solution only) indicating hot spots on the
 
A non-quantitative comment from a non-chemist.... Are you using isotopically
pure K2? If not, there is some radiation from radioactive K isotopes. Could
this be what the film is seeing?
]
]>What are the values of Vappl and I (in the 100 W reactor)?
]
]Vappl = 4 volts      I =  20 amps  We used a Kepco constant current
]power supply, Model ATE6-50M.  This requires about 2000 meters
]of 0.127 mm diameter Ni wire (Johnson Matthey).  We used
]platinized Ti mesh anodes.
 
Is this Ni wire the cathode? (I haven't yet received the
reprint of your paper). Why such a small diameter and such a huge length?
Why not use sheets with the same area?
]
]This is about 50 W,  (4-1.48)20  = 50 W.  At 50 W we get about 120 W
]out.  (We applied no correction for heat taken away by the escaping
]gases, which is considerable, so the actual output is probably greater
]than 120 W.
 
Gee. This is a LOT of excess heat - not likely to be mismeasured by
sloppy calorimetry - unless you are getting H-O recombination at high
levels, which I doubt.
 
Question: Is this integrated over the entire charge period of the cell,
or just after some steady state has been reached. In other words, is
the total electrical energy input to the system only 40% of the total
energy out?
 
Another question: what is happening to the surface of Ni electrode?
Is it corroding or plating? If so, what is the time correlation between
this and the appearance of excess heat?
 
Does the excess heat start immediately, or after some "chargin" time?
 
If these are answered in the paper, I'll get the answer when it arrives
in the mail from Dieter (thanks, Dieter!).
 
Thanks for your detailed response.
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.10 / E Chelkowska /  It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: ryba@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (E.Chelkowska)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It works! Congratulations!
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:23:06 GMT
Organization: Computing Centre, University of Tasmania, Australia.

The controlled fusion is a reality! Several seconds! Brilliant! Congratulations
to everyone involved!
 
Elizabeth
 
--
Elizabeth Chelkowska                   "It is also a good rule not to put
Chemistry, University of Tasmania       too much confidence in experimental
GPO Box 252C, HOBART, Tas.7001          results until they have been confirmed
Australia                               by theory."
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenryba cudfnE cudlnChelkowska cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.10 / Janne Anttila /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: Janne.Anttila@lut.fi (Janne Anttila)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 10 Nov 91 11:23:43 GMT
Organization: The Student Union of Lappeenranta U of Tech, Finland

 
I just heard it on the radio news, now I'd like a little more
information. All I know is that the experiment was done in
England, the reaction lasted for one minute and it produced
1.7 MW of electricity.
 
--
                    _________________________________________________
  Janne Anttila    /> ...mutta Saturnuksesta l{hestyy taivaanlaiva. />
                  />   Veljet, meid{n on syyt{ olla varuillamme,   />
  [{ni ylh{{lt{  />  sill{ Saturnuksen miehet eiv{t tunne armoa.  />
_________________________________________________________________/>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenAnttila cudfnJanne cudlnAnttila cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.10 / Chuck Sites /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 05:53:17 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
   After reading Dr. Frank Close's rebuttal of the petition that's
being circulated, I would like to add a word or two in opposition
to his argument.  Anybody that has followed the Cold Fusion story
already knows that Dr.'s Fleishman and Pons made erroneous claims
with respect to their gamma, and neutron counts.  In fact they have
retracted their original measurements of gamma radiation, and have
let slide their neutron counting results to better experimenters.
Yet, they have never given up on their excess-heat claims. I find
it odd that Dr. Close is still harping on P&F when we all know that
stuff is history. In fact his book "Too Hot to Handle" did a very good
job of bashing P&F and CF to the point of almost being personal.  He
presents a pretty nieve and one sided approach to CF when one considers
its present form. In my humble opinion Close is just a typical Skeptic.
I haven't heard any opinions from him that may explain the effects
that folks are seeing and reporting.
 
  There are so many unusual phenomena being reported in the hydridation/
deuteration of some metals, it's hard to listen Close's argument that
the DOE report needs no retraction. It does simply because its wrong.
New results have shown there are neutron emission from a wide range
experiments, similar but less reliably for tritium measurements. For
excess heat, the foundation of P&F's original claims, that has also
been observed in a lab or two.  I wonder how many people would be
looking at hydrated metals if it weren't for P&F?  I also wonder
how many people are not looking at hydrated metals because of
P&F and government funding agencies persuaded by the DOE's report
from 89.
 
  A solution: If you think the DOE report stifled the science of CF,
but you feel $10 Mil, is to much for a tax payer to ask, then scratch
out the figure in the petition and fill in your own amount. Regardless
of the money, a debate in front of our Congress may allow us to gain an
insight into the progress that fusioneers have made in the past couple
of years. I think that, by itself, would be worthy of our Congress'
attention.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't|it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.10 / Brett Kottmann /  Fusion
     
Originally-From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion
Date: 10 Nov 91 07:32:20 GMT
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

 
	CNN has just reported that British scientists have achieved a sustained
production of electricity from fusion.
 
	That exact nature of the fusion was not mentioned, but a reference to
beating the American and Japanese efforts indicates that it may be cold fusion.
 
Brett
=============================OFFICIAL=DISCLAIMER================================
The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force
or its contractors.
=====================DO=NOT=REMOVE=TAG=UNDER=PENALTY=OF=LAW===:)================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbkottmann cudfnBrett cudlnKottmann cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.10 / Matti Aarnio /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: mea@polaris.utu.fi (Matti Aarnio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 10 Nov 91 20:28:35 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Computing Centre

In article <JANNE.ANTTILA.91Nov10122343@kannel.lut.fi> Janne.Anttila@lut.fi
 (Janne Anttila) writes:
>
>I just heard it on the radio news, now I'd like a little more
>information. All I know is that the experiment was done in
>England, the reaction lasted for one minute and it produced
>1.7 MW of electricity.
 
  This is about HOT fusion.  (I am just watching the TV..)
The Joint European Torus (JET) made a successfull fusion run with
Deuterium and Tritium while reaction temperature was about 300 million K.
 
  The JET Facility is located at the Oxfordshire, England.
 
Reaction lasted for about one second, and produced about 1.7MW.
Previous runs were made with H (plain hydrogen) and Deuterium (D),
but those haven't reached Lawson Criterium, that is they didn't
produced more energy than was spend on maintaining the reaction,
nor were they able to hold the plasma under control for long enough.
 
  Run was made on Saturnday 10th of November 1991.
 
They had press at the facility, which indicates that they were fairly
certain of it :-)   They also made an estimate that building first
commercial fusion plants will take some 40-50 years, and thus they will
not be a help at the present energy problems.
 
  Now weather or not there are any other fusion styles ("Cold",
or "Warm" - meson induced fusion, or "Hot" with plain protium
version of hydrogen) remains to be seen.
 
	/Matti Aarnio <mea@utu.fi>  Postmaster
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmea cudfnMatti cudlnAarnio cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.10 /  Codesmiths /  UK Fusion
     
Originally-From: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: UK Fusion
Date: 10 Nov 91 23:29:43 GMT
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

The report appeared on the Saturday 6 o'clock news. Something (worthy
of a press release on a Saturday) happened at JET, the Joint European
Torus tokamak at Culham. Given the inane level of the news broadcast,
I don't know exactly *what* happened. AFAIK, it may have exceeded
breakeven, and powers of a megawatt over a couple of seconds were
mentioned. I don't know whether this was a total power, or an excess
- neither of which seems particularly likely from my (limited)
knowledge of JET. I don't know what fuel what used.
 
My best guess, is that ignition took place in a deuterium/tritium
mixture. This was one of the stated aims of JET & AFAIK fits in with
the overall timescales of expected progress.
 
I'm mailing this, rather than posting it, because I don't have any
real details to impart. I hope someone at JET will post details
themselves, or I will once I have better information. It was *not*
cold or in any way unorthodox fusion, just good progress with a
tokamak.
 
Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk    +44 91 230 1695
 
              No New Scientist - No Comment   :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendingbat cudlnCodesmiths cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 11 Nov 91 00:01:45 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Nov10.055317.5449@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
> ...
>
>already knows that Dr.'s Fleishman and Pons made erroneous claims
 
The question is whether some of them were fraudulent
 
>with respect to their gamma, and neutron counts.  In fact they have
>retracted their original measurements of gamma radiation, and have
>let slide their neutron counting results to better experimenters.
 
Major confusion here: their alleged gamma measurements *were* their
                      neutron counting results
 
> ...
>New results have shown there are neutron emission from a wide range
>experiments, similar but less reliably for tritium measurements. For
 
None of these are in any way associated with any claims of excess
heat: the numbers of neutrons are extremely small, smaller than
anyone who has not done nuclear experiments can imagine.  I know
of know experiment that associates excess heat with nuclear products.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 11 Nov 91 00:14:25 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Congrats to the folks at JET.
 
The CNN report I heard said they got about a MW for 2 minutes.  If accurate,
that is impressive confinement.  I suppose we can wait for tomorrows paper
or the Tuesday NYTimes, but it would be good if someone in the know were
to post the details about energy input and breakeven.
 
A few hundred MJ = several dozen jelly donuts  --  enough for everyone!
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Tom Horsley /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 11 Nov 91 01:25:26 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

I also only saw the CNN report and would like more details. Does the JET
actually do anything with the energy it generates (like produce electricity)
or does it just wind up as waste heat? Did the reaction generate more energy
than it required to create it? Whatever the answers, it still seems to
be a very impressive feat. Congratulations to all involved.
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnHorsley cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 /  /  news from JET?
     
Originally-From: sjsca4!uunet!vax.acs.open.ac.uk!D_BROADHURST
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: news from JET?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:37:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Word here is that JET have significant new results. Can anyone confirm?
 
David Broadhurst
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Dr D J Broadhurst      ! Janet:            d_broadhurst@uk.ac.open.acs.vax !
! Physics Department     ! Bitnet/Earn/Uucp: d_broadhurst@vax.acs.open.ac.uk !
! The Open University    ! Telephone:        (+44) 908 653873                !
! Milton Keynes MK7 6AA  ! T'fax:            (+44) 908 653744                !
! UK                     ! Telex:            825061 ouwalt g                 !
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenD_BROADHURST cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 683 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 683 papers on cnf)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:38:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hi ho, everybody,
things are slow and just to show I'm still active, here are four more new
items plus an old one, now in translation (the Kazarinov+). Fluctuations are
once more invoked by Altaiskii+, and this seems to make sense to me. After
all, in a hot plasma where hot fusion is known to take place, the average
d-d (or d-t) distance would, by itself, not be very encouraging either; it's
the dynamics that does the job. Likewise, say the fluctuationists, in the PdDx
lattice. The bit about there being attraction at > 0.2A is a new argument to
me. The Golubnichii+ (in English this time) does some back-of-the-envelope
calculations and comes up with a ballpark "yes" to the likelihood of some
experimental results reported, I believe, in the same journal a few pages
further on. I have yet to get this one. The Australian pair Julin+,
metallurgists, found PdD dendrites under the microscope, interesting. They
also theorise (on shaky grounds here) that the large surface area would give
rise to a large double layer capacitance (true) and this might be the origin
of the heat (false). The Kazarinov , as I say, is an old one I've posted
before. The Kulakov+ is not, it's an early attempt to explain cnf
theoretically.
 The Guilinger+ and the Tunold+ papers are not about cold fusion but do
provide what might be useful background information, about isotope separation,
loading, and the quite different electrochemical behaviour of deuterium with
respect to hydrogen.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 11-Nov. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 683
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altaiskii MV, Artekha SN, Barts BI, Bar'yakhtar VG, Moiseev SS;
Vopr. Atom. Nauk. Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povr. Radiats. Mater. 1990(1)(52)
78 (in Russian).
"Fluctuational enhancement of quantum mechanical and wave barrier
penetrability and some physical consequences".
** Both the present authors and Koonin have suggested that it is not the mean
physical states in the metal hydride lattice, that set the cold fusion rate,
but the fluctuations in all lattice parameters, including the Coulomb barrier
to a close d-d approach. In analogy with the Debye-Valera factor of solid
state theory, such a factor is expected here, and it can lead to greatly
enhanced rates of cold fusion. Some mathematical theory indicates that for a
d-d distance >= 0.2A, i.e. r>=ra=n**(-1/3), n = electron gas density, there is
effective attraction between the d's. Finally, fluctuations might also be used
deliberately to enhance fusion rates in crystals.                     Dec-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golubnichii PI, Filoneko AD, Tsarev VA, Tsarik AA, Chechin VA;
Sov. Phys. - Lebedev Inst. Rep. 1990(9) 16.
Originally in Sb. Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. AN SSSR 1990(9) 15 (in Russian).
"Verification of the accelerator model for low-temperature nuclear fusion".
** Some rough calculations are made here to see whether the team's
experimental results, reported in another paper (specified as a preprint)
make sense. The results were some correlations between nuclear, acoustic and
electromagnetic emission pulses for a sample of palladium under deuteration.
The rough calculations show that the observations are roughly to be expected,
within a few orders of magnitude.                                    Jun-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julin P, Bursill LA;                       J. Solid State Chem. 93 (1991) 403.
"Dendritic surface morphology of palladium hydride produced by electrolytic
deposition".
** The authors used a number of small Pd foil disks, electrolytically worn
down to the point where a pin hole appeared in the centre, and used very high
resolution transmission electron microscopy to look at the foil before and
after electrolysis. The electrolyte was one common in electropolishing but
unusual in cold fusion experiments: 5% ethanol and 50(mol)% sulphuric acid,
the rest presumably being H2O, for the cathodic polarisation to "compress
hydrogen galvanistically" into the Pd. An interesting result is that there is
extensive dendrite formation, i.e. dendrites of the Pd hydride. Prolonged
electrolysis changes the dendrites into blunter forms. These dendrites will
increase the surface area of the electrode enormously, and thereby the double
layer capacitance. The authors suggest that the FPH effects may originate from
this capacitance.                                                     Dec-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kazarinov VE, Astakhov II, Teplitskaya GL, Kiseleva IG, Davydov AD,
Nekrasova NV, Kudryavtsev DYu, Zhukova TB;
Elektrokhimiya 27 (1991) 9 (in Russian).
Translated in: Sov. Electrochem. 27 (1991) 6.
"Cathodic behaviour of palladium in electrolytic solutions containing alkali
metal ions".
** Li, and to a lesser extent K, intrude into a Pd lattice upon cathodic
polarisation in aprotic as well as aqueous electrolytes. In aprotic media, the
result is the formation of intermetallic Li with the Pd, able to react with
water, and a solid solution in the bulk of the Pd. In aqueous media, after 74h
of electrolysis, a 0.5mm-thick layer of a solid solution was formed, with a
mean overall concentration of 5 at%, but the electrode gradually dissolves
during electrolysis. It is concluded that in electrolytic cold fusion
experiments, one is dealing not with deuterated palladium, but rather a solid
solution system D-Li-Pd and must reckon with heat effects due to the
decomposition of these aqueous intrusion products.               Jan-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kulakov AV, Orlenko EV, Rumyantsev AA;
Power Eng. (USSR Acad. Sci) 28(1) (1990) 141.
Originally in: Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR. Energ. Transp. 28(1) (1990) 158.
"Problem of physical mechanism of so-called cold fusion".
** An earlyish paper trying to explain cold fusion in the Pd lattice by
enhancement of Coulomb barrier penetration, due to the special conditions in
the lattice. The authors say that the Debye shielding radius here is 0.3A,
less than the Bohr radius. One out of four colliding d-d pairs fuse, and the
tritium + proton + gamma branch would dominate, explaining the dearth of
measured neutrons.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guilinger TR, Kelly MJ, Knapp MJ, Walsh JA, Doyle BL;
J. Electrochem. Soc. 138 (1991) L26.
"Ion beam measurement of deuterium in palladium and calculation of hydrogen
isotope separation factors".
** The deuterium content of an operating Pd cathode (in the form of a thin
film can be monitored by means of ion beam nuclear reaction analysis. This was
done in this study. The Pd foil had a 100-200 nm Au coating to prevent loss of
deuterium through the surface exposed to air; the other surface was in contact
with the electrolyte. A 3.1 MeV (3)He beam was aimed at the foil, reaching it
at about 1.5 MeV. The reaction with deuterium in the foil produces protons at
14 MeV, which were detected by a silicon surface barrier device. By
calibration with a TiD sample with known loading, the absolute D/Pd loading
could be calculated. The 25 mu foil was quickly charged to a loading of close
to 0.8, and unloaded slowly upon current interruption. Replacement of some of
the D2O with H2O, to the ratio D:H 65:35 quickly lowered the D/Pd loading to
about 0.2; 86% D2O increased this to 0.35. The results allowed the calculation
of the separation factor SH, which came to 9.2-9.3.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tunold R, Johansen B, Jaksic M;
Adv. Hydrogen Energy 1990, 8 (Hydrogen Energy Prog., Vol. 2) 711.
"Electrochemical behaviour of deuterium and protium on transition metals in
alkaline solutions".
** The behaviour of transition metal electrodes of Re, Pt, Pd, Ir, Ni and Au
was examined by means of potential sweep electrolysis in both light and heavy
water containing NaOH or NaOD. The voltammograms showed large differences
between H and D; up to 400 mV for certain peaks. The usual assumption that
there are just small differences does not hold up, due no doubt to the large
2:1 difference between the atomic weights of D and H. Heavy water is the
stronger oxidising agent of the two, and the evolution of deuterium commences
at higher (negative) potentials that that of hydrogen.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 /   /   Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Excess Heat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:39:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Chuck Sites asks:
 
1.  Have you run any AC experiments?
 
Answer.  We have **pulsed** the voltage and current.  We vary the
voltage in a (almost) square wave.  We get a lot more heat this way, but
this introduces another complication in calculating the excess heat.  At
this point, we would prefer that anyone who wants to duplicate these
results use constant current or constant voltage or, better yet, constant
power.
 
2.  Are any salts formed on the cathode or anode?
 
Answer.  The only noticeable salt formation is at the liquid/air interface
as the liquid level lowers.  Also, in the 100W reactor, evolving gases
carry electrolyte out of the cell and we get salt formation on the exit
holes and so on.
 
3.  Several months back you mentioned KCl as an electrolyte.  Do you
think this is still a good electrolyte to reproduce your H2O experiments.
 
Answer.  KCl works, but we don't get as much heat as with K2CO3.  In
addition, chloride gas is produced (with KCl) and eventually the
cathode performance is affected.  In general, -2 anions work better than
-1 anions.
 
4.  How far into and away from the metal/liquid interface do you expect
the formation of H(n = 1/2) to exist.  In otherwords when does the
transition from this state to the metal band state occur, or the
electrolyte conduction states?
 
Answer.  We believe that this phenomenon is a surface effect.  Two K+
ions must be very close to a H(n=1) atom.  H (n=1) atoms are formed at
the surface of the cathode and K+ ions are drawn there because the
cathode is negatively charged.  Accordingly, the H(n = 1/2) atoms are
produced at the electrolyte/metal interface.  Unfortunately, we do not
know the fate of these atoms.  They can undergo additional transitions,
n = 1/3, 1/4 etc, but this simply begs the question.  Remember, these
atoms will be extremely stable (that is, inert) and very small (about 1/8
the size of a H(n=1) *atom*.  At the moment, we are searching for
them in the evolved gases.  The hydrogen to oxygen ratio will not be
2:1 if we are correct because some of the hydrogen produced will be
H(n=1/2) and will not form H2 (because H(n=1/2) is so stable).
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 /   /   Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Excess Heat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:43:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
David Taylor asks:
 
1. On page 72 of the paper published in Fusion Technology, v20, Aug.
1991, Mills states: "The removal of negative Fourier components of
energy m X 27.2 eV, where m is an integer, gives rise to a larger positive
electric field inside the spherical shell, which is a time-harmonic
solution of Laplace's equations in spherical coordinates. In this case, the
radius at which force balance and nonradiation are achieved is a(sub 0) /
(m+1), where m is an integer. In decaying to this radius from the
ground state, a total energy of [(m+1)(m+1) - 1] X 13.6 eV is released. This
process is hereafter referred to a hydrogen emission by catalytic thermal
electronic relaxation (HERTER)."   Mills then gives examples of some
catalysts that can be used (K, Li/Pd, Ti) to cause resonant shrinkage. He
also lists the potentials of the resonating cavities, which vary from 27.28
to 27.54 eV. How close to the 27.2 eV value does one have to be? If not
exactly on, why not?
 
Answer.  The energy has to be the same as the potential energy of an
electron in tne n = 1 state of the hydrogen atom--at the actual site of the
hydrogen atom that is to undergo the transition.  Published ionization
energies of atoms and ions are for the **gas** phase.  In solution these
ions are hydrated or otherwise chelated and the ionization energy will
be somewhat different than in the gas phase.  In addition, the ions may
have some velocity relative to the hydrogen atom.  Finally, the energy
will be affected by the electric field (and possibly the magnetic field) of
the electrode.  Thus, we awlowed some leeway.
 
2. Doesn't both potassium and hydrogen exist in the required states in
seawater? What about other reaction chains where all the products
exist simultaneously and can combine to produce resonator cavities of
~ 27.2 eV?
 
Answer.  Most of the hydrogen in seawater is in H2O, HCO3-, and so
on. tNot much hydrogen in seawater exists as **hydrogen atoms**.
Furthermore,  The hydrogen atoms must be in close proximity to
**two** K+ ions, probably at a specific distance.
 
3. None of the equations that describe the reaction used for this
research (potassium carbonate) mention the platinum anode. Is it
really necessary to use such an expensive piece of wire, or would
copper serve as well? If copper would be bad (for cathode muck buildup
or other reasons), would platinum electroplated over copper work OK?
How about using nickel for both the cathode and the anode and
running high frequency AC?
 
Answer.  It is not necessary to use Pt.  But you have to use something
that will not go into solution and gum up the cathode.  Recently we
have been using platinized Ti which is much cheaper than Pt.  We
have used Ni/Ni.  It works, but Ni is transferred form the anode to the
cathode.
 
 
4. Do the equations for D hold for plain old H? (I assume they do, since
the extra neutron wouldn't do anything to the charge radius or
whatever.)
 
 
Answer.  Yes.
 
5. When deuterium is used, tritium and pootons are produced. What
happens when plain old hydrogen is used (as suggested in the recent
post on repeating the experiment)?
 
Answer.  yf you mean --are any nuclear products formed?  We don't
know.  We hope not.
 
Paul Dietz asks:
 
In electrolysis in carbonate solution, can't peroxycarbonate ions be
produced?  Would their recomposition account for the extra heat?
 
Answer.  We titrated the solutions after one month of operation and
found no change in the carbonate concentration.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 /  David Lawrence /  What happened?
     
Originally-From: David Lawrence Nadle
 <dln3%cunixf.cc.columbia.edu@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What happened?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:56:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
        What happened in Culham, England yesterday? I've heard 2 second
confinement and one megawatt power produced. Can anyone knowlegable
elaborate? Thank you.
 
 -----------------------------------------
Dave Nadle   <dln3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.10 / Barry Merriman /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:48:47 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Nov10.202835.6153@polaris.utu.fi> mea@polaris.utu.fi (Matti
Aarnio) writes:
> In article <JANNE.ANTTILA.91Nov10122343@kannel.lut.fi> Janne.Anttila@lut.fi
(Janne Anttila) writes:
> >
> >I just heard it on the radio news, now I'd like a little more
> >information. All I know is that the experiment was done in
> >England, the reaction lasted for one minute and it produced
> >1.7 MW of electricity.
>
>   This is about HOT fusion.  (I am just watching the TV..)
> The Joint European Torus (JET) made a successfull fusion run with
> Deuterium and Tritium while reaction temperature was about 300 million K.
>
>   The JET Facility is located at the Oxfordshire, England.
>
> Reaction lasted for about one second, and produced about 1.7MW.
 
This is not really anything to get too excited about. These experiments
have been planned for several years. They did beat the US, so there
is that competitive aspect to get excited about, but otherwise this simply
spells the end of the lifecycle of their machine, which is now rather
radiactive. Lets hope they got some data on the alpha particle physics
while they were at it.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: UK Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: UK Fusion
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 01:24:48 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Nov10.232943.6456@demon.co.uk> dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Codesmiths) writes:
> My best guess, is that ignition took place in a deuterium/tritium
> mixture. This was one of the stated aims of JET & AFAIK fits in with
> the overall timescales of expected progress.
 
I doubt _ignition_ in the technical sense (self sustaining burn), since
their parameters have always been weel below what is required. Probably they
just put in D-T instead of D-D, and other than that it did what it always did.
It just releases 1000x as much energy.
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.10 / Mark North /  Re: Perspectives
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Perspectives
Date: 10 Nov 91 22:07:01 GMT

BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
 
>Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
 
>>Not only do F&P know nothing of calorimetry of course, but they no nothing
>>of gamma spectroscopy or neutron counting and probably little else.
 
>If you are sure F&P know nothing about calorimetry, perhaps you will tell us
>the problem with FPALH-90. I have my strong doubts about that claimed 0.1%
>accuracy for the heat (Case & Boehm make that 50% or so) but have yet to find
>the flaw in that paper or someone who has found it.
 
OK, perhaps I should have been more careful in my wording. Perhaps they know
too much about calorimetry (or think they do.) Your strong doubt is my precise
point -- They presented a very elegant calculation (probably flawless).
However, the most elegant calculation still results in nothing when the
input to the calculation is flawed (garbage in ==> garbage out). It was
their *experiment* that was totally flawed not necessarily their calcs.
The reason I said they know nothing of calorimetry is their suggestion that
they could come up with 0.1% accuracy on an open cell experiment like this.
That's ludicrous. It shows a total lack of understanding of the experimental
method. Just because my calculations indicate 0.1% accuracy doesn't mean
that's what I have. Remember, these are basically ad hoc and phenomenological
calculations. Besides, why should I have to calculate anything if I can
power a water heater with my invention 8^).
 
I appreciate all your posts, Dieter, you have done a great service to the
scientific community and I can see you have been persuaded by a half dozen
or so good positive results (for which the flaws have yet to be discovered)
(my opinion) but don't blind yourself to the obvious fact that we still have
nothing.  Fractofusion is real, it had been demonstrated some years ago but
it is not really relevent to this issue accept insofar as it explains some
of the results of those who would claim more for it than an interesting
phenomenon.
 
>I agree they knew nothing about gamma or neutron measurements, and this is a
>different ball game altogether.
 
You are quite correct this is a different ball game. But it is the one in
which they invoked nuclear interactions in the first place. Take that away
and what have you?
 
>Let us not, however, go overboard here. F has
>a strong reputation in several different areas in electrochemistry and P is
>not bad either.
 
Well, I don't know much about electrochemistry but I know what I like 8^).
What is this argument from authority? We have a very prominent electrochemist
here but when he said this experiment must be done at constant voltage I
was very surprised. I don't think that makes sense. (Yes I understood his
reasons for saying so but thought it would make a lousey experiment.)
Anyway, there seems to be a disagreement between reputable electrochemists.
Hence, I think invoking their reputations is pointless.
 
>Their error was to stray into areas in which they are amateurs
>and not to take the time to find out more. They might have made other mistakes
>as well...
 
So you make my point. (I'm refering to your first sentence above, I'm not
even going to go into the issue raised by your second (circumventing the
peer review process)). Bottom line: given what I have said and your
waffling re F&P what have we? I would say a circus. You may draw your own
conclusions.
 
> Another point that has been made before on this list/group is that noone, or
>at least no organisation, has been forced to do a cold fusion experiment. F&P,
>no matter that they might have been totally wrong, did believe they had
>something, and you can hardly blame them for trumpeting about it.
 
First sentence: No one held a gun to my head but by the very nature of the
*claims* it was essential that it be looked at. Initially, of course, I was
very intrigued and hoped it might be possible. I looked and listened --
zilch. Second: Chicken Little thought she had something too.
 
>Were we now
>all TB's, we would regard them as heroes and smile fondly at their first,
>amateurish paper. So if you wasted time or money on cold fusion experiments,
>blame yourself or maybe your boss.
 
I won't be a TB 'till I have a Mr Fusion powering my DeLorean. I wasted time
and the gov't wasted money but I won't blame myself nor my boss. The way this
was presented it had to be looked at immediately. At least initially. Now,
however, I think there no excuse for pouring good money after bad. My point
was that some managers are swayed by the so-called reputations of some folk
but have no ability, on their own, to assess the merits. Others do, and in
those cases I am pleased that they have cut funding due to their wise
assessment of the current situation.
 
> Here is a skeptic's thought on this: F&P had a hunch that you might get d-d
>fusion in Pd. They tried it out and thought they succeeded, wrote a paper with
>the words "cold fusion of deuterium" in the title (I am at home and can't
>remember the exact phrase but it's close). They found some heat. Later, it
>turns out that it can't be d-d fusion producing this heat; all agree on this.
>So they (e.g. in FPALH-90) retreat to an "unknown nuclear process"; others
>start to develop more or less bizarre theories of what might be happening.
 
But why invoke an "unknown nuclear process" which requires the rewriting
of most of physics as we know it (Schroedinger's equation does not apply)
when a simple miscalculation of heat transfer can explain it? (Paraphrase
of comments by Robert Schrieffer at Sante Fe, 1989.) When he said this I
was very annoyed but now I understand.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 /   /   Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Excess Heat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 20:25:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Michael Robinson asks:
 
>So, lets just say, for the sake of amusement, we managed to accumulate
>a liter or so of, say, H(n=1/8), and explosively compressed it.  Would it
>go boom?
 
No.
 
 
Richard Mathews had several question about the angular momenta of
the fractional quantum states.
 
We haven't specifically looked at this aspect yet.  But I can give a brief
answer as to why it is so difficult to get to the fractional quantum states.
We call  he ground state, the n = 1 state, the "no photon state".  The
electron in  H(n =1) is a spherical shell (infinity ttin) at the Bohr
radius, a(sub zero)--kind of like a soap bubble.  (Note the the electron is,
fundamentally, two-dimensional.)  When H(n = 1) absorbs a photon,
the photon is trapped (in the cavity).  The electric field of the trapped
photon reduces the electric field in the cavity.  That is, in the n = 2 state
the electric field caused by the proton is +1, the electric field of the
photon is -1/2, and the **effective** electric field (or nuclear charge) is
+1/2--the atom is twice as big.  That is, the radius is now 2 x a(sub zero).
In the n = 3 state, the effective nuclear charge is +1/3 and the radius is 3
x a(sub zero)--the decrease in the nuclear charge is caused by the electric
field of the trapped photon.  When the effective nuclear charge is zero,
r = infinity and theeelectron is ionized (the electron is now a *two-
dimensional* plaee wave).
 
In order to get to the n = 1/2 state, ome must remove electric field from
the cavity such that the effective nuclear charge is +2.  That, is you
have to increase the **effective**nuclear charge from +1 to +2.  This
requires the removal of 27.2 eV of energy and cac be accomplished by
removal of negative Fourier components of the electric field of the
proton.
 
Note that when you absorb a photon, the photon must be of the correct
energy--quantized (quantization comes from the size of the cavity, not
from an intrinsic property of small particles).  The photon is still there,
however, and can be ejected with a return to the "no photon state".
What are the conditions that will allow us to remove 27.2 eV of energy
from the electricefield of the proton?  Good question!  All we know
now is that you must have, nearby, an energy hole of 27.2 eV.
 
Take Ti2+ as an example:
 
Ti2+  =   Ti3+   +  e-              IE  =  27.49 eV
 
Is 29.49 eV close enough?  Maybe.  This is a gas phase IE.  Plus, the
atoms have kinetic energy.  What happens to the Ti3+ and the
electron?  We don't know.
 
The Pd2+/Li+ system is cleaner:
 
Pd2+   =   Pd3+   + e-                +32.93
Li+   +   e-    =     Li                      -5.39
__________________________
Pd2+   +  Li+    =      Pd3+   +  Li       27.54 eV
 
In this case, the elrctron is taken care of and the Pd3+/ Li would
immediately form Pd2+ and Li+ with -27.54 eV **released**.  Thus, we
could have a catalytic system where Pd2+ and Li+ is an energy hole of
27.54 eV that regenerates itself.
 
K+ to K and K+ to K2+ is another such energy hole (31.625-4.341 = 27.28
eV).  So far, we have found this to be the best system.
 
In any case, the simultaneous junction of these species is probably a
rare occurrence in nature.  Nonetheless,  there may be some around.
 
This may be my last communication for a while.  We have the 1000 W
reactor going.  Sorry , I can't give you **any** more info on it.
Studying the properties of the new reactor, my normal teaching
responsibilities , and family matters are more than enough to keep me
busy.  Between the article in Fusion Technology and what I've given
here, it should be possible to repeat the experiment and observe excess
heat.  A reprcducible experiment that gives excess heat is the most
important factor in this whole affair.  Maybe someone will find a
trivial explanation--we have searched hard for one.  The theory is
another matter.  We know we are battling uphill here.  What we really
need is some physicists who are willing to say, "You are probably
wrong, but it looks interesting enough to really dig into and to try to
make it work."  This isn't likely until the experimental work is
verified.  I don't blame them--these ideas consume an enormous
amount of time.  I, personally,  find explaining the theory over the
network very time consuming and frustrating .
 
Final thoughts.  I want to thank Dieter Britz, Barry Merriman (sorry
about the recent criticism), and all other regular contributors on this
net.  Even the nonbelievers on this net are truly open-minded on this
subject.  I read the net daily and I am very thankful to those who spend
the time and energy to make contributions.
 
(Part of my frustration stems from the fact that when I paste
some text from Word onto the VAX letters are (randomly) changed.
Why does this happen?)
 
Goin' Fishin'
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Mark Zenier /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: mzenier@polari.uucp (Mark Zenier)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 11 Nov 91 05:47:55 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944

In article <1991Nov10.023220.642@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>
 bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>
>	CNN has just reported that British scientists have achieved a sustained
>production of electricity from fusion.
>
>	That exact nature of the fusion was not mentioned, but a reference to
>beating the American and Japanese efforts indicates that it may be cold fusion.
 
Another example why you never rely on CNN to come anywhere close to the facts.
 
Combining the morning newspaper with the BBC World Service, the
JET (Joint European Torus ?) had a 1 second "burn" yeilding
(1.8, 2) Megawatts using Deuterium - Tritium.
 
Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com  mzenier%polari@sumax.seattleu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmzenier cudfnMark cudlnZenier cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Terry Bollinger /  JET Fusion Summary by Dr. Morrison
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: JET Fusion Summary by Dr. Morrison
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:10:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Douglas Morrison of CERN has some good information on what is going on at
JET, and has asked me to forward it to sci.physics.fusion.  Cheers, Terry
 
-------------- BEGIN DOUGLAS MORRISON SUMMARY OF JET RESULTS -----------------
 
                                                          11 November 1991
    There have been many questions about Saturday's experiment at JET which
resulted in a press release. For a review talk on Fusion Energy given
at the World Clean Energy Conference last week, a brief summary may help.
 
                  FUSION ENERGY and JET
 
   The most favourable reaction to produce fusion usefully on earth and
which gives out the most energy, using a 50% - 50% deuterium - tritium
mixture, is
 
                 d  +  t  ----->  4He  +  n                            (1)
 
However the tritium is radioactive with a half-life of 12.3 years and to use
it makes the experimental apparatus contaminated.
   Until last week all the experiments performed have used deuterium only
giving the well-known reactions
 
                 d  +  d  ----->  t    +  p                              (2a)
                 d  +  d  ----->  3He  +  n                              (2b)
 
(note - the reaction  d + d ---> 4He + gamma  is negligible since this is an
electromagnetic process and not a strong interaction).
   The dd mix is heated to give a plasma and is confined inside a toroid (donut)
by strong magnetic fields. Typically some 20 MW is required to heat the plasma
and keep it hot. So far the best results have been obtained by JET but the
Princeton results are close. The time the plasma can be kept varies with the
current, being about 2 seconds for 7 Amps rising to about a minute for 2 A.
Various things are measured such as the neutrons and the total power
produced in the plasma is calculated. Normally the value of this power is not
quoted but rather the power that would have been produced if the there had
been a dt mixture. This requires an extrapolation of a factor of several
hundred. Thus when it is said that 90% of "breakeven" is achieved, this means
that for 15 MW input to the plasma, the energy output is much less, about
0.04 MW for the experimental dd case.
    The important point about Saturday's test is that instead of having to
use a large correction factor which is theoretical, an actual experiment was
done with tritium. It was planned to do the experiment with 14% tritium. The
results would then be expressed as for a 50% tritium mixture - this would be
only a relatively small extrapolation. The JET experiment was very
successful with the production of 1.7 MW. This is much higher than 0.04 MW
obtained with dd mixes.
    The amount of tritium used was small, less than one fifth of a gram.
Some of the tritium will enter the walls - both the thin tiles on the surface
and the steel (as followers of the Cold Fusion saga know,, all isotopes of
hydrogen penetrate metals easily), making them radioactive. Next year
there will be a major shutdown of JET and these effects will be studied and
the experiment cleaned. Then experiments with dd mixes will continue until
1995/6 when there is planned to be fullscale tests with 50 - 50 dt mixes
before JET is shutdown in 1996.
    JET and other tokamaks are essentially scientific experiments. To obtain
heat, the neutrons from reaction (1) are stopped in a blanket surrounding
the plasma vessel producing heat which is then extracted by a cooling system
which then exchanges heat with a water system which produces electricity. There
are a series of large experiments planned which are expected to extend until
2040(in the European programme) at which time it is hoped economic feasibility
has been demonstrated.
    It is all much more complicated than this. The "breakeven" point is not
enough, as a still higher temperature is required for "ignition" which is when
the energetic alpha particles(4He) produced in reaction (1), are sufficiently
numerous that they can sustain the burning of the plasma without outside help.
To achieve economic breakeven, still more power is required to account for all
the losses.
    Overall it is not too encouraging until one considers the alternatives.
As the Developing Countries raise their living standards to ensure good health
and a satisfactory life, the total energy consumed will rise, perhaps to about
six times the present consumption. The surface of the earth being limited,
clean fuels such as hydropower, photovoltaics etc. cannot hope to supply the
bulk of this energy. Much of this can only be met by coal, but this means a
huge CO2 problem. Only by converting mass into energy can this problem be
overcome.
 
--------------- END DOUGLAS MORRISON SUMMARY OF JET RESULTS ------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 /  David Lawrence /  JET success
     
Originally-From: David Lawrence Nadle
 <dln3%cunixf.cc.columbia.edu@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: JET success
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 03:18:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

     The neat thing about the JET experiment is that nothing bad
happened when they used tritium. We could've had the same results
years ago, except we are waiting for the results of a safety
study before we introduce tritium to TFTR. JET is located in a UK
equivalent of one of our National Labs, so they're all set up to
handle tritium.
     Incidentally, I beleive it'll be about 4 months before they
can go into their reactor room. Again, the great thing about this
is that nothing melted or exploded, and things went pretty much as
they were expected to. That's rare in the world of plasma physics.
Let's all have a beer, but leave the champagne toasts to the folks
over at JET.
 
Dave.
 
 
 -----------------------------------------
Dave Nadle   <dln3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / E Chelkowska /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: ryba@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (E.Chelkowska)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 12:38:29 GMT
Organization: Computing Centre, University of Tasmania, Australia.

Dear Friends,
 
On Sunday I sent the following message:
>The controlled fusion is a reality! Several seconds! Brilliant! Congratulations
>to everyone involved!
 
And I've received several postings:
"What ARE you talking about?"
 
Sorry for causing a confusion. I've sent the first message when I've heard the
excellent news about breakthrough in the nuclear fusion (forget about so
called cold fusion which is not worth even the energy it takes to write about it
:-)).
I'm presenting several lines from "THE AGE" (Australian daily newspaper),
11 November,1991. (to justify my excitment :-)).
 
Here it goes: [...]
"Physicists at the Joint European Torus (JET) reactor in Oxfordshire, England,
produced more than one million Watts of power in a two-minute burst of heat
that reached temperatures 20 times hotter than the Sun. [...]
More than 200 scientists were at the laboratories to witness the historic
event after 13 years of research. "For the first time we have produced fusion
power in excess of a MW," one of the physicsts, Dr Alan Gordan, said last
night. "It's a real milestone." [...]
Reuter reports that scientists at Princeton University congratulated the JET
team for being first and said their own progress had been hampered by several
years of budget cuts by Congress, which had reduced funding of the program by
half since 1978.[...]"
 
Thank you for sending me messages. I've just assumed that the press release has
appeared everywhere and any additional info wouldn't be neccessary. Of course,
wrong assumption :-(. My appologies.
 
And now once again:
The controlled fusion is a reality! Several seconds! Brilliant! Congratulations
to everyone involved!
 
Cheers,
Elizabeth.
--
Elizabeth Chelkowska                   "It is also a good rule not to put
Chemistry, University of Tasmania       too much confidence in experimental
GPO Box 252C, HOBART 7001,Australia.    results until they have been confirmed
ryba@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au              by theory."        Sir Arthur Eddington
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenryba cudfnE cudlnChelkowska cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Nick Szabo /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 09:51:59 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

In article <1991Nov10.023220.642@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>
 bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>	CNN has just reported that British scientists have achieved a sustained
>production of electricity from fusion.
>
>	That exact nature of the fusion was not mentioned, but a reference to
>beating the American and Japanese efforts indicates that it may be cold fusion.
 
NPR reported that it was "hot" fusion, and generated "very large amounts
of power".
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 11 Nov 91 13:29:48 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Whatever I heard on CNN about a 2 minute burn must have been speculation
about the next machine and/or what is needed for power production.
 
The AP wire story in today's paper says fusion occured for 2 seconds
with power production of 1.7 MW sustained for 1 second.  This was
with D-T fuel in the Joint European Torus (JET) experiment.  Hot fusion,
just in case anyone is still confused on that point.
 
So about 2 MJ of energy -- that is about 450 kCal, or 450 food calories.
 
About what you get from a nice juicy jelly donut, so have one this morning
in celebration.  Also enough to lift your automobile over 100 meters into
the air ... just so you know that it is a significant amount of energy!
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / colin manning /  JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: cm@jet.uk (colin manning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 11 Nov 91 15:45:23 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

PRESS RELEASE
-------------
At 7.44pm Saturday 9th November 1991, between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 watts of
power from nuclear fusion reactions were generated at the JET (Joint
European Torus) collaborative European Community project based at Abingdon,
Oxfordshire, UK.
 
The director of JET, Dr Paul-Henri Rebut, announcing the successful
experiment said "this is the first time that a significant amount of power
has been obtained from controlled nuclear fusion reactions. It is clearly
a major step forward in the development of fusion as a new source of energy."
 
Saturday's experiment was the first occasion in which the correct fusion fuels,
deuterium and tritium, have been used in any magnetic confinement fusion
experiment.  Previously the experimental performance had been such as to
justify only the use of deuterium fuel in which the fusion reaction rate is
much slower. Since the start of operation in 1983 JET's performance has
progressively approached reactor conditions. The planned operation with the
correct mix of the reactor fuels - a 50/50 mixture of deuterium and tritium -
is being approached in a stepwise manner, with the first step being the
present experiments at low tritium concentrations and concluding in 1996 at
full power operation with 50% tritium.
 
In Saturday's experiment the deuterium and tritium gas was heated to
temperatures of around 200 million degrees Celcius - nearly more than 10 times
hotter than the temperature in the centre of the sun. The peak fusion power
generated reached almost 2,000,000 watts (2MW) in a pulse lasting for two
seconds and giving a total energy release equivalent to a megawatt for two
seconds. At lower power in deuterium JET has already maintained stable
conditions in the apparatus for periods of up to 1 minute.
 
JET is a collaborative venture involving all countries of the European
Community, together with Switzerland and Sweden. As the world's largest fusion
device, JET has achieved separately all individual parameters required in a
reactor. The data obtained from JET has laid a firm foundation for the proposed
experimental reactor ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor),
which is planned to be carried out as a world-wide collaboration involving the
United States, Japan, the Soviet Union and the European Community.
 
"The hard work and dedication of all the JET staff over many years, together
with the support of all the European Nations who are members of the Joint
Undertaking have today been rewarded by this achievement" said Dr Rebut. "These
experiments are a significant milestone and clearly confirm Europe's leading
position in fusion research. This demonstration fully confirms that with the
additional information from the planned JET programme up to 1996 we will be
able to design the experimental fusion reactor ITER capable of generating more
than 1000 megawatts of thermal power."
 
For further information contact John Maple, tel +44 235 464776
--
- Colin Manning, cm@jet.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencm cudfncolin cudlnmanning cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Paul Trunz /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: trunz@inf.ethz.ch (Paul Martin Trunz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 11 Nov 91 14:44:25 GMT
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)

In article <1991Nov11.095159.9203@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
 writes:
>
>NPR reported that it was "hot" fusion, and generated "very large amounts
>of power".
 
It was hot fusion, somewhere in between 200 and 300 K.  A power of 1.7
Megawatt during a few seconds (twice) can hardly be called "very large
amounts", fission plants around here deliver 1000 Megawatts.  The JET did
by far not reach a point of scientific break even, so a very large amount
of energy was spent to show that fusion is possible.  Production reactors
are still 50 years away and there are still a lot of (material-)problems to
solve.
			at least once the europeans are ahead though not very far
 
	so long
							Patru
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentrunz cudfnPaul cudlnTrunz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 11 Nov 91 16:36:44 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

JET (Joint European Torus, Culham, England) is the largest of the present
generation of tokamaks.  They introduced tritium for the first time and
got off a jolly good shot lasting about two seconds.  They did not reach
scientific breakeven (Q=1) and, as far as I know, haven't announced a Q
value, but certainly did release substantially more energy than ever before.
The figure they announced (1-1.5 MW) would be in terms of neutrons and
alphas, not electricity.
 
Scientifically, the New York Times has a bigger story underneath it today.
But psychologically, this is a nice achievement in a business that could
stand some good news.
 
Ironically, their experimental usage has just gotten much more difficult
because of the tritium and the neutron activation.  Putting tritium into
a tokamak (talked about elsewhere but never done, as far as I know) implies
that they've neared the end of the useful D-D experimental program at the
machine.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Carl Lydick /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: carl@sol1.gps.caltech.edu (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 11 Nov 91 16:48:44 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1991Nov11.054755.10282@polari.uucp>, mzenier@polari.uucp (Mark
 Zenier) writes:
>In article <1991Nov10.023220.642@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>
 bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>>
>>	CNN has just reported that British scientists have achieved a sustained
>>production of electricity from fusion.
>>
>>	That exact nature of the fusion was not mentioned, but a reference to
>>beating the American and Japanese efforts indicates that it may be cold
 fusion.
>
>Another example why you never rely on CNN to come anywhere close to the facts.
>
>Combining the morning newspaper with the BBC World Service, the
>JET (Joint European Torus ?) had a 1 second "burn" yeilding
>(1.8, 2) Megawatts using Deuterium - Tritium.
 
According to the _Los_Angeles_Times_, it was a two-second burn at 1.7
megawatts, for a total of about .94 kilowatt hour.  Definitely hot fusion, and
still an order of magnitude below break-even.  But significantly longer than
previous results, and .94 kilowatt hour more than has ever been shown to be
produced by cold fusion.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
 
Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Daniel Ashlock /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 17:54:56 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <1991Nov10.023220.642@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>,
bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
> 	CNN has just reported that British scientists have achieved a sustained
                                                                      ^^^^^^^^^
> production of electricity from fusion.
>
 
   Two seconds is only sustained when compared to previous efforts...   ...it
happened at the (J)oint (E)uropean (T)orus, a magnetic confinement device.
The article I read overpromised substantially ("totally clean" and "unlimited"
when they should say "relatively clean" and "plentiful").  *sigh*  I hope
the media doesn't overpromise fusion into disrepute the way fission was
overpromised (e.g. "to cheap to meter").  Nevertheless, I wish J.E.T. well
and offer congradulations to them on their milestone.
 
> 	That exact nature of the fusion was not mentioned, but a reference to
> beating the American and Japanese efforts indicates that it may be cold
>fusion.
 
   No, cold fusion doesn't work at all for power.  Marginal (barely detectable)
effects are being investigated at some labs.  Havn't you been following the
cold fusion saga?
 
Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendanwell cudfnDaniel cudlnAshlock cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Ben Delisle /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Newsgroups:
Subject: Re: <None>
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 11 Nov 91 07:19:49 GMT
Organization: ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE WA.

 
 
Subject: Re: <None>
Newsgroups:
sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Distribution:
References: <1991Nov6.180951.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
 
asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>
> QUESTIONS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR GOOD SERIOUS ANSWERS.
>
> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF NASA?
   I think that Nasa has some very serious problems with management, but
that is common with government agencies. They could do much better if
they were better funded, did a better job with their design and purchace
of spacebound equiptment. There seems to be a problem with quality
controll, IE: Magellin and Galleo and their assoicated main dish
problems. They have to set and maintain their goals in the short term
and long term.
 
> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF PSI(E.S.P)
  It could be a powerful and useful tool if it can be made a eaisaly and
viable option. The oppurtunities for remote data gathering, reading out
the information out of other's minds, to put new information in or to
control the minds of others would be very profitable to those who could
master the process.
> DO YOU HAVE PSI ABLITY
   Classified at this time.
 
> HOW WOULD YOU GET TO THE MOON?
  I have no interest for the moon at this time, There is little air, and
it's either really too sunny or too dark, I prefere the forest. I think
though, that land prices are real cheap, also there are no
environmential impacr statements to file for those who want to benefit
from the natural recources that are on the moon, I beleive that there
may be vast mineral recources to mine there. It would be better to take
stuff from there than to destoru a currently viable biosphere for the
recources that people seem to want.
>
   As far as going to the moon, I probably would stick with current
chemical motors, they are effecient enough for that short of a trip.
I do not feel that The use of nuclear rockets motors are warrented for
that short of a trip, it is too dangerous for close in use, although
they have been built and could be used, they arn't for low stage use
anyway, the degin specs call for use above 150,000" an beyond.  Ion
motors are fine for adjusting the orbits of saatilites or for small
coarse corrections of deep space probes that are just coasting, these
engines don't have very much power at this time, but they can still
reach very high speeds, but it takes a long time.
 
> THESE QUESTIONS ARE FOR ANYBODY IN ANY NEWSGROUP. WE ARE SERIOUS
> ABOUT LEAVING EARTH AND STARTING A NEW COLONY THERE
   Why do you want to leave the earth? It isn't that bad if you know
where to look? I don't think that the idea of living in a cooped up
module on a airless rock is appealing, it would me restless.
   If you have a need to get away, It would be a lot cheaper to go to
Antartica, becides, you would be a lot closer to a 7-11. I think that
the Moon may be a good jumping off point, but Mars may be more
hospitable even though it is farther, It is some what of an atmosphere
and lots of evidence of water. Becides, you would then need to use more
exotic engines to cross the distance in a shorter time.
 
> WE HAVE ONE POSSIBLE ENGINE DESIGN BUT WE NEED THE HELP OF OTHERS
  Tell us more about this engine design, I would like to hear more.
 What is the basis of thrust, fuel type, construction, theory, ect.
 
> WHO FEEL AS WE DO. WE IS GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO FEEL THAT LIFE ON EARTH
IS JUST
> GETTING TO RIDICULOUS AND FEELTHIS,
  I have a few soultions for the problems but they are a bit drastic and
many would dissaprove.
>
> ARE YOU AS DISGUSTED WITH NASA AS WE ARE? HELP US TO THE MOON
  I don't have that much problem with Nasa, I have never delt with them.
They have done well on some of their projects, but others seem to need
help. If they can be given a better incetive (like allowing the to
operate in a for profit manner) then they may suceed.
 
--
| || ||| ||||| ||||||| delisle@eskimo.celestial.com |||||||||||
The advance of civilization means the continuing restrictions on privacy
--
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendelisle cudfnBen cudlnDelisle cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Chuck Henkel /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: henkel%nepjt@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Chuck Henkel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 11 Nov 91 17:53:55 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Raleigh

In article <1991Nov10.214847.17420@math.ucla.edu>
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
> This is not really anything to get too excited about. These experiments
> have been planned for several years. They did beat the US, so there
> is that competitive aspect to get excited about, but otherwise this simply
> spells the end of the lifecycle of their machine, which is now rather
> radiactive. Lets hope they got some data on the alpha particle physics
> while they were at it.
 
Yeah, that's a good point. Now that the thing is all crapped up with
tritium, how useful will it be for future work? At the very least I
suspect their operation and maintenance costs have shot up rather
dramatically.
 
Don't mean to leave any hidden suggestions here. Obviously they
considered the contamination issue before they did the experiment and
decided the benefits outweighed the costs.
 
--
| Chuck Henkel                      | There are currently 111 operating      |
| Department of Nuclear Engineering | nuclear power plants in the US,        |
| N.C. State University             | generating nearly 100,000 Megawatts    |
| henkel@nepjt.ncsu.edu             | of electricity.                        |
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudennepjt cudfnChuck cudlnHenkel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / allen lutins /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: vu0350@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (allen h. lutins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 11 Nov 91 18:51:09 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton

In article <1991Nov11.154523.18353@jet.uk> cm@jet.uk (colin manning) writes:
>PRESS RELEASE
>-------------
>At 7.44pm Saturday 9th November 1991, between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 watts of
>power from nuclear fusion reactions were generated at the JET (Joint
>European Torus) collaborative European Community project based at Abingdon,
>Oxfordshire, UK.
 
[rest of article deleted]
 
.O.K., i'm no physics major, but it seems to me i recall somthing
about "conservation of power" & the like...so i have a question
related to this:  where did 2 million watts of energy *go* ?  Wouldn't
it have to be disspiated (i.e., as heat, light, a big spark, etc.)
and/or converted to mass?  Forgive me if my ignorance is causing me to
overlook something here...
 
 
 
 
 
--
***************************************************************************
"There is nothing either good or bad,  |  allen h. lutins
but thinking makes it so."	       |  VU0350@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
	    Shakespeare (Hamlet II:2)  |  VY8934@Bingvaxa.bitnet
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvu0350 cudfnallen cudlnlutins cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Perspectives
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Perspectives
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 15:27:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
>BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
>>>Not only do F&P know nothing of calorimetry of course, but they no nothing
>>>of gamma spectroscopy or neutron counting and probably little else.
 
>>Let us not, however, go overboard here. F has
>>a strong reputation in several different areas in electrochemistry and P is
>>not bad either.
 
>Well, I don't know much about electrochemistry but I know what I like 8^).
>What is this argument from authority? We have a very prominent electrochemist
 
It is not an argument from authority. I was merely objecting to your writing
that they probably know "little else". OK? I am aware of experts' blind spots
which explains (maybe) the great Bockris' stand on cold fusion and Pons' and
Fleischmann's odd behaviour.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 /  /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: PacBell.COM!mips.com!ames!asuvax.eas.asu.edu!anasaz!john%anasaz
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 15:28:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thank you for sending me the reprint. I much appreciate it.
 
John
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Steve Gombosi /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 11 Nov 91 21:13:11 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <5395@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>
>So about 2 MJ of energy -- that is about 450 kCal, or 450 food calories.
>
>About what you get from a nice juicy jelly donut, so have one this morning
>in celebration.
 
Wouldn't it be more TC (Toplogically Correct) to have a "conventional"
doughnut to celebrate a "toroidal" achievement?
 
;-) ;-) ;-)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensog cudfnSteve cudlnGombosi cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 /  phys2108@waika /  Re: It works! Congratulations!y
     
Originally-From: phys2108@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!y
Date: 12 Nov 91 12:04:12 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <HENKEL%NEPJT.91Nov11115355@ners6k2.ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>,
 henkel%nepjt@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Chuck Henkel) writes:
>
> Yeah, that's a good point. Now that the thing is all crapped up with
> tritium, how useful will it be for future work? At the very least I
> suspect their operation and maintenance costs have shot up rather
> dramatically.
>
> Don't mean to leave any hidden suggestions here. Obviously they
> considered the contamination issue before they did the experiment and
> decided the benefits outweighed the costs.
>
> --
> | Chuck Henkel                      | There are currently 111 operating      |
> | Department of Nuclear Engineering | nuclear power plants in the US,        |
> | N.C. State University             | generating nearly 100,000 Megawatts    |
> | henkel@nepjt.ncsu.edu             | of electricity.                        |
One of the main aims ofJET was to learn the physics of a Tritium/Deutrium burn,
and accordingly all (well maybe most) of the diagnostic equipment was designed
to operate under such conditions.
Geoff.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenphys2108 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Alan Lovejoy /  Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
     
Originally-From: lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
Date: 11 Nov 91 22:02:13 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation, San Jose, CA

In article <1991Nov9.050236.18122@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>...This paper [referenced in "Lab of the Rising Microsuns," Science] had a
>remarkabl[y] good agreement with the energy dependence of the Brookhaven
>experiments. But this was accidental, since an error was made accidentally
>confusing center-of-mass energy with lab energy. This theoretical paper was
>done by first class physicists. The lesson is that it is not a valid argument
>to say that such and such cnf experiments should be believed because they come
>from competent scientists.
 
Agreed.  However, it also logically follows that it is not valid to argue that
such and such CNF experiments with negative results should be believed merely
because they were performed by competent scientists. Anyone can make a mistake.
 
Two and a half years after the initial press release about "CNF" by FPH,
all initial **interpretations** of the phenomenon have been proven to be
incorrect in some significant fashion.  However, that is not sufficient to
prove that the phenomenon does not exist or is the result of an already
understood process.  The scientific community have yet to demonstrate in a
reproducible experiment that the excess heat can be accounted for.  There are
many claims, true.  Most scientists feel it is experimental error or data
misinterpretation.  But **ALL** such claims are nothing more than hand waving
at this point.  "Experimental error" can not be used as an incantation to
magically explain away physical phenomena.  One cannot simply say, "Aha!
Experimental error" and walk away!  One must back that up with both
**reproducible** and **uncontradicted** evidence that demonstrates that
you can produce the "phenomenon" at will, that the phenomenon only
appears under conditions predicted by your theory, and fails to appear when
your theory says it should not be manifested.
 
For example, it is not enough to present the results of an exquisitely
meticulous but unsuccessful attempt to reproduce excess heat using closed-cell
calorimetry. One must also show that an otherwise identical experiment using
open-cell calorimetry appears to reproduce the "excess heat."  To my knowledge,
this has not been done. Until it is, the open-cell calorimetry results have not
been (completely) debunked.
 
Proving that the other guy's interpretation of a phenomenon is wrong does not
prove that your interpretation is right.
 
--alan (lovejoy@alc.com) Still Neutral After 2 1/2 Years!
 
--
 %%%% Alan Lovejoy %%%% | "Do not go gentle into that good night,
 % Ascent Logic Corp. % | Old age should burn and rave at the close of the day;
 UUCP:  lovejoy@alc.com | Rage, rage at the dying of the light!" -- Dylan Thomas
__Disclaimer: I do not speak for Ascent Logic Corp.; they do not speak for me!
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlovejoy cudfnAlan cudlnLovejoy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Alan Lovejoy /  Re: Perspectives
     
Originally-From: lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Perspectives
Date: 11 Nov 91 22:21:19 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation, San Jose, CA

In article <north.689810821@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>But why invoke an "unknown nuclear process" which requires the rewriting
>of most of physics as we know it (Schroedinger's equation does not apply)
>when a simple miscalculation of heat transfer can explain it? (Paraphrase
>of comments by Robert Schrieffer at Sante Fe, 1989.) When he said this I
>was very annoyed but now I understand.
 
But the remark itself is not annoying.  What's annoying is that no one follows
up on it by performing the experiment that would prove or disprove the
"miscaculation of heat transfer" theory!  (This criticism is a shoe that fits
both the skeptics AND the True Believers).
 
Theory is not the final authority.  Never was, never will be.
 
--
 %%%% Alan Lovejoy %%%% | "Do not go gentle into that good night,
 % Ascent Logic Corp. % | Old age should burn and rave at the close of the day;
 UUCP:  lovejoy@alc.com | Rage, rage at the dying of the light!" -- Dylan Thomas
__Disclaimer: I do not speak for Ascent Logic Corp.; they do not speak for me!
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlovejoy cudfnAlan cudlnLovejoy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Paul Dietz /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 01:42:32 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1991Nov11.185109.15995@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>
 vu0350@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (allen h. lutins) writes:
 
>..O.K., i'm no physics major, but it seems to me i recall somthing
>about "conservation of power" & the like...so i have a question
>related to this:  where did 2 million watts of energy *go* ?  Wouldn't
>it have to be disspiated (i.e., as heat, light, a big spark, etc.)
>and/or converted to mass?  Forgive me if my ignorance is causing me to
>overlook something here...
 
Um, watts is a measure of power (energy per time), not energy.
 
If your question was, where did the couple of megajoules of energy
go:  into heat, of course.  The nuclear reactions produced energetic
helium nuclei and neutrons that lost energy to heat as they collided
with cooler atoms.  The heat got dissipated in the reactor structure
(neutrons) and the inner surface of the reactor vessel (the helium
nuclei and other plasma particles).
 
	Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / A Annala /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J. Annala)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 11 Nov 91 17:06:10 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

>This is not really anything to get too excited about. These experiments
>have been planned for several years. They did beat the US, so there
>is that competitive aspect to get excited about, but otherwise this simply
>spells the end of the lifecycle of their machine, which is now rather
>radiactive. Lets hope they got some data on the alpha particle physics
>while they were at it.
 
WHY?  Why would anyone put DT fuel in a fusion reactor?  Fast neutrons
would irradiate everything around it.  Was this device simply not at all
capable of fusion with D-D or some other non neutron emitting fuel?
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenannala cudfnA cudlnAnnala cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Wilson Heydt /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 05:57:21 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1991Nov11.185109.15995@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>
 vu0350@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (allen h. lutins) writes:
>..O.K., i'm no physics major, but it seems to me i recall somthing
>about "conservation of power" & the like...so i have a question
>related to this:  where did 2 million watts of energy *go* ?  Wouldn't
>it have to be disspiated (i.e., as heat, light, a big spark, etc.)
>and/or converted to mass?  Forgive me if my ignorance is causing me to
>overlook something here...
 
Nothing was overlooked.  The Watt is a unit of *power*, not energy (as
the article you followed correctly indicated).  Other reports have
computed the total energy given off--slightly less than 1 KWH.  The
same amount of energy that you can buy from your local utility for
about $0.05.  About as much as your body gives off as heat during a
full day at work . . .
 
	--Hal
 
--
=======================================================================
Hal Heydt                    |    Practice Safe Government
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |           Use Kingdoms
510-823-5447                 |     (seen on a bumper sticker)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwhheydt cudfnWilson cudlnHeydt cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Mark Thorson /  Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence
Date: 12 Nov 91 06:22:52 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

A recent article in _Nature_ described some really weird new data
on sonoluminescence.  This is a phenomenon in which bubbles in water
(caused by sound waves) emit tiny flashes of light when they collapse.
The phenomenon was first described in 1929.  Recently, Seth J. Putterman
and his grad student Bradley P. Barber have built a simple apparatus
for reliably generating the phenomenon, and have discovered that the
flashes are made up of many 100 picosecond flashes spaced very regularly
100 microseconds apart.  They say each photon carries 3.5 Mev, which
is 10^12 times as much energy as a single atom could have picked up
from the sound waves.
 
Hey, maybe this has something to do with cold fusion?  There certainly
are a lot of bubbles being generated when the juice is flowing.
 
And where can I find out about obscure unexplained phenomena like
sonoluminescence?  The only other such phenomenon I can think of is
triboluminescence.  Is there any such thing as a book of weird mysteries
of science (written for the technical reader)?
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Doug Mohney /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 12 Nov 91 20:19:32 GMT
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab

In article <1991Nov12.070328.26662@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
 
>In a a relatively short time the TFTR will shut down.  That will leave the
>USA with no fusion experimental program, and although DoE will entertain
>bids for a cheap tokamak some time this spring (March 92), it will have
>a copper magnet driven coil system  (resistive rather than superconducting)
>and it will have to be physically smaller.  Its performance will suffer
>greatly from both deficiencies.
 
So let's see if some Congressman gets a happy-face and ditches the
SuperConductor Super Collider for fusion research.
 
				Doug
 
 
         "Honey, you know I would NEVER wear black silk underwear"
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensysmgr cudfnDoug cudlnMohney cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / David Shepherd /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: des@frogland.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 12 Nov 91 09:14:20 GMT
Organization: INMOS architecture group

In article <1991Nov11.154523.18353@jet.uk>, cm@jet.uk (colin manning) writes:
>The director of JET, Dr Paul-Henri Rebut, announcing the successful
>experiment said "this is the first time that a significant amount of power
>has been obtained from controlled nuclear fusion reactions. It is clearly
>a major step forward in the development of fusion as a new source of energy."
 
first congrats to all involved.
 
however, are all these claims of a limitless energy supply being
overplayed? at the (excellent) open day at JET in the summer one
of the leaflets/films said that the power would be produced by sheathing
a fusion reactor in lithium, which would itself fuse with high energy
deuterium (?) nuclei flying out of the reaction and that the heat
from this would be used to generate electricity. in then went on to
say that currently known reserves of lithium would be enough to
satisfy the worlds energy demands for 100 years ..... but what
happens after that?
 
 
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk or des@inmos.com    tel: 0454-616616 x 379
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
		"pugh,  pugh,  barney mcgrew, cuthbert,  dibble,  grubb !"
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendes cudfnDavid cudlnShepherd cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / ken blackler /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: kb@jet.uk (ken blackler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 12 Nov 91 11:48:28 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

 
A.J. Annala writes:
 
"Why would anyone put DT fuel in a fusion reactor? Fast neurons
would irradiate everything around it. Was this device simply not at all
capable of fusion with D-D or some other neutron emitting fuel?"
 
 
When D & T fuse they produce neutrons with about 14MeV of energy,
When D & D fuse they produce neutrons with about  2MeV of energy.
So both reactions produce neutrons. If you saw the TV pictures then
the white snow you saw was the 14MeV neutrons distrupting the TV camera
we have observing part of the inside of the torus.
 
JET has been using DD for several years now, and studying the physics
of confinement, transport, MHD etc. It is clear however that it is
going to be difficult to build a 'real' reactor based on DD because the
reaction rate is relatively small. DT however reacts at about 1000 times
as fast, making the machine proportionally easier to construct. Hence
50:50 DT is currently forseen as the 'real' fuel a fusion reactor will
use.
 
Also strange as it may seem we actually want the neutrons! These are
where most of the energy goes and it is by trapping these in say a
lihtium blanket that the heat of the reaction will eventually be
harnessed. At the same time you produce more Tritium to use as fuel
(D is readily available).
 
As to irradiating the reactor. JET performed two carefully controlled
reactions which produced a predicted amount of neutron irradiation of
the machine. The dose was controlled so that over the next few months
the contamination will decay to a level safe enough for people to work
n the machine. Indeed early next year JET is stopping operations for
over 12months to enable enhancements to be made to the machine.
 
Over the next few yeear JET will work towards a 50:50 DT mix of fuels
in order to study this reaction and to help the design of ITER. It is
true that the machine will become irradiated during this phase, I
have no idea as to the extent or level but it cannot be avoided. The
actual amount and level of radioactive waste produced by fusion however
continues to be tiny compared to fission.
 
Hope this helps. These comments are of course all my own and I hopefully
aren't too wrong!
 
--
 ______________________________________   ____________   _____________
|Ken Blackler kb@jet.uk (+44)235 464743| | __________ | |   -Fusion-   |
|JET Joint Undertaking, Abingdon       | |   | |_ |   | |Energy for the|
|Oxfordshire, England. OX14 3EA        | | \_/ |_ |   | | (far) future |
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkb cudfnken cudlnblackler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Paul Dietz /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 12 Nov 91 12:51:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <24270@wraxall.inmos.co.uk> des@frogland.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
 writes:
 
>however, are all these claims of a limitless energy supply being
>overplayed? at the (excellent) open day at JET in the summer one
>of the leaflets/films said that the power would be produced by sheathing
>a fusion reactor in lithium, which would itself fuse with high energy
>deuterium (?) nuclei flying out of the reaction and that the heat
>from this would be used to generate electricity. in then went on to
>say that currently known reserves of lithium would be enough to
>satisfy the worlds energy demands for 100 years ..... but what
>happens after that?
 
 
The claims certainly are overplayed.  And, if the reactor is too hot to go
into for 4 months after a 2 megajoule pulse, what's going to happen if
a commercial reactor producing 3000 MW (th) continuously should break
down?  I have this image of ITER becoming a major embarassment.
 
Known reserves of lithium are a small subset of the amount of lithium
in the crust (average crustal abundance is about 20 ppm).  Also, the
amount of lithium consumed by a fusion reactor per unit energy
produced is so small that the price of lithium could be much higher
and still have little effect on the cost of energy.  Lithium can also
be extracted from seawater; the Japanese have an ion-exchange
technology for doing this at a price not too much above the current
price.
 
The lithium is transmuted by neutrons, btw.  The (n,t) reaction on 6Li does
produce some additional heat, but most the energy is from d+t fusion reactions
in the plasma, carried to the blanket by the neutrons.
 
I wonder why JET didn't do a D + 3He experiment (or did they?).
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 12 Nov 91 07:03:28 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Nov11.115456@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov10.023220.642@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>,
>bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>> 	CNN has just reported that British scientists have achieved a sustained
                                   |||||||                            ^^^^^^^^^
>> production of electricity from fusion.
   |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
 
The scientist are "EC"  (European Community)  scientists with guests
from elsewhere.   SUSTAINED in refering to fusion activity usually
connotes "SELF sustainment" -- that is an ignited or "BURNING plasma
fuel".  This is clearly not that case.  MAINTAINED might be a better
word since sustained has been used in a more restricted sense.  Also it
would be better to refer to the plasma as "smoking" rather than burning,
since it didn't ignite.  In this case it might be described as: "a faint
whisp of smoke was detectable".  The optimists know that where there is
smoke there will be fire.  If sustained is used it should be qualified
as:  "sustained by particle beam heating", for example.
 
And finally, the product of the burn was NOT any electric power whatsoever,
and was rather ripping (very hot or fast moving) neutrons, those
lovely little nuclear beasties which give things that "deep through the
bones glow in the dark of night after night after night .. . etc. "..
and without the use of phosphors.
 
The machine should be good for a fair number of these shots before it
has to be entombed in its sarcarphagus --   what else?    :-)
 
>   Two seconds is only sustained when compared to previous efforts...   ...it
>happened at the (J)oint (E)uropean (T)orus, a magnetic confinement device.
>The article I read overpromised substantially ("totally clean" and "unlimited"
>when they should say "relatively clean" and "plentiful").  *sigh*  I hope
>the media doesn't overpromise fusion into disrepute the way fission was
>overpromised (e.g. "to cheap to meter").  Nevertheless, I wish J.E.T. well
>and offer congradulations to them on their milestone.
 
The "media" isn't the lead on this spin, it is the international fusion
community,  with its very own coordinated public affairs activity teams.
The wording of the "press releases" are carefully written so as to be
truthful, but easily misleading.  Obtain a copy by writing (approximate
address):
 
                          Public Affairs
                          Tokamak Division
                          Culham Laboratory
                          Abingdon Oxfordshire OX14 3DB
                          United Kingdom
 
 
>> 	That exact nature of the fusion was not mentioned, but a reference to
>> beating the American and Japanese efforts indicates that it may be cold
>>fusion.
 
The Americans (Princeton's Plasma Physics Lab) PPPL and DoE gambled that
if they didn't do the D-T burn in TFTR (origonally sheduled for ~1983, the
early complications (including political) of radioactivity, radioactive
structures and gases would not arise AND they could continue to operate the
then larges tokamak for a long time.  That happened and the TFTR is old
but still generating data.  However, tokamak radioactivity cat is out of
the bag in at least one place in the world now and it could be enough for
environmental groups to take a closer look at tokamak fusion, especially,
since the "predicted working tokamak of 2050 or 2095 or whenever, will be
a fusion fission hybrid.  That boys and girls represents the worst of both
worlds.
 
In a a relatively short time the TFTR will shut down.  That will leave the
USA with no fusion experimental program, and although DoE will entertain
bids for a cheap tokamak some time this spring (March 92), it will have
a copper magnet driven coil system  (resistive rather than superconducting)
and it will have to be physically smaller.  Its performance will suffer
greatly from both deficiencies.
 
Consequently, I would like to see the program opened up to a joint
industrial/government one where private industry takes the lead finding
and researching advanced and innovative approaches that are much less
capital intensive and have a fast development track because of favorable
engineering characteristics.  Of course, to keep them honest they would
put up half the money but would receive a whooping award for commercial
breakeven and then would give up further government assistance and raise
the production and installation and run in costs from private sources
or the public stock market.
 
Why??  I strikes me that since the power companies told DoE that if
the tokomak worked as DoE envisioned it, the grid power complex wouldn't
want it (would not use it).  We are simply wasting valuable time and
valuable resouce pursuing this 1960's horse and buggy and we are doing
so on a world wide scale.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 11 Nov 91 23:43:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <5386@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1991Nov10.055317.5449@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
 
>>already knows that Dr.'s Fleishman and Pons made erroneous claims
>
>The question is whether some of them were fraudulent
 
That's a tough one,  very very few groups can do neutron measurements
correctly, and I think that is why (at least at one time) they [F&P]
were talking to Jones.
 
>          . . .                  ..    . .             I know
>of know experiment that associates excess heat with nuclear products.
 
 
He(4) IS a product of fusion and IS a nuclear product that has been
measured in interesting amounts.  I think the chaps mentioning it
first were from the Naval Weapons Lab at China Lake (but I don't
have the names handy -sorry Dieter). In any event, my feeling is that
<<<<<< IF >>>>>>>>  there is excess heat as seemingly has been
reported and no explanations for it that seems to work for me, I
would certainly look to "nuclear processes" as a possibility.  The
possible nuclear process in particular is the aneutronic reaction:
              D(2) + Li(6) --> 2He(4) + 24MeV,
since both D and Li(6) are present, and Li(6) can diffuse into the
outermost skin of the Pd in sufficient amounts (presumably to start
spurious reaction bursts) after several hundred hours of electrolysis.
 
I don't think excess heat comes from  shorter term experiments.
Also this Li(6)/D scenario holds, there are simple ways to optimize
such reactions by, as for example, by preloading the Pd at the end of
its refining process.
 
>--
>J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
 
 
                           If cold MIGHT work,
                       let's use our imagination
                         and try conger and try
                        some of the possibilities.
 
                           If one works, THEN
                           we can worry how it
                            was theoretically
                           predicted all along.
 
                          Theory is always right,
                               eventually.
--
Paul M. Koloc  All rights reserved 1991
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Marc Riehm /  recent developments in England
     
Originally-From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: recent developments in England
Date: 12 Nov 91 12:53:47 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center

Who can fill me in on the recent experimental developments in England?  Was it
JET?  Was breakeven achieved?  For how long?
--Marc Riehm.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmarc cudfnMarc cudlnRiehm cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Carl Lydick /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: carl@sol1.gps.caltech.edu (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 16:15:37 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1991Nov12.151725.18928@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John
 Carey) writes:
>They required 18 MW to heat the materials, and got 2 MW out from the
>fusion.
 
True, more or less, but meaningless.  How long did they apply the 18 MW?  if it
was for less than .1 seconds, they almost certainly achieved energy break-even;
if they applied it for two days, they're not even close.  So I ask again, how
much energy did it take to initiate fusion, and how much fusion energy did they
get out of the reaction?  And what caused the reaction to terminate?  The
description in the _Los_Angeles_Times_ said that the reaction "petered out"
after about 2 seconds.  Was this due to exhausting the fuel?  If so, do they
have a handle on injecting additional fuel while the reaction continues?  Was
it due to plasma instability?  If so, do they think they know how to deal with
the instability, or even have promising leads?  Or did they plan, for other
reasons (e.g., the reactor isn't designed to dissipate the amount of heat
generated by a longer reaction, or they wanted to limit the number of neutrons
absorbed by the reactor vessel so that they could work inside it in the
relatively near future) to have the reaction end after about two seconds?
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
 
Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Gary Coffman /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 12 Nov 91 14:14:17 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1991Nov11.185109.15995@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>
 vu0350@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (allen h. lutins) writes:
>In article <1991Nov11.154523.18353@jet.uk> cm@jet.uk (colin manning) writes:
>>PRESS RELEASE
>>-------------
>>At 7.44pm Saturday 9th November 1991, between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 watts of
>>power from nuclear fusion reactions were generated at the JET (Joint
>>European Torus) collaborative European Community project based at Abingdon,
>>Oxfordshire, UK.
>
>[rest of article deleted]
>
>..O.K., i'm no physics major, but it seems to me i recall somthing
>about "conservation of power" & the like...so i have a question
>related to this:  where did 2 million watts of energy *go* ?  Wouldn't
>it have to be disspiated (i.e., as heat, light, a big spark, etc.)
>and/or converted to mass?  Forgive me if my ignorance is causing me to
>overlook something here...
 
Yes, you are. The 1.7 megawatts of *power* equated to only about .94
kilowatt-hour of *energy*. Mostly it was expressed as thermal neutrons
and alphas whose energy degraded to a simple heat flux. This is about
what you would get from an ordinary hot plate. The conservation law
you were thinking about is the law of conservation of energy. Energy
can neither be created nor destroyed, though it can be converted back
and forth to mass. In this case the DT fusion to He and neutrons
led to a miniscule reduction in mass under the relation E=MC^2.
 
They're a long way from central power station energy levels, but it's
a promising start.
 
Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudengary cudfnGary cudlnCoffman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / John Logajan /  Those pesky neutrons
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Those pesky neutrons
Date: 12 Nov 91 18:59:45 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In article <37318@usc.edu> annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J. Annala) writes:
>Fast neutrons would irradiate everything around it.
 
Actually, it is the slow ("thermalized") neutrons that are the real
buggers.  Of course, all fast neutrons eventually become slow neutrons.
 
Since neutrons have no electric charge, they can mosey right up to any
nucleus.  If they hang around long enough (are slow moving) they get
captured by the strong nuclear force and turn the nucleus into a new
and probably unstable isotope.
 
Just say no to neutrons!
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 13:28:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Nov11.220213.28915@alc.com> lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
 writes:
>[....]          "Experimental error" can not be used as an incantation to
>magically explain away physical phenomena.  One cannot simply say, "Aha!
>Experimental error" and walk away!  One must back that up with both
>**reproducible** and **uncontradicted** evidence that demonstrates that
>you can produce the "phenomenon" at will, that the phenomenon only
>appears under conditions predicted by your theory, and fails to appear when
>your theory says it should not be manifested.
>
The burden of the proof is carried by the person presenting extra-ordinary
claims for which extra-ordinary proof is required before the results are
accepted. We do not have to prove where each claimer of a perpetual
motion machine made the mistake!
 
>For example, it is not enough to present the results of an exquisitely
>meticulous but unsuccessful attempt to reproduce excess heat using closed-cell
>calorimetry. One must also show that an otherwise identical experiment using
>open-cell calorimetry appears to reproduce the "excess heat."  To my knowledge,
>this has not been done. Until it is, the open-cell calorimetry results have not
>been (completely) debunked.
>
Why ask for complete debunking? After all we do not require it to disbelieve
in UFOs, ghosts, Uri Geller, astrology, ...
 
>Proving that the other guy's interpretation of a phenomenon is wrong does not
>prove that your interpretation is right.
>
I can agree on that, though.
 
Raul Baragiola
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Jack Jansen /  JET, deuterium and tritium
     
Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: JET, deuterium and tritium
Date: 12 Nov 91 10:40:27 GMT

Maybe someone in the know can explain to me what the point is of
slowly introducing tritium. I understood from the news that they've
been doing D experiments before, and are now using about 20% T and
80% D, and plan to increase the T until they reach a 50/50 mix in
a few years time. Why not immedeately intruduce a 50/50 mix of T and D?
Are there problems with control? Are they afraid the whole thing
will go up in a big flash?
--
--
Jack Jansen       | In Holland things are serious, but never hopeless.
jack@cwi.nl       | In Ireland things are hopeless, but never serious.
uunet!cwi.nl!jack   S=jack;O=cwi;PRMD=surf;ADMD=400net;C=nl
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / John Carey /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John Carey)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 15:17:25 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

They required 18 MW to heat the materials, and got 2 MW out from the
fusion.
--
John Carey
University of Illinois
Dept. of Computer Science
carey@a.cs.uiuc.edu {uu-net,pur-ee,convex,...}!uiucdcs!carey
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencarey cudfnJohn cudlnCarey cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Brett Kottmann /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 11 Nov 91 23:39:50 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1991Nov11.115456@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
 Ashlock) writes:
>...
>    No, cold fusion doesn't work at all for power.  Marginal (barely
 detectable)
> effects are being investigated at some labs.  Havn't you been following the
> cold fusion saga?
>
 
	No, I stopped following that closely when the heat to chemistry ratio
dropped :).
 
Brett
=============================OFFICIAL=DISCLAIMER================================
The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force
or its contractors.
=====================DO=NOT=REMOVE=TAG=UNDER=PENALTY=OF=LAW===:)================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbkottmann cudfnBrett cudlnKottmann cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 /  Codesmiths /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 12 Nov 91 07:13:14 GMT
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

In-Reply-To:  henkel%nepjt@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Chuck Henkel)
> Yeah, that's a good point. Now that the thing is all crapped up with
> tritium, how useful will it be for future work? At the very least I
> suspect their operation and maintenance costs have shot up rather
> dramatically.
 
IMHO the most impressive thing about touring the JET site (I first
went in '83, before things really started to move) isn't the torus
itself, but the state of the data capture & remote handling
equipment. Apart from the physics, the engineering is absolutely
top-notch. It is a truly impressive setup, especially the provision
for remote manipulation of the torus equipment after it becomes
radioactive.
 
Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk    +44 91 230 1695
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendingbat cudlnCodesmiths cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Bob Gray /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: bob@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 12 Nov 91 10:53:40 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre

whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>computed the total energy given off--slightly less than 1 KWH.  The
 
The reports I have seen are of an output pulse lasting two
seconds and peaking at 1.7 Megawatts. This averages out to
about 1 Megawatt power output in total. For a very short
period.
 
Does anyone know how much power they had to put in to
get this Megawatt out?
	Bob.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbob cudfnBob cudlnGray cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 11 Nov 91 21:10:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Nov10.214847.17420@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1991Nov10.202835.6153@polaris.utu.fi> mea@polaris.utu.fi (Matti
>Aarnio) writes:
>> In article <JANNE.ANTTILA.91Nov10122343@kannel.lut.fi> Janne.Anttila@lut.fi
>(Janne Anttila) writes:
>> >
>> >I just heard it on the radio news, now I'd like a little more
>> >information. All I know is that the experiment was done in
>> >England, the reaction lasted for one minute and it produced
>> >1.7 MW of electricity.
 
No electricity was produced whatsoever.  The fusion power level (fast
neutrons and radiating protons mostly) was estimated likely from
reaction product detectors (maybe high speed knock-on protons).
 
>>   This is about HOT fusion.  (I am just watching the TV..)
>> The Joint European Torus (JET) made a successfull fusion run with
>> Deuterium and Tritium while reaction temperature was about 300 million K.
 
300M K degrees  -- I don't think so.  The plasma (Maxwellian) temperature
doesn't get this hot.  However, the deuterium particle beams are injected
with kinetic energies in excess of this so when they collide (first few
collisions) with the plasma particles (tritium), the effective temperature
for that interaction might be interpreted to be 25 or 30 kev.  Probably
the bulk of the fusion reactions that took place were a result of the
beam injection, although this is a total guess based on what I would do
if stuck with a tokamak to get it to at least "smoke".
 
Certainly the fusion reactions were controlled since they didn't get
even close to a breakeven sustained burn.  Consequently the descriptor
"smoke".   --not even a smolder --  :-)
 
>>   The JET Facility is located at the Oxfordshire, England.
>> Reaction lasted for about one second, and produced about 1.7MW.
 
>This is not really anything to get too excited about. These experiments
>have been planned for several years. They did beat the US, so there
>is that competitive aspect to get excited about, but otherwise this simply
>spells the end of the lifecycle of their machine, which is now rather
>radioactive. Let's hope they got some data on the alpha particle physics
>while they were at it.
 
Heard that peak was nearer to 10 megawatts??  (Still not significant)
 
I would like to add that the TFTR was first scheduled (from memory) for
a D-T burn around 1983, but the vision of having a "radioactive problem"
so early in the program and no follow on tokamak into which to switch
the experimental research kept the DT shot from happening.  Lately, the
fusion community has been decimated by funding growth restrictions, and
since tokamaks are getting even more expensive by an INCREASING amount,
the alternative and advanced concepts research were sacrificed.  The
resulting internal political turmoil was not conducive for a D-T shot
at Princeton, although I personally believe they have missed a giant
opportunity by not anticipating the effect of the EC's "we did it first".
 
Think of it, boys and girls, we soon won't have an independent American
fusion experiment, .. just the INTERNATIONAL "all things for all
peoples" -ITER-.   Of course the DoE will go through the motions by
entertaining bids for a NEXT machine from various defunct or "downsized"
fusion groups around the country, due sometime around March 92 for a
"new tokamak experiment".  I say -go through the motions-, because the
money isn't there to build a full, advanced tokamak experiment.  NOT
spending more and in fact spending considerably LESS means the machine
would have to be reduced to a smaller size and have resistive toroidal
field coils (non-superconducting), which means a BIG LOSS in performance.
 
Of course, there is the possibility of "THE HOOK" or reason to justify
or sucker congress, say . . by claiming this new experiment would
be devoted to research on "steady state discharges".  This dream has
desirable features but unfortunately it has a bogus physics basis,
certainly as the precursor for a a future "working tokamak reactor".
This is simply because such a beast has the wrong plasma and electrical
characteristics;  they are too large (inductive) and the plasma too
highly conducting for the current drive technique to work.  It might
work .. well sort of..  on a small cold tokamak PLASMA machine.  This
of course is the danger since it could initiate years and years of
expensive research which will dead end on the beach of engineering
reality.
 
Wouldn't NOW be a good time to down size our fusion program to a
vigorous one of government/industry evaluating innovative and
cost effective advanced fusion approaches.  And, this time, let
industry take the lead, while making sure they get stuck with at
least half the bill.  That way, if a particular idea or concept
does pan out (starts costing ridiculously more) industry will drop
it and , we TAXPAYERS won't be flushing money down the drain for
decades to come.  On the other hand if one does work (gets commercial
break even) then private industry can take over (and fund) the
whole project and run with it.
 
A costly, radioactive and sprawling tokomak fusion plant isn't what
I envision for a bright future.
 
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
                        I'm all for International
                         Tokamak Fusion Research,
                         as long as it is carried
                          out on the Planet Mars.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / John Baez /  Re: Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: jbaez@nevanlinna.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence
Date: 12 Nov 91 18:32:03 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <50028@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
 writes:
>A recent article in _Nature_ described some really weird new data
>on sonoluminescence.  This is a phenomenon in which bubbles in water
>(caused by sound waves) emit tiny flashes of light when they collapse.
>The phenomenon was first described in 1929.  Recently, Seth J. Putterman
>and his grad student Bradley P. Barber have built a simple apparatus
>for reliably generating the phenomenon, and have discovered that the
>flashes are made up of many 100 picosecond flashes spaced very regularly
>100 microseconds apart.  They say each photon carries 3.5 Mev, which
>is 10^12 times as much energy as a single atom could have picked up
>from the sound waves.
 
>Hey, maybe this has something to do with cold fusion?
 
Nice idea, that, but someone has beat you to it.  You needn't feel bad
though, 'cause it wasn't just anybody.  A few weekends ago there was a
big birthday bash for Ken Johnson here at MIT, and various friends of
his gave lectures.  Julian Schwinger, who I gather was Johnson's
advisor, read a paper.  For those not in the know this was *the*
Schwinger, the one who won the Nobel prize for renormalization along
with Feynman (and someone else whose name I can't spell).  Yes, *the*
Schwinger, the one who sniffed that Feynman diagrams made quantum field
theory accessible to the masses.  The Schwinger who is so eminent, and
who keeps such a low profile these days I must admit I had thought he
was deceased.  Anyway, he's alive and quite perky and his paper turned
out to be on COLD FUSION AND SONOLUMINISCENCE.  I will try to recall
what he said if someone wants to know.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjbaez cudfnJohn cudlnBaez cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Those pesky neutrons
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Those pesky neutrons
Date: 12 Nov 91 19:22:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1991Nov12.185945.8932@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
 
>In article <37318@usc.edu> annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J. Annala) writes:
>>Fast neutrons would irradiate everything around it.
 
>Actually, it is the slow ("thermalized") neutrons that are the real
>buggers.  Of course, all fast neutrons eventually become slow neutrons.
 
Ah, no.  The fast neutrons dislodge atoms from their positions in
a metal's crystalline structure, and also cause (n,alpha) reactions
that leads to the accumulation of highly compressed helium between
grains.  Thermal neutrons, by contrast, merely cause transmuation
by (n,gamma) reactions, which can be controlled by choosing the
right wall material.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Naim Abdullah /  Implications of Mills & Farrell work ?
     
Originally-From: naim@prairie.uswest.com (Naim Abdullah)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Implications of Mills & Farrell work ?
Date: 12 Nov 91 19:25:32 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

What are the physics implications if the Mills & Farrell work can be
reliably reproduced and verified ?
 
Are the energy production implications of their work as significant as
those initially imagined for F&P work ?
 
Does the Mills & Farrell theory predict the existence of these "compact"
orbitals only for Hydrogen or are other elements also allowed these
orbitals ?
 
         Naim
	 {naim@uswest.com}
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennaim cudfnNaim cudlnAbdullah cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Bryan Putnam /  cancel <25540@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
     
Originally-From: bfp@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Putnam)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: cancel <25540@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 12 Nov 91 18:29:20 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbfp cudfnBryan cudlnPutnam cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 12 Nov 91 19:55:19 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Nov11.234317.22575@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>In article <5386@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>In article <1991Nov10.055317.5449@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
>>>already knows that Dr.'s Fleishman and Pons made erroneous claims
>>
>>The question is whether some of them were fraudulent
>
>That's a tough one,  very very few groups can do neutron measurements
>correctly, and I think that is why (at least at one time) they [F&P]
>were talking to Jones.
 
That is not the question.  If Close is correct [and he has not been
sued about the book :-) yet] then they basically put a peak where
they needed it to be to argue for fusion.  Without that data, there
is no paper to be published and no news conference to be held.
The sequence of papers in Nature pussyfoot around the crucial issue
of where that peak came from and how the spectrum was "recalibrated".
 
>>          . . .                  ..    . .             I know
>>of know experiment that associates excess heat with nuclear products.
>
>He(4) IS a product of fusion and IS a nuclear product that has been
>measured in interesting amounts.  I think the chaps mentioning it
 
Lots of things have been measured.  I have not seen a result where,
for example, the amount of He-4 from aneutronic fusion is equal to
the amount needed to account for the excess heat.  That is what must
be demonstrated in a *reproducible* experiment.  The answer does lie
in the laboratory, but I have not seen an answer come out of any
laboratories yet.  Many of us speculated about all sorts of different
mechanisms, and we even calculated some (we were messing around with
the He-4 and H-3 pathways from day 1), but none have been borne out
by any experimental results that are consistent with *fusion*.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence
Date: 12 Nov 91 21:22:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1991Nov12.183203.26556@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@nevanlinna.mit.edu
 (John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <50028@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
 writes:
>>A recent article in _Nature_ described some really weird new data
>>on sonoluminescence.  This is a phenomenon in which bubbles in water
>>(caused by sound waves) emit tiny flashes of light when they collapse.
>>The phenomenon was first described in 1929.  Recently, Seth J. Putterman
..........SPECULATION ABOUT COLD FUSION.....
>Nice idea, that, but someone has beat you to it.  You needn't feel bad
............
>.......  Julian Schwinger, who I gather was Johnson's
>advisor, read a paper...........
>..........and his paper turned
>out to be on COLD FUSION AND SONOLUMINISCENCE.  I will try to recall
>what he said if someone wants to know.
 
 
I want to know.  I speculated about this when the first words came
out about Puttterman's work, but I am not equipped to fully analyze the
possibilities.
 
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Alan Lovejoy /  Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
     
Originally-From: lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
Date: 12 Nov 91 21:16:42 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation, San Jose, CA

In article <1991Nov12.132815.28682@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
>In article <1991Nov11.220213.28915@alc.com> lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
 writes:
>>[....]          "Experimental error" can not be used as an incantation to
>>magically explain away physical phenomena.  One cannot simply say, "Aha!
>>Experimental error" and walk away!  One must back that up with both
>>**reproducible** and **uncontradicted** evidence that demonstrates that
>>you can produce the "phenomenon" at will, that the phenomenon only
>>appears under conditions predicted by your theory, and fails to appear when
>>your theory says it should not be manifested.
>>
>The burden of the proof is carried by the person presenting extra-ordinary
>claims for which extra-ordinary proof is required before the results are
>accepted. We do not have to prove where each claimer of a perpetual
>motion machine made the mistake!
 
The burden of proof is carried by whomever seeks to convince others thay they
are right.  It is convenient at times to accept--for the sake of discussion--
the validity of widely accepted theories.  But when push comes to shove, all
theories are suspect.  No scientific theory should be given the benefit of the
doubt no matter what--most should never be given it at all.
 
As a neutral observer, I have the option of passively disbelieving any and all
theories. I emphatically do NOT believe that currently accepted physical
theory is the last word--and neither should you.  It is not clear that we will
ever have a fully complete theory of everthing, but it is very clear we don't
have one today.  That does not mean that I don't agree that what we have is
a much better approximation of the truth than what we had 100 years ago, but
we will be even better off 100 years in the future.
 
As a computer programmer, I am also (painfully) aware that a complete and
accurate theory (by analogy, a bona fide copy of the source code of a program)
does not guarantee that one may easily predict all aspects of the behavior of
the system modeled by the theory (or dictated by the program).
 
Your argument rests somewhat on the Aristotelian logic of absolutes.  You
assume that the least questionable theory is right.   However, even the least
questionable theory is still questionable.  And the questionability (probility
of correctness) of a theory is not the same thing as its actual correctness:
the most probable event may not be the one that actually occurs.  So why
assume **any** theory is correct when you don't have to?
 
Constructing a theory (model) that best approximates reality to some useful
degree is essentially the pursuit of engineering.  Many so-called "scientists"
are actually engineers by this definition.  A pure scientist is not concerned
with "good enough" approximations of reality.  He seeks nothing less than
the complete, unabridged, infinite-precision knowledge of what is (in spite
of indications that such knowlege may be unobtainable).
 
Accepting the "best available" theory is a good strategy for doing engineering.
It can be a strategic error when doing pure science.  The process of science
is not the acceptance of theories--it is rather the rejection of theories.  The
Skeptics (in the context of "cold fusion") are doing their duty in attempting
to disprove both the theories and the phenomena related to "Cold Fusion."  But
the "True Believers" are also doing their duty by attempting to disprove the
"accepted" theories by demonstrating phenomena apparently at variance with
those theories.
 
As for perpetual motion machines, the case against them is much stronger
than the case against new-and-unexplained energy sources.  There is no
proof--or well-established theory--that says that heretofore-unobserved
mechanisms for energy transduction are impossible in principle.  Also,
perpetual motion machines have been fully, completely and undeniably debunked
many, many times.  The same is not so with respect to the phenomenon at the
heart of the present controversy.
 
>>For example, it is not enough to present the results of an exquisitely
>>meticulous but unsuccessful attempt to reproduce excess heat using closed-cell
>>calorimetry. One must also show that an otherwise identical experiment using
>>open-cell calorimetry appears to reproduce the "excess heat."  To my
 knowledge,
>>this has not been done. Until it is, the open-cell calorimetry results have
 not
>>been (completely) debunked.
>>
>Why ask for complete debunking? After all we do not require it to disbelieve
>in UFOs, ghosts, Uri Geller, astrology, ...
 
Define "disbelieve." I actively "disbelieve" in ghosts, "psi" and
astrology--which means I put the probability of correctness of these ideas
at virtual zero.   I think there is a meaningful probability that
extraterrestrial intelligent sentients exist.  I assign a very, very low
probability to the idea that "UFO" sightings are in any way related thereto
(for reasons I won't go into here.)
 
Belief should not be treated as an Aristotelian absolute.  It should rather be
thought of as an estimation of the probability of correctness.  It is quite
acceptable for different individuals to assign different probabilities of
correctness to the same theories, and also to have different thresholds for
the probability of correctness of a theory below which it is deemed wisest to
ignore the theory.
 
I require "complete debunking" because I do not feel that the probability
of correctness of the apparent phenomenon of "excess heat" in "CNF" experiments
has been lowered below the threshold at which the theory that these
experiments are producing unexplained heat can simply be ignored.
 
 
--
 %%%% Alan Lovejoy %%%% | "Do not go gentle into that good night,
 % Ascent Logic Corp. % | Old age should burn and rave at the close of the day;
 UUCP:  lovejoy@alc.com | Rage, rage at the dying of the light!" -- Dylan Thomas
__Disclaimer: I do not speak for Ascent Logic Corp.; they do not speak for me!
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlovejoy cudfnAlan cudlnLovejoy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Keith Mancus /  The Mills/Farrell paper
     
Originally-From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Mills/Farrell paper
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 23:44:02 GMT
Organization: MDSSC

	I am attempting to track down the Mills/Farrell paper via
interlibrary loan.  To do this I need to know the exact title of
the paper and the page numbers used.  Could someone please email me
this info?  Adding the full names of the authors would also help.
My current information says August 1991 Fusion Technology, v20--is
this correct?
	I stupidly lost Dieter's CNF bibliography file with
this information in it....
 
	Thanks for any help.
 
	-Keith Mancus <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmancus cudfnKeith cudlnMancus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 12 Nov 91 14:27:18 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

I'm curious about a few points:
 
*  What percentage of tritium was used?
 
*  I had the impression that the planned D-T program at JET was still
   two or three years away.  Why the early startup?
 
*  What do you think will be learned scientifically (other than the
   important negative result, "we ran D-T and nothing unexpected and
   bad was observed")?
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: It works! Congratulations!
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It works! Congratulations!
Date: 12 Nov 91 22:18:13 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>WHY?  Why would anyone put DT fuel in a fusion reactor?  Fast neutrons
>would irradiate everything around it.  Was this device simply not at all
>capable of fusion with D-D or some other non neutron emitting fuel?
 
The grapevine says that the two 2-second shots on Saturday did not cause
a great increment of neutron activation over what they already had from
several years of D-D operation.  (D + D -> either He-3 + n or T + P.)
 
The power reactors envisioned today would use D + T -> He-4 + n because
that is, at once, the easiest reaction with the highest gain.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
Date: 13 Nov 91 06:12:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1991Nov12.211642.10400@alc.com> lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov12.132815.28682@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
>>In article <1991Nov11.220213.28915@alc.com> lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
 writes:
>>>[....]          "Experimental error" can not be used as an incantation to
>>>magically explain away physical phenomena.  One cannot simply say, "Aha!
>>>Experimental error" and walk away!  One must back that up with both
>>>**reproducible** and **uncontradicted** evidence that demonstrates that
>>>you can produce the "phenomenon" at will, that the phenomenon only
>>>appears under conditions predicted by your theory, and fails to appear when
>>>your theory says it should not be manifested.
>>>
>>The burden of the proof is carried by the person presenting extra-ordinary
>>claims for which extra-ordinary proof is required before the results are
>>accepted. We do not have to prove where each claimer of a perpetual
>>motion machine made the mistake!
>
>The burden of proof is carried by whomever seeks to convince others thay they
>are right.  It is convenient at times to accept--for the sake of discussion--
>the validity of widely accepted theories.  But when push comes to shove, all
>theories are suspect.  No scientific theory should be given the benefit of the
>doubt no matter what--most should never be given it at all.
>
 
In practice, we have limited resources and we cannot prove anything
completely. Therefore I am not in favor of carrying the burden of the
proof (e.g., paying) that cnf is wrong.
 
>As a neutral observer, I have the option of passively disbelieving any and all
>theories. I emphatically do NOT believe that currently accepted physical
>theory is the last word--and neither should you.  It is not clear that we will
>ever have a fully complete theory of everthing, but it is very clear we don't
>have one today.  That does not mean that I don't agree that what we have is
>a much better approximation of the truth than what we had 100 years ago, but
>we will be even better off 100 years in the future.
>
We can passively disvelieve in everything. Or passively believe. This is not
too important here. I have no quarrel with people quietly believing in cnf
or believing that UFO exist or that there are 57 gods in heaven. The
situation changes if they start making noise saying that you are wrong and
that therefore you have to do something: spend energy revising their
claims, spend money so they can seek support for their claims, etc.
As for not believing that currently accepted theories are the last word,
don't worry, that is part of my profession.
 
>As a computer programmer, I am also (painfully) aware that a complete and
>accurate theory (by analogy, a bona fide copy of the source code of a program)
>does not guarantee that one may easily predict all aspects of the behavior of
>the system modeled by the theory (or dictated by the program).
>
>Your argument rests somewhat on the Aristotelian logic of absolutes.  You
>assume that the least questionable theory is right.
 
No, that is incorrect. I don't assume that. Rather I accept the theory
until proved wrong, IF is useful for my research.
 
>However, even the least
>questionable theory is still questionable.  And the questionability (probility
>of correctness) of a theory is not the same thing as its actual correctness:
>the most probable event may not be the one that actually occurs.  So why
>assume **any** theory is correct when you don't have to?
 
But we have to. If I question the laws of physics then I cannot work.
As for the theories that I don't use, I don't assume anything.
 
>Constructing a theory (model) that best approximates reality to some useful
>degree is essentially the pursuit of engineering.  Many so-called "scientists"
>are actually engineers by this definition.  A pure scientist is not concerned
>with "good enough" approximations of reality.  He seeks nothing less than
>the complete, unabridged, infinite-precision knowledge of what is (in spite
>of indications that such knowlege may be unobtainable).
 
No, that is not engineering. Engineering is the discipline of design and
construction of the artificial. A pure scientist is INDEED concerned with
making models which approximate reality. He does not necessarily seek the
ultimate detailed understanding. We have limited time in this world, and
most of us will rather seek the first order solution of several problems
we judge important than spend a lifetime trying to get infinite precision
in an infinitesimal field.
 
>Accepting the "best available" theory is a good strategy for doing engineering.
>It can be a strategic error when doing pure science.  The process of science
>is not the acceptance of theories--it is rather the rejection of theories.  The
>Skeptics (in the context of "cold fusion") are doing their duty in attempting
>to disprove both the theories and the phenomena related to "Cold Fusion."  But
>the "True Believers" are also doing their duty by attempting to disprove the
>"accepted" theories by demonstrating phenomena apparently at variance with
>those theories.
 
I agree that the advances often rely on disproving theories. However, it is
not the role of the Skeptics to disprove that cnf or any other wild claim
is wrong. Rather, they ask for better evidence, like a reproducible
setup that can produce reproducible results anywhere.
 
>As for perpetual motion machines, the case against them is much stronger
>than the case against new-and-unexplained energy sources.  There is no
>proof--or well-established theory--that says that heretofore-unobserved
>mechanisms for energy transduction are impossible in principle.  Also,
>perpetual motion machines have been fully, completely and undeniably debunked
>many, many times.  The same is not so with respect to the phenomenon at the
>heart of the present controversy.
 
The cases are not so different. The cnf experiments and some wild theories
appear to contradict common knowledge in a similar way that the perpetual
motion machines contradict the laws of thermodynamics which, by the way,
have not been proven, but are postulated.
 
 
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-1353
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / Latvala Ari /  JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala Ari)
Newsgroups:
 sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,eunet.misc,sci.environment,uk.misc,mi
 sc.misc
Subject: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 13 Nov 91 08:50:11 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology

Ref:	 In <1991Nov11.154523.18353@jet.uk>,
	 on date 11 Nov 91, 15:45:23 GMT,
	 Mr. Colin Manning (cm@jet.uk):
	 "PRESS RELEASE"
 
Sub:	"JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER" == "JET ACHIEVES LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY"
 
Mr. Colin Manning writes:
 
>At 7.44pm Saturday 9th November 1991, between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 watts of
>power from nuclear fusion reactions were generated at the JET (Joint
>European Torus) collaborative European Community project based at Abingdon,
>Oxfordshire, UK.
>...
>The peak fusion power generated reached almost 2,000,000 watts (2MW)
>in a ****pulse lasting for two seconds*** and giving a total energy release
>equivalent to a megawatt for two seconds.
>At lower power in deuterium JET has already maintained stable
conditions in the apparatus for periods of up to 1 minute.
...
 
Let me present following remarks:
 
1.	This was remarkable MEDIA EVENT. Great success.
 
2.	It was very wise to talk about fusion POWER if terms of
	clean KWhours and megawatts.
 
3.	It was very wise not to express the fusion POWER
	in terms of fast neutrons and other radioactive particles,
	which they actually were.
 
4.	Now pardon, but what goverment or international organs are
	making major funding decisions in coming weeks?
 
5.	Could someone having nuclear physics degree estimate,
	what form (mix) the actual "fusion power" was and how
	much of problem waste we have in the inner shells of JET
	reactor now. Decay estimates et cetera?
 
--
Ari E. Latvala, HB 420, RIFIT/TUT, POB 553, SF-33101, TAMPERE, FINLAND
RIFIT (Research Institute for Information Technology),
TUT   (Tampere University of Technology), Hermitec HB 420
Tel: +358-31-161910 Fax: +358-31-162913, Internet: latvala@cs.tut.fi
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlatvala cudfnLatvala cudlnAri cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / J Hugly /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: jice@zydeco.chorus.fr (Jean-Christophe Hugly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 13 Nov 91 13:20:47 GMT
Organization: Chorus systemes, Saint Quentin en Yvelines, France

Following all the previous explanations, the ignorant I am has still a
few questions to ask to all you physics gurus :
 
1 - What is new with regard to what we experimented till there ?
 
	I had been tought that the problem with fusion till now was that
	the kind of reaction we could control costed more to be started
	that what it produced.
 
	Did the JET experiment show that we are now able to control continuous
	reactions, or did it show that we are now able to start limitted
	reactions with a valuably small energy investment ?
 
2 - Where went the energy (however small it was) ?
 
	Judging by the previous postings, it was dissipated in the reaction it-self.
	Does it mean that the reaction, by some side effect, actually produced
	nothing, or does it mean that the temperature inside the JET elevated
	continuously.
 
	As I guess for the second, do I understand right if I believe that once
	the fusion temperature is reached, one of the following occurs :
		- The energy is collected by some mean into electrical energy.
		- The energy is dissipated outside the reactor (which, I guess
		  means it explodes).
		- The reaction is intentionaly stopped by some mean.
 
3 - What about the lithium ?
 
	Could someone tell me how this lithium is used to drain energy out of
	the reactor ?
	- does this lithium circulate from outside to inside the reactor (how !) ?
	- does something else circulate from inside the reactor to outside (how !) ?
	  - If it does, what is it ?
 
4 - A little detail :
 
	How does the D+T get-in and how does the He go-out ? (if they do)
 
 
Thanks a lot
 
J-C
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjice cudfnJean-Christophe cudlnHugly cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / Paul Koloc /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 13 Nov 91 07:12:51 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Nov12.125104.16722@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <24270@wraxall.inmos.co.uk> des@frogland.inmos.co.uk (David
 Shepherd) writes:
>
>>however, are all these claims of a limitless energy supply being
>>overplayed? at the (excellent) open day at JET in the summer one
>>of the leaflets/films said that the power would be produced by sheathing
>>a fusion reactor in lithium, which would itself fuse with high energy
>>deuterium (?) nuclei flying out of the reaction and that the heat
>>from this would be used to generate electricity.  .. .
>
>The claims certainly are overplayed.  And, if the reactor is too hot to go
>into for 4 months after a 2 megajoule pulse, what's going to happen if
>a commercial reactor producing 3000 MW (th) continuously should break
>down?  I have this image of ITER becoming a major embarassment.
 
>Known reserves of lithium are a small subset of the amount of lithium
>in the crust  .. .
 
>The lithium is transmuted by neutrons, btw.  The (n,t) reaction on 6Li does
>produce some additional heat, but most the energy is from d+t fusion reactions
>in the plasma, carried to the blanket by the neutrons.
 
>I wonder why JET didn't do a D + 3He experiment (or did they?).
 
The reactivity of D-He(3) is too low at the luke warm temperatures of
a projected operating tokamak.  One would like to have a temperature
around 72 KeV to optimize the charge particle production (minimize
neutron output), but at least half that temperature is needed to ignite.
That is the <T> and not the "temperature" in the kinetic wash of the
injected particle beams.
 
Basically, D-He(3) is an ideal first burn fusion fuel because it has
much reduced particle wall loading and generates a greatly reduced
radioactive inventory.  The fact that a tokamak can not achieve a burn
from the outset with such a fuel spells big problems for the the world
governments driven fusion program as meeting a workable device.
 
I think it's high time we punted the tokamak and started over with
much cleaner concepts that feature much better engineering profile,
shorter development time and low capitalization.  To keep the program
from becoming another flagship white elephant, industry should lead
and put up half the money to keep them honest (and have enough stake
that they would dump losers after a few years as opposed to decades
or centuries??)   The tokamak started around 1963 and optimistic
predictions put its commercialization not far from 2063 (if ever).
 
>	Paul F. Dietz 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / Paul Koloc /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,eunet.misc,misc.misc,uk.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 13 Nov 91 08:42:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Nov11.154523.18353@jet.uk> cm@jet.uk (colin manning) writes:
>PRESS RELEASE
>-------------
>At 7.44pm Saturday 9th November 1991, between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 watts of
>power .. .
 
>The director of JET, Dr Paul-Henri Rebut, announcing the successful
>experiment said "this is the first time that a significant amount of power
>has been obtained from controlled nuclear fusion reactions.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could be misleading, and cause some to think that it was "obtained" -- as
in captured and coverted to [electric] power.
 
 
> .. . . .........            ..         The planned operation with the
>correct mix of the reactor fuels - a 50/50 mixture of deuterium and tritium -
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correct??   What an unfortunate choice of words.  There isn't a worse
fusion fuel they could choose to attempt pre-burn.  Of course with the
luke warm temperatures and restricted plasma pressure available using a
tokamak, there isn't anything else they could burn.  It's the lowest
temperature most reactive (and dirtiest) fuel there is.
 
 
>         . .             . . .       . . As the world's largest fusion
>device, JET has achieved separately all individual parameters required in a
>reactor.
 
Horse feathers!  THE single required parameter is:  the TRIPLE PRODUCT
of three other parameters, time (tau), Temperature (T), and plasma
density (n) and it must be above a critical value.  That value has
NEVER been achieved.  The "individual values" are free to vary -- as
long as the triple product is large enough.  It hasn't been.  Running
up one of the other parameters "individually" represents no measure of
progress.  It is tauted here as if it was progress in the cited "PRESS
RELEASE" to hype the public and government political supporters of this
tokamak engineering fiasco.
 
>"The hard work and dedication of all the JET staff over many years, together
>with the support of all the European Nations who are members of the Joint
>Undertaking have today been rewarded by this achievement" said Dr Rebut.
 
Wonderful, but how much will it take before they discover the tokamak
won't fly commercially, even with an unreasonably large investment?  50
years? 100 more years??
 
>experiments are a significant milestone and clearly confirm Europe's leading
>position in fusion research.
 
Or shared stupidity.
 
>                            This demonstration fully confirms that with the
>additional information from the planned JET programme up to 1996 we will be
>able to design the experimental fusion reactor ITER capable of generating more
>than 1000 megawatts of thermal power."
 
Too bad ITER won't be able to covert that power efficiently into
electric power, and then run powered up for a few weeks at a time.
 
>For further information contact John Maple, tel +44 235 464776
 
as reported by:      >- Colin Manning, cm@jet.uk
 
                    Engineering Dictum:
                    If it cost too much
                   to research & develop.
                       It won't work.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / Rogier Wolff /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: wolff@tardis.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 13 Nov 91 15:32:47 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
 
>Keywords:
 
>]This is about 50 W,  (4-1.48)20  = 50 W.  At 50 W we get about 120 W
>]out.  (We applied no correction for heat taken away by the escaping
>]gases, which is considerable, so the actual output is probably greater
>]than 120 W.
 
>Gee. This is a LOT of excess heat - not likely to be mismeasured by
>sloppy calorimetry - unless you are getting H-O recombination at high
>levels, which I doubt.
 
If I am not mistaking, the H-O recombination energy is the 1.48 volts.
This means that the maximum H-O recombination energy is 1.48*20 = 30 W.
Therefore even if all the H would recombine with the O, you would
still see an unexpected amount of energy come out of the system.
 
Am I right on this one?
					Roger
 
 
--
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783644 or +31-15-142371
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenwolff cudfnRogier cudlnWolff cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:36:36 PST
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

 
    > [D. Taylor:] Doesn't both potassium and hydrogen exist in the
    > required states in seawater?  ...
 
    > [J. Farrell:] Most of the hydrogen in seawater is in H2O, HCO3-,
    > and so on.  Not much hydrogen in seawater exists as **hydrogen
    > atoms**.  Furthermore, The hydrogen atoms must be in close
    > proximity to **two** K+ ions, probably at a specific distance.
 
It occurred to me that a much simpler way to produce these conditions
in the laboratory is to use a metallic K cathode with a pure water
electrolyte.  Note that this setup requires no anode or electric
current, which should greatly simplify the calorimetry.  This
arrangement should result in an extremely high concentration of both K+
ions and atomic hydrogen at the cathode surface, and---if Mills &
Farrel are right---should produce a measurable amount of excess heat.
(Indeed, experimenters are advised to take precautions against possible
overheating of the cell; even though the probability of the water
boling over is quite small, it is a good idea to keep a couple of ice
cubes at hand, just in case.  Also, since metals are good heat
conductors, it is not advisable to hold the K rod with your bare
fingers while inserting it into the electrolyte; if you don't have
appropriate gloves, use tongs, chopsticks, or a paper napkin.)
 
As for the Mills/Farrell reaction occurring in nature: the situation
described by Dr.  Farrell (a free H atom near two K+ ions) should
happen wherever solid K salts (such as KCl or K2CO3) are exposed to
water and sunlight.  The UV rays in sunlight will dissociate some water
molecules into OH radicals and free H atoms, and some of the latter
should survive long enough to undergo K-catalyzed M/F collapse to
n=1/2.  Note that the K+--K+ distances in a KCl or K2CO3 crystal
(and at the crystal/solution interface) are generally much smaller than
in the bulk of the solution, where each K+ ion is surrounded by several
layers of tightly-bound water molecules.
 
The micro-environment described above should be quite common in salty
desert lakes.  Indeed, the Mills/Farrell theory may finally solve the
riddle of why deserts are so much hotter than other areas at the same
latitude.  Compare, e.g., the Sahara (with plenty of salt lakes and
"chotts") and the Amazon basin (rinsed salt-free by the copious rain).
 
Incidentally, this theory also provides as a bonus a new explanation
for mirages, much more satisfying than the classical one: instead of a
layer of hot air close to the ground (a rather unstable, hence
unlikely, arrangement), what we may have there is a layer of n=1/2
hydrogen, which presumably is denser than air but has a lower index
of refraction.
 
Similarly, the question of why beaches are usually warmer than the
adjacent hinterland can be explained by the diffuse occurrence of
Mills/Farrell reaction on the surface of microscopic, slightly moist
KCl crystals encrusted on sun-bathed sand grains.  A strong point of
this theory is that it also explains why the sand on the dry part of
the beach is usually warmer than the sand that lies under water, and
why beaches are invariably warmer on bright sunny days than on rainy
days (or at night).
 
I may also mention that the Dead Sea, one of the hottest spots in the
middle east, is also one of the saltiest bodies of water in this
planet, and a major commercial source of potassium salts.  In the light
of the Mills/Farrel theory, the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah
suddenly takes a new light: rather than a mere legend, or a distorted
echo of a volcanic eruption (of which there is no trace in the geologic
record), it is probably a fairly accurate report of an unusually large
heat burst, in the multi-megaton range, produced by a natural M/F
"reactor" somewhere on the southern shore of the Dead Sea.  The
resulting explosion apparently leveled the two cities, and showered the
surrounding region with the salt residues that can still be seen there
today.  (Note how even the tale of Lot's wife, which has always been a
stumbling block in previous scientific explanations of this biblical
episode, makes wonderfully perfect sense in the new theory.)
 
One can only speculate on the circumstances that triggred the ancient
Dead Sea outburst.  One possibility is that the Mills/Farrell reaction
can be self-sustaining, if the circumstances are just right.
One can imagine a chemical environment such that the 40.8 eV liberated
by the collapse of each H atom is given off as two or three UV photons
rather than heat.  Those photons will split nearby water molecules and
produce more free H, which collapses in turn, etc.: a classical chain
reaction.  Conceivably, in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the required
chemical species had been accumulating in the seashore for millions of
years, and all that was required to start a chain reaction was a small
electrical "push", such as the feeble current produced when a sacred
goat with gold- and silver-plated horns (a regular feature in the
orgies of the Baal cult) managed to flee from the temple and jumped
into the Sea to escape the pursuing mob.
 
The Mills/Farrel theory may also explain several other outstanding
scientific and historical enigmas connected with deserts and salt
water, such as: the origin of oil (K+ ions from uderground salt water
and carbonate ions from limestone catalyze partial M/F collapse of the
H in water, which provides energy to free CO2 from the carbonate and to
combine it with the remaining H); the building of the Pyramids of Egypt
(recall that natron, a naturally occuring carbonate of sodium and/or
potassium, was a major ingredient in the mummification process); the
parting of the waters by Moses (the sudden M/H collapse of large
quantities of H2O in the saltier-than-average Red Sea genereated a
gaseus mixture of O2 and collapsed H, which is denser than water but
still breathable); the anomalously large number of UFO landings
reported in the deserts of western US (obviously, refueling stops);
and so on.
 
Finally, let me point out that Fleischmann & Pons---the team who still
holds the record in claimed heat production from CNF---did all their
successfull experiments in Utah, a desert state, not very far from the
famous Salt Lake; and that Fleischmann himself could not obtain any
heat from identical setups at Harwell, in rain-drenched Albion.
This can hardly be a mere coincidence.  Could their spectacular Utah
results be due to unconscious contamination of their open cells by
the K-rich salt spray from the lake?
 
Electrochemically yours,
 
  Jorge Stolfi
  DEC Systems Research Center
  Department of Cool Unclear Fiction
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: My opinions are neither pinions nor onions.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 /  herrickd@iccgc /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.energy,misc.misc
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 13 Nov 91 15:47:01 EST

In article <24270@wraxall.inmos.co.uk>, des@frogland.inmos.co.uk (David
 Shepherd) writes:
> say that currently known reserves of lithium would be enough to
> satisfy the worlds energy demands for 100 years ..... but what
> happens after that?
>
That's easy.  Find more lithium.
 
There is no reason to do the work to find a hundred year supply of
anything, we must know about lithium because it shows up when we are
looking for something useful, like copper or gold or oil or uranium....
 
You used the words "currently known reserves".  They mean stuff in
some mining company's inventory.
 
dan herrick       dlh@NCoast.org
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenherrickd cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / Terry Bollinger /  Tritium, Deuterium, and Fusion Funding
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium, Deuterium, and Fusion Funding
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 18:05:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On 11 Nov 91 17:06:10 GMT annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J. Annala) wrote:
 
> WHY?  Why would anyone put DT fuel in a fusion reactor?  Fast neutrons
> would irradiate everything around it.  Was this device simply not at all
> capable of fusion with D-D or some other non neutron emitting fuel?
 
This question brings up an intriguing point about funding strategies for
hot fusion.  The question is this:  How effective have the major players
in fusion research been in letting the pubic in general (and politicians
in particular) know that *ALL* of their predictions for practical fusion
any time in the next century or so are NOT based on:
 
    "unlimited power from the sea,"
 
but rather are very solidly and unavoidably based on:
 
    "radiation-intensive breeding of tritium from rather scarce lithium,
     with a bit of (irrelevant cost-wise) deuterium from water thrown in?"
 
Why do I suspect that the latter would sound a lot less impressive when a
fusion research facility is going before its government for MAJOR bucks?
 
The problem is not one of technical facts.  All articles I've ever seen
from fusion sponsors have at *some point* mentioned this fact explicitly.
(I say at *some point* because I still vividly recall a Scientific American
article some years ago in which this issue was not called out explicitly
until the absolute last sentence in the article, in which the authors
finally said that if they could only get D-T fusion going, maybe, if they
were lucky, perhaps, why, they might be able to get to practical D-D fusion
in *one or two centuries*...
 
Science News also once ran a very short blurb (again several years ago) in
which someone had complained that what the fusion research community was
really proposing was trading a "uranium economy" for a "lithium economy"
-- and while lithium is more common than uranium by about 1000 times
in the solar system at large, it is still not exactly something you find
under *every* rock.  (Clearly you do find it under *some* rocks, since
its very name means "rock metal.")  Deuterium has a solar abundance of
roughly 100,000 that of lithium, but you need to whack that way down for
earth surface abundance.  (We are very H/D-dry down here compared to the
sun, the gas giant planets, or comets.)
 
Far and away, though, the most honest and forthright article I've ever
seen on the subject in terms of *accurately* portraying the fundamental
neutron radiation and tritium dependence of *all* current fusion programs
was a cover article back in June or July (1991) in MIT's Technology Review
magazine.  The article proposed Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE) as a
practical method for deriving energy from current fusion (fusion bomb,
actually) technology.  I recommend this article highly -- its technical
quality is excellent quality, and gives a very *realistic* portrayal of
all the nasty side of lithium-based fusion economies.  And again, I should
emphasize that *all* of the fusion programs going on internationally are
exactly that -- proposals for making lithium-based, tritium/neutron
intensive (and thus at least low-level radwaste intensive) practical
sometime in the next century... maybe.
 
With deuterium many orders of magnitude more common than lithium, it's
really not very accurate to to go on yapping about "energy from seawater."
Let me try a comparison:  If someone told you that combustion engines are
really fantastic because they run on the "unlimited energy of oxygen in
the atmosphere," wouldn't you be a bit annoyed?  Especially if you were
paying for your gasoline at the time?  Such a statement may be *factually*
correct (the energy comes from *both*, after all), but it really does not
tell you what the cost-critical resource is -- gasoline.
 
In the case of lithium and deuterium, neither one of them should be
a dominant cost factor from a strictly materials viewpoint.  (E.g., one
lithium battery has enough lithium in it for a whale of a lot of power
in a hypothetically *efficient* (heh heh) fusion reactor.)  But it's the
lithium, not the deuterium, that determines nearly the entire design,
risk issues, and energy strategy of such a hypothetical fusion plant.
It's lithium breeding that absorbs dangerous neutrons and much of the
heat produced by fusion, and that generates intensely radioactive tritium
(yes it's only beta radiation, but tritium half-live is still very short).
And it's lithium that must be poured in liquid form *around* the fusion
reaction (talk about interesting engineering problems!) to perform those
functions.  (Anyone notice a potential fire hazard there?  One that would
involve intensely neutron-irridated materials?).  And it is the result
of lithium irridation -- tritium -- which is absolutely fundamental to
making the fusion a *practical* energy production process any time in the
next century or so.  Tritium speeds up the reaction time for fusion by
several orders of magnitude, while deuterium *by itself* is a total dud
that is useful only for scientific calibration experiments.
 
....
 
 
Getting back to JET, I must admit that I have a couple of questions about
the results reported.  I've heard multiple versions, and am honestly a
bit confused as to what (if anything) happened that was exceptional.
Here we go:
 
 1. Did the use of tritium in your reactor bring any *unexpected* increase
    in energy production?  If so, exactly by how much?  Any idea why?
 
    (Normally I would not ask such questions of folks who just performed
    the experiment -- I'd wait for a nice, well-written paper.  But since
    JET has *already* decided to anounce the results to the world (? I am
    assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that it was not some kind of leak --
    someone please correct me soundly if that is a wrong assumption), I
    can only assume that they already have all the necessary data together
    in a neat package, all ready to go.
 
    So again:  Anything novel *relative to T-D prediction models*, or not?
    And by exactly *how much* -- two times?  An order of magnitude?  What?
 
 2. Could someone from there tell us *precisely* how many orders of
    magnitude there are still to go before such work leads to *practical*
    energy production?  (And I do mean *all* the energy costs please --
    e.g., you've got horrendously powerful magnetic fields going there,
    and unless they are superconducting that usually means horrendously
    high energy costs.)  As is often the case with such announcements
    from our side of the Atlantic, such points usually do not seem to
    make it into the press releases.
 
 3. I can't resist, I've got to ask:  I vaguely recall an incident or
    two over here in which Major Progress In Fusion seemed to occur
    jezzabout the same time as Major Requests For Congressional Funding.
 
    This is a terrible question, I know, but you folks at JET wouldn't
    my any chance be in the middle of a major funds-request cycle, would
    you?  I will apologize profusely on the net if that is not the case,
    and would of course also be very much interested in hearing your side
    of why such a coincidence is irrelevant should it be true.
 
A note to any news types out there:  You want an interesting story?  My
suggestion is that you go read that June (July) '91 Technology Review
article and cogitate on it a bit.  "The Seawater Fusion Fantasy" is a
title that comes to mind...
 
			Cheers,
			Terry  (Speaking only for myself, of course)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / R Frederking /  Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: ref+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Frederking)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 13 Nov 91 20:23:32 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

> From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	 (Terry Bollinger)
> ...
> Douglas Morrison of CERN has some good information on what is going on at
> JET, and has asked me to forward it to sci.physics.fusion.  Cheers, Terry
> ...
>     Overall it is not too encouraging until one considers the alternatives.
> As the Developing Countries raise their living standards to ensure good health
> and a satisfactory life, the total energy consumed will rise, perhaps to about
> six times the present consumption. The surface of the earth being limited,
> clean fuels such as hydropower, photovoltaics etc. cannot hope to supply the
> bulk of this energy. Much of this can only be met by coal, but this means a
> huge CO2 problem. Only by converting mass into energy can this problem be
> overcome.
> ...
 
I don't want to start an endless argument, but it bothers me when
otherwise intelligent people are so short-sighted.  "Fusion will work
because it has to, because nothing else will."  Sigh.  There are
at least two other possibilities:
 
(1) fusion really won't work, nothing else will: our technological
development will come to a screaching halt in a few hundred years (or
we'll kill ourselves off with pollution of one kind or another).
Really unpleasant, but the universe doesn't owe us a living.  Believing
that this would be really bad does not imply clean fusion is possible!!
 
(2) fusion really won't work, but something else will: perhaps one of
the space-based solar power schemes, perhaps something not yet thought
of.  The point is, there isn't any reason to think that clean fusion is
the *only* long-term possibility.
 
Please note that I'm not opposed to funding fusion; but I don't think
governments should put all their research eggs in one basket either.
And scientists should try to keep open minds, even about competing
research agendas.
--
Robert E. Frederking			Internet: ref@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		Voice: 412-268-8812
Carnegie Mellon University		FAX: 412-621-5477
Pittsburgh, PA 15217  USA
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnRobert cudlnFrederking cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 /  Mcirvin /  Re: Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: mcirvin@husc10.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence
Date: 13 Nov 91 22:28:12 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1991Nov12.183203.26556@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@nevanlinna.mit.edu
 (John C. Baez) writes:
>
>Nice idea, that, but someone has beat you to it.  You needn't feel bad
>though, 'cause it wasn't just anybody.  A few weekends ago there was a
>big birthday bash for Ken Johnson here at MIT, and various friends of
>his gave lectures.  Julian Schwinger, who I gather was Johnson's
>advisor, read a paper.
[...]  Anyway, he's alive and quite perky and his paper turned
>out to be on COLD FUSION AND SONOLUMINISCENCE.  I will try to recall
>what he said if someone wants to know.
 
I heard that talk too...  unless I misunderstood Schwinger, I think he was
talking about cold fusion and sonoluminescence as two different subjects.
His idea for a potential explanation of sonoluminescence was that it was
some kind of dynamic version of the "Casimir effect", by which the vacuum
energy of the electromagnetic field causes an attractive force between two
very closely spaced plates.  Though I could have missed something...
 
Matt McIrvin
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmcirvin cudlnMcirvin cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / John Baez /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: jbaez@lagrange.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 13 Nov 91 21:36:15 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

 
In article <5454@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1991Nov12.175702.26326@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@nevanlinna.mit.edu
 (John C. Baez) writes:
>>
>>As far as my physicist friend Mark Smith and I could tell, this
>>"breakthrough" (as they called it on TV) was bogus.  They put tritium
>>in the mix and got a lot more energy.  This is what one would expect.
>
>Yes, but no one had done it to see if you would *get* what you
*expect*.
 
Okay, I just don't call making sure what you expect actually happens a
"breakthrough".  Especially to the TV-watching masses, I think
"breakthrough" conjures up some big surprise.
 
>>Unfortunately, tritium is radioactive, so one has to be careful with it
>>(I would like to know just *how* careful), and it doesn't occur
>>naturally, so you have to make it, belying the TV claim that getting fuel
>>for fusion would be as simple as turning on the tap.  (And getting your
>
>T is bred very easily from the neutrons produced by fusion.  A non-issue,
>but must be included in calculating break even values.  T is biologically
>active, so lab safety people can have a fit about it, but it decays away
>relatively quickly.  And bio-med folks use it all the time so it must
>be safe ;-) right?  Comparisons to fission and coal are favorable from
>a safety standpoint.  Electricity is dangerous too.
 
Hmm.  Is it feasible to produce enough to tritium get a self-sustaining
"breeding fusion reactor" or not?
 
I'm also a tad suspicious when you say that comparisons to fission and
coal are favorable from a safety standpoint when as far as I can tell
nobody knows what a practical fusion reactor of comparable megawattage
would actually look like.
 
Also, how often do you have to throw away hunks of metal that have been
rendered hot by neutron activation, and what does it take to dispose of
these?  Also, how much does it cost to get the *deuterium* you need.
 
I guess I should read sci.physics.fusion for a while...
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjbaez cudfnJohn cudlnBaez cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.12 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Hot Fusion in England
     
Originally-From: brian@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion in England
Date: 12 Nov 91 20:50:51 GMT
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy

 
Getting back to hot fusion...
 
I have seen reports in the media about a group in England that clains to
have made a milestone in hot fusion; they have a magnetic confinement reactor
(standard torus) which has produced 1 megawatt of energy.  Unfortunately, this
leaves some questions unanswered, such as:
 
Is this total energy produced by fusion, or excess energy?
If total, how much pumping energy is required?
If excess, is this excess above and beyond what is pumped into the system, or
above and beyond what gets to the plasma?
What do people think of these results?
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 13 Nov 91 23:46:51 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1991Nov13.113636.14544@src.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
 Stolfi) writes:
 
>It occurred to me that a much simpler way to produce these conditions
>in the laboratory is to use a metallic K cathode with a pure water
>electrolyte.
 
Stand back if you try it.  K reacts rather violently with water!
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 /  rehafe@bb1t.mo /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: rehafe@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 14 Nov 91 00:35:17 GMT
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <1991Nov13.113636.14544@src.dec.com>, stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
 Stolfi) writes:
>
>     > [D. Taylor:] Doesn't both potassium and hydrogen exist in the
>     > required states in seawater?  ...
>
>     > [J. Farrell:] Most of the hydrogen in seawater is in H2O, HCO3-,
>     > and so on.  Not much hydrogen in seawater exists as **hydrogen
>     > atoms**.  Furthermore, The hydrogen atoms must be in close
>     > proximity to **two** K+ ions, probably at a specific distance.
>
> It occurred to me that a much simpler way to produce these conditions
 
Note: Introducing metallic K into pure water will not only produce heat but KOH
and H2 and with a little luck the H2 willl ignite ;-)
 
from the Safety Chemist
 
Robert E. Hafer
rehafe@ccmail.monsanto.com
I'm Pink therfore I'm Spam!
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrehafe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / Larry Wall /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 13 Nov 91 21:43:59 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1991Nov12.151725.18928@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John
 Carey) writes:
: They required 18 MW to heat the materials, and got 2 MW out from the
: fusion.
 
How do we know they didn't blow the calorimetry?  Did they stir it right?
 
And why hasn't anyone else reproduced this elsewhere yet?  And how do
they know it's even fusion that's producing the excess heat?  I'd be a lot
happier with their neutron results if they'd move the apparatus into
a lead mine.
 
And it just doesn't quite sound like a closed-cell design either.  So
much leakage, so much complicated calculation and extrapolation...
 
The real shame is that they announced this through the press.  If they'd
only submitted it to a properly refereed journal, these problems would
have been nipped in the bud.  Next thing you know, they're going to be
asking the government for money...
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence
Date: 14 Nov 91 02:00:40 GMT
Organization: Univ of Calif, San Diego

mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> A recent article in _Nature_ described some really weird new data
> on sonoluminescence.  This is a phenomenon in which bubbles in water
> (caused by sound waves) emit tiny flashes of light when they collapse.
> The phenomenon was first described in 1929.  Recently, Seth J. Putterman
> and his grad student Bradley P. Barber have built a simple apparatus
> for reliably generating the phenomenon, and have discovered that the
> flashes are made up of many 100 picosecond flashes spaced very regularly
> 100 microseconds apart.  They say each photon carries 3.5 Mev, which
> is 10^12 times as much energy as a single atom could have picked up
> from the sound waves.
 
Here's what the UC library computer has to say:
1. BARBER BP; PUTTERMAN SJ.
     OBSERVATION OF SYNCHRONOUS PICOSECOND SONOLUMINESCENCE.
     NATURE, 1991 JUL 25, V352 N6333:318-320.
 
Get their addresses from this paper, and ask for preprints for more
info, I'd guess.
 
More references from a keyword search:
 
2. DIDENKO YT; GORDEYCHUK TV; KORETZ VL.
     THE EFFECT OF ULTRASOUND POWER ON WATER SONOLUMINESCENCE.
     JOURNAL OF SOUND AND VIBRATION, 1991 JUN 22, V147 N3:409-416.
3. VERBANOV VS; MARGULIS MA; DEMIN SV; KORNEEV YA; and others.
     [SONOLUMINESCENCE APPEARING UNDER HYDRODYNAMIC CAVITATION .1. BASIC
   PRINCIPLES OF THE PROCESS].
     Language:  Russian.
     ZHURNAL FIZICHESKOI KHIMII, 1990 DEC, V64 N12:3357-3361.
4. FLINT EB; SUSLICK KS.
     SONOLUMINESCENCE FROM ALKALI-METAL SALT SOLUTIONS.
     JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY, 1991 FEB 7, V95 N3:1484-1488.
 
5. SUSLICK KS; DOKTYCZ SJ; FLINT EB.
     ON THE ORIGIN OF SONOLUMINESCENCE AND SONOCHEMISTRY.
     ULTRASONICS, 1990 SEP, V28 N5:280-290.
7. CIUTI P; IERNETTI G; JOHRI GK.
     EQUIVALENT TEMPERATURE OF SONOLUMINESCENCE AT INCIPIENT AND DESINENT
   THRESHOLDS OF LIGHT EMISSION.
     ULTRASONICS, 1990 JAN, V28 N1:27-29.
8. FLINT EB; SUSLICK KS.
     SONOLUMINESCENCE FROM NONAQUEOUS LIQUIDS - EMISSION FROM SMALL MOLECULES.
     JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 1989 AUG 30, V111 N18:6987-6992.
 
 
> And where can I find out about obscure unexplained phenomena like
> sonoluminescence?
 
Only journals for now, I guess.
 
 
 
Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 21:20:46 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <19269@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes:
> I'm curious about a few points:
>
> *  What percentage of tritium was used?
>
 
I heard 14% from one source, 20% from another. Both sound a bit
high to me.
 
> *  I had the impression that the planned D-T program at JET was still
>    two or three years away.  Why the early startup?
 
Conjecture: they are scheduled for a major upgrade, which will require the
reactor to be out of service for 1--2 years, so why not do a quick T
shot just to be the first, and get some quick data to keep your folks busy
over the interim.
 
>
> *  What do you think will be learned scientifically (other than the
>    important negative result, "we ran D-T and nothing unexpected and
>    bad was observed")?
 
Well, I've heard they had alpha diagnostics in place, so they conceivably
could learn something about alpha physics. Though with only a few shots
to go from, you could only expect to learn about some major anomaly, not
detailed statistical stuff.
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / Steve Robiner /  Breakeven Point Calculation
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steve Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Breakeven Point Calculation
Date: 14 Nov 91 08:23:44 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

I'm a little confused about the breakeven point calculation.  When
they consider the breakeven point energy required, they include the
amount needed to contain the plasma, right?  I mean if not, then
that's not really accurate since it's required to sustain the reaction.
 
So, if it is considered, then how does it work with a theoretical
ignition situation?  In that case, won't the plasma become increasingly
hot, feeding on itself, growing hotter and hotter, and therefore
REQUIRING MORE ENERGY TO CONTAIN IT.  So, isn't the actual breakeven
constantly changing as one approaches ignition?
 
=steve=
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensrobiner cudfnSteve cudlnRobiner cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / John DeArmond /  Fusion multiplication factor
     
Originally-From: wd4oqc@kd4nc.uucp (John DeArmond)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion multiplication factor
Date: 14 Nov 91 06:31:00 GMT
Organization: KD4NC HAM Packet Radio Gateway

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
 
 
>NPR reported that it was "hot" fusion, and generated "very large amounts
>of power".
 
No, you don't  understand.  What this reaction did was produce a
very high (in)fusion multiplication factor.  The worldwide fusion
welfare program for scientists was running short on funding due to
lack of interest.  This media event created a very high fusion
multiplication factor, that is, the ratio of dollars extracted from
the government to the gross watts produced.  We can't use net watts
or the ratio would be a large negative number.  I figure that this
FMF will last perhaps 10 years.
 
(:_) for the humor impared.)
 
John
 
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Radiation Systems, Inc.    Marietta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
..!gatech!kd4nc!wd4oqc   **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwd4oqc cudfnJohn cudlnDeArmond cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 /   /   EXCESS HEAT
     
Originally-From: <J_FARREL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  EXCESS HEAT
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 05:29:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
John Moore asks:
 
>Question: Is this integrated over the entire charge period of the cell,
>or just after some steady state has been reached. In other words, is
>the total electrical energy input to the system only 40% of the total
>energy out?
 
Answer:  It takes about 15 - 24 hrs for the cell to come to the
equilibrium temperature.  The temperature is retained for
months.  We have had a 200 mW cell in operation for seven months.
The 100 W cell has been producing excess heat for almost 2 months.
It is still going.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / Jim Carr /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 14 Nov 91 14:22:21 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Nov13.214359.28899@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov12.151725.18928@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John
 Carey) writes:
>: They required 18 MW to heat the materials, and got 2 MW out from the
>: fusion.
>
>How do we know they didn't blow the calorimetry?  Did they stir it right?
 
Excellent Larry, I loved it.
 
But just in case there are any innumerates out there, seeing 1 MegaWatt
of power from neutrons is no problem compared to seeing one milliWatt.
And the JET people quoted an error bar on their number (1.5 to 2, not
simply 1.7) for those into science and not politics.
 
>The real shame is that they announced this through the press.  If they'd
>only submitted it to a properly refereed journal, these problems would
>have been nipped in the bud.  Next thing you know, they're going to be
>asking the government for money...
>
>Larry Wall
>lwall@netlabs.com
 
Even better.  I thought that F&P were unfairly criticized for this.  (The
only thing I did not like in your book, Frank, since I know you are reading
these posts.)  After all, these JET guys had not even had the paper accepted
for publication yet!  Naughty, Naughty.  Now the difference is that JET is
described in engineering detail in many publications so anyone could repeat
the exact experiment if they chose, something F&P have not done.  It is the
content (or lack thereof) in their papers that should be the focus in the
F&P work, and that of any other science as well.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Those pesky neutrons
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Those pesky neutrons
Date: 13 Nov 91 21:08:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>>annala@neuro.usc.edu (A. J. Annala) writes:
>>>Fast neutrons would irradiate everything around it.
>
>>Actually, it is the slow ("thermalized") neutrons that are the real
>>buggers.  Of course, all fast neutrons eventually become slow neutrons.
>
>Ah, no.  The fast neutrons dislodge atoms from their positions in
>a metal's crystalline structure, and also cause (n,alpha) reactions
>that leads to the accumulation of highly compressed helium between
>grains.  Thermal neutrons, by contrast, merely cause transmuation
>by (n,gamma) reactions, which can be controlled by choosing the
>right wall material.
 
What is the mean free path of "hot" neutrons through the "right
wall material?"
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 14 Nov 91 00:19:42 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <5448@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1991Nov11.234317.22575@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>>In article <5386@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>>In article <1991Nov10.055317.5449@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>>
>>>>already knows that Dr.'s Fleishman and Pons made erroneous claims
>>>
>>>The question is whether some of them were fraudulent
>>
>>That's a tough one,  very very few groups can do neutron measurements
>>correctly, and I think that is why (at least at one time) they [F&P]
>>were talking to Jones.
>
>That is not the question.  If Close is correct [and he has not been
>sued about the book :-) yet] then they basically put a peak where
>they needed it to be to argue for fusion.  Without that data, there
>is no paper to be published and no news conference to be held.
>The sequence of papers in Nature pussyfoot around the crucial issue
>of where that peak came from and how the spectrum was "recalibrated".
 
That doesn't generate sufficient support for fraud.  My guess is that
they caught what 140 years ago was the gold bug, except for them it
caused "fusion fever".  (And who of us hasn't dreamed of the technology
that compact controlled fusion could bring.)  Hunters after their first
deer get something called buck fever.. . and they get so excited they
miss their shot!  Fraud?? Let's save that for the Congressional
presentation of the tokamak program.
 
>>>          . . .                  ..    . .             I know
>>>of know experiment that associates excess heat with nuclear products.
you mean "no experiment"   (I tend to sound spell and rhyme as well)
>>
>>He(4) IS a product of fusion and IS a nuclear product that has been
>>measured in interesting amounts.  .. . D + Li(6) -> 2*He(4)
 
>Lots of things have been measured.  I have not seen a result where,
>for example, the amount of He-4 from aneutronic fusion is equal to
>the amount needed to account for the excess heat.  That is what must
>be demonstrated in a *reproducible* experiment.  The answer does lie
>in the laboratory, but I have not seen an answer come out of any
>laboratories yet.  Many of us speculated about all sorts of different
>mechanisms, and we even calculated some (we were messing around with
>the He-4 and H-3 pathways from day 1), but none have been borne out
>by any experimental results that are consistent with *fusion*.
 
But observations associated with thermal excess are not inconsistent
with aneutronic fusion, either.
 
My point is that a number of these speculations are pointers to
initial conditions or modifications of configuration that can be
optimized in certain ways.  It would seem that old fashion trial
and error should find some improvement after going through the
battery of possibilities.  That will take time, a bevy of independent
researchers and funding (allbeit not capital intensive like the
horrendously colossal tokamak program) from governments and  private
industry alike - A mere pittence in the world of "big physic's scams".
 
>J. A. Carr                                    jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / Steve Warren /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:35:21 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA

In article <1991Nov13.202332.246702@cs.cmu.edu> ref+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert
 Frederking) writes:
 
                            [...]
 
>(2) fusion really won't work, but something else will: perhaps one of
>the space-based solar power schemes, perhaps something not yet thought
>of.  The point is, there isn't any reason to think that clean fusion is
>the *only* long-term possibility.
 
                            [...]
 
Sol is the only currently available source of "clean" fusion power.   ;^)
 
--
            _.
--Steve   ._||__
  Warren   v\ *|
             V
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenswarren cudfnSteve cudlnWarren cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / L Norrgard /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 14 Nov 91 21:49:15 GMT
Organization: Soft Service, Inc.

In article <1991Nov13.113636.14544@src.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
 Stolfi) writes:
   It occurred to me that a much simpler way to produce these conditions
   in the laboratory is to use a metallic K cathode with a pure water
   electrolyte.
 
Now this is hardly a new thing to do. Could it really be that nobody
have done calorimetry on such a basic thing and found more heat than
current theory predicts?  (Perhaps nobody bothered because it is so
basic?).
  So, who's first with some calorimetry on this?
 
-- Leonard
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenvinsci cudfnLeonard cudlnNorrgard cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Tritium, Deuterium, and Fusion Funding
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium, Deuterium, and Fusion Funding
Date: 14 Nov 91 21:10:18 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <9111141631.AA17258@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
	(Terry Bollinger) writes:
>but rather are very solidly and unavoidably based on:
>
>    "radiation-intensive breeding of tritium from rather scarce lithium,
>     with a bit of (irrelevant cost-wise) deuterium from water thrown in?"
..
>Science News also once ran a very short blurb (again several years ago) in
>which someone had complained that what the fusion research community was
>really proposing was trading a "uranium economy" for a "lithium economy"
>-- and while lithium is more common than uranium by about 1000 times
>in the solar system at large, it is still not exactly something you find
>under *every* rock.  (Clearly you do find it under *some* rocks, since
>its very name means "rock metal.")  Deuterium has a solar abundance of
>roughly 100,000 that of lithium, but you need to whack that way down for
>earth surface abundance.  (We are very H/D-dry down here compared to the
>sun, the gas giant planets, or comets.)
 
Whoa.  Lithium, while not as abundant as deuterium, is certainly very
abundant compared to fossil fuels.  6Li occurs at about the 2 ppm
level in average crustal rocks.  In moles/m^3, the concentration of
deuterium in seawater is only about an order of magnitude higher than
the concentration of 6Li in average rocks.
 
Also: deuterium is *not* abundant in the sun -- it is rapidly destroyed
in the core by the (p,gamma) reaction (I believe the mean lifetime of
a deuteron in the core is something like 4 seconds).  The depth
at which D is destroyed is high enough that all the sun's mass has been
convected down to that depth at some time.
 
Deuterium is much more concentrated on some other planets -- the D/H
ratio is 5 times higher on Mars and 120 times higher on Venus than on
Earth (due to preferential escape of protium to space over the
gigayears).  Measuring the D/H ratio on Jupiter is one of the more
important missions of the Galileo atmospheric probe.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / Gene Miller /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: gene@nynexst.com (Gene Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 22:44:46 GMT
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology

In article <1991Nov14.193521.19093@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
 writes:
>Sol is the only currently available source of "clean" fusion power.   ;^)
 
It seems from recent postings unanimous that the technical development
of commercial fusion power will certainly be difficult, quite possibly
not worth it, and maybe impossible.
 
Question 1-
What are the technical breakthroughs that will be required to develop
a commercial tokomak power plant? I remember reading (in Scientific American?)
that there is a huge stability problem in keeping the plasma magnetically
contained.  Can someone give us an explanation of what approaches will be
tried to solve this, and how how likely they will be to succeed?
Are there any other known possible "show-stoppers" (beside pollution)?
 
Question 2-
Can anyone say when the first commercial tokomak will be delivered,
how big it will be, how much they will cost to build, how much to operate,
how will power be delivered to the end-user, what are the likely
environmental problems, etc.  I would like to see the answers expressed
as a range from fairly optimistic to fairly pessimistic (assuming that
it is technically possible).
 
Question 3-
Is there a good book on future energy technologies which takes a
broad view of the research and policy issues (no axes to grind).
--
Gene Miller		Phone 914 644 2834
gene@nynexst.com	Fax 914 644 2260
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudengene cudfnGene cudlnMiller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Dieter Britz /  HELP; Putterman & Barber
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HELP; Putterman & Barber
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 15:52:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There has been some discussion of the Putterman & Barber paper in Nature
(photoacoustics), and I've been trying to find this paper, without success. As
we are up to date to 7-Nov, I don't believe it's because that issue has yet to
come to us. Does anyone out there know which issue of Nature this paper is in?
This might have interest for more than just me, so the net might be a good
place for the reply. Thanks in advance.
 
Mark Thorson
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.10 / Usman Qazi /  !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
     
Originally-From: qazi@hammond.cs.unlv.edu (Usman Qazi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
Date: 10 Nov 91 20:34:06 GMT
Organization: UNLV

I heard on the BBC world news yesterday that the Joint European
Torus had succeeded in acieving a fusion reaction. Would someone
knowledgeable give some more details?
 
 
Usman
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenqazi cudfnUsman cudlnQazi cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Eric Shafto /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 15 Nov 91 05:25:03 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
 
> I dimly recall seeing a figure of 50 km/s for one fission
> driven stationary propulsion system, which would get the cargo to the
> Moon in just about 125 minutes.
 
Of course, then you are travelling rather inconveniently fast relative
to the moon when you arrive.  On a clear night, the impact could
probably be seen from earth with the naked eye.
 
That's on the OTHER end, mind you.  I'd just LOVE to see what's left
of your vehicle after the explosion on this end (and the multi-million
g accelleration).
 
If, on the other hand, this was a joke, I apologize for my denseness.
 
--
*Eric Shafto             * Sometimes, I think we are alone.  Sometimes I  *
*Institute for the       * think we are not.  In either case, the thought *
*    Learning Sciences   * is quite staggering.                           *
*Northwestern University *     -- R. Buckminster Fuller                   *
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenshafto cudfnEric cudlnShafto cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 /  mvbr@se.alcbel /  Fusion physics request
     
Originally-From: mvbr@se.alcbel.be
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion physics request
Date: 14 Nov 91 13:03:25 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Bell, Belgium

 
About ten years ago I worked for a while on nuclear fusion, especially
non-linear MHD. Since then I lost contact with this very interesting field
of physics, where all research areas of modern physics come together.
And I would like to try to become informed again on the current status in
nuclear fusion research. (Of course I heard about the successes in Culham).
Can anyone provide me with copies of 'summary articles' taken from e.g. Nuclear
Fusion, Plasma Physics, Physics Today, Journal of Plasma Physics ... (just to
mention a few journals that use to publish this kind of articles). Besides
general information, my interest lies in the area of mhd stability (linear
and non-linear).
 
Greetings
 
--
Marc Verbruggen                 tel : 03.240.94.19
Alcatel Bell Telephone          fax : 03.240.99.50
F. Wellesplein 1                email : mvbr@se.alcbel.be
B-2018 Antwerp
Belgium
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmvbr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 05:52:38 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
 
>In article <1991Nov12.211642.10400@alc.com> lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
 writes:
>>In article <1991Nov12.132815.28682@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
>>>In article <1991Nov11.220213.28915@alc.com> lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
 writes:
>>>>[....]          "Experimental error" can not be used as an incantation to
>>>>magically explain away physical phenomena.  One cannot simply say, "Aha!
>>>>Experimental error" and walk away!  One must back that up with both
>>>>**reproducible** and **uncontradicted** evidence that demonstrates that
>>>>you can produce the "phenomenon" at will, that the phenomenon only
>>>>appears under conditions predicted by your theory, and fails to appear when
>>>>your theory says it should not be manifested.
>>>>
>>>The burden of the proof is carried by the person presenting extra-ordinary
>>>claims for which extra-ordinary proof is required before the results are
>>>accepted. We do not have to prove where each claimer of a perpetual
>>>motion machine made the mistake!
 
  This is an interesting philosophical debate.  Should a scientist be
persuaded to believe an effect is occurring by experimental results or
is theory better.  The only thing that one can say with certainty is
that science is a on going human process, and is effected as much by
emotion as it is brilliance. For the pure sciences, like physics, and
chemistry, there is alway a battle of concept vs. reality.  Sometimes
concept leads to reality, and other times reality to concept.  Most of
the time science progress in a step by step progression with frequent
small leaps in either experimental results or theory.  Occasionally there
are huge leaps that force us to re-think several of our current working
ideas. Those are times when the human processes can effect the
scientific process.  In the situation with CF, it was initially presented
as if it was break-through in our understand of fusion.  As it turned
out, it was a mixed bag.
 
  Yes it was a break-through concept that D+D fusion could be induced
by electrostatic-pressures.  Jones/Menlove are showing those effects
to be true, however, those low level effects did nothing to explain
what Pons and Fleishman where claiming as their source of excess heat.
Because P&F found an excess amount of energy in the Mega-Joule range
over very extended periods of time, the only conclusion that could be
drawn is that the energy they were seeing was nuclear in origin.  From
the theories of the time, either their heating effect was due to
fusion, or they were simply wrong experimentally.  In addition to
this, the P&F experiment turned out to be difficult to reproduce.
But not totally. Some investigators repeated it. Many, did not.
If one associates CF to P&F's work only, it's hard to believe their
results are of the break-through category they claimed them to be.
 
   Ah, if P&F were the only people claiming unusual effects then
CF would have been dead along time ago, and left to Elvis sightings.
However, it turns out that there is an interesting piece of un-explored
science here.  It was shown by S. Koonin and the CalTech group that
electron screening in electron dense metals could enhance a D+D
CF rate significantly.  All of the sudden CF D+D fusion when from
10E-80 f/s to 10E-28 f/s.  Unknown until CF broke in the press.
Similar examples exist through out, which goes back and forth
from experiment to theory.  Like any good science, a whole field
should not be rejected out of hand because initial claims where
possibly over-stated.
 
  Back to the cluster impact fusion results from Brookhaven. What
we have here are fusion results that seem to indicate that a
modification of our current model of the Coulomb barrier for D+D fusion
at low energies is needed. If only to resolve the difference in neutron
counts from cluster impact compared to nuclear theory and the effects
that electron screening (and perhaps ion-screening) can have upon those
results.  That seems similar to what good CF experiments have be suggesting.
If there are some changes in theory that need to be made, then so be it. In
that respect, I think Raul's suggestion for a magnetically separated cluster
beam is an excellent one.  Similar in principle to mass spectrography, one
should be able to bend beams of D2O clusters to a target with specific
cluster sizes and determine what the thresholds are.  From this I think
one may be able to deduce whether electron screening is the cause of these
effects, or if there's a parameter in the Coulomb force that is dependent
upon the particles energy.  This sounds like it could be a good experiment,
and I hope it's done by someone soon.
 
Have fun.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com PH: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \Congratulations to the JET team. A D+T first! |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.16 /   /   Current State of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Current State of Cold Fusion
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:15:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For Noel Colaco:  There have been two books recently published on
Cold Fusion that may give you the info you seek.  For a pro cold fusion
veiwpoint the author is E. Menlove, the title something like "Fire from
the Ice".  The anti-cold fusion veiwpoint is covered by the author
Frank Close, the title being something like "Too Hot to Handle".  I
personally will tell you that the experimental evidence and our
theoretical understanding of nuclear and solidstate physics do not
support the possibility of cold fusion, at least not at a level that
would be more than a scientific curiousity.  The Menlove book gives
a pretty complete summary of the physics background, but falls apart
when it comes to making a critical evaluation the data coming from
cold fusion experiments.  The book by Close gives detailed information
as to where the initial experiments went wrong.
 
Now on to the main purpose of this message:
 
Chuck Sites says:
<"I haven't heard any opinion from him (Frank Close) that may explain
<the effects that folks are seeing and reporting.....
<There are so many unusual phenomena being reported...."
 
Perhaps what is needed is too clear up some of the accumulation of
misinformation about what experimental results presently stand in
support of cold fusion.  It just isn't good science to lump the
whole collection of half-baked results obtained by a variety of
methods ranging from fracto-fusion to electrolysis into one big
pot, and then to say that all the unexplained results add up to
proof that cold fusion is for real.  I propose that we stick to
the "excess heat from electrolysis" issue for the first cut to
see if we can agree as to what issues have not been resolved.
 
My summary would read as follows:
        Neutrons - no experiment has detected neutrons at a level
                   commensurate with significant heat production.
                   at least one high-sensitivity radiation
                   measurement on a "working" cell showed nothing.
 
        Tritium - most positive results were at a level that
                  could result from contamination/concentration
                  effects and not commensurate with heat.
                - one exceptional result from Texas A and M
                  was never repeated.
 
         Heat -  most positive results were barely above experimental
                 accuracy limits, i.e. 10% surplus.
              -  most experimenters could not obtain reproducible
                 results.
              -  those claiming positive results have withheld or
                 never determined significant information relating
                 to their measurements.
 
         Helium - one experiment claiming to have detected helium but
                  that clearly was subject to contamination.
In short there is darned little to support cold fusion beyond the heat
measurements.  Anybody have any corrections to this?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / I Alexander /  Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
     
Originally-From: esuze@warwick.ac.uk (I Alexander)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
Date: 15 Nov 91 11:59:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <1991Nov10.203406.2215@unlv.edu> qazi@hammond.cs.unlv.edu (Usman
 Qazi) writes:
>I heard on the BBC world news yesterday that the Joint European
>Torus had succeeded in acieving a fusion reaction. Would someone
>knowledgeable give some more details?
>
>
>Usman
 
I was under the impression that fusion had been achieved many times, but that
the problem was that one had to put so much energy in, and that retrieval was
so inefficient that it didn't even approach cost-effectiveness.
i didn't think that getting the actual reaction to occur was the problem??
 
any comments??
 
Uncle Beastly
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenesuze cudfnI cudlnAlexander cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / William Clark /  Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
     
Originally-From: CLARK@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (William Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 12:46:46 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

	Yes, the JET at Culham did sustain a fusion reaction for some
fraction of a second (which is considered a long time in that game). It
was very interesting to see the US commentators grit their teeth and
pretend they were happy to congratulate the Europeans - serve them right
for dropping out of the game in the 70s.
 
William Clark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenCLARK cudfnWilliam cudlnClark cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Gwyn Evans /  Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
     
Originally-From: evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 12:55:41 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

 
    I think that the news was that they'd achieved a fusion reaction that
was maintained for a number of seconds, whereas I believe that previous
instances had only been maintained for sub-second durations.
 
    I'm not sure, but I think that the difference was in using a much
higher proportion of trilithium (sp?) than in previous runs.
 
--
+==================== E-mail: Gwyn.Evans@ime.mts.dec.com =====================+
| [ VMS-mail: uproar::evansg ] [ DTN: 769-8108 ] [ A1-mail: Gwyn Evans @IME ] |
|Compamy: DESISCo - Digital Equipment Service Industries Solutions Company Ltd|
|>> Above opinions are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of DEC <<|
+=============================================================================+
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenevansg cudfnGwyn cudlnEvans cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Doug McNought /  Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
     
Originally-From: dougm@descartes.cns.caltech.edu (Doug McNought)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 16:37:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology

In article <1991Nov15.125541.16307@rdg.dec.com> evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn
 Evans) writes:
>
>    I'm not sure, but I think that the difference was in using a much
>higher proportion of trilithium (sp?) than in previous runs.
>
>--
>+==================== E-mail: Gwyn.Evans@ime.mts.dec.com =====================+
>| [ VMS-mail: uproar::evansg ] [ DTN: 769-8108 ] [ A1-mail: Gwyn Evans @IME ] |
>|Compamy: DESISCo - Digital Equipment Service Industries Solutions Company Ltd|
>|>> Above opinions are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of DEC <<|
>+=============================================================================+
 
  Eat your heart out, Star Trek---we've got TRIlithium!
:) :) :)
-doug
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendougm cudfnDoug cudlnMcNought cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 15 Nov 91 22:19:37 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Nov14.001942.26203@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>In article <5448@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>
>>That is not the question.  If Close is correct [and he has not been
>>sued about the book :-) yet] then they basically put a peak where
>>they needed it to be to argue for fusion.  Without that data, there
>>is no paper to be published and no news conference to be held.
>>The sequence of papers in Nature pussyfoot around the crucial issue
>>of where that peak came from and how the spectrum was "recalibrated".
>
>That doesn't generate sufficient support for fraud.  My guess is that
>they caught what 140 years ago was the gold bug,  .....
>
>+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
>|                                                         +Commercial*
>| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
>| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
>| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
>+---------------------------------------------------------************
 
Our university policy on misconduct defines misconduct as "fabrication
or falsification of data in any research" with the caveat that "honest
error or honest difference in interpretations or judgement of data" are
excluded.  Such policies are required at all entities receiving US funds
as a result of the sort of behavior documented in "Betrayers of the Truth"
by William J Broad.  (It is well worth reading if one is interested in the
lengths some people go to when seeking success and research money.)  The
only information we have here is the published papers by the various groups
involved in cold "test tube" fusion.   It may or may not be enough to
settle the issue, but I think it leaves some important questions to be
answered.  It is not so simple as Paul Koloc seems to think.
 
In Nature 339,667 (1989) F&P and company show a spectrum that they state
is "one of the complete set of spectra recorded at that time", meaning
at the time of the experiment published in J.E.Chem 261,301 (1989) and
the erratum 263,187 (1989).  In this spectrum they identify a peak at
2.496 MeV as the "Signal peak" and it is evident that there is no peak
that resembles the peak shown at 2.22 MeV in either the original paper
(with a peak of 20,000 counts on a 1000 count background) or in the
erratum (with a peak of about 900 counts on a 100 count background).
In subsequent papers, in particular J.E.Chem 287,293 (1990), F&P indicate
that the erratum contains the only corrections to the original paper;
they do state in Nature, however, that they "have repeatedly pointed out
(that) we are well aware of the deficiencies of these spectra" -- but
nowhere can I find a published statement to clarify further exactly
where the  2.22 peak came from or what they think those deficiencies are.
 
In "Too Hot To Handle", Frank Close claims to have evidence that the
Figure 1A submitted on 11 March and/or 20 March had a 2.5 MeV peak
energy and that such a figure was shown by Fleischman at Harwell.
Close states that this figure was replaced later in March by the one
seen in the first (vol. 261, pg. 301) published version of the figure,
which is also the one on the FAX copy of the F&P paper that I have.  I
have seen this "original" figure in a talk given by Close, but I have no
way of knowing its actual origin.  My recollection is that it basically
resembles the first version with a different energy scale.  (I am at work,
so I cannot refer to the book and be more definitive.)  An original figure
with a peak at 2.5 MeV would be consistent with what is stated in the F&P
Nature article about the "Signal peak" at 2.5 MeV, even though the "Signal
peak" also does not look like the published peak.
 
Interested persons should look up these papers and form their own opinion.
It is very hard to figure out where the published peak came from.
 
By the way, Petrasso argues that the F&P "Signal peak" is actually at
2.8 MeV, based on an analysis of the F&P spectrum, and must be an
artefact of their instrument.  I have always been suspicious of the
fact that the F&P "Signal peak" falls at the 2.5 MeV energy that F&P
originally (but incorrectly) thought was the expected gamma-ray energy.
 
I do not have enough actual physical information, such as access to
data books or the original spectra, to reach any conclusions about
whether or not the apparent change in the energy of the gamma peak from
the "spectra recorded at that time" to the figure in the J.E.Chem paper
was an honest error.  I have not seen any further errata on the issue,
the normal way of dealing with mistakes (and I have a few errata to my
credit -- no one is perfect) in published papers.  It would be nice to
see this confusion cleared up by the normal scientific procedures, altho
it *may* be that F&P believe that their statement in Nature constitutes
a complete retraction of their claim to have seen neutrons even if does
not seem sufficiently clear and unambiguous to me, and others it seems.
It certainly did not seem clear to Petrasso et al, who state in their
rebuttal [Nature 339,67 (1989)] that "No explanation is given for their
original identification of 2.22 MeV" of the peak now shown at 2.496 MeV.
 
It would be nice to have an explanation.  That is all I seek.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: HELP; Putterman & Barber
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HELP; Putterman & Barber
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 22:13:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <E551F142CC3F01368D@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>
>There has been some discussion of the Putterman & Barber paper in Nature
>(photoacoustics), and I've been trying to find this paper, without success. As
>we are up to date to 7-Nov, I don't believe it's because that issue has yet to
>come to us. Does anyone out there know which issue of Nature this paper is in?
>This might have interest for more than just me, so the net might be a good
>place for the reply. Thanks in advance.
>
>Mark Thorson
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>==============================================================================
 
The reference is:
 
B. P. Barber and S. J. Putterman, Nature 352 (25 July 1991) 318-320.
 
They are from the Physics Dept. at UCLA.
 
Sound energy is concentrated in a very small spot (<10 microns dia.)
in a glycerine-water mixture. Blue light is emitted in 10^5 very fast
(<100 ps) blue light flashes (@ 1mW each instantaneous power),
visible to the eye. The energy density in the sound field is about
10^-11 eV/atom, therefore, a ~ 10^11 amplification is needed for an
atom to emit a visible photon. This appears enormous particularly in
light of a cavitation model where the energy delivered goes into
forming a bubble that then collapses with the result that the energy
ends up in a few molecules.
 
The authors say that the photon must originated from a molecule, ion or
atom. I'm not sure about this. It is conceivable that the photon
originates from the decay of a collective excitation in the same way
that surface plasmons in silver decay into visible light. In fact,
the pulse duration seems to short for typical optical transitions in
single atoms, as the authors recognized. Therefore, if such collective
excitation and decay occur, then the amplification may be much smaller
than the 10^11 factor proposed.
 
It would be interesting to have some discussion about this and to hear
why people think it might be related to cnf.
 
Raul A. Baragiola
 
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-1353
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.14 / John Moore /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 14 Nov 91 14:19:47 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1991Nov13.153247.7869@donau.et.tudelft.nl>
 wolff@tardis.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff) writes:
]If I am not mistaking, the H-O recombination energy is the 1.48 volts.
]This means that the maximum H-O recombination energy is 1.48*20 = 30 W.
]Therefore even if all the H would recombine with the O, you would
]still see an unexpected amount of energy come out of the system.
It looks correct to me.
 
I have the paper now (thanks to Dieter AND Dr. Farrell), but haven't
had time to fully decrypt the experimental section. I'll leave the
theory section to the theorists :-)
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 15 Nov 91 11:15:51
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     Sorry, I can't resist...
 
In article <1991Nov14.224446.853@nynexst.com> gene@nynexst.com (Gene Miller)
 writes:
 
 > It seems from recent postings unanimous that the technical development
 > of commercial fusion power will certainly be difficult, quite possibly
 > not worth it, and maybe impossible.
 
    No, no, no.  The technical development of commercial tokamak
fusion power may be impossible, and quite certainly will be uneconomic.
 
 > What are the technical breakthroughs that will be required to
 > develop a commercial tokomak power plant? I remember reading (in
 > Scientific American?)  that there is a huge stability problem in
 > keeping the plasma magnetically contained.  Can someone give us an
 > explanation of what approaches will be tried to solve this, and how
 > how likely they will be to succeed?  Are there any other known
 > possible "show-stoppers" (beside pollution)?
 
    If (and they are getting fairly close) ignition levels could be
reached in a tokomak, the almost impossible stumbling block is that a
tokomak BY ITS NATURE is a pulsed device.  Confinement only occurs
while the longitudinal magnetic field is rising (or falling) but not
when it reverses direction.  Think of the plasma as the secondary
winding of a transformer...confinement requires that the current in
the primary be rising (or falling) smoothly.  There are obviously
physical limits to the current the primary coil can handle and this
limits the time a burn can last.  (This is not the confinement time in
the Lawson criteria, but it does put an upper limit on it.)
 
    Any commercial power generating tokomak would have to dump the
plasma into the vessel walls every few seconds.  Anyone who knows how
to solve that contamination problem with any known physical materials
speak up!
 
    Once upon a time, experimenters switched almost all existing
toroidial fusion experiments to tokomaks as a quick way of achieving
higher plasma pressures and temperatures.  But, at that time, tokomaks
were only thought of as experimental tools, although there were some
people who thought that a hybrid device could use the tokomak effect
to ignite the plasma in a more conventional toroidial device.  As the
goal of reaching ignition got farther and farther away, I think that
researchers decided to leave such "engineering problems" to their
grandchildren.  Thus the fifty years to commerical fusion you keep
hearing.
 
 > Can anyone say when the first commercial tokomak will be delivered,
 > how big it will be, how much they will cost to build, how much to
 > operate, how will power be delivered to the end-user, what are the
 > likely environmental problems, etc.  I would like to see the
 > answers expressed as a range from fairly optimistic to fairly
 > pessimistic (assuming that it is technically possible).
 
    I will not say that it is technically impossible, but... I can not
imagine an operational commercial tokomak which was not larger and
more expensive than todays largest nuclear power plants.  For
reference, these generate about 4000MWt (thermal) or 1300 MWe
(electrical) and cost about 6 billion dollars.  It would be possible
TODAY to construct a non-tokomak hot fusion plant within an order of
magnitude those parameters.  The problem is you can't scale up to that
point.  You have to start at that size, and no one is willing to throw
that much money at a pilot project.  Last time I did a simple back of
the envelope calculation, I got that at about 1000 meters internal
length (that's about 1000 feet in diameter) a simple stellerator
would, once ignited, continue to burn.  (It would probably require
active damping of some modes of instability, but if the device is big
enough, you can do that.)
 
    Now such a machine might use a tokomak as an igniter (or as
mentioned above be ignited by a operating it as a tokomak for a
fraction of a second) but it would not have the terrible problems of
an inner wall which needed to withstand being exposed to hot plasma
every second.  Also, once ignited with a D-T mix, it could be shifted
to a D-D or He3-D mix while burning.  You can't do that with a
tokomak.  (I'm not saying that it would be easy, just possible.  A
stable plasma radiates from its surface only, and the engineering
issue is how much of a temperature gradient could be mantained in the
plasma.  Note that there is no economic reason not to burn He3-D
instead of D-T, since tritium decays into He3 with a half life of
about ten years.)
 
   Another approach is to make a straight line device and replace the
induced tokomak current with an electron (or proton, or better yet D+)
beam down the center.  This solves some problems, but the device would
probably need to be longer, which would up the cost.
 
   Is there a good book on future energy technologies which takes a
   broad view of the research and policy issues (no axes to grind).
 
    The best I know of were written before the US government decided
to focus fusion research on a single technology.  All "survey" books I
know of written in the last twenty years seem to grind one axe or the
other.
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 /  Danger /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 15 Nov 91 17:59:42 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1991Nov14.193521.19093@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov13.202332.246702@cs.cmu.edu> ref+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert
 Frederking) writes:
 
>                            [...]
 
>>(2) fusion really won't work, but something else will: perhaps one of
>>the space-based solar power schemes, perhaps something not yet thought
>>of.  The point is, there isn't any reason to think that clean fusion is
>>the *only* long-term possibility.
 
>                            [...]
 
>Sol is the only currently available source of "clean" fusion power.   ;^)
 
Even as a joke though, it's wrong.  Don't you know that the
sun causes cancer?  That's why tanning is done in salons.
 
--
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblayda cudlnDanger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 /  Danger /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 15 Nov 91 18:05:59 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1991Nov14.224446.853@nynexst.com> gene@nynexst.com (Gene Miller)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov14.193521.19093@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve
 Warren) writes:
>>Sol is the only currently available source of "clean" fusion power.   ;^)
 
>It seems from recent postings unanimous that the technical development
>of commercial fusion power will certainly be difficult, quite possibly
>not worth it, and maybe impossible.
 
Impossible no.
 
>Question 1-
>What are the technical breakthroughs that will be required to develop
>a commercial tokomak power plant? I remember reading (in Scientific American?)
>that there is a huge stability problem in keeping the plasma magnetically
>contained.  Can someone give us an explanation of what approaches will be
>tried to solve this, and how how likely they will be to succeed?
>Are there any other known possible "show-stoppers" (beside pollution)?
 
A tokamak will not, in the forseeable future (decadecade) work.
 
>Question 2-
>Can anyone say when the first commercial tokomak will be delivered,
>how big it will be, how much they will cost to build, how much to operate,
>how will power be delivered to the end-user, what are the likely
>environmental problems, etc.  I would like to see the answers expressed
>as a range from fairly optimistic to fairly pessimistic (assuming that
>it is technically possible).
 
It won't ever.  It's too big and expensive for ANY business in their right
mind to touch.
 
If you can see past the "white elephant" -- tokamak and consider some
alternative forms of producing fusion, then all of a sudden it's not
totally impossible.
 
Get Him Paul Kolak!
 
--
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblayda cudlnDanger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Gene Miller /  Re: Trilithium?
     
Originally-From: gene@nynexst.com (Gene Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trilithium?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 18:23:30 GMT
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology

In article <1991Nov15.125541.16307@rdg.dec.com> evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn
 Evans) writes:
>    I'm not sure, but I think that the difference was in using a much
>higher proportion of trilithium (sp?) than in previous runs.
 
I think that Trilithium Crystals were used by Scotty to
power the Starship Enterprise.
--
Gene Miller		Phone 914 644 2834
gene@nynexst.com	Fax 914 644 2260
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengene cudfnGene cudlnMiller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Marc Roussel /  Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
     
Originally-From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
Date: 15 Nov 91 18:25:47 GMT
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto

In article <1991Nov15.125541.16307@rdg.dec.com> evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com
(Gwyn Evans) writes:
>    I'm not sure, but I think that the difference was in using a much
>higher proportion of trilithium (sp?) than in previous runs.
 
     Tritium (a.k.a. hydrogen-3, i.e. a proton with two neutrons).  Trilithium
(Li_3 - a molecular species which to my knowledge has never been
synthesized) sounds like something out of Star Trek.
 
				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmroussel cudfnMarc cudlnRoussel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 15 Nov 91 18:44:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <EACHUS.91Nov15111551@Dr_No.mitre.org> eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert
 I. Eachus) writes:
 
  >    If (and they are getting fairly close) ignition levels could be
  >reached in a tokomak, the almost impossible stumbling block is that a
  >tokomak BY ITS NATURE is a pulsed device.  Confinement only occurs
  >while the longitudinal magnetic field is rising (or falling) but not
  >when it reverses direction.  Think of the plasma as the secondary
  >winding of a transformer...confinement requires that the current in
  >the primary be rising (or falling) smoothly.  There are obviously
  >physical limits to the current the primary coil can handle and this
  >limits the time a burn can last.  (This is not the confinement time in
  >the Lawson criteria, but it does put an upper limit on it.)
 
The error here is assuming that this is the ONLY means of driving the
toroidal current.  However, there are numerous other schemes being
investigated for doing so (schemes for helicity injection, RF current
drive, use of the "bootstrap current") that may lead to steady-state
tokamak operation.
 
(Not that the concept doesn't have other problems.)
 
  >plasma.  Note that there is no economic reason not to burn He3-D
  >instead of D-T, since tritium decays into He3 with a half life of
  >about ten years.)
 
But to make tritium, one must bombard lithium with neutrons.  If you
let the tritium decay to 3He, the result is a neutron-poor fusion
reaction, and soon you're out of both tritium and 3He.
 
A real 3He burning economy will have to mine the 3He in space.
Otherwise, the 3He burning reactors will be a sideshow to the reactor
cycle that makes 3He as a byproduct (DD, DT with neutron
multiplication and breeding ratio > 1, or H-6Li).
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / James Nicoll /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 15 Nov 91 20:51:30 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <4179@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
 writes:
>jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>
>> I dimly recall seeing a figure of 50 km/s for one fission
>> driven stationary propulsion system, which would get the cargo to the
>> Moon in just about 125 minutes.
>
>Of course, then you are travelling rather inconveniently fast relative
>to the moon when you arrive.  On a clear night, the impact could
>probably be seen from earth with the naked eye.
 
	You're only travelling rapidly before contact with the
Lunar surface. I would expect an inelastic collision to rapidly
decelerate the payload on arrival. Ek would be about 1.25x10**9 joules
per kilogram. Provided one could distinguish the material of the
payload from the lunar surface, I'd expect the relative velocities
between the two to quite low, perhaps zero, once the process of
deceleration was over.
 
>That's on the OTHER end, mind you.  I'd just LOVE to see what's left
>of your vehicle after the explosion on this end (and the multi-million
>g accelleration).
>
>If, on the other hand, this was a joke, I apologize for my denseness.
 
	I recommend examining the relative lengths of your legs. One may be
longer.
 
	I *wasn't* kidding about Project Babylon, and I do recall
reading about fission-driven 'cannon'.
 
							James Nicoll
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjdnicoll cudfnJames cudlnNicoll cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.16 / Alan Lovejoy /  Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
     
Originally-From: lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brookhaven Cluster Impact Fusion in Science
Date: 16 Nov 91 04:43:01 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation, San Jose, CA

In article <1991Nov13.061221.8463@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
>In article <1991Nov12.211642.10400@alc.com> lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
 writes:
>>In article <1991Nov12.132815.28682@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
>>>In article <1991Nov11.220213.28915@alc.com> lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
 writes:
>>>>[....]          "Experimental error" can not be used as an incantation to
>>>>magically explain away physical phenomena.  One cannot simply say, "Aha!
>>>>Experimental error" and walk away!  One must back that up with both
>>>>**reproducible** and **uncontradicted** evidence that demonstrates that
>>>>you can produce the "phenomenon" at will, that the phenomenon only
>>>>appears under conditions predicted by your theory, and fails to appear when
>>>>your theory says it should not be manifested.
>>>>
>>>The burden of the proof is carried by the person presenting extra-ordinary
>>>claims for which extra-ordinary proof is required before the results are
>>>accepted. We do not have to prove where each claimer of a perpetual
>>>motion machine made the mistake!
>>
>>The burden of proof is carried by whomever seeks to convince others thay they
>>are right.  It is convenient at times to accept--for the sake of discussion--
>>the validity of widely accepted theories.  But when push comes to shove, all
>>theories are suspect.  No scientific theory should be given the benefit of the
>>doubt no matter what--most should never be given it at all.
>>
>
>In practice, we have limited resources and we cannot prove anything
>completely. Therefore I am not in favor of carrying the burden of the
>proof (e.g., paying) that cnf is wrong.
>
>>As a neutral observer, I have the option of passively disbelieving any and all
>>theories. I emphatically do NOT believe that currently accepted physical
>>theory is the last word--and neither should you.  It is not clear that we will
>>ever have a fully complete theory of everthing, but it is very clear we don't
>>have one today.  That does not mean that I don't agree that what we have is
>>a much better approximation of the truth than what we had 100 years ago, but
>>we will be even better off 100 years in the future.
>>
>We can passively disvelieve in everything. Or passively believe. This is not
>too important here. I have no quarrel with people quietly believing in cnf
>or believing that UFO exist or that there are 57 gods in heaven. The
>situation changes if they start making noise saying that you are wrong and
>that therefore you have to do something: spend energy revising their
>claims, spend money so they can seek support for their claims, etc.
>As for not believing that currently accepted theories are the last word,
>don't worry, that is part of my profession.
>
>>As a computer programmer, I am also (painfully) aware that a complete and
>>accurate theory (by analogy, a bona fide copy of the source code of a program)
>>does not guarantee that one may easily predict all aspects of the behavior of
>>the system modeled by the theory (or dictated by the program).
>>
>>Your argument rests somewhat on the Aristotelian logic of absolutes.  You
>>assume that the least questionable theory is right.
>
>No, that is incorrect. I don't assume that. Rather I accept the theory
>until proved wrong, IF is useful for my research.
>
>>However, even the least
>>questionable theory is still questionable.  And the questionability (probility
>>of correctness) of a theory is not the same thing as its actual correctness:
>>the most probable event may not be the one that actually occurs.  So why
>>assume **any** theory is correct when you don't have to?
>
>But we have to. If I question the laws of physics then I cannot work.
>As for the theories that I don't use, I don't assume anything.
>
>>Constructing a theory (model) that best approximates reality to some useful
>>degree is essentially the pursuit of engineering.  Many so-called "scientists"
>>are actually engineers by this definition.  A pure scientist is not concerned
>>with "good enough" approximations of reality.  He seeks nothing less than
>>the complete, unabridged, infinite-precision knowledge of what is (in spite
>>of indications that such knowlege may be unobtainable).
>
>No, that is not engineering. Engineering is the discipline of design and
>construction of the artificial. A pure scientist is INDEED concerned with
>making models which approximate reality. He does not necessarily seek the
>ultimate detailed understanding. We have limited time in this world, and
>most of us will rather seek the first order solution of several problems
>we judge important than spend a lifetime trying to get infinite precision
>in an infinitesimal field.
>
>>Accepting the "best available" theory is a good strategy for doing
 engineering.
>>It can be a strategic error when doing pure science.  The process of science
>>is not the acceptance of theories--it is rather the rejection of theories.
 The
>>Skeptics (in the context of "cold fusion") are doing their duty in attempting
>>to disprove both the theories and the phenomena related to "Cold Fusion."  But
>>the "True Believers" are also doing their duty by attempting to disprove the
>>"accepted" theories by demonstrating phenomena apparently at variance with
>>those theories.
>
>I agree that the advances often rely on disproving theories. However, it is
>not the role of the Skeptics to disprove that cnf or any other wild claim
>is wrong. Rather, they ask for better evidence, like a reproducible
>setup that can produce reproducible results anywhere.
>
>>As for perpetual motion machines, the case against them is much stronger
>>than the case against new-and-unexplained energy sources.  There is no
>>proof--or well-established theory--that says that heretofore-unobserved
>>mechanisms for energy transduction are impossible in principle.  Also,
>>perpetual motion machines have been fully, completely and undeniably debunked
>>many, many times.  The same is not so with respect to the phenomenon at the
>>heart of the present controversy.
>
>The cases are not so different. The cnf experiments and some wild theories
>appear to contradict common knowledge in a similar way that the perpetual
>motion machines contradict the laws of thermodynamics which, by the way,
>have not been proven, but are postulated.
>
>
>Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
>Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
>University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-1353
 
 
--
 %%%% Alan Lovejoy %%%% | "Do not go gentle into that good night,
 % Ascent Logic Corp. % | Old age should burn and rave at the close of the day;
 UUCP:  lovejoy@alc.com | Rage, rage at the dying of the light!" -- Dylan Thomas
__Disclaimer: I do not speak for Ascent Logic Corp.; they do not speak for me!
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlovejoy cudfnAlan cudlnLovejoy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.17 / Jeffery Sloka /  Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: jssloka@nyquist.waterloo.edu (Jeffery Scott Sloka)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Laser Fusion
Date: 17 Nov 91 03:08:06 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

There has been much discussion over Magnetic Confinement and Cold Fusion.  Has
 there been any recent developments in Inertial Confinement or is most of that
 information still regarded as being classified?  I would like to hear about any
 progress made at Lawrence Livermore or Los Alamos if anyone has heard anything
 either way ( positive or negative ).
 
                             Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjssloka cudfnJeffery cudlnSloka cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.17 / Chuck Sites /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 17 Nov 91 04:42:55 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>In article <1991Nov14.001942.26203@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>>In article <5448@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>>
 
>In Nature 339,667 (1989) F&P and company show a spectrum that they state
>is "one of the complete set of spectra recorded at that time", meaning
>at the time of the experiment published in J.E.Chem 261,301 (1989) and
>the erratum 263,187 (1989).  In this spectrum they identify a peak at
>2.496 MeV as the "Signal peak" and it is evident that there is no peak
>that resembles the peak shown at 2.22 MeV in either the original paper
>(with a peak of 20,000 counts on a 1000 count background) or in the
>erratum (with a peak of about 900 counts on a 100 count background).
>In subsequent papers, in particular J.E.Chem 287,293 (1990), F&P indicate
>that the erratum contains the only corrections to the original paper;
>they do state in Nature, however, that they "have repeatedly pointed out
>(that) we are well aware of the deficiencies of these spectra" -- but
>nowhere can I find a published statement to clarify further exactly
>where the  2.22 peak came from or what they think those deficiencies are.
 
[Later...]
 
>By the way, Petrasso argues that the F&P "Signal peak" is actually at
>2.8 MeV, based on an analysis of the F&P spectrum, and must be an
>artefact of their instrument.  I have always been suspicious of the
>fact that the F&P "Signal peak" falls at the 2.5 MeV energy that F&P
>originally (but incorrectly) thought was the expected gamma-ray energy.
 
Here is PF&H's gamma spectrum as deciphered by Petrasso and group at MIT.
The debate was over the 2.2MeV gamma peak from p(n,gamma)d which doesn't
exist and the 2.5MeV line which does exist.  A 2.2MeV peak should be present
if the reaction resulted from thermal neutrons and 2.5MeV if the spectrum
was from fast neutrons.  I point out a peak at 2.9MeV, which at the
time I could not explain.  Since that time, I have found a reaction which
may explain the 2.9MeV peak.  This is the reaction Li(D,n)Be!
 
 
 
9 +  ..
  |    ..
  +     .
  |     .
  +     . 228              40
  |     .   Ac (0.912)      K (1.46)
 6+     .  89    MeV     / 19   MeV
  |      .   |         .
  +       . ..         .  214
  |        .  .        .    Bi (1.76)         208
  +           .        ..  83    MeV            Tl (2.615)
  |            ..      ..   \                  81   MeV
 3+              .     ..    \  214  (2.117)
  |            /  ..   ..     |   Bi (2.204)     |
  +    214          . .  .    |  83  MeV        /       (?)
  |      Bi (1.12)   .   .    |     |       .  /       /
  +     83    MeV         .. ..     |  (?)--. .       .
  |                         .  ............ .. .   ...
  +-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-|-+-+
 0.4       0.9       1.4       1.9       2.4       2.9
 
            Energy (MeV)    |     See Expanded View     |
                            +- - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
 
 
                                  3
 2+                       D(D,n)He   n @ 2.45MeV
  |                        H(n,gamma)D
  +
  |                              (2.508)
  +    214                         MeV
  |      Bi (1.764)               .
  +     83    MeV                 .      208
  |  /               214 (2.117)  .        Tl (2.615)     (3.03)
 1+                    Bi  MeV    .     / 81               ??
  |..               / 83          .            ???      /     MeV
  o  .                 (2.204)    .   ..      (2.92)  .
  |   ..           .   / Mev     . .  . .        \    ..
  +     .....   ... ...          . . .  .         ..=. .
  |          ...       ......   .   .    .       .      -
  +                          ...          ...   .        -
  |                                          ...          -
  +---+---+---+---+---|---+---+---+---+---|---+---+---+---+---+
 1.7      1.9        2.2         2.5     2.7     2.9  3.0    3.2
 
                        Energy (MeV)
 
Note: the '-' signs indicate this author's best guess for the spectra
after the edge of the photo.
 
I would like to point out the peak at 2.92MeV.  From my interpretation
of the photo, I see a peak here.  Unfortunately, the photo contains a
small glitch (about one video scan line thick) which obscures the
2.95MeV pixel.  I've placed an equal sign at that location, however,
I really suspect there is a separate peak at 2.90-2.97MeV.
 
  With regard to the 2.2 MeV peak verses their 2.5MeV peak, it is
confusing. In their preprint they calculated a normal 2.5MeV
gamma from the capture of a neutron in their water bath. Then at
Harwell they presented a blown up graph of a 2.2MeV gamma peak.
(A pretty bad one at that.)  The hole thing with gamma from
thermalized verses non-thermalized neutrons is pretty confusing
with Ne213 scintillation counters.  So all I can figure is that
P&F made a wrong assumption and persuaded it, and defended it to
the chuckles of those in the know.  I don't think something like
that constiuates fraud as some have asserted here.  It's simply
a matter of someone defending their position until proven better.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \   Plop plop Fizz fizz oh what fusion it is.  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>--
>J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
>Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
>Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / John Moore /  Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz.uucp (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
Date: 15 Nov 91 05:30:16 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

The following is a quick analysis of some of the experimental data
presented in the Mills and Kneizys Cold Fusion Paper. I have not
attempted to analyze the calculation of the cell constant, because not
enough data is presented (although the method is). I will leave the
theory section to the theoriticians. I get a bit twitchy when I see
fractional energy level and shrunken electron orbits. Besides, I'm
not a physicist.
 
First, let me illustrate the meaning of the M&K calculations - I will
use the numbers from experiment 15 (constant current) and 15A (offset
square waves). My calculations are a bit more illustrative (IMHO)
than that in the paper. The goal of the exercise is to calculate
the total power applied to the cell (total power in), and the total
heat dissipated by the cell (total power out). The ratio of these is a gross
measure that should be relatively insensitive to experimental inaccuracy.
Then, the ratios are calculated in terms of net excess power divided
by dissipative electrical power in. This gives a sort of "efficiency"
number which is greater than 1 in all experiments (although negligibly
greater in the Na2Co3 "control". This is the number that can get quite
large (especially when expressed in percentages) and that yields
claims like 3766% excess power. This number is significantly more
sensitive to experimental inaccuracy, and is calculated in a manner similar
to that used by Fleischman and Pons.
 
Note that these calculations are for an open cell calorimeter, and that
they do not include evaporative losses and heat carried out by
the evolved gasses (other than the enthalpy of formation of water -
the 1.48*I factor). They also do not account for any recombination
of the electrolysis products, although early experiments in CNF
calorimetry purportedly show that recombination is <5%.
 
Notation (mine):
  I = Current (times duty cycle for offset square wave) (Amperes)
  E = Voltage (Peak voltage for square wave) (Volts)
  Qh= Power applied to resistive heater in cell (Watts)
  Kc= Cell constant (degrees C/Watt)
  Tc= Cell temperature differential (degrees C)
 
 
                                              Exp 15    Exp 15A
Total Electrical Power In:     Pi = I*E + Qh    .225      2.212
Total Electrolysis Power In:   Pe = I*E         .225       .184
Electrolysis Gas Loss:         Pl = I*1.48      .121       .121
Net Power into Cell:           Pc = Pe - Pl     .104      2.09
Net Power into Cell (less Qh): Pn = Pc-Qh       .104       .0633
Power Out:                     Po = Tc/Kc       .325      2.940
Net Excess Heat:               Px = Po - Pc     .221       .853
Gross Power Ratio:             Pg = Po/Pi      1.444      1.407
Net Power "gain":              Pq = Px/Pn      2.13      13.47*
 
*M&K get 13.55 for this value
 
I will present a several of the experiments using the above calculations
(There were a lot of experiments... I am just picking a few representative
ones):
 
Experiment   	Pi     Pc     Po     Px     Pg     P1
   1          .247   .140   .601   .494   2.00   3.28
  15          .225   .104   .325   .221   1.14   2.13
  15A        2.212  2.09   2.94    .853   1.41  13.47
  15A recalc 2.414  2.294  2.67    .379   1.16   2.13
  18          .277   .1594  .1624  .003   1.02    .019
 
Experiment 1     used the offset square wave.
Experiment 15    used constant voltage/current.
Experiment 15A   used constant voltage/current plus an additional resistive
  cell heater
Experiment 15A "recalc" is a gedanken experiment where I assumed
  a 10% underestimate of power in, and a 10% overestimate of power out for
  experiment 15A.
Experiment 18    is a Na2CO3 control. The others shown used K2CO3.
 
There are a number of interesting observations that can be made
from this data (and this is typical of other experiments):
  -The power "gain" is much higher for cases when the heater is employed.
   The authors explain this as due to better a shrinkage rate at the
   higher temperatures, but it also is the sort of proportional effect
   that one might expect from systematic measurement error (F&P results
   had this same characteristic).
  -In all cases, the gross output power is significantly greater than the
   gross input power. This means that measurement errors would have to be
   significant to explain the excess heat (except for the fact that
   measurement was not continuous). See gedanken experiment 15A recalc.
  -The data for the pulsed case is slighly suspicious, in that the
   calculation that I checked (Experiment 1) makes the assumption that
   no current flows during the "off" time, and that a constant, peak
   voltage and current occur during the "on" time. The oscillographs in
   the paper show a waveform with an exponential current decay during
   the "off" time, and a corresponding exponential voltage decay. This
   would result in a few percent more power into the cells than given
   by the the simple calculations used.
  -In case 15A recalc, one can see that a significant experimental error
   still yields gross excess heat (although not much).
 
Some other questions come to mind:
  -what went on in the cells during the time they were stabilizing before
   measurements were made? Was energy being "stored?" (I doubt it, but
   it was not measured). Whenever a cell parameter was altered, many
   hours elapsed for stabilization before data was recorded.
  -how about cell constant changes due to loss of electrolyte. As far
   as I can tell (from the calculations), this IS an open cell system. As
   the electrolyte is depeleted by electrolysis, one would expect cell
   constant changes. Were these measured at the start AND end of the cycle?
  -how much electrolyte was lost to electrolysis [this could be sort of
   calculated from the data given if we knew the total length of the
   experiment]. Was any electrolyte replaced during the experimental runs?
  -some of the experimental accuracies are suspiciously good - .1%
   DC current regulation using the LM317T for example.  For the current
   ranges given, the LM317T is specified at .3 to 1.5% regulation. The
   resistance heater was spec'd at 1% and no compensation for a non-zero
   tempco was calculated. Ambient temperature stability is claimed
   to be +/-.1 degree C, which again seems optimistic. The time averaged
   current at 500Hz was measured with a multimeter (+/-.2%), but I wonder
   how good a typical digital DC multimeter is at this sort of
   averaging (unless it is designed for it).
 
Finally, it the theory is any good, there should be a number of radically
different experiments to test it. I wonder if any have been considered
or tried.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.16 / A Soul /  Re: Trilithium?
     
Originally-From: lcm1501@hertz.njit.edu (A Wayward Soul)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trilithium?
Date: 16 Nov 91 00:22:21 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1991Nov15.182330.8712@nynexst.com> gene@nynexst.com (Gene Miller)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov15.125541.16307@rdg.dec.com> evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com
 (Gwyn Evans) writes:
>>    I'm not sure, but I think that the difference was in using a much
>>higher proportion of trilithium (sp?) than in previous runs.
>
>I think that Trilithium Crystals were used by Scotty to
>power the Starship Enterprise.
>--
 
      No it was Dilithium Crystals, and thats Chief Engineer Montgomery
Scott.
 
--
 "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable must be the truth !" Sherlock Holmes
  Lawrence C Mc Abee, "The lone Sophomore of 2nd floor Cypress Hall"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlcm1501 cudfnA cudlnSoul cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.17 / Mark Hopkins /  Cold Fusion's 45 years old
     
Originally-From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion's 45 years old
Date: 17 Nov 91 09:52:26 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

In article <9111152325.AA17433@suntan.Tandem.COM>
 <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu> writes:
>In short there is darned little to support cold fusion beyond the heat
>measurements.  Anybody have any corrections to this?
 
Cold fusion's been around for years.  In fact, Sakharov is one of the developers
of the concept.
 
Muons catalyse the process by binding with deutrium and tritium in a cyclic
process that frees up the muon for more cycles.  That can occur at temperatures
way below room temperature, though it's probably functioning best at around
900C or so.
 
The problem is the muons.  They're unstable, so they don't last long enough
to undergo enough cycles to eliminate the energy deficit.  But good research
could change that, with the potential for reactors only a few inches large at
relatively cool temperatures...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmarkh cudfnMark cudlnHopkins cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.17 / J Lewis /  Re: Cold Fusion's 45 years old
     
Originally-From: jlewis@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion's 45 years old
Date: 17 Nov 91 14:49:42 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

 
Re muon-catalysed cold fusion:
 
	Presumably the (undoubtedly dismal) prospects for "economical"
generation of muons in quantity have been analysed.  Would anyone have
figures or a reference?
 
John Lewis
Physics Dept.
Memorial Univ of Nfld.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlewis cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.17 / William Johnson /  Re: Current State of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Current State of Cold Fusion
Date: 17 Nov 91 16:52:33 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

Dick Blue asks:
 
>  Anybody have any corrections to this?
 
One slight one, Dick ...
 
>For Noel Colaco:  There have been two books recently published on
>Cold Fusion that may give you the info you seek.  For a pro cold fusion
>veiwpoint the author is E. Menlove, the title something like "Fire from
> Ice." [...]
 
Confusion exists here.  The author is Eugene Mallove -- not Menlove -- and
the title is "Fire from Ice" as you say.  It is altogether too easy to
confuse Mallove with Howard *Men*love, a Los Alamos staff member (lab Fellow,
in fact) who continues to claim to see neutron emission at low levels.  (I
am *extremely* dubious about his experiment; institutional disclaimers apply,
but see our paper Anderson et al. at the Provo love-fest for some explanations
of why.)  Mallove and Menlove are not connected, except to the extent that
Menlove was one of the recipients of the famous petition originated by Mallove
(and others) and mentioned by Terry Bollinger in a s.p.f post a couple of weeks
ago. Don't know whether Howard signed it, though.
 
--
Bill Johnson			| "A man should never be ashamed to own he
Los Alamos National Laboratory	| has been in the wrong, which is but saying,
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA	| in other words, that he is wiser to-day
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)	| than he was yesterday."  (A. Pope)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / Dieter Britz /  RE: HELP; Putterman & Barber
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: HELP; Putterman & Barber
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 15:26:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A few days ago, I wrote
 
>There has been some discussion of the Putterman & Barber paper in Nature
>(photoacoustics), and I've been trying to find this paper, without success. As
>we are up to date to 7-Nov, I don't believe it's because that issue has yet to
>come to us. Does anyone out there know which issue of Nature this paper is in?
>This might have interest for more than just me, so the net might be a good
>place for the reply. Thanks in advance.
>
>Mark Thorson
 
Sorry, Mark, your name should not have been in there. I used an old posting in
order to get the author names right, and then overlooked that bit when cutting
away at it.
 Thanks, Raul Bariogla, for the reference. The paper is older than I thought.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 15:27:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
 
%In article <5448@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
%>In article <1991Nov11.234317.22575@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
% M. Koloc) writes:
%>>In article <5386@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
%>>>In article <1991Nov10.055317.5449@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
% writes:
%>>
%>>>>already knows that Dr.'s Fleishman and Pons made erroneous claims
%>>>
%>>>The question is whether some of them were fraudulent
%>>
%>>That's a tough one,  very very few groups can do neutron measurements
%>>correctly, and I think that is why (at least at one time) they [F&P]
%>>were talking to Jones.
%>
%>That is not the question.  If Close is correct [and he has not been
%>sued about the book :-) yet] then they basically put a peak where
%>they needed it to be to argue for fusion.  Without that data, there
%>is no paper to be published and no news conference to be held.
%>The sequence of papers in Nature pussyfoot around the crucial issue
%>of where that peak came from and how the spectrum was "recalibrated".
%
%That doesn't generate sufficient support for fraud.  My guess is that
 
.. etc etc. I have used % instead of > here for obvious reasons. Is there
anyone who can follow this nest of >'s; in fact, can you yourself, Paul? For
me, the limit is at a depth of about two, after that, I get lost.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 00:48:21 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <50304@cup.portal.com> lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew -
Palfreyman) writes:
> John Carey:
> > They required 18 MW to heat the materials, and got 2 MW out from the
fusion.
>
> Umm, but 18 MW for only one microsecond, and 2 MW for 2 seconds? :->
>
> Come on now; distinguishing between energy and power is not that difficult!
> I'm not picking on John here; this is just the umpteenth time I've seen
> this mistake in the last week or so.
 
From what I've heard, they had the heating on the entire time---this
makes good sense, since the reaction does not generate nearly enough
energy to sustain itself, so its just gonna go out if you
don't keep the heat on (and I assume they wanted to react as much
of the T as possible, rather than put it in simply to redistribute it
throughout the machine). (With the heat on, time is limited by confinement.)
 
Also, since the 18MW beams were on at all times, this means they got
pretty little info on alpha physics, because all the energy in the beams
swamps the energy in the alphas. I hear they did 2 DT shots, and that
they had pretty limited alpha diagnostics in place (perhaps for the above
reason), so they don't expect to learn anything about alpha physics
from the experiments.
 
The prevailing opinion around here is that it is a historic moment
in fusion development---the first time T has ever been burned in
a reactor---and a technical achievement (using the beams to load the
T, T handling issues), definitely something you could call a milestone.
But calling it a breakthrough is not really appropriate, because things
went as planned (i.e. planned for many years) and the run itself was
not their best, in terms of plasma parameters, Q,  etc.
 
Its a bit like saying that, on a drive from LA to NY, when you get to
Nevada you've made a breakthrough.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.17 / Matt Kennel /  Re: HELP; Putterman & Barber
     
Originally-From: mbk@jacobi.tmc.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HELP; Putterman & Barber
Date: 17 Nov 91 21:12:21 GMT
Organization: Univ of Calif, San Diego

rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
> B. P. Barber and S. J. Putterman, Nature 352 (25 July 1991) 318-320.
> They are from the Physics Dept. at UCLA.
> Sound energy is concentrated in a very small spot (<10 microns dia.)
> in a glycerine-water mixture. Blue light is emitted in 10^5 very fast
> (<100 ps) blue light flashes (@ 1mW each instantaneous power),
 
Only blue light?  Oh well, somebody else said that the photons
were keV-MeV range (!!!!), which I thought was unbelievable, but amazing
if true.
 
> visible to the eye. The energy density in the sound field is about
> 10^-11 eV/atom, therefore, a ~ 10^11 amplification is needed for an
> atom to emit a visible photon. This appears enormous particularly in
> light of a cavitation model where the energy delivered goes into
> forming a bubble that then collapses with the result that the energy
> ends up in a few molecules.
 
> It would be interesting to have some discussion about this and to hear
> why people think it might be related to cnf.
 
What happens if they make the apparatus much larger, and
make bubbles out of D and T?  Very high amplitude sound sources, previously
used for military purposes, are now becoming available for oceonographic
research.
 
 
 
> Raul A. Baragiola
> Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
> University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-1353
 
 
 
Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.15 / Chris Cooke /  Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
     
Originally-From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
Date: 15 Nov 91 14:29:42 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

In article <9C}A8}B@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, esuze@warwick.ac.uk (I Alexander)
 writes:
 
> I was under the impression that fusion had been achieved many times, but that
> the problem was that one had to put so much energy in, and that retrieval was
> so inefficient that it didn't even approach cost-effectiveness.
> i didn't think that getting the actual reaction to occur was the problem??
 
I think the problem is to keep it stable.  Presumably fusion happening
for a second or two is better than the tiny fraction of a second they
achieved before; although it's still not very useful yet!
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencc cudfnChris cudlnCooke cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 17 Nov 91 21:13:57 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Nov17.044255.4613@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>               ....                          A 2.2MeV peak should be present
>if the reaction resulted from thermal neutrons and 2.5MeV if the spectrum
>was from fast neutrons.
 
This is simply incorrect.  A 2.5 MeV neutron does not emit a gamma ray.
I know quite a number of experimental physicist who wish it were so easy.
 
The 2.5 MeV neutron is thermalized by collisions in the water, and the
thermal neutron is then captured with the emission of 2.22 MeV gamma.
The energy of the initial neutron can be detected only by measuring the
recoil energy of an atomic nucleus that it struck.
 
>                         I point out a peak at 2.9MeV, which at the
>time I could not explain.  Since that time, I have found a reaction which
>may explain the 2.9MeV peak.  This is the reaction Li(D,n)Be!
 
You were not very clear if you meant the Li-6 initial state (only 7.5%
abundant, with a 3.38 MeV Q-value), which makes Be-7 with a 52 day
half-life, or the Li-7 initial state (with a 15 MeV Q-value), which
makes Be-8, which immediately produces two alphas.  The Coulomb barrier
is significantly worse than for d+d fusion in both cases.
 
Be-7 will not give a 2.9 MeV gamma ray.  Be-8 has an excited state at
2.94 MeV whose dominant decay mode is via alpha decay; indeed, the
standard reference I checked did not show any gamma-decay branch from
said state.  There could be a very weak branch, since I did not waste the
time to track down Ajzenberg-Selove to know for sure.  Futher, it would
be much more difficult to make an excited state than the ground state
because of the Coulomb barrier.  None of which addresses the fact that
the "peaks" in question do not have the shape or Compton edge expected
if they resulted from the absorption of a gamma ray in NaI.
 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
>o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
>O O O O O \   Plop plop Fizz fizz oh what fusion it is.  |it gets. / O O O O O
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.17 / A Palfreyman /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 17 Nov 91 22:38:03 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

John Carey:
> They required 18 MW to heat the materials, and got 2 MW out from the fusion.
 
Umm, but 18 MW for only one microsecond, and 2 MW for 2 seconds? :->
 
Come on now; distinguishing between energy and power is not that difficult!
I'm not picking on John here; this is just the umpteenth time I've seen
this mistake in the last week or so.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lord snooty @the giant | I don't know what ftp is, and God forbid that somebody
poisoned electric head | as inept as you should instruct me.    - Petr Beckmann
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlordSnooty cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
Date: 18 Nov 91 07:06:18 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

John Moore writes:
 
  -The data for the pulsed case is slighly suspicious, in that the
   calculation that I checked (Experiment 1) makes the assumption that
   no current flows during the "off" time, and that a constant, peak
   voltage and current occur during the "on" time. The oscillographs in
   the paper show a waveform with an exponential current decay during
   the "off" time, and a corresponding exponential voltage decay. This
   would result in a few percent more power into the cells than given
   by the the simple calculations used.
 
It seems to me that the assumptions are not necessarily optimistic.
The current that flows after the "off" time may be from energy stored
in the inductance of the wiring and electrodes, and this energy is
alread accounted for by integrating I*E over the "on" time.
 
Some of the numbers from the same posting seem to be incorrect.  For
instance, Pg (= Pi/Pg) for experiment 1 should be .601/.247 = 2.43
rather than 2.00. As I do not have access to the original Mills &
Kneizys paer, I cannot determine which numbers may have been typed
in incorrectly.  Can someone post the corrections?
 
I cannot understand why there is not more excitment over the Mills
et al work.  They seem to have avoided the problems with the P&F
work and have impressive reproducable results.  Why not more discussion?
-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / Mike Melnyk /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: rmm@baldwin.ipac.caltech.edu (Mike Melnyk)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 19:55:04 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology

In article <50304@cup.portal.com> lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew -
 Palfreyman) writes:
>John Carey:
>> They required 18 MW to heat the materials, and got 2 MW out from the fusion.
>
>Umm, but 18 MW for only one microsecond, and 2 MW for 2 seconds? :->
>
>Come on now; distinguishing between energy and power is not that difficult!
>I'm not picking on John here; this is just the umpteenth time I've seen
>this mistake in the last week or so.
 
 
Right. Has anyone found out how much ENERGY was input and how much ENERGY
was output? (In units of Joules would be nice.)
 
Perhaps the input & output were expressed in Watts instead of Joules (or
Calories) since John Q. Public has heard of Watts and doesn't know the
difference between energy and power.
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Melnyk                                         rmm@ipac.caltech.edu
Infrared Processing and Analysis Center
JPL/Caltech
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrmm cudfnMike cudlnMelnyk cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 /   /   Funny Graph In Mallove Book
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Funny Graph In Mallove Book
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 01:18:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have been working my way through E. Mallove's book and I have come
upon a graph purported to be from a presentation at the First Annual
Conference on Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons.  For those of you
in possession of this fine volume, the graph in question is on page 217.
I am most puzzzled by the label on the vertical axis of graph (b) which
I shall attempt to reproduce as accurately as is possible on this
medium:
 
                [        ENTHALPY GENERATION    ]
          LOG   [ 100 X ________________________]
                [    JOULE ENTHALPY INPUT       ]      .
The graphed data of this quantity plotted vs. time in units of 10^6 s
starts at about 1.00, remains near that value until t = 1.6 Mega seconds
when it rises suddenly to above 3.000.  It then tails off to about 2.00
and then falls sharply to near 1.00 where it remains from 3.2 to nearly
8 on the time scale.
 
My problem:  What is ENTHALPY GENERATION?  My first guess was that it
is the heat output of the cell as deduced from the temperature data plotted
in graph (a) directly above.  If that is so then when heat out matches
the heat input the ratio would be 1.000 and the log (base 10) of 100
times that ratio would give a value of 2.000.  But the plotted data
clearly starts near 1.00 indicating that ENTHALPY GENERATION is 0.10
times the JOULE ENTHALPY INPUT upon startup.  Next guess was that
ENTHALPY GENERATION is the "surplus" after taking the difference between
heat out and heat in.  In that case one would expect initially the
ENTHALPY GENERATION to be zero and the LOG of zero is.... well that
doesn't seem to work out either.
 
Is it possible that Fleischmann and Pons screwed up in plotting their
data again!  Perhaps Dr. Mallove or those in contact with him can
clear up this little point.  There are some other rather strange
things about these graphs that I may comment on after we clear up
the first question.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / Woody Ligon /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 18 Nov 91 13:21:29 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research and Devel.

In article <1991Nov13.085011.28432@funet.fi> latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala
Ari) writes:
> 5.      Could someone having nuclear physics degree estimate,
>         what form (mix) the actual "fusion power" was and how
>         much of problem waste we have in the inner shells of JET
>         reactor now. Decay estimates et cetera?
>
> --
 
Although I generally support both research on and application of all forms
of nuclear energy, I also very much support the sort of openess called for
in this posting.
 
In the fifties, the fission folks gave us the platitutes of Reddy
Kilowatt.  When the real world turned out to be just a little more
complicated, they couldn't deliver on the simplistic dream, and
completely lost the confidence of the population.
 
The current public treatments of fusion seem to be going down the same road. To
 the best of my knowledge, the amount of "waste" produced by fusion may be
just as great as that produced by fission although the nuclides may be
different from fission--depending on the composition of the first wall.
Arguments to the effect that first wall elements can be chosen to give
promptly decaying neutron capture products are specious because nothing
but nothing is ever completely pure. The traces of other elements always
present in any single element are more than enough to cause problems.
Exactly this simplistic assumption of purity has historically come back to haunt
 fission engineers time and again. Furthermore, fusion plants may be just as
 hard to decommission.
 
I once heard (might be urban legend??) that a fusion researcher was asked
about these messy little details and his reply was something on the order
of "I guess when folks find out, we're going to have a little public
relations problem".   That sort of studied cynicism underestimates the
sophistication of the public and potentially imperils public confidence in
science, scientists and ultimately in what may be a very valuable
technology.  It is much better to tell the whole truth and let the people
decide.
 
Driven by hard economic times and a long history of half-truths, the
eco-freak movement is rapidly losing steam.  I believe that what the
people want most to know now is just who it is that they can believe.  We should
 be doing what we can to make sure that most folks think scientists are
 generally credible.  Especially in light of the enormous cost of fusion
 research, telling the whole truth about fusion would be an particularly good
 way to enhance this process.
 
Woody Ligon
 
====================================
All the mistakes are mine--forever.
All the rest is mine to give away.
====================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenLigon cudfnWoody cudlnLigon cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / Paul Dietz /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 18 Nov 91 14:01:02 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <25139@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
 writes:
 
> The current public treatments of fusion seem to be going down the same
> road. To the best of my knowledge, the amount of "waste" produced by
> fusion may be just as great as that produced by fission although the
> nuclides may be different from fission--depending on the composition
> of the first wall.  Arguments to the effect that first wall elements
> can be chosen to give promptly decaying neutron capture products are
> specious because nothing but nothing is ever completely pure. The
> traces of other elements always present in any single element are more
> than enough to cause problems.
 
This betrays a lack of understanding.  The goal of choosing a wall
material composed primarily of elements with no long lived activation
products is to reduce the long term activity, not to eliminate it
completely (which would be rather pointless).  Surely, one need not
reduce the impurities to zero to reduce the long term activation to a
level much less than the activity of fission waste?
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.16 /  cornell@sc2a.u /  Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
     
Originally-From: cornell@sc2a.unige.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: !!fusion (very hot!) acieved in UK !!
Date: 16 Nov 91 13:12:49 GMT
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland

In article <1991Nov15.125541.16307@rdg.dec.com>, evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com
 (Gwyn Evans) writes:
>
>     I'm not sure, but I think that the difference was in using a much
> higher proportion of trilithium (sp?) than in previous runs.
>
 
Fans of US TV know that if they'd been using dilithium right from the start,
they'd have achieved warp speed by now.
 
> --
> +==================== E-mail: Gwyn.Evans@ime.mts.dec.com
 =====================+
> | [ VMS-mail: uproar::evansg ] [ DTN: 769-8108 ] [ A1-mail: Gwyn Evans @IME ]
 |
> |Compamy: DESISCo - Digital Equipment Service Industries Solutions Company
 Ltd|
> |>> Above opinions are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of DEC
 <<|
>
 +=============================================================================+
 
Stephen Cornell :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencornell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / A Whimwham /  Re: Trilithium?
     
Originally-From: frankm@microsoft.com (Advenient Whimwham)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.culture.british,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trilithium?
Date: 18 Nov 91 02:53:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

Good show, lads, and all that, what.
 
--
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Only the mediocre can always be at their best." -- Mencken
For an average time write uunet!microsoft!frankm
For an even more mediocre time try frankm@microsoft.com
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenfrankm cudfnAdvenient cudlnWhimwham cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / John Carey /  Re: Fusion
     
Originally-From: carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John Carey)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion
Date: 18 Nov 91 20:35:21 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
 
>John Carey:
>> They required 18 MW to heat the materials, and got 2 MW out from the fusion.
 
>Umm, but 18 MW for only one microsecond, and 2 MW for 2 seconds? :->
 
>Come on now; distinguishing between energy and power is not that difficult!
>I'm not picking on John here; this is just the umpteenth time I've seen
>this mistake in the last week or so.
Blame the article I read, from the clarinews service, they used MW units
for both values.  Come on,
expect journalism/english majors to understand physics?
 
The implication was that they were nowhere near a breakeven point,
but that is obviously not made clear by the article.  Somebody will
have to find a more technical article.
--
John Carey
University of Illinois
Dept. of Computer Science
carey@a.cs.uiuc.edu {uu-net,pur-ee,convex,...}!uiucdcs!carey
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencarey cudfnJohn cudlnCarey cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Mark Zenier /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: mzenier@polari.uucp (Mark Zenier)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 19 Nov 91 00:33:55 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944

In article <25139@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
 writes:
>The current public treatments of fusion seem to be going down the same road. To
 the best of my knowledge, the amount of "waste" produced by fusion may be
>just as great as that produced by fission although the nuclides may be
>different from fission--depending on the composition of the first wall.
 
There was an cover story in "Technology Review" around 1985-1986 which
criticized fusion.  One of the items mentioned was that the neutron flux
in the reactors would be 10 times that of a fission reactor.
 
Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com  mzenier%polari@sumax.seattleu.edu
 
(Couldn't find that issue, sorry about the aproximate reference.)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmzenier cudfnMark cudlnZenier cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Dustin Laurence /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: laurence@karl.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Dustin Laurence)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 01:43:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

mzenier@polari.uucp (Mark Zenier) writes:
 
>There was an cover story in "Technology Review" around 1985-1986 which
>criticized fusion.  One of the items mentioned was that the neutron flux
>in the reactors would be 10 times that of a fission reactor.
 
>Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com  mzenier%polari@sumax.seattleu.edu
 
>(Couldn't find that issue, sorry about the aproximate reference.)
 
As I recall there is one (and only one to my knowledge) light-nucleus
fusion reaction that doesn't produce neutrons:
 
    D + He3 --> H + He4 + gamma
 
It even has a good energy yield.  All you have to do is get the D &
the He3 nuclei together, when we can't even do it yet with singly
charged nuclei.  Piece 'O cake.... :)
 
Plus at that temperature, there ought to be LOTS of D + D reactions as
well, which do produce neutrons.  Unless you use a beam/target
technique, or something exotic.
 
I agree, there are some truly unreasonable expectations over fusion
out there.  The real advantage is not that there will be no waste
products, just that there will be no (barring contamination, as
someone pointed out) heavy decay products with very long lifetimes.
 
But then, nuclear power is either the path to heaven or hell, and not
something to think rationally about anyway.
 
Just my two-bits worth.
 
Dustin       laurence@alice.caltech.edu
                         or
             laurence@alice.wonderland.caltech.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlaurence cudfnDustin cudlnLaurence cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / Doug Merritt /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.COM (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 18 Nov 91 18:44:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <25139@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
 writes:
>Arguments to the effect that first wall elements can be chosen to give
>promptly decaying neutron capture products are specious because nothing
>but nothing is ever completely pure. The traces of other elements always
>present in any single element are more than enough to cause problems.
 
Although I agree that there's reason to think that fusion reactors will
produce messy isotopes in the walls, I disagree with the precise claim
you made here. It is in fact possible to create *almost* completely pure
elements (e.g. zone refining), to such an extent that the impurities are
completely negligible. The semiconductor industry does this routinely.
 
The fact that this is not done all that commonly with metal alloys
does not mean it's impossible. Far from it, it *has* been done for
various special purposes. Ultra-pure metal alloys are certainly
expensive, but not unobtainable.
 
On the other hand, the metallurgical properties of ultrapure alloys
are usually wildly different than the merely almost pure, so there
are likely to be new structural & metallurgical engineering problems
in working with such alloys (as opposed to creating them).
 
I am also unclear as to whether the isotopic content of the wall
elements will turn out to be an issue. It would obviously be far
more expensive to create isotopically ultrapure alloys than simply
chemically ultrapure alloys. But again, not impossible.
 
>It is much better to tell the whole truth and let the people decide.
 
The whole truth is not a secret by any means. Therefore you seem to
be saying that fusion *propagandizing* and its slogans should make sure
to point out such problems, which seems obviously fallacious to me.
 
Making information available to the general public is an excellent goal.
But successfully actively *educating* the general public about both pros and
cons of any issue is impossible. In statistical masses, people polarize
to different extremes of the spectrum on any given issue, and they do
not do so by reasoned consideration of "subtle" tradeoffs.
 
A great deal of your post contained references to issues such as:
 
	Scientists are (should be) credible (and/or are not)
	"The people" should be told the whole truth (and have not been)
	Fusion has quality X which is good/bad
	Etc.
 
All of these issues are ill-posed to begin with, because they are all
over-generalizations which can only be correctly stated in terms of
less general terms. For instance, some fusion proponents are willing
to talk about the imperfect side of fusion reactors, and some are not.
Some members of the general public are already aware of the imperfections,
and some are not. Some scientists are credible, and some are not.
 
In no case is it possible to reduce the complexity of such statements
to a single summation such as "scientists are/are not credible" or
"the public should/should not believe scientists, because such a
simplistic approach necessarily throws away important information.
 
Directly answering ill-posed comments such as these is like trying
to hold water in a sieve.
	Doug
--
Doug Merritt	doug@netcom.com   -or- doug@eris.berkeley.edu
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.18 / John Moore /  Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
Date: 18 Nov 91 16:47:30 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <50335@cup.portal.com> Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
]John Moore writes:
]
]  -The data for the pulsed case is slighly suspicious, in that the
]   calculation that I checked (Experiment 1) makes the assumption that
]   no current flows during the "off" time, and that a constant, peak
]   voltage and current occur during the "on" time. The oscillographs in
]   the paper show a waveform with an exponential current decay during
]   the "off" time, and a corresponding exponential voltage decay. This
]   would result in a few percent more power into the cells than given
]   by the the simple calculations used.
]
]It seems to me that the assumptions are not necessarily optimistic.
]The current that flows after the "off" time may be from energy stored
]in the inductance of the wiring and electrodes, and this energy is
]alread accounted for by integrating I*E over the "on" time.
Given the low frequency (500 Hz), there would have to be a large amount
of inductance or capacitance in the system for this to be true. On the
other hand, we really are talking about a relatively small error.
 
]
]Some of the numbers from the same posting seem to be incorrect.  For
]instance, Pg (= Pi/Pg) for experiment 1 should be .601/.247 = 2.43
]rather than 2.00. As I do not have access to the original Mills &
]Kneizys paer, I cannot determine which numbers may have been typed
]in incorrectly.  Can someone post the corrections?
You are correct. The summay I presented represented recalculation of
their results. The 2.43 is the correct value - I miscalculated. However,
the net excess heat figure I arrived at is the same as in the paper,
so the intermediate calculations must be correct (or equally wrong :-).
 
I'll put in the data as presented in the paper for the experiments
I mentioned:
 
				1	15	15A
Offset Voltage (V)		2.37	0	0
Peak Voltage(V)			3.43	2.748	2.247
Peak Current (mA)		180	82	82
Cell Constnat (deg C/W)		14.8	17.5	17.5
Q Header (W)			0	0.0  	2.028
Delta-Tb (deg C)		8.9	5.7	51.5
Delta T Cell (deg C)		2.08	1.82	1.01
Excess Heat (%)			328	213	1355
 
 
I think I copied this right (I checked it). I left out a few of the
values this time, but I think you can get the necessary data from this.
 
]I cannot understand why there is not more excitment over the Mills
]et al work.  They seem to have avoided the problems with the P&F
]work and have impressive reproducable results.  Why not more discussion?
 
My guess would be that everyone is being VERY CAUTIOUS after having been
burned (frozen?) by the F&P fiasco. Also, the theory behind this experimental
work is pretty exotic and not likely to find easy acceptance.
 
However, I find this work to be the most exciting I have seen in the field
since the TAMU experiments (which subsequently were found to have some flaws).
 
Also, this can be trivially reproduced by anyone with a calorimeter, so it
will stand or fall soon.
 
I also would like to see more discussion. I was purposefully as critical
as possible on the article, and yet making pretty nasty assumptions I still
come up with excess heat.
 
I would suggest that someone should do a closed cell calorimetry on this
system, with continuous recording of temperature, current and voltage
for the entire duration of the experiment. This can rule out a lot of
potential experimental errors.
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 02:41:33 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <25139@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
writes:
> In article <1991Nov13.085011.28432@funet.fi> latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala
> Ari) writes:
> > 5.      Could someone having nuclear physics degree estimate,
> >         what form (mix) the actual "fusion power" was and how
> >         much of problem waste we have in the inner shells of JET
> >         reactor now. Decay estimates et cetera?
> >
> > --
>
> Although I generally support both research on and application of all forms
> of nuclear energy, I also very much support the sort of openess called for
> in this posting.
>
 
Well, its no secret. And use your head---do you think the Jet
scientists are going to irradiate their machine to the point where they
can use it anymore, or have a major waste disposal problem? They
do consider these things, you know---its not like they need some
lay person to remind them.
 
Flames aside, Jet is scheduled for a major upgrade in four
months, which will take about 18 months to complete. Thus the timing
of the experiment, which does make their machine innaccesible for
on the order of a month (someone at Jet could provide the precise
figures----I heard they might seal it off for up to 4 months, or
maybe just a couple weeks). In deciding
what "dose" to give the machine, one factor was to make the dose comparable
to the previous dose recieved from all the D-D fusion over the past
decade---that way you don't induce much additional long lived
activation or radiation damage over what was there already. In any case,
since they are gonna ipgrade in ~ 4 months, you know that puts an upper
bound on the activation period.
 
As for the power mix, it comes out 80% as 14MeV neutrons, and 20%
as alpha particles.
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Mischa Sandberg /  Recoverability of tritium
     
Originally-From: Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca (Mischa Sandberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recoverability of tritium
Date: 19 Nov 91 06:05:39 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

On the (Canadian) radio science program, "Quirks and Quarks",
one of the researchers from JET mentioned that the tritium used in the reaction
was completely recoverable and reusable. A recent poster mentioned that the
"D+T" reactor proponents' statements that energy would be as cheap as sea-water
were off-base, since the tritium was the expensive and rare component, and went
so far as to say it was like calling an automobile an engine that "runs" on the
boundless supply of atmospheric oxygen :-). Any comments?
--
Mischa Sandberg ... Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca
                 or uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Mischa_Sandberg
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality.
Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations.
Mathematicians never make the connection.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenMischa_Sandberg cudfnMischa cudlnSandberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Lars Silen /  Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
     
Originally-From: les@hutcs.cs.hut.fi (Lars Silen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
Date: 19 Nov 91 08:53:57 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1991Nov18.164730.16843@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
 
 
 
>
>I also would like to see more discussion. I was purposefully as critical
>as possible on the article, and yet making pretty nasty assumptions I still
>come up with excess heat.
>
>I would suggest that someone should do a closed cell calorimetry on this
>system, with continuous recording of temperature, current and voltage
>for the entire duration of the experiment. This can rule out a lot of
>potential experimental errors.
>
 
I have been planning a modified experiment as part of a
undergraduate course in computer based measurement technique
'The PC used in Industrial measurement an control'
that I am lecturing at the Helsinki University of Technology.
The idea is as follows:
 
For inexperienced (2 .. 3 yr students) managing a calorimeter
properly may be diffycult. In order to simplify the experiment the
cell temperature is held at ambient temperature using a peltier cooler.
Because the temperature difference is very small, heat losses should
also be very small. By calibrating the cooler in respect to cooling power
versus input electrical power a 'direct' measurement of the total
heating power of the system should be possible. Because the
system is going to be computer controlled (the control is actually
the main point) there are no problems to do long time (1 - 2 weeks)
measurements where the following parameters are measured:
 
- Total input electrical energy
- Total input mechanical energy (stirrer)
- Temperature difference
- Input electrical energy from optional heater
  used for calibrations of the peltier cooler.
 
The experiment seems perfect to make students familiar with
how to measure/control the most basic process parameters encountered
in the chemical industry (voltage, current, temperature...).
 
The fact that the result of the experiment is unknown makes it
very interesting to the students ... significantly reducing the
failure rate of the participants!
 
Any comments?
 
Lars Silen
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenles cudfnLars cudlnSilen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 19 Nov 91 08:58:51 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Nov18.140102.10078@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <25139@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
 writes:
 
>> The current public treatments of fusion seem to be going down the same
>> road. To the best of my knowledge, the amount of "waste" produced by
>> fusion may be just as great as that produced by fission although the
>> nuclides may be different from fission--depending on the composition
>> of the first wall.  Arguments to the effect that first wall elements
>> can be chosen to give promptly decaying neutron capture products are
>> specious because nothing but nothing is ever completely pure. The
>> traces of other elements always present in any single element are more
>> than enough to cause problems.
 
>This betrays a lack of understanding.  The goal of choosing a wall
>material composed primarily of elements with no long lived activation
>products is to reduce the long term activity, not to eliminate it
>completely (which would be rather pointless).  Surely, one need not
>reduce the impurities to zero to reduce the long term activation to a
>level much less than the activity of fission waste?
 
I agree that there exists a lack of understanding -- enough to go around.
We are not talking about fission versus generic fusion, but rather fission
versus TOKAMAK with hybrid fission-fusion.  There is no way that the
world's FLAG SHIP fusion approach (getting larger by the decade), The
Tokamak, will make a viable commercial reactor unless it uses the neutrons
from its "smoking plasma" to breed that old standby, plutonium.  This
is in the cards, and although it's still a bit esoteric, it's information
that can be obtained.  The results of the completion of this program
will be long term, short term and coming out your ear radioactivity.
 
Is there is a hidden agenda as to why tokamak is being pushed?  Why?
To give non-nbomb countries the means to protect their borders against
future third world incursion.  This could never be a "spoken" reason
because, no "advanced" nation has elitist notions .. right??  Other
reasons exist, and certainly more believable and less insidious.
 
There are other more sensible approaches (aneutronic) to producing fusion
that avoids the long development time and radiation problems of the
tokamak.  Unfortunately, in our world this research is the purview of
governments and it's driven by the bureaucratic need to fund the approach
that can justify the most costly or grandiose funding scheme (and
therefore support the largest attendant bureaucracy with a number of secure
high ranking positions).   Since the advanced concepts are not so capital
intensive, they (and we) lose, -- altogether.   This is one expression
of government that doesn't work well when used outside of world war
crisis periods.
 
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
                        It won't ignite,
                          the tokamak,
                       `Is it a blight?'
                          or just the
                            smokamak
 
SMOKAMAK suggested by: sdcc13.UCSD.EDU!jdietz "Jack Dietz (Switzerland)
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 19 Nov 91 09:58:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <E2EAF24C1A5F01461E@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz
 <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
>%In article <5448@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>%>In article <1991Nov11.234317.22575@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
>% M. Koloc) writes:
>%>>In article <5386@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>%>>>In article <1991Nov10.055317.5449@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck
 Sites)
>%>>
>%>>>>
>%>>>
>%>>
>%>
>%
>%That doesn't generate sufficient support for fraud.   .. .
 
>... etc etc. I have used % instead of > here for obvious reasons. Is there
>anyone who can follow this nest of >'s; in fact, can you yourself, Paul? For
>me, the limit is at a depth of about two, after that, I get lost.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>==============================================================================
 
Ahhhhh!  Now I can follow!  Thanks for the reduction, Dieter.    :-)
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 19 Nov 91 10:13:28 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Nov18.184455.28997doug@netcom.COM> doug@netcom.COM (Doug
 Merritt) writes:
>In article <25139@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
 writes:
>Although I agree that there's reason to think that fusion reactors will
>produce messy isotopes in the walls, I disagree with the precise claim
>you made here. It is in fact possible to create *almost* completely pure
>elements (e.g. zone refining), to such an extent that the impurities are
>completely negligible. The semiconductor industry does this routinely.
 
What five 9's purity is going to make a difference in the radiation
flux of a working tokamak (even a smoker)?????   Think you could get
by without 100% remote handling after a day's operation?  If not, then
what's the problem, the first wall doesn't "STOP" most of the hot
D-T neutrons anyway; they will end up in the helium cooled lithium and
uranium blanket.   Oh!  you're going to handle that without serious problems.
 
That stuff is will so hot and so difficult to handle logistically, I can't
see it being done on anything like a cost effective basis unless some
pretty risky engineering  (reduced number of containment barriers, etc.)
practices are utilized.
 
>The fact that this is not done all that commonly with metal alloys
>does not mean it's impossible. Far from it, it *has* been done for
>various special purposes. Ultra-pure metal alloys are certainly
>expensive, but not unobtainable.
 
As much as is required for the first wall is unobtainable because of
limits of capital.
 
>The whole truth is not a secret by any means. Therefore you seem to
>be saying that fusion *propagandizing* and its slogans should make sure
>to point out such problems, which seems obviously fallacious to me.
 
Why don't you tell us the "whole truth".
 
>Making information available to the general public is an excellent goal.
>But successfully actively *educating* the general public about both pros and
>cons of any issue is impossible.
 
Ah!  a Cynic.
 
>All of these issues are ill-posed to begin with, because they are all
>over-generalizations which can only be correctly stated in terms of
>less general terms. For instance, some fusion proponents are willing
>to talk about the imperfect side of fusion reactors, and some are not.
>Some members of the general public are already aware of the imperfections,
>and some are not. Some scientists are credible, and some are not.
 
>In no case is it possible to reduce the complexity of such statements
>to a single summation such as "scientists are/are not credible" or
>"the public should/should not believe scientists, because such a
>simplistic approach necessarily throws away important information.
 
I, too, agree we should be more precise.   How about this:
 
         TOKAMAK FUSION PLASMA PHYSICISTS ARE DAMN LIARS.
 
(loud to make up for lack of "epic response")
 
>Directly answering ill-posed comments such as these is like trying
>to hold water in a sieve.
>	Doug
>--
>Doug Merritt	doug@netcom.com   -or- doug@eris.berkeley.edu
>Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
 
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
|                                                         +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 691 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 691 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 22:38:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
here's another lot, mostly gleaned from Chem. Abstracts. This issue (no.18)
also contained a large number of AIP something conference talks but I brutally
ignore the lot, preferring to wait until they appear as "real" papers - or
not, as the case may be. We have three more patents, plus some more
fundamental work, e.g. that of Flangan et al (Flanagan is an authority on
metal hydrides) and Storms+. The former provide useful thermodynamic data, the
latter - I don't know exactly. Beltyukov et al used a laser to heat a Ti rod,
in order to force it through phase changes and lo, they get neutrons and
gammas at these changes. There might have been a better control, I reckon, and
I am unconvinced that it was not the laser itself that caused the emission
"detections". Eagleton and Bush test their TRModel by experiment; it predicts
a cusp in the XS heat vs current density curve, and their results are not
inconsistent with this prediction. A previous plot of this kind, reported by
the authors, had a single low point which one might be inclined to ignore and
fit a straight line; TRM accounts for this one point as well. I am happy to
see theorists putting up with an experiment themselves, rather than leaving it
to others. The patents will not excite anyone except maybe the "inventors" when
they get rich, if so it be. Srinivasan, one of the prominent TB's, has written
a good review of the area. Although he says he concentrates mainly on
conference proceedings (which, as I say, ignore), he does in fact offer many
more conventional references. It may be one of the first extensive reviews not
referring mostly to preprints or private communications.
 In the Commentary section you note a little to&fro about calorimetry.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Nov. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 691
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beltyukov IL, Bondarenko NB, Janelidze AA, Gapanov MYu, Gribanov KG,
Kondratov SV, Maltsev AG, Novikov PI, Tsvetkov SA, Zakharov VI;
Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 234.
"Laser-induced cold nuclear fusion in Ti-H2-D2-T2 compositions".
** In the search for the right nonequilibrium conditions, considered by many
to be required for cold fusion, this team tried laser heating to effect phase
transitions across the beta/(beta+gamma) and (beta+gamma)/gamma boundaries. Ti
rods were used, prehydrided and flushed in vacuum; the rods were recharged by
the respective gas at around 773-823K under various pressures. Two neutron and
two gamma counters were nearby and thermocouples mounted within the rod to
record the axial temperature gradients. It was found that neutron and gamma
emissions coincided with phase transitions in the Ti-D system (presumably the
transitions were known from the temperatures and reference to phase diagrams).
After the experiment, the Ti showed a wide net of cracks. Despite the title,
no Ti-H or Ti-T systems are reported but there is a control of Ti in air, with
no emissions detected.                                           Sep-90/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagleton RD, Bush RT;                           Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 239.
"Calorimetric experiments supporting the transmission resonance model for cold
fusion".
** In a previous paper, the authors' TRM was outlined and predicts a rather
characteristic dependence of excess heat with current density and temperature.
This paper reports an attempt to verify this, both for varying cd at constant
T, and constant cd with varying T. A closed cell with total recombination was
used, with a magnetic stirrer. The cell was of Teflon to avoid contamination
from corrosion. There was a light water blank. Of the five non-blank cells,
two produced excess heat. The fact that some cells do not behave is also
explained by the TRM, which predicts chaos. The calorimeter was of the cooling
coil type. The results can be roughly fitted to the predicted TRM theory, but
the authors admit that the fit is not highly significant. The fit to the
temperature dependence is somewhat better. More work is planned, using an
improved set-up.                                                 Jan-91/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flanagan TB, Luo W, Clewley JD;         J. Less Common Met. 172-174 (1991) 42.
"Calorimetric enthalpies of absorption and desorption of protium and deuterium
by palladium".
** This is only tangentially a cold fusion paper but was in part motivated by
it. The team, long-time experts in metal hydrides, make accurate measurements
of the enthalpy of palladium hydride and -deuteride formation and break-down,
as well as the entropy at 298K and some other lower temperatures. The metal
was a heap of foil pieces, and H2 or D2 gas was used for charging. H(f) for
PdH was -19.1 kJ/molH and for PdD, -17.3 kJ/molD, with entropies of 46.3
J/K/molH and 46.7 J/K/molD, resp. There were some hysteresis effects but these
could be compensated out. For the first time, enthalpies of formation in the
beta phase were measured. At loadings around 0.7 (D/Pd), these begin to
decline towards zero, reflecting the difficulty of hydriding beyond this
degree. No anomalous heats were detected in any of the many measurements.
                                                                      ?/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kasahara M, Negishi H;         Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 53,194, 21-Jul-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(18):192159 (1991).
"Power generators based on cold nuclear fusion".
** "A power generator based on cold nuclear fusion utilizes heavy H2O, a Pt
anode, a Pd cathode, and an elec. power source, is characterized in that the
Pd cathode is porous". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kasahara M, Negishi H;         Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 53,195, 21-Jul-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(18):192158 (1991).
"Power generators based on cold nuclear fusion".
** "A power generator based on cold nuclear fusion, which utilizes heavy H2O,
a Pt anode, a Pd cathode, and an elec. power source, is characterized in that
the Pd cathode is porous, and it is under vibration". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadoway DR;                            PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 06,959, 16-May-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(18):192160 (1991).
"Media for solid state fusion".
** "Apps. for electrochem. as well as thermochem. fusion are provided.
Material systems consisting of D storage intermetallic compd., transition
metal/rare earth metal intermetallic compd. and elemental material cathodes
are combined with compatible electrolytes including solid deuteride
electrolytes, cryogenic electrolytes, and supercrit. D in electrochem. fusion
app. wherein a magnetic field may be provided to enhance fusion initiation in
the cathodes. The invention enables the operation of these electrochem. and
thermochem. fusion apps. over a wide range of temps. and pressures which may
be adjusted to optimise the efficiency of the solid state fusion reaction".
(Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Srinivasan M;                                        Curr. Sci. 60 (1991) 417.
"Nuclear fusion in an atomic lattice: An update on the international status of
cold fusion research".
** A review of cold fusion concentrating on conferences to a large extent. It
is written by a well informed researcher but clearly from a positive viewpoint,
and this shows in the importance given to marginal results in some places. An
unusual claim is that cold fusion has already exceeded the power density yield
of conventional nuclear fission reactors, i.e. in terms of W/cm**3 fuel. There
is an outline of the "puzzles of cold fusion" and the author believes that the
phenomenon is due to "many different nuclear reactions induced by deuterons".
There are 174 references, most of them to actual papers.              ?/Apr-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storms E, Talcott-Storms C;                     Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 246.
"The effect of hydriding on the physical structure of palladium and on the
release of contained tritium".
** To have convincing tritium results, one must be careful to eliminate the
possibility of contamination, which might come from outside the cell or from
the Pd itself. The authors here examine the latter possibility by looking at
the behaviour of tritium, as well as protium present in Pd, from charging in
D2O deliberately contaminated with T2O and H2O. The hydrogen isotopes were in
each case driven out by anodic discharge. There is an interesting figure
showing mole fraction  D/H in the Pd against the same fraction in the
electrolyte. H is favoured. Many experiments are reported. An 11% expanded
sample showed pits but no cracks. Deuterium is taken up preferentially over
tritium and tritium discharge is a first-order process. The study supports the
view that tritium that appears mainly in the gas after many days of
electrolysis cannot have come from prior contamination of the metal. In the
authors' own work, however, the tritium appears in the electrolyte, rather
than in the gas. This reviewer is not clear about what the conclusions of the
paper are, beyond rejecting contamination charges.               Dec-90/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberts AH;                        Chem. & Eng. News 69(32) (1991) 3 (12-Aug).
"Cold fusion".
** Alberts criticises the editor of J. Electroanal. Chem. for uncritically (?)
publishing the Preliminary Note by Bush et al (JEC 304 (1991) 271), without
the refereeing process. Alberts writes that the critical paper by Wagner et
al, pointing out a possible defect in some calorimetric experiments, should be
given more attention.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles MH;                          Chem. & Eng. News 69(39) (1991) 4 (30-Sep).
"Cold fusion".
** Miles rebuts Alberts' letter in the same journal, 12-Aug. Miles was one of
the authors of the paper criticised by Alberts. Miles denies the possibility
of an artifact in all reported isoperibolic calorimetry experiments on cold
fusion. Miles writes that there is too much emphasis on possible error,
thereby missing what may prove to be the discovery of the century.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Terry Bollinger /  Post-posties
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Post-posties
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 22:43:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On 19 Nov 91 06:05:39 GMT Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca (Mischa Sandberg)
said:
 
> ... A recent poster mentioned that ... "D+T" ... would be as cheap as
> sea-water ... was like calling an automobile an engine that "runs" on
> the boundless supply of atmospheric oxygen :-). Any comments?
 
                                            +   __,
Personally, I agree with the poster!  {8v)>=|==<__
                                            +     '
 
(If you think I did that solely to post my little poster man there,
you are EXACTLY correct.)
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 /   /   Mallove's Book page 217
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Mallove's Book page 217
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 00:37:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My apologies to Messrs. Menlove and Mallove for confusion their names.
I have trouble with names longer than four letters.
 
It is Dr. Mallove's book I have here in my hand, and I am still puzzling
over the graphs of data obtained from Fleischmann and Pons.  If I assume
that the correct way interpret the (b) graph is that a value of 1.00
corresponds to heat balance, and if I ignore the big bump (for this
discussion only) the graph seems to indict that the enthalpy generation
divided by the joule enthalpy input starts at balance and then rises
by about 10-20% higher after a few days and forever remains that high
except for numerous sharp down ticks.  The temperature (and hence the
heat output) reaches a constant value of about 31.5 C and shows no
variations except the big one.
 
What this seems to say is that there is a mechanism which shifts the
heat balance to a surplus of out over in that does not raise the cell
temperature, rather it lowers the power input.  I think that is rather
strange!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL        "It's all in how you plot the data!"
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 / Francesco Tolla /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it (Francesco Di Tolla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 20 Nov 91 08:08:35 GMT
Organization: Laboratorio di Fisica Computazionale, INFM. Trento Italia

ref+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Frederking) writes:
 
>> From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	 (Terry Bollinger)
>> ...
>> Douglas Morrison of CERN has some good information on what is going on at
>> JET, and has asked me to forward it to sci.physics.fusion.  Cheers, Terry
>> ...
>>     Overall it is not too encouraging until one considers the alternatives.
>> As the Developing Countries raise their living standards to ensure good
 health
>> and a satisfactory life, the total energy consumed will rise, perhaps to
 about
>> six times the present consumption. The surface of the earth being limited,
>> clean fuels such as hydropower, photovoltaics etc. cannot hope to supply the
>> bulk of this energy. Much of this can only be met by coal, but this means a
>> huge CO2 problem. Only by converting mass into energy can this problem be
>> overcome.
>> ...
 
>I don't want to start an endless argument, but it bothers me when
>otherwise intelligent people are so short-sighted.  "Fusion will work
>because it has to, because nothing else will."  Sigh.  There are
>at least two other possibilities:
 
>(1) fusion really won't work, nothing else will: our technological
>development will come to a screaching halt in a few hundred years (or
>we'll kill ourselves off with pollution of one kind or another).
>Really unpleasant, but the universe doesn't owe us a living.  Believing
>that this would be really bad does not imply clean fusion is possible!!
 
>(2) fusion really won't work, but something else will: perhaps one of
>the space-based solar power schemes, perhaps something not yet thought
>of.  The point is, there isn't any reason to think that clean fusion is
>the *only* long-term possibility.
 
>Please note that I'm not opposed to funding fusion; but I don't think
>governments should put all their research eggs in one basket either.
>And scientists should try to keep open minds, even about competing
>research agendas.
>--
>Robert E. Frederking			Internet: ref@cs.cmu.edu
>School of Computer Science		Voice: 412-268-8812
>Carnegie Mellon University		FAX: 412-621-5477
>Pittsburgh, PA 15217  USA
 
 
 
What about high-efficency solar cells?
 
 
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  In God they trust, and they need dollars to remember it.                |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Francesco  D. Di Tolla            | Bitnet:    ditolla@itncisca.bitnet  |
|  Dip. di Fisica Univ. di Trento    | Internet:  ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it |
|  I-38050 Povo (TN) - Italy         | Decnet:    itnvax::ditolla (37.65)  |
|  Tel: (0039) (461) 881538          |                                     |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenditolla cudfnFrancesco cudlnTolla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Bruce Scott /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 19 Nov 91 22:49:24 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institut fuer Plasmaphysik

In article <19269@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>I'm curious about a few points...
>*  I had the impression that the planned D-T program at JET was still
>   two or three years away.  Why the early startup?
>
Simply to beat TFTR (Princeton) to it. TFTR will do DT for real,
including alpha physics, in the 1992-3 year. As I said in a timely post
about 1 month ago, any statement wild enough to make it to the press
will be the purest bullshit. As everyone can see by now, they even gave
the impression that *breakeven* had been achieved (yes I know the numbers
1.7 and 18 were correctly there, but much of the public didn't get the
significance). This was 100 per cent politically motivated (see below).
>
>*  What do you think will be learned scientifically (other than the
>   important negative result, "we ran D-T and nothing unexpected and
>   bad was observed")?
 
As another poster has pointed out, the plasma was so overwhelmed by
the beams that it was not possible to do alpha physics. I have heard talk
around here that some diagnostic purposes were served, but I haven't
got any details. TFTR will make a serious effort to do alpha
physics in their series. JET just knew they would be beaten to it
if they didn't do something.
 
Hey, didn't you like the bit about 1.7MW as if it were *electricity* :^)
 
By the way, Paul, we're not all liars, just the ones who sit on DOE's
lap and tell them what they want to hear.
--
Gruss,                                  The deadliest bullshit is
Bruce D. Scott                           odorless and transparent
bds at dgaipp1s.bitnet                      -- W Gibson
Max Planck Institut fuer Plasmaphysik
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 20 Nov 91 14:57:06 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Nov19.204249.3537@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>   With regard to P&F's claim of a 2.5MeV peak, let me quote their
>pre-print which was circulated around the world after their March 23
 
Better to quote the published paper (J.Electroanal.Chem 261 (1989) 301)
*and* their erratum to said paper (J.E.Chem 263 (1989) 187).  Ask your
librarian to help you find it in your library.  You should also know that
Frank Close quotes several people at Harwell who say that the figure
of the gamma-ray spectrum in that preprint is not the one they were
shown at a talk after 23 March.
 
>                2    2     3
>                 D +  D ->  He(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45 MeV)       (vi)
 
Correct.
 
>For the 2.45MeV neutrons captured in the water bath:
>
>                1                   2
>                 H + n(2.45 MeV) ->  D + gamma(2.5 MeV)     (vii)
>
>And now your saying that should be 2.2MeV?  Is (vii) wrong? Note:
 
Yes.  Even P&F know it is wrong, since they fixed it in their erratum
at the same time they fixed up the author list and changed the figure
showing part of the gamma spectrum.  If Close's quotes from the people
at Harwell are accurate, and perhaps someone at Harwell reads this
and will comment about what was said at that presentation, it does
not seem that P&F knew this was wrong on 23 March and had a figure in
the original submission that had a peak at 2.5 MeV that was similar to
the one shown in the 29 June 1989 article in Nature.  I recommend you
read what they write there (vol. 339, pg. 667) as well.
 
>                1                  2
>                 H + n(0 MeV) ->  D + gamma(2.2MeV)
 
This is correct.  The neutron must be thermalized (i.e. have an energy
consistent with room temperature, about 1/40 eV) before capture by Deuterium.
 
>Inspite of this, it is obvious that there should be other gamma spectra
>from reactions with Pd, O, Li, that are not seen so it's hard to accept
>this gamma spectrum as proof of their claims.  What is also interesting
 
That is also correct.  And the group here at FSU looked for X-rays from
the Pd electrons disturbed by the reactions and saw nothing with very
high-quality detectors.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Funny Graph In Mallove Book
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Funny Graph In Mallove Book
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 19:08:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU> (Dick Blue)
 
>I have been working my way through E. Mallove's book and I have come
>upon a graph purported to be from a presentation at the First Annual
>Conference on Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons.  For those of you
>...
>                [        ENTHALPY GENERATION    ]
>          LOG   [ 100 X ________________________]
>                [    JOULE ENTHALPY INPUT       ]      .
>The graphed data of this quantity plotted vs. time in units of 10^6 s
>starts at about 1.00, remains near that value until t = 1.6 Mega seconds
>when it rises suddenly to above 3.000.  It then tails off to about 2.00
>and then falls sharply to near 1.00 where it remains from 3.2 to nearly
>8 on the time scale.
>
>My problem:  What is ENTHALPY GENERATION?  My first guess was that it
>...
>Is it possible that Fleischmann and Pons screwed up in plotting their
>data again!  Perhaps Dr. Mallove or those in contact with him can
>clear up this little point.  There are some other rather strange
>things about these graphs that I may comment on after we clear up
>the first question.
 
The figure comes out of FPALH-90, Fig. 9B and the text says
".. while Figs. 9A and 9B give the derived rates of specific excess enthalpy
release"; and "... bursts in the production of excess enthalpy are
superimposed on the slowly increasing or steady state enthalpy generation..".
So the idea is that there is a steady excess heat of about 10% with the odd
extra burst.
What are your other comments, Dick?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 /  ajpierce@med.u /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 20 Nov 91 02:03:43 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1991Nov14.193521.19093@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov13.202332.246702@cs.cmu.edu> ref+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert
 Frederking) writes:
>>of.  The point is, there isn't any reason to think that clean fusion is
>>the *only* long-term possibility.
 
>Sol is the only currently available source of "clean" fusion power.   ;^)
 
   Actually, Sol isn't all that clean a source of fusion power even when
you are sitting 150000km away from it.  Fortunately, the planet has been
supplied with gaseous reactor shielding. :-)  Unfortunately, the shielding
is being gradually removed. :-(
   ObNewFusionIdea:  instead of increasing the plasma density to the point
where fusion will occur which requires elaborate containment schemes, go
that extra mile and compress the plasma to the point where it undergoes
spontaneous gravitational collapse.  Then you don't have to worry about
containment and can simply suck off the syncrotron radiation from whatever
fuel source you choose (gravy, very small rocks, lead, ducks etc.).  Of
course, it might be difficult to keep your Port-A-Power from wandering
away on you... :-)
     -Andy
ajpierce@med.unc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenajpierce cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Larry Wall /  Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
Date: 19 Nov 91 23:02:53 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <50335@cup.portal.com> Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
: I cannot understand why there is not more excitment over the Mills
: et al work.  They seem to have avoided the problems with the P&F
: work and have impressive reproducable results.  Why not more discussion?
 
Gee, maybe they need to have a press conference.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Bert Moshier /  Re: Trilithium?
     
Originally-From: bgm@hemlock.cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Trilithium?
Date: 19 Nov 91 15:45:05 CST
Organization: Cray Research, inc.

In article <1991Nov16.002221.27915@njitgw.njit.edu> lcm1501@hertz.njit.edu (A
 Wayward Soul) writes:
>In article <1991Nov15.182330.8712@nynexst.com> gene@nynexst.com (Gene Miller)
 writes:
>>In article <1991Nov15.125541.16307@rdg.dec.com> evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com
 (Gwyn Evans) writes:
>>>    I'm not sure, but I think that the difference was in using a much
>>>higher proportion of trilithium (sp?) than in previous runs.
>>
>>I think that Trilithium Crystals were used by Scotty to
>>power the Starship Enterprise.
>>--
>
>      No it was Dilithium Crystals, and thats Chief Engineer Montgomery
>Scott.
>
>--
 
Correct on the Dilithium Crystals with Star Trek and Star Trek the Next
Generation.
 
Correct on increasing trilithium(sic) making the difference.
 
Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbgm cudfnBert cudlnMoshier cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 /  Codesmiths /  Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneiz
     
Originally-From: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneiz
Date: 20 Nov 91 01:31:26 GMT
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

In-Reply-To:  les@hutcs.cs.hut.fi (Lars Silen)
Your idea sounds fascinating, producing useful data, and a novel
experiment to fire the students interest.
 
My company, Codesmiths, produce industrial control software for just
this sort of application (Turbo Pascal on the PC). I've often
considered doing a similar experiment, but the usual pressures of
time & other work got in the way.
 
I'd be grateful if you'd keep us posted on your progress with this.
It sounds an excellent idea for a project.
 
 
    One comment on the suggested setup:
 
I'd be tempted to hold the water at an arbitrary constant
temperature, slightly above ambient. A simple heater keeps the
temperature up, and radiative cooling brings it down. Provided the
steady state heater power is >> more than the expected anomalous heat
generated, there will be no problem in maintaining temperature
control.
 
I'd avoid maintaining at ambient, because to do that requires both
active heating & cooling, as you can't provide one passively from the
ambient. A heater is also rather cheaper than a Peltier cooler !
 
If you're set on a Peltier, then it could be used equally well for
heating or cooling. I've done this for ultra-accurate temperature
control, where my reaction vessel was jacketed by another temperature
controlled bath. This avoided problems with variable ambient
temperature.
 
   _                              Andy Dingley
 /  ) ' ,_  _,  /   _ ) _/_       dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk
/_ / / / / (_) /_) (_)  /_        +44 91 230 1695
          (_)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendingbat cudlnCodesmiths cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 /   /   Comments on the work of Mills et al.
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Comments on the work of Mills et al.
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 06:50:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bob Horst remarks: "I cannot understand why there is not more excitement
over the Mills et al. work."
 
Bob, You must realize the Mills et al. have undermined all of the previous
results on cold fusion.  True Believers have a major problem on their
hands in figuring out a way to sort out the claims that said you  had to
use D2O to get surplus heat, etc. and the new results that says H2O
works just fine.  There is a way out of this dilema, however.  I leave
it  alone as a clear indication that both results are highly suspect.
 
My comment on the work of Mills and Farrel is to ask whether everyone
believes that there is no experimental data that flat out contridicts
this new atomic theory.  Take for example the starting point of the
new model for atomic hydrogen, the electron in a spherical shell
at a fixed radius outside the nucleus.  I say the charge distribution
of a hydrogen atom is known and it isn't as described by Mills and
Farrell!  Other things that have been measured include the momentum
distribution, magnetic moment, fine structure and hyperfine structure
interactions.  Has the new theory touched any of this?
 
Lars Silen proposes using a cold fusion setup to teach students
techniques for automated data recording.  Good idea!  My only
comment would be to have them think through the implications of
sampling experimental variables using a scanner/multiplexer running
on a fixed time sequence with fixed correlations between sampling
times for the variables.  Proper averaging does not automatically
result!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL         "If it's highly radioactive it's not long lived."
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Doug Merritt /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.COM (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 19 Nov 91 18:05:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1991Nov19.101328.29235@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>In article <1991Nov18.184455.28997doug@netcom.COM> doug@netcom.COM (Doug
 Merritt) writes:
>What five 9's purity is going to make a difference in the radiation
>flux of a working tokamak (even a smoker)?????   Think you could get
>by without 100% remote handling after a day's operation?
 
No, I think the reactor would still be dirty; I was just commenting on
alloy purity, that's all. I agree with you about the rest.
 
>>The whole truth is not a secret by any means.
>
>Why don't you tell us the "whole truth".
 
Ok. Fission and fusion (with the exception of Spheromak) make reactors
radioactive in nasty ways, creating nasty waste problems and structural
integrity problems. I still don't think that's a big secret, whether the
general public is aware of it or not. The general public isn't aware
of the difference between astronomy and astrology, nor of star versus planet,
despite rather active efforts to correct this.
 
>>Making information available to the general public is an excellent goal.
>>But successfully actively *educating* the general public about both pros and
>>cons of any issue is impossible.
>
>Ah!  a Cynic.
 
Yup. Of course, I consider myself to be a realist, but then so does
everyone, so accept the label of cynicism.
 
I think all this is off target anyway. The people currently "anti-nuke"
will almost all be against fusion, even a clean Spheromak approach,
because *they* are cynical about everything having to do with nucleonics.
 
The people currently pro-fission are likely to be pro-fusion (of any sort).
 
The people who are not polarized are the ones that may actually be willing
to entertain arguments either for or against fusion of various sorts, and
I agree that they should not be lied to, if that's the issue.
 
>I, too, agree we should be more precise.   How about this:
>
>         TOKAMAK FUSION PLASMA PHYSICISTS ARE DAMN LIARS.
 
Don't beat around the bush, tell us what you *really* think. :-)
	Doug
--
Doug Merritt	doug@netcom.com   -or- doug@eris.berkeley.edu
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.19 / Chuck Sites /  Re: A letter from Frank Close...
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A letter from Frank Close...
Date: 19 Nov 91 20:42:49 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Well Jim,
 
  I defer to your knowledge on the Li(D,n)Be solution for the 2.9 gamma
peak. (It was only by simple calculations of the B and Q values that
I came up with the 2.9 value. I deserve some ridicule for only calculating
the excited state of Be and assuming that the decay state would be a
gamma emmision). By the way, the ascii presentation of the P&F gamma as
interpreted by Petrasso and shown in Nature is pretty accurate for an
ascii reconstruction.  Petrasso, never concluded what the 2.9 peak or
the 3.0 peak after that, so I felt like anything after 2.7 was fair
game for speculation.
   With regard to P&F's claim of a 2.5MeV peak, let me quote their
pre-print which was circulated around the world after their March 23
anouncment:
 
                2    2     3              1
                 D +  D ->  T(1.01 MeV) +  H(3.02 MeV)        (v)
 
                2    2     3
                 D +  D ->  He(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45 MeV)       (vi)
 
For the 2.45MeV neutrons captured in the water bath:
 
                1                   2
                 H + n(2.45 MeV) ->  D + gamma(2.5 MeV)     (vii)
 
And now your saying that should be 2.2MeV?  Is (vii) wrong? Note:
 
                1                  2
                 H + n(0 MeV) ->  D + gamma(2.2MeV)
 
Inspite of this, it is obvious that there should be other gamma spectra
from reactions with Pd, O, Li, that are not seen so it's hard to accept
this gamma spectrum as proof of their claims.  What is also interesting
is P&F claim only to see neutrons at 3 times background.  Considering
how difficult low-level neutron counting is (see: Menlove/Jones), it would
be amazing if they made those claims now without some critical evaluation
of the methods used for data collection.
 
Have Fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Fusion Digest 127
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Fusion Digest 127
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 15:37:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
>John Moore writes:
>
>  -The data for the pulsed case is slighly suspicious, in that the
>   calculation that I checked (Experiment 1) makes the assumption that
>   no current flows during the "off" time, and that a constant, peak
>   voltage and current occur during the "on" time. The oscillographs in
>   the paper show a waveform with an exponential current decay during
>   the "off" time, and a corresponding exponential voltage decay. This
>   would result in a few percent more power into the cells than given
>   by the the simple calculations used.
>
>It seems to me that the assumptions are not necessarily optimistic.
>The current that flows after the "off" time may be from energy stored
>in the inductance of the wiring and electrodes, and this energy is
>alread accounted for by integrating I*E over the "on" time.
 
(Two level nesting here, Paul, you with me?) - the exponential-like decay
features seen between the pulses would indeed carry power. Any electrochemist
will recognise them, they are due to double layer capacitance. At the
interface between the Ni cathode and the electrolyte, there is an opposing
array of charges, a sheet of electrons at the Ni surface, which attracts a
sheet of cations (here, K+) from the solution. The electrochemical reaction
takes place in the narrow space between the two. The double layer acts like a
pretty pure capacitor, in series with the solution resistance. When you switch
the voltage to another value, there is a delay during which this capacitor
adjusts itself to its new charge. This takes current, which heats up the
system, and acts to continue the electrochemical reaction, briefly driven by
the capacitor. So the duty cycle of M&K should be adjusted for this. What's
more, the same effect causes non-instant rise of current upon switching on
again and here, you lose some power, again adding to the error in the duty
cycle. A decent potentiostat will speed things up, by putting on more cell
voltage during this step, but a constant voltage supply can't do that. If it
had been me doing this experiment, I would have used constant current,
switched on and off.
 Compared with the double layer capacity, wiring inductances mean nothing. The
capacity has a value of around 20-40 microfarad/cm**2 for a smooth surface;
multiply this by the roughness factor. Double layer capacity is the bane in
every electrochemist's life. You can't escape it (sometimes you can use it
though).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 17:15:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Moore writes:
 
>I would suggest that someone should do a closed cell calorimetry
>on this system, with continous recording of temperature, current,
>and voltage.
 
1. I suppose researchers will have to try it (to prove to themselves),
but you do not get excess heat (or very little excess heat) with a
closed cell.  The reason is **not** recombination. The reason is that
the recombiner depletes the solution and the cathode surface of
hydrogen atoms. Once again, researchers will have to prove th themselves
that this is true.  I can only warn you that open cells give much more
heat than closed ones (where the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined).
 
2.  For the past 6 months, or so, we have been using a data acquisition
system that records all of the parameters continuously.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College      J_FARRELL@FANDM
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBITNET cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 / Francesco Tolla /  Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
     
Originally-From: ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it (Francesco Di Tolla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES FUSION POWER
Date: 20 Nov 91 08:01:16 GMT
Organization: Laboratorio di Fisica Computazionale, INFM. Trento Italia

jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes:
 
>I'm curious about a few points:
 
>*  What percentage of tritium was used?
 
15%, in future they will use up to 50%, but they have problems
in producing tritium because it should be prepared by the jet
itself and handled carefully cause its natural radioactivity.
 
 
>*  I had the impression that the planned D-T program at JET was still
>   two or three years away.  Why the early startup?
 
>*  What do you think will be learned scientifically (other than the
>   important negative result, "we ran D-T and nothing unexpected and
>   bad was observed")?
 
>--Joe
>"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
 
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  In God they trust, and they need dollars to remember it.                |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Francesco  D. Di Tolla            | Bitnet:    ditolla@itncisca.bitnet  |
|  Dip. di Fisica Univ. di Trento    | Internet:  ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it |
|  I-38050 Povo (TN) - Italy         | Decnet:    itnvax::ditolla (37.65)  |
|  Tel: (0039) (461) 881538          |                                     |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenditolla cudfnFrancesco cudlnTolla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 / Paul Koloc /  Was Re: JET ACHIEVES RADIOACTIVITY  --> Aneutronics
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Was Re: JET ACHIEVES RADIOACTIVITY  --> Aneutronics
Date: 20 Nov 91 10:26:06 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <laurence.690515022@karl.tapir.Caltech.EDU>
 laurence@karl.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Dustin Laurence) writes:
>mzenier@polari.uucp (Mark Zenier) writes:
>
>>There was an cover story in "Technology Review" around 1985-1986 which
>>criticized fusion.  One of the items mentioned was that the neutron flux
>>in the reactors would be 10 times that of a fission reactor.
>>(Couldn't find that issue, sorry about the aproximate reference.)
 
>As I recall there is one (and only one to my knowledge) light-nucleus
>fusion reaction that doesn't produce neutrons:
 
>    D + He3 --> H + He4 + gamma
 
>It even has a good energy yield.  All you have to do is get the D &
>the He3 nuclei together, when we can't even do it yet with singly
>charged nuclei.  Piece 'O cake.... :)
 
Yep! a piece of cake for fusion approaches that can utilize pressure
leverage.  This eliminates the tokamak, mirror, stellarator or torsatron
from consideration.
 
>Plus at that temperature, there ought to be LOTS of D + D reactions as
>well, which do produce neutrons.  Unless you use a beam/target
>technique, or something exotic.
 
What temperature??  and in what ratio?
 
The neutronics for D He(3) can be reduced by hundreds of times below
those of a D T reaction by using special techniques.  However, simply
using a 50/50 mixture of the fuels at 72 KeV reduces the neutron
reactions to less than three percent. But there is a further reduction
in neutron out put per electric power generated, and this is due to
the considerably better energy conversion efficiency of an aneutronic
burner to a fusion reactor.
 
There are other reactions, for example the so called boson reaction of
cold fusion:
               D + Li(6) -> 3*He(4) + 24 MeV                  :-)
 
Seriously another HOT fusion reaction that is essentially free of
neutrons is:
               p + B(11) -> 3*He(4) + 18.7 MeV
 
>I agree, there are some truly unreasonable expectations over fusion
>out there.  The real advantage is not that there will be no waste
>products, just that there will be no (barring contamination, as
>someone pointed out) heavy decay products with very long lifetimes.
 
 
For further info on aneutronic fuels read the last chapter "Advanced
Fuels" (by J Dawson) of second volume or Part B in:
 
  Teller, Edward (ed.), Fusion (Volume 1) Magnetic Confinement
      (Part B). Academic Press, New York:  1981.
 
For a fusion configuration that can burn aneutronic or advanced
fuels at high pressures, densities and temperatures, read:
 
  Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space
     Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141
 
>But then, nuclear power is either the path to heaven or hell, and not
>something to think rationally about anyway.
 
                     Fission IS the path to Hell,
                             Since GOD said:
                      "What GOD has joined (nuclei)
                    Let NO MAN put asunder (fission).
 
>Dustin       laurence@alice.caltech.edu
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        +Commercial*
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               ***in the***
|                       promethe=prometheus               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 / John Moore /  Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Analysis of Mils and Kneizys Excess Heat Experiments
Date: 20 Nov 91 04:15:21 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1991Nov19.085357.20071@nntp.hut.fi> les@hutcs.cs.hut.fi (Lars Silen)
 writes:
]I have been planning a modified experiment as part of a
 
]For inexperienced (2 .. 3 yr students) managing a calorimeter
]properly may be diffycult. In order to simplify the experiment the
 
]Any comments?
 
Sounds like a good idea to me!
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.21 / Jon Webb /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 21 Nov 91 04:23:59 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

Would someone who knows some physics comment seriously on the
Mills/Farrell theory?  Not necessarily on their spherical model of the
electron -- I consider that unlikely, based on what has actually been
measured about the characteristics of the electron cloud surrounding
an atom -- but on the general possibility that there is a sub-ground
state of hydrogen.  Is it at all possible that this is consistent with
most of current atomic theory, or can we just rule it out entirely
because of something obvious?
 
The one thing that comes to mind is, we should be observing sub-ground
states in nature if they can exist.  After all, hydrogen in clouds in
space should spontaneously jump to this state occasionally, which
should affect the spectrum observed.  But if this is excluded for some
reason, what other reasons are there to reject the Mills-Farrell
theory?
 
The reason I ask is, Mills & Farrell are starting to make a little
sense to me, at least as an explanation for the cold fusion
observations.  Excess heat from open cells and mostly not from closed
ones, an aneutronic heat source that also does not produce helium,
lots of inconsistent observations (because people have been looking
for a nuclear process instead of a chemical one), etc.  I would
appreciate it if some of the people who picked apart the various cold
fusion theories so well here would do so for the general idea of
sub-ground hydrogen states.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenwebb cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.21 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Excess Heat
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 15:35:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
 
>John Moore writes:
 
>>I would suggest that someone should do a closed cell calorimetry
>>on this system, with continous recording of temperature, current,
>>and voltage.
 
>1. I suppose researchers will have to try it (to prove to themselves),
>but you do not get excess heat (or very little excess heat) with a
>closed cell.  The reason is **not** recombination. The reason is that
>the recombiner depletes the solution and the cathode surface of
>hydrogen atoms. Once again, researchers will have to prove th themselves
>that this is true.  I can only warn you that open cells give much more
>heat than closed ones (where the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined).
>...
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College      J_FARRELL@FANDM
 
Let me go on record here with what I think about the MF sensation. The above
remark has settled it for me once for all: I do not believe one word of it, it
has to be an elaborate joke or a grand delusion. For a while I thought well
maybe their theory is mad but they do have an experiment which doesn't
necessarily depend on the theory. But after reading "the recombiner depletes
the solution ... of hydrogen atoms": PFFFFFT.
 Perhaps you care to explain, Prof. Farrell, in what way you believe this
depletion to take place? And if you are in fact joking, you had better own up
soon, before too many people invest a lot of time and money trying to
reproduce this.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.21 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laser Fusion
Date: 21 Nov 91 14:36:48 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>Have there been any recent developments in Inertial Confinement?
 
The August issue of "Physics World" has a survey article on laser-driven
ICF from the European perspective.  Haven't seen any recent similar
articles on the US laser experiments at Los Alamos, Livermore, or
Rochester, nor on the light-ion experiment, PBFA II, at Sandia.  I think
that both Livermore and Los Alamos have next-generation lasers in mind --
a Nova upgrade and some kind of gas laser, respectively.  Maybe somebody
from there can fill us in.
 
>is most of the information still regarded as being classified?
 
Non-US laboratories may or may not be subject to classification orders
similar to ours, and may or may not be publishing classified stuff in
the open literature.  The US can't tell them whether it's classified,
lest the bad guys infer something by feeling out our classification
threshold.  Only Joseph Heller could truly do justice to this field.
 
There are also plans afoot for laser-based "microfusion" facilities
that would use ICF techniques to drive pellets for weapons research,
but I don't think anything formal has been put forth yet (of course,
if I really knew, I probably wouldn't be allowed to tell you.)
 
There are non-classified, non-laser approaches to inertial confinement.
LBL just got through a review of a proposed experiment called ILSE, the
next step in a series of induction-linac experiments that (we hope) will
culminate in a system of heavy-ion linacs big enough to drive a pellet.
The Proceedings of a conference on heavy-ion ICF are in press and will
come out Real Soon Now in Particle Accelerators.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.21 / John Moore /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 21 Nov 91 14:36:32 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <01GD641215MO00078P@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
]John Moore writes:
]
]>I would suggest that someone should do a closed cell calorimetry
]>on this system, with continous recording of temperature, current,
]>and voltage.
]
]1. I suppose researchers will have to try it (to prove to themselves),
]but you do not get excess heat (or very little excess heat) with a
]closed cell.  The reason is **not** recombination. The reason is that
]the recombiner depletes the solution and the cathode surface of
]hydrogen atoms. Once again, researchers will have to prove th themselves
]that this is true.  I can only warn you that open cells give much more
]heat than closed ones (where the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined).
 
Hmmmm... I really don't understand this... if the recombiner is
physically located in the gas space of the cell, the only effect is should
have is to replace the H2O that is lost during electrolysis by liquifying
it and putting it back into solution. I have a catalyst that is sold
for recombining evolved battery gases. Putting this a few inches above the
surface of the solution (perhaps shielded from microdroplets that may
result from the gas evolution) should simply release the electrolysis energy
as heat, and replenish the electrolyte. So.... please explain a bit more.
 
This also leads to the following question: how DO you replenish electrolyte
that is lost due to electrolysis when you run a cell for months?
 
>
>2.  For the past 6 months, or so, we have been using a data acquisition
>system that records all of the parameters continuously.
>
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College      J_FARRELL@FANDM
 
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.20 / Mark North /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 20 Nov 91 19:12:14 GMT

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
>What five 9's purity is going to make a difference in the radiation
>flux of a working tokamak (even a smoker)?????   Think you could get
>by without 100% remote handling after a day's operation?  If not, then
 
Certainly. After a few days. How much long lived isotope do you think
you can activate in one day anyway?
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Jon Webb /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 22 Nov 91 02:35:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <E077508DC53F0002CD@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU
 (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
   Path:
 crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutg
 ers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion
   From: BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU (Dieter Britz)
 
   Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
   >John Moore writes:
   >The reason is that
   >the recombiner depletes the solution and the cathode surface of
   >hydrogen atoms.
 
   Let me go on record here with what I think about the MF sensation. The above
   remark has settled it for me once for all: I do not believe one word of it,
 it
   has to be an elaborate joke or a grand delusion.
 
Dieter, I'm not sure if I believe a word of it either, but let me
attempt an explanation based on what I understand of the Mills-Farrell
theory.  According to them, the sub-ground state hydrogen atoms are
not very reactive.  As a result of this, in a closed cell the amount
of unreacted oxygen will gradually increase -- because every pair of
sub-ground hydrogen atoms created will leave one extra oxygen atom
with nothing to react with.  Now, I don't know whether these extra
oxygen atoms could scavenge the free hydrogen atoms (not hydrogen
molecules) from the solution and cathode surface, but it seems at
least possible to me.  Is this assertion really so obviously wrong to
you?  If so, please explain why.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenwebb cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Dave Spain /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: spain@Alliant.COM (Dave Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 22 Nov 91 00:51:39 GMT
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.

 
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
 
	John Moore writes:
	I would suggest that someone should do a closed cell calorimetry
	on this system, with continous recording of temperature, current,
	and voltage.
 
	John Farrell
	Franklin & Marshall College      J_FARRELL@FANDM
	1. I suppose researchers will have to try it (to prove to themselves),
	but you do not get excess heat (or very little excess heat) with a
	closed cell.  The reason is **not** recombination. The reason is that
	the recombiner depletes the solution and the cathode surface of
	hydrogen atoms.
 
	Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
	[...]
	Perhaps you care to explain, Prof. Farrell, in what way you believe
	this depletion to take place?
 
I was confused by this remark as well.  Prof. Farrell are you talking about
depletion of H atoms or of H ions in the electrolyte solution?  I seem to
remember earlier postings about how to deal with electrolyte replentishment in
open cells, does this problem also occur in closed cells?  If so would the
same techniques used for replentishing open cells work for closed cells?
Do you consider the problem to be an overall depletion of the electrolyte
solution due to dilution? (Am I out to lunch with this speculation?)
 
I rarely post to this newsgroup although I've continued reading it because
its been a very interesting topic to follow.  I have to admit most of the
topics under discussion are way, way, outside my realm of technical competence,
but this particular comment concerning problems with depletion struck me as
a bit odd, I too would appreciate further clarification.
 
Dave Spain
 
PS: To Terry Bollinger, thanks for the stick man... :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenspain cudfnDave cudlnSpain cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.21 /  gsteckel@vergi /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel - Sun BOS Hardware
 CONTRACTOR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 21 Nov 91 20:11:49 GMT
Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. (617)332-9252

In article <01GD641215MO00078P@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>1. I suppose researchers will have to try it (to prove to themselves),
>but you do not get excess heat (or very little excess heat) with a
>closed cell.  The reason is **not** recombination. The reason is that
>the recombiner depletes the solution and the cathode surface of
>hydrogen atoms. Once again, researchers will have to prove th themselves
>that this is true.  I can only warn you that open cells give much more
>heat than closed ones (where the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined).
>
>2.  For the past 6 months, or so, we have been using a data acquisition
>system that records all of the parameters continuously.
>
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College      J_FARRELL@FANDM
 
What about conducting the result gases to a _separate_ recombiner?
Would this "deplete the solution and the cathode surface of
hydrogen atoms?"
How does the recombiner deplete the hydrogen more than the normal
outgassing under atmospheric pressure?
 
How does the composition of the gas mixture in a closed cell
(presumably H2:O2 2:1) differ from that of an open cell?
(presumably N2 80% O2 17%(?) etc)
 
My commendation (FWIW) on thoroughly recording the data.
 
	regards,
	geoff steckel (gwes@wjh12.harvard.EDU)
			(...!husc6!wjh12!omnivore!gws)
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line.
This posting is entirely the author's responsibility.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudengsteckel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Larry Wall /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 22 Nov 91 04:45:09 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1991Nov20.080835.23947@itnsg1.cineca.it> ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it
 (Francesco Di Tolla) writes:
: What about high-efficency solar cells?
 
No, what this country needs is a good 5-cent solar cell.  (I don't know
how cents translate to lira, offhand.)  I don't care if they're only
10% efficient.  If they're cheaper than asphalt shingles, and don't
burn easily, everyone will cover their roof with 'em, and turn all the
big nasty utilities into NiCad equivalents.
 
And I don't think anyone's fouled up the calorimetry on the Sun lately...
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 /  fusion@zorch.S /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 14:56:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenfusion cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Dieter Britz /  Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 14:57:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have checked back a little in the spf Digest, to see what Farrell has told
us. In Digest 107, he writes "The only noticeable salt formation is at the
liquid/air interface as the liquid level lowers." In other words, the water is
not replaced as it is used up by the electrolysis, and the electrolyte
concentrates to supersaturation. I suggest that this is the most likely
explanation for the "excess heat", i.e. a changing cell constant. This also
explains why a closed cell does not work: the cell constant remains the same
and there is no bogus excess heat. In an earlier posting, Farrell writes that
they used 2000 m of 0.127 mm diameter Ni wire. This has a volume of about 25
cm**3 and so could fit into their 500 ml cell alright but I wouldn't like to
be the one to stuff it in. Their paper, however, mentions a spiral coil of Ni
foil. I frankly don't believe, either, that you can get any sort of accuracy
out of a difference in temperatures between "matched" cells. You just cannot
match cells, period. On top of that, they have inordinately long temperature
equilibrium times, like "typically 12 h". Alfred E. Neumann used to say (still
does, maybe) "hoo hah".
 There has been some mention of "confirmations" of this experiment, by McBreen
of Brookhaven, and by the Noninskis. I asked someone at Brookhaven about this
and as I understand the answer, McBreen has done no such experiment. Rereading
the Noninski + Noninski paper (FT 19 (1991), 364), I note a strange echo of
Farrell's delusion (or joke) about recombiners (this was pointed out to me by
Todd Green of WA):
"...An active recombiner shifts the stationary state at which the palladium
cathode is saturated [...] with deuterium toward another state at which the
palladium cathode is undersaturated with deuterium. This occurs because the
active recombiner recombines virtually the entire available quantity of oxygen
and deuterium, both the quantity being evolved and the quantity existing in
the liquid and the vapor phases. Underpressure (slight vacuum) in the system
indicates this additional recombination".
This, friends, is pure baloney, and I don't think I need to explain why. So
much, then, for the "well known" electrochemists Noninski. There is no sign at
all in this paper that the authors are putting us on, as Mills and Farrell may
be.
 So are they putting us on? Reading their paper (and how come, by the way,
Farrell - who has been defending "their" work - is not one of the authors??),
there is plenty of evidence that they are in fact joking. What I call the
numerology section, making much of 1/137, and the "exact" value of the number
3 in c = 3E08 m/s, or "space-time is an electrical LC circuit with an
intrinsic impedance of exactly [...] = 120*pi"; or (I can't find the place)
the bit about the power residing in the negative part of the Fourier spectrum
(confusing mathematics with concrete reality); their weird electronics, as if
these chemists have never heard of electrochemical equipment like
potentiostats or galvanostats; or the "breaking in" of the Ni by anodic
treatment, which would either dissolve some Ni(II) or lay down an oxide layer
on the metal.
 If they are joking, let it end here, as I said; if they are serious - I feel
sorry for them.
 
 You might legitimately ask why my bibliographic abstracts report these things
without comment. I don't always manage to live up to it, but my policy is that
these abstracts should be pretty well dead-pan reporting, with little or no
sign of what I myself think of them. As for cnf itself, I still have a neutral
stand, i.e. I still await strong evidence and am willing to be convinced by
such strong evidence. I also await an explanation of the up to 10 or so
quality papers with positive results. I could reduce them to maybe 3-4 if I
got really critical but there would still be those 3-4 to explain. The Mills
and Kneizys paper is not in that group. You might say that these 3-4 papers
are in fact strong evidence, and they are, too, but there are not enough of
them, and the Belzner et al, strong as it is, is just a single result. Where
is the follow-up?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 17:04:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
Dick Blue asked whether nor not momentum distribution, magnetic
moment, fine structure, and hyperfine structure are covered by the
Mills and Farrell theory.
 
The answer is yes.  Three very simple aspects are included below.
 
1.  Why does the electron have spin angular momentum in the
hydrogen atom?  Because the electron is a spherical shell of uniform
charge density that spins (otherwise it would fall into the nucleus).
We show that the magnetic moment is one Bohr magneton.
 
2.  Consider that the potential energy of an electron in a hydrogen atom
is given by
 
V  =   - e^2/(4 pi e0 a0 n^2)  where e0 is the permittivity of vacuum and
a0 is the Bohr radius.
 
This is the same equation as Schrodinger's.
 
Now, calculate the potential energy when n = 1/137.  You will find out
that this energy is equal to mc^2, where m is the electron rest mass.  So,
you say, this is mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
 
In our view it is not coincidence.  The fine structure constant ought to
be one over an integer, specifically 1/137, exactly!  Now, we know that
the fine structure constant is given as 1/137.0359895.  Seems
impressive.  But alas we have a solution--redefine the meter so that the
speed of light is 3 x 10^8 meters, exactly!  Not only will the fine
structure constant be 1/137, but the permittivity of vacuum becomes
(1/(36 pi)) x 10-9 F/m rather than 8.854187817 F/m.  So, you say, this is
mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
 
3.  We show that the proton radius is 1.3214 x 10-15 m (current
definition of the meter).
 
We could be totally zonkers.  Or, we could be brilliant.  Or, we simply
could have stumbled onto something.  It would be nice if some
competent physicist, who is not so wedded to the Schrodinger equation
and QED that anything else **HAS** to be wrong, would take a peek at
what we are doing.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBITNET cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 22 Nov 91 06:10:47 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>For a while I thought well
>maybe their theory is mad but they do have an experiment which doesn't
>necessarily depend on the theory. But after reading "the recombiner depletes
>the solution ... of hydrogen atoms": PFFFFFT.
 
I still think one can temporarily seperate the theoretical explanations
from the empirical results -- at least pretty quickly, since Mills+Farrell
have claimed repeatability and gone on record explaining pretty clearly
how to do it.  I'm not a chemist, but the resources necessary to repeat
the experiment do not seem to be other-worldly expensive or complicated.
 
We shouldn't have to wait too much longer to hear from other independent
chemists.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.21 / Wm Davidsen /  Measuring heat generated
     
Originally-From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measuring heat generated
Date: 21 Nov 91 13:06:15 GMT
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center

 
  Forgive for asking a dumb question, but why are people fighting the
calorimitry problem? Is there some reason why people are avoiding the
obvious approach of measuring the heat in and out instead of
calculating things?
 
  Consider a closed cell in a second sealed chamber. The cell has power
for the electrolysis, and some power to heat a catalyst to recombine the
gasses so you don't need to calculate what would happen if you did, and
maybe some power for a heater if you think that's nice or needed.
 
  Into the outer chamber you pump cold water, run it through the chamber
and out. The outer chamber is then heavily insulated.
 
You measure:
 1. wattage of all electrical connections, measuring actual watts, not
just volts and amps with no phase checking. This is your power in.
 2. You measure inlet and outlet temperature or the water, and flow.
This lets you calculate pwer out without corrections.
 3. You start the water flow and wait until the inlet and output temp
are the same, then measure all power in and out over time T.
 
  And if you get significant excess heat without corrections for
everything in sight, then you have a pretty good case for "new physics"
if nothing else.
 
  Is there something obvious I'm missing with this brute force method?
Being a software and mechanical type, I would certainly do it this way,
rather than try to convince anyone that I have corrected for all the
possible other factors.
 
--
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
  GE Corp R&D Center, Information Systems Operation, tech support group
  Moderator comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 386-users digest.
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendavidsen cudfnWm cudlnDavidsen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Steve Simmons /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 22 Nov 91 13:56:28 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
 
>And I don't think anyone's fouled up the calorimetry on the Sun lately...
 
Give 'em time....
--
"Since [[MIPS announcement of 64-bit processors]] other high-end RISC vendors
have scrambled to to find 64-bit capabilities hidden in their architectures,
or to explain why 64-bit operation is silly."  EE Times, Nov 11, 1991, pg 96.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenscs cudfnSteve cudlnSimmons cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  EXCESS HEAT
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: EXCESS HEAT
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 18:39:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In response to Dieter about the depletion of hydrogen atoms in closed
cells.  And in response to the joke aspect.
 
We always had our recombiner partially in the solution.  That is, about
1/5 of the recombiner was in the solution and 4/5 in the gas phase
above the solution.  If we kept the recombiner totally out of the
solution, it got to hot, metal flaked off of the surface, the electrolyte
became contaminated, and the recombiner less effective as time went
on.  Besides, recombiners are expensive.
 
I think that the H(atom) depletion is best described by LeChatlier's
principle.  That is, the recombiner forces the chemical reaction to
water--thereby decreasing H2, O2, H, O, and other intermediate
species.  The fact that you have an overabundance of O2 because some
of the hydrogen is now unreactive may also be a factor, but we are still
wrestling with this aspect.
 
I know it sounds like the excess heat must be from recombination, but
we have checked this carefully.
 
We are not joking.  I have been a faculty member at F&M College for 27
years, served as chairman (10 full-time faculty) of the chemistry
department, served as president of many organizations (local) and as
secretary of the state (PA) AAUP. I  have been happily married for 30
years, raised two fine children (both graduated from college with
honors, and so on.  I am fully aware of the time, money, and energy
that it takes to do almost anything--yet alone a project of this
magnitude.  In spite of all this I could be crazy, but neither my
colleagues nor my wife has broched the subject.  We could be wrong
about the excess heat.  All I can tell you is that we measure what
appears to be a large amount excess heat (every time) and we have not
been able to explain it away.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBITNET cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Terry Bollinger /  Sub-Ground States
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sub-Ground States
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 19:50:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On 21 Nov 91 04:23:59 GMT Jon.Webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) said:
 
> Would someone who knows some physics comment seriously on the
> Mills/Farrell theory? ... [in particular] on the general possibility
> that there is a sub-ground state of hydrogen ... can we just rule it
> out entirely because of something obvious?
 
[Usual disclaimer:  I am no physicist, but I do enjoy physics.]
This might (or might not) help, so let's give it a shot:
 
 
GROUND STATES
 
In QM, the idea of stationary (ground) states in atomic orbitals is
very firmly based on the concept of a "standing wave."  A standing wave
is simply one that bounces back and forth in a regular fashion between
some kind of barriers, vs. a "free" wave that moves outward without
constraints.  The concept that a ground state was in fact a type of
standing wave was THE great insight of a man called Schroedinger, and
it converted the arbitrary constraints of the Bohr atom into a deep,
meaningful model that could be calculated and analyzed in detail.
 
To understand ground states, then, one must understand standing waves.
As it happens there is a remarkably simply way of visualizing the key
features of simple standing-wave solutions to the Schroedinger equation,
one that may help folks get an idea of just how unusual the idea of a
"sub-ground" state really is.
 
 
SOLVING SCHROEDINGER'S EQUATION THE EASY WAY
 
The analogy is this:  Go over to the nearest phone, take the phone off
the hook, and start swinging the cord around in a loop.  If you play
around with it, you will find that you can create different numbers of
loops in the cord -- the cord may form one big, slow loop, or (if you
speed things up) two smaller, faster loops, or perhaps even three or
four if you have a long cord.
 
Now here is a truly remarkable thing:  By setting up the definitions
properly, you can treat your phone cord as a sort of analog computer
that provides solutions to an important class of of wave mechanics
problems.  It turns out that the loops formed by a twirling phone chord
correspond quite closely to solutions to 1-dimensional "particle in a box"
problems, which are in turn about simplest possible form of bound states
in QM.  An actual atom is of course far more complex, since it has three
dimensions, multiple electrons, and a "box" whose "walls" are defined by
the very different energy profile of an attractive central nucleus.  But
nonetheless, the phone cord still provides a darned good approximation
of the key principles of a bound state -- and when it comes to the idea
of fractional states, it display of *all* of the relevant characteristics.
 
[NOTE FOR QM TYPES ONLY:  The loops are a mode -- two opposing sinusoidals
forming the standing wave -- and represent the + and - momentum components
of the particle-in-a-box.  The angular velocity of the loop corresponds
to the mass of the "particle", and the height of the loop at any one point
is the amplitude.  (The "mass"/angular-velocity correlation must be reset
for each new solution or mode;  it thus does not correspond as closely as
the other components of the analogy.)  The endpoints of the phone cord
correspond to infinitely steep, infinitely sharp energy barriers at either
end of the box.  As long as the number of modes is small, these definitions
allow a sufficiently close correlation of the governing wave equations to
allow the phone cord to act a quite accurate analog computer for finding
solutions to Schroedinger's equation for particle-in-a-box problems.]
 
 
THE IMPACT OF SCHROEDINGER'S EQUATION
 
Incidentally, the realization that atomic orbitals are actually solutions
to wave equations was perhaps THE greatest insight of Schroedinger, and
it absolutely revolutionized both physics and chemistry.  When combined
with certain constraints regarding the fermion behavior of electrons
(they don't like to "get close"), his equation describes ALL of the
behavior exhibited by ordinary non-nuclear matter.  Treating it lightly
implies disregard not just for an isolate experiment here and there,
but literally 60 years of profoundly successfully science and engineering.
 
Examples?  Look at the diagrams of "fuzzy orbitals" in your chemistry
books, which these days are the foundation of all detailed understandings
of chemistry and (for that matter) semiconductor electronics.  All those
diagram represent solutions to Schroedinger's equations.  Throw them away
or replace them with infinitely thin "billiard ball" orbitals, and ALL
of those extremely practical results and derivations must also be thrown
away.  You could not possibly be reading this, because the electronic
circuits that carried this email to you are also based on 60 years of
deep understanding of solid state physics that unequivocally began with
Schroedinger's equation.  Change the solutions drastically, and none
of it will work anymore, because even the basic mechanisms by which
electrons *travel* across a wire (ref: Feynman series Vol III) would
be irretrievably altered.
 
 
"FRACTIONAL" PHONE CORD STATES?
 
So back to the phone cord:  If you swing the cord in a single large,
slow loop, the solution you have "found" with your Schroedinger analog
computer is what is known as a ground state -- the lowest possible
energy (least momentum) for a particle-in-a-box.  If you twirl the cord
faster, you will discover that other solutions are also possible at
higher "energies" (twirl rates) -- two loops, three loops, perhaps even
four or more if you have a long enough phone cord.  These larger numbers
of loops correspond to higher (excited) states of a particle-in-a-box.
 
Now the question that has been asked is this:  Is there any way that a
sub-ground state can exist in a hydrogen atom?  You can now explore this
question in a remarkably graphical fashion by simply asking yourself
"How can I twirl the phone cord so that a "sub-ground" state appears??"
 
The answer?  Try as you might, you will never be able to twirl the cord
in a fashion that makes anything other than one, two, three, ... , to n
loops appear.  Indeed, it is extremely difficult to even visualize what
the idea of a sub-ground state *means* on your Schroedinger's analog
computer.  Does it mean "half" of a "big single" loop -- a situation
that literally makes no sense and has no physical realization?
 
About the best possible is to simply shrink the size of a single loop
to half it's previous size.  But that's really cheating, isn't it,
since the *solution* is still exactly the same (a big loop) -- it's
just been shrunk down in size!  In fact, such shrinking *is* physically
possible by increasing the mass of the particle (e.g., a muon has an
orbital diameter or "solution" 200 times smaller than that of the
electron because it has a mass 200 times larger), but by no stretch
of the imagination does such a situation represent a "fractional" state
-- it's simply a plain-old ordinary ground state for a heavier particle.
 
So how did Mills and Farrell get around all this?  To be blunt, they just
ignored it -- and in the process they literally redefined all of known
physics and chemistry by replacing Schroedinger's equation with a shiny
metallic electron "sphere" with some kind of (charged??) photons bouncing
around in it.
 
 
SO WHAT ABOUT "FOURIER TRANSFORMS OF STATIONARY STATES?"
 
But some of you may say "Hey -- they quoted a *real* physics paper!  One
that talked about removing speed-of-light components from the 4-D Fourier
transform of the orbital!  Anyone who knows that kind of stuff *must*
know what they are talking about, right?
 
Says who?  OK, let me give you some relevant details about Fourier
transforms that are mostly from the Dirac Memorial Lecture that Richard
Feynman gave several years ago.  How many of you were aware that the
combination of relativity with quantum mechanics *demands* the existence
of antimatter?  And that the fashion in which it demands it requires
not only that a bound particle have speed-of-light Fourier (momentum)
components, but also *superluminal* momentum components -- that is, real
amplitudes for the particle to "travel" faster than the speed of light?
 
Some of you should be saying "Hey -- you *cannot* do that! Everyone knows
that the speed of light is absolute!"  But for very, very small regions
this is simply not true -- in fact, if you will look closely at a Feynman
diagram and ask yourself what any line that is more than 45 degrees away
from vertical represents, you will find those superluminal components
right under your nose.
 
Does this have any impact on the world at large?  Nope. Like the vast
majority of quantum effects, it simply does not translate into the
world-at-large.  The probability for *big* objects to travel super-
luminally becomes zero-point-zippidy-zip-zip-zip very, *very* quickly.
 
 
SUPERLUMINAL FOURIER MOMENTUM COMPONENTS ==> ANTIMATTER MUST EXIST
 
Actually, things gets a bit weirder.  Relativity requires that when viewed
from an appropriately moving frame-of-reference, it is *always* possible
to view a superluminal object as being one that is traveling *backwards*
in time!  Talk about violations of common sense!  In the large scale,
in fact, this is precisely why superluminals cause severe problems in
relativity -- there is always a way to twist them around so that you
could do the experimental equivalent of shooting your grandfather.  It
just doesn't work very well, at least on the large scale.
 
But it *can* work on a very, very small scale.  So what does an electron
traveling backwards in time look like?  Well let's see...  at the "latest"
event a negative charge must disappear as the electron high-tails it
backwards into time, leaving a positive charge.  So it looks a heck of
a lot as if the "latest" event received a *positive* charge... hmmm...
 
In fact, if you map out carefully what a *negatively* charged electron
looks like when it moves *backwards* in time, it will look very much
like a *positively* charged electron moving *forward* in time -- at
least to those of us who have no choice but to move one way in time!
 
In other words, it becomes a positron -- a form of antimatter.  And its
existence is a direct, unavoidable consequence of the fact that disturbed
electrons always have not only speed-of-light momentum components, but also
*superluminal* momentum components!  We live in a fascinating universe.
 
 
AND THE POINT?
 
So my point in the above discussion?  Well, two things:
 
  o  If you wish to toss out speed-of-light components from ordinary
     situations such as atomic H orbitals, you'd better be prepared
     to toss out most of particle physics, because relativistic
     conversions of the type I just described are fundamental to
     the entire concept of particle pair production, and thus to
     the way particles at high (and low!) energies.
 
  o  Be careful buying into something that you do not understand.  I
     can assure you that what I just wrote above is nice, solid physics
     that is covered quite clearly in the Dirac Memorial Lecture book
     (look in the Feynmam section of a technical book store).  But if
     you honestly don't know anything about the subject, how *can* you
     judge what is what I just said, or what anyone else on this net
     has said?  At the very least you may need to do some extensive study
     on the subject, at least enough to understand *what* is being said.
 
     This in fact is one of the reasons why I've never pushed explanations
     of my earlier Twist document on this net.  I really have no interest
     whatsoever in "persuading" people that there was anything to Twist
     if they have no factual (either theoretical or experimental) basis
     for *realistically* assessing such a collection of ideas.  If you did
     not understand Twist and do not feel you have a solid background in
     either QM or actual experimental results on pseudo-1D PdDx systems,
     you should just continue to ignore the silly thing.  The proposed
     ideas in that may well be wrong (especially the final baryon-violation
     Farfetch), but a huge amount of study went into writing it, and I can
     guarantee you that there is a lot deeper understanding of physics
     behind at least parts of Twist than many of you seem to have assumed.
 
 
IN SUMMARY
 
Well, how was that for overkill?  Jon, I hope I did at least provide some
helpful information on the fractional state issue.  Again, the key question
to be asked is this:
 
  What *does* it mean to twirl a phone cord in a "fractional state" -- that
  is, one that is distinct from the readily obtainable states of one, two,
  three, ...., n loops?
 
If the question cannot be answered for an ordinary phone cord -- well,
sorry folks, but I can dead-certain assure you that it also cannot be
answered for hydrogen atoms, because the controlling differential
equations are just too closely related to allow it.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Terry Bollinger /  Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 19:53:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
Dr. Morrison asked me to send out this excellent discussion of some of
the issues and comparisons between solar energy and fusion for solving
the world's energy problems.
 
(BTW:  Any PNE fans out there?  That was a nice Technology Review article
they had, and I'd be curious to hear something from their perspective.)
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                     PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS
 
   In Article 2345, Dr. Di Tolla asked, in reply to my earlier comments, "what
about high-efficiency solar cells?"
       Photovoltaic cells are potentially great. Sunlight is converted into
DC electrical current by semiconductors with no pollution - great!
   Now the point of my earlier note of 12 Nov., article 2227, about JET results
and the prospects for fusion, was that as the Developing Nations develop they
will use more and more power so that by the year 2100 the total World energy
consumption will be about six times the present value (see below for this
factor of about six). By that time oil and gas will be almost exhausted and
rare and expensive. So the major question is which fuel will be capable
of providing the bulk of the World's energy?
    Everyone would like it to be clean renewable fuels such hydroelectric
power, tidal power, biomass, photovoltaics, etc. Now of it were possible for
the World's total consumption to stay at the same level as now, then fine,
for by expanding these sources it should be possible to do it. But the
real question is "Is it realistic to expect that the World's total consumption
will stay constant?". Some industrialised countries are trying and some will
succeed, but probably not all - but that is not the problem. It is the
needs of the Developing nations. As Cohen wrote;
 
                    WEALTH IS HEALTH
 
                     POVERTY KILLS
 
    India, China and all the other presently Developing Nations will
reasonably increase the total amount of energy they use. At present they are
mainly using coal plus some oil. And here the problem begins because the
"clean" fuels have limits. For example hydroelectric power which supplies
about 6% of the World's total now can be expanded in certain
countries - suppose it is expanded six-fold, ie to 36% of the the 1991
World total - looks good , but in 2100 this will be back to 6% as the
World's total has increased. And since the World's surface cannot be increased,
there is not too much hope of the really big increase. And this neglects the
protests of the ecological movement at the amount of the World's surface
that disappears - for example in China there is a plan to dam the famous
Three Gorges of the Yangtse river which is one of the major tourist attractions
of China. This would give an enormous amount of electric power and would stop
the huge floods that occurred a few months ago - but it would be necessary to
drown 124 towns and to displace 18 million people. To produce one GWatt of
hydroelectric power requires between 10 and 200 square km of the Earth's
surface. "There is no free lunch" was a phrase that was often heard at the
World Clean Energy Conference.
    The problem for photovoltaics, PV, is similar - how much of the earth's
surface can one acceptably cover with solar cells? To be more numerical;
    At present the world's largest PV installation in California(which has just
been bought over by Siemens) covers 20 000 square metres and supplies 400 houses
with electricity. At Telcom the Siemens people claimed that the efficiency of
present day cells are about 14%(some users claim a bit less in practice). Now
in the lab by very special techniques, one can get higher efficiencies of about
26% - but these are extremely expensive. The Siemens people hope that
practical cells could in time, reach about 19% efficiency. In other words the
efficiency is unlikely to rise by more than 50% to 100% - is this enough if
the World's total energy consumption rises by 500%?
    Another figure is that with 10% efficiency, a one GW plant would cover
10 square kilometers.
    A problem of photovoltaic cells is cost. At present they are of the
order of six times more expensive than present fuels so they would not
be considered for the bulk production of electricity that we are
concentrating on. However they have now created a market for some
special cases where normal electrical power is not available. For fibre optic
lines amplifiers are needed every so often and these are usually far from a
power line - here PV's are ideal and much more reliable than diesel motors.
Volkswagen and some other companies are now manufacturing panels to retrofit
on top of cars give air-conditioning for cars with too small motors. All fine
but this will increase the total energy consumed. At present solar panels use
silicon cells which are expensive (about 52% of the cost is the silicon) but
there are two solutions
(1) the use of amorphous silicon in very thin layers
(2) the use of titanium dioxide (see Nature 351(1991)597 ) in a special way
    by Michael Graetzel and his team at EPFL Lausanne.
but this is by far not enough to make PV's competitive as long as coal is
so cheap and supplies last. I think it would be wise for Governments to spend
more on Photovoltaic research and to follow the example of the Swiss government
in giving subsidies to encourage solar installations (though the subsidies are
not large and every time have studied the realisations have seen that they
are exceedingly expensive once one makes a practical system - in other words
they were for demonstration purposes and far from a system that could be
a major provider of power).
    So the overall question is what will be the bulk supplier of energy in
the year 2100. If it is coal then the CO2 problem will be very serious.
If it is fission then the there are the dangers of nuclear proliferation and
of ensuring that all nations operate their reactors with the same care as the
most responsible nations would do - but there will always be nations like Iraq
or social systems that could lead to disasters. Fusion may be more attractive
by avoiding these problems, but it is far from proved that fusion will work. If
one wants to use photovoltaics, then how much of the earth's surface is one
prepared to cover with solar panels?
 
SUMMARY
       The Developing Nations will need more power and the World's Total Energy
Consumption will rise to about six times the present value in the year 2100.
What will be the major supplier? Coal seems the most likely but will give
too much CO2. There seems no satisfactory alternative. As Churchill said
of Democracy, "Fusion is the worst possible fuel except all the others".
So the conclusion is that the World will have a major problem and there is no
clear answer. Probably the wisest way would be to develop more actively almost
all systems and in particular fusion as the one that has the best chance and
photovoltaics as the best support.
 
 
       Indication of Approximate Calculation of the World's Energy needs in
the year 2100.
               At present 75% of the World's energy is used by the
Industrialised Nations while the Developing Nations with 75% of the World's
population, use only 25%. As the Developing Nations are growing much faster
than the Industrialised Nations, then by the year 2100, if one assumes the
World population will have stabilised at about 10 billion, 90% of people will be
living in countries that are at present called Developing countries. It is
assumed that they will be using about the same amount of energy as Western
Europe, ie about 45% of the present US consumption per capita. This calculation
is very crude but the assumptions are equally uncertain eg. will war or disease
or social disorganisation change things? - in the past the changes due to these
have been surprisingly small over a century.
      While the Industrialised Countries are trying to stabilise the amount of
energy used by savings, greater efficiency, changes in laws and in taxation, etc
the Developing nations are generally too poor in money to afford sophisticated
technology and too short in time to retrofit existing power plants - they
cannot stop them as they need more energy now.
      Would like to acknowledge that much of the data came from papers
presented at the Pugwash Conference, Beijing, September 1991 and the
World Clean Energy Conference, Geneva, November 1991.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 22 Nov 91 16:25:37 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1991Nov22.044509.29771@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov20.080835.23947@itnsg1.cineca.it> ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it
 (Francesco Di Tolla) writes:
>: What about high-efficency solar cells?
>
>No, what this country needs is a good 5-cent solar cell.  (I don't know
>how cents translate to lira, offhand.)  I don't care if they're only
>10% efficient.  If they're cheaper than asphalt shingles, and don't
>burn easily, everyone will cover their roof with 'em, and turn all the
>big nasty utilities into NiCad equivalents.
 
As I understand it, efficiency is only a part of what one is after.
 
Of much more importance is the ratio of energy generated over the
lifetime of the cell to the amount of energy required to create that
cell.  It clearly does not make good sense to build solar cells for
general use in power generation if it takes more energy to create them
than they can generate!
 
This factor is also important when one considers temporary storage
devices like NiCad batteries.  These, like solar cells, have finite
lifetimes - so they, in effect, consume energy as they wear out.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Excess heat
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Excess heat
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 22:46:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From: webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
 
>Dieter, I'm not sure if I believe a word of it either, but let me
>attempt an explanation based on what I understand of the Mills-Farrell
>theory.  According to them, the sub-ground state hydrogen atoms are
>not very reactive.  As a result of this, in a closed cell the amount
>of unreacted oxygen will gradually increase -- because every pair of
>sub-ground hydrogen atoms created will leave one extra oxygen atom
>with nothing to react with.  Now, I don't know whether these extra
>oxygen atoms could scavenge the free hydrogen atoms (not hydrogen
>molecules) from the solution and cathode surface, but it seems at
>least possible to me.  Is this assertion really so obviously wrong to
>you?  If so, please explain why.
 
>-- J
 
OK, Jon, I'll have a go. The claim is that the heat comes from the descent of
the electron to the subzero level, making dwarf hydrogen in the process. A
very few of these now fuse, this being easier for them because of the smaller
Coulombic repulsion. Ingenious, what? It explains the heat/neutron imbalance.
Note however, that we are mainly after this heat; that's what the calorimetry
is measuring. So what happens to the little buggers after they have emitted
this heat is of no concern to us. If the nuclear reaction IS of concern to us
though, then we'll be concerned about the dwarf atoms entering the Pd lattice,
I take it. Anyway, the recombiner will maybe make water out of those dwarf
hydrogen atoms that make it up to the catalyst; I say: so what? They no longer
serve any purpose anyway. Even if this were somehow bad for us, we'd be
talking about dwarf atoms that got up there. In an open cell, they'd keep
going out into the air and still be lost. Should we be talking about losing
oxygen, the oxygen partial pressure, too, would be about the same in both
cases. I hope I'm expressing this well. In other words, either way, PFFFT.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  Excess Heat/Dieter
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat/Dieter
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 22:50:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
Dear Dieter,
 
You ought to think before you spout off--particularly in such a nasty
and offensive fashion.
 
1.  Why don't you calculate how much water is converted to hydrogen
and oxygen by a cell that carries about 80 mA?  How often would you
have to add a few mL of water to maintain the volume of electrolyte at,
say, 200 mL?  [Which we did, of course.]
 
2.  How long does it take for a 500 mL Dewar flask filled with 200 mL of
electrolyte and equiped with a 200 mL **heater** take to come to
equilibrium.  I'll tell you--between 12 and 20 hrs.
 
3.  Don't tell me we can't match cells to the level of accuracy necessary
for these experiments.  We can.   We also switch the cells.
 
4.  Who said anything about stuffing 2000 m of Ni wire into a 500 mL
Dewar flask.  The cell constant of the Dewar flask is about 20 C/watt.
Are you capable of figuring out if you add 150 watts to such a cell what
would happen?  Of course, we use a different cell for the 100 watt
reactor.  It has a cell constant of about 0.2 C/watt.
 
5.  Why don't you talk to McBreen?  Who the hell is this **someone**
at Brookhaven.
 
6.  Yes, it sets down an oxide layer.  We know that.  So what?
 
7.  I'll tell you what I tell my students.  Come back to see me when
you've done your homework.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
P.S.  If you agree to act in a scientific manner, I'll will too.  I don't enjoy
being nasty.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBITNET cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 /   /   Funny graphs from Fleischmann and Pons
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Funny graphs from Fleischmann and Pons
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 22:51:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Deiter Britz identifies the graphs I have been refering to and says the
explaination in the accompanying text says the following: "  bursts in
the production of excess enthalpy are superimposed on the slowly increasing
or steady state enthalpy generation."
 
But, Deiter you have missed the point of my first comment on these graphs.
In order to be sure we are seeing any "excess" enthalpy production we have
to know where we have zero excess, i.e. the ethalpy generation divided by
the joule enthalpy input is equal to 1.000.   Multiply by 100 and take the
log as indicated by the label on the vertical axis leads me to a result
of 2.000.  Is it not so?  The F&P graph never reaches 2.00 accept for the
burst so if we take them at their word they are plotting an enthalpy
deficit, hench cold fusion is a hoax and we can get on to bigger and better
things.  Short of that conclusion I say they mislabeled the graph.  Incidently
if you are going to plot data on a log scale, multiplying by 100 before
you take the log is a bit stupid anyway.  It is equivalent to a zero shift
of the vertical scale.
 
My second comment on these graphs is that the "slowly increasing
enthalpy generation" refered to in the text comes about in a very strange
way.  Noting that the temperature plotted in graph (a) remains constant,
we must conclude that the enthapy producing reaction (nuclear or not) does
not produce any heat, but rather it decreases the potential difference
across the cell needed to maintain the constant current condition.  Anyone
care to propose a mechanism for achieving that remarkable result?
 
Now for a third comment on these graphs!  Let us take a long hard look
at the temperature behavior of the cell.  Except for the bursts, one
major and one minor, the temperature is remarkable constant.  This graph
crys out to me saying "Nothing is happening. Nothing is happening. Nothing
is happening." all the while the potential applied to the cell is dancing
around like crazy, changing by factors of 3 or 5 or perhaps more.  Then
we come to a burst that takes the temperature from 31.5 to 49 deg C and
then back down to 31.5.  Weird thing about this is that it really seems
to come back to the exact same value even though the power input doesn't.
Then it shoots to to 40 C before starting a long slow decline, returning
to not just near 31.5, but very damn close to the same temperature as before.
Strange to say though, nothing else about the experiment returns to its
startup value.  We are still supposed to be seeing "excess" enthaly
generation even though the temperature gives no hint.  If you set out
to regulate the temperature of a cell, you would have trouble keeping
the temperature as constant as the rest of the graph indicates it is in
any experiment for which temperature is supposed to be a free parameter.
 
This is not data produced in the initial mad rush.  This is not gamma
ray spectra produced by chemists who didn't know anything about nuclear
physics.  This is data prepared by expert electrochemists for their
momment of glory fully one year from that illadvised press conference,
and I think it stinks!  What it says to me is clearly that the electro-
chemistry is so poorly understood that nothing about the enthalpy balance
as determined from these measurements is to be believed, even after you
correct for the typo that seems to have slipped through without anyone
taking notice in the mad rush to believe that something remarkable was
happening.  Of course you can also believe that there was no typo.  The
graphs are correct as shown except the third graph which has its zero in
the wrong place because the experimenters were so busy "seeing" an
excess that they forgot where zero is.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL         "Cold Fusion ought to be dead by now!"
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Terry Bollinger /  Just HOLD ON a minute, this is getting out of hand...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Just HOLD ON a minute, this is getting out of hand...
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 22:53:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
I am afraid something basically unfair to Dr. Farrell is going on here,
and I fear that I contributed to it.  Allow me to explain:
 
On Fri, 22 Nov 1991 18:39:34 GMT J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU wrote:
 
> We are not joking.  I have been a faculty member at F&M College for 27
> years, served as chairman (10 full-time faculty) of the chemistry
> department, served as president of many organizations (local) and as
> secretary of the state (PA) AAUP. I  have been happily married for 30
> years, raised two fine children (both graduated from college with
> honors, and so on.  I am fully aware of the time, money, and energy
> that it takes to do almost anything--yet alone a project of this
> magnitude.  In spite of all this I could be crazy, but neither my
> colleagues nor my wife has broched the subject.  We could be wrong
> about the excess heat.  All I can tell you is that we measure what
> appears to be a large amount excess heat (every time) and we have not
> been able to explain it away.
 
I was one (probably of several) people who recently prodded Dr. Farrell
privately to explicitly tell me whether or not he was kidding.  I think
one of the reasons why this has come up recently (at least for me) was,
oddly enough, the fact that he did *not* seem to get very upset when he
got slammed with a pretty pointed satire the other day about how you
could use compressed "sub-ground" hydrogen to explain all sorts of things.
But when you get down to it, *not* reacting to a satire is a pretty poor
reason to doubt a person's sincerity, isn't it?
 
So I asked Dr. Farrell directly, and I was convinced from his amiable
and helpful response that his experiments have been quite real and the
result of a lot of hard work.  I will state here that I am solidly
convinced that Dr. Farrell is acting in good faith and in fact is being
extraordinarily generous in sharing so many details of experiments that
many, many others (even now) would have been scrambling like crazy to
patent six ways to Sunday and simultaneously keep as Deep Dark Secrets.
Lots of folks on this net trounced on F&P for being "too secretive;" shall
we now create a Catch-22 in which we trounce on M&F for being "too open?"
 
As demonstrated by my last email, I certainly do not concur with Dr.
Farrell's QM theorizing.  So what?  He has every right to say them, and
I certainly don't think his ideas are any wilder than those proposed by
a lot of very good people.  Look back at the (thoroughly deserved if you
ask me) Virtual Neutron roasting I once gave Hagelstein on this net --
I believe his virtual neutron idea had at least 12 humdinger Miracles in
it before I lost count.  I don't see how Dr. Farrell's ideas are *any*
wilder than the highly respected Dr. Hagelstein's ideas, nor to I think
Dr. Farrell should feel the least bit bad about having posted them.
 
Enough.  Again, I'm speaking partly from guilt -- I very definitely am
one of the folks who doubted Dr. Farrell's sincerity in the last week
or so, and I humbly apologize to him for that.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Paul Dietz /  Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
Date: 22 Nov 91 19:46:03 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <01GD8WA3FU68000B5W@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
 
> In our view it is not coincidence.  The fine structure constant ought to
> be one over an integer, specifically 1/137, exactly!  Now, we know that
> the fine structure constant is given as 1/137.0359895.  Seems
> impressive.  But alas we have a solution--redefine the meter so that the
> speed of light is 3 x 10^8 meters, exactly!  Not only will the fine
> structure constant be 1/137, but the permittivity of vacuum becomes
> (1/(36 pi)) x 10-9 F/m rather than 8.854187817 F/m.  So, you say, this is
> mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
 
For those of you who don't get this joke: since the fine structure constant
is dimensionless, changing the definition of the meter doesn't affect
it at all.
 
This is getting utterly ridiculous...  keep up the good work!
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / John Robinson /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: jr@ksr.com (John Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 22 Nov 91 19:47:47 GMT
Organization: Kendall Square Research, Waltham, MA

In article <1991Nov22.044509.29771@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
 writes:
 
   And I don't think anyone's fouled up the calorimetry on the Sun lately...
 
I am not prepared to believe the Sun produces excess heat until
someone measures it in a closed system, recombining all its reaction
products.  Why hasn't this been tried?
--
/jr, aka John Robinson                  You'll notice we don't even
jr@ksr.com                                have a sign on the door.
if troubles: ksr!jr@world.std.com         -- H. Burkhardt III
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjr cudfnJohn cudlnRobinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Dave Jones /  Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
     
Originally-From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones 253-1987)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
Date: 22 Nov 91 19:37:52 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak

In article <01GD8WA3FU68000B5W@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
>
>Dick Blue asked whether nor not momentum distribution, magnetic
>moment, fine structure, and hyperfine structure are covered by the
>Mills and Farrell theory.
>
>The answer is yes.  Three very simple aspects are included below.
>
>1.  Why does the electron have spin angular momentum in the
>hydrogen atom?  Because the electron is a spherical shell of uniform
>charge density that spins (otherwise it would fall into the nucleus).
>We show that the magnetic moment is one Bohr magneton.
>
>2.  Consider that the potential energy of an electron in a hydrogen atom
>is given by
>
>V  =   - e^2/(4 pi e0 a0 n^2)  where e0 is the permittivity of vacuum and
>a0 is the Bohr radius.
>
>This is the same equation as Schrodinger's.
 
No it isn't.  Schrodingers equation specifies how the potential term is
to be related to other terms but doesn't a priori specify the potential.
Typically terms in the Schrodinger equation are educated guesses, pretty
much like the equation itself.
 
>Now, calculate the potential energy when n = 1/137.  You will find out
>that this energy is equal to mc^2, where m is the electron rest mass.  So,
>you say, this is mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
>
Ok, I'm interested.  Ever hear of Arthur Eddington (but he thought it
had to be 1/136....)?
 
>In our view it is not coincidence.  The fine structure constant ought to
>be one over an integer, specifically 1/137, exactly!  Now, we know that
>the fine structure constant is given as 1/137.0359895.  Seems
>impressive.  But alas we have a solution--redefine the meter so that the
>speed of light is 3 x 10^8 meters, exactly!  Not only will the fine
>structure constant be 1/137, but the permittivity of vacuum becomes
 
Oh no you don't.  You don't change the value of a dimensionless constant
by changing the size of any units anywhere.  If you measure distance in
light-seconds, the fine structure constant will be the same.
 
>(1/(36 pi)) x 10-9 F/m rather than 8.854187817 F/m.  So, you say, this is
>mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
 
Betcha Eddington got this one too.....
 
>3.  We show that the proton radius is 1.3214 x 10-15 m (current
>definition of the meter).
Neat.  From electrons to measuring the size of a quark bag.  Of course
you could mean the "classical electron radius" which is around 10-15m.
A quickie calculation based on Rutherford's gold scattering expt. shows
that the gold nucleus at least is 100 times larger.  Not being a
scientist any longer I don't have any better data on hand.
 
>We could be totally zonkers.....
You said it.
 
--
| Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) --------------------------|
| Eastman Kodak Co.	Rochester, NY 14653-7300                      |
| "If you continue to print these scandalous things about me, I'll|
| cancel my subscription !" - Groucho Marx -----------------------|
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendj cudfnDave cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Kevin Dooley /  that pesky moving peak
     
Originally-From: kevin@utkux1.utk.edu (Kevin Dooley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: that pesky moving peak
Date: 22 Nov 91 20:15:50 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center

In Frank Close's book, he has a picture of that famous peak at 2.5.  I am
curious to know about this data set and its origins since Close claims that
it was this data which was originally sent to the journals (Journal of
Electrochem. and Nature).  Up to the time of the press conference, that
peak seemed to be at 2.5.  In the Nature article which came out in June,
the peak was at 2.5.  Meanwhile, the JEC article shows what looks like the
very same data but rescaled so that the peak is at 2.2.  Close claims that
this was only after they were told that the energy was wrong.  Does anybody
who was at the Harwell meeting remember the peak at 2.5, and can they tell
us what happened?  Has anybody, indeed seen this data any place other than
Close's book?  If he is right, then there does appear to be fraud involved.
If he is wrong, then somebody out there must have some information which
contradicts him.  If, for example, somebody reading this message refereed
either of those original papers and saw the peak at 2.2, this would be proof
that both Close and the New York Times are wrong, and that no fraud exists.
Perhaps Dr. Close himself (unless legal constraints prevent him) since he
appears to read  this conference, can tell us more about this as the charges
of fraud are very serious and I for one would like to know the truth.
 
Another curiousity is that Fleishman and Pons state explicitely in their
1991 article that they had heat with H2O before the press conference on
March 23.  Close, on the other hand claims that no H2O had been done before
March 23.  Anybody know whether Close is mistaken, or whether this is another
possible example of duplicity?
 
You may respond by e-mail and I will summarize (protecting your anonymity
if you wish) to this conference.
 
--
Kevin Dooley
kevin@utkvx.bitnet      |  ... a small orange guy in big orange country ...
kevin@utkux1.utk.edu    |
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkevin cudfnKevin cudlnDooley cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
Date: 22 Nov 91 21:36:26 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <01GD8WA3FU68000B5W@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
>Dick Blue asked whether nor not momentum distribution, magnetic
>moment, fine structure, and hyperfine structure are covered by the
>Mills and Farrell theory.
>
>The answer is yes.  Three very simple aspects are included below.
>
>1.  Why does the electron have spin angular momentum in the
>hydrogen atom?  Because the electron is a spherical shell of uniform
>charge density that spins (otherwise it would fall into the nucleus).
>We show that the magnetic moment is one Bohr magneton.
 
Oops.  He got you.  The electron has an extraordinarily accurately known
magnetic moment.  It is (1.001159652193 +/- 0.000000000010) Bohr magneton.
 
This measurement has been done to such high accuracy since this
"anomalous moment" is a very fine test of QED and the computer algebra
programs used to compute the perturbation series.
 
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College
 
I think he also wanted to know the momentum distribution, that is, the
result of elastic scattering of electrons from the bound atomic electron.
There is extensive data on this momentum profile function.  Your "shell"
would probably give an answer that disagrees with these experiments too.
 
Most amusing, however.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.22 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
Date: 22 Nov 91 22:30:09 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <01GD8WA3FU68000B5W@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
In article <01GD8WA3FU68000B5W@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
 
 
>Dick Blue asked whether nor not momentum distribution, magnetic
>moment, fine structure, and hyperfine structure are covered by the
>Mills and Farrell theory.
 
 
>The answer is yes.  Three very simple aspects are included below.
 
 
>............stuff deleted..............
 
 
>2.  Consider that the potential energy of an electron in a hydrogen atom
>is given by
>
>V  =   - e^2/(4 pi e0 a0 n^2)  where e0 is the permittivity of vacuum and
>a0 is the Bohr radius.
 
 
>This is the same equation as Schrodinger's.
 
 
>Now, calculate the potential energy when n = 1/137.  You will find out
>that this energy is equal to mc^2, where m is the electron rest mass.  So,
>you say, this is mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
 
 
 
>In our view it is not coincidence.  The fine structure constant ought to
>be one over an integer, specifically 1/137, exactly!  Now, we know that
>the fine structure constant is given as 1/137.0359895.  Seems
>impressive.  But alas we have a solution--redefine the meter so that the
>speed of light is 3 x 10^8 meters, exactly!  Not only will the fine
>structure constant be 1/137, but the permittivity of vacuum becomes
>(1/(36 pi)) x 10-9 F/m rather than 8.854187817 F/m.  So, you say, this is
>mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
 
 
 
In my view, which may not count for much,
this is nothing but a game of numbers.  It's just the way the
arithmetic works out and has nothing whatever to do with anything
physical.  It has allure in that the meter, by accident, happened
to be defined so close to your magic value that the numbers almost
became rational - in your view.  But 36*pi is far from a rational
number, anyway.
 
 
I'd like to see more work on verifying the experiment, and less
on new physics, until we're sure the old physics is wrong.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.23 / T Gaetz /  Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
     
Originally-From: gaetz@julian.uwo.ca (T. Gaetz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
Date: 23 Nov 91 04:36:56 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, Univ. of Western Ontario

In article <1991Nov22.193752.12685@ssd.kodak.com> Dave Jones writes:
 
[I apologize if the article number or attribution are incorrect --
 rn had trouble with this article]
 
>In article <01GD8WA3FU68000B5W@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
[...]
>>Now, calculate the potential energy when n = 1/137.  You will find out
>>that this energy is equal to mc^2, where m is the electron rest mass.  So,
>>you say, this is mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
>>
>Ok, I'm interested.  Ever hear of Arthur Eddington (but he thought it
>had to be 1/136....)?
 
He originally thought it was 1/136 (the 136 from 10^2 + 6^2 is the way
I heard it) but later revised it to 1/137 (10^2 + 6^2 + 1^2?) when more
more accurate measurements showed the value to be closer to 137:
 
    "The coefficient hc/2\pi e^2, which is sometimes called the
     _fine-structure_constant_, is a pure number; and it is well known
     that its value is close to 137.  For my own part, I think that
     its value is exactly 137, that being the number of degrees of
     freedom for a pair of charges.  There has been much
     discussion whether the true value is 137.0 or 137.3; both values
     claim to be derived from observation.   The latter, called the
     'spectroscopic value', is preferred by many physicists.  It is,
     however, misleading to call these determinations _observational_
     _values_, for the observations are only a substratum; the
     spectroscopic value in particular is based on a rather complex
     theory and is certainly not to be treated as a 'hard fact'
     of observation."
 
     [Sir Arthur Eddington, "The Expanding Universe", Cambridge
      University Press, Cambridge, 1933, p. 114.
 
This is part of a spectacular discussion of how the mass of the electron
can be determined by astronomical observations of distances and velocities
of galaxies.  He was attempting to relate physics on a large scale with
atomic physics - the electron mass occuring in the wave equation comes
from an interaction with all the other particles in the universe and
scales as sqrt(number of particles in the universe)/(radius of curvature
of the universe).  As Chandrasekhar notes ("Truth and Beauty", pp 128-129)
subsequent observations have ruled out Eddington's cosmological model.
Eddington used a value of about 500 km/sec/Mpc for the Hubble constant
(the modern value is between about 50 and 100 km/sec/Mpc); I'm not
sure how that affects his calculation for m_e.
 
>>In our view it is not coincidence.  The fine structure constant ought to
>>be one over an integer, specifically 1/137, exactly!  Now, we know that
>>the fine structure constant is given as 1/137.0359895.  Seems
>>impressive.  But alas we have a solution--redefine the meter so that the
>>speed of light is 3 x 10^8 meters, exactly!  Not only will the fine
>>structure constant be 1/137, but the permittivity of vacuum becomes
>
>Oh no you don't.  You don't change the value of a dimensionless constant
>by changing the size of any units anywhere.  If you measure distance in
>light-seconds, the fine structure constant will be the same.
 
Right!  That's the nice thing about dimensionless constants - they
are _completely_independent_ of the units used.
[...]
--
Terry Gaetz   --   gaetz@julian.uwo.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengaetz cudfnT cudlnGaetz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.23 / Chuck Sites /  Re: EXCESS HEAT
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: EXCESS HEAT
Date: 23 Nov 91 10:18:02 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
 
 
>In response to Dieter about the depletion of hydrogen atoms in closed
>cells.  And in response to the joke aspect.
 
>We always had our recombiner partially in the solution.  That is, about
>1/5 of the recombiner was in the solution and 4/5 in the gas phase
>above the solution.  If we kept the recombiner totally out of the
>solution, it got to hot, metal flaked off of the surface, the electrolyte
>became contaminated, and the recombiner less effective as time went
>on.  Besides, recombiners are expensive.
 
>I think that the H(atom) depletion is best described by LeChatlier's
>principle.  That is, the recombiner forces the chemical reaction to
>water--thereby decreasing H2, O2, H, O, and other intermediate
>species.  The fact that you have an overabundance of O2 because some
>of the hydrogen is now unreactive may also be a factor, but we are still
>wrestling with this aspect.
 
I haven't commented on the M&K Farrell work as of yet because I wanted to
to understand a bit better the quantum mechanical model their theory
is based on.  Based on that model, (and that model alone) Mills has
described a QM theory that by logic, is difficult to refute, other
than it seems to go against a WALL of known QM theory. Needless to
say the fact that the hydrogen ground state is the lowest energy
state known for hydrogen both by theory and experiment.
 
   It was claimed by Professor Farrell, the closed cell calorimetry
will not work, and one reason that has been suggested is that because
the 1/2 states are extremely stable, recombination does not occur and
thus hydrogen is depleted (and the fuel for the reaction is removed.)
Whether right or wrong this does suggest a possible method of proving
the Mills and Farrell theory of sub-ground quantum states by experimental
means. Their theory indicates that hydrogen in a quantum state (n<1) would
be extremely stable. This implies attempts to recombine H(n=1/2) and O
should proceed far slower than H(n>=1).  This seems testable.
 
   Use two identical electrolytic cells with equal thermodynamic
properties, with the difference being the electrolyte: one would be K2CO3,
and the other Na2CO3.  As electrolysis proceeds collect the gases released
by recombining and collecting the resulting liquids. The remaining liquid of
the electrolytic cell and the collected liquid should equal the initial
volume of liquid. If most of the H gas for the potassium side is in the
sub ground state, and is stable, what should result is a missing volume.
Using the sodium as control, the percentage of missing volume could be
compared. Now, there is one experimental effect that needs to be
considered, and this is the temperature.  If the potassium system runs
at a higher temperature than the sodium, this implies the gases would
have a higher thermodynamic energy and could effect the recombination rate.
To balance this discrpency, the systems would need to be run in a constant
temperature mode.
 
             H - gas      +----------------------------+
        ||================|==||_____________________   |
        ||        O - gas | (  _____________________)=========||
        ||   ||===========|==||    condenser           |      ||
(-)     ||   ||    (+)    +----+ +----------------+ +--+      ||
    \ __||   ||__ /            | |                | |       | || |
     (\  )   (  /)          Coolant outlet  Coolant inlet   |    |
  |  | ! |   | # |  |                                       |    |
  |~~|~!~|~~~|~#~|~~|                                       |    |
  |~~|~!~|~~~|~#~|~~|----------+   Volume of electrolyte    |~~~~|
  |~~|~!~|~~~|~#~|~~|%Regulated|   lost * Recombination     (____)
  |~~|~!~|~~~|~#~|~~|%Constant%|   efficiency = collected
  |~~|~!~|~~~|~#~|~~|%%%Temp%%%|   volume.
  |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|%%Heater%%|
  |~~~(H2O+2KCO3)~~~|----------+
  +=================+
 
Any comments? Any refinements?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
 
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.23 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MILLS/FARRELL THEORY
Date: 23 Nov 91 04:03:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <01GD8WA3FU68000B5W@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
>
>Dick Blue asked whether nor not momentum distribution, magnetic
>moment, fine structure, and hyperfine structure are covered by the
>Mills and Farrell theory.
>
>The answer is yes.  Three very simple aspects are included below.
>
>1.  Why does the electron have spin angular momentum in the
>hydrogen atom?  Because the electron is a spherical shell of uniform
>charge density that spins (otherwise it would fall into the nucleus).
>We show that the magnetic moment is one Bohr magneton.
>
What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The spin of the electron has nothing to do with it being in the atom.
The electron in H doesn't fall in the nucleus because of its angular
momentum. In fact, the fround state is "s", that is it has zero angular
momentum.
 
>2.  Consider that the potential energy of an electron in a hydrogen atom
>is given by
>
>V  =   - e^2/(4 pi e0 a0 n^2)  where e0 is the permittivity of vacuum and
>a0 is the Bohr radius.
>
>This is the same equation as Schrodinger's.
>
 
That is not Schroedinger's equation.
 
>Now, calculate the potential energy when n = 1/137.  You will find out
>that this energy is equal to mc^2, where m is the electron rest mass.  So,
>you say, this is mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
>
>In our view it is not coincidence.  The fine structure constant ought to
>be one over an integer, specifically 1/137, exactly!
 
Ought to be? Why? The magic of numbers?
 
>Now, we know that
>the fine structure constant is given as 1/137.0359895.  Seems
>impressive.  But alas we have a solution--redefine the meter so that the
>speed of light is 3 x 10^8 meters, exactly!  Not only will the fine
>structure constant be 1/137, but the permittivity of vacuum becomes
>(1/(36 pi)) x 10-9 F/m rather than 8.854187817 F/m.  So, you say, this is
>mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
 
What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The fine structure constant is the ratio of the Bohr velocity to the speed
of light. You will get the same value if you measure both in inches per
week!!!
 
You sure must be joking, mister Farrell!
 
Raul Baragiola
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.23 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  EXCESS HEAT
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: EXCESS HEAT
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 22:34:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
BITNET   11/23/91
 
Now that I have calmed down (a bit).  Let me respond to some other
question raised by Dieter Britz.
 
1. Some history.  Randy Mills has his own office, his own labs, and his
own employees (none of these are associated with the College and they
are located a few miles from here.  I have my own office and lab at the
College.  Mills and I were working on this new theory for 6 months , or
so, before the P&F announcement.  When the P&F announcement hit
we knew immediately that it was not nuclear and that it ought to work
with light water as well.  According to our theory, the active species in
the P&F set up were H(monatomic), Pd2+ and Li+, not Pd and Li+.  We
also predicted that K+, Rb+, Ti2+ etc would work and that Pd2+ and
Na+ (for example would not).  Measuring tritium is not trivial, but it is
not that complicated either, and we decided to use heavy water,
monitor tritium levels and try a number of likely combinations.  We
worked together on the experiments and on the theory.  We were
spending a lot of time on the theory.  I was busy at the College.  He was
busy with his business.  And, we have several other project in the
works.  D2O is not horribly expensive, but when you begin to go
through it by the liter it adds up.  Progress was slow.  It was very
difficult to separate the slightly elevated tritium levels we were seeing
from the concentration (of tritium) effect of electrolysis.  Mills began to
dabble with some simple heat experiments in an effort to find the best
combination (K+, Rb+,...) (chloride, carbonate, sulfate, phosphate,...).
K+ seemed like the best cation.  The minus two anions worked best,
and carbonate seemed to work better than the other -2 anions that he
tried.  I was very busy at the time and told Mills to mush ahead on his
own--although many of these initial heat experiments were done in
my lab.  Mills contacted somn industrial people (a large company, not
local) who do this sort of thing for a living for a protocol to measure
heat or power under these conditions.  He also contacted Steve Kneizys
who had done a lot of solution calorimetry.  Mills and Kneizys
assembled the calorimetry equipment, tried many perturbations
(electrodes, magnetic fields, UV radiation, and god knows what all).
Then they proceeded to collect the data that appeared in FT.  I was
aware of everything being done, but was not really a experimenter in
this work.  I did not feel that my name should be on the paper, which
when it was submitted had no theoretical section.  Mills heard for the
referees and the editor, they would publish the manuscript, but they
felt it was essential to put the theory in the paper.  Mills cut and pasted
from the text of our book and sent it back.  Thus, my name is not on
the FT paper.  I am not at a publish or perish institution so this is of no
consequence to me.  I am a coauthor of the book, which was published
more than one year prior to publication of the paper in FT.
 
Now, I was not happy with several aspects of the experimental work
that went into the paper.  I knew, for example, that the temperature
readings were taken every few minutes for 4 hours--and the system
had not come to equilibrium  (it turns out from measurements taken
later--as explained below--that this is of no consequence as long as all of
the measurements are taken over identical time periods, say 4 hrs or 8
hrs or whatever).  How did they know that they were not getting
recombination?  How did they know that the stirring was adequate?
And so on.  In late April, we began to assemble some more equipment:
a data acquisition system; thermistors; more constant current power
supplies.  Over the summer we  collected data continuously, ran
several thermistors in each cell at varying locations, varied the stirring
rate,  exchanging electrodes, exchanging heaters, exchanging
thermistors, exchanging power supplies.  We also had a glass blower
make some equipment so we could collect the gases and check the
recombination rate.  In these experiments we let all runs (electrolysis
only; heater and electrolysis; heater only; stirring only; same with the
controls (Na2CO3) come to equilibrium.  Some we let run for weeks to
see if there was a drop in the amount of excess heat with time  There
were 4 of us.  Someone was always in the lab--24 hrs per day to insure
that no one could tamper with the equipment or data collection.  That
is why I use the term "we" when reporting what I know about this
system.
 
Now, what about the closed system?  I can only tell you this:
 
1.  When we collected the gases (in what can be viewed as a closed
system) we got excess heat.
 
2. When we used our recombiner (1/5 in the electrolyte; 4/5 in the
gases above the electrolyte) the excess heat dropped off enormously,
usually to zero.  We believe this is due to effective removal of
hydrogen atoms from the body and the surface (this is a surface effect)
of the Ni cathode.  P&F have made the same comment--it works best in
an open system.  Noninski agrees.  Our **explanation** could be
wrong.  Maybe something in our recombiner is being released and
damaging the Ni surface.
 
At any rate, I don't think we should encourage people to run this
system with a recombiner.  Why not find out if everyone (who wants
to spent some time on this subject) can duplicate our results of
**apparent** excess heat.  After all, if it give excess heat and you collect
the gases and show that it is not due to recombination---what's left?
Then, if we have what looks to be an real effect, use a recombiner  and
see if we can find out why it doesn't work under those conditions.
 
I will have rnother post on the theory que tions that have been
brought up.  But the most important question is the reproducible
experiment.
 
Finally, I just saw the apology from Terry Bollinger.  My thanks.  I
don't object to pointed satire.  I can take it and enjoy it.  And I know
that what I am presenting appears to be unbelievable, so I expect to take
a lot of heat.  My feeling is that it is my responsibility to report what I
see--even if I have trouble believing it myself.  But I am not a charlatan
nor a prankster, and recent criticism along those lines has hurt.
Whether or not I am a competent scientist remains to be seen--one can
be criticized fairly for incompetence.  At any rate, I was having a pretty
bad weekend before I saw the apology.
 
John Farrell
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBITNET cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.23 / John Logajan /  No more nasty-grams.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No more nasty-grams.
Date: 23 Nov 91 16:54:09 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Several people who should know better have been posting nasty-grams.
 
Keep it amiable, or do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.23 / Yary Hluchan /  Re: Sub-Ground States
     
Originally-From: yh0a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Yary Richard Phillip Hluchan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sub-Ground States
Date: 23 Nov 91 21:22:43 GMT
Organization: Senior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon,
 Pittsburgh, PA

]"FRACTIONAL" PHONE CORD STATES?
]...
]Now the question that has been asked is this:  Is there any way that a
]sub-ground state can exist in a hydrogen atom?  You can now explore this
]question in a remarkably graphical fashion by simply asking yourself
]"How can I twirl the phone cord so that a "sub-ground" state appears??"
 
Detach the receiver and twirl just the cord... open one end of the organ
pipe... remove one side of the box.
 
Something tells me the analogy breaks down here, but I like to exercise
my imagination.
 
-yary
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnYary cudlnHluchan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.23 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: No more nasty-grams.
     
Originally-From: an288@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No more nasty-grams.
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 21:45:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) says:
 
>Several people who should know better have been posting nasty-grams.
>
>Keep it amiable, or do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.
 
Here here!  I know I appreciate the posts of Mills/Farrell and would hate to
see them clam up.  sci.physics.fusion is probably the only place where anybody
feels comfortable discussing this.  Theories, blue-sky'ing, or experimental
results.  Lets not chill the last cold fusion forum!  If you need to shoot
something down please do it in cold blood! -:)
 
Again, my appreciation to all those who post their thoughts and/or work
results.  Also to DB for keeping his list of papers!
--
Mark Hittinger [answering machine (606)-272-2424
PO BOX 43358
Middletown, KY 40243
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenan288 cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.23 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Excess Heat/Dieter
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat/Dieter
Date: 23 Nov 91 23:32:35 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

I have not done any physics or chemistry in 7 years, so forgive me if
I sound ignorant. Is it possible that some TEMPORARY species of atom
or molecule is being created (being exotermic reaction) then it escapes
from the cell and absorbs ambient heat from the air to revert back to
normal state (whatever it is H2, O2, H2O). It would explain why closed
cell does not work, if this strange species reverts to normal state in
the cell it will reabsorb the energy it just gave off but if it is allowed
to escape then the outside of the cell contributes the energy to revert to
the normal state. Is it against the thermodynamic laws to be able to extract
useful energy from the ambient heat? (I do not know).
 
Alex Orenshteyn
 
P.S. If Someone wants to call me names for this post send to my account.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Sub-Ground States
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sub-Ground States
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 07:42:51 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <9111221833.AA15454@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
	 (Terry Bollinger) writes:
> If the question cannot be answered for an ordinary phone cord -- well,
> sorry folks, but I can dead-certain assure you that it also cannot be
> answered for hydrogen atoms, because the controlling differential
> equations are just too closely related to allow it.
>
 
Sorry to flame you, but you should lay off harping on Mills/Farrel et al
until you know where they are coming from. They may be crazy, but they aren't
stupid :-).
 
First, to even suggest its a "joke" is ridiculous---professors don't make
jokes by publishing papers, books and so on. These guys are obviously
serious about their work, which you would know if you had seen their papers,
books, etc. You had better seriously realign your perception of the
academic world if you think this sort of stuff is likely to all be a joke
(i.e., publishing papers in J. Fusion Tech, and elsewhere, not
to mention a whole book on their theory).
 
As for saying "it can't be so because of Schroedinger..."---these
guys whole point is that they develop an alternative theory to
standard QM, from scratch, based on classical physics and a few
adhoc assumptions. I don't endorse their theory, but if someone
presents a new theory you can't shoot it down by invoking the
old theory----the thing to invoke is experimental results.
 
As for their theory, the basic idea is this: we need a nonradiative
state for the bound electron, so that matter can exist. Classically,
there _are_ such states, namely ones having symmetries that cause all
radiation to cancel (e.g. a rotating spherical shell of charge doesn't
radiate, so one could try to build a theory of the atom around such
charge distributions for the e-).
 
The main problem I have with their theory is that it is too exclusive---i.e.
there are many symmetrical rotating charge distributions that emit
no net radiation, and I don't fully understand how they exclude all
these to be left just with spherical shells at the correct radii---i.e.,
I don't fully buy their logic that allows them to quantize their theory.
 
But, I say who need their theory if they have a reproducible experiment---that
will resolve things soon enough.
 
In the mean time, why don't those who have never looked at their ideas do their
homework if they want to comment. Like I say, I don't trust their
theory based on the time I spent trying to understand it, but I diod
find they had some clever and interesting ideas.
 
Also, their theories should not be put on the same level with
"theories" that have appeared in the newsgroups. The theories that have
originated here are simply the merest notions of theories---more like a vague
idea, I would say. Mill/Farrel,
et al have developed their theory in great mathematical and physical detail.
That doesn't make it worth anything, but they have puts lots of thought and
effort into it, and really tried to develop it fully.
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.24 / [John E /  Re: Sub-Ground States
     
Originally-From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP ([John E. Kreznar])
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sub-Ground States
Date: 24 Nov 91 07:46:02 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <9111221833.AA15454@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com
 (Terry Bollinger) writes:
 
> The analogy is this:  Go over to the nearest phone, take the phone off
> the hook, and start swinging the cord around in a loop.  If you play
> around with it, you will find that you can create different numbers of
> loops in the cord -- the cord may form one big, slow loop, or (if you
> speed things up) two smaller, faster loops, or perhaps even three or
> four if you have a long cord.
 
> "FRACTIONAL" PHONE CORD STATES?
 
> Now the question that has been asked is this:  Is there any way that a
> sub-ground state can exist in a hydrogen atom?  You can now explore this
> question in a remarkably graphical fashion by simply asking yourself
> "How can I twirl the phone cord so that a "sub-ground" state appears??"
 
> The answer?  Try as you might, you will never be able to twirl the cord
> in a fashion that makes anything other than one, two, three, ... , to n
> loops appear.  Indeed, it is extremely difficult to even visualize what
> the idea of a sub-ground state *means* on your Schroedinger's analog
> computer.  Does it mean "half" of a "big single" loop -- a situation
> that literally makes no sense and has no physical realization?
 
>   What *does* it mean to twirl a phone cord in a "fractional state" -- that
>   is, one that is distinct from the readily obtainable states of one, two,
>   three, ...., n loops?
 
Terry, I thank you for that vivid illustration with the twirling phone cord.
 
The following is NOT a defense of the Mills-Farrell work, but I think the case
for fractional states is not quite as bleak as you make it out to be, as
follows.
 
Instead of a mass (the telephone) at one end and a driving force (your hand) at
the other, imagine the cord to be in a circular loop and having some distributed
mass of its own.  (It may be easier to imagine doing this in zero-g where the
thing doesn't just droop or fall to the floor.)  Now you can grasp the cord at
one point and shake it to see what kind of standing waves you can set up.  Just
as in the telephone cord case, you will find that you can excite n-loop modes
for any positive integer n.  So far, nothing new, although the model corresponds
just a little closer to the atom in that the boundary condition is just
continuity of the wave all around the loop, and there are no walls.
 
But now suppose the cord makes not one circuit around the center, but two.
Ignore possible interference between the two parts of the double loop.  Grasp
one of the loops and again see what kind of standing waves you can set up.  You
should be able to get a mode with half the spatial frequency wherein the two
parts of the double loop have the opposite phase.
 
Similarly, a cord wrapped three times around the center should support a mode of
one-third the spatial frequency, and for any positive integer n, a cord wrapped
n times should have a mode of 1/n cycles per loop.
 
This kind of picture was the only one I was able to form for the description
I've read here on the net.  It's inconsistent with the M-F spherical charge
distribution of the electron, but at least it's a way to divide the spatial
(actually, angular) frequency by any positive integer and still come up with
something sensible.
 
To extrapolate this idea to a wave function, it would be necessary to abandon
the idea that the wave function was a single-valued function of position.  It
would be more like, say, the arccos function, having several branches.  In the
"1/n" state, the function would have n branches and would be required to meet
itself continuously after n circuits.
--
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjkreznar cudfn[John cudlnE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.24 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Funny graphs from Fleischmann and Pons
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Funny graphs from Fleischmann and Pons
Date: 24 Nov 91 12:51:18 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <199111222129.AA09416@ames.arc.nasa.gov>,
 BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
 
> Deiter Britz identifies the graphs I have been refering to and says the
> explaination in the accompanying text says the following: "  bursts in
> the production of excess enthalpy are superimposed on the slowly increasing
> or steady state enthalpy generation."
 
> But, Deiter you have missed the point of my first comment on these graphs.
> In order to be sure we are seeing any "excess" enthalpy production we have
> to know where we have zero excess, i.e. the ethalpy generation divided by
> the joule enthalpy input is equal to 1.000.   Multiply by 100 and take the
> log as indicated by the label on the vertical axis leads me to a result
> of 2.000.  Is it not so?  The F&P graph never reaches 2.00 accept for the
> burst so if we take them at their word they are plotting an enthalpy
> deficit, hench cold fusion is a hoax and we can get on to bigger and better
> things.  Short of that conclusion I say they mislabeled the graph.  Incidently
> if you are going to plot data on a log scale, multiplying by 100 before
> you take the log is a bit stupid anyway.  It is equivalent to a zero shift
> of the vertical scale.
 
 The scale is rather easy to follow, I think: 0.0 is 1% excess, 1.0 is 10%
 excess, and 2.0 is 100% etc. So we have a continuous low level of excess
 heat of around 10% followed by a burst with a peak excess of 1600%. After the
 burst an excess of 20% to 40% is observed. When they say "enthalpy generation/
 Joule enthalpy input" the really mean "EXCESS enthalpy generation/ Joule
 enthalpy input". So 1 watt out and 0.8 watts input would give a value of 1.40
 on their scale. Incidentally, the sharp downward spikes in the graph are an
 artifact of having to refill the cells with solvent periodically. Look for
 the value for zero excess heat and you run into troubles with taking a log of
 zero, but as the error in the excess heat is taken to be 0.1%, a value of
 -1.0 could be considered the zero baseline.
 
> My second comment on these graphs is that the "slowly increasing
> enthalpy generation" refered to in the text comes about in a very strange
> way.  Noting that the temperature plotted in graph (a) remains constant,
> we must conclude that the enthapy producing reaction (nuclear or not) does
> not produce any heat, but rather it decreases the potential difference
> across the cell needed to maintain the constant current condition.  Anyone
> care to propose a mechanism for achieving that remarkable result?
 
 Well, the temperature DOES increase slightly. At time zero the input power is
 0.257 watts and the cell temperature is 31.2 deg C. The last data point
 correponds to an input of .357 watts and a temperature of 32.4 deg C.
 Recall that the cell constant is   5 - 10 deg C/watt so an excess heat of
 0.1 watts (ie. 40%) would only raise the cell temperature by 0.5 to 1.0
 degrees. So the data is not unreasonable. The drop in cell voltage is
 expected with increasing temperature and reflects the decrease in the
 resitance of the cell and the overpotentials at the anode and cathode.
 
> Now for a third comment on these graphs!  Let us take a long hard look
> at the temperature behavior of the cell.  Except for the bursts, one
> major and one minor, the temperature is remarkable constant.  This graph
> crys out to me saying "Nothing is happening. Nothing is happening. Nothing
> is happening." all the while the potential applied to the cell is dancing
 
 Same comment as above applies here.
 
> This is not data produced in the initial mad rush.  This is not gamma
> ray spectra produced by chemists who didn't know anything about nuclear
> physics.  This is data prepared by expert electrochemists for their
> momment of glory fully one year from that illadvised press conference,
> and I think it stinks!  What it says to me is clearly that the electro-
> chemistry is so poorly understood that nothing about the enthalpy balance
> as determined from these measurements is to be believed, even after you
> correct for the typo that seems to have slipped through without anyone
> taking notice in the mad rush to believe that something remarkable was
> happening.  Of course you can also believe that there was no typo.  The
> graphs are correct as shown except the third graph which has its zero in
> the wrong place because the experimenters were so busy "seeing" an
> excess that they forgot where zero is.
 
 The graph looks OK to me, but  there are other aspects of this paper which
 give rise to suspicion. For instance,  the 0.1% accuracy claim is an absurd
 figure for open, isoperibolic calorimeters. A more realistic figure would be
 10 to 50 times this value, and this is what other scientist (eg. at NCFI and
 Harwell) observed when they used similar calorimeters to F&P. The heat bursts
 are more credible than the low level heat, but as none have been seen since
 October 1989 they are on shaky ground too.
 
 -----------------------------------
 
 Todd Green
 Department of Chemistry
 University of Western Australia
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentiq cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.24 / John Moore /  Re: Just HOLD ON a minute, this is getting out of hand...
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Just HOLD ON a minute, this is getting out of hand...
Date: 24 Nov 91 14:51:34 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <9111222130.AA19991@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
	(Terry Bollinger) writes:
]So I asked Dr. Farrell directly, and I was convinced from his amiable
]and helpful response that his experiments have been quite real and the
]result of a lot of hard work.  I will state here that I am solidly
]convinced that Dr. Farrell is acting in good faith and in fact is being
]extraordinarily generous in sharing so many details of experiments that
]many, many others (even now) would have been scrambling like crazy to
]patent six ways to Sunday and simultaneously keep as Deep Dark Secrets.
]Lots of folks on this net trounced on F&P for being "too secretive;" shall
]we now create a Catch-22 in which we trounce on M&F for being "too open?"
 
I agree. I see no reason to doubt Dr. Farrell's sincerity - whatever one may
think of the theory or experiment. It is in the interests of all of us who
are interested in this to continue the dialogue rather than letting it
degenerate into insulting comments. I thank Dr. Farrell for sending me 2
copies of the paper, and for answering our questions. I also thank Dieter
for sending me a copy. What am I going to do with all these papers :-)
 
I personally am not competent to comment on the theory presented in the paper.
From my point of view, there is currently one interesting issue: was there the
significant excess heat that is claimed? Several comments:
 
  -Dieter... the paper says that the cell constant was recomputed on the fly
   by adding excess heat from the resistive heater, and looking at the cell
   response. If this was done throughout the experiment, it would defeat your
   notion that electrolyte depletion caused the excess heat through cell
   constant changes.
 
  -I did not have time to compute electrolyte depletion (work has been intense
   here). Obviously Dr. Farrell did.
 
  -I would still urge some sort of closed cell calorimetry. Let me suggest an
   experimental setup:
     Use two vessels. One contains the electrolysis cell, the other the
       recombiner.
     Arrange them physically so that the reconstituted H2O does not get back
       into the electrolysis cell (this avoids any contamination problem,
       although it loses the advantage of maintaining a constant electrolyte
       level in the cell)
    Use a catalyst that doesn't get too hot. I obtained some catalysts
       sold for use in maintenance-free auto batteries that are packaged
       in such a way that they should not get too hot. Furthermore, they are
       quite inexpensive - especially one that can handle 80ma of electrolysis
       current. Unfortunately, I don't have the information handy about
       where I got them (it's Thanksgiving vacation and I'm not at my office).
       However, I did post it to the net several times over the duration of
       the CNF episode.
 
  The main reason that I suggest closed cell calorimetry is that it defuses
  some criticism. In my opinion, CNF falls into a similar category as
  PSI research or UFOlogy... in the sense that extraordinary claims require
  extraordinary evidence [not in the sense, I hope, of kookiness :-)]. Thus
  the experiments need to be tried in as many ways as are consistent with the
  theory, and in ways that have the tightest possible measure of total cell
  energy flux throughout the entire duration of the experiment.
 
  I also must thank Dr. Farrell for being so open about the details of the
  work. When we consider that some others have either wrapped their work in
  patent secrecty, or left out of their papers crucial elements of the
  experiment (surface poisoning agents), this paper is indeed welcome.
 
  Given the odds of upsetting the QM explanation of electron cells, I still
  fall into the skeptic category and have to assume experimental error -
  but I sure don't see where it is in this experiment. On the other hand,
  the potential importance of this sort of "free lunch" energy IMHO
  says we should take a close look at it.
 
  I would like to see comments on here from other researchers that have
  successfully or unsuccessfully done this experiment.
 
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - This line generated by John's new auto-sig generator! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.24 / Albert Chou /  Re: Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
     
Originally-From: albert@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
Date: 24 Nov 91 16:21:03 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

Concerning photovoltaic cells, what about the new cheap (high efficiency?)
cells developed jointly by TI and Southern California Edison?  They sounded
pretty promising in an article I read a few months ago.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.24 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
Date: 24 Nov 91 17:49:49 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <4901@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> albert@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
 writes:
 
>Concerning photovoltaic cells, what about the new cheap (high efficiency?)
>cells developed jointly by TI and Southern California Edison?  They sounded
>pretty promising in an article I read a few months ago.
 
They aren't that cheap (just less expensive that previous cells), and
they weren't very efficient (even compared to previous cells).  They
would not provide power at a price competitive for baseload demand,
by a considerable factor.  A sizeable niche market exists for
cells even at today's prices, though.
 
Followup to sci.energy.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.24 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Sub-Ground States
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sub-Ground States
Date: 24 Nov 91 20:14:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <108@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP ([John E. Kreznar]) writes:
>In article <9111221833.AA15454@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com
 (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>
>> The analogy is this:  Go over to the nearest phone, take the phone off
>> the hook, and start swinging the cord around in a loop.  If you play
>> around with it, you will find that you can create different numbers of
>> loops in the cord -- the cord may form one big, slow loop, or (if you
>> speed things up) two smaller, faster loops, or perhaps even three or
>> four if you have a long cord.
>
>> "FRACTIONAL" PHONE CORD STATES?
>
>> Now the question that has been asked is this:  Is there any way that a
>> sub-ground state can exist in a hydrogen atom?  You can now explore this
>> question in a remarkably graphical fashion by simply asking yourself
>> "How can I twirl the phone cord so that a "sub-ground" state appears??"
>
>> The answer?  Try as you might, you will never be able to twirl the cord
>> in a fashion that makes anything other than one, two, three, ... , to n
>> loops appear.  Indeed, it is extremely difficult to even visualize what
>> the idea of a sub-ground state *means* on your Schroedinger's analog
>> computer.  Does it mean "half" of a "big single" loop -- a situation
>> that literally makes no sense and has no physical realization?
>
>>   What *does* it mean to twirl a phone cord in a "fractional state" -- that
>>   is, one that is distinct from the readily obtainable states of one, two,
>>   three, ...., n loops?
>
>Terry, I thank you for that vivid illustration with the twirling phone cord.
>
>The following is NOT a defense of the Mills-Farrell work, but I think the case
>for fractional states is not quite as bleak as you make it out to be, as
>follows.
>
>Instead of a mass (the telephone) at one end and a driving force (your hand) at
>the other, imagine the cord to be in a circular loop and having some
 distributed
>mass of its own.  (It may be easier to imagine doing this in zero-g where the
>thing doesn't just droop or fall to the floor.)  Now you can grasp the cord at
>one point and shake it to see what kind of standing waves you can set up.  Just
>as in the telephone cord case, you will find that you can excite n-loop modes
>for any positive integer n.  So far, nothing new, although the model
 corresponds
>just a little closer to the atom in that the boundary condition is just
>continuity of the wave all around the loop, and there are no walls.
>
>But now suppose the cord makes not one circuit around the center, but two.
>Ignore possible interference between the two parts of the double loop.  Grasp
>one of the loops and again see what kind of standing waves you can set up.  You
>should be able to get a mode with half the spatial frequency wherein the two
>parts of the double loop have the opposite phase.
>
>Similarly, a cord wrapped three times around the center should support a mode
 of
>one-third the spatial frequency, and for any positive integer n, a cord wrapped
>n times should have a mode of 1/n cycles per loop.
>
>This kind of picture was the only one I was able to form for the description
>I've read here on the net.  It's inconsistent with the M-F spherical charge
>distribution of the electron, but at least it's a way to divide the spatial
>(actually, angular) frequency by any positive integer and still come up with
>something sensible.
>
>To extrapolate this idea to a wave function, it would be necessary to abandon
>the idea that the wave function was a single-valued function of position.  It
>would be more like, say, the arccos function, having several branches.  In the
>"1/n" state, the function would have n branches and would be required to meet
>itself continuously after n circuits.
>--
>        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
>         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
 
The example of the cord was perfectly valid. You cannot get away from it
by saying that each orbit is composed of n non-interacting circuits. This
is equivalent to using a cord n-times the length: you can fo it, but then
the model does not apply anymore to the physical system you want to
describe.
 
Any mathematical description needs to have a physical justification in
one wants to keep in touch with reality. There is a large gap between
mathematical models and physics.
 
Raul
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.24 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Just HOLD ON a minute, this is getting out of hand...
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Just HOLD ON a minute, this is getting out of hand...
Date: 24 Nov 91 20:21:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

What I see as getting out of hand is to bring in a scientific discussion
topics like the marital status of the poster, his years as professor,
his rank in the department, the fame of his college, and how many children
he has.  The attempt to change the fine structure constant by changing
the side of the ruler is wrong, even if it comes from a committee of Nobel
laureates.
 
Raul Baragiola
University of Virginia
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  Schrodinger's Equation
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Schrodinger's Equation
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 03:15:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Terry Bollinger gave a very nice summary of stationary ground states
tnd the Schrodinger equation.  I cannot refute his discussion; I have
used similar arguments since 1965  in my classes (I am a big fan of the
particle-in-a-box problems).  And no one can argue against the fact that
the Schrodinger mechanics has had some spectacular successes.  But all
of that does not guarantee that Schrodinger was correct.  It does make
our task of displacing Schrodinger's mechanics more difficult--but this
is as it should be.
 
All of us are familiar with the many shortcomings of Schrodinger's
mechanics.  How is it that a fuzzy electron can give rise to such sharp
energy levels?  What gives rise to spin angular momentum?  An
electron in a px orbital has a larger electron density along the x axis.
Why doesn't the electron cloud push away (along the x axis) to give a
more uniform distribution (Coulomb's law)?  I know that there are
answers, of sorts, for all of these questions.  But the answers are not
very satisfying.  Furthermore, the answers usually depend on small
particles obeying different rules.  Nonetheless, I don't want to harp on
the inadequacies of Schrodinger's mechanics.  It simply makes people
very defensive.  Rather, I will try to demonstrate what our theory can
do and how it differs from current theory.  I will not try to make you
answer the hard questions raised by Schrodinger's mechanics, and I
will welcome the hard questions for our theory.  Please keep in mind,
however, that this is a big task and that Mills and I are just two people.
We make mistakes too--plenty of them.
 
We would like to believe that all of nature abides by the same rules and
there are not separate rules for different size objects.  We believe that
these rules are: the conservation of mass-energy; the conservation of
linear and angular momentum; Maxwells's equations; Newtonian
mechanics applies to all objects, macroscopic and microscopic, moving
much slower than the speed of light; special relativity applies to all
objects, macroscopic and microscopic, moving with speeds approaching
the speed of light.
 
To get specific,  we have tried to show that an electron in a hydrogen
atom is described by a charge-density (mass-density) function which is
the product of a radial delta function, two angular functions, and a
time harmonic.  That is, that this bound electron is a spinning, two-
dimensional spherical surface (we call it an orbitsphere) that can exist
only at specified distances from the proton (nucleus).  (The distances
are determined by the charges of the two particles and the mass of the
electron.  At these distances the electron is stable because the charge
density function does not posses space-time Fourier components that
are synchronous with the speed of light.  At all other distances the
electron radiates and changes the radius until a stable radius is
reached.)
 
Bohr had an electron in the ground state at "a0", the Bohr radius.  We
also have an electron at a0, but we have it as this two-dimensional
spherical surface at a0.  Bohr had
 
  2 pi r(sub n)  =  n x lambda
 
We derive the equation:
 
     2 pi r(sub n)  =  lambda(sub n)   and   r(sub n)  =  n  x  lambda(sub 1).
 
That is, the electron always forms a standing wave at r(sub n).  There is
always  **one** wavelength around the circumference of the sphere.
Put in particle-in-a-box terms,  it is the size of the box (sphere) that
changes as the electron goes from one energy level to another--not the
number of wavelengths around the circumference.  The levels are
quantized because the sphere has a certain size and can trap only
certain frequencies.  The sphere is maintained at what ever size it is
because the trapped photon changes the electric field inside the sphere.
When energy is absorbed the electric field of the trapped photon (which
also forms a standing wave described by spherical harmonics) reduces
the effective nuclear charge and the sphere gets larger.  When a photon
is emitted the effective nuclear charge increases and the sphere gets
smaller.  The electron has spin angular momentum because it is
moving (spinning).  Orbital angular momentum states arise because of
the trapped photon (there is no trapped photon in the ground state and
there is no orbital angular momentum in the ground state).  In the
ground state , the charge density is uniform everywhere on the sphere.
When the sphere traps a photon, the photon is described by spherical
harmonics.  The surface charge of the sphere reacts to the field
harmonics of  the photon.  That is, electron does not have to be
uniformly distributed on the sphere.  (This is analogous to resonance
cavities, where trapped radiation sets up surface charge that depends on
the geometry of the cavity.)  Thus, we have the counterpart of s-orbitals
(uniform charge density), and p, d, f, orbitals.  The orbital
angularmomentum arises because the charge density is not uniform
(but is still spinning of course).
 
 
 
Please note that we are not eliminating quantization, angular
momentum states, spin angular momentum, and so on.  Why on
Earth would we try to do so?
 
Now, when it comes to molecules, only the core electrons will be
described by these orbitspheres.  The valence electrons that are
involved in the bonding will form constant potential energy surfaces.
That is, in the H2 molecule the electron(s) are on the surface of an
ellipsoid.  We have tried to show (in our book) that the distance
between the foci of the ellipsoid is 2 a0 for H2+, and sqrt(2) a0 for H2.
 
 
For something like benzene we envision a constant potential energy
surface that extends around the ring (for the valence electrons).  Here
again, the resultant cavity can trap specific frequencies and give rise the
higher electron states.  We have not begun work on these larger
molecules but we believe that we know, in principle, how to do it.  (I
have neglected vibrational and rotational states in the brief discussion.)
 
I have made no attempt to prove or derive these relationships.  Rather,
I present them to show you that we are dealing with them.  As I say, we
are only two people and there is a lot to do. (Also, I am a chemist--not
a physicist--so I often do not have the jargon correct.  Sorry.)
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBITNET cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.24 / Jim Carr /  Re: Sub-Ground States
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sub-Ground States
Date: 24 Nov 91 21:46:05 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9111221833.AA15454@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
	(Terry Bollinger) writes:
>
> ...
>
>constraints.  The concept that a ground state was in fact a type of
>standing wave was THE great insight of a man called Schroedinger, and
 
It was deBroglie who had that insight, in his Ph.D. thesis.
 
And it applies to all states, not just the ground state.
 
>
> ...
>
>Incidentally, the realization that atomic orbitals are actually solutions
>to wave equations was perhaps THE greatest insight of Schroedinger, and
 
This is correct.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Excess Heat/Dieter
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Excess Heat/Dieter
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 21:08:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
 
>Dear Dieter,
 
>You ought to think before you spout off--particularly in such a nasty
>and offensive fashion.
 
I'll join Terry in an apology. I was not aware that I was being offensive,
I was not attacking you personally but the subject at hand, i.e. your theory
and your experiment. I may have got carried away with cheeky phrasing and am
sorry. I do not want to cause anyone distress. But we must be able to discuss
the subject matter, so let's do that.
 
>1.  Why don't you calculate how much water is converted to hydrogen
>and oxygen by a cell that carries about 80 mA?  How often would you
>have to add a few mL of water to maintain the volume of electrolyte at,
>say, 200 mL?  [Which we did, of course.]
 
Well, I didn't need to, because the paper talks about salts being formed at
the liquid/air interface, clearly implying a concentration by water
depletion. This depletion might have been due to electrolysis (or not; sure
I know about the Faraday, and that it takes a lot of Coulombs to use up or
produce anything by electrolysis) or maybe evaporation - but something was
concentrating the solution, and must have interfered with the calorimetry.
 
>2.  How long does it take for a 500 mL Dewar flask filled with 200 mL of
>electrolyte and equiped with a 200 mL **heater** take to come to
>equilibrium.  I'll tell you--between 12 and 20 hrs.
 
That depends on heat transport. My point is that during a period as long as
12 h, there are lots of potential error sources such as evaporation etc. I
can't believe that with stirring, you can't bring this down to something less
uncomfortable.
 
>3.  Don't tell me we can't match cells to the level of accuracy necessary
>for these experiments.  We can.   We also switch the cells.
 
OK, I retract my blanket statement. It is just that, during my electrochemical
career, I have seen many attempts to use matched cells for all sorts of
purposes (non-calorimetric), and they never are satisfactory. Maybe you have
matched cells, my experience tells me to be skeptical. However, John Moore
reminds me you calibrate continuously (I think this is what he tells me), so
maybe you can match the cells despite their differences, so to speak. I have
to re-read your paper on that.
 
>4.  Who said anything about stuffing 2000 m of Ni wire into a 500 mL
>Dewar flask.  The cell constant of the Dewar flask is about 20 C/watt.
>Are you capable of figuring out if you add 150 watts to such a cell what
>would happen?  Of course, we use a different cell for the 100 watt
>reactor.  It has a cell constant of about 0.2 C/watt.
 
You yourself mention the 2000 m of 0.127 mm wire; I presume you meant you
put it into a cell - if not, what do you do with it? I don't see the
point of the cell constants. Yes, I am capable of figuring out the above,
but what does it mean?
 
>5.  Why don't you talk to McBreen?  Who the hell is this **someone**
>at Brookhaven.
 
I don't know McBreen, have neither his phone number nor his email address.
This is one of the points I should apologise for. I was not quite sure here
and this is why I phrased it the way I did ("the way I understand the answer")
and you are 100% right if you say that in that case I should not have
mentioned it at all.
 
>6.  Yes, it sets down an oxide layer.  We know that.  So what?
 
Well, when you do something, you usually have a reason for doing it. What
was it in this case? Electrochemists hate oxide layers (except catalysis
people), we like to get down to the clean metal. So why is it a good thing
here?
 
>7.  I'll tell you what I tell my students.  Come back to see me when
>you've done your homework.
 
What homework? Just joking (I admit it), I know what you mean. I also have
a very thick skin.
 
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College
 
>P.S.  If you agree to act in a scientific manner, I'll will too.  I don't enjoy
>being nasty.
 
OK, friend. The joke aspect I don't think you need to be upset about. When the
FPH affair first hit the papers, a lot of people tried it out as an April fool
joke or something. When someone makes a radical or outrageous proposal, the
joke idea at first seems like the best possibility. Your paper contains some
features that best fit the joke theory, like - as I say - what I call the
numerology section. I do now believe you that you are not in fact joking. I
was not trying to be nasty and once again apologise for causing you distress.
I do not understand your theory, not being equipped to do so, but I can see
all sorts of general objections. I still say that your experiment has many
features that make me extremely skeptical. On the other hand, as others have
remarked, full marks to you for giving ALL the details. Anyone who cares to
do it, can have a go at it. I am afraid, though, that we are going to have
another unprovable case on our hands. I cannot go for the idea that it works
only for open cells. That makes it unprovable, by the large errors.
 
 You leave a couple of questions unanswered. Your explanations about
mini-atoms getting lost does not hold water. I would like to know why they are
important, if they already have given off their heat? Why should their
incorporation into water matter? How does the 1/5 part of the recombiner in
the solution scavenge shrinkies off the Ni? I submit that they have to be on
the loose in the first place to get to the recombiner, and are unlikely then
to get back to the Ni - if that in fact matters.
 You need of course not answer, if these questions worry you. I don't see why
we can't have a discussion of the matter at hand, without getting personal.
For my part, I'll try to be less sarcastic (I confess to having been so).
 Another thing we could do, is to wait for the results of attempts to
reproduce your experiments; there must be a lot of activity going on in that
direction.
                                                                        Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Bob Kremens /  Re: Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: bobk@fir.lle.rochester.edu (Bob Kremens)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laser Fusion
Date: 25 Nov 91 01:11:41 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY

In article <19513@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>>Have there been any recent developments in Inertial Confinement?
>
>The August issue of "Physics World" has a survey article on laser-driven
>ICF from the European perspective.  Haven't seen any recent similar
>articles on the US laser experiments at Los Alamos, Livermore, or
>Rochester, nor on the light-ion experiment, PBFA II, at Sandia.  I think
>that both Livermore and Los Alamos have next-generation lasers in mind --
>a Nova upgrade and some kind of gas laser, respectively.  Maybe somebody
>from there can fill us in.
>
>>is most of the information still regarded as being classified?
>
>Non-US laboratories may or may not be subject to classification orders
>similar to ours, and may or may not be publishing classified stuff in
>the open literature.  The US can't tell them whether it's classified,
>lest the bad guys infer something by feeling out our classification
>threshold.  Only Joseph Heller could truly do justice to this field.
>
>There are also plans afoot for laser-based "microfusion" facilities
>that would use ICF techniques to drive pellets for weapons research,
>but I don't think anything formal has been put forth yet (of course,
>if I really knew, I probably wouldn't be allowed to tell you.)
>
>There are non-classified, non-laser approaches to inertial confinement.
>LBL just got through a review of a proposed experiment called ILSE, the
>next step in a series of induction-linac experiments that (we hope) will
>culminate in a system of heavy-ion linacs big enough to drive a pellet.
>The Proceedings of a conference on heavy-ion ICF are in press and will
>come out Real Soon Now in Particle Accelerators.
>
>--Joe
>"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbobk cudfnBob cudlnKremens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Just HOLD ON a minute, this is getting out of hand...
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Just HOLD ON a minute, this is getting out of hand...
Date: 25 Nov 91 04:04:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
>What I see as getting out of hand is to bring in a scientific discussion
>topics like the marital status of the poster, his years as professor,
>his rank in the department, the fame of his college, and how many children
>he has.  The attempt to change the fine structure constant by changing
>the side of the ruler is wrong, even if it comes from a committee of Nobel
>laureates.
 
Farblecarb.  The charge was that Farrell had a character flaw -- that he was
engaged in some colossal joke on the phyics community.  He certainly had a
right to reply to such a charge.
 
Twisting his reply into some sort of defense of bad physics is to repeat the
initial slur in a new guise.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Mills-Farrell and UV light
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills-Farrell and UV light
Date: 25 Nov 91 09:31:58 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

If the Mills-Farrell theory is correct, the experiment should
be a rather intense source of ultraviolet light.
(Transitions from n=1 to n=1/2 give off 40.8 ev photons --
near the middle of the UV spectrum).  Farrell has posted
positive results in detecting them using dental film.
 
It occurs to me that there might be a more convincing way to
detect them with a simple experiment.  One of Farrell's
experiments reported 50W in and 120W out; this should give
off light comparable to a 70W "black light".  Paint is
available which absorbs UV and radiates visible light; it is
often used for special effects in entertainment.  I do not
know the wavelengths for which these paints are sensitive,
but assuming some are sensitive to 40.8 ev light this could
be the basis for a rather spectacular demonstration.
 
If enough UV escapes from the experiment, the outside of the
beaker could be painted.  It would glow while a control
experiment would not.  If the water and glass absorb too much
of the UV, instead a probe could be constructed.  The probe
would consist of a glass rod painted at one end (and covered
by a thin protective layer if necessary to prevent
interaction with the experiment).  One end of the probe could
then be placed near the cathode and visible light would be
observed at the other end of the rod.  If the rod is replaced
by fiber optics, this could serve as a diagnostic tool.  It
could be used to examine the cathode for contamination or to
help determine the optimal geometry of the electrodes.
 
If the UV paints are not appropriate, other phosphors could
be investigated.  Perhaps even CRT screen phosphors or
fluorescent light phosphors would work.
 
-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Mallove's Book page 217
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mallove's Book page 217
Date: 25 Nov 91 05:44:41 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU writes:
 
>corresponds to heat balance, and if I ignore the big bump (for this
>discussion only) the graph seems to indict that the enthalpy generation
>divided by the joule enthalpy input starts at balance and then rises
>by about 10-20% higher after a few days and forever remains that high
>except for numerous sharp down ticks.  The temperature (and hence the
>heat output) reaches a constant value of about 31.5 C and shows no
>variations except the big one.
 
>What this seems to say is that there is a mechanism which shifts the
>heat balance to a surplus of out over in that does not raise the cell
>temperature, rather it lowers the power input.  I think that is rather
>strange!
 
I called Heavy Heat and I still think it's pretty good approach to the
physics of PdD(x) system.  However proving that has turned out to be
a major undertaking because 1. while one can make hand waving arguments
from common QM arguments that heavy particle banding can occur, this
does not make it so. 2. Fermion vs. Boson banding is tough to resolve
in either case because in real systems it involves both. 3. In any
theory of the PdD(x) electrolytic system; the interface between solid
state system and liquid phase needs to resolve potential step at the
interface ("The D-layer"). 4. Outgassing of D from the metal must
balance the input.
 
From this (if you know what I'm talking about)
1. D mobility in the metal is key.
2. D ionization at the interface is key.
3. D outgassing is key.
4. HPB (Heavy Particle Banding) is key (for heat).
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex | AT&T: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches Max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Steve Simmons /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 25 Nov 91 14:41:16 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

In article <1991Nov22.044509.29771@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
 writes:
 
>And I don't think anyone's fouled up the calorimetry on the Sun lately...
 
jr@ksr.com (John Robinson) writes:
 
>I am not prepared to believe the Sun produces excess heat until
>someone measures it in a closed system, recombining all its reaction
>products.  Why hasn't this been tried?
 
There are numerous claims of the attempt being made.  All surviving
experimenters reported failure to contain.  There are a significant
number of non-reports.  Nonetheless, True Believers persist.
--
"Since [[MIPS announcement of 64-bit processors]] other high-end RISC vendors
have scrambled to to find 64-bit capabilities hidden in their architectures,
or to explain why 64-bit operation is silly."  EE Times, Nov 11, 1991, pg 96.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenscs cudfnSteve cudlnSimmons cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: Schrodinger's Equation
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Schrodinger's Equation
Date: 25 Nov 91 14:09:05 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

I recommend that the posters move this discussion to sci.physics,
where it belongs.  Lots of folks there would enjoy it.
 
In article <01GDC1RZYW1C000DHH@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
> ...                                                      Newtonian
>mechanics applies to all objects, macroscopic and microscopic, moving
>much slower than the speed of light; special relativity applies to all
>objects, macroscopic and microscopic, moving with speeds approaching
>the speed of light.
 
Special relativity applies to all objects at all speeds.  Newtonian
mechanics is a special case that applies only at speeds where that
approximation gives sufficient accuracy.  I always thought these
things were taught in the wrong order in advanced classes.
 
It must be this thinking that gives you difficulty with the thought
that quantum mechanics applies to all objects regardless of size and
other rules are just macroscopic approximations.  Likewise for QED
and Maxwell.
 
As for your orbitspheres, you have not dealt with the objection from
Dick Blue that you must give incorrect predictions for the momentum
of an electron knocked out from an atom.  You have already given an
incorrect result for the magnetic moment of the electron.  This really
is an old idea from the days of Sommerfeld and Bohr; I'm even willing
to bet it is in the literature somewhere.  It is at variance with
many experiments; therefore it is wrong by your own standards.
 
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College
 
--
J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Phone cords
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Phone cords
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 17:35:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Terry Bollinger (you all know the codes etc) writes
 
>If the question cannot be answered for an ordinary phone cord -- well,
>sorry folks, but I can dead-certain assure you that it also cannot be
>answered for hydrogen atoms, because the controlling differential
>equations are just too closely related to allow it.
 
Now I know next to nothing about QM (Prof. Farrell, take note!) but I do know
that one has to take care when making analogies. The vibrating string analogy
with electron orbits, like any other analogy, can be carried too far. This is
not meant as support for the Mills and Farrell theory but just a comment.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 /   /   Toxic Waste Hazard from Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Toxic Waste Hazard from Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 17:35:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am expressing some concern over a possible biological hazard being
produced in the cold fusion experiments that have been described by
John Farrell.   I hope the experimenters are taking some precautions
against the uncontrolled release into the environment of significant
ammounts of an unusual species of hydrogen atom.  While Prof. Farrell
does assert that these atoms are rather nonreactive, I wonder whether
they might still mimic normal hydrogen and thus displace hydrogen
in living systems.
 
{ It's a joke, son!  This note is added in deference to those who are}
{ not used to hardball discussions of scientific issues.             }
 
My thanks to Jim Carr for pointing out that calculating the magnetic
moment as exactly one Bohr magneton is not so great.  In fact an semi-
classical model which generates the magnetic moment by orbiting electrons
will yield that result regardless of the form of the orbit.
 
I also want to thank Todd Green for clearing up some of my confusion
over the graphs reproduced in the Mallove book.  At least we now have
it straight what is being plotted on the middle graph.  I will take
some time to reconsider my other comments in light of this information,
but for now I remain somewhat uneasy about the cell potential vs.
temperature explaination that Todd gives.  Basically it seems to me
that Todd is saying that the cell acts as a temperature regulator, the
power input automatically vary due to the change in conductivity of
the electrolyte.  While I don't doubt the truth of this, I wonder if
it offers a potential source of error such as a possible non-linear
behavior resulting in sudden changes in mode of operation.  Now we
are talking Chaos.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 698 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 698 papers on cnf)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 21:13:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
life goes on, despite the recent turmoil in this list... My latest crop of
papers are seen below. The Golubnichii is a bit thin and the authors even say
so. There are several patents. These are badly written (translated, I
suppose); someone doesn't know the difference between adsorption and
absorption (the latter must be meant) and I hope this will not cause patent
problems. And "evaluating" the chamber? Evaluate this area immediately! Ho ho.
The Chinese paper (Qin et al) might be interesting but the abstract leaves out
the interesting bits. I am trying to get it and I might get more out of it
when I do, hoping that there are some Arabic numerals and chemical symbols
here and there among the Chinese. It is interesting, too, that the prior
evacuating from hydrogen of palladium (with vacuum or heat) is being patented,
(Tokunaga) and we can add (Nishiyama+) graphite intercalated with K+ ions to
the range of cathode materials used in cold fusion electrolysis. Wada who,
with Nishizawa, stimulated two rods of D-charged Pd with an electric discharge
now patents this idea, and not only siphons off the heat but also the new
elements formed.
 Finally, we have an indirect positive effect of cold fusion on muon
resesarch.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 25-Nov. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 698
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golubnichii PI, Merzon GI, Filonenko AD, Tsarev VA, Tsarik AS;
Sov. Phys. - Lebedev Inst. Rep. (1990)(8) 31.
Russian original: Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. (1990)(8) 26.
"Correlation between nuclear, acoustic, and electromagnetic emissions during
the electrolytic saturation of palladium with deuterium".
** Four series of measurements were carried out, three of them electrolysis
at a Pd plate at the bottom of a cell, in 0.1M LiClO4 in D2O; a microphone was
soldered to the palladium, a CdI crystal underneath it to catch nuclear events
and an electromagnetic probe to catch signals up to 1MHz in frequency.
Electrolysis was continued (at 1A) for 3.5, 3.5 and 2 hours. In the fourth
experiment, a D-charged Pd cathode was heated in a vacuum chamber to drive out
the deuterium, while also monitoring the three kinds of emissions. The
acoustic probe came loose, however. All in all, two events were seen, in which
the three signals coincided, during the electrolysis runs; none during the
desorption run. Going by the frequencies of events of the individual signals,
the expected number of such coincidences was 1E-07, so that 2 might be a large
number. The authors admit to the weakness of these statistics and agree that
further work is needed. They did, however, write another paper to explain
these results (p.16/15, same journal issue).                          May-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nishiyama I, Nanbu Y;           Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 51,794, 19-Jul-89
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(20):217010 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion apparatus".
** "The app., equipped with a device for heavy-H2O electrolysis, is
characterized in that the cathode of the device is formed at a
graphite-alkali-metal interlayer compd. (e.g. C8K)" (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qin G, Peng Q, Fu J, Zhang L, Zhang B;
Wuli Xuebao 40(6) (1991) 943 (in Chinese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(20):217150 (1991).
"Evolution of hydrogen (deuterium) in palladium-hydrogen (deuterium) system
and the distribution of hydrogen near the surface".
** "Hydrogen and deuterium were introduced into palladium cathode in an
electrolysis process for 150 h with light and heavy water as electrolyte,
resp. The palladium cathode used had quenched or annealed after a thermal
treatment at 950 degC. The variation of diffraction pattern and lattice
constant of beta phase of palladium-hydrogen system in air with time were
measured by x-ray diffraction method. The distribution of hydrogen in the
surface layer of palladium-hydrogen system was measured by the nuclear
reaction 1H(19F,a-gamma)16O. Comparing a quenched palladium cathode with
annealed palladium cathode, it is shown that the former has higher initial
concn. of hydrogen and faster evolution velocity than the latter after the
electrolysis. The concn. of hydrogen reaches max. at the surface of palladium
hydrogen system and its min. at a depth of several hundred angstroms from the
surface". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tokunaga H;                     Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 69,504, 04-Aug-89
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(20):217011 (1991).
"Preliminary treatment of hydrogen holder".
** "Before adsorbing D (for cold nuclear fusion), a H holder (e.g. Pd) is
either heated or placed in vacuum. The process can ext. H from the H holder,
and adsorb highly pure D". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wada N;                        Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 160,395, 18-Nov-89
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(20):217014 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion in solids, and apparatus therefor".
** "The process includes: (a) evaluating a reaction chamber; (b) activating a
solid body (e.g. Pd) which adsorbs a nuclear-fusion-causing gaseous material
(e.g. D); (c) supplying a predetd. amt. of the gaseous material; and (d)
allowing the body to adsorb the gaseous material close to satn. The surface of
the solid body may be cleaned in short time by glow discharge. An app. for the
process includes means to take out heat caused by the nuclear fusion".
(Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wada N;                        Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 160,396, 18-Nov-89
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(20):217013 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion in solids".
** "The process includes: (1) allowing a solid to adsorb a nuclear-fusion-
-causing material (as an eutectic element) to almost satn.; and (2) exciting
the solid (by, e.g., elec. discharge) to cause sudden supersatn., which
creates high local concn. of the material". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wada N;                        Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 160,397, 18-Nov-89
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(20):217012 (1991).
"Forming elements by cold nuclear fusion in solids".
** "The process includes: (a) evacuating a reaction chamber; (b) activating a
gas-adsorbing body (e.g. Pd) in the vacuum chamber; (c) supplying a
nuclear-fusion-causing gaseous material into the chamber; (d) allowing the
body to adsorb the gaseous material to satn.; (e) causing nuclear fusion by
the material adsorbed in the body; and (f) recovering the fusion product".
(Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swinbanks D;                                    Nature 354 (1991) 98 (14-Nov).
"Cold fusion leaves a legacy".
** It seems that the cold fusion affair has had something to do with the
decision by the Japanese government to agree to finance the building, at the
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Britain, of a muon source. Nagamine, who
heads the Japanese end of this joint proposal, was asked to explain cold
fusion when that affair became public in 1989 and there is a possibility that
this news helped the decision for the muon source experiment. Nagamine says
that this is the only good thing to have come out of cold fusion. Among other
things, the negative muons produced (together with the positive ones) will be
used to investigate muon-catalysed cold fusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Bob Pendelton /  Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
Date: 25 Nov 91 16:46:59 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

Just for the sake of argument, has anyone computed the density of pure
sub-ground state hydrogen at different sub-ground states? Also, if
these atoms are so small, what kind of material would be needed to
contain them?
 
I've seen an awful lot of postings that assume the stuff would float
off into the atmosphere. I wonder if the stuff might not just sink out
the bottom of the jar.
 
 
			Bob P.
--
 
| Bob Pendleton              | Engineering Anethema:                     |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Larry Wall /  Re: Fusion as the only choice
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion as the only choice
Date: 25 Nov 91 16:53:15 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <10806@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
 writes:
: In article <1991Nov22.044509.29771@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
 writes:
: >In article <1991Nov20.080835.23947@itnsg1.cineca.it> ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it
 (Francesco Di Tolla) writes:
: >: What about high-efficency solar cells?
: >
: >No, what this country needs is a good 5-cent solar cell.  (I don't know
: >how cents translate to lira, offhand.)  I don't care if they're only
: >10% efficient.  If they're cheaper than asphalt shingles, and don't
: >burn easily, everyone will cover their roof with 'em, and turn all the
: >big nasty utilities into NiCad equivalents.
:
: As I understand it, efficiency is only a part of what one is after.
:
: Of much more importance is the ratio of energy generated over the
: lifetime of the cell to the amount of energy required to create that
: cell.  It clearly does not make good sense to build solar cells for
: general use in power generation if it takes more energy to create them
: than they can generate!
 
Sorry.  I was assuming that a good 5-cent solar cell takes less than
5 cents worth of energy to create, and produces more than 5 cents worth
of energy.  I guess I forgot that we don't live under a capitalistic
system anymore.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Terry Bollinger /  Why... thank you Barry!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why... thank you Barry!
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 00:27:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On Sat, 23 Nov 91 07:42:51 GMT barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
wrote:
 
> Also, [the Mills/Farrell] theories should not be put on the same level
> with "theories" that have appeared in the newsgroups...
 
(by which I assume you mean my blatantly unmathematical "A Twist of Ribbon"
in particular, and probably other net items)
 
Why, thank you, Barry!  That's a very nice (and unexpected) compliment!
 
 
But seriously, I'd rather not bother to try and defend Twist to you until
you PROMISE me you don't believe in redefining the photon-electron coupling
constant of QED.  Until you do, it would seem we're quite literally living
in separate universes...  which is a bit of a stretch even for email...
 
My math is weak, folks.  I inadvertantly reinvented a discipline called
fractional calculus while working on some of that stuff, but other than
than really have no basis to claim anything.  Barry and others like him
would be very well advised to forget about Twist completely -- it's just
the ramblings of a poor, bewildered computer scientist who freely admits
to being way out of his league.  (After all, I didn't redefine a *single*
fundamental constant in that silly thing, so it *cannot* be good physics!)
 
                      Cheers (really!),         +   __,
                      Terry               {8v)>=|==<__
                                                +     '
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  Mills/Farrell Theory
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills/Farrell Theory
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 00:29:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
Jim Carr points out with regard to my comment about the bound
electron of the hydrogen atom having a magnet moment of one Bohr
magneton.
 
>Oops.  He got you.  The electron has an extraordinarily accurately
>known magnetic moment.  It is (1.001159652193 +/- 0.000000000010)
>Bohr magneton.
 
>This measurement has been done to such high accuracy since this
>"anomalous moment" is a very fine test of QED and the computer
>algebra programs used to compute the perturbation series.
 
I agree that our theory will have to do as well as QED in the long run.  I
have to admit that as of now our calculation is one Bohr magneton.
Maybe when we have spent  1/1000 of the time that has been spent on
the QED calculation we will have a definitive answer.  Maybe, maybe
not.  We are going to give it a go nonetheless.
 
Jim Carr continues:
 
>I think he also wanted to know the momentum distribution, that is,
>the result of elastic scattering of electrons from the bound atomic
>electron.  There is extensive data on this momentum profile function.
>Your "shell" would probably give an answer that disagrees with these
>experiments too.
 
This is obviously an important question.  I can tell you this (according
to our theory):
 
1.  In the n = 1 state, the charge density at a0  is e/(4 pi a0^2)  =14.41
C/m^2.
 
2.  The electric field at r > a0 is zero.
 
3.  The electric field at r < a0 is given by  -e/(4 pi e0 r^2) where e0 is the
permittivity of vacuum.
 
Unfortunately, I don't know how to use these values to generate a
momentum profile distribution.  Mills probably knows, but he is
devoting his very existence to the experimental work.  He doesn't want
to devote 5 seconds to the theory right now.  If I thought that the
successful completion of such a project would convince a group of
people that our theory had some merit, I would dig in a learn how to
do it.  But I have been doing this long enough that I know when one
question is answered 10 or 100 more follow.  So I'll keep plugging away
at what I can and hope for the best.  I really do wish I could answer this
question however.
 
 
Several people have commented on the fact that redefining the meter
would have no effect on the fine structure constant because it is
dimensionless.  In principle this is correct.  And it might be right in
reality.  But I am not so sure.
 
1.The fine structure constant is given as
 
u0 c e^2/(2h) where u0 is the permeability of vacuum
 
2.  The fine structure constant is a measured quantity and does depend
on definitions and measurements.  The fundamental constants are
fixed by a least-squares analysis to find the best fit.  The last least squares
adjustment was done in 1986 and there is an interesting article on the
subject in the August issue of PHYSICS TODAY, p BG9 (which suggests
another adjustment to the fine structure constant).  To some extent this
least-squares fit "decouples" the units analysis.  I must admit, however,
that all of this should be taken care of in the recommended
uncertainty.
 
3.  The meter is currently defined in terms of the speed of light.  c is
defined as 299 792 458 m/sec (thus fixing the length of the meter in
terms of the second).  So it is not all that unusual that we suggest fixing
the speed of light at 3 x 10^8 m/sec and, thereby, fixing the meter
accordingly.
 
Nonetheless, I will have to back off on this one.  I was carried away by
the fact that the n = 1/137 state is a particularly unusual state (in our
theory) in that the potential energy of the electron in this state is equal
to m c^2.   For the moment, we just assume it is a coincidence.  If I
come back to this one, I will have done my homework.
 
If I don't reply to a question that someone asks--my apologies.  I am
finding it hard to keep up with **reading** my BITNET mail--yet
alone responding to it.  I'll do what I can.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBITNET cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / T Gaetz /  Re: Schrodinger's Equation
     
Originally-From: gaetz@julian.uwo.ca (T. Gaetz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Schrodinger's Equation
Date: 25 Nov 91 19:54:57 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, Univ. of Western Ontario

In article <5670@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>I recommend that the posters move this discussion to sci.physics,
>where it belongs.  Lots of folks there would enjoy it.
>
>In article <01GDC1RZYW1C000DHH@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
[...]
>As for your orbitspheres, you have not dealt with the objection from
>Dick Blue that you must give incorrect predictions for the momentum
>of an electron knocked out from an atom.  You have already given an
>incorrect result for the magnetic moment of the electron.  This really
>is an old idea from the days of Sommerfeld and Bohr; I'm even willing
>to bet it is in the literature somewhere.  It is at variance with
>many experiments; therefore it is wrong by your own standards.
 
Isn't the model already ruled out by scattering experiments?  Scattering
depends on the shape of the potential and scattering an electron off
an 'orbitsphere' would give different results than scattering off the
charge distribution predicted by quantum mechanics.
--
Terry Gaetz   --   gaetz@julian.uwo.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudengaetz cudfnT cudlnGaetz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Alan Lovejoy /  Re: Schrodinger's Equation
     
Originally-From: lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Schrodinger's Equation
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 21:42:23 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation, San Jose, CA

In article <01GDC1RZYW1C000DHH@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>...I am a chemist--not a physicist--so I often do not have the jargon correct.
>
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
Who, then, is formulating the physics aspects of the theory?
 
Are we supposed to infer from this that you are implicitly admitting to having
made some misstatements that we must excuse because you are not a physicist?
If so, could you be more specific?
 
 
--
 %%%% Alan Lovejoy %%%% | "Do not go gentle into that good night,
 % Ascent Logic Corp. % | Old age should burn and rave at the close of the day;
 UUCP:  lovejoy@alc.com | Rage, rage at the dying of the light!" -- Dylan Thomas
__Disclaimer: I do not speak for Ascent Logic Corp.; they do not speak for me!
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlovejoy cudfnAlan cudlnLovejoy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Martin Lewitt /  Re: Excess Heat/Dieter
     
Originally-From: melewitt@cs.sandia.gov (Martin E. Lewitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat/Dieter
Date: 25 Nov 91 21:37:54 GMT
Organization: nCUBE, Sandia Park, NM

In article <1991Nov23.233235.2091@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>I have not done any physics or chemistry in 7 years, so forgive me if
>I sound ignorant. Is it possible that some TEMPORARY species of atom
>or molecule is being created (being exotermic reaction) then it escapes
>from the cell and absorbs ambient heat from the air to revert back to
>normal state (whatever it is H2, O2, H2O). It would explain why closed
>cell does not work, if this strange species reverts to normal state in
>the cell it will reabsorb the energy it just gave off but if it is allowed
>to escape then the outside of the cell contributes the energy to revert to
>the normal state. Is it against the thermodynamic laws to be able to extract
>useful energy from the ambient heat? (I do not know).
 
The "TEMPORARY species of atom or molecule" could be the sub-ground state
hydrogen, perhaps being raised to ground state and recombined.  If UV is
escaping the "closed" cell then there should be a net loss of energy, assuming
complete recombination of the sub-ground state hydrogen.
 
Could a closed cell be devised which in which the recombiner is
isolated in a way in which it could be separately instrumented to see
if insufficient energy was being recovered, and/or cooling was occurring?
--
Phone:  (505) 845-7561           Martin E. Lewitt             My opinions are
Domain: lewitt@ncube.COM         P.O. Box 513                 my own, not my
Sandia: melewitt@cs.sandia.GOV   Sandia Park, NM 87047-0513   employer's.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmelewitt cudfnMartin cudlnLewitt cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
Date: 26 Nov 91 00:03:17 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton) writes:
>I've seen an awful lot of postings that assume the stuff would float
>off into the atmosphere. I wonder if the stuff might not just sink out
>the bottom of the jar.
 
Heh heh, maybe that is why there is no naturally occuring H-1/2 on
earth.  It all sank to the warmer regions of the earth's core where
it picked up the energy to turn it back into H-1.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: Sub-Ground States
     
Originally-From: chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sub-Ground States
Date: 25 Nov 91 17:30:52 GMT

In <108@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP ([John E. Kreznar]) writes:
 
>Instead of a mass (the telephone) at one end and a driving force (your hand) at
>the other, imagine the cord to be in a circular loop and having some
 distributed
>mass of its own.  (It may be easier to imagine doing this in zero-g where the
>thing doesn't just droop or fall to the floor.)  Now you can grasp the cord at
>one point and shake it to see what kind of standing waves you can set up.  Just
>as in the telephone cord case, you will find that you can excite n-loop modes
>for any positive integer n.  So far, nothing new, although the model
 corresponds
>just a little closer to the atom in that the boundary condition is just
>continuity of the wave all around the loop, and there are no walls.
 
What you have described is essentially the original DeBroglie model of the
hydrogen atom, which preceded Schroedinger's model, as I understand it.
 
>But now suppose the cord makes not one circuit around the center, but two.
>Ignore possible interference between the two parts of the double loop.  Grasp
>one of the loops and again see what kind of standing waves you can set up.  You
>should be able to get a mode with half the spatial frequency wherein the two
>parts of the double loop have the opposite phase.
 
And this is a not-too-outrageous extension of DeBroglie's model.
 
So is there a corresponding extension of Shroedinger's model? Your last
paragraph suggests there might be, and with a bit of luck it might leave all
solutions of his original model intact.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / John Wanklyn /  cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jwanklyn@cix.compulink.co.uk (John Wanklyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion
Date: 26 Nov 91 00:06:15 GMT
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

On the basis of many years work on metallic corrosion, and also
some involvement with rechargeable batteries, I should like to
make some comments on the chemistry and metallurgy of the cold
fusion story:
 
1) I am persuaded that in the best work the calorimetry,
ie measurement of how much heat is *actually evolved*,
is pretty reliable. What seems much less firmly based
are the estimates of how much heat *ought* to come out. Obviously
the electrical input is known; but what reactions are going
on at the Pd electrode? What products are being formed?
What are the enthalpy changes? Evidently, some deuterium
is being evolved; but how much D goes into solid solution in
the Pd? Are Pd/D compounds formed? What about the Li?
Hansen's "bible" on Binary Alloys suggests that there is
a significant solid solubility of Li in Pd. Pd/Li intermetallic
compounds are also known. I am not thinking of large scale
formation of these D-containing or Li-containing phases;
but the heat balance seems incomplete until they
(at least as surface layers) are accounted for.
 
2) Many experiments make instant, simultaneous measurement
of energy in vs. heat out, but it seems to me that the state
of an electrode at any moment is a function of its *whole*
history - perhaps weeks of electrolysis. Reactions early
in the experiment may yield their heat consequences much
later. Like charging a battery, except that *heat* is discharged
rather than coulombs.
 
3) An extreme case of 2) is the sudden release of great amounts
of heat. As a corrosionist I find it very significant that
some (all?) of these events follow a reduction or switch-off
of the current. If, see 1), a high-Li phase were to accumulate
on the electrode surface, it could be protected from corrosion
by the cathodic current.  Remove the latter and the Li corrodes,
violently.
 
Have these points been made already? Has there been a rigorous
metallogaphic examination of the Pd electrodes after polarisation?
It seems to me that these rather mundane possibilities ought to be
dealt with before sophisticated nuclear theories are invoked.
 
John Wanklyn
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjwanklyn cudfnJohn cudlnWanklyn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / T Hall /  Closed systems...Why not THREE vessels?
     
Originally-From: trh@atari.uucp (T R Hall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Closed systems...Why not THREE vessels?
Date: 25 Nov 91 18:59:33 GMT
Organization: Atari Corp., Sunnyvale, CA

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>  -I would still urge some sort of closed cell calorimetry. Let me suggest an
>   experimental setup:
>     Use two vessels. One contains the electrolysis cell, the other the
>       recombiner.
>     Arrange them physically so that the reconstituted H2O does not get back
>       into the electrolysis cell (this avoids any contamination problem,
>       although it loses the advantage of maintaining a constant electrolyte
>       level in the cell)
 
	I am not a physicist, but if you need to solve both (A) having a
non-contaminating re-combiner _*AND*_ (B) maintaining the electrolyte level,
why not have _three_ vessels in your closed system (seems easy).
 
	Vessel #1: H2O to re-plenish electrolyte
	Vessel #2: electrolysis cell
	Vessel #3: Re-combination cell.
 
	As far as electrical power in, what I (as an E.E.) would do is use two
meters: One Current, the other voltage. Put the Voltage meter _*right at*_ the
entry into the closed system, and the Current meter in-line _*before*_ the
voltage meter (i.e. not between voltage meter and closed system).
 
	To "continuously" measure power, read _*BOTH* voltage and current
"continuously", multiply them together, and integrate over time ( occasionally
measuring and resetting to zero to avoid overrun). [Voltage*Current = Power,
Integrate Power for energy]
 
	The amount of digital computing power needed to do the
multiply-and-integrate is no more than any simply PC; no special and/or
expensive equipment is needed.
 
					TRH
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentrh cudfnT cudlnHall cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Jon Thaler /  Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
     
Originally-From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
Date: 26 Nov 91 02:15:06 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) says:
 
> bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton) writes:
>> I've seen an awful lot of postings that assume the stuff would float
>> off into the atmosphere. I wonder if the stuff might not just sink out
>> the bottom of the jar.
 
> Heh heh, maybe that is why there is no naturally occuring H-1/2 on
> earth.  It all sank to the warmer regions of the earth's core where
> it picked up the energy to turn it back into H-1.
 
I know you weren't being serious, but...
 
An n = 1/2 state of hydrogen would lie about 3*13.5 = 40.5 eV below the
n = 1 state.  This corresponds to a temperature of about 300,000 Celsius.
The center of the Earth is not hot enough to raise the atoms back up.  Even
if it were, the Boltzman distribution would still leave more than half of
the hydrogen in the n = 1/2 state.
 
The point is that ground states of atoms tend to be quite stable.  If
such a bizarre state as the n = 1/2 one were to exist, it almost certainly
would be the dominant form in which the atoms would be found, even at the
surface of the Earth.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDOCTORJ cudfnJon cudlnThaler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Albert Chou /  Re: Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
     
Originally-From: albert@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
Date: 26 Nov 91 03:42:40 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

Thanks for the info on the TI photocells.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 26 Nov 91 03:30:42 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <laurence.690515022@karl.tapir.Caltech.EDU>
 laurence@karl.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Dustin Laurence) writes:
>As I recall there is one (and only one to my knowledge) light-nucleus
>fusion reaction that doesn't produce neutrons:
>    D + He3 --> H + He4 + gamma
> ...
>Plus at that temperature, there ought to be LOTS of D + D reactions as
>well, which do produce neutrons.  Unless you use a beam/target
>technique, or something exotic.
 
Some of my friends are True Believers in the Migma concept for fusion
(Guide a beam of fusable stuff so that it crosses itself many times at one
point.  The simplest case is a figure-eight.)
 
One of the things they claim is that it is scalable, so that you could put
one in your basement.  Assuming the technology worked, is there any way of
avoiding the neutrons or shielding them on that scale?  The above sounds
like there is no way to avoid generating them.  Does this mean that
(aside from CNF) there is *no way* to have small-scale fusion power?
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Why... thank you Barry!
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why... thank you Barry!
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 02:36:04 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <9111252025.AA29560@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
	 (Terry Bollinger) writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 91 07:42:51 GMT barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
> wrote:
>
> > Also, [the Mills/Farrell] theories should not be put on the same level
> > with "theories" that have appeared in the newsgroups...
>
> (by which I assume you mean my blatantly unmathematical "A Twist of Ribbon"
> in particular, and probably other net items)
>
> Why, thank you, Barry!  That's a very nice (and unexpected) compliment!
>
 
Well, no offense intended, I just call it as I see it. Mills & Farrel
have written a lengthy book and several papers on their theory. Actually,
Your ideas were the most  developed specualtions to pass through this forum,
but such ideas _can_ fall apart rapidly once they get quantitative scrutiny.
And converserly, before such scrutiny many ideas sound remotely plausible.
So its just hard to judge when such ideas are presented---especially
in a field as complicated as (non-standard) solid state physics.
 
Another problem is that your theory relates to a a very complex
system, while M&F are talking about the structure of the atom---there
is a lot more potential to judge their ideas than yours.
 
>
> But seriously, I'd rather not bother to try and defend Twist to you until
> you PROMISE me you don't believe in redefining the photon-electron coupling
> constant of QED.  Until you do, it would seem we're quite literally living
> in separate universes...  which is a bit of a stretch even for email...
>
 
All right...I _promise_. :-(
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.25 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Mills-Farrell and UV light
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills-Farrell and UV light
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 13:38:22 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <50772@cup.portal.com> Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
>If the Mills-Farrell theory is correct, the experiment should
>be a rather intense source of ultraviolet light.
>(Transitions from n=1 to n=1/2 give off 40.8 ev photons --
>near the middle of the UV spectrum).  Farrell has posted
>positive results in detecting them using dental film.
>
>It occurs to me that there might be a more convincing way to
>detect them with a simple experiment.  One of Farrell's
>experiments reported 50W in and 120W out; this should give
>off light comparable to a 70W "black light".  Paint is
>available which absorbs UV and radiates visible light; it is
>often used for special effects in entertainment.  I do not
>know the wavelengths for which these paints are sensitive,
>but assuming some are sensitive to 40.8 ev light this could
>be the basis for a rather spectacular demonstration.
>
>If enough UV escapes from the experiment, the outside of the
>beaker could be painted.  It would glow while a control
>experiment would not.  If the water and glass absorb too much
>of the UV, instead a probe could be constructed.  The probe
>would consist of a glass rod painted at one end (and covered
>by a thin protective layer if necessary to prevent
>interaction with the experiment).  One end of the probe could
>then be placed near the cathode and visible light would be
>observed at the other end of the rod.  If the rod is replaced
>by fiber optics, this could serve as a diagnostic tool.  It
>could be used to examine the cathode for contamination or to
>help determine the optimal geometry of the electrodes.
>
>If the UV paints are not appropriate, other phosphors could
>be investigated.  Perhaps even CRT screen phosphors or
>fluorescent light phosphors would work.
>
>-- Bob Horst
 
None of these methods can distinguish between 40.8 eV photons and
other sufficiently energetic radiation. The film is also sensitive
to radiation from natural radioactive impurities, and to Lyman-alpha
from hydrogen (10.2 eV), plus other possible UV sources.
 
 
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-1353
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Paul Dietz /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 26 Nov 91 06:19:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

>In article <laurence.690515022@karl.tapir.Caltech.EDU>
 laurence@karl.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Dustin Laurence) writes:
 
>>As I recall there is one (and only one to my knowledge) light-nucleus
>>fusion reaction that doesn't produce neutrons:
>>    D + He3 --> H + He4 + gamma
 
Um, this doesn't often (ever?) produce a photon, does it?  The
timescale for emission of photons from nuclei is typically much longer
than the timescale for nuclear reactions, by a factor of 10^7 or so.
 
 
In article <1991Nov26.033042.15516@efi.com> chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
 writes:
>Some of my friends are True Believers in the Migma concept for fusion
>(Guide a beam of fusable stuff so that it crosses itself many times at one
>point.  The simplest case is a figure-eight.)
>
>One of the things they claim is that it is scalable, so that you could put
>one in your basement.  Assuming the technology worked, is there any way of
>avoiding the neutrons or shielding them on that scale?  The above sounds
>like there is no way to avoid generating them.  Does this mean that
>(aside from CNF) there is *no way* to have small-scale fusion power?
 
Well, from what I've seen the "migma" concept tests so far failed to
achieve the central density promised.  He got to about 10^12 cm^-3,
with a confinement time of a few seconds.  The density x time x ion
energy product was quite good, however.  The numbers were 3-4 orders
of magnitude away from reactor conditions.  Some plasma physicists
looking at migma predicted (postdicted?) that there are instabilities
that should set in at about the density achieved in experiments.
 
Anyway, there *are* nuclear reactions cleaner than D+3He, including
H+6Li, 3He+3He, and H+11B.  Very challenging to make work, however.  I
understand migma was originally conceived as a 3He+3He burner,
although I vaguely recall that elastic nuclear scattering (in addition
to coloumb scattering) into the loss cone makes this unworkable.  In
any case, Maglich was looking at the H/3He/6Li cycle the last I saw.
Anyone heard if he's done anything recently?
 
A putative "basement migma" would still have a flux of energetic
nuclei hitting surfaces, so it would produce some low level of
activation and gamma radiation, and so some shielding would be
required in any case.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Mills/Farrell Theory
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills/Farrell Theory
Date: 26 Nov 91 03:07:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <01GDDEQS3ICW000ENH@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
>[.....]
>
>Jim Carr continues:
>
>>I think he also wanted to know the momentum distribution, that is,
>>the result of elastic scattering of electrons from the bound atomic
>>electron.  There is extensive data on this momentum profile function.
>>Your "shell" would probably give an answer that disagrees with these
>>experiments too.
>
>This is obviously an important question.  I can tell you this (according
>to our theory):
>
>1.  In the n = 1 state, the charge density at a0  is e/(4 pi a0^2)  =14.41
>C/m^2.
>
>2.  The electric field at r > a0 is zero.
>
>3.  The electric field at r < a0 is given by  -e/(4 pi e0 r^2) where e0 is the
>permittivity of vacuum.
>
 
Besides not describing the hydrogen atom, these statements do not seem
to agree with Poisson's equation of classical electrostatics.
 
Raul Baragiola
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Schrodinger's Equation
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Schrodinger's Equation
Date: 26 Nov 91 02:49:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <6124@julian.uwo.ca> gaetz@julian.uwo.ca (T. Gaetz) writes:
>In article <5670@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>I recommend that the posters move this discussion to sci.physics,
>>where it belongs.  Lots of folks there would enjoy it.
>>
>>In article <01GDC1RZYW1C000DHH@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>[...]
>>As for your orbitspheres, you have not dealt with the objection from
>>Dick Blue that you must give incorrect predictions for the momentum
>>of an electron knocked out from an atom.  You have already given an
>>incorrect result for the magnetic moment of the electron.  This really
>>is an old idea from the days of Sommerfeld and Bohr; I'm even willing
>>to bet it is in the literature somewhere.  It is at variance with
>>many experiments; therefore it is wrong by your own standards.
>
>Isn't the model already ruled out by scattering experiments?  Scattering
>depends on the shape of the potential and scattering an electron off
>an 'orbitsphere' would give different results than scattering off the
>charge distribution predicted by quantum mechanics.
>--
>Terry Gaetz   --   gaetz@julian.uwo.ca
 
Indeed, electron and ion scattering have shown no deviation from the
extremely accurate model of the hydrogen atom. The charge distribution and
the momentum distribution are continuous, with no gaps. Independent
experiments, like positron annihilation also show the same momentum
distribution of the electron.
 
There is no way a new theory of the hydrogen atom will be accepted if
it cannot describe the enormous extant body of experimental observations.
This would be Test #1. After passing that, one would be ready to attempt to
explain cf with atomic models.
 
 
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-1353
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
Date: 26 Nov 91 06:42:53 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>An n = 1/2 state of hydrogen would lie about 3*13.5 = 40.5 eV below the
>n = 1 state.  This corresponds to a temperature of about 300,000 Celsius.
 
Yikes!  A lot hotter than I thought.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / John Baez /  A New Atomic Theory
     
Originally-From: jbaez@jordan.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: A New Atomic Theory
Date: 26 Nov 91 16:29:30 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

For those of you in sci.physics who are not fed up with the topic of
"crackpot" or "alternative" theories of physics, note this from
sci.physics.fusion.  (Some comments of mine are at the end.)
 
In article <01GD8WA3FU68000B5W@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
>
>Dick Blue asked whether nor not momentum distribution, magnetic
>moment, fine structure, and hyperfine structure are covered by the
>Mills and Farrell theory.
>
>The answer is yes.  Three very simple aspects are included below.
>
>1.  Why does the electron have spin angular momentum in the
>hydrogen atom?  Because the electron is a spherical shell of uniform
>charge density that spins (otherwise it would fall into the nucleus).
>We show that the magnetic moment is one Bohr magneton.
>
>2.  Consider that the potential energy of an electron in a hydrogen atom
>is given by
>
>V  =   - e^2/(4 pi e0 a0 n^2)  where e0 is the permittivity of vacuum and
>a0 is the Bohr radius.
>
>This is the same equation as Schrodinger's.
>
>Now, calculate the potential energy when n = 1/137.  You will find out
>that this energy is equal to mc^2, where m is the electron rest mass.  So,
>you say, this is mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
>
>In our view it is not coincidence.  The fine structure constant ought to
>be one over an integer, specifically 1/137, exactly!  Now, we know that
>the fine structure constant is given as 1/137.0359895.  Seems
>impressive.  But alas we have a solution--redefine the meter so that the
>speed of light is 3 x 10^8 meters, exactly!  Not only will the fine
>structure constant be 1/137, but the permittivity of vacuum becomes
>(1/(36 pi)) x 10-9 F/m rather than 8.854187817 F/m.  So, you say, this is
>mere coincidence.  Maybe it is.  Then again ....
>
>3.  We show that the proton radius is 1.3214 x 10-15 m (current
>definition of the meter).
>
>We could be totally zonkers.  Or, we could be brilliant.  Or, we simply
>could have stumbled onto something.  It would be nice if some
>competent physicist, who is not so wedded to the Schrodinger equation
>and QED that anything else **HAS** to be wrong, would take a peek at
>what we are doing.
>
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College
 
I'm afraid they are totally zonkers.  Or else they simply stumbled over
something and fell flat on their face.  As other readers noted, the fine
structure constant is dimensionless so redefining your meter will not
give it a different value.  In general, redefining the meter to make
your theory of physics work correctly is a sure sign that you are mixed
up, since the laws of physics should not give a damn about what we units
we find convenient.
 
I had mentioned Mills in an earlier post about crackpot physics.  I am
now sure that this is the same Mills who wrote "A New Atomic Theory" -
the idea that the electron orbitals are spherical shells of charge gives
it away.  As I mentioned, this Mills is the one who was trying to file
patents on all sorts of marvelous devices (anti-gravity machines, etc.),
and who never paid the lawyer who fell for his claims.  As a result the
patent firm fired the poor lawyer.  In "A New Atomic Theory" there was a
charmingly simple formula for the first ionization energy of any atom
(as a function of Z, the nuclear charge).  I immediately thought this
was a bunch of baloney since I knew that standard quantum mechanics
gives no such exact formula except for hydrogen (instead, one must
essentially find a bunch of eigenvalues numerically).  So I pulled out
my CRC handbook, plugged in the numbers and, lo and behold, the formula
agreed impressively with the observed data.  Of course, this one result
does not suffice to supplant quantum mechanics, and Mills (at that time)
gave no *general* theory of atomic phenomena.  Thus I still believe in
Schrodinger's equation and would someday like to see a good argument for
why Mills' formula gives close answers.
 
Unfortunately, it seems that this was just the tip of a numerological
iceberg, and now Mills and his new cohort are willing to redefine the
meter in order to force the fine-structure constant to be 137, etc..
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjbaez cudfnJohn cudlnBaez cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / John Baez /  Re: Sub-Ground States
     
Originally-From: jbaez@jordan.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sub-Ground States
Date: 26 Nov 91 16:46:16 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <108@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP ([John E. Kreznar]) writes:
 
 
>This kind of picture was the only one I was able to form for the description
>I've read here on the net.  It's inconsistent with the M-F spherical charge
>distribution of the electron, but at least it's a way to divide the spatial
>(actually, angular) frequency by any positive integer and still come up with
>something sensible.
>
>To extrapolate this idea to a wave function, it would be necessary to abandon
>the idea that the wave function was a single-valued function of position.  It
>would be more like, say, the arccos function, having several branches.  In the
>"1/n" state, the function would have n branches and would be required to meet
>itself continuously after n circuits.
 
In defense of the notion of sub-ground-states (the existence of which I
am utterly unconvinced of!), let me point out that it is not infinitely
odder than the existence of states of fractional charge and particles of
non-half-integral spin (anyons), both of which are perfectly respectable in the
mathematical physics community.  I should also point out the fractional
quantum Hall effect as a shocking but real occurence of fractions where
would normally expect only integers.  In the case of hydrogen, one would
need the electron wave function to be viewed, not as a
complex-valued function, but as a section of some nontrivial bundle.
This might be the way to get around the "multivalued" nature of the
wavefunction noted by Kreznar.  The details are left as an exercise for
the reader.  :-)   Again, I'm not at all convinced that anything needs
explaining, nor am I sure one could cook up an explanation along these
lines, but if it were unequivocally shown that hydrogen had an n = 1/2
state I'm sure mathematical physicists would try to concoct an
explanation along these lines.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjbaez cudfnJohn cudlnBaez cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Steve Simmons /  Re: Charge!
     
Originally-From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Charge!
Date: 26 Nov 91 17:54:30 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>And
>by the way, I forget who said it (somewhat sanctimoniously, too) recently,
>that Scientists Don't Joke. Ho ho is all I can say; no it's not, I can say
>more. Many years ago, children, a very famous physicist named Hans Bethe
>played a joke on a quality physics journal, and got past the referees with an
>ab initio derivation of the number -273, for the absolute zero. He may not be
>the only one to play jokes but I can't think of more.
 
Surely you've not forgotten The Journal Of Irreproducible Results?
Living proof that living scientists have senses of humor.
 
Of course, some of them don't activate until they read in the
instructions where it says "this is funny", but that's subject
for another flamefest.  Do I need a smiley?
 
Ducking and running, I remain
 
steve
--
"Since [[MIPS announcement of 64-bit processors]] other high-end RISC vendors
have scrambled to to find 64-bit capabilities hidden in their architectures,
or to explain why 64-bit operation is silly."  EE Times, Nov 11, 1991, pg 96.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenscs cudfnSteve cudlnSimmons cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Charge!
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Charge!
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 19:26:24 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>by the way, I forget who said it (somewhat sanctimoniously, too) recently,
>that Scientists Don't Joke. Ho ho is all I can say; no it's not, I can say
>more. Many years ago, children, a very famous physicist named Hans Bethe
>played a joke on a quality physics journal, and got past the referees with an
>ab initio derivation of the number -273, for the absolute zero. He may not be
 
   Wasn't it also Bethe who manipulated the author list (or maybe
added an irrelevant author?) so that the authors of one of his
journal articles would come out to be Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Dieter Britz /  How to get the archived bibliography files
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to get the archived bibliography files
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 15:41:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I get asked regularly how to get the archived bibliography files. Here is how:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Use the userid
anonymous and your e-mail address as the password.  Once connected, enter
cd fusion
to access the fusion archives.  Then you may enter
dir fusion.bib*
to get a listing of the bibliography files.  To transfer each file use
GET (ie. mget fusion.bib*  or  get fusion.biblio1a  etc.).
Enter  quit to terminate ftp.
 
2. Via LISTSERV, which means you get it sent by email. To first find out what
is in the archive, send an email to listserv@ndsuvm1.bitnet, with a blank
SUBJECT line, and the "message" consisting of the command
index fusion
You get a largish list of all files available. To get any one of these files,
you then send to the same address the command, e.g.,
get fusion 91-00487
get fusion biblio1a
etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Dieter Britz /  Charge!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Charge!
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 15:42:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
 
>Farblecarb.  The charge was that Farrell had a character flaw -- that he was
>engaged in some colossal joke on the phyics community.  He certainly had a
>right to reply to such a charge.
 
>Twisting his reply into some sort of defense of bad physics is to repeat the
>initial slur in a new guise.
 
Farblecarb to you, mate. Noone has charged Farrell with a character flaw,
where do you get this idea? Suggesting that someone may be joking is not
making such a charge. And if some of his replies in fact constitute bad
physics, again this is not a slur on his person but on his physics. I ought to
shut up, but now I feel not only myself attacked here, but the freedom of this
news group or list, to discuss ideas. Dick Blue puts it nicely:
 
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
 
>{ It's a joke, son!  This note is added in deference to those who are}
>{ not used to hardball discussions of scientific issues.             }
 
Now I myself like a joke but don't consider myself flawed because of it. And
by the way, I forget who said it (somewhat sanctimoniously, too) recently,
that Scientists Don't Joke. Ho ho is all I can say; no it's not, I can say
more. Many years ago, children, a very famous physicist named Hans Bethe
played a joke on a quality physics journal, and got past the referees with an
ab initio derivation of the number -273, for the absolute zero. He may not be
the only one to play jokes but I can't think of more.
 
American scientists used to be known on this continent as people who don't
mind making a fool of themselves in front of other scientists. They used to
amaze the often rather stiff European crowd with their easy going shooting
off the mouth. These stiff people were a little shocked but eventually had to
admit that this did help the discussion along very well. Has this tradition
died out with its epitome, Richard Feynman?
 
Let us continue to play that hard ball.                                Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Richard Ristow /       Closed- and open-cell calorimetry:  An amateur's question
     
Originally-From: Richard Ristow <sjsca4!uunet!brownvm.brown.edu!AP430001>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Closed- and open-cell calorimetry:  An amateur's question
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 18:58:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

   I gather from discussions that closed-cell recombining calorimetry is
regarded as the most reliable way to make "excess heat" measurements.
This is to account for one important term in the energy-balance equation,
the energy taken up by the electrolysis of water (normally D2O) in the
cell.   (An ordinary water-electrolysis cell will show "deficient heat"
if electrochemical energy change is ignored, just as the electrochemical
cells known as batteries will show considerable "excess heat".)
 
   In closed-cell calorimetry, the evolved gasses are recombined and
the resulting heat included in the energy balance.  I can well see that
this is superior to correcting for electrolysis energy use based on,
say, total current flow.  I would have thought, though, that the most
reliable correction for electrolysis energy would be made by measuring
the volume of evolved *oxygen*;  this also sound simpler than making
recombination work reliably.  It does sound as if cells should be closed
if only to permit concentration changes to be monitored, and changes
from evaporation to be minimized.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ristow     AP430001@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU    Bitnet: AP430001@BROWNVM
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfnRichard cudlnRistow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
Date: 26 Nov 91 14:28:56 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1991Nov26.000317.16238@ns.network.com>, by logajan@ns.network.com
 (John Logajan):
> bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton) writes:
>>I've seen an awful lot of postings that assume the stuff would float
>>off into the atmosphere. I wonder if the stuff might not just sink out
>>the bottom of the jar.
>
> Heh heh, maybe that is why there is no naturally occuring H-1/2 on
> earth.  It all sank to the warmer regions of the earth's core where
> it picked up the energy to turn it back into H-1.
 
And then the hydrogen combines with carbon in carbonate rocks and produces
nautural gas and petroleum :-)
 
			Why not?
 
				Bob P.
--
 
| Bob Pendleton              | Engineering Anethema:                     |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Dave Jones /  Re: Schrodinger's Equation
     
Originally-From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones 253-1987)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Schrodinger's Equation
Date: 26 Nov 91 15:54:09 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak

In article <01GDC1RZYW1C000DHH@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
>
>All of us are familiar with the many shortcomings of Schrodinger's
>mechanics.  How is it that a fuzzy electron can give rise to such sharp
>energy levels?
Heisenberg uncertainty principle: location is fuzzy, momentum is well-defined.
 
>What gives rise to spin angular momentum?
Nothing to do with Schroedinger.  Spin was predicted by the Dirac equation.
 
>An electron in a px orbital has a larger electron density along the x axis.
>Why doesn't the electron cloud push away (along the x axis) to give a
>more uniform distribution (Coulomb's law)?
Guys, you either believe in Schroedinger or you don't.  If you don't, then
you don't have to explain p-orbitals, because they are predicted by the
solutions to Schroedinger's equation for the hydrogen atom.
>
>We would like to believe that all of nature abides by the same rules and
It does.  Its just that in different situations various rules become
 inconsequential.  Quantum adjustment is possible for macro particles but
 irrelevant.
Relativistic adjustment is possible for slow speeds, but also irrelevant.
>there are not separate rules for different size objects.  We believe that
>these rules are: the conservation of mass-energy; the conservation of
>linear and angular momentum; Maxwells's equations; Newtonian
>mechanics applies to all objects, macroscopic and microscopic, moving
>much slower than the speed of light; special relativity applies to all
>objects, macroscopic and microscopic, moving with speeds approaching
>the speed of light.
>
There are none so blind.....   Newton formed his theory based on the data
he had.  We have better data.  Maxwell's equations *caused* the crisis in
physics: they cannot be transformed between frames of reference.  Relativity
made Maxwell's equations work for all frames of reference, at some cost to
common sense.
--
| Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) --------------------------|
| Eastman Kodak Co.	Rochester, NY 14653-7300                      |
| "If you continue to print these scandalous things about me, I'll|
| cancel my subscription !" - Groucho Marx -----------------------|
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendj cudfnDave cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Scott Lurndal /  FTL Particles? (was Re: Sub-Ground States)
     
Originally-From: scott@starlite.convergent.com (Scott Lurndal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FTL Particles? (was Re: Sub-Ground States)
Date: 26 Nov 91 00:52:12 GMT
Organization: UNISYS Unix Systems Group, San Jose, Ca.

In article <9111221833.AA15454@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com
 (Terry Bollinger)
writes:
|> Hi folks,
   << m&f stuff removed >>
 
|> Says who?  OK, let me give you some relevant details about Fourier
|> transforms that are mostly from the Dirac Memorial Lecture that Richard
|> Feynman gave several years ago.  How many of you were aware that the
|> combination of relativity with quantum mechanics *demands* the existence
|> of antimatter?  And that the fashion in which it demands it requires
|> not only that a bound particle have speed-of-light Fourier (momentum)
|> components, but also *superluminal* momentum components -- that is, real
|> amplitudes for the particle to "travel" faster than the speed of light?
|>
|> Some of you should be saying "Hey -- you *cannot* do that! Everyone knows
|> that the speed of light is absolute!"  But for very, very small regions
|> this is simply not true -- in fact, if you will look closely at a Feynman
|> diagram and ask yourself what any line that is more than 45 degrees away
|> from vertical represents, you will find those superluminal components
|> right under your nose.
|>
|> Does this have any impact on the world at large?  Nope. Like the vast
|> majority of quantum effects, it simply does not translate into the
|> world-at-large.  The probability for *big* objects to travel super-
|> luminally becomes zero-point-zippidy-zip-zip-zip very, *very* quickly.
 
Well, how about information then?  Could information be sent FTL, say by
altering the spin of the superluminal components in some way (this of
course postulates a superluminal component detector...)?
 
[insert standard "I'm not a physicist" disclaimer]
 
scott lurndal
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnLurndal cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 /   /   New Insights: Corrosion
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  New Insights: Corrosion
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 22:32:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

<  It seems to me that these rather mundane possibilities ought to be  >
<  dealt with before sophisticated nuclear theories are invoked.       >
 
John Wanklyn is a man after my own heart!  Perhaps I am wrong, but as
I recall much of the efforts toward analysis of cold fusion electrodes
has been directed at finding things that aren't there.  Everyone is
aware that the electrodes do get coated with a layer of "crud" that
may include almost anything.  Some true believers have asserted on
more than one occasion that such surface contamination is "essential",
but there doesn't seem to be much agreement as to what exactly should
be in that layer and what is a "poison".  The questions that John
asks are basically directed at how much is known about the effects of
other processes, other than the simple electrolysis that is always
assumed.  I again raise this point in the context of the graphs in
the Mallove book.  Basically what they show is an inverse relationship
between excess enthalpy and power input with rather incredible notion
that as the input power drops from 3.45 watts to 2.25 watts the
enthalpy production is somehow altered to keep the temperature very
accurately at 31.5 deg C.  I can believe that a chemical process
provides the mechanism (as in latent heat at a phase change), but
I can't believe that "cold fusion" could be that closely coupled to
the chemistry.  Todd Green suggested that it was simply the change
in conductivity of the electrolyte which results in the inverse
behavior, but I can't accept that since there is really no temperature
change!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / John Logajan /  Size of Pt anode in Mills+Farrell cell?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Size of Pt anode in Mills+Farrell cell?
Date: 26 Nov 91 17:19:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

The size of the Pt anode in the Mills+Farrell cell was not mentioned in
anything I recall seeing posted here.  I assume it is uncritical and,
since the Pt wire is the most expensive component, therefore a rather
small quanity would work.  Any objections to using just enough Pt
wire to insure continuous contact with the electrolyte?
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Jon Thaler /  Re: Mills/Farrell Theory
     
Originally-From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills/Farrell Theory
Date: 26 Nov 91 17:10:33 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU says:
 
      (...discussion of fine structure constant deleted...)
 
> Nonetheless, I will have to back off on this one.  I was carried away by
> the fact that the n = 1/137 state is a particularly unusual state (in our
> theory) in that the potential energy of the electron in this state is equal
> to m c^2.   For the moment, we just assume it is a coincidence.  If I
> come back to this one, I will have done my homework.
 
This situation is less unusual than you think.  A more conventional way to
give the electron a potential energy equal to mc^2 is to put it in orbit
around a nucleus with Z=137.  Such a nucleus can be briefly made in heavy ion
collisions.  The experiments at GSI (see refs below) see unusual features
in the spectra of electrons emitted; this has been a controversial topic for
about eight years.
 
J Schweppe, et al., Phys Rev Lett, v 51, p 2261 (1983),
A. Bross, et al.,   Phys Rev Lett, v 67, p 2942 (1991).
The second article is slightly off the topic, but contains many references.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDOCTORJ cudfnJon cudlnThaler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 02:02:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
To Dieter Britz:  I accept the apology.  I agree with you.  Let's get on
with it.
 
Farrell writes:
 
>>1.  Why don't you calculate how much water is converted to hydrogen
>>and oxygen by a cell that carries about 80 mA?  How often would you
>>have to add a few mL of water to maintain the volume of electrolyte at,
>>say, 200 mL?  [Which we did, of course.]
 
Britz replies:
 
>Well, I didn't need to, because the paper talks about salts being formed at
>the liquid/air interface, clearly implying a concentration by water
>depletion. This depletion might have been due to electrolysis (or not; sure
>I know about the Faraday, and that it takes a lot of Coulombs to use up or
>produce anything by electrolysis) or maybe evaporation - but something was
>concentrating the solution, and must have interfered with the calorimetry.
 
 
The real cause of the (small amount) of salt formation was not
concentration by either electrolysis or evaporation.  Put a piece of
metal, glass, or whatever into a *dilute* solution of NaCL.  Make sure
the metal extends out of the solution.  Gently bubble air through the
solution (use a fish tank aerator to make small bubbles).  Very shortly,
you will notice small amount of salt appearing on the metal.  As a
matter of fact, if it is a short beaker you will notice small dots of salt on
the lab bench beside the beaker (the dots drop off exponentially).  The
small bubbles apparently carry small amounts of salt; when they hit
something and break a deposit of salt is left.  This summer, when I was
involved with the experiments, I titrated the stock K2CO3 and stock
Na2CO3 solutions; and I titrated the electrolyte *after* the electrolysis
experiments were completed.  To 3 significant figures they were the
same.  If someone wants the protocol for this titration I can supply it.
(The K+ and the Na+ could be analyzed by atomic absorption, but I see
no reason to do this.)
 
Farrell writes:
 
>>2.  How long does it take for a 500 mL Dewar flask filled with 200 mL
>>of electrolyte and equipped with a 200 mL **heater** take to come to
>>equilibrium.  I'll tell you--between 12 and 20 hrs.
 
Britz replies:
 
>That depends on heat transport. My point is that during a period as
>long as 12 h, there are lots of potential error sources such as
>evaporation etc. I
 
I don't that time is a factor.  However, I too was somewhat surprised
how long it took to come to a steady state condition my criterion was
less than a 0.05 C change in a 4 hour period.  Evaporation and loss of
water from electrolysis is not a problem (over a 20 hr or so period).  The
500-mL dewar was fitted with a thick rubber stopper.  Holes were
drilled for leads and thermistors, but these items were fitted tightly.
Tiny spaces were left so that the evolving gases could escape.
 
However, it is worth noting that the heat transport and the cell
constant does vary with the electrolyte.  If you examine the Mills paper,
the cell constant for the K2CO3 solutions was about 16 C/watt (typically
4 hour runs)
and the cell constant for the Na2CO3 solutions was about
20 C/watt;  when we repeated these experiments in my lab in the
summer (steady state runs of about 20 hours), the cell constants were
about 23 C/watt (K2CO3) and 30 C/watt (Na2CO3).  That is, if you have
equal volumes of 0.6 M K2CO3 and 0.6 M Na2CO3 in each of two
dewars and you supply 1 watt via an electrical heater, the K+ solution
goes up about 23 C and the Na+ solution goes up about 30 C.  Of course
the thrust of the experiment was that if you supplied one watt by
electrolysis ,(Vappl - 1.48)I,  the Na+ solution goes up by 30 C and the
K+ solution goes up by 50-80 C!.  (Assuming that one uses a current of
about 1 mA/cm2 for Ni foils and about 2 mA/cm2 for Ni wire as
mentioned previously.)  This is not a small effect.
 
 
Farrell writes:
 
>>3.  Don't tell me we can't match cells to the level of accuracy
necessary for these experiments.  We can.   We also switch the cells.
 
Britz replies:
 
>OK, I retract my blanket statement. It is just that, during my
>electrochemical career, I have seen many attempts to use matched
>cells for all sorts of purposes (non-calorimetric), and they never are
>satisfactory. Maybe you have matched cells, my experience tells me to
>be skeptical. However, John Moore reminds me you calibrate
>continuously (I think this is what he tells me), so
>maybe you can match the cells despite their differences, so to speak. I
>have to re-read your paper on that.
 
 
I'll agree that, in general, it is hard to match cells.  However, in this
case ever a 10% difference in cell constants is trivial.  And, as I said we
switched cells, thermistors, etc.
 
This summer we calibrated by letting everything come to steady state.
That is, we set up a cell with an electrical heater, electrodes,
thermistor(s), and a stirrer.  Then, we ran electrolysis alone (no heater)
and determined the steady state temperature.  Let it cool back down and
then ran heater alone (no electrolysis) and determined the temperature
(actually, we monitored the temperature, voltage, and current
continuously).  Most of the work in the paper, Mills and Kneizys, was
done on-the-fly.  That is, after the electrolysis has run for a while he
turned on the electrical heater.  The increase in T as a result of the
electrical heater can be used to calculate the cell constant.  I wouldn't
call it calibrating continuously, but calorimetry people tell me that on-
the-fly is best (it also yields bigger numbers for the excess heat because it
tends to account for the heat lost with the escaping gases).  That may be,
but the other method is easier for the non-scientist to understand.  No
matter how we calibrate the cells we get plenty of excess heat.
 
Farrell writes:
 
>>4.  Who said anything about stuffing 2000 m of Ni wire into a 500 mL
>>Dewar flask.  The cell constant of the Dewar flask is about 20 C/watt.
>>Are you capable of figuring out if you add 150 watts to such a cell
>>what would happen?  Of course, we use a different cell for the 100
>>watt reactor.  It has a cell constant of about 0.2 C/watt.
 
Britz replies:
 
>You yourself mention the 2000 m of 0.127 mm wire; I presume you
>meant you put it into a cell - if not, what do you do with it? I don't see
>the point of the cell constants. Yes, I am capable of figuring out the
>above, but what does it mean?
 
You can't run an output of 100 W in a cell that has a cell constant of 20
C/watt because the electrolyte would go up in temperature by 2000 C!
Furthermore, when the electrolyte temperature gets above 70 C you
*do* begin to get evaporative losses (even in our tight cells).
Therefore, we couldn't use a dewar flask for our 100 watt reactor.  I am
not free to tell you what we did, but you need something thin-walled--
to bring the cell constant down.  For example if the cell constant is 0.3
C/watt, a 100 watt output will yield a rise in temperature of 30 C.  The
2000 m of 0.127 mm wire was for the 100 watt reactor.
 
I will continue to answers Dieter's questions in my next post (could be
after Thanksgiving).
 
 
John Farrell
Franklin & marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBITNET cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 / Terry Bollinger /  Dimensionless constants
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dimensionless constants
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 05:06:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
Just a quick clarification about some terminology, specifically the use
of the term "dimensionless" when applied to alpha, the fine-structure
constant whose experimentally measured value is a tad over 137.
 
As it happens, 1/alpha has a quite direct interpretation in quantum
electrodynamics:  It is the probability that a electron will absorb
(couple) with a photon as it passes through exactly the same point in
space.  The full details of such interactions are described visually
by Feynman diagrams and mathematically by QED, and involve a number of
more abstruse issues.  However, the key point is that 1/alpha is
"dimensionless" simply because it is a probability that says that
out of every 100 potential electron/photon coupling events, about
0.73% will result in actual couplings.  Whether such events are
measured in inches or meters makes no difference, of course.
 
The value of 1/alpha (specificially in the guise of its "amplitude,"
or negative square root) is exceedingly important in QED.  Indeed, one
could fairly accurately describe QED as a set of mathematical devices
for efficiently calculating amplitudes for all possible coupling events
that could conceivably occur near an electron or photon.  The predictions
that result from such calculations are the most accurate ever obtained
from any theory in physics, proven to be accurate over at least 16 orders
of magnitude (and probably even more these days -- anyone have a figure?).
 
...
 
A few final notes on the Mills/Farrell work, and then I'm going to drop
the subject indefinitely.  I think his acknowledgement that alpha cannot
simply be reassigned to be 137 is a healthy direction to take.  His lesser
claim of some kind of relationship between 137 and alpha is safer ground,
since it does not contradict some very well-established experimental data.
 
I've now seen the Mills et al paper, and I note with some surprise that
their concept of fractional states is *not* based on oddball wave states
after all, but rather on the addition of vaguely positron-like "virtual
charges" to the nucleus of an atom.  In fact, the paper makes a rather
exact analogy between the smaller orbital of He+ (due to higher charge)
versus H, and the smaller orbital of "shrunken" H (due to some sort of
internal photon that increases effective charge on the H nucleus by +1).
This virtual charge photon idea has no discernable relationship to standard
QM/QED, of course, so I will not attempt to comment on it any further.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 / Terry Bollinger /  Fence sitting...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fence sitting...
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 05:07:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On Tue, 26 Nov 91 02:36:04 GMT barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
wrote in response to my comments:
 
> Your ideas were the most  developed specualtions to pass through this forum,
> but such ideas _can_ fall apart rapidly once they get quantitative scrutiny.
> And converserly, before such scrutiny many ideas sound remotely plausible.
> So its just hard to judge when such ideas are presented---especially
> in a field as complicated as (non-standard) solid state physics.
>
> Another problem is that your theory relates to a a very complex
> system, while M&F are talking about the structure of the atom---there
> is a lot more potential to judge their ideas than yours.
 
Another thank you, Barry -- this time with my tongue removed from my cheek!
And you are very right, I have never tried to even explain Twist.
 
>> But seriously, I'd rather not bother to try and defend Twist to you until
>> you PROMISE me you don't believe in redefining the photon-electron coupling
>> constant of QED...
 
> All right...I _promise_. :-(
 
Whether valuable or not, perhaps it is indeed time for me to encourage a
little more scrutiny of Twist, or at least how I wound up in such an
offbeat corner with my analysis.  I've been debating whether to even
bother with doing such a thing on this net, since I really am pretty sure
that there are a couple of quite solid *conventional* papers buried in it,
and I'd kind of like to write those parts up & submit them somewhere...
 
....
 
A more-or-less unrelated (?) anecdote:  In my own software discipline it's
pretty common knowledge that the only thing worse than having no embedded
comments to explain your software is to have *misleading* comments embedded
in your software.  Especially comments that seem very clear and orderly, but
are found to be disastrously invalid or misleading when compared to the
way things really work.
 
Now I wonder:  Is it just possible that such a principle might apply to
nice-looking equations in physics papers, also?  Hmmmmm... *surely* not...
 
                      Cheers,              +   __,
                      Terry          {8v)>=|==<__
                                           +     '
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / T Gaetz /  Re: Charge!
     
Originally-From: gaetz@julian.uwo.ca (T. Gaetz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Charge!
Date: 26 Nov 91 20:45:42 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, Univ. of Western Ontario

In article <1991Nov26.192624.12587@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU
 (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>>by the way, I forget who said it (somewhat sanctimoniously, too) recently,
>>that Scientists Don't Joke. Ho ho is all I can say; no it's not, I can say
>>more. Many years ago, children, a very famous physicist named Hans Bethe
>>played a joke on a quality physics journal, and got past the referees with an
>>ab initio derivation of the number -273, for the absolute zero. He may not be
>
>   Wasn't it also Bethe who manipulated the author list (or maybe
>added an irrelevant author?) so that the authors of one of his
>journal articles would come out to be Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow?
 
Actually, I think it was Gamow who did the dirty deed.  For an interesting
collection of science (mainly physics) oriented humor, look up
"A Random Walk in Science", an anthology compiled by
R. L. Weber, and published by Crane, Russak & Co (NY: 1973).
I believe it includes an extract from the Bethe paper mentioned above.
Weber also produced a sequel, "More Random Walks in Science", published
by the AIP press.  While not quite as good as the original collection
(IMHO) it does include one of my favorites, an excerpt from a published
paper by R. W. Wood describing how he cleaned spiderwebs from the optical
path of one of his experiments by inducing his cat to walk through it!
(Why can't scientists write like that anymore? :-)
--
Terry Gaetz   --   gaetz@julian.uwo.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudengaetz cudfnT cudlnGaetz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Matt Austern /  Re: A New Atomic Theory
     
Originally-From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: A New Atomic Theory
Date: 26 Nov 91 13:30:19
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1991Nov26.162930.14153@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@jordan.mit.edu (John C.
 Baez) writes:
 
> Unfortunately, it seems that this was just the tip of a numerological
> iceberg, and now Mills and his new cohort are willing to redefine the
> meter in order to force the fine-structure constant to be 137, etc..
 
It's so peculiar when people try to find a priori reasons for the fine
structure constant to be (approximately) 1/137: in the modern
understanding, this number just isn't terribly fundamental.  Sixty
years ago, this point wasn't obvious.  Now, however, it is.
 
The fine structure constant alpha(0), after all, is a dimensionless
measure of the strength of the electromagnetic coupling at very low
energy.  This coupling has a different strength at higher energies,
and there is no reason to think that alpha(0) is a more fundamental
quantity than, say, alpha(91.2 GeV).
 
(In fact, the current theoretical prejudice is that, in some sense,
the "fundamental" value really is alpha(X), where X is some large
energy scale.)
 
And, for that matter, there are other interactions as well.  Why
single out alpha, instead of, for example, alpha_s, the coupling
constant of the strong interaction?
 
 
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(415) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / John Logajan /  Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who needs recombination?
Date: 26 Nov 91 19:15:42 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Forgive this ignorant question, but what point is there in doing
recombination of H2 and O byproducts?  As I see it, this is an
energy loss mechanism (the outgassing of these products.)  If you
just let them go and you still have net excess energy all recombining
would do for you is get you still more excess energy.  It isn't
a source of net gain energy in itself.  A best, all it can do is
help break even (assuming you have measured I*V in adequately.)
 
In a similar vein, phase differences between voltage and current
always work to REDUCE the actual applied power.  Zero reactance
(resistive) heating is the best you can do (V*I=P).  Any inductive
or capacitive reactance causes a term to be added that is always
less than or equal to unity (i.e. Z*V*I=P where 0<=Z<=1.)
 
Both of these errors seem to favor conservative measurements of excess
heat.  If you don't correct for them and you still get excess heat,
you are really getting MORE excess heat than you think.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 26 Nov 91 19:28:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>As I see it, this is an
>energy loss mechanism (the outgassing of these products.)
>
>(resistive) heating is the best you can do (V*I=P).  Any inductive
>or capacitive reactance causes a term to be added that is always
>less than or equal to unity (i.e. Z*V*I=P where 0<=Z<=1.)
 
Actually you could add the chemical energy storage losses to the
above equation is another term.  Evolved gasses (H2 and O2), strange
and wonderful stored energy compounds in the electrolyte, clinging
to the electrodes etc, that ABSORBED some of the applied electrical
energy rather than letting it turn directly into thermal energy.
 
Z*V*I-C=P, where C is the total loss due to chemical events.
 
You could also add a term for chemcial gains (due to corrosion and
loss of the electrodes)  Z*V*I-C+G=P.   And just to be fancy, you
can throw in the anomalous energy gain (whatever its cause):
Z*V*I-C+G+A=P.  Just remember that 0<=Z<=1.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
Date: 26 Nov 91 20:54:10 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>The point is that ground states of atoms tend to be quite stable.  If
>such a bizarre state as the n = 1/2 one were to exist, it almost certainly
>would be the dominant form in which the atoms would be found, even at the
>surface of the Earth.
 
By extenstion of such an argument, almost everything in the universe
should be made of iron.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Usenet Owner /  cancel <5698@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
     
Originally-From: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (Usenet News File Owner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <5698@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 91 22:24:44 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

J. A. Carr                                          jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute       JAC@FSU.BITNET
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306     SCRI::JAC (SCRI=46452)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudennews cudfnUsenet cudlnOwner cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Jon Thaler /  Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
     
Originally-From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Density of sub-ground state hydrogen?
Date: 26 Nov 91 22:55:37 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1991Nov26.205410.24009@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com (John
Logajan) says:
>
>DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>>The point is that ground states of atoms tend to be quite stable.  If
>>such a bizarre state as the n = 1/2 one were to exist, it almost certainly
>>would be the dominant form in which the atoms would be found, even at the
>>surface of the Earth.
>
>By extenstion of such an argument, almost everything in the universe
>should be made of iron.
 
Good point.  The reason that everything does not turn into iron immediately
is the enormous potential barrier for the fusion process to occur.  That is
the reason fusion only occurs at high temperature.  (In deference to this
group, I should probably say, "is thought to occur...").  There are no such
barriers to atomic transitions however, so unless the M-F theory contains a
new mechanism which inhibits transitions between n=1 and n=1/2, it is in
trouble.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDOCTORJ cudfnJon cudlnThaler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.26 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Schrodinger's Equation
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Schrodinger's Equation
Date: 26 Nov 91 17:28:11 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <01GDC1RZYW1C000DHH@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>
>Terry Bollinger gave a very nice summary of stationary ground states
>tnd the Schrodinger equation.  I cannot refute his discussion; I have
>used similar arguments since 1965  in my classes (I am a big fan of the
>particle-in-a-box problems).  And no one can argue against the fact that
>the Schrodinger mechanics has had some spectacular successes.  But all
>of that does not guarantee that Schrodinger was correct.  It does make
>our task of displacing Schrodinger's mechanics more difficult--but this
>is as it should be.
>
>All of us are familiar with the many shortcomings of Schrodinger's
>mechanics.  How is it that a fuzzy electron can give rise to such sharp
>energy levels?  What gives rise to spin angular momentum?  An
>electron in a px orbital has a larger electron density along the x axis.
>Why doesn't the electron cloud push away (along the x axis) to give a
>more uniform distribution (Coulomb's law)?  I know that there are
>answers, of sorts, for all of these questions.  But the answers are not
>very satisfying.  Furthermore, the answers usually depend on small
>particles obeying different rules.
 
I cannot understand these comments from someone who is a "fan in the
particle-in-a-box problem".  Particularly regarding fuzzy electrons
and sharp levels. The "electron cloud" is a time-averaged concept. You
do not have Coulomb repulsion between the electron at time t and the
same electron at time t+dt.  Quantum mechanics should be very satisfying
to anyone trying to understand the hydrogen atom, but it may take a lot
of thinking, because there are many concepts unrelated to ordinary
classical situations.
 
>Nonetheless, I don't want to harp on
>the inadequacies of Schrodinger's mechanics.  It simply makes people
>very defensive.  Rather, I will try to demonstrate what our theory can
>do and how it differs from current theory.  I will not try to make you
>answer the hard questions raised by Schrodinger's mechanics, and I
>will welcome the hard questions for our theory.  Please keep in mind,
>however, that this is a big task and that Mills and I are just two people.
>We make mistakes too--plenty of them.
 
When you say you find inadequacies in wave mechanics, people do not become
defensive, they just become curious. They ask themselves, is it possible
that this person is right, when QM describes the H atom to an extraordinary
degree of precision? Then they look for rational arguments and they do not
find them. I suggest that before embarking into a new theory you understand
QM well, then you will not what is a inadequacy and what your misunderstan-
ding. Plank and Einstein had to understand very well classical physics
before they could see where it problems were and propose something new.
 
>To get specific,  we have tried to show that an electron in a hydrogen
>atom is described by a charge-density (mass-density) function which is
>the product of a radial delta function, two angular functions, and a
>time harmonic.  That is, that this bound electron is a spinning, two-
>dimensional spherical surface (we call it an orbitsphere) that can exist
>only at specified distances from the proton (nucleus).  (The distances
>are determined by the charges of the two particles and the mass of the
>electron.  At these distances the electron is stable because the charge
>density function does not posses space-time Fourier components that
>are synchronous with the speed of light.  At all other distances the
>electron radiates and changes the radius until a stable radius is
>reached.)
>
Here you should stop and compare with observations. This charge distribu-
tion does not represent an H atom. Compare your predictions with proton-H
or electron-hydrogen scattering, or calculate the polarizability and
compare it with experiment. A charge distribution that is different from
zero only at discrete radii is incompatible with a finite electron
velocity distribution and ionization energy, through the Heisenberg principle.
 
I suggest you try to derive observables from your model and compare it
with observations. This has been a very succesful method in developing
new theories, even those that departed the most from previous concepts.
 
Raul A. Baragiola
 
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-1353
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 / Hoyt Stearns /  Recombiner
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.uucp (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recombiner
Date: 27 Nov 91 03:57:37 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

I have been running a sealed PD Pt D20 cell for 2 years  with no
maintenance using a Hydrocap.  They are a pumice block with platinized
particles in a cavity.  These are what John Moore was referring to.
They are good for at least 10 Amperes dissociation current, and work
down to 0 Amps.	I have accidentally poisoned them, with CS2 and
other things, but they completely recovered after washing in HCL,
water, and then baking at 300F for a couple of hours.
 
 
They are $7.50 US (#6 model) from:
 
			Hydrocap Corp.
			975 N.W. 95 Street
			Miami, FL  33150
			305 696-2504
--
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| hoyt@isus.org | International Society of Unified Science
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |               |          Advancing the
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |     voice     | The Reciprocal System- a unified theory
_______USA_________|_602_996_1717__|_The Universe in two postulates!_________
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Why... thank you Barry!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why... thank you Barry!
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 16:11:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
 
>In article <9111252025.AA29560@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
>	 (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>> Hi folks,
>>...
>>...
>> (by which I assume you mean my blatantly unmathematical "A Twist of Ribbon"
>> in particular, and probably other net items)
 
>Well, no offense intended, I just call it as I see it. Mills & Farrel
>have written a lengthy book and several papers on their theory. Actually,
>Your ideas were the most  developed specualtions to pass through this forum,
>but such ideas _can_ fall apart rapidly once they get quantitative scrutiny.
>And converserly, before such scrutiny many ideas sound remotely plausible.
>So its just hard to judge when such ideas are presented---especially
>in a field as complicated as (non-standard) solid state physics.
 
Reminds me of the story of the official shouting at a poor citizen: "THIS
DOCUMENT IS INVALID! IT LACKS A SIGNATURE!" Citizen: "Whose signature, your
Excellency?" His Excellency: "MINE!"
(I'm exposing my character flaw here).
In other words, Barry, how about giving it that quantitative scrutiny?
 
And are you saying that the very fact that this stuff has been published as a
book and a paper gives it that halo of Truth? Fusion Technology seems to have
a policy of letting anything to do with cold fusion go through, never mind how
it reads. And the introduction to that paper does look impressive, I admit;
what is more, if the referee understands this part, he/she is not likely to
follow the experimental part, and vice versa. Books are not always refereed so
carefully either. It depends on the publisher.                         Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 701 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 701 papers on cnf)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 16:53:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
We've topped 700!
It's been slow and I don't want to hold these, so I send a mini-package again.
The Chinese team (An+) seem to have done a very careful bit of calorimetry
and, like most of these, find nothing outside error limits and they warn us
of the temperature dependence of the cell constant; in fact, they measured
this rather carefully and give the numbers for their cells. The same goes for
Kumagai+, with their neutron measurement. In fact, they find an interesting
artifact which some, using a single detector, might have reported as a
positive finding. Lastly, Taniguchi+ take a microscope (metaphorically) to
neutron bursts and find that they consist of a series of microbursts, but are
not likely to be due to d-d fusion.
 There is a "peripheral" item, by Greiner+, more for reasons of nomenclature;
you may remember I came across a paper before (Mouze+), which used "cold
fusion" in an exotic sense. Here is the same use, i.e. the generation of
super-heavy elements by collision of lighter ones. If I am not mistaken, beams
of hundreds of MeV energy are used, so "cold" has a very special sense here.
 
In the archives, the file BIBLIO4 has now reached its comfortable maximum size
of about 150 kb, so I am starting a new one (you guessed it) BIBLIO5. In the
process, I also found that the header text for these files has a spelling
error (bibiliography I think it was), and have corrected this for no. 4. Were
you all too polite to tell me, or is noone GETting these files? Remember, I
have a thick skin so please tell me all my character flaws and mistakes. I
like those archives to be as error-free as I can get them.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 27-Nov. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 701
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
An X-W, Yan H-K, Han B-X, Guo D-J, Xie D-Y, Zhu Q-H, Hu R-H;
Thermochim. Acta 183 (1991) 107.
"Calorimetric investigation of electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of
deuterium".
** A thoroughly performed experiment. Two cells, one with heavy and one with
light water, were operated in series, closely matched. Over longer periods,
the same constant current was run through the two cells, and the cell voltages
were monitored throughout. Calibration heating was used to check the cell
constants as a function of temperature. The identical Pd rods, 5.9 mm in dia.
and 47 mm exposed lengths, were pretreated in molten NaOH; the electrolytes
were purified by preelectrolysis with Pt cathodes. It was noted here that the
heavy water electrolyte (0.1 M LiOD) was markedly more viscous than the light
electrolyte (0.1 M LiOH). Mechanical stirring, beyond the bubbles generated,
was provided, and it was found that the bubbles alone were not adequate. The
cell constants were temperature dependent. The volumes of evolved gases were
as expected from the electrolysis current. Currents of 0.6A, 0.8A, 1 A and
finally 1.3 A were applied for respectively 98 h, 13 h, 16.5 h and (21+72) h.
No recombination was found to take place, and no excess heat outside the error
limits of about 5% was found. The authors conclude that in the FPALH-90 paper,
there was insufficient stirring and that it is important to know the cell
constant, as a function of temperature.                               Sep-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kumagai H, Nakabayashi S, Yamagata S, Isomura S, Ichihara T, Yoshida K,
Suzuki T, Takahashi K, Kira A, Tanahata I;
J. Phys. Soc. Japan 60 (1991) 2594.
"Attempts in detection of neutrons on so-called cold nuclear fusion".
** The authors note that there is a substantial discrepancy between the
results of Fleischmann and "Ponse" and of Jones et al; they even question
whether these teams observed the same phenomenon. In any case, if fusion takes
place, they reckon, neutrons must be emitted. Low background and a stable
detection are essential for measuring neutrons. All radiation events were here
accumulated one by one, enabling later off-line analysis. Two identical
dtectors were used, and some anomalous artifacts were rejected. The counters
were of the NE-213 scintillation type and Pb blocks shielded them from gammas.
Paraffin reduced cosmic fast neutron influx. The background ended up as 0.025
cps neutrons and 25 cps gammas for each detector. Two separate methods for
neutron/gamma discrimination were used. In one experiment, a Pd rod, degassed
at 1E-06 Torr at 600 degC and cooled in D2 gas was used as cathode in an
electrolysis at 100-200 mA/cm**2 in 0.1M LiOD. A Pd/Ti rod, and a Pd pipe were
also used. Pulsed operation was tried. In another experiment, Pd/Ti alloy and
a Ti alloy containing 6% V, 6% Al and 2% Sn, were exposed to D2 gas at 50 atm,
cooled to 77K and heat cycled. In no case were any significant neutron
emissions detected. Significantly, however, one of the detectors (but not the
other) did show increased counts, and the spectrum could have been interpreted
as having a peak at 2.5 MeV. The authors warn that multiple detectors are
essential.                                                       Feb-91/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taniguchi R, Yamamoto T, Irie S;
Bull. Univ. Osaka Prefect., Ser A 39(2) (1990) 233.
"Fine structure of the charged particle bursts induced by D2O electrolysis".
** The author join others in pointing out that low-level neutron measurement
is more difficult than that of charged particles, also expected from cold
fusion. The sensitivity is one order of magnitude better and the background is
lower by two. A thin foil Pd cathode, plated onto a Cu backing was placed at
the bottom of the cell, close to the SSB detector. A video recorder recorded
the signals obtained on a video screen. Some abnormal counts, at ten times the
background, were recorded. This fixes the fusion rate at about 1E-23
fus/pair/s, in agreement with Jones+. Some burst-like emissions were seen,
and the fine structure of one such burst analysed. It was found to consist of
a number of very short bursts. An energy spectrum was obtained also, and show
that the bursts cannot be due to the simple d-d fusion reaction. They have
some features in common with the Ti + D2 heat cycle experiments.     Nov-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greiner W, Sandulescu A;                            J. Phys. G 17 (1991) S429.
"Cold valleys: cluster decay, cold fusion, cold fission - a unifying theory of
related phenomena -".
** Theoretical paper, of interest in the present context mainly for its use of
the term "cold fusion", here applied to the fusion of colliding (208)Pb with
(e.g.) (58)Fe to produce (no-name) 108. "Cold" here refers to the fact that
the colliding partners are in their ground state.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 27 Nov 91 07:05:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Nov26.033042.15516@efi.com> chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
 writes:
>In article <laurence.690515022@karl.tapir.Caltech.EDU>
 laurence@karl.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Dustin Laurence) writes:
>>    D + He3 --> H + He4 + gamma
 
>>Plus at that temperature, there ought to be LOTS of D + D reactions ..
>> .. .   Unless you use a beam/target technique, or something exotic.
 
>Some of my friends are True Believers in the Migma concept for fusion
>(Guide a beam of fusable stuff so that it crosses itself many times at one
>point.  The simplest case is a figure-eight.)
 
figure eight!  Huh!  I thought two exclusive but tangential co-planar
circles was the simplest.  Of course that "looks" like a fat figure
eight but it ain't the way I make them.
 
>One of the things they claim is that it is scalable, so that you could put
>one in your basement.
 
Certainly, MIGMA is compact, but I think they are scaleable only in
the sense that they can be put in a modular form, stacked with
combined output.
 
>Assuming the technology worked, is there any way of
>avoiding the neutrons or shielding them on that scale?
 
No, but the shielding for a 50 times reduced yield of neutrons of
substantially reduced energy per neutron over those from the 14 MeV
D-T reaction is not such a problem.  Further this device device is
not capable of substantial power output because of the limited plasma
density (like a tokamak) and the very, very limited reacting volume.
That means the total neutron yield isn't any where like a
visualized tokamak.
 
>The above sounds like there
>is no way to avoid generating them [neutrons].  Does this mean that
>(aside from CNF) there is *no way* to have small-scale fusion power?
 
Small scale (compared to tokamak) physical size-wise is easy, but
small power size-wise is not (except for MIGMA, CF, and Bussard's
electrostatic/mag thingy).  PLASMAK(tm) would be quite small but
the electric power output level would be awesome (even compared to a
humongous tokamak).  Still it might be useful for star planet touring
in a really super RV.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        +Commercial*
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               ***in the***
|                       promethe=prometheus               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 / News ID /  Sonoluminescence in November Physics Today
     
Originally-From: news@bbn.com (News system owner ID)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence in November Physics Today
Date: 27 Nov 91 19:31:50 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA

 
See the short blurb on Sonoluminescence on page 17-18 of the November
Physics Today. No theory but some interesting facts:
 
An unknown concetration mechanism is generating few ev/atom from
initial energy densities of 10^-11ev/atom in order to produce visible
light.
 
Temparature during cavitation is above 5000K.
 
Pressures are above 500 atmospheres.
 
Cavitation is good for chemistry. They are making amorphous iron by
the fast cooling rates. Sonochemistry is an interesting development.
 
Hmm -- Sounds like some good science fair projects here.
 
-------
By the way, there is another (in this case theoritical) energy focusing
mechanism (via magnetic fields) of interest:
 
"Minimal Chaos and Stochastic Webs"
A.A. Cernikov, et al.
Nature Vol 326 (9 April 1987), 559-563
 
They describe a resonance condition for the equation of motion of a
nonlinear oscillator distrubed by a plane wave:
 
x'' + w^2sin(x) = (aw^2/k)sin(kx - omega t) (a is a disturbance amplitute),
 
omega - nw = 0, n integer. (This is a condition for the violation of
KAM theory). For values of a above a certain critical value, one gets
a stochastic web in phase space that can accelerate particles. The web is
even more pronounced for the case:
 
x'' + w^2 = (aw^2/k)sin(kx - omega t) (w is the cyclotron freq.)
 
which is typical in plasmas.
 
Sorry about the abuse of notation, but I thought the mechanism was
worth a brief presentation. Perhaps this theory is applicable to cavitation.
 
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudennews cudfnNews cudlnID cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 / Bill Goffe /  Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: aren430@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Bill Goffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 27 Nov 91 22:13:45 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC

I saw the following article in last Sunday's New York Times. I was kinda
surprised nobody mentioned it here becasue it very publicly raises two
issues recently discussed here.
  - Why is all our fusion research in one basket that won't produce a
      return for 50 years?
  - The "tritium" cycle is a poor idea from environmental and prolifer-
      ation viewpoints.
Further, it asks several questions:
  - What is "field reversal"? What work are they talking about?
  - Is helium-3 really plentiful?
  - Who has done the $10M in work on self-colliders since it is not
      government funded?
Finally, note the forum; issues raised here will be getting a much larger
audience. Also note the authors carry considerable stature. The entire article
follows.
 
TOWARD A NEW ERA OF ENERGY
 
Glenn T. Seaborg & Paul H. Nitze (*)
 
New York Times, Sunday, 11/21/91 (editorial page)
 
  The announcement a succesful nuclear fusion experiment by a European
research team, using tritium fuel for the first time, shows that great
progress has been made toward an important new source of energy. But there
are serious questions about the practicability and environmental costs of
that approach, based on the fusion of two heavy forms for hyrogen, deuterium
and tritium, the last being radioactive.
  Tritium does not exist on earth and must be manufactured. It poses health
risks. If accidentally released into the environment, it can easily substi-
tute for hydrogen and be incorporated into water and the human body. More-
over, the speeding neutrons produced by tritium fusion are sure to generate
radioactive waste.
  These nerutrons can also be used to make plutonium for nuclear arms, thus
increasing the possibility of the proliferation of weapons. In addition,
tritium fuel is expensive. Its reactors would have to be massive and would
likey cost billions of dollars.
  The original promise of releasing this hidden power of the atom was to
provide a safe, clean and environmentally sound source of energy. Tritium
fusion does not lead there - but another option now exists that does.
  Why then tritium? Scientists are familiar with it. The hydorgen bomb
is based on deuterium-tritium fusion. More important, all of the known
fusion reactions, tritium has the lowest ignition temperature: about 100
million degrees centigrade. Thus, it was reasonable to assume that tritium
would be the first fusion fuel within technological reach.
  Even so, we are 50 years away from a working tritium-deuterium reactor.
It would require extraordinary financing - billions more dollars - and we
would still be faced with radioactive waste. For these reasons, the utility
industry stopped financing tritium fusion research in 1983.
  The possibilities of a new approach that would solve today's problems
(and tomorrow's) were outlined almost 60 years ago. In 1932, two British
scientists, John Cockcroft and Ernest T.S. Walton, demonstrated that
nuclear energy could be generated by the collision of artifically accel-
erated atomic nuclei in which both the initial and resuting nuclei were
nonradioactive. Energy was released in the form of electrically chaged
atoms. This opens the possibility of converting the nuclear enerby directly
into electrical energy, avoiding the heat conversion that is common to all
electric-power generating processes and that warms the planet.
  Several type of nonradioactive nuclear reactions were discovered in the
1930's and 40's. One is fusion of deuterium (extracted form sea water) with
light helium, which is known as helium-3. The decision to focus on tritium
is based on the belief that while helium-3 would be close to the ideal
fusion fuel, tritium presents the most feasible option. Helium-3 was
believed to be extremely rare. Moreover, using it in a reactor would
require 10 times the temperature needed for tritium fusion, which has been
hard enought for scientists around the world to achieve.
  But a number of developments in the 80's have made helium-3 fusion an
option that should be tested now. Ample resources of helium-3 have been
discovered in the atmosphere and in the earth's mantle. And in the past
decade, physicists have found a way to create the equivalent of ultrahigh
temperatures by making atoms collide in particle accelerators.
  This has stimulated the invention of colliding beam fusion, by devices
much smaller and simpler than those required for neutron-emitting tritium
reactions.  One promising technique fires beans of helium-3 and deuterium
into a chamber where magnets make them turn and collide.
  Four such self-colliders have been built in the U.S. and achieved the
equivalent of 10 billion degrees centigrade. Since they are almost neutron-
free and becasue the concept can be tested in small volumes, such tests
have cost less than $10 million, a tiny fraction of the cost of tritium
experiments.
  Until now, the difficulty has been to keep the atoms moving in stable
orbits and not flying off in all directions before thy have had a chance
to fuse. It is possible that this may now be achieved with a new technique
called field reversal. This approach creates enough particle density to
reverse the polarity of the magnetic field in the center of the reactor.
  Helium-3 research is now ready for a test that would prove or disprove
this idea. The project would not divert much time or resources from our
main tritium fusion research and could engage a broad spectrum of new
talent at our universities and in private industry and the national
laboratories. If helium-3 fusion works, it will reduce our dependence on
imported oil, polluting coal and conventinal reactors. The nation talked
in the 70's about the energy crisis, but the real problem is now an
environmental one, caused largely by the residue of our current energy
sources. This waste crisis contributes greatly to global pollution and
should guide public thinking from now on.
  No other form of energy would come as close to solving this problem
as helium-3 fusion: there is no radioactive fuel, and the reaction
creates a small fraction of the radioactivity resulting from tritium
fusion or conventional nuclear reactors. We may be at the brink of a new
era of energy technology - compact, safe, economical and producing
virtually nothing but the electricity we need.
  We should test it now and find out.
 
* Glenn T. Seaborg shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1951 and helped
  pioneer peaceful nuclear technology.  Paul H. Nitze was an arms control
  advisor to every President from Harry S. [sic] Truman to Ronald Reagan.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenaren430 cudfnBill cudlnGoffe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.27 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Re: Mills-Farrell and UV light
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills-Farrell and UV light
Date: 27 Nov 91 23:12:21 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

In response to my suggestion that UV paints be used to detect
emissions from the Mills & Farrell experiment, Raul A. Baragiola
writes:
 
>None of these methods can distinguish between 40.8 eV photons and
>other sufficiently energetic radiation. The film is also sensitive
>to radiation from natural radioactive impurities, and to
>Lyman-alpha from hydrogen (10.2 eV), plus other possible UV
>sources.
 
I did not mean to imply that UV phosphors would verify that the
emissions were 40.8 ev.  However, a positive result may go a long
way towards eliminating other explanations of what is going on.  If
the experiment radiates any radiation sufficient to energize the
phosphors (and significantly more than the control experiment), it
would be hard to attribute this to lack of stirring, changing cell
constants, incorrect V or I measurements, radioactive impurities
etc.  If this experiment really generates 70W of UV, it should not be
barely detectable by dental film -- it should produce a spectacular
light show (with the appropriate phosphors).
 
The early CF work has made everyone wary of accepting the results
of calorimetry.  Had it not been for that, no one would be clambering
for closed cell calorimetry even when excess heat is on the order of
tens of watts.  The UV detection would be a more direct way to
verify that something interesting is happening.
 
Regarding the fogging of the dental film, even Farrell seems to agree
that this is weak evidence.  Film can only show an integration of
past history rather than real-time information.  Phosphors could
show time-varying phenomenon that film cannot, yet have much
shorter time constants than required for heat effects to stabilize.
For instance, it would be interesting to apply a long period square
wave to the the cell to see if the radiation has a sharp initial peak
or is constant throughout the "on" period.  Another experiment might
involve gradually raising the the cell temperature while watching
for variations in the emissions.  Also, more information could be
gained by knowing exactly where the emissions originate, and how
much they are attenuated by intervening materials.
 
-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.28 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Why... thank you Barry!
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why... thank you Barry!
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 01:56:35 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <DBD2EEBD4C7F0052C9@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU
(Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> [B. Merriman, in refernence to ideas of T. Bollinger and others:]
> >but such ideas _can_ fall apart rapidly once they get quantitative scrutiny.
> >And converserly, before such scrutiny many ideas sound remotely plausible.
> >So its just hard to judge when such ideas are presented---especially
> >in a field as complicated as (non-standard) solid state physics.
>
> In other words, Barry, how about giving it that quantitative scrutiny?
>
 
Well, for any novel ideas in solid state physics, I'll pass. I don't know too
much about that stuff; even though I've had some graduate classes in it,
its not an area I've thought a lot about.
 
I'm more inclined to examine the Mills/Farell theory, since it is based upon
much more fundamental and simple notions. I've read a portion of their
book, and I get lost when they quantize their spherical shell electrons
(i.e., I don't understand their application of their principle---which
essentially a non-radiation condition---because that section is heavy
on the symbolic math, and light on commentary, so I just do see why they
do what they do. I have a PhD in math, but that doesn't help if somone
just pulls some manipulation out of the blue and makes no comment on it.).
So, to the extent that I've looked at their atomic theory, I found a number
of fishy ad-hoc-ish things, even thought they claim to work from simple
principles. Looks a bit forced to me. Of course the proof is in the
predicting, so to speak, and thats why I'm more interested in their
experiments.
 
> And are you saying that the very fact that this stuff has been published as a
> book and a paper gives it that halo of Truth?
 
Of course not---simply that they have developed their ideas extensively.
Their ideas could be garbage, but at least they had to think about them
for many hours to put them in book form. That is some type of minimal test.
(Though I have other books on my shelf by folks who have worked out
detailed theories of the universe in totally bogus ways, so I'm well
aware that a book is neither necessary or sufficient for truth.)
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>
==============================================================================
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.28 / Xinbing Liu /  A sure way to show excess heat
     
Originally-From: monkey@caen.engin.umich.edu (Xinbing Liu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A sure way to show excess heat
Date: 28 Nov 91 02:43:46 GMT
Organization: caen

It seems to me that the most important thing in this Mills/Farrel experiment
is whether they really have excess heat.  Right now I can't care less about
their theory (I have their paper appeared in Fusion Technology, and I don't
buy the theory).  Mainly people doubt the open cell calorimetry result, and
Farrel claimed that closed cells impede the excess heat production.  If you
really have many times excess power, well I suggest you build a small
electric generator using your 'reactor', and power your reactor with it.  If
the electric generator has a 20% efficiency (anybody have any idea if this is
in the ballpark?), and you get 5 times excess power, you break even.  This is
a definitive way to show you have achived excess heat since this will be a
closed system.
 
Xinbing Liu
Univ. of Michigan
 
--
Xinbing Liu
Ultrafast Science Lab
University of Michigan
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmonkey cudfnXinbing cudlnLiu cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.28 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fence sitting...
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fence sitting...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 02:03:57 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <9111270147.AA20084@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
	 (Terry Bollinger) writes:
> A more-or-less unrelated (?) anecdote:  In my own software discipline it's
> pretty common knowledge that the only thing worse than having no embedded
> comments to explain your software is to have *misleading* comments embedded
> in your software.  Especially comments that seem very clear and orderly, but
> are found to be disastrously invalid or misleading when compared to the
> way things really work.
>
> Now I wonder:  Is it just possible that such a principle might apply to
> nice-looking equations in physics papers, also?  Hmmmmm... *surely* not...
>
 
I agree entirely---equations usually contribute little to coming
up with new ideas; intuition is the essential first concern. The next step
is to do some order of magnitude estimates to see if all relevant
time and length etc scales are reasonable. Then it is time to set up
the simplest model possible that should exhibit the effect. Most ideas
die at step 2, and another good fraction of the remainder at step
3 (when the simple model does not behave at all as expected!).
 
My point was that M&F have, in their own minds at least, gone through
these three steps and beyond. They could have done it wrongly, but
its far more than never have gone that far.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.28 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 02:28:46 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Nov27.221345.21686@chpc.utexas.edu>
aren430@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Bill Goffe) writes:
> I saw the following article in last Sunday's New York Times. I was kinda
> surprised nobody mentioned it here
 
Well, I don't read newspapers or listen to any other mass media---bad
for the brain. But thanks for the reprint :-)
 
 
 >   - Why is all our fusion research in one basket that won't produce a
>       return for 50 years?
 
 
It wasn't planned. The tokamak killed all competitors in the sixties,
by getting much better performance. So everyone jumped on the Tokamak
bandwagon, and have since been forced to ride it whereever it leads.
Unfortunately, it leads to very big, very expensive reactors that are difficult
to engineer, and are right on the margin of what may be economical.
Because of the amount of work invested so far, and no factor that will
definitely prevent them from working, folks stay on the wagon.
 
>   - The "tritium" cycle is a poor idea from environmental and prolifer-
>       ation viewpoints.
 
Well, not really. T is not so bad environmentally; it has only a 12 year
half life, and only emits a weak electron when it decays to He3 (inert).
It would only be a problem if it were ingested and incorporated into tissues.
 
> Further, it asks several questions:
>   - What is "field reversal"? What work are they talking about?
 
Sounds to me like the Migma concept, where you put particle in figure-8
(or more complex) orbits and let fuse during the "T-bone crash". While
zipping along curved magnetic field lines, a charged particle feels
centrifical force---this can either be good (if it tend to throw
particles into the device) or bad (if it tends to throw them out). Field
reversal, most simply, is an attempt to some of the good curvature.
 
>   - Is helium-3 really plentiful?
 
News to me. I thought it was only present in practical amounts on the
moon. Of course, you could breed it from T :-)
 
>   - Who has done the $10M in work on self-colliders since it is not
>       government funded?
 
Probably Miglich, during the last 20 years he's spent on migma devices.
 
Overall, I agree with the article in that research on alternative,
compact devices should be funded at at least some small fraction of the
total MFE budget---any one device is a long shot, but the payoff
is also big. However, its also probably not good for these guys to
rain on the Tokamak parade _right now_, (JET), since the net effect is just to
mitigate the positive PR from JET. The US fusion budget as a whole
is not real healthy, so it can use any free PR that comes along.
 
 
 
> * Glenn T. Seaborg shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1951 and helped
>   pioneer peaceful nuclear technology.  Paul H. Nitze was an arms control
>   advisor to every President from Harry S. [sic] Truman to Ronald Reagan.
 
Also, note that these guys themselves know very little about what
they are talking about, since neither are in the fusion biz. While
the issues they raise are real, they take the most pessimistic view.
So they _may_ be speaking for someone else here, who has a greater
interest in Migma type fusion being funded.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.28 / Andrew Pierce /  Re: A New Atomic Theory
     
Originally-From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: A New Atomic Theory
Date: 28 Nov 91 05:26:31 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1991Nov26.162930.14153@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@jordan.mit.edu (John C.
 Baez) writes:
>For those of you in sci.physics who are not fed up with the topic of
>"crackpot" or "alternative" theories of physics, note this from
>sci.physics.fusion.  (Some comments of mine are at the end.)
 -included post from sci.physics.fusion and the trailing comments deleted-
 
   It is unfortunate that now that the flames in sci.physics.fusion have
been extinguished that some seem to think it is time to move the bonfire
over to sci.physics, which has been pushing unreadability due to flames
lately.  The "new atomic theory" is secondary to the experimental
observation which is claimed as excess heat.  Mills and Farrell doubtless
would not be radically concerned if the theoretical aspects were proved
wrong if the expermental result was proven correct.  Ad hominem attacks do
not further useful discussion.  There are no points awarded for roasting
someone personally.  Meaningful discussion on the other hand is always
welcome.
     -Andrew Pierce
ajpierce@med.unc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenajpierce cudfnAndrew cudlnPierce cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.28 / Andrew Pierce /  Re: Excess Heat/Dieter
     
Originally-From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat/Dieter
Date: 28 Nov 91 05:43:22 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1991Nov25.213754.4843@cs.sandia.gov> melewitt@cs.sandia.gov (Martin
 E. Lewitt) writes:
>The "TEMPORARY species of atom or molecule" could be the sub-ground state
>hydrogen, perhaps being raised to ground state and recombined.  If UV is
>escaping the "closed" cell then there should be a net loss of energy, assuming
>complete recombination of the sub-ground state hydrogen.
 
   Another potentially ignorant comment (my apologies in advance):  Let us
suppose that this works by dropping H down to fractional quantum levels
with the resulting release of heat.  Now the fractional H escapes and
eventually, somewhere, is elevated back up to the ground state.  Doesn't
this also violate thermodynamic principles (as well as current QM
theories)?  This seems to me to be a machine which spontaneously
concentrates heat.  Alternatives:  the fractional H does NOT ever go back
to the ground state  :  the fractional H has lowered electrostatic
repulsion to other species and is able to undergo standard (albeit cold)
fusion reactions.
   I am still unclear on just what the point is.  I had thought that it
was simply energy released from the H and not really fusion, but then,
does this have to be a one-way trip for the H?
   Awaiting enlightenment... :-)
      -Andy
ajpierce@med.unc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenajpierce cudfnAndrew cudlnPierce cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.28 / John Moore /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 28 Nov 91 05:10:34 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1991Nov26.191542.22397@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
]Forgive this ignorant question, but what point is there in doing
]recombination of H2 and O byproducts?  As I see it, this is an
]energy loss mechanism (the outgassing of these products.)  If you
]just let them go and you still have net excess energy all recombining
]would do for you is get you still more excess energy.  It isn't
]a source of net gain energy in itself.  A best, all it can do is
]help break even (assuming you have measured I*V in adequately.)
One computes excess energy by assuming that all of the H2 and O2 produced
by electrolysis leave the cell (or at least do not recombine). Thus, if
you look at the calculations in the Mills paper, the INPUT power is
computed by (V-1.48)*I. Better is to use V*I and let the recombination
compensate directly. However, it is likely to be a relatively small
correction in any case. The experiments produced enough power to
exceed V*I (by a little bit).
 
In other words, without recombination, the most OPTIMISTIC assumption
is made about the evolved gases.
 
]
]In a similar vein, phase differences between voltage and current
]always work to REDUCE the actual applied power.  Zero reactance
](resistive) heating is the best you can do (V*I=P).  Any inductive
]or capacitive reactance causes a term to be added that is always
]less than or equal to unity (i.e. Z*V*I=P where 0<=Z<=1.)
This is true for power factor correction. The point about keeping a good
eye on voltage and current is not phase errors, but possible spiking that
delivers more energy than would be shown on slow power instruments. Again,
there is no evidence that this spiking occurs.
 
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - This line generated by John's new auto-sig generator! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.28 / Albert Chou /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: albert@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 28 Nov 91 15:11:09 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

In article <1991Nov27.221345.21686@chpc.utexas.edu>
 aren430@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Bill Goffe) writes:
>I saw the following article in last Sunday's New York Times. I was kinda
>surprised nobody mentioned it here becasue it very publicly raises two
>issues recently discussed here.
>  - Why is all our fusion research in one basket that won't produce a
>      return for 50 years?
>  - The "tritium" cycle is a poor idea from environmental and prolifer-
>      ation viewpoints.
>Further, it asks several questions:
>  - What is "field reversal"? What work are they talking about?
>  - Is helium-3 really plentiful?
>  - Who has done the $10M in work on self-colliders since it is not
>      government funded?
>Finally, note the forum; issues raised here will be getting a much larger
>audience. Also note the authors carry considerable stature. The entire article
>follows.
 
While there are problems with tokamak DT fusion that made me incredibly
skeptical several weeks ago when I started taking a fusion technology class,
I have a feeling that few of the alternative ideas have any better chance of
working, and that the lower funding level for those ideas practically
guarantees that the tokamak is still the technology most likely to succeed.
I haven't seen any hard data on self-colliders (any idea where one might find
it?), but the original ideas for fusion by beam acceleration onto a target are
completely impractical in terms of energy production -- you don't get any.
Perhaps colliding beams are better, but the big problem is getting enough
density to produce useful power.  Seaborg and Nitze seem to dance between the
two concepts of colliding-beam fusion and some unspecified magnetic confinement
scheme (they refer to field reversal, which as far as I know has little to do
with beam accelerators) in order to state that He3 fusion can achieve useful
densities.
 
He3 is supposedly plentiful on the surface of the Moon (I've never read the
work, or even the NY Times article that came out several years ago), but I find
it difficult to believe that there is much helium in the atmosphere, or that
it would be feasible to extract helium from the Earth's mantle (we're talking
about deep holes and huge temperatures and pressures in order to get at it).
 
I'd like to see some solid data on what these guys propose before making a
final personal judgment, but the article makes the scheme out to be just some
more wishful thinking.  I was going to be nice and suggest that perhaps the
lack of clarity was due to the reporter's writing and editing, but I just
remembered that it was an op-ed piece.  The authors should know better than
to write so imprecisely.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.28 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 28 Nov 91 21:05:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <4985@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> albert@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov27.221345.21686@chpc.utexas.edu>
 aren430@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Bill Goffe) writes:
>>I saw the following article in last Sunday's New York Times. I was kinda
>>surprised nobody mentioned it here becasue it very publicly raises two
>>issues recently discussed here.
>>  - Why is all our fusion research in one basket that won't produce a
>>      return for 50 years?
>>  - The "tritium" cycle is a poor idea from environmental and prolifer-
>>      ation viewpoints.
>>Further, it asks several questions:
>>  - What is "field reversal"? What work are they talking about?
>>  - Is helium-3 really plentiful?
[...............]
 
>He3 is supposedly plentiful on the surface of the Moon (I've never read the
>work, or even the NY Times article that came out several years ago), but I find
>it difficult to believe that there is much helium in the atmosphere, or that
>it would be feasible to extract helium from the Earth's mantle (we're talking
>about deep holes and huge temperatures and pressures in order to get at it).
 
 
The pressure on the surface of the moon is about 1E-11 Torr or ~ 1E-14
Earth atmospheres. Besides, any helium3 there will probably escape the
weak gravitational pull of the Moon. If you mean He3 adsorbed on the
surface, that doesn't work either. He3 does not adsorb on surfaces at
those temperatures. If you mean He3 inside the surface, I find it very
unlikely. The regolith is continously bombarded by the solar wind, micro-
meteorites and UV radiation which will deplete the surface of any
volatile species like He.
 
 
Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics          \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-1353
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Mills-Farrell and UV light
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills-Farrell and UV light
Date: 29 Nov 91 09:00:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
>If the experiment radiates any radiation sufficient to energize the
>phosphors...
 
Is there a UV photon energy beyond which such phosphors no longer glow,
or glow themselves in the UV???
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.29 / Dieter Britz /  RE: A sure way to show excess heat
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: A sure way to show excess heat
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 17:19:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: monkey@caen.engin.umich.edu (Xinbing Liu)
 
>It seems to me that the most important thing in this Mills/Farrel experiment
>is whether they really have excess heat.  Right now I can't care less about
>their theory (I have their paper appeared in Fusion Technology, and I don't
>buy the theory).  Mainly people doubt the open cell calorimetry result, and
>Farrel claimed that closed cells impede the excess heat production.  If you
>really have many times excess power, well I suggest you build a small
>electric generator using your 'reactor', and power your reactor with it.  If
>the electric generator has a 20% efficiency (anybody have any idea if this is
>in the ballpark?), and you get 5 times excess power, you break even.  This is
>a definitive way to show you have achived excess heat since this will be a
>closed system.
 ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
>
>Xinbing Liu
>Univ. of Michigan
 
Sorry folks, I can't resist (my flawed character again): don't you know that
the effect doesn't show in closed systems?               {:]
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.29 / Dieter Britz /  Suggestions wanted on the archived bibliography
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Suggestions wanted on the archived bibliography
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 17:22:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hi ho, everybody,
 
I would like to know what reaction, if any, you have to a possible change in
the way I archive the bibliography. I have been a bit unhappy about the
existing system. What I would really like I can't have: archive the whole lot
as one huge file. It's too big for that; the maximum size that can be handled
with comfort is about 150 kb. As you know, the thing is in 5 sections; books,
papers, comments, peripherals (i.e. papers not dealing with cold fusion but
providing useful background info), and unpublished stuff. All except the
papers section is within the 150 kb size, so these could go in as separate
files with no trouble.
 The system so far has been that I have broken the entire file, with all its 5
sections, into sub-files reflecting time-periods (even so, I had to break the
first one, BIBLIO1, into two halves to be joined, -A and -B). So BIBLIO1 goes
up to 24-Oct-90, -2 from there up to 30-Apr-91, etc, with -4, the most recent
complete one, going to 25-Nov-91, where I started -5. If you retrieve these
files, and want to use them, I feel that you will most likely want to merge
their sections - I could be wrong. The advantage of this present system is
that - in principle - all except -5, the new one, are now fixed and you need
only retrieve them once. Unfortunately, though, I occasionally find errors of
greater or lesser seriousness. You won't care so much if I fix a minor
spelling error and update that file, maybe. You might like to see, however, a
new abstract after I've finally seen some paper which previously only had the
Chem. Abstract for - I think mine are a bit better. Also, I find doubles
occasionally and remove them, and - worst of all - I find that I've fouled up
with using (my own) merging program and there is some disorder that needs
fixing. I have a hard time knowing in which file a given correction is to be
made and, being lazy, sometimes just forget about it. After all, my own PAPERS
is fixed, heh heh. My character flaws again.
 My idea is this: I archive the sections separately, like BOOKS, COMMENT,
MISCEL and UNPUBL, and break up PAPERS into PAPERS-1..-5 (at the moment). This
break-up is still necessary because of the size of my PAPERS, and in time, the
number of broken bits would increase, as PAPERS grows further. The advantage
would be that all files would be regularly updated, as I update my own PAPERS
file (and the others of course). Also, by joining (or stacking the print-out
of) the bits, you'd have a list alphabetically ordered by first author,
instead of (now) 5. The disadvantage would be that you'd have to retrieve the
lot at intervals.
 The easiest course would be to do nothing, leave well enough alone. There are
also other options, such as to set the whole thing up as a data base,
accessible to anyone; I don't know right now how one goes about that but it
can be done. Any ideas? Suggestions? Don't hesitate to tell me I'm nuts. One
problem is that I don't know how people use these files (if at all, {:) and
the answer might depend on that.
 I look forward to email on this or an open discussion.                Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.29 / Albert Chou /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: albert@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 29 Nov 91 17:35:42 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

>The pressure on the surface of the moon is about 1E-11 Torr or ~ 1E-14
>Earth atmospheres. Besides, any helium3 there will probably escape the
>weak gravitational pull of the Moon. If you mean He3 adsorbed on the
>surface, that doesn't work either. He3 does not adsorb on surfaces at
>those temperatures. If you mean He3 inside the surface, I find it very
>unlikely.
 
 
As I said, I don't have any technical info on the abundance of He3 on the moon,
so I will gladly bow to most anyone who does.  The high pressures I was talking
about are in the Earth's mantle and had nothing to do with the moon.  Also,
lest anyone misread the line previous to that one, I was talking about He3 in
the _Earth's_ atmosphere.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.29 / Richard Ristow /       Re: A New Atomic Theory
     
Originally-From: Richard Ristow <AP430001@brownvm.brown.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: A New Atomic Theory
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 21:59:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>   Wasn't it also Bethe who manipulated the author list (or maybe
>added an irrelevant author?) so that the authors of one of his
>journal articles would come out to be Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow?
 
This will probably be corrected authoritatively on the list, but
I believe the perpetrator of that one was the third author, George
Gamow, and Bethe was the author added to make the list work right.
Bethe seems to have earned his place on the paper honorably, though!
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ristow     AP430001@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU    Bitnet: AP430001@BROWNVM
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenAP430001 cudfnRichard cudlnRistow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 29 Nov 91 21:32:30 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Nov28.210544.11782@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>
> The pressure on the surface of the moon is about 1E-11 Torr or ~ 1E-14
> Earth atmospheres. Besides, any helium3 there will probably escape the
> weak gravitational pull of the Moon. If you mean He3 adsorbed on the
> surface, that doesn't work either. He3 does not adsorb on surfaces at
> those temperatures. If you mean He3 inside the surface, I find it very
> unlikely. The regolith is continously bombarded by the solar wind, micro-
> meteorites and UV radiation which will deplete the surface of any
> volatile species like He.
 
The He3 is deposited in grain interiors by the solar wind.
On average, before it can diffuse out of the grain, the surface gets plowed by
meteor impacts, and now the He3 loaded grain is several feet underground, thus
trapping the He3 for a substantial time. Apparently from the soil
samples the brought back, this process, at equilibrium, results in a
substantial He3 deposit in the top several meters of soil.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.29 / Nick Szabo /  He3 separation
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: He3 separation
Date: 29 Nov 91 23:49:37 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

In article <1991Nov28.162208.14069@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
 Spencer) writes:
 
>The problem is that He3 essentially
>does not exist on Earth; Earthly helium -- none too abundant itself -- is
>produced by radioactive decay (it's alpha particles!) and is 99.9999% He4.
>Small amounts of He3 have been made for research, but economical production
>for power purposes is impossible.
 
Perhaps this should be called the "Amgen fallacy", after the company that
put McDonnel Douglas out of the erythropoetin business.  It was "impossible"
to purify this anemia drug sufficiently on Earth, until Amgen came up with
a genetic engineering technique.  Amgen's erythropoetin revenues are now
past the $billion mark, with profits to match.  There is always the
possibility that space-based processes can be superceded by earth-based
processes, as well as the reverse case.
 
Helium costs $22 per million cubic feet, or $22 per cubic foot of He3 on
Earth according to Henry's percentage.  Of course the He3 has to be
separated to be useful, and the prospects of doing so cheaply are dim, but
"impossible" is stretching it.
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.29 / Mark North /  Re: Toxic Waste Hazard from Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Toxic Waste Hazard from Cold Fusion
Date: 29 Nov 91 17:14:45 GMT

BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
 
>I am expressing some concern over a possible biological hazard being
>produced in the cold fusion experiments that have been described by
>John Farrell.   I hope the experimenters are taking some precautions
>against the uncontrolled release into the environment of significant
>ammounts of an unusual species of hydrogen atom.  While Prof. Farrell
>does assert that these atoms are rather nonreactive, I wonder whether
>they might still mimic normal hydrogen and thus displace hydrogen
>in living systems.
 
Oh my GAWD! ICE NINE!!!! 8^)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion
Date: 30 Nov 91 09:26:49 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <4985@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> albert@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov27.221345.21686@chpc.utexas.edu>
 aren430@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Bill Goffe) quotes:
>>I saw the following article in last Sunday's New York Times. I was kinda
>>surprised nobody mentioned it here becasue it very publicly raises two
>>issues recently discussed here.
>>Further, it asks several questions:
>>  - What is "field reversal"? What work are they talking about?
>>  - Who has done the $10M in work on self-colliders since it is not
>>      government funded?
>>Finally, note the forum; issues raised here will be getting a much larger
>>audience. Also note the authors carry considerable stature. The entire article
>>follows.
 
>I have a feeling that few of the alternative ideas have any better chance of
>working, and that the lower funding level for those ideas practically
>guarantees that the tokamak is still the technology most likely to succeed. i
 
All of the funding (money) in the universe won't make a tokamak
capable of succeeding as a commercially workable fusion power
generator.  Even if it is utilized in its actual intended mode as
a Plutonium breeder, that  won't provide the commercial boost it
needs to work in the commercial sense.
 
>Perhaps colliding beams are better, but the big problem is getting
>enough density to produce useful power.  Seaborg and Nitze seem to
>dance between the two concepts of colliding-beam fusion and some
>unspecified magnetic confinement scheme (they refer to field reversal,
>which as far as I know has little to do with beam accelerators) in
>order to state that He3 fusion can achieve useful densities.
 
>I'd like to see some solid data on what these guys propose before making
>a final personal judgment, but the article makes the scheme out to be just
some more wishful thinking.  I was going to be nice and suggest that
>perhaps the lack of clarity was due to the reporter's writing and editing,
>but I just remembered that it was an op-ed piece.  The authors should know
>better than to write so imprecisely.
 
The article was written to "hype" Maglich's improved "MIGMA/Spheromak"
hybrid concept.  The field reversal of the Spheromak gives longer
trapping times for the outback portions of the rosette ion orbits, and
also handles the tendency for particles to scatter out of the plane
where they would be otherwise lost. I seem to recall that both of
these chaps (authors) have been involved with one or another of Maglich's
past/present? ventures, perhaps as a member of one of his BoDs.  These
men are both very bright and one, Seaborg, is both knowledgeable and
at least a .5 Bethe.
 
Amazing how fusion thingys evolve toward the "natural" solution
(spheromak generally; but ultimately the PLASMAK(tm) embodiment
more precisely). It will take MIGMA a number of generations to
get to that ultimate step, but at least it is free to evolve
quite dramatically.  Too bad the tokamak program can't evolve.
Government sponsored BIG "golly gee whiz -- science"  programs
suck:
                               MONEY and
                                  TIME.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        +Commercial*
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               ***in the***
|                       promethe=prometheus               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion
Date: 30 Nov 91 09:28:15 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Nov28.210544.11782@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>In article <4985@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> albert@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E.
 Chou) writes:
>>In article <1991Nov27.221345.21686@chpc.utexas.edu>
 aren430@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Bill Goffe) summarizes:
>>>I saw the following article in last Sunday's New York Times.
>>>  - Is helium-3 really plentiful?
 
>>He3 is supposedly plentiful on the surface of the Moon (I've never read the
>>work, or even the NY Times article that came out several years ago) ..
 
>                . .        . ..  .  .If you mean He3 adsorbed on the
>surface, that doesn't work either. He3 does not adsorb on surfaces at
>those temperatures. If you mean He3 inside the surface, I find it very
>unlikely. The regolith is continously bombarded by the solar wind, micro-
>meteorites and UV radiation which will deplete the surface of any
>volatile species like He.
 
Ionized He(3) or deionized atomic He(3) that flies off the sun with
other matter constitutes the solar wind.  The Moon is outside the
earth's field and its surface is bombarded by these quite high speed
particles.  Upon impact a good number of the helium, including He(3),
bury themselves into the deep surface of rocks and glass, and
become trapped for a fairly horrendous time.  Consequently there are
recoverable He(3) deposits in the first several meters of the
moon's surface.  With commercially successful D-He(3) fusion power
generators operating on earth (it won't be a tokamak folks), this
resource could be profitably mined from the lunar surface.  And this
assumes we are using our current crappy chemical propulsion systems.
 
Look for information on this topic chiefly under the author's name:
Gerald "Jerry" Kulcinski, Univ Wis.  There are others, but none with
the drive and the guts.
 
>Raul A. Baragiola                               \Internet: raul@virginia.edu
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        +Commercial*
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               ***in the***
|                       promethe=prometheus               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 30 Nov 91 09:30:44 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Nov28.022846.5582@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1991Nov27.221345.21686@chpc.utexas.edu>
>aren430@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Bill Goffe) writes:
>> I saw the following article in last Sunday's New York Times.
> >   - Why is all our fusion research in one basket that won't produce a
>>       return for 50 years?
 
>It wasn't planned. The tokamak killed all competitors in the sixties,
>by getting much better performance.
 
One bit of fact - in the sixties when the tokamak was just invented
by Russians, it did make massive gains over then current machines:
stellarator, mirror, syllac, multipoles, etc. However, the sixties
was the last of the rapid jump in results per buck.  Now that gain
curve has flattened out (or is it negative) considerably.
 
The same scale of machine competition of the tokamak WAS the mirror
program that was killed in the middle EIGHTIES (80's), and now the
terror of the tokamak program funding managers is the advanced and
alternative concepts, just because they are compact (cheap with quick
turn arounds, etc) and even if those that were tested didn't
immediately better current tokamak results directly, they certainly
did so per unit dollar.  And then there are a number that have not
been given an intensive 3 year shakdown needed for the most
preliminary evaluation.  In any event, not a single alternate or
advanced concept is funded currently (now for about a year) by
the US government.
 
With today's tough budgetary conditions, these more thrifty lines of
research HAD to go, if the Flagship Tokamak was to stay alive and
have any substantial level of security.  The newest advanced concepts
can't even be allowed to be funded at all, and not one new untried
concept has been funded since the late late 70's.  It's an exercise
in the survival of the biggest.  "The dinosaur rule" and the Tokamak
is a dinosaur and hopefully soon will be just as fossilized.
 
But just now size is currently the tokamak's weakest point.  For
example, some silly congressman with a hand on the budget axe
might just take an advanced concepts hype seriously, and before
a 3 year intensive effort ordered for "the breakthrough concept"
was finished that congressman could act concurrently.  "After
all, why don't we stop the tokamak program (put it on hold) for a
while 'til we see the breakthrough concept work is completed and
results made known.  Otherwise we might be just flushing money
down the (tokamak) drain".
 
Then when only mediocre results come back... the word would be...
"Well after all, the tokamak wasn't really doing all that well,
either and it is so ugly and complicated, and costs so much.. Why
not keep working on this newer, smaller and more thrifty approach?
Seems we could make at least as much progress and perhaps even
more!"
 
          After all isn't progress equal to the hype?
 
>  .... . .           . .    .     . So everyone jumped on the Tokamak
>bandwagon, and have since been forced to ride it wherever it leads.
 
Since the Tokamak is a step in an evolution of toroidal magnetic
devices, it is expected that it would (and should) lead to the
next generation of toroid.  Because the program is essentially a
world wide Government managed "big science" project, it can't lead
to where it points, but rather it must wallow in its pretense
(premature election) to be the "not-in-our-lifetime-future working
reactor".  IT is touted to become this by virtue of the need to
come up with a  sufficiently BIG promise, to justify the BIG and
ever increasing funding needed for decades and decades to "keep
the program inching ahead".   It's hard to envision a beached whale
(closest thing to a large slightly living dinosaur) leading anywhere.
 
>Unfortunately, it leads to very big, very expensive reactors that are
>difficult to engineer, and are right on the margin of what may be economical.
 
Some still stick to the party line that by breeding plutonium  the
tokamak will get enough of an economic boost to lift it into that
marginal economical operation level.   Well for at least a month.. .
 .. .   . honest!
 
>> Further, it asks several questions:
>>   - What is "field reversal"? What work are they talking about?
 
>Sounds to me like the Migma concept, where you put particle in figure-8
>(or more complex) orbits and let fuse during the "T-bone crash". While
>zipping along curved magnetic field lines, a charged particle feels
>centrifugal force---this can either be good (if it tend to throw
>particles into the device) or bad (if it tends to throw them out). Field
>reversal, most simply, is an attempt to some of the good curvature.
 
Field reversal is a relatively new addition to MIGMA.  In effect it
converts the original MIGMA to a sort of flattened-Spheromak/MIGMA
Hybrid. The concept of Field Reversal was first proposed by
Christophilos, and while he was unsuccessful in generating it even
with the help of LLNL (Larry Labs), Hans Fleishmann from Cornell Univ.
achieved it in a ion ring stabilized mirrorish? device.  Spheromaks
are a stable form of a reversed field configuration.  For more see
other poster.
 
> .. The US fusion budget as a whole is not real healthy, so it can
>use any free PR that comes along.  [JET Announcement]
 
As long as the tokamak is funded throughout the world as anything
but a plasma device, all fusion programs will be in very poor and
worsening health.
 
>> * Glen T. Seaborg shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1951 and helped
>>   pioneer peaceful nuclear technology.  Paul H. Nitze was an arms control
>>   advisor to every President from Harry S. [sic] Truman to Ronald Reagan.
 
>Also, note that these guys themselves know very little about what
>they are talking about, since neither are in the fusion biz. While
>the issues they raise are real, they take the most pessimistic view.
>So they _may_ be speaking for someone else here, who has a greater
>interest in Migma type fusion being funded.
 
Hmmm!  I thought Glen Seaborg was a nuclear chemist and authored or
certainly was technical editor of a book "Controlled Thermonuclear
Reactions", as well as served as head of the AEC for a good while.
On well, what would a mathematician know
                       :-)  .
 
From an engineering and financial point of view their pessimism looks
more like gripping realism.
 
>Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. Math: UCLA Inst. Fusion & Plasma Research
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President          (301) 445-1075        +Commercial*
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               ***in the***
|                       promethe=prometheus               **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 30 Nov 91 19:06:31 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>One computes excess energy by assuming that all of the H2 and O2 produced
>by electrolysis leave the cell (or at least do not recombine). Thus, if
>you look at the calculations in the Mills paper, the INPUT power is
>computed by (V-1.48)*I.
 
Ouch!  You mean it's a paperwork breakthrough?  That I could run a MKF cell
and a resistive heated cell with the same V*I input and the MKF cell would
actually run cooler but be "calculated" to be producing excess heat?
 
I am confused why the 1.48 voltage term is a fixed number.  Does this imply
that the cell produces a 1.48 volt back emf that has to be overcome by the
input supply just to start forward current flow?  If not, any voltage input
less than 1.48 volts causes the above equation to produce a NEGATIVE power
input!
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.30 / John Logajan /  Other K and Ni systems.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Other K and Ni systems.
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 21:35:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
The Ni-Cad battery has many interesting parallels to the MKF cell.
 
The positive electrode consists of a coating of Ni(OH)2 and NiOOH.
[Nickelous hydroxide and nickelic hydroxide, respectively.]  The
greater the battery is charged, the more NiOOH and the less Ni(OH)2.
 
The negative electrode consists of a coating of Cd(OH)2 and Cd.
[Cadmium hydroxide and cadmium, respectively.]  The greater the
battery is charged , the more Cd and the less Cd(OH)2.
 
The electrolyte consists of KOH and H2O, potassium hydroxide and water.
 
    Charged                      Discharged
------------------           ------------------
Cd + 2NiOOH + 2H2O <=(KOH)=> Cd(OH)2 + 2Ni(OH)2
 
"Cell design is such that the cadmium electode has excess capacity.
During charge, the positive nickel electrode reaches full charge first
and starts oxygen generation.  Since the negative cadmium electrode
cannot therefore reach full charge, hydrogen is not generated.  The
internal cell structure allows the oxygen to migrate to the negative
cadmium electrode where it directly oxidizes.  Since hydrogen is not
generated, the oxygen reaches the active surface area of the cadmium
plate and is removed from the gas phase.  The oxygen acts like an
internal chemical short circuit allowing the Ni-Cad cell to be
continuously overcharged without developing high internal gas pressure."
 
                      -- Radio Shack Enercell Battery Guidebook, 1985.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.11.30 / Paul Houle /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 30 Nov 91 20:19:41 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

 
	Yes,  and you forgot to mention how pointless of an idea the fusion/
fission hybrid is any form.  If you use a tokamak or any other kind of
neutronic plant to breed fissionable fuels,  you get all of the disadvantages
of fusion and fission -- you still have lots of Pu (or U233 if they got a
little smarter and decided to use a thorium fuel cycle) sitting around,  and
since we probably won't have a huge nuclear weapons program 50 years from
now (I hope!),  the only use for the plutonium is to use it to power
civilian reactors.  Scare tactics aside,  fission power has alot of problems.
 
	Present-generation nuclear power reactors have already proven to be
unprofitable.  This isn't a universal condemnation of nuclear power,  but if
we are to construct a next generation reactor (and plenty of concepts are
floating out there),  it will have to be a design based on simplicity and
inherent safety -- with a considerable reduction in life-cycle costs.  (You've
got to bury the whole damn thing as nuclear waste in the end no matter what)
Fission breeders still aren't commercially practical and have generally been
disappointments;  but they sure are closer than a fusion/fission hybrid.
 
	Another fundamental problem with fission power in all of it's forms is
that it is not a renewable resource,  that is,  the total quantity of
accessable fissionables and precursors to fissionables are enough to supply
estimated human energy needs (at what rate of growth?) for 10^2-10^4 years;
the supply of fusion fuels is on the order of 10^6-10^9 years,  which is more
comparable to that of the sun itself -- and we know of considerable fusable
resources in our solar system,  off earth,  as well.
 
	Aneutronic fusion is the only concept which I think is likely to be
economically competitive with fossil fuels and renewable energy in the next
century;  using an aneutronic reaction does simplify many of the difficult
engineering problems relating to the high neutron flux endured by the reactor's
first wall.  Considerably reducing the amount of radiation produced,  an
aneutronic reactor is very safe,  so they are appropriate for a wider range
of applications than any neutronic nuclear technology.
 
 
--
Welcome to the Aramcheck network,  internet gateway to VALIS...
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpahsnsr cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.01 / John Moore /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 1 Dec 91 15:21:03 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1991Nov30.190631.29444@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
]john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
]>One computes excess energy by assuming that all of the H2 and O2 produced
]>by electrolysis leave the cell (or at least do not recombine). Thus, if
]>you look at the calculations in the Mills paper, the INPUT power is
]>computed by (V-1.48)*I.
]
]Ouch!  You mean it's a paperwork breakthrough?  That I could run a MKF cell
]and a resistive heated cell with the same V*I input and the MKF cell would
]actually run cooler but be "calculated" to be producing excess heat?
]I am confused why the 1.48 voltage term is a fixed number.  Does this imply
]that the cell produces a 1.48 volt back emf that has to be overcome by the
]input supply just to start forward current flow?  If not, any voltage input
 
No. The 1.48V is the dissacciation energy of H2O. If you are
generating electrolysis and not recombining the evolved gasses,
it is the correction for energy carried out of the system by
those gasses. In their experiment,
the cells produce excess heat even if you
leave out the 1.48 term.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.01 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 21:02:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
More responses to Dieter Britz.
 
Farrell writes:
 
>>5.  Why don't you talk to McBreen?  Who the hell is this
>>**someone** at Brookhaven.
 
>I don't know McBreen, have neither his phone number nor his email
>address.  This is one of the points I should apologise for. I was not
>quite sure here and this is why I phrased it the way I did ("the way I
>understand the answer") and you are 100% right if you say that in that
>case I should not have mentioned it at all.
 
May I suggest, nicely, that you find McBreen's phone number from the
*someone* at Brookhaven.  Or, you can call Brookhaven and get the
phone number of James McBreen.  I ***know*** that he has
successfully repeated the experiment.
 
One problem here is that researchers are loathe to state that they have
observed excess heat with light water systems.  Some are just extremely
cautious because it sounds wacko to get excess heat from light water (I
agree, it does sound wacko).   Some researchers, I believe, are trying to
get a head start on others.  Several others, in addition to McBreen and
Noninski, have duplicated our experiment.  They are keeping their
mouths shut. I understand their reluctance, but sometime and
somewhere the log jam will break.
 
Farrell writes:
 
>>6.  Yes, it sets down an oxide layer.  We know that.  So what?
 
>Well, when you do something, you usually have a reason for doing it.
>What was it in this case? Electrochemists hate oxide layers (except
>catalysis people), we like to get down to the clean metal. So why is it a
>good thing here?
 
Won't say much except this is a catalytic process.
 
John J. Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBITNET cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.01 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 23:57:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
In response to Raul Baragiola
 
1.  In the n = 1 state, the charge density at a0  is e/(4 pi a0^2)  =14.41
C/m^2.
 
2.  The electric field at r > a0 is zero.
 
3.  The electric field at r < a0 is given by  +e/(4 pi e0 r^2) where e0 is the
permittivity of vacuum.
 
Sorry, I had -e/(4 pi e0 r^2) but the +e/(4 pi e0 r^2) is correct
 
This is arrived at as follows.
 
     A proton has an electric field given by +e/(4 pi e0 r^2).
     A spherical shell of total charge -e at a0 has and electric field of
     zero at r < a0 and an electric field of -e/(4 pi e0 r^2) at r > a0.
     Thus a hydrogen atom, proton plus the orbitsphere, would have the
     field as discribed above.
 
Jon J Thaler writes:
 
 
>This situation is less unusual than you think.  A more conventional >way to
give the electron a potential energy equal to mc^2 is to put it in >orbit
around a nucleus with Z=137.  Such a nucleus can be briefly >made in heavy ion
collisions.  The experiments at GSI (see refs below) >see unusual features in
the spectra of electrons emitted; this has been >a controversial topic for
about eight years.
 
>J Schweppe, et al., Phys Rev Lett, v 51, p 2261 (1983),
>A. Bross, et al.,   Phys Rev Lett, v 67, p 2942 (1991).
>The second article is slightly off the topic, but contains many >references.
 
Thank you for the info.  I was not aware of this work.  In our theory, the
effective nuclea charge of the n = 1/137 state is +137e.
 
 
John J. Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBITNET cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.01 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 1 Dec 91 20:12:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1991Nov30.201941.21562@nmt.edu> pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)
 writes:
 
  >	Yes,  and you forgot to mention how pointless of an idea the fusion/
  >fission hybrid is any form.
 
This is not entirely valid.  Fusion/fission hybrids have one significant
advantage over a nuclear system based on fission breeder reactors: one
hybrid can supply fuel to a dozen or so "advanced converter" thermal
reactors.  A fast breeder can supply maybe 1/2 of a thermal reactor.
If thermal reactors are cheaper than fast breeders, the hybrid system
can be better, if the hybrid reactors are not too expensive (big if).
 
 >	Another fundamental problem with fission power in all of it's forms is
 >that it is not a renewable resource,  that is,  the total quantity of
 >accessable fissionables and precursors to fissionables are enough to supply
 >estimated human energy needs (at what rate of growth?) for 10^2-10^4 years;
 
Not true.  With breeders, the fissionable inventory of the earth's crust
could supply even 10 times the current world energy use for millions of
years.  Note that extrapolations that uranium reserves will soon run
out assume that only inefficient thermal reactors (that require cheap
uranium from scarce, rich ores) are used.
 
Followup to sci.energy.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 1 Dec 91 21:01:02 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>No. The 1.48V is the dissacciation energy of H2O. If you are
>generating electrolysis and not recombining the evolved gasses,
>it is the correction for energy carried out of the system by
>those gasses.
 
Then the formula [ (V-1.48)*I=P ] ought to be accompanied by the ranges
for which it is valid.  Clearly any voltage less than 1.48 will still
produce a positive current flow, yet the equation above would indicate
negative energy input (i.e. battery discharge.)
 
I suspect that the formula fails to note non-linearities near 1.48.  I also
suspect that cell design could perhaps inhibit electrolysis.  Was the 1.48
determined by the quantity of O2 (and H2) released for its associated input
current?  Or was it assumed that such and such a rate of electrolysis would
occur?
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.01 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 1 Dec 91 21:54:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia
Organization: University of Virginia

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1991Nov28.210544.11782@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 <1991Nov29.213230.15528@math.ucla.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Virginia
Keywords:
 
In article <1991Nov29.213230.15528@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1991Nov28.210544.11782@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>>
>> The pressure on the surface of the moon is about 1E-11 Torr or ~ 1E-14
>> Earth atmospheres. Besides, any helium3 there will probably escape the
>> weak gravitational pull of the Moon. If you mean He3 adsorbed on the
>> surface, that doesn't work either. He3 does not adsorb on surfaces at
>> those temperatures. If you mean He3 inside the surface, I find it very
>> unlikely. The regolith is continously bombarded by the solar wind, micro-
>> meteorites and UV radiation which will deplete the surface of any
>> volatile species like He.
>
>The He3 is deposited in grain interiors by the solar wind.
>On average, before it can diffuse out of the grain, the surface gets plowed by
>meteor impacts, and now the He3 loaded grain is several feet underground, thus
>trapping the He3 for a substantial time. Apparently from the soil
>samples the brought back, this process, at equilibrium, results in a
>substantial He3 deposit in the top several meters of soil.
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
Whereas Paul Koloc says:
 
>Ionized He(3) or deionized atomic He(3) that flies off the sun with
>other matter constitutes the solar wind.  The Moon is outside the
>earth's field and its surface is bombarded by these quite high speed
>particles.  Upon impact a good number of the helium, including He(3),
>bury themselves into the deep surface of rocks and glass, and
>become trapped for a fairly horrendous time.  Consequently there are
>recoverable He(3) deposits in the first several meters of the
>moon's surface.  With commercially successful D-He(3) fusion power
>generators operating on earth (it won't be a tokamak folks), this
>resource could be profitably mined from the lunar surface.  And this
>assumes we are using our current crappy chemical propulsion systems.
>
>Look for information on this topic chiefly under the author's name:
>Gerald "Jerry" Kulcinski, Univ Wis.  There are others, but none with
>the drive and the guts.
>
 
Is this theory or fact? The range of solar wind He is less than a micron.
This is a very shallow depth.
Has anybody calculated the competition between outdiffusion and burial
with meteorites? Even if the grain is buried, the He could still escape
depending on the type of deposit. I looked up under Kulcinski since 1987,
only found work on ion implantation of metals, not analysis of moon rocks.
Can you provide references, including estimates of total amount of He3?
 
Raul
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.01 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion
Date: 1 Dec 91 22:50:02 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1991Dec1.215419.5048@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
 
>Is this theory or fact? The range of solar wind He is less than a micron.
>This is a very shallow depth.
 
The estimates are based on actual measurements of Apollo samples.  The
mineral ilmenite appears to be especially rich in implanted volatiles,
including helium.  The average 3He concentration in the regolith,
if I recall correctly, is on the order of 5 ppb.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Bob Lewandowski /  R&D Magazine Brief on cold fusion at NT&T, Japan
     
Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: R&D Magazine Brief on cold fusion at NT&T, Japan
Date: 2 Dec 91 05:08:28 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

Quoted without permission from R&D Magazine, Vol. 33, No. 12,
November, 1991, Page 5, `R&D IN BRIEF'
 
	"A research team at Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
	Corp., Tokyo, claims to have created nuclear fusion
	at room temperature not by electrolysis, but by
	placing heavy hydrogen on the surface of a metal
	in a vacuum and discharging electricity for 14
	hours. In five out of 14 tests, the team identified
	protons apparently emitted as a result of a nuclear
	fusion reaction."
 
Have any other details of these experiments surfaced elsewhere?
I haven't seen any mention of this on sci.physics.fusion. Have
I misssed something? Our newsfeed has been somewhat intermittant
lately.
 
Anyone have any comments?
 
---Bob
 
--
            Bob Lewandowski
    Domain: blew@tc.fluke.COM
     Voice: (206) 347-6100, Ext. 5368
      UUCP: {microsof,sun}!fluke!blew
  U S nail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box C9090 / MS 273G / Everett WA  98206
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblew cudfnBob cudlnLewandowski cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 2 Dec 91 03:42:00 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>>No. The 1.48V is the dissacciation energy of H2O. If you are
>>generating electrolysis and not recombining the evolved gasses,
>>it is the correction for energy carried out of the system by
>>those gasses.
 
>Then the formula [ (V-1.48)*I=P ] ought to be accompanied by the ranges
>for which it is valid.  Clearly any voltage less than 1.48 will still
>produce a positive current flow, yet the equation above would indicate
>negative energy input (i.e. battery discharge.)
 
>I suspect that the formula fails to note non-linearities near 1.48.  I also
>suspect that cell design could perhaps inhibit electrolysis.  Was the 1.48
>determined by the quantity of O2 (and H2) released for its associated input
>current?  Or was it assumed that such and such a rate of electrolysis would
>occur?
 
  You are quite correct in pointing out the (V-1.48)*I=P value is suspect.
However for the electric potential required to disassociate H2O into O and
2 H, 1.48 is correct.  I suspect the M&F work goes far far deeper than
than a simple correction to the energy required by disassociation of H2O.
I do not doubt M&F's experimental results.  I've seen a similar bizzar heat
effect in my own basement work.  What I saw in those particular experiments
was an electrolyically induced chemical reaction which produced a significant
excess heat compared to the power in of (V-1.48).  In my case though, the
results generated a solid precipitate.  M&F claim none other than the normal
crystalization of the electrolyte around the electrodes. So, from my own
experience I have to wonder if something similar is occurring only with the
difference being that their precipitate is evolving as a gas (or perhaps
liquid) instead of a solid.
 
   There are some serious tests that Farrell could do that would make
anyone rule out an electrolyically induced chemical reaction.  For
example, a simple Gas chromagraph of the electrolyte before and
after electrolysis would be interesting.  Perhaps Mass-Spec on
the evolving gases might bare some conclusive experimental results.
 
  Anyway, my hat's off to Professor Farrell for pointing out (and very
openly I admit) that by normal expectations, their experimental and
theoretical work yields some unusual and interesting work with hydrated
metals. It's a pretty un-explored field in physics, so until something
definitive comes along, these heat effects will remain controversial.
But again, I must ask, does an electrolyically induced chemical effect
explain the M&F work?
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \  Knowing and not doing = Not knowing at all. |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 14:41:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
 
>john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>>One computes excess energy by assuming that all of the H2 and O2 produced
>>by electrolysis leave the cell (or at least do not recombine). Thus, if
>>you look at the calculations in the Mills paper, the INPUT power is
>>computed by (V-1.48)*I.
 
>Ouch!  You mean it's a paperwork breakthrough?  That I could run a MKF cell
>and a resistive heated cell with the same V*I input and the MKF cell would
>actually run cooler but be "calculated" to be producing excess heat?
 
>I am confused why the 1.48 voltage term is a fixed number.  Does this imply
>that the cell produces a 1.48 volt back emf that has to be overcome by the
>input supply just to start forward current flow?  If not, any voltage input
>less than 1.48 volts causes the above equation to produce a NEGATIVE power
>input!
>--
>- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
As I have said before, don't confuse mathematics with reality. The answers to
the three questions are yes-no, no and no. I'll explain:
 If you ran two cells with the same V*I, one in which water is being
electrolysed and one in which the power all goes into heating, YES, the first
would run cooler but NO you wouldn't calculate excess heat if you know what
you are calculating. Read on.
 Where does that 1.48 V come from? It takes energy to electrolyse water; the
overall reaction
       H2O  -->  H2  + 1/2 O2
has a reaction enthalpy of -286 kJ/mol water. You can consider the reaction as
the swapping of two electrons (n=2) from the oxygen to the two hydrogens. Then
you have the thermodynamic relation deltaH = -nFE, with F = 96487 Coulomb, and
this gives E = 1.48 V (I am simplifying a bit, this formula usually involves
deltaG and there is small entropy complication but the number is correct).
Another way of looking at this is that it takes work (energy) to break up
water, and in an electrolysis cell, this work is done by a voltage pushing
electrons. Work is Coulombs*Volt, power (the rate of work) is Amp*Volt. Now,
in a real cell, with a nonzero current flowing, the cell voltage is greater
than this 1.48 V needed for the reaction; we talk of overvoltages. Some of
this is due to electrolyte resistance (IR drop) and some - the electrochemical
overvoltage - is due to the fact that, if you want to drive the reaction at an
appreciable rate, you need to push it along a bit with an extra voltage. The
overvoltage (the bit in excess of 1.48V) ends up as heat, too. So NO, the cell
doesn't actually apply a back emf but YES, you do first have to exceed that
1.48 V to get a current.
Finally, NO, no negative power input, since you get no current for less than
1.48 V cell voltage.
 In effect, the above means that of the total power I*V applied to the cell,
the part 1.48*I gets swallowed by the electrolysis reaction and produces H2
and O2 instead of heat. All other components of the total voltage end up as
heat. Now you'll also understand the significance of recombination. If we have
allowed for a power "loss" of 1.48*I, and then, later, the evolved H2 and O2
recombine to produce warm water, dribbling back into the cell, some of that
energy is returned to the cell. So to have a reliable accounting of the heats,
you need to know the degree of recombination. The ones we are most comfortable
with are zero, or total recomb. Zero means the gases escape altogether - but
there is then the suspicion that not quite all did in fact escape, that we had
some (unknown) degree of recomb. In most cells, I believe this to be small,
however. It is thought that the original FPH cell, thought to have the Pd rod
just where both gases came out, did have some recombination - Pd is a good
catalyst for the recombination reaction. With a suitable recombination
catalyst, you can ensure total recombination, and then, overall, no part of
the cell voltage goes into electrolysis of water. Thermodynamics does not care
about what happens in between, only about starting and final conditions.
Again, there might be complications. If, for example, the heat produced at the
catalyser radiates off through the cell lid, then you don't get it all back
and you lose some heat. I have never yet read of any cold fusion experiment
reporting a heat deficit, though. Maybe they just don't report it when it
happens.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Jon Webb /  Re: R&D Magazine Brief on cold fusion at NT&T, Japan
     
Originally-From: webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: R&D Magazine Brief on cold fusion at NT&T, Japan
Date: 2 Dec 91 14:08:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1991Dec2.050828.7851@tc.fluke.COM> blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob
 Lewandowski) writes:
 
   Path:
 crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.
 mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!micro-heart-of-
 gold.mit.edu!uw-beaver!fluke!blew
	   "A research team at Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
	   Corp., Tokyo, claims to have created nuclear fusion
	   at room temperature not by electrolysis, but by
	   placing heavy hydrogen on the surface of a metal
	   in a vacuum and discharging electricity for 14
	   hours. In five out of 14 tests, the team identified
	   protons apparently emitted as a result of a nuclear
	   fusion reaction."
There have been published papers on this -- see Dieter's bibliography.
I believe the phenomenon at work here is self-targeting. -- J
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenwebb cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Jim Bowery /  Lunar He3
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lunar He3
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 19:07:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dr. Andrew Cutler at the Space Resources Engineering Research Center
and editor of "Space Power" states there are fundamental limits
on lunar He3 as a resource that make it uneconomic.  For instance,
ignoring transportation costs for equipment/spare parts/expendables
to the moon (which would be quite substantial) the amount of regolith
that would have to be processed to extract useful amounts of He3 would
be so great that the energy input (ignoring cost/watt) would be comparable
to the energy one could get out from burning the lunar He3.
 
Since transport costs are ignored, this means even space-based uses of
lunar He3 are thermodynamically unattractive.
 
This is a basic mining problem:  The extraction technology simply isn't
good enough to call some kinds of stuff "ore".  This doesn't mean more
advanced techniques might not come along, but one is still left with
the comparison of this ore to others that may be available in the solar
system (including earth) and their relative ease of benification.  Also,
even with complete efficiency in extraction of the He3, most of the
lunar surface would have to be disrupted to support the levels of energy
production required by projected economic growth.
 
One must also keep in mind the fact that at some level of technical
difficulty, efficiently grabbing He3 looks less attractive than pushing
the fusion used to allow the burning of H1-B11.  The pay-back per investment
is virtually without comparison between the two technologies.  H1-B11
is the way to go -- not lunar He3 nor He3 from virtually any source
(due to neutron emission).
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Terry Bollinger /  A logical conclusion...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A logical conclusion...
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 19:08:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
On Thu, 28 Nov 91 02:03:57 GMT barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
wrote:
 
> [1]... intuition is the essential first concern...
> [2]... The next step is to do some order of magnitude estimates to see
>        if all relevant time and length etc scales are reasonable.
> [3]... Then it is time to set up the simplest model possible that should
>        exhibit the effect.
> Most ideas die at step 2, and another good fraction of the remainder at
> step 3 (when the simple model does not behave at all as expected!).
>
> My point was that M&F have, in their own minds at least, gone through
> these three steps and beyond. They could have done it wrongly, but
> its far more than never have gone that far.
 
....
 
Well, you have prompted me to make another comment about the Mills et al
paper, despite a genuine wish on my part not to bother anymore.
 
The Mills paper opens with an example of a statement that contains of the
oldest forms of math known -- logic.  While it was not quantified into
an explicit (Boolean) algebra of mathematical symbols until the last couple
of centuries, the basic rules were very well quantified way back in the time
of Aristotle (roughly 2000 years ago).
 
So what does Mills start with as *the* key intuitive/mathematical premise
from which the book, articles, and everything else apparently follows?
 
Well, it looks something like this:
 
    A -> B
    and (not A)
    -----------------
    therefore (not B)
 
(The special symbol -> is read "if A then B", and it corresponds to the
informal idea that A implies B.)
 
A == One-electron atom radiates
 
not A == Not (one-electron atom radiates)
      == one-electron atom is in a non-radiative (ground) state
 
B == One-electron atom possesses space-time Fourier transform components
     of the charge density function that are synchonous with waves
     travelling at the speed of light
 
not B == Not (one-electron atom possesses space-time Fourier transform
         components of the charge density function that are synchonous
         with waves travelling at the speed of light)
      == the charge-density function must not possess space-time Fourier
         components that are synchonous with waves traveling at the speed
         of light
 
To be a bit more symbolish, the assertion and its transformations are:
 
    (A -> B) AND (NOT A) ==> (NOT B)
    ((NOT A) OR B) AND (NOT A) == > (NOT B)
    ((NOT A) AND (NOT A)) OR (B AND (NOT A)) ==> (NOT B)
    (NOT A) OR (B AND (NOT A)) ==> (NOT B)
    (NOT A) AND (TRUE OR B) ==> (NOT B)
    (NOT A) AND TRUE ==> (NOT B)
    (NOT A) ==> (NOT B)
 
The special symbol "==>" means "implies" or "tautologically implies".  To
validate the use of the "==>" symbol a truth table can be used:
 
    A    B   (NOT A)  (NOT B)   (NOT A) -> (NOT B)
   ---  ---  -------  -------   ------------------
    0    0      1        1              1
    0    1      1        0              0
    1    0      0        1              1
    1    1      0        0              1
 
To be a valid assertion, the last statement in the proof must be a
tautology for all possible applications of the if-then (->) operator.
That is, it must be true for all possible combinations of logical values
that can be assigned to the two variables A and B.  As you can see from the
table, that is not the case;  the second row (A=0 and B=1) is false.
 
Stated a bit less formally, it does *not* follow from the given set
of premises that a non-radiating atom (A=0) lacks Fourier components
that are synchronous with the speed of light (B=1).  [I would add to that
that QED quite specifically implies that such such c syncronous components
-- as well as superluminals -- *do* in fact exist, and are a normal part
of the particle/wave duality that allows atoms to exist in defiance of
the expectations of classical pre-quantum electrodynamic theory.]
 
It also follows that any argument based on the invalid inference (B=1),
no matter how long and drawn out, is necessarily invalid and thus specious.
 
For those of you who need some "intuition" when it comes to the rules of
logic, try out this argument.  It has exactly the same structure as the
key F&M argument presented on the first page of Mills et al:
 
    If you are addicted to heroin, you drank milk as a baby.  [QUITE TRUE!]
    You are not addicted to heroin.  [QUITE TRUE FOR MOST OF YOU, I HOPE!]
 
    Therefore you did not drink milk as a baby.  [QUITE FALSE, I HOPE!]
 
The logical structure of the milk/heroin argument is:
 
    If H then M
    and (not H)
    -----------------
    Therefore (not M)
 
H == You are a heroin addict
M == You drank milk as a baby
 
If you will examine and compare these very similar arguments, you hopefully
will gain sufficient intuition to understand why they are both quite false.
It may at least help you to understand why I have not paid any attention
to Mills et al or their experimental reports for a long, long time.
 
For others such "silly" points will make no difference whatsoever.  I wish
them luck in their science/engineering careers, because they will need it.
 
....
 
I am growing very weary of this group and will be taking a vacation of
indeterminate length from it.  It is rather unlikely (although not flatly
impossible) that I will have anything more to say about my own ideas
in this forum.  So don't fret about having your email queue filled up
with any readable insights as to why solitons (and their close cousins
anyons) might be more fundamental than is generally thought.
 
Direct emails welcome.  Please note I will *not* be reviewing mail from
this group anymore, at least not for quite a while.  (I will continue to
receive and archive it, though.)
 
				Bye-bye,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Nick Szabo /  Helium price correction
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Helium price correction
Date: 2 Dec 91 15:44:41 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

Misread a table; price of helium is $22,000 per million cubic feet, not
$22.  Makes cheap He3 from Earth more improbable, but I stick by "not
impossible".  It has also been suggested to breed He3 from tritium,
feasibility unknown.
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / John Baez /  Re: A New Atomic Theory
     
Originally-From: jbaez@godel.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Originally-From: jbaez@godel.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: A New Atomic Theory
Subject: Re: A New Atomic Theory
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:37:00 GMT
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 17:58:18 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

From galois!godel!jbaez Mon Dec  2 13:30:32 EST 1991
Article: 7613 of sci.physics
Xref: galois sci.physics.fusion:1030 sci.physics:7613
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Path: galois!godel!jbaez
Originally-From: jbaez@godel.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: A New Atomic Theory
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.175818.6583@galois.mit.edu>
Sender: news@galois.mit.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: godel
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
References: <01GD8WA3FU68000B5W@FANDM.BITNET>
 <1991Nov26.162930.14153@galois.mit.edu>
 <1991Nov28.052631.25397@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 17:58:18 GMT
Lines: 38
 
In article <1991Nov28.052631.25397@samba.oit.unc.edu> ajpierce@med.unc.edu
 (Andrew Pierce) writes:
>In article <1991Nov26.162930.14153@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@jordan.mit.edu (John
 C. Baez) writes:
>>For those of you in sci.physics who are not fed up with the topic of
>>"crackpot" or "alternative" theories of physics, note this from
>>sci.physics.fusion.  (Some comments of mine are at the end.)
> -included post from sci.physics.fusion and the trailing comments deleted-
>
>   It is unfortunate that now that the flames in sci.physics.fusion have
>been extinguished that some seem to think it is time to move the bonfire
>over to sci.physics, which has been pushing unreadability due to flames
>lately.  The "new atomic theory" is secondary to the experimental
>observation which is claimed as excess heat.  Mills and Farrell doubtless
>would not be radically concerned if the theoretical aspects were proved
>wrong if the expermental result was proven correct.  Ad hominem attacks do
>not further useful discussion.  There are no points awarded for roasting
>someone personally.  Meaningful discussion on the other hand is always
>welcome.
 
I don't agree that for Mills the theory is secondary in importance to
the measurement of excess heat.  As I noted, "A New Atomic Theory"
(which I now see is by Mills and Farrell) has been around for quite a
while, it's a fairly long paper (~50 pages), and Mills has dealt with a
law firm to patent numerous inventions, including
antigravity machines, based on it.  I feel that such "ad hominem"
information is just as relevant in this case as if Uri Geller
came out with experiments supporting the existence of anomalous
low-temperature melting of steel.  It's clear that regardless of Mills'
history, there may be excess heat being produced in the apparatus;
replicating the experiment will determine that.
 
I also suggest that you skip articles that you don't want to read.  With
a "KILL" file this can be done automatically.  I posted my article to
sci.physics not to "flame" or "score points," but to make it still
clearer that Beckmann is not at all unusual in having written
extensively about an alternative theory of physics.  Indeed, Mills'
theory makes many more precise and correct predictions than Beckmann's -
and here I mean predictions NOT ALREADY MADE by standard theory.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjbaez cudfnJohn cudlnBaez cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / John Baez /  Re: A New Atomic Theory
     
Originally-From: jbaez@godel.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: A New Atomic Theory
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:44:32 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

Sorry, I was unable to cancel the first version of my latest post, due
to a bug in our news system.  I realize quite well how this will endear
me to all of you.  John Baez
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjbaez cudfnJohn cudlnBaez cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / John Baez /  Re: A New Atomic Theory
     
Originally-From: jbaez@godel.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: A New Atomic Theory
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 17:58:18 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <1991Nov28.052631.25397@samba.oit.unc.edu> ajpierce@med.unc.edu
 (Andrew Pierce) writes:
>In article <1991Nov26.162930.14153@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@jordan.mit.edu (John
 C. Baez) writes:
>>For those of you in sci.physics who are not fed up with the topic of
>>"crackpot" or "alternative" theories of physics, note this from
>>sci.physics.fusion.  (Some comments of mine are at the end.)
> -included post from sci.physics.fusion and the trailing comments deleted-
>
>   It is unfortunate that now that the flames in sci.physics.fusion have
>been extinguished that some seem to think it is time to move the bonfire
>over to sci.physics, which has been pushing unreadability due to flames
>lately.  The "new atomic theory" is secondary to the experimental
>observation which is claimed as excess heat.  Mills and Farrell doubtless
>would not be radically concerned if the theoretical aspects were proved
>wrong if the expermental result was proven correct.  Ad hominem attacks do
>not further useful discussion.  There are no points awarded for roasting
>someone personally.  Meaningful discussion on the other hand is always
>welcome.
 
I don't agree that for Mills the theory is secondary in importance to
the measurement of excess heat.  As I noted, "A New Atomic Theory"
(which I now see is by Mills and Farrell) has been around for quite a
while Mills has attempted to patent numerous inventions, including
antigravity machines, based on it.  I feel that such "ad hominem"
remarks are just as relevant in this case as if Uri Geller
came out with experiments supporting the existence of anomalous
low-temperature melting of steel.  It's clear that regardless of Mills'
history, there may be excess heat being produced in the apparatus;
replicating the experiment will determine that.
 
I also suggest that you skip articles that you don't want to read.  With
a "KILL" file this can be done automatically.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjbaez cudfnJohn cudlnBaez cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Terry Bollinger /  Errata
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Errata
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:10:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From my last email, the lines:
 
> that are synchronous with the speed of light (B=1).  [I would add to that
..
> It also follows that any argument based on the invalid inference (B=1),
 
Should have read:
 
> that are synchronous with the speed of light (B=0).  [I would add to that
..
> It also follows that any argument based on the invalid inference (B=0),
 
So much for a graceful exit...
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 /  J_FARRELL%FAND /  Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:26:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
To Chuck Sites, John Logajan, John Moore:
 
1.  We did collect the gases and found no recombination.  (Nonetheless,
I highly recommend this for anyone repeating the experiment.)
 
2.  We analyzed the carbonate before and after many days (possibly
weeks, I'd have to go back to the notebooks) and found no change to 3
significant figures.
 
3.  Don't forget that we also did this experiment (as close to identically
as possible) with 0.6 M Na2CO3.  In this case the power output did
equal (Vappl - 1.48)I.  (Collected the gases, too--no recombination.)
 
Anyway, you are asking the right questions.  Thanks for explaining the
1.48
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBITNET cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Frank Reddy /  Dissociation Confusion?
     
Originally-From: Frank Reddy <0004847546@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dissociation Confusion?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 02:38:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I've got a (stupid?) question about this discussion of dissociation via
electrolysis.  My understanding of the process
 
               H2O (l) -----> H2 (g) +  1/2 O2 (g)
 
is that it requires 237 kj/mole and occurs at a potential of 1.23 v.  Do
the other numbers I've seen discussed for this process (v=1.48,
268 kj/mole) actually apply to D2O instead?
 
It's a curious fact the deuterium is one of the exceptions to the rule
that most isotopes display nearly identical chemical and physical
properties.  In fact, plants and animals cannot live with high
concentrations of D2O.  I had to look this stuff up a while back, so I
repeat this here for the curious.
 
   ___________________________________________________
                 Water versus Heavy Water
    Property                 H O             D O
                              2               2
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Molecular weight:       18.015         20.031
    Density (g/ml @ 25 C):   0.997          1.104
    Melting point (C/F):     0.00/ 32.00    3.82/ 38.88
    Boiling point (C/F):   100.00/212.00  101.42/214.56
    Threshold voltage
    for electrolysis:        1.23  ?         1.48 ?
    ---------------------------------------------------
 
Also, I wonder if we might not consider creating a Frequently Asked
Question file as is done on some other newsgroups?
 
Francis Reddy
0004847546@MCIMAIL.COM
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden0004847546 cudfnFrank cudlnReddy cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Bryan Carpenter /  Re: He3 separation
     
Originally-From: dbc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bryan Carpenter)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He3 separation
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:03:27 GMT

In <1991Nov29.234937.19470@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
 
>In article <1991Nov28.162208.14069@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu
 (Henry Spencer) writes:
 
>...
 
>Helium costs $22 per million cubic feet, or $22 per cubic foot of He3 on
>Earth according to Henry's percentage.  Of course the He3 has to be
>separated to be useful, and the prospects of doing so cheaply are dim, but
>"impossible" is stretching it.
 
$22/(10^6 ft^3) is incredible... around $3 per ton according to a
quick estimate??!!  Hard to believe.
 
>--
>szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
>Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
>Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
 
dbc
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendbc cudfnBryan cudlnCarpenter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:38:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>So NO, the cell doesn't actually apply a back emf but YES, you do
>first have to exceed that 1.48 V to get a current.
 
>Finally, NO, no negative power input, since you get no current for
>less than 1.48 V cell voltage.
 
Before I wrote my question, I ran an experiment with NaCl (table
salt).  I used a variable power supply (0-20V, 250ma max) with a
built in switch selectable V/I meter.  I was able to get positive
current flow for voltages less than 1.48 -- and I was using only
lightly salted water.  The more salt I added the greater the current.
 
I will go back and repeat the experiment to see if gas evolves at
voltages less than 1.48.  I will also check to see if my cell produces
a potential on its own (and what polarity), after all, I may have
created a battery that is playing havoc with my measurments.
 
And I'd like to repeat the fact that Ni-Cad batteries are designed
to inhibit gas generation.  Any assumption about how much gas will
be produced by 1.48*I is unwarranted.  This has to be an empirical
measurement (ratio of gas production to electrical current.)
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 2 Dec 91 17:04:08 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <01GD641215MO00078P@FANDM.BITNET>
 J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>1. I suppose researchers will have to try it (to prove to themselves),
>but you do not get excess heat (or very little excess heat) with a
>closed cell.  The reason is **not** recombination. The reason is that
>the recombiner depletes the solution and the cathode surface of
>hydrogen atoms. Once again, researchers will have to prove th themselves
>that this is true.  I can only warn you that open cells give much more
>heat than closed ones (where the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined).
 
Our news feed is slow, so this has probably already been hashed to death,
but why should a recombiner make a difference?  I understood that it was
placed at the top of the cell, which would be a hole in an open cell.  So
any hydrogen atoms that reach the recombiner would also reach the hole.
Unless you're using a closed cell with nothing but water (and gaseous water)
inside, so that the recombiner keeps the pressure in the cell lower than an
open cell?
 
By the way, how did you come up with the idea that you were shrinking
hydrogen atoms to get the heat?  When I see the idea it looks halfway
reasonable, but I can't possibly imagine what intuitive or experimental
process could come up with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Mike Pelt /  Re: Helium price correction
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium price correction
Date: 3 Dec 91 00:36:46 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <1991Dec2.154441.29009@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
 writes:
>It has also been suggested to breed He3 from tritium, feasibility unknown.
 
Simple enough -- store 12 times as much tritium in the form of
tritiated water as you need He3, and collect the He3 that bubbles
off as the tritium decays to He3.
 
Cost guesstimate, anyone?
--
Don't forget that the media is wallpapered with idiots; | Mike Van Pelt
no matter how stentorian their voices or smooth their   | Headland Technology
writing style, they're mostly just trying to make sure _| mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
you don't change the channel.  - Barry Shein      | ...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Henry Spencer /  Re: He3 separation
     
Originally-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He3 separation
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 04:14:40 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1991Nov29.234937.19470@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
 writes:
>Helium costs $22 per million cubic feet, or $22 per cubic foot of He3 on
>Earth according to Henry's percentage...  [Nick later corrects this by
>a factor of 1000, upward]
 
In fact my percentage was off the top of my head, but it wasn't too far off.
He3 is about 1.3ppm (by atom, not by mass) in the atmosphere; however,
helium extraction from the atmosphere is considered uneconomical because
there's not much there.  (All helium put together is circa 0.1 part per
trillion in air, if memory serves.)  He3 is about 0.17ppm in well helium.
Not so good.  Let's actually do some arithmetic.
 
The He3+D reaction yields about 0.0039 of its mass as energy.  [Source:
BIS Daedalus report.]  E=mc^2, there are 3.6MJ in a kWhr, and He3 is
about 3/5 of the mass, so that's 162e6 kWhr/kgHe3.  Density of helium
is 0.178g/l, He3 density is 3/4 that, so after we run through the numbers
we get about 0.1 kWhr per cubic foot of well helium.  So at Nick's revised
price, this power is costing us 22c/kWhr.  This is 3-4 times current
residential rates, which are considerably higher than industrial rates...
and that's fuel costs alone, ignoring capital and assuming zero extraction
cost, zero overhead, and 100% efficiency.
 
This also ignores the rather limited helium supply on Earth.  The US
government's helium reserve, circa 40e9 ft^3, would run one big power
plant for a few months.  I don't have a number for annual production
on hand, but this does not sound very promising to me.
 
Overall, this sounds like a very poor bet to me.  Nick's comparison to the
Amgen case strikes me as a false analogy; we are talking here about the
costs of raw materials, not about the costs of a processing step that
could be finessed by cleverness.
--
SVR4:  the first system so open that    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
everyone dumps their garbage there.     |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Henry Spencer /  Re: Helium price correction
     
Originally-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium price correction
Date: 3 Dec 91 04:26:45 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1991Dec2.154441.29009@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
 writes:
>... It has also been suggested to breed He3 from tritium,
>feasibility unknown.
 
Certainly feasible for lab quantities; that is how current research
supplies of He3 are obtained, extraction from natural helium being
ridiculously uneconomical and certain people being in the business of
maintaining gadgets filled with tritium anyway...
 
Note, you don't breed He3 from tritium.  You breed tritium from
Li6, and the tritium then decays into He3 all by itself.  However,
manufacturing He3 by transmutation kind of defeats the whole purpose of
the exercise.  Using some reasonable assumptions for He3 breeding
[reference, the BIS Daedalus report again], energy cost for breeding
nearly equals energy output.  There is a long delay involving storage
of massive quantities of tritium (halflife 12.6 years).  And finally,
the breeding step involves a reactor of some sort -- deuterium fusion
probably -- producing a ferocious neutron flux, which is precisely what
we were trying to avoid by using He3 in the first place!!
 
It's not just infeasible, it's laughable.
--
SVR4:  the first system so open that    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
everyone dumps their garbage there.     |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Lunar He3 (vs p+B11)
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lunar He3 (vs p+B11)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 03:36:28 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <m0koGKU-0000LZC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
 
> One must also keep in mind the fact that at some level of technical
> difficulty, efficiently grabbing He3 looks less attractive than pushing
> the fusion used to allow the burning of H1-B11.  The pay-back per investment
> is virtually without comparison between the two technologies.  H1-B11
> is the way to go
 
While the points you bring up about costs of He3 recovery are
interesting, you don't take a similarly critical look at p-B11
fuel.
 
P-B11 fuel has two problems that make it unlikely for use in
any conventional reactor:
 
(1) It burn at a high temperature and hi Z, both of which lead to lots
    of radiation---so much so that the energy balance is marginal.
    I.e. to much of the fusion energy may be lost as radiation
    to allow the plasma to sustain its temperature.
 
(2) Compounding problem (1), there is one reaction channel
 
         p + B11 -> alpha + Be(excited) -> alpha + 2alpha + gamma
 
    which results in a lot of energy coming out in a gamma---i.e.
    even more loss as radiation. I've heard the claim that this
    added loss channel (which is usually not included) makes it
    impossible for p+B11 to sustain a burn under classical (maxwellian)
    conditions.
 
The bottom line is that P+B11 makes too much radiation to sustain
a burn in any traditional reactor configuration. Perhaps some new reactor
design---based on a radiation dominated model of energy release---could
succesfully burn p+B11, but that is still speculative. Perhaps
more difficult than the He3 recovery problem.
 
 
As for He3---we could always scoop it out of the atmosphere of
Jupiter if we got really desparate(?).
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Richard Mathews /  Re: Mills/Farrell Theory
     
Originally-From: richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills/Farrell Theory
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1991 00:39:01 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU says:
>> Nonetheless, I will have to back off on this one.  I was carried away by
>> the fact that the n = 1/137 state is a particularly unusual state (in our
>> theory) in that the potential energy of the electron in this state is equal
>> to m c^2.   For the moment, we just assume it is a coincidence.  If I
>> come back to this one, I will have done my homework.
 
>This situation is less unusual than you think.  A more conventional way to
>give the electron a potential energy equal to mc^2 is to put it in orbit
>around a nucleus with Z=137.
 
In fact, it falls out straight from the Schrodinger energy equation and
the definition of the fine structure constant.  Start with the usual
hydrogen atom energy equation:
	E = - m*e^4 / (n^2 * hbar^2)
Set the binding energy to be m*c^2, and solve for n.  You see that both
sides are proportional to the electron mass, so it falls out right away.
A quick rearrangement yields
	n = +/- e^2/(hbar*c)
(If we are going to discuss fractional values of n, I figured I shouldn't
throw out those negative values either;-).  This is not very intriguing
at all.  In fact, if the dimensionless value, n, had any special values,
I'd be surprised if they weren't products of simple powers of 2, pi, or
the fine structure constant (and I'd want a good explanation for those
2's).  What else could they be?
 
Richard M. Mathews			G orby
richard@locus.com			 D eclares
lcc!richard@seas.ucla.edu		  B altic Independence
..!{uunet|ucla-se}!lcc!richard		   G reat News!
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMathews cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 701 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 701 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 15:25:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
Yes, you read correctly, it's 701, NOW. After my last update, I did some
cleaning up - which caused me to think about restructuring the archives - and
eliminated 4 papers (doubles) from the grand list. So I hurrah'ed (?) too soon
about topping the 700 mark, which however we now definitely have.
 Here another small package. The Chinese (Taiwan) team Chang+ have a go at the
lot - no stone is left unturned here, a mega effort. Some bits do look a bit
cursory though. They achive a D/Pd loading of 0.1, do provide some diffusion
and permeation rates as Arrhenius plots but otherwise find nothing exciting.
 Huggins looks at some fundamentals but is clearly motivated by cnf so it goes
into PAPERS. He provides an argument for "electrolytic compression", which I
had just about decided is not real; I'll have to account for his example now.
Kim is keeping up his barrage of papers on cold fusion theory. Here he joins
those who reject the FPH school of thought but accept Jones-level fusion rates
- one way to solve the heat/radiation imbalance problem. He also reiterates
his support of the dendrite theory, again without more than stating it. Last
but not least, we have the theory of the maverick Italian physicist,
Preparata, who invokes collective effects and thereby can explain a whole lot.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 3-Dec. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 701
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chang CP, Wu JK, Yao YD, Wang CW, Lin EK;
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 16 (1991) 491.
"Hydrogen and deuterium in palladium".
** A wide-ranging experiment that aimed to determine the permeability of Pd to
hydrogen and deuterium, the capacity of Pd to absorb these elements and their
diffusion coefficients in the metal, all parameters as a function of
temperature; further, gammas, neutrons, tritium, excess heat and changes in
lattice parameters (by x-ray diffraction) were measured, and scanning electron
microscopy employed on the Pd surface after electrolysis. Permeability,
diffusion rate and solubility were measured by electrolytic flushing of the
gas from the metal by anodic polarisation. Rather low loadings (D/Pd = 0.1)
were achieved in the Pd foil used; there are Arrhenius plots. Deuterium
diffuses faster through Pd than hydrogen and is more soluble, at all temps.
Excess heat is claimed for both light and heavy water electrolyses, at about
30% but there are few details. No nuclear products were found. There was
lattice expansion of 0.5% [sic] linear, from a measured 3.88 A for pure Pd
(the known value is 3.89) and there were (scanning electron microscopy) cracks
and pits over both surfaces.                                          Mar-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huggins RA;                       Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 210 (1991) 317.
"Fundamental considerations relating to the insertion of hydrogen isotopes
into mixed conductors at high activities".
** A discussion of some issues involved in cold fusion, with attention to the
behaviour of hydrogen (isotope) at and in a metal. Some old results in surface
catalysis are quoted to (tacitly) support the electrolytic compression
argument. There is mention of permeation studies and the light they might
throw on conditions at the surface of hydrogen entry. The role of stresses and
microstructural metal features in hydrogen transport is discussed, as is that
of surfactants as promotors and inhibitors of hydrogen uptake. There is a very
useful list of references (but none to cold fusion itself), and the article
ends by pointing out the sporadic nature of the effects discussed, which fact
correlates with the nature of cold fusion observations.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim YE;                                       Mod. Phys. Lett. A6 (1991) 1053.
"Time-delayed apparent excess heat generation in electrolysis fusion
experiments".
** Kim offers a conventional explanation for the observed excess heat. It is
based on the hysteresis in the loading/temperature curve for Pd in contact
with D2 gas at 740 mm Hg pressure. The proposal is that bursts of heat are
observed due to the cycling of deuterium uptake and deuteride decomposition as
the temperature rises; this endothermic process cools the Pd and this is
followed by a heat burst as the cooled Pd reabsorbs D2. This is similar to the
effect noted by Arata and Zhang. The fact that the conventional process is not
observed in light water (usually) may be due to the lower boiling point, and
the fact that generally, thin Pd rods are used for these controls, writes Kim.
The explanation also requires bursts of heat deficit, and Scott et al are
cited for observations of these. This explanation is also the opposite of that
of Pauling, who suggests the exothermic decomposition of a higher deuteride.
 Any nuclear process is once again explained here by Kim as arising from high
voltage fields at sharp tips of surface asperities (dendrites), caused by
bubbles forming an insulating gas layer.                              Feb-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparata G;                   Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A104 (1991) 1259.
"A new look at solid-state fractures, particle emission and 'cold' nuclear
fusion".
** Preparata goes back to 1953 to find evidence of fractoemission of electrons
and electromagnetics; he presents his theory of superradiant motions of solid
plasmas. The components of a solid plasma lose their identity and behave in a
collective manner. The oscillations are reflected at the boundaries but there
exists a field beyond these boundaries, fast decaying with distance. Within
the small cracks, however, there will be "evanescent waves" due to this
effect, which can impart considerable energy to particles there. Thus
fractoemission is explained, and cold fusion is seen to be a likely fracto
effect as well.                                                  Nov-90/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.02 / John Moore /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 2 Dec 91 17:07:05 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1991Dec1.210102.8447@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
]john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
]>No. The 1.48V is the dissacciation energy of H2O. If you are
]>generating electrolysis and not recombining the evolved gasses,
]>it is the correction for energy carried out of the system by
]>those gasses.
]
]Then the formula [ (V-1.48)*I=P ] ought to be accompanied by the ranges
]for which it is valid.  Clearly any voltage less than 1.48 will still
]produce a positive current flow, yet the equation above would indicate
]negative energy input (i.e. battery discharge.)
It is my understanding that the voltage never drops below 1.48. Certainly it
does not in the steady state case (one of the ones I analyzed here a couple
of weeks ago).
]
]I suspect that the formula fails to note non-linearities near 1.48.  I also
]suspect that cell design could perhaps inhibit electrolysis.  Was the 1.48
]determined by the quantity of O2 (and H2) released for its associated input
]current?  Or was it assumed that such and such a rate of electrolysis would
]occur?
I don't have time to dig for it, but I believe it was an assumption. It's
a pretty good one, though, because something has to carry the charge between
the electrodes.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Greg Shippen /  A silk purse out of a sow's ear...
     
Originally-From: greg@rapid.mips.com (Greg Shippen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A silk purse out of a sow's ear...
Date: 3 Dec 91 20:45:02 GMT

While the final conclusion remains to be written on the cold fusion saga,
it would certainly appear improbable at this point that a potential energy
source exists in "cold fusion" as postulated by F&P.  However, a question
has been raised in my mind (and hopefully in others as well) as a result
of the affair:
 
If we conclude that the F&P cold fusion never worked, is it possible to
change it such that it does work?
 
I'm no physicist, but it does seem that most theories attempting to explain
the FP effect start with the assumption that it works.  Has anyone taken some
time to look at it from the perspective of "it doesn't work now but can we
make it work"?  It would seem that the standard back-of-the-envelope answer is
no, but have we as a scientific/engineering community really gone beyond the
envelope?
 
I find the notion of using crystalline structures as miniaturized pressure
vessels a fascinating one.  It seems to me that it is this kind of rather
creative twist to an obvious solution now costing billions of dollars
that sometimes yield results.  Have we been looking beyond the mark?
It would appear from the discussion here over the past few years that we
don't understand crystalline solids nearly as well as we would like.  This
would seem to open the possibility at least of engineering a recipe for
cold fusion rather than attempting to stumble onto it :-)...
 
---
Gregory B. Shippen
MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.                    {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!greg
928 Arques Ave. MS 2-01                                greg@mips.com
Sunnyvale, CA  94086 (408) 524-8141
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnShippen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Photovoltaics, Fusion, etc.
Date: 3 Dec 91 18:01:30 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <9111221853.AA15631@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
	(Terry Bollinger) writes:
[not clear to me if he wrote this, or reposted it.]
> [solar cells take up too much land area.]
>    At present the world's largest PV installation in California(which has
>just been bought over by Siemens) covers 20 000 square metres and supplies
>400 houses with electricity.
 
Hmm... Taking 50 by 50 feet as a "reasonable" house size...
50 feet is 15.24 meters.  15.24^2 * 400 is 92,903 square meters.  So
you'd only have to cover less than 1/4 of the roof area of the houses.
 
Of course, supplying power to cities is still a problem...
 
Actually, the whole energy question is a problem.  But let's not make
it seem worse than it is.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Lunar He3 (vs p+B11)
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lunar He3 (vs p+B11)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 05:59:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Barry Merriman writes:
>While the points you bring up about costs of He3 recovery are
>interesting, you don't take a similarly critical look at p-B11
>fuel.
>
>P-B11 fuel has two problems that make it unlikely for use in
>any conventional reactor:
>
[Both "problems" boil down to radiating energy from the plasma in
 an assumed Tokamak-type reactor thereby cooling .]
>
>The bottom line is that P+B11 makes too much radiation to sustain
>a burn in any traditional reactor configuration. Perhaps some new reactor
>design---based on a radiation dominated model of energy release---could
>succesfully burn p+B11, but that is still speculative. Perhaps
>more difficult than the He3 recovery problem.
 
Actually, I know of only two hot fusion technologies that look feasible
as commercial reactors and both of them work just fine with the radiation
characteristics of H1-B11:
 
Koloc's Plasmak(tm) and Bussard's electrostatic QED(tm).
 
Since both of these compact technologies could be demonstrated at
engineering breakeven for less than $30M, I have a hard time going along
with the last sentence.
 
Fortunately, the barrier to first milestone for both of these technologies
is coming down to the level of being financed by a group of doctors or
lawyers in an R&D limited partnership, so I don't expect to have to argue
with people about this much longer (thank God).
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat
Date: 3 Dec 91 21:42:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
>1.  We did collect the gases and found no recombination.
 
This is good.  It negates my comment below, but just for the record ...
 
>3.  Don't forget that we also did this experiment (as close to identically
>as possible) with 0.6 M Na2CO3.  In this case the power output did
>equal (Vappl - 1.48)I.  (Collected the gases, too--no recombination.)
 
If you hadn't measured the gases, the ratio of gas output to current
input versus cell factors would still be open to question.  This is
because while Sodium is similar to Potassium chemically, it is by no
means identical.  Heck, I can taste the difference between NaCl and KCl.
 
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / S McAllister /  Re: Dissociation Confusion?
     
Originally-From: mcallist@ferret.dsd.es.com (Steve McAllister)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dissociation Confusion?
Date: 4 Dec 91 00:51:04 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT

In article <90911203001409/0004847546NA3EM@mcimail.com>,
   0004847546@mcimail.com (Frank Reddy) writes:
 
> I've got a (stupid?) question about this discussion of dissociation via
> electrolysis.  My understanding of the process
>
>                H2O (l) -----> H2 (g) +  1/2 O2 (g)
>
> is that it requires 237 kj/mole and occurs at a potential of 1.23 v.  Do
> the other numbers I've seen discussed for this process (v=1.48,
> 268 kj/mole) actually apply to D2O instead?
 
And yet...
 
In article <01GDN8KSXH6O0002RQ@FANDM.BITNET>,
   J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU writes:
 
[3.  Don't forget that we also did this experiment (as close to identically
[as possible) with 0.6 M Na2CO3.  In this case the power output did
[equal (Vappl - 1.48)I.  (Collected the gases, too--no recombination.)
                ^^^^
 
I may be just a lowly computer scientist, with no graduate chemistry or
physics to my credit, but HOW CAN THIS BE?  As Frank Reddy points out above,
the 1.48 volts is for D2O, not H2O.  How can the power output neatly come
out to (Vappl - 1.48)I, using ordinary water, with no claim to excess or
unaccounted-for heat, and no gas recombination to boot?  Shouldn't it have
measured out close to (Vappl - 1.23)I?
 
Am I missing something?
 
--
		--Steve McAllister (I'm all for self-expression.  'Course,
that's just my opinion...)
UUCP Address:  mcallist@dsd.es.com
               (or try dsd.es.com!mcallist)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmcallist cudfnSteve cudlnMcAllister cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: A silk purse out of a sow's ear...
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A silk purse out of a sow's ear...
Date: 4 Dec 91 01:13:53 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <12628@spim.mips.COM> greg@rapid.mips.com (Greg Shippen) writes:
>
>If we conclude that the F&P cold fusion never worked, is it possible to
>change it such that it does work?
>
>I'm no physicist, but it does seem that most theories attempting to explain
>the FP effect start with the assumption that it works.  Has anyone taken some
>time to look at it from the perspective of "it doesn't work now but can we
>make it work"?  It would seem that the standard back-of-the-envelope answer is
>no, but have we as a scientific/engineering community really gone beyond the
>envelope?
>
>I find the notion of using crystalline structures as miniaturized pressure
>vessels a fascinating one.  It seems to me that it is this kind of rather
>creative twist to an obvious solution now costing billions of dollars
>that sometimes yield results.  Have we been looking beyond the mark?
>It would appear from the discussion here over the past few years that we
>don't understand crystalline solids nearly as well as we would like.  This
>would seem to open the possibility at least of engineering a recipe for
>cold fusion rather than attempting to stumble onto it :-)...
 
The senario which you propose is not so different from "suppose Cold
Fusion works for unknown reasons, why?" which many persons (including
myself) were asking when it was thought cold fusion was real.  Most
anyone who thought about cold fusion and came up with a mechanism then
if it was not plausible for the materials under consideration thought
about it for other materials.  However the problem, at least for me, was
than none of my ideas worked even in wierd materails without new
physics.
 
It is, indeed possible to think of using crystals as minaturized pressure
vessels.  There is, in fact no *in*principle* limit that I can think of
to the pressure which can be obtained in such a vessel - for rather the
same reason that ordinary iron gaskets can hold the very high pressures
of diamond anvil cells, each layer of solid holds some of the pressure
and eventually all relevant pressure is held.  However there are
instabilities to worry about and the fact that I could not think of any
way to load this cell [you need a chemical potential of around 100, not
1 volts and you need for the material to be plastic not brittle making
palladium very much the wrong metal to use] which seemed at all
practical - the best idea I had was to fire particles into the solid and
allow them all to stop in the cavity.  This has lots of problems and I
dropped it.  If people had ideas of how to reach 100Mbars in static
loading they would be doing just that, however they are still fussing
with diamond anvil cells at 2-4Mbars and dynamic compression to higher
pressures.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / Dieter Britz /  1.48, or 1.23?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 1.48, or 1.23?
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 15:30:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Frank Reddy <0004847546@mcimail.com> writes:
 
>I've got a (stupid?) question about this discussion of dissociation via
>electrolysis.  My understanding of the process
>
>               H2O (l) -----> H2 (g) +  1/2 O2 (g)
>
>is that it requires 237 kj/mole and occurs at a potential of 1.23 v.  Do
>the other numbers I've seen discussed for this process (v=1.48,
>268 kj/mole) actually apply to D2O instead?
 
>It's a curious fact the deuterium is one of the exceptions to the rule
>that most isotopes display nearly identical chemical and physical
>properties.  In fact, plants and animals cannot live with high
>concentrations of D2O.  I had to look this stuff up a while back, so I
>repeat this here for the curious.
>
>   ___________________________________________________
>                 Water versus Heavy Water
>    Property                 H O             D O
>                              2               2
>    ---------------------------------------------------
>    Molecular weight:       18.015         20.031
>    Density (g/ml @ 25 C):   0.997          1.104
>    Melting point (C/F):     0.00/ 32.00    3.82/ 38.88
>    Boiling point (C/F):   100.00/212.00  101.42/214.56
>    Threshold voltage
>    for electrolysis:        1.23  ?         1.48 ?
>    ---------------------------------------------------
 
Not such a stupid question; I did simplify in my posting, maybe too much. The
1.23 V comes from the deltaG for the water electrolysis reaction. This is the
sum of enthalpy deltaH and T*deltaS, deltaS being the entropy change. In
theory, if we apply a voltage of 1.23 V to the cell, with everything in the
cell being in the standard state (pure liquid water, both gases present at a
pressure of 1 atm), we have equilibrium, no overall reaction. If we apply a
slightly different voltage, we get a current, its direction depending on the
sign of the difference. So I should not have said that you need 1.48 V to get
a current at all, it's more like 1.23 V (for H2O). This fits the deltaG value
of -237 kJ/mol. But we are talking here about the enthalpy part - the heat
itself - and we don't measure the entropy changes. For that part, the voltage
1.48 V goes into the calculation for how much is absorbed. You can look at it
in another way: the deltaH is -286 kJ/mol. Let's convert that to eV, i.e.
an energy per H2O molecule: we must use the J--> eV conversion (multiply by
6.24E18) and then divide by the Avogadro number (6.02E23) to get from mol to
no. of molecules, and this comes to 2.96 eV. This energy is shared by two
electrons doing their stuff, so we halve it to get the 1.48 V to apply. At
this voltage, all the input power would be swallowed by the reaction. Since,
if there is a current flowing, there must be iR losses in the cell, and these
must be balanced out by the absorbed heat, i.e. the iR losses would be gobbled
up by the reaction.
 So the in last part of the Table, the 1.23 (or so) might be right, and for
D2O, there should be the corresponding deltaG/2F figure, whatever that is - I
can't at the moment lay my hands on the deltaG value for D2O electrolysis.
 The "curious fact" that there are such large differences between H2O and D2O
is of course due to hydrogen being the lightest atom, the (1)H isotope having
only a proton; when you add a neutron to get (2)H or D, you double the atomic
weight. With other elements, the addition (or subtraction of a neutron doesn't
make such a big difference.
 
>Also, I wonder if we might not consider creating a Frequently Asked
>Question file as is done on some other newsgroups?
 
Not a bad idea, there has been some redundancy.
 
 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
 
>Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU> writes:
>>So NO, the cell doesn't actually apply a back emf but YES, you do
>>first have to exceed that 1.48 V to get a current.
 
>>Finally, NO, no negative power input, since you get no current for
>>less than 1.48 V cell voltage.
 
>Before I wrote my question, I ran an experiment with NaCl (table
>salt).  I used a variable power supply (0-20V, 250ma max) with a
>built in switch selectable V/I meter.  I was able to get positive
>current flow for voltages less than 1.48 -- and I was using only
>lightly salted water.  The more salt I added the greater the current.
 
If you use NaCl, you'll also be oxidising chloride to Cl2 gas at the anode,
the more Cl-, the greater the current for this. Nothing wrong with this, but
don't ask me to calculate your heat balance! Also, use a fume hood.
 
>I will go back and repeat the experiment to see if gas evolves at
>voltages less than 1.48.  I will also check to see if my cell produces
>a potential on its own (and what polarity), after all, I may have
>created a battery that is playing havoc with my measurments.
 
Well, you have - provided you add the two gases, H2 and O2, at goodly
pressures; in fact, you then have a fuel cell. As it is, though, with no fuel
(hydrogen) at the cathode, it's an uncharged battery. If you are thinking of
tapping that 1.23 V, you are expecting the spontaneous dissociation of water
into H2 + O2, which, at a deltaG of +237 kJ/mol, we don't observe, and a good
thing, too.
 
There have been some confused statements about gas evolution. John Logajan
refers to the NiCad battery's non-evolution of gases, and seems to imply that
we might not have any gases in cold fusion cells, either (I might be inferring
too much). As someone else has pointed out, when you pass a current through an
electrolysis cell, there has to be an electron transfer reaction at each of
the two electrodes. In the case of water electrolysis in alkali, the reactions
that will dominate are H2 and O2 production. Some others are the deposition
of Li or K metal at the cathode, at high overvoltages, and this has been
suggested as one explanation of excess heat, especially after cutting off the
current: the metal redissolves, with copious heat given off. At lower current
densities, pretty close to 100% of the current goes into H2 and O2 evolution,
after the H2 (or D2) has stopped being absorbed by the Pd.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / John Wanklyn /  Electrolysis
     
Originally-From: jwanklyn@cix.compulink.co.uk (John Wanklyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrolysis
Date: 3 Dec 91 22:34:57 GMT
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

 
               ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER
               *********************
 
May I offer a comment on the electrolysis of water:
 
The free energy of formation of water (which expresses
the tendency of hydrogen and oxygen to combine to form
water) is about 56,700 calories/gram-molecule. To
decompose water to gaseous hydrogen and oxygen (at STP)
requires an electrical potential which equals 56,700
divided by 2 (because 2 electrons are involved) and by
Faraday's constant (expressed in calories/gm-equivalent,
viz 23066). This gives 1.23 volts. This is the voltage
which would under conditions of thermodynamic reversibility
decompose water. It is equal to the (algebraic) difference
between the electrode potentials at the anode and cathode
(evolving oxygen and hydrogen respectively). This is the only
potential difference that is involved.
 
However, if a cell were operated under these conditions it
would be found to cool down, ie absorb heat. This is because
the *enthalpy* change associated with the decomposition of water
is greater than the free energy change, the difference being
equal to an entropy term, T x entropy change. (The latter is
determined by the relative degree of order in the reaction
products and the starting materials. In this case, the gases
are more disordered than the initial liquid water).
 
All this is quite general for other electrochemical reactions.
For example the charging/discharging of a Ni-Cd cell involves
the intake/evolution of heat (I can't for the moment remember
which is which), for these thermodynamic reasons.
 
Going back to water, in a practical electrolyser there is inevitably
an ohmic resistance in the solution between the electrodes; and the
current here produces some heat. In the particular case that this
just balances the thermodynamic cooling we have the 'thermoneutral'
condition, and here the whole cell voltage is found to be 1.48 volts.
 
John Wanklyn
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjwanklyn cudfnJohn cudlnWanklyn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / Richard Ristow /       Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: Richard Ristow <sjsca4!uunet!brownvm.brown.edu!AP430001>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 15:41:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote,
 
>Before I wrote my question, I ran an experiment with NaCl (table
>salt).  I used a variable power supply (0-20V, 250ma max) with a
>built in switch selectable V/I meter.  I was able to get positive
>current flow for voltages less than 1.48 -- and I was using only
>lightly salted water.  The more salt I added the greater the current.
 
Be careful with this one -- the gas evolved at the anode will be
chlorine, not oxygen.  It will therefore have a different, lower
critical potential (which is why you don't get oxygen).
 
Those more familiar with electrochemistry -- are there resistive
side paths through an electrolytic cell?  If so, one will see
current flow when the voltage is less than the critical level for
the cell, and will get LESS evolved gas and MORE heat than straight
(I*(V-Vc)) measurements would predict.  Volume of oxygen evolved
should always be a direct measure of how much electrolysis occurred.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ristow     AP430001@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU    Bitnet: AP430001@BROWNVM
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfnRichard cudlnRistow cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / Nick Szabo /  Re: Lunar He3
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lunar He3
Date: 4 Dec 91 05:25:56 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

In article <m0koGKU-0000LZC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
 
>...the amount of regolith
>that would have to be processed to extract useful amounts of He3 would
>be so great that the energy input (ignoring cost/watt) would be comparable
>to the energy one could get out from burning the lunar He3.
>This is a basic mining problem:  The extraction technology simply isn't
>good enough to call some kinds of stuff "ore".
 
Is this the bonding energy of the He3 to regolith and He4, or an estimate
for moving the regolith itself through equipment in 1/6 gravity?  Can you
post or give reference to Cutler's numbers?
 
I would suggest trying asteroids.  We haven't sampled asteroid
regolith, but certain lunar regoliths, such as titanium-rich regolith,
tend to hold more He3 than other kinds.  Among them, asteroids and
comets contain much more chemical diversity on their surfaces.  At
least a few such objects should be richer than the Moon in He3.
 
Collecting energy in microgravity is also much less expensive than
in a gravity field.  A mylar mirror masses 1 kg/200 m^2, collecting 271
kw/kg at 1 AU, for a cost of $42 per thermal watt at the Ariane launch
cost of $6,500/kg.  Add in the actual devices needed to bag the asteroid
(literally!) and extract the He3.   When the mirrors and bags can be
themselves manufactured from the asteroid materials, the cost comes down much
further.
 
Also, consider Mercury.  The He3 flux on Mercury is nine times greater
than on the Moon.  There are many different kinds of soils, and possibly
even ice sheets at the polls (see recent Arecibo radar studies reported
in Science News and in sci.space).
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 4 Dec 91 07:28:26 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Some of the questions surrounding the Mills&Farrell
calorimetry might be cleared up with a slight variation of
the experiment.  The new experiment would involve measuring
cell temperatures with constant input power, but while
varying the amount of power applied to electrolysis versus
the cell heater.  This would eliminate the cell constant as a
variable, and allow constant stirring without the need to
accurately measure the additional energy supplied buy the
stirring.  The graph produced may look something like this:
 
    |
T   |
    |
    |                                           b
    |                                   b              b
    |
    |                           b
    | ab------b---------------------------------- baseline
    |         a        b
    |                  a
    |                           a
    |                                   a
    |                                           a
    |                                                  a
    ____________________________________________________|
    0%   Electrolysis         50%                    100%
   (100% Heater)                                (0% Heater)
 
If the cell is producing no excess heat, the "a" curve would
be expected.  When all the power is sent to the heater, some
baseline temperature would be established.  As more of the
power is diverted to electrolysis, some of the power
disassociates the H and O rather than raising the temperature
of the cell.  (Recombination of the H and O could
theoretically be used to raise the "a" line back up to the
baseline.)
 
The "b" line (or some graph with points above the baseline)
is what we should expect from a working M&F cell.  Any "b"
points between "a" line and the baseline are evidence of
excess heat, but that evidence requires assumptions about the
amount of recombination.  The stronger evidence comes from
any "b" points above the baseline.  If the temperature rises
there has to be an additional source of energy.
 
The papers so far have given us some points on several "b"
curves, but it is not always clear how the baseline was
determined -- by a heater with the same power input, or by
computing the cell constant and multiplying by the power.
Doing the experiment at constant power input removes any
possible errors due to varying cell constants, and no
matching of cells is required.
 
-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / Nick Szabo /  cancel <1991Dec4.052556.2526@techbook.com>
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1991Dec4.052556.2526@techbook.com>
Date: 4 Dec 91 07:11:19 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

This message was cancelled from within rn.
--
szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / Nick Szabo /  Re: Lunar He3
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lunar He3
Date: 4 Dec 91 07:16:18 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

In article <m0koGKU-0000LZC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
 
>...the amount of regolith
>that would have to be processed to extract useful amounts of He3 would
>be so great that the energy input (ignoring cost/watt) would be comparable
>to the energy one could get out from burning the lunar He3.
>This is a basic mining problem:  The extraction technology simply isn't
>good enough to call some kinds of stuff "ore".
 
Is this the bonding energy of the He3 to regolith and He4, or an estimate
for moving the regolith itself through equipment in 1/6 gravity?  Can you
post or give reference to Cutler's numbers?
 
I would suggest trying asteroids.  We haven't sampled asteroid
regolith, but certain lunar regoliths, such as titanium-rich regolith,
tend to hold more He3 than other kinds.  Among them, asteroids and
comets contain much more chemical diversity on their surfaces.  At
least a few such objects should be richer than the Moon in He3.
 
Collecting energy in microgravity is also much less expensive than
in a gravity field.  A mylar mirror masses 1 kg/200 m^2, collecting 271
kw/kg at 1 AU, for a cost of $.02 per thermal watt at the Ariane launch
cost of $6,500/kg.  Add in the actual devices needed to bag the asteroid
(literally!) and extract the He3.   When the mirrors and bags can themselves
be manufactured from the asteroid materials, the cost comes down much
further.
 
Also, consider Mercury.  The He3 flux on Mercury is nine times greater
than on the Moon.  There are many different kinds of soils, and possibly
even ice sheets at the poles (see recent Arecibo radar studies reported
in Science News and in sci.space).
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / James Chung /  Seminar by Prof. Martin Fleischmann on Cold Fusion at MIT
     
Originally-From: chung@mtl.mit.edu (James E. Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Seminar by Prof. Martin Fleischmann on Cold Fusion at MIT
Date: 4 Dec 91 13:03:11 GMT
Organization: MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories

On Wednesday, December 18th, there will be a seminar at MIT
by Professor Martin Fleischmann from FRS entitled
"Cold Fusion: A Status Report."
 
The seminar will be held in room 34-101 at 3:30pm.
 
 
 
Disclaimer:  This message is being posted as a public service.
	     The author, being only a casual reader of this group,
	     has no opinion (public, anyways) on cold fusion.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchung cudfnJames cudlnChung cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / LL%FANDM.BITNET /  Re: Fusion Digest 162
     
Originally-From: ames!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!J_FARRELL%FANDM.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 162
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 23:56:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
To Steve McAllister:
 
 
>I may be just a lowly computer scientist, with no graduate chemistry
>or physics to my credit, but HOW CAN THIS BE?  As Frank Reddy
>points out above, the 1.48 volts is for D2O, not H2O.  How can the
>power output neatly come out to (Vappl - 1.48)I, using ordinary water,
>with no claim to excess or unaccounted-for heat, and no gas
>recombination to boot?  Shouldn't it have measured out close to
>(Vappl - 1.23)I?
 
>Am I missing something?
 
 
You have it wrong.  For H2O use (Vappl - 1.48)I.  For D2O use (Vappl -
1.54)I.
 
John J. Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.05 / Frank Reddy /  1.48 or 1.23 Volts?
     
Originally-From: Frank Reddy <0004847546@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 1.48 or 1.23 Volts?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 00:51:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Thanks to Dieter Britz, John Wanklyn, and Steve McAllister for replying
to my electrolysis voltage question.  I'm a journalist, so clarification
of basic chemistry, or in this case electrochemistry, is most appreciated.
 
So -- while it is true that 1.23 v is the electolysis threshhold that
must by surpassed in order to get a current to flow (according to any basic
chemistry text), in practice losses in the cell push this up to 1.48 v
(with the energy required pushed up to 286 kJ/mole).  Correct?
 
I've tried to locate a delta G, electrolysis threshhold, and a similar
"real life" voltage/energy for the electrolysis of D2O, but so far
haven't had the slightest success.  Does anyone have this info (or know
where I can find it) so that I can complete my table?  I've looked in
some of the obvious places (CRC and other handbooks) . . .
 
Again, thanks!
 
Frank Reddy
0004847546@MCIMAIL.COM
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden0004847546 cudfnFrank cudlnReddy cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.04 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Helium price correction
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium price correction
Date: 4 Dec 91 11:17:22 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Dec2.154441.29009@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
 writes:
>Misread a table; price of helium is $22,000 per million cubic feet, not
>$22.  Makes cheap He3 from Earth more improbable, but I stick by "not
>impossible".  It has also been suggested to breed He3 from tritium,
>feasibility unknown.
 
 
That's about 134 kilograms, from which we could get energy equivalent
of a few of million times that weight in coal or oil.  Say  100 thousand
to 200 thousand long tons of high quality coal.  What's the price of coal?
2$ a ton?  Still looks like a good deal.
 
>szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.03 / Larry Wall /  Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Op-Ed Article in NY Times on non-Tokamak Fusion (long)
Date: 3 Dec 91 02:22:37 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

: One promising technique fires beans of helium-3 and deuterium
: into a chamber where magnets make them turn and collide.
 
And now we see that the beancounters really DO control fusion research...
 
Or should I have said that this research will never amount to a hill of
beans...
 
Or that nobody knows beans about this concept...
 
This brings a whole new world of meaning to the phrase "getting beaned"...
 
[Great typo.  Thanks.]
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.05 / S McAllister /  Re: Fusion Digest 162
     
Originally-From: mcallist@ferret.dsd.es.com (Steve McAllister)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 162
Date: 5 Dec 91 16:45:34 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT

In article <01GDPUWG5B740000VT@FANDM.BITNET>, fusion@zorch writes:
 
> You have it wrong.  For H2O use (Vappl - 1.48)I.  For D2O use (Vappl -
> 1.54)I.
>
> John J. Farrell
> Franklin & Marshall College
 
I see that now.  Just hours after my post, Jon Wanklyn posted a very nice
clarification -- <1991Dec03.223457.12636@demon.co.uk> -- entitled
 
                     ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER
                     *********************
 
that explained it all very nicely for us laymen.  I should have waited.
 
Anyway, thanks for your correction, and for the D2O information.  I'll try to
do my homework first next time.
 
--
		--Steve McAllister (I'm all for self-expression.  'Course,
that's just my opinion...)
UUCP Address:  mcallist@dsd.es.com
               (or try dsd.es.com!mcallist)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmcallist cudfnSteve cudlnMcAllister cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.05 / Joshua Hopkins /  Re: Helium price correction
     
Originally-From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Joshua B. Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium price correction
Date: 5 Dec 91 19:07:35 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
>In article <1991Dec2.154441.29009@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
 writes:
>>Misread a table; price of helium is $22,000 per million cubic feet, not
>>$22.  Makes cheap He3 from Earth more improbable, but I stick by "not
>>impossible".  It has also been suggested to breed He3 from tritium,
>>feasibility unknown.
 
 
>That's about 134 kilograms, from which we could get energy equivalent
>of a few of million times that weight in coal or oil.  Say  100 thousand
>to 200 thousand long tons of high quality coal.  What's the price of coal?
>2$ a ton?  Still looks like a good deal.
 
But that's the price for plain old garden variety helium.  We still have to
take into account the minute percentage that is He3, and the issue of long term
supply.
			The Kumquat
 
>>szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
>+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
>| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
>|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
>| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
>| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
>+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjbh55289 cudfnJoshua cudlnHopkins cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.06 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 15:23:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Richard Ristow <sjsca4!uunet!brownvm.brown.edu!AP430001>
 
>Those more familiar with electrochemistry -- are there resistive
>side paths through an electrolytic cell?  If so, one will see
>current flow when the voltage is less than the critical level for
>the cell, and will get LESS evolved gas and MORE heat than straight
>(I*(V-Vc)) measurements would predict.  Volume of oxygen evolved
>should always be a direct measure of how much electrolysis occurred.
 
No, no resistive side paths - unless you are using a metal cell and have
contact between it and the electrodes, not likely. Any current has to go
through the metal electrode, jump across the metal/electrolyte interface (and
this can only happen via an electrochemical reaction), be transported across
to the other electrode by ions in solution and jump across the other interface
to the other electrode, completing the circuit. The problem you address here
is that of current efficiency. You can get less than 100% ce, but not by way
of resistive side paths. The 100% figure means that all the current is going
into the reaction you are hoping for. If you have other substances in solution
capable of handling electron transfer at the interface, there is a chance of
some of the current doing that instead; e.g. the unwanted side reaction
Cl- --> 1/2 Cl2 + e-, the oxidation of chloride to chlorine gas. You then get
less oxygen than you thought you should, i.e. <100% ce. The usual electrolyte
for cnf experiments is LiOD, and about the only possible side reaction is the
deposition of Li on the Pd cathode: Li+ + e- --> Li; this probably does take
place, especially at higher current densities and therefore high overvoltages.
I briefly considered this as a source of excess heat bursts but, with its
higher deltaH, it would in fact produce heat deficiency bursts. Several people
have observed heat loss (I should not have said the opposite a few days ago)
but noone has seen this as bursts. Some Li does get deposited, though, and
some have used this to explain why you get apparent excess heat - and bubbling
- when you turn down the current; the Li redissolves chemically.
 One other possible side reaction in LiOD is the re-reduction of oxygen
evolved at the anode, if some of it bubbles across to the cathode. The same
goes for deuterium, some of which might get across to the anode. This would in
fact be recombination, to whatever extent. I believe that in most experiments,
including those of FPH, current efficiency was pretty close to 100%, and
generally, recombination is negligible - except maybe in the FPH cells, in
which both the deuterium and oxygen went out together through the same hole
the Pd cathode sticks into the cell through. Pd is a recombination catalyst.
In their 1990 paper, FPALH mention this, and claim that the Pd was covered to
prevent this, but I believe that in their first cells, this precaution was not
taken. So, in any case, says a friend of mine, who went to Harwell in 1989 to
talk to Fleischmann and look at the cell.
 I hope my long answers don't put you off asking questions...
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.06 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 15:24:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
 
>Some of the questions surrounding the Mills&Farrell
>calorimetry might be cleared up with a slight variation of
>the experiment.  The new experiment would involve measuring
>cell temperatures with constant input power, but while
>varying the amount of power applied to electrolysis versus
>the cell heater.  This would eliminate the cell constant as a
>variable, and allow constant stirring without the need to
>accurately measure the additional energy supplied buy the
>stirring.  The graph produced may look something like this:
 
A nice idea! Most experiments are - or should be - run by a computer anyway,
and it would be no trouble to program the thing to keep the power constant,
adjusting for time variant current or cell voltage, and at the same time
going through the partitioning program, systematically varying the proportion
of power going into electrolysis and heating. Any comments from practical
calorimetrists?
 The safest and most severe test for excess heat is still that of Belzner et
al (the Huggins work), though, which defines excess heat as that in excess of
the total input power - nothing subtracted for the electrolysis, so you are
quite safe, no matter how much recombination there might or might not be. This
would be equivalent to the b-points lying above the base line. Theey did in
fact measure such excess heat and this is why I regard their paper as one of
the strong bits of evidence for cold fusion. A pity, though, that it seems to
be just one experiment, reported twice, with no follow-up so far, so maybe it
was experimental error?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.06 / Dieter Britz /  The numbers for Frank Reddy
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The numbers for Frank Reddy
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 15:26:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Frank Reddy <0004847546@mcimail.com> wants to complete his table. I found
the numbers in the Landolt-Boernstein Handbook, and have calculated others
from them; here they are:
 
       deltaH    deltaG/T  deltaG(298.16K)   E(equ)   E(thermoneut)
       ------    --------  ---------------   ------   -------------
       kJ/mol    j/mol/K   kJ/mol at 298.16K   V           V
       ^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
H2O    -285.9     -792.2        -236          1.23        1.48
D2O    -294.6     -819.4        -244          1.27        1.52
 
where E(equ) is the cell voltage for equilibrium, E(thermoneut) the
thermoneutral cell voltage. The figures  for deltaG deviate in the third place
from others I have seen (like -237 kJ/mol for H2O). The first two figures I
got from the Handbook, the other three I calculated. 298.16 K is 25 degC.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.05 / [John E /  Re: 1.48 or 1.23 Volts?
     
Originally-From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP ([John E. Kreznar])
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 1.48 or 1.23 Volts?
Date: 5 Dec 91 23:22:57 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <33911204233233/0004847546NA3EM@mcimail.com>, 0004847546@mcimail.com
 (Frank Reddy) writes:
>
> I've tried to locate a delta G, electrolysis threshhold, and a similar
> "real life" voltage/energy for the electrolysis of D2O, but so far
> haven't had the slightest success.  Does anyone have this info (or know
> where I can find it) so that I can complete my table?
 
A rich source that I found early on in the cnf saga is
 
	Thirty-Ninth Annual Priestley Lectures
	Part I: Chemical and Biological Studies with Deuterium
	by Joseph J. Katz
	Sponsored by Mu Chapter, Phi Lambda Upsilon and Associated Departments
	The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania (1)
	April 26 through 29, 1965
 
Chapter 1, pages 2--12, is entitled "A Brief Guide to Deuterium Isotope Effects"
and has section titles like Production of Heavy Water, Physical Properties of
D_2O (including a table more extensive than the one published recently in this
newsgroup), Structure of D_2O, Ionic Equilibria in D_2O, and Zero-Point Energy.
I didn't spot a direct answer to your specific question, but that may be due to
my poor understanding of the subject.
 
Hope this helps.
 
-----
(1) Place names are for location purposes only.  I acknowledge no political
authority.
 
--
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjkreznar cudfn[John cudlnE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.05 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: A silk purse out of a sow's ear...
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.uucp (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A silk purse out of a sow's ear...
Date: 5 Dec 91 15:18:55 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <12628@spim.mips.COM> greg@rapid.mips.com (Greg Shippen) writes:
>
>I find the notion of using crystalline structures as miniaturized pressure
>vessels a fascinating one.  It seems to me that it is this kind of rather
>creative twist to an obvious solution now costing billions of dollars
>that sometimes yield results...
 
 Last night I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. J.C.Withers of MER Corp.(Tucson)
They are the sole licensed commercial fullerene producer.  His
enthusiasm was enormous for these materials; what an incredible list of
properties! He mentioned they can pack 60 hydrogen atoms inside a c60
molecule (I don't know if they sell it that way).
  With all of its known and potential properties, here is a very rare
opportunity to be creative on the backs of your envelopes.
 
--
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| hoyt@isus.org | International Society of Unified Science
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |               |          Advancing the
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |     voice     | The Reciprocal System- a unified theory
_______USA_________|_602_996_1717__|_The Universe in two postulates!_________
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: He3 separation
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He3 separation
Date: 6 Dec 91 03:00:13 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Dec3.041440.10496@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
 Spencer) writes:
>In article <1991Nov29.234937.19470@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick
 Szabo) writes:
>>Helium costs $22 per million cubic feet, or $22 per cubic foot of He3 on
>>Earth according to Henry's percentage...  [Nick later corrects this by
>>a factor of 1000, upward]
 
>In fact my percentage was off the top of my head, but it wasn't too far off.
>The He3+D reaction yields about 0.0039 of its mass as energy.  [Source:
>BIS Daedalus report.]  E=mc^2, there are 3.6MJ in a kWhr, and He3 is
>about 3/5 of the mass, so that's 162e6 kWhr/kgHe3.  .. .
 
>This also ignores the rather limited helium supply on Earth.  The US
>government's helium reserve, circa 40e9 ft^3, would run one big power
>plant for a few months.  I don't have a number for annual production
>on hand, but this does not sound very promising to me.
 
There is enough Helium(3) on earth to perfect an Aneutronic burner, and
once an aneutronic commercial break even burn has been announced, the
presence of H(3) on the Moon, asteroids and in huge mass in the upper
atmosphere (exosphere) of the gas planets, certainly should wake up the
NASA.  Not only that but it would give them an incentive to take fusion
seriously as the primary space power and propulsion technology to drive
their future endeavors...  . (well at least until a Mitsubishi, Siemens
or Boeing moved in.
 
In the worse case, it could drive a new He(3) earth bound exploration
search for gas sources richer in He(3), (which seems to be the
deeper ones).  Of course much, of the near surface sources of natural
gas will be drying up in any event.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Lunar He3 (short but epic style)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lunar He3 (short but epic style)
Date: 6 Dec 91 04:35:50 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <m0koGKU-0000LZC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
 
>One must also keep in mind the fact that at some level of technical
>difficulty, efficiently grabbing He3 looks less attractive than pushing
>the fusion used to allow the burning of H1-B11.
 
But there exists a number of humans populations on earth and resources
to attack both problems.  Also, humans of late seem to work by
committee; the old single big boss that was made through his own
effort and innovation is basically gone.  Now there are layers
upon layers of MBA's running things and committees of old retired,
emeritus, or nearly retired folks (usually academics).   Although
they know the science as discussed in the text books and what the
current relevant research programs are (or program as in the case
of the tokamak), the majority of them will NOT know the advanced,
highly innovative break through concepts that have not yet been
seriously studied (funded).  Unfortunately, it takes a majority
of the committee and that requires knowledge in some depth of the
advanced concepts to swing the group to take one of these new
fangled ideas seriously (make a paradigm shift).  Now with ITER
it requires a committee, international in scope, who are probably
even older and more out of touch.
 
So the only way to end run the system is with a small effort,
funded by someone with a need, someone who could recover losses,
as through the use of this technology, or a group of "trekkies"
that just can't swallow a non-fusion future continuing to the
hour of their death.
 
Still there are limitations of "RISK" for the investment over GAIN,
and that risk can be lessened by first burning D-He(3) for a while
and then p-Boron eleven.  Could one go straight to protium-Boron11?
Surely, but the chances are mighty slim.  How?
 
Maybe (after a truck load of money and a few years) a company with
connections that go way back to the days of the Old West could come
to the rescue with the first tanker of Protium Boride-11 hauled to
the power generator by a Twenty Mule Team hitch and wagon.  Otherwise,
we are strapped to a stair case of progress that looks more and more
like a ramp designed for fully loaded commercial hi-way Trailer rigs
pulled by single volkswagon beetles in need of tune ups.
 
>The pay-back per investment
>is virtually without comparison between the two technologies.  H1-B11
>is the way to go -- not lunar He3 nor He3 from virtually any source
>(due to neutron emission).
 
No question, but these aren't the days of Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford
William Randoph Hearst, either.   Still, we do have would be empire
builders: Boesky; Keating; Maxwell(*) and some might include Congress
(come on, they didn't vote themselves THAT much of a raise).
 
(*)  Known NOT though development of simplifying equations but rather
by manipulating "paper" in the information industry.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Lunar He3 (vs p+B11)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lunar He3 (vs p+B11)
Date: 6 Dec 91 03:19:35 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Dec3.033628.1348@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <m0koGKU-0000LZC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
>writes:
 
>> One must also keep in mind the fact that at some level of technical
>> difficulty, efficiently grabbing He3 looks less attractive than pushing
>> the fusion used to allow the burning of H1-B11.
 
>While the points you bring up about costs of He3 recovery are
>interesting, you don't take a similarly critical look at p-B11
>fuel.
 
>P-B11 fuel has two problems that make it unlikely for use in
>any conventional reactor:
 
>(1) It burn at a high temperature and hi Z, both of which lead to lots
>    of radiation---so much so that the energy balance is marginal.
>    I.e. to much of the fusion energy may be lost as radiation
>    to allow the plasma to sustain its temperature.
 
>(2) Compounding problem (1), there is one reaction channel
 
>         p + B11 -> alpha + Be(excited) -> alpha + 2alpha + gamma
 
>    which results in a lot of energy coming out in a gamma---i.e.
>    even more loss as radiation. I've heard the claim that this
>    added loss channel (which is usually not included) makes it
>    impossible for p+B11 to sustain a burn under classical (maxwellian)
>    conditions.
 
Actually, this branch isn't strong, and the energy in gamma is not
very significant.  This is because the Be is usually in its lowest
excited state AND the gamma emmission has about a three orders of
magnitude smaller chance of occurring due to the much higher
probability of the occurrence of particle emmission (2 alphas).  In
the latter case the energy exits as kinetic (and ion heating) energy.
Times for the longer gamma decay are E-16s  so the Be(8) will not
leave the plasma before the fission takes place.
 
Still, the item   " (1)" is very valid as stated.
 
>As for He3---we could always scoop it out of the atmosphere of
>Jupiter if we got really desparate(?).
 
Jupiter is the larger and closer of the gas planets.  Perhaps a
non-conducting, non magnetic, hardened scoop with a bit of fancy
navigation could survive the very powerful planetary magnetoplasma
LPO activity.  Sort of like flying through a mid-Western thunderhead
in a WWI bi-plane.
 
>Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. Fusion and Plasma Research
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Helium price correction  AHHGGGHHHH!
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium price correction  AHHGGGHHHH!
Date: 6 Dec 91 10:05:11 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Dec5.190735.3676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
 (Joshua B. Hopkins) writes:
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
I thought I had this post cancelled before it left my machine!!!
Sorry everybody.. Saw the error as I hit the "send"..   Fast machine!
 
>>In article <1991Dec2.154441.29009@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick
 Szabo) writes:
>>>Misread a table; price of helium is $22,000 per million cubic feet, not
>>>$22.  Makes cheap He3 from Earth more improbable, but I stick by "not  ..
 
>>That's about 134 kilograms, from which we could get energy equivalent .. .
 
>But that's the price for plain old garden variety helium.  We still have to
>take into account the minute percentage that is He3, and the issue of long term
>supply.
 
You are absolutely correct..  No doubt about that!   I can see -- just
a bit brain blind and perceived it as price for He(3).
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: Seminar by Prof. Martin Fleischmann on Cold Fusion at MIT
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Seminar by Prof. Martin Fleischmann on Cold Fusion at MIT
Date: 6 Dec 91 20:27:46 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

It would be interesting if someone attending the talk would ask
Dr. Fleischmann about the history of the gamma-ray figure in the
original F&P(&H) paper.  Specifically if Close's book is accurate
about the peak being at 2.5 MeV when the paper was originally
submitted to the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry.  If you
can be there, please ask and/or report on the answer to this or
any related questions.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu                        |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University                      |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.06 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET ACHIEVES A LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 18:41:19 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <1991Nov27.070533.29560@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>In article <1991Nov26.033042.15516@efi.com> chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
 writes:
>>Some of my friends are True Believers in the Migma concept for fusion
>>(Guide a beam of fusable stuff so that it crosses itself many times at one
>>point.  The simplest case is a figure-eight.)
>
>figure eight!  Huh!  I thought two exclusive but tangential co-planar
>circles was the simplest.  Of course that "looks" like a fat figure
>eight but it ain't the way I make them.
 
Oops, I could easily be wrong.  The first sentence in parentheses is
almost a quote from my TB friends.  The second I derived from the first,
plus their comparison of the beam pattern to a floral shape.  I did
picture that the figure-eight would have an X in the middle, rather
than be two circles touching.
 
Your explanation has two beams, not one, so I didn't think of it.
 
How do you add more than two circles to your pattern?  If they're all
co-planar, you only have two beams sharing any given "line", though
you can still (I think) make them all share the same "point".  Is
this the design?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.07 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  RE: Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 7 Dec 91 05:07:04 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <D4C49FBF623F003E34@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU
 (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
>
>>Some of the questions surrounding the Mills&Farrell
>>calorimetry might be cleared up with a slight variation of
>>the experiment.  The new experiment would involve measuring
>>cell temperatures with constant input power, but while
>>varying the amount of power applied to electrolysis versus
>>the cell heater.  This would eliminate the cell constant as a
>>variable, and allow constant stirring without the need to
>>accurately measure the additional energy supplied buy the
>>stirring.  The graph produced may look something like this:
>
> A nice idea! Most experiments are - or should be - run by a computer anyway,
> and it would be no trouble to program the thing to keep the power constant,
> adjusting for time variant current or cell voltage, and at the same time
> going through the partitioning program, systematically varying the proportion
> of power going into electrolysis and heating. Any comments from practical
> calorimetrists?
 
Yes, a nice idea and people have tried this. McKubre et al. for example operated
in this mode by sensing the electrolysis power and then adjusting the power into
an electrical heater to maintain a pre-set input power level. But can you do
without the heater, and just keep the electrolysis power constant? On my
experiment the data acquisition system is capable of measuring the input power
and also controlling the output of the galvanostat, so presumably this could
be done. If anybody has any ideas on the feasibility of this approach let me
know.
 
 
>  The safest and most severe test for excess heat is still that of Belzner et
> al (the Huggins work), though, which defines excess heat as that in excess of
> the total input power - nothing subtracted for the electrolysis, so you are
> quite safe, no matter how much recombination there might or might not be. This
> would be equivalent to the b-points lying above the base line. Theey did in
> fact measure such excess heat and this is why I regard their paper as one of
> the strong bits of evidence for cold fusion. A pity, though, that it seems to
> be just one experiment, reported twice, with no follow-up so far, so maybe it
> was experimental error?
 
Granted that Huggins did exceed the total input power (I*V) in an OPEN cell
but the calorimeter used was rather primitive, so I don't find this heat result
convincing even though the magnitude (15 - 25%) was impressive.  Later on they
did more experiments in a closed cell using a better calorimeter but the
excess heat observed was much smaller; 2% - 7%. Presumably, the Mills-Noninski
effect explains the diminished heat in the closed cell :-).
 
As for follow-ups, I've lost count of the number of groups who "found" excess
heat but are never heard of again. As far as I can tell, the only group that
was claiming heat in 1989, and is still seeing heat in 1991 is the McKubre
group at SRI. Dieter, if I had to pick some group that had strong evidence
for excess heat it would be these guys. Not only do they have a superb
calorimeter but they also have near reproducibility. Hopefully there will be
a paper out soon on this work.
 
 ------------------------------
Todd Green
Dept of Chemistry
University of Western Australia
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentiq cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.08 / Phil Fraering /  Re: He3 separation
     
Originally-From: pgf@nasa08.usl.edu (Phil Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He3 separation
Date: 8 Dec 91 16:43:42 GMT
Organization: University of SW Louisiana

In article <1991Dec06.030013.14568@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
 
   In the worse case, it could drive a new He(3) earth bound exploration
   search for gas sources richer in He(3), (which seems to be the
   deeper ones).  Of course much, of the near surface sources of natural
   gas will be drying up in any event.
 
In the US, at least (which is the world's helium supplier, at any rate)
the oil industry isn't quite suffering from source dryup as from investment
capital dryup...
 
Phil
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpgf cudfnPhil cudlnFraering cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.09 / S McAllister /  Re: 1.48 or 1.23 Volts?
     
Originally-From: mcallist@ferret.dsd.es.com (Steve McAllister)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 1.48 or 1.23 Volts?
Date: 9 Dec 91 16:15:13 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT

In article <118@ininx.UUCP>, jkreznar@ininx.UUCP ([John E. Kreznar]) writes:
 
> and has section titles like Production of Heavy Water, Physical Properties of
> D_2O (including a table more extensive than the one published recently in this
> newsgroup), Structure of D_2O, Ionic Equilibria in D_2O, and Zero-Point
 Energy.
> I didn't spot a direct answer to your specific question, but that may be due
 to
> my poor understanding of the subject.
 
There have been a lot of questions (and answers) on the net recently regarding
the respective properties of H2O vs. D2O.  As an *UN*educated guess, I would
think that, relative abundances of protium/deuterium being what they are,
the properties of HDO (protium-deuterium-oxygen, or semi-heavy water) would
also be of significant interest here.  Anyone have any data on this molecule?
 
--
		--Steve McAllister (I'm all for self-expression.  'Course,
that's just my opinion...)
UUCP Address:  mcallist@dsd.es.com
               (or try dsd.es.com!mcallist)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmcallist cudfnSteve cudlnMcAllister cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.10 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 15:38:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green, WA)
 
<discussion about cell power control>
>Yes, a nice idea and people have tried this. McKubre et al. for example
 operated
>in this mode by sensing the electrolysis power and then adjusting the power
 into
>an electrical heater to maintain a pre-set input power level. But can you do
>without the heater, and just keep the electrolysis power constant? On my
>experiment the data acquisition system is capable of measuring the input power
>and also controlling the output of the galvanostat, so presumably this could
>be done. If anybody has any ideas on the feasibility of this approach let me
>know.
 
Well, this is presumably a simple case of digital control and if you observe
the usual rules of control theory, an algorithm for varying the current so as
to maintain a given power should be pretty simple, I reckon. Just go around an
endless loop, doing the corrections, apart from the other jobs. Have a look at
books with titles like Sampled Data Control; those I know are sure to be out
of date, like Tou or Ragazzini. Don't get side-tracked by this fascinating
stuff, though.
 
 
>Granted that Huggins did exceed the total input power (I*V) in an OPEN cell
>but the calorimeter used was rather primitive, so I don't find this heat result
>convincing even though the magnitude (15 - 25%) was impressive.  Later on they
>did more experiments in a closed cell using a better calorimeter but the
>excess heat observed was much smaller; 2% - 7%. Presumably, the Mills-Noninski
>effect explains the diminished heat in the closed cell :-).
 
Where do you have this information from? What do you know about Huggins+'s
follow-up work?
 
>As for follow-ups, I've lost count of the number of groups who "found" excess
>heat but are never heard of again. As far as I can tell, the only group that
>was claiming heat in 1989, and is still seeing heat in 1991 is the McKubre
>group at SRI. Dieter, if I had to pick some group that had strong evidence
>for excess heat it would be these guys. Not only do they have a superb
>calorimeter but they also have near reproducibility. Hopefully there will be
>a paper out soon on this work.
 
I hope so, too, it's been quoted long enough and, as you know, I look only at
published papers. A good thing, too - some conference revelations come to
nothing later on.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.10 / Terry Bollinger /  Short vacation...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Short vacation...
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 16:00:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
I'm interrupting my vacation from this group to send along the following
materials from Frank Close.  There are some rather serious issues involved.
				Cheers,  Terry Bollinger
============================================================================
 
REVIEW OF A REVIEW
Frank Close
 
[with ed. assistance from T. Bollinger]
 
I would like to bring up the issue of a "review" of my book (TOO HOT TO
HANDLE: THE RACE FOR COLD FUSION) that has being circulated in some parts
of the net.  It is purports to have been written by someone named Robert
W Bass, although the document is so unusual in nature that some caution
should perhaps be taken in accepting the authorship claim at face value.
The document is reproduced in its entirety after this preface discussion,
with no attempt to correct its idiosyncratic spelling and construction.
 
If the author of what follows is not the Robert W Bass as described in its
closing statement, but someone masquerading as the same, then I hope that
this article will be brought to his attention so its actual author can be
identified and encouraged to substantiate his accusations and have them
addressed in an open, public forum such as this net group.
 
The author invites me to sue him, and as you read the document I think you
will see why it's a pretty reasonable invitation.  The document practically
seethes with strong language, images, and accusations, while providing
surprisingly few specific facts to bolster it claims.  I can only suppose
that the author was more intent on generating vivid imagery than on analyzing
the boring facts of the matter - that Dr. Pons failed to provide accurate
data to back up his claims of "cold fusion."
 
However, despite the suggestion to sue him, the author has inadvertently
forgotten to specify either where he can be reached or how widely this
document has been published or distributed.  If I choose to take him up
on his thoughtful invitation, I will need to know both how to reach him
and the full magnitude of what he has done prior my own effort in this
e-mail to make the author more accountable for his actions.  If the author
(or an associate of his) reads this particular network group and wishes to
make contact with me, I would certainly be pleased to hear from him.  My
e-mail address for such contact is:
 
   FEC@IBM-B.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK
 
I would note that if this is the same Robert W Bass who signed one version
of the petition to the US Congress that was discussed a few weeks on this
net, it seems likely that someone in this group will be able to contact him.
One might even observe that if the author of this document is not willing
to acknowledge himself in the public forum of this particular net group,
some of his poetry about "cowering in your rathole" may prove to sadly
misplaced in terms of who is actually doing the cowering.
 
The article was originally forwarded to me by a scientist who had received
it second hand, and who thus was unable to verify its source.  Since the
document obviously has been circulated to others on the net prior to my
receiving it, it is also quite possible that others on this net will
recognise this work and have knowledge of its origins.  If so, I would
appreciate any help you might be able to provide to me in unraveling the
mystery of its exact origin and how widely it has been disseminated.
 
Ignoring for a moment the truly remarkable levels of ad hominem attack
sustained throughout nearly the entirety of this purported book review,
I would like to focus instead on some of the relatively sparse number of
quantifiable accusations and remarks buried beneath all the "poetry," and
challenge both Bass and any group or organisation he represents to "put up
or shut up," as they say, in the public forum of this network group.  Here
are some of the specific issues which I challenge them to address within
openly in by sending them to this (sci.physics.fusion) public e-mail forum:
 
 1. Skipping over some colorful but not especially informative adjectives,
    Bass in one of his statements describes "at least 50 instances" where
    he has "first-hand knowledge" that I have made "flagrant deliberate
    falsehoods."  Would Bass or a member of his organisation care to
    delineate on this net just what those 50 instance might be?
 
    My book was carefully and extensively researched, as I believe most
    people who have read it with an unbiased perspective will tend to agree.
    I thus would be more than happy to discuss any real or assumed errors
    you may have found, or may think you have found.
 
 2. Bass also refers to my "covert backers."  If this by any chance the
    same Robert Bass who took part as a phone contributor in a radio program
    on CNF I once did in Utah, there is a much irony in such a statement.
 
    That Robert Bass (who like this one placed a great deal of emphasis on
    the Mossbauer effect), was described by the shows host as a contributer
    "on behalf of the cold fusion people."  The host was not clear on exactly
    who these "cold fusion people" were, but at least an inkling of who they
    may be can be found in the fact that the name Robert Bass appears in some
    issues of Fusion Facts.  It would appear to me that it may be Robert Bass
    who may need to do some explaining as to who exactly is supporting or
    encouraging him to write materials such as the document below, and why.
 
    If anyone associated with Fusion Facts is supporting this gentleman,
    I would like to hear from them, too.
 
 3. Scratching for specific accusations in the poetic verbiage, it appears
    that the Wright Brothers allegory is saying that I resolutely refused
    to attend any of the open, public FP demonstrations.  To that I can
    only respond:  OPEN????  I was REFUSED admission to EPRI-NSF, and I
    went to Baltimore in full expectation - but F&P chose not to turn up.
    The Wright brothers did not charge $400 plus for the privilege of
    attending their demonstrations, either.
 
Now with all the fanfare past, here is the actual Robert Bass "book review"
for your reading pleasure.  My only suggestion is that you beware not to
let your jaw drop too far down, especially if you are at a public terminal.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOO HOT TO HANDLE: The Race for Cold Fusion
by Frank Close
Princeton University Press
 
Excitingly and readably well-written by a talented and brilliant
 though sadly perverted mind, this book will prove invaluable for
 seekers after truth and righteousness, though not in the
way envisioned by its covert producers.
 
When the externally attractive wicked queen gazed at her own countenance
 in the magic mirror, she perceived revealed the soul of an
 ugly witch, but persisted in proclaiming herself
nevertheless the fairest in all the land.
 
So too, by the time paid media flack masquerading as scientist Dr Frank
Close, hand-picked spokesman of the priesthood of high energy
 particle physicists, had penned the preface to the
US edition of his UK propaganda tract in August 1990, he knew in his heart
that he had sold out to the wrong side, as evidenced by the
 small-print footnote on the final page of his book, in
which he admits that future historians of science may classify his
 effort as an example of what follows from a ``preconceived notion".
 
Imagine that it is 1903 and that, upon hearing of the
 exploits of the Wright brothers at Kitty
Hawk, some friends of the director of the Smithsonian
Institution, Prof Samuel Langley (a learned but unsuccessful
 aeronaut), had hired the most gifted Madison Avenue talent to spend
thousand of hours interviewing all of the would be imitators
 of the Wright brothers who had crashed, and then produce
 a paean to their brilliance, dedication, ample resources, and
heroically open minds during the following two years in
which they had established beyond doubt the physical impossibility
 of heavier than air flight, while resolutely refusing to attend
any of the Wright brothers' open public demonstrations,
 and while snidely portraying them as
either self-deceived bumpkin bicycle mechanics who mistook a
 fluke in the wind or else, more likely, as dishonest and
scheming charlatans who peddled ``invented" data while wasting the
public's time with their idle and incompetent fantasies.
  Obviously if the men of Prof Langley's caliber and resources
 can't do it, the thing simply cannot be done, as any fool with the wit to
respect his betters ought to obliged to concede.
 
Have you been revolted by the odor of the venomous pus exuded from a
 squashed spider caught just before it succeeded in delivering a deadly
bite?  If so you will recognize the flavor of
this exercise in hypocritical calumny, written by a pen dipped in the
vitriol of professional jealousy and muddled thought, perverted
into willful blindness by smugly arrogant incompetence, and
fueled by the rage of frustration of the sore loser and pay from foiled
monopolists.  Close is the spokesman for the most spoiled group on
 earth, the high-energy particle physicists, who think nothing of
 wasting billions of the taxpayers' funds while
indulging themselves in their scientific playpens and
 justifying their careerist boondoggles by
holding up the putative benefits to our great great grandchildren
 of the twenty-second century (assuming that we survive our
 environmental crises that long).  If the author does not sue the
present reviewer for defamation, libel and slander it will be a public
 admission that the previous charges are true; however, I will
 welcome the chance to cross examine Close and his
covert backers under oath and to expose to a jury their orchestrated
 campaign of willful truth-denial and calumny, designed
 mainly to preserve their own undeserved power and influence
and hog's share of the R\& D budget.
 
Caltech's best theorist, to the thunderous acclaim of the American
Physical Society's membership, has called Fleischmann and Pons
 ``incompetent and perhaps deluded".  Close
repeats this calumny at least three times, as if savoring its viciousness.
 
Long after Fleischmann and Pons have joined the pantheon of humanity's
true saviors, and long after the public has embraced the godsend of
 limitless, dirt-cheap, pollutionless,
radiationless power, Close and his sponsors will be insisting
 ``it's not fusion", and citing some
miraculuous ``new form" of lattice-induced nuclear chemistry
 which they can be excused for not having foreseen.  However, if
 Close had recalled one his own field's best established facts,
the Mossbauer Effect (which he never mentions), he could not have
 feigned surprise at the thought that one nucleus can  interact
 discontinuously and instantaneously with an entire
crystal.  The truth is, as amply demonstrated in both theory and
 experiment by many highly qualified experts, such as CSPU Prof Robert
 Bush and UCLA Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger,
cold fusion is perfectly consistent with, and even predictable
from the well-established principles of quantum mechanics and
 solid-state physics, including the tunneling and
resonance phenomena upon which today's miracles of electronic
semi-conductors and high-temperature superconductivity are based,
 though Close never mentions this even once.  He
has no excuse, because this point was well treated in a much earlier book,
Cold Fusion: The Making of a Scientific Controversy, by Dr F David
 Peat, and he knew of this point as revealed by
radio debates with MIT and Harvard graduate Dr Eugene Mallove,
 author of Fire From Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold-Fusion
 Furor.  The honest seeker after objective truth
will find no clues for follow-up here, and it is manifest that this
perversity is intentional.
 
My own reading noted at least 50 instances in Close's 368 hypocritical
pages wherein I had direct first-hand knowledge of flagrant
deliberate falsehoods, willfully perverse distortions of
truth, smugly arrogant incompetence and artful calumny.
 
Have you read the Screwtape Letters, by a junior demon to his
 infernal uncle?  Close has the same inverted (or willfully perverse)
 perspective on the cast of characters, in distinguishing the
good guys from the villains.
 
This book is analogous to a glowing biography of Judas Iscariot, written by
Pilate's PR man, which dwells solely and repeatedly upon Saint Peter's
 thrice-repeated denial of his Master prior to his final
 conversion and willingness to face his destiny as a martyr for truth.
 
Frank Close, it is not yet too late to repent of your errors and
 sins!  The data-bank of interviews which you have amassed could
 serve as an excellent foundation for a thrilling account of this
century's most significant moments, once you start looking through
the correct end of the telescope.  I predict that within a few years
 you will either write a masterpiece akin to the Confessions of
 Saint Augustine or else let the book mercifully expire with its first
and only US edition while you slink cowering in your rathole.
 
Dr Robert W Bass
MA Oxon (Rhodes Scholar)
Professor of Physics, BYU, 1972-82
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Well, I hope you enjoyed that about as much as I did.  At the very least
it has good potential as the plot for the next sequel to the Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtle movies, wouldn't you agree?
 
Frank Close
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.10 / Mark Biggar /  Re: Who needs recombination?
     
Originally-From: markb@agora.uucp (Mark Biggar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who needs recombination?
Date: 10 Dec 91 04:33:13 GMT
Organization: Open Communications Forum

In article <1991Dec2.183822.17097@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>Before I wrote my question, I ran an experiment with NaCl (table
>salt).
 
You can't use NaCl for wather electorlisys.  You get Cl2 instead of O2.
And because the salt is already disassociated the voltage level to get both
current flow and gas production in much less then the stated 1.48V.
 
--
Mark Biggar
markb@agora.rain.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmarkb cudfnMark cudlnBiggar cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.10 / Jon Webb /  Re: Short vacation...
     
Originally-From: webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short vacation...
Date: 10 Dec 91 17:21:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

The only drawback to Close's plan is that to sue for libel as he
presumably plans to do, you have to show some actual damage.  I don't
think that will be that easy to do, given that Bass's review was
apparently only posted to the net (though I don't recall seeing it in
sci.physics.fusion), and people generally don't take personal attacks
that seriously here.
 
I can't understand Close's difficulty with getting in touch with Bass.
Bass claims (at the end of the message) to have been a Professor of
Physics at Brigham Young University from 1972-82.  Shouldn't it be
fairly easy to contact the Physics Department there to get a current
address for Bass?
 
Close has, in my opinion, damaged his reputation more by taking this
post seriously than Bass did in making the post.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwebb cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.10 / Paul Koloc /  cancel <1991Dec06.030013.14568@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1991Dec06.030013.14568@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: 10 Dec 91 06:21:57 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.10 / Paul Koloc /  MIGMA    was Re: JET -- LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIGMA    was Re: JET -- LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 10 Dec 91 09:42:34 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1991Dec6.184119.24597@efi.com> chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
 writes:
>In article <1991Nov27.070533.29560@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>>figure eight!  Huh!  I thought two exclusive but tangential co-planar
>>circles was the simplest.  Of course that "looks" like a fat figure
>>eight but it ain't the way I make them.
 
>Your explanation has two beams, not one, so I didn't think of it.
 
The vertical mag field is mirrorish or has co-axial cylindrical
"tubes' of mag field bent slightly convex (distorted just a tad
toward an American nested football's surface).  A single beam gun
can inject a single circle of ions in a plane orthogonal to the field
and whose far side intercepts the mag fields axis.
 
>How do you add more than two circles to your pattern?  If they're all
>co-planar, you only have two beams sharing any given "line", though
>you can still (I think) make them all share the same "point".  Is
>this the design?
 
If the gun is shut down momentarily, the ion circle will continue for
a few days but EITHER the field WITH the embedded ion ring can be
rotated around the mag field axis or the GUN can be rotated a bit
around that same axis where it can form another stable ring by
turning on momentarily.  IF the field or gun turns round the mag
axis continuously and the gun remains on, then a "delta infinity" of
such ion circles can be formed which merge into a continous rosette.
 
Limitations are due to space charge and particle scattering mostly in
the region of the common intercept (tangent) point. Most scattered
particles don't scatter back into a rosette orbit.
 
It's neat in that one can have fusion without involving acres
of various Buildings, monster power startup and maintanence currents.
Of course, the power output is proportionally less.
 
PLASMAK(tm) engines will also be compact, but they are more for moving
motor bikes from zero to .3 c in sixty seconds or getting cruiser
size packages to the planets at a more comfortable rates of *celerations
(few weeks trips).                      :-)
 
* = ac + de
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.10 / Latvala Ari /  Any results from Mills et al. Ni/K/H-experiments?
     
Originally-From: latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala Ari)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Any results from Mills et al. Ni/K/H-experiments?
Date: 10 Dec 91 17:36:11 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology

 
Sub:	Current status of Mills/Farrell/Kneizys  Ni/K/H-electrolysis
 
Ref:	On Nov 1, 1991, latvala@cs.tut.fi,
	submitted to sci.physics.fusion posting
	titled: "CNF/Mills et al. Ni/K experiment"
	Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 10:06:09 GMT
 
Dear netreaders,
Gentlemen/Ladies, I repeat (see hereunder)  40 days old message and ask again:
 
1.	Do we have ANY negative or positive verifications ?
	Technically experiment should be reasonably easy to repeat:
	-	no need for deuterium
	-	no need for exotic amounts of Pd
	-	no need (?) for any neutron measurements
	Only plain electrolysis, with explained solutions, current
	densities etc. as Dr. Farrell has stated in net.
 
2.	If anonymity required, I would like to invite You submit
	to me intermediate statements, which would state:
	a) author, discipline, place,
	b) number of experiments tried a la Mill et al. experiment,
	   test work done on such professional level, that author
	   could (IF he/she would want to...) be able to defend experiment
	   arrangements and test conduit on open scientific forum.
	b) results vs. Mills et al. results:
		- classified as: NEGATIVE, OPEN/UNDEFINED, POSITIVE
	I would summary this as statistics to sci.physics.fusion,
	omitting author, his discipline and place.
3.	I am waiting up  to Dec. 15, 1991, 23:59:59 GMT.
 
Sincerely Yours
Regards
Ari Latvala  latvala@cs.tut.fi
 
 
>Ref:	Dieter Britz / Cold fusion bibl additions /
>	30 Oct 91 23:37:08 GMT
 
>Sub:	Mills RL, Kneizys SP;"Excess heat production by the
>	electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte
>	and the implications for cold fusion",
>	Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 65.
 
 
>>ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
>>here is the promised bunch; now my desk is clear. It's a mix of theory and
>>experiments. At last we have the maverick Mills (and Kneizys); the theory
>>leads to unusual experiments and the authors report huge excess heats. The
>>calorimetry doesn't quite convince me, though.
>>TB's are of course free to take
>>this as Evidence. I find myself wondering whether Mills is not putting us on,
>>especially reading the numerological section of this paper. Read it yourself
>>to see what I mean.
>....
>>Mills RL, Kneizys SP;                 Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 65.
>>"Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate
>>electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion".
>>** This paper starts with a long theoretical part, introducing the Mills and
>>Farrel theory (published in a book). It seems that cold fusion shows that,
>>since the Schroedinger equation does not explain it, this equation is not
>>applicable to cold fusion. M&F's theory, on the other hand, is. It leads to
>>shrunken hydrogen atoms; absorption of energy quanta at 27.21 eV can push
>>electrons down to a lower shell, and these shrunken atoms are then able to
>>approach closer to one another. The theory predicts
>>certain optimal conditions
>>such as the presence of K or Rb ions. This is followed by an
>>experiment with
>>a Ni cathode in a K2CO3 electrolyte in H2O, and rather simple
>>calorimetry. The
>>results are massive excess heats, up to nearly 4000%, but no excess with a
>>Na2CO3 control. A Rb electrolyte works also. The theory also explains why it
>>works for Pd in D2O, and the skew branching ratio.
>>Feb-91/Aug-91
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
>Gentlemen,
>
>I do wonder, why above quoted paper has not resulted comments
>on the sci.physics.fusion discussion group.
>What for me, myself not having any qualifications in nuclear physics,
>from pure pragmatig engineering point comes into mind, are following
>points:
>
>1.	Ni, K and H  are quite low cost materials.
>2.	Claim of 40 times  (sic!) excess heat should leave some room for
>	(eh, minor ?) calorimetry errors ?
>3.	Leaving out deuterium would simplify commercial exploitation
>	of phenomen.
>
>So, my questions to professionals are:
>
>Has this experiment been verified? Where? Where else?
>If not, why ?
>So:
>1.	Has burden of wild claims tired research groups?
>2.	Has somebody done test, but failed to verify claims?
>	In that case, please point negative references.
>3.	Does Mills et al. paper contain some exotic in Ni material
>	preparation, which is not presented in paper?
>
>Have a nice day!
>--
>Ari E. Latvala, HB 420, RIFIT/TUT, POB 553, SF-33101, TAMPERE, FINLAND
>RIFIT (Research Institute for Information Technology),
>TUT   (Tampere University of Technology), Hermitec HB 420
>Tel: +358-31-161910 Fax: +358-31-162913, Internet: latvala@cs.tut.fi
 
--
Ari E. Latvala, HB 420, RIFIT/TUT, POB 553, SF-33101, TAMPERE, FINLAND
RIFIT (Research Institute for Information Technology),
TUT   (Tampere University of Technology), Hermitec HB 420
Tel: +358-31-161910 Fax: +358-31-162913, Internet: latvala@cs.tut.fi
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlatvala cudfnLatvala cudlnAri cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.11 / Alex Orenshteyn /  What about palladium affinity for H.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What about palladium affinity for H.
Date: 11 Dec 91 01:09:16 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

If I understand correctly Pd has an affinity for H, which means that a
piece of Pd will absord H2 under normal circumstances. This process is most
likely exothermic since the system will try to achieve the lowest energy.
Perhaps, electrolysis simply accelerates this process with higher rate of
heat production. If this is true then after some time Pd will no longer
able to accept more H and no more heat will be produced. Basically I am
suggesting that Pd crystal lattice with H's inside has lower energy than
without the H's, so the electrolysis simply extracts this energy. In fact
Pd and H2 is the fuel for the process and after a while we'll have to
"bake" Pd to clean it from the hydrogen, which will take heat. So, perhaps,
it is just a heat battery.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.10 / Dave Caulkins /  Re: Short vacation...
     
Originally-From: Dave Caulkins <dcaulkins@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short vacation...
Date: 10 Dec 91 11:43 PST

 
Thank you, Frank Close, for the Dr. Bass "book review."  The
"venomous spider pus" image was so funny I laughed all the way
through the rest of the "review."  Dr. Bass certainly lives up to
the highest standards of scientific peer review.
 
Dave C
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendcaulkins cudfnDave cudlnCaulkins cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.11 / Jack Jansen /  Re: A silk purse out of a sow's ear...
     
Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A silk purse out of a sow's ear...
Date: 11 Dec 91 16:17:28 GMT

hoyt@isus.uucp (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes:
>.... He mentioned they can pack 60 hydrogen atoms inside a c60
>molecule (I don't know if they sell it that way).
 
Sorry if this has been gone through before (I didn't read the group
for a few weeks), but does the hydrogen actually stay inside the C60?
 
My first thought when I read about fullerenes was actually along
fusion lines: pack em with something and bump them into  a wall hard
enough to get some fusion going, but on second thoughts I expected the
hydrogen to be small enough to escape out of the fullerene...
--
--
Jack Jansen        | In Holland things are serious, but never hopeless.
Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl | In Ireland things are hopeless, but never serious.
uunet!cwi.nl!jack   G=Jack;S=Jansen;O=cwi;PRMD=surf;ADMD=400net;C=nl
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Short vacation...
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short vacation...
Date: 11 Dec 91 06:03:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <WEBB.91Dec10122155@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
 writes:
 
>I can't understand Close's difficulty with getting in touch with Bass.
>Bass claims (at the end of the message) to have been a Professor of
>Physics at Brigham Young University from 1972-82.  Shouldn't it be
>fairly easy to contact the Physics Department there to get a current
>address for Bass?
 
It sounds like the Robert Bass that worked with Robert Golka on a
"Pyrosphere" (ball lightning) fusion concept and also Tesla
experiments at Wendover AFB in Utah.  Bass was also at least a co-
inventor if not the principal inventor of a fusion device, which
later actually received support from DoE, with nice things said about
it.  My interest switched off when I saw that even if it worked
eventually it would have the lethal wall problems of the tokamak, and
they would be probably be worse because as I recall it had some of the
complexity of "pretzel Stellarator" concepts (none of latter were built
to my knowledge).
 
I read some of Bass's technical support of the pyrosphere concept, and
it read to me like that of a "ole time religion" gospel man that really
had hundreds of quotations at his finger tips (equations in this case),
but they were applied to the "sermon of the day" in a rather hap hazard
or out of context manner and in excessive amounts at least for my
technical taste.
 
Bass studied many disciplines other than advanced physics and may have
even passed the bar exam and may hold a law degree.  The last I heard
of his employ was that he was working for Hughes Helicopter in CA.  His
name showed up on the "CNF petition list" that was circulated.
 
I'm suspicious that the style of the alleged writings of Robert W. Bass
are those of the Robert Bass I met and described hereinabove.  However,
a lot have years have pasted so I can't be certain.
 
The petition chaps did say they received their information from Bass
by fax, and no return responses to their sent FAXes ever came and they
could get no telephone number for the Company listed on the original
FAX.
I quote:
 
% My data base shows Dr. Robert W. Bass, Patent Agent, at:
%
%     Dr. Robert W. Bass
%     P.O. Box 6337
%     Thousand Oaks, CA 91359
 
%     I got a fax from him at "Innoventech" with the number 805-373-
%     6256 across the top.  I called information in CA but they do
%     not list a company by that name.
 
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.11 / John Logajan /  Playing with Potassium Carbonate
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Playing with Potassium Carbonate
Date: 11 Dec 91 19:24:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I got ahold of some Potassium Carbonate so I ran some simple electrolysis
tests on it (82.9 grams of it per liter of water = .6 molar solution?)
 
My electrodes were slavaged hunks of metal from old NiCads, which I take
to be either Nickel or Nickel plated steel.
 
The solution is clear.  At about 1.5 volts, noticeable current starts to
flow.  There is not much "leakage" current below that applied voltage.
Before the initial application of voltage, the system does not produce
a potential voltage of its own.  However, as soon as some of the H2 and
O2 gases have formed near the electrodes, the "cell" will produce a
voltage potential anywhere from 1.5 to 2 volts.  This voltage decays
slowly, the rate depending upon the load.  A direct short of an ammeter
showed current capabilites of several hundred milliamps (most likely
proportional to cell dimensions.)  This I take to be the "fuel cell"
effect of the free H2 and O2 recombing to produce electric potential.
 
Plenty of gas does get generated at both electrodes.  It turns the clear
liquid a cloudy white (from the many tiny bubbles.)  There is no noticeable
deterioration of the electrodes and the solution remains clear even after
hours of running time.  This is quite different from my NaCl tests in which
the electrodes began to deteriorate within minutes and the solution turned
many different colors and otherwise became polluted.
 
The electrodes do look slightly darker than they did originally, but that
is the only visible difference in the system after several hours of
operation.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Short vacation...
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short vacation...
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:08:37 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1991Dec11.060321.14237@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
M. Koloc) writes:
> I'm suspicious that the style of the alleged writings of Robert W. Bass
> are those of the Robert Bass I met and described hereinabove.  However,
> a lot have years have pasted so I can't be certain.
>
> % My data base shows Dr. Robert W. Bass, Patent Agent, at:
> %
> %     Dr. Robert W. Bass
> %     P.O. Box 6337
> %     Thousand Oaks, CA 91359
 
Hmm. I believe I met this fellow about 8 months back, when I gave
a talk on reactor modelling here at UCLA. Seemed like a nice guy,
and he did talk alot to me afterwards about cold fusion, saying he knew
of some folks with repeatable experiements. He also said he worked
at Princeton plasma physics lab back in the good old days---late
sixties, I think. He also mentioned he worked on control theory
now, and that he had designed and patented(?) a controler for
cold fusion experiements. If it is the same Bass, you wouldn't
suspect it from talking to him---i.e. he seemd neither crazy nor
vitriolic. Just enthusiastic and knowledgable. Hmmm.
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.12 / Robert Eachus /  Re: MIGMA    was Re: JET -- LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIGMA    was Re: JET -- LOT OF RADIOACTIVITY
Date: 12 Dec 91 15:46:49
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1991Dec10.094234.2020@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
 
   PLASMAK(tm) engines will also be compact, but they are more for moving
   motor bikes from zero to .3 c in sixty seconds or getting cruiser
   size packages to the planets at a more comfortable rates of *celerations
   (few weeks trips).                      :-)
 
   * = ac + de
 
   Sorry, the acceleration couch on my motor bike is not rated for 5.4
million gravities (neither am I).  Do you have something slightly less
zippy?  :-) :-) :-)
 
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
"We woke up this morning in the Union of Sovereign States."  Russian
television announcer Alexander Gurnov told viewers Sunday (December 8,
1991).  "We are now in a Commonwealth of Independent States.  You
never know what country we will wake up in tomorrow."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.13 /  nuke@vms.macc. /  More on DT in JET
     
Originally-From: nuke@vms.macc.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on DT in JET
Date: 13 Dec 91 15:32:17 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

 
     The latest issue of Nuclear News (Dec. '91, p.17) has some
information regarding the burning of DT fuel in JET.  Here are the
details:
 
     Peak Power:              1.7 MW
     Total Fusion Energy:     1 MJ
     Pulse Duration:          2 s
     Input Power:             15 MW (neutral beams)
     Total Input Energy:      30 MJ
     Fuel Mixture:            14% T, 86% D
 
     The brief article stated that a 50/50 fuel mixture should produce
close-to-breakeven power levels.  This should be tested in 1995 or
1996, when divertors will be added to remove the ash.  The tritium was
introduced into a deuterium plasma (plasma current=3 MA) using neutral
beams.  The budget for this program is around $330 million.
 
jake blanchard
university of wisconsin - madison
blanchard@engr.wisc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennuke cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.13 /   /   Lithium Plating in CF Electrolysis?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Lithium Plating in CF Electrolysis?
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 23:49:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz, resident CF Bibliography and instructor in electrochemistry
said recently:
 
<  In the case of water electrolysis in alkali, the reactions that will
<  dominate are H2 and O2 production.  Some others are the deposistion
<  of Li or K metal at the cathode, at high overvoltages, and this has
<  been suggested as one explaination of excess heat, especially after
<  cutting of the current:  the metal redissolves, with copious heat
<  given off.
 
Could this be THE explaination?  One question that has never been satis-
factorily explained, in my mind at least, is the long preparation time
required before cells produce excess heat.  My thinking now goes as
follows:  Through the course of long electrolysis runs with significant
overvoltages aimed at maximizing the deuterium loading in the palladium,
Li is being plated onto the cathode.  Each time the electrolyte is
replenished more Li (in solution) is added to the system such that a
large energy store is gradually built up.  At some point a drop in the
overvoltage may lead to a reversal of this process, Li redisolves, and
a burst of heat results.  I know that true believers will say that no
chemical process can store enough energy to account for the large
integrated values of excess heat that have been claimed.  I won't
assert that Li plating and redisolving alters the basic validity of
that arguement.  However, it seems to me the presence of a process
which can significantly perturb the assumed cell chemistry is sufficient
to upset the calorimetry based on the simplest temperature and voltage
measurements.  As I have said before, I don't think we know enough about
the conditions of data sampling and assumptions about averaging to be
sure there isn't a hidden bias to the measurements.  All that is needed
is a way of concealing the heat deficit when Li is being plated, and/or
exagerating the surplus heat, when Li is disolving.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.14 / Dave Spain /  Farrel's comments concerning closed calorimetry?
     
Originally-From: spain@Alliant.COM (Dave Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Farrel's comments concerning closed calorimetry?
Date: 14 Dec 91 19:44:30 GMT
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA

Several weeks ago, just prior to the week of Thanksgiving here in the US,
I posted a follow-up request for clarification as to why Prof. Farrell was
claiming a problem in being able to duplicate his heat results using
closed-cell calorimetry.
 
Unfortuneatly, I was away on vacation during the week of Thanksgiving when
a possible response may have been posted.  When I got back, I noticed that
the news system at my site had already purged everything posted prior to
Nov 27, so its possible a reply was posted, but I never got a chance to
see it.  I did not receive any Email on the subject either.  The dates
in question are between Nov 23 and Nov 27, 1991.
 
If anyone out there on the net is aware of a posted reply, I would greatly
appreciate knowing of it.  Even better, if you have saved a copy of it
I would be very grateful if you could Email a copy to me at:
	spain@Alliant.COM  -or-  mit-eddie!alliant!spain
 
Thanks,
Dave Spain
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenspain cudfnDave cudlnSpain cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.15 / John Logajan /  MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
Date: 15 Dec 91 00:37:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

This was probably mentioned before, but I didn't pick up on it.
 
In some tests using 20cm^2 surface area nickel electrodes (I presume,
maybe nickel plated steel) if I use the recommended current of
1ma per cm^2, (20ma in this case) I get an applied voltage of
just about 2.0v.
 
That works out to about 1/2000th a watt per cm^2 of surface -- input power.
Or about 2000 cm^2 per watt input.  In the MKF cell that produced 120 watts
out with 50 watts in, I take the electrode surface area to be 100,000 cm^2.
Or a sheet about 220 cm per dimensions, or about 5.5 feet on a side.
 
Is this a correct assumption?
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.15 / John Logajan /  Re: MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
Date: 15 Dec 91 07:12:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Or a sheet about 220 cm per dimensions, or about 5.5 feet on a side.
 
Make that 7.2 feet on a side, heh heh.
 
Since I am getting a 2 volt drop in my efforts to remain at the suggested
current density per unit surface area of the cathode (1ma per cm^2),
this means that the actual input power is just about four times as much
as the "calculated" input power.
 
Assuming that MKF are getting 100 watts out of this "calculated" 50 watts
in (no H2 O2 recombination) it really means they are putting in 200 watts
and getting 100 heat watts out.  "Normal" cells on the other hand would
also be driven by 200 input watts and produce 50 heat watts out.  In both
cases there are 150 watts in unaccounted for, which presumably is all in
the stored chemcial energy of the H2 and O2 gases.
 
Since these gases are carrying away 3/4 of the input power and the MKF
effect is only producing an additional 1/4 of the input power, the gases
have to be measured quite carefully.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.15 / John Logajan /  Re: MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
Date: 15 Dec 91 07:18:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Since I am getting a 2 volt drop in my efforts to remain at the suggested
>current density per unit surface area of the cathode (1ma per cm^2),
 
I just wanted to also mention that going to 2.1 volt doubles the current,
so you can see this is a very non-linear region (though I noticed that
impulse changes in voltage will initiate an increase in current that
eventually decays to a slightly lower level than it initially jumped to.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.14 / Larry Wall /  Re: Short vacation...
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short vacation...
Date: 14 Dec 91 22:15:48 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

: Well, I hope you enjoyed that about as much as I did.  At the very least
: it has good potential as the plot for the next sequel to the Teenage
: Mutant Ninja Turtle movies, wouldn't you agree?
:
: Frank Close
 
I dunno, it kinda made me want to go out and buy your book.  You should
be grateful.  (Especially for the comparison with Screwtape Letters.)
I think this review was doing you a backhanded favor.
 
Say, you haven't by chance been writing reviews of your own book under
the name Bass, have you?  That's a brilliant strategy, if so...
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.16 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 707 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 707 papers on cnf)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:14:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
Pickings are thin these days; I found a few Russians in the pipe line but
other than that it's mostly patents, as you see below. The Czerwinski et al is
clearly motivated by cold fusion (it says so), but doesn't tell us much that
is new. The (peripheral) Bockris and S reference of 1971 I got from John
Wanklyn, who is a gold mine of information. This paper addresses the very
question that has had me chewing on my cheeks: Does FPH's fugacity of 1E27,
calculated from the overpotential by using the Nernst equation, make sense? My
electrochemical instincts told me "no", but can I argue with Fleischmann?
Well, I can, and I can't. As is also written in Bockris and Reddy's text, you
can't use the Nernst equation like that. However, if the mechanism of hydrogen
loading into the metal is such that you have in effect a pile-up of atomic
hydrogen on the surface (i.e. a fast electrochemical step, followed by a
slower chemical step), then you get a hydrogen (or deuterium) pressure build
up within cavities in the metal, to pressures corresponding to fugacities the
same as those from the Nernst equation. This has been of great interest to
corrosion people, who want to know all about hydrogen embrittlement of metals.
If the mechanism, on the other hand, is slow electrochem. and fast chem., then
the pressure is 1 atm. Intermediate mechanisms lead to intermediate pressures.
Also, this enormous fugacity in fact corresponds to about 1000 atm of
pressure. All this is worth knowing. FPH did not - as far as one can tell from
their paper - use a poison, and they themselves say somewhere that the surface
reaction (i.e. D + D --> D2 gas) is fast, so one must assume that under these
conditions, their fugacity figure did not apply. Poisons would slow down the
surface reaction, so you would increase the fugacity. All this, however, only
in voids entirely enclosed by metal, not exposed to the surface. So you can't
use this argument if you propose a surface mechanism for cold fusion.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 3-Dec. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 707
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czerwinski A, Marassi R, Zamponi S;      J. Electroanal. Chem. 316 (1991) 211.
"The absorption of hydrogen and deuterium in thin palladium electrodes.
Part I. Acidic solutions".
** A cyclic voltammetric study with coulometry, on thin Pd film overlaid on Au
on glass, in H2SO4 or D2SO4. Coulometry measured the H/Pd or D/Pd loading as
a function of potential. Maximum loading was about 0.7. This was independent
of the film thickness.                                           May-91/Oct-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dufour J;                                  S. African ZA 90 05,389, 11-Jul-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(22):242246 (1991).
"Energy source system".
** "Energy is produced by: loading a body with >=1 H isotope where at least a
part of the body comprises >=1 metal capable of forming a metal hydride-type
lattice system; arranging the body as an electrode of a capacitor means in an
elec. circuit along with another electrode connected with an externally
controllable voltage supply means; operating the voltage supply means; and
recovering energy produced in the body by operating the voltage supply means.
The system produces energy by a process commonly known as cold fusion".
(Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ojiri H, Nakamura M;          Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,150,284, 20-Sep-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(22): 242242 (1991).
"Apparatus for cold nuclear fusion".
** "An app. for cold nuclear fusion includes: (a) a chamber with a means to
guide a D-contg. gas into it, and a exhaust means; (b) a plasma-generating
means; and (c) a reactive substrate on which is a H-absorbing metal (e.g.,
Pd). Nuclear fusion is caused by contacting a plane of the gas with the
reactive substance". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omori, T;                     Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,105,494, 07-Nov-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(22): 242243 (1991).
"Apparatus for cold nuclear fusion".
** "The app., which includes a reaction tank contg. D2O, a pair of discharge
electrodes in the tank, and a power source to apply pulsed voltage on the
electrodes, and which causes nuclear fusion based on D ion generation by
pulsed voltage, and a pressure wave produced by underwater plasma discharge,
is equipped with a partition structure around the plasma-discharge area, which
controls the pressure of the wave". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van Noorden PJ;                           Neth. Appl. NL 89 02,962, 01-Dec-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(22):242244 (1991).
"Process and apparatus, and the use of the apparatus in electrolysis-nuclear
fusion".
** "The process comprises the application of a magnetic field. The app.,
comprising an electrolytic cell equipped with 2 electrodes, addnl. comprises
means for generating a magnetic field in the electrolytic cell. The use of the
app. comprises filling the cell with an electrolyte comprising LiD dissolved
in heavy water. The use of the magnetic field increases the rate at which the
alleged cold fusion occurs in the D-loaded Pd electrodes. The electrodes (Pt
anodes and Pd and Ti cathodes) are connected to one elec. source, and the
means for generating the magnetic field, i.e., a cooled, hollow coil, is
connected to another elec. source, i.e. a battery". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoshimura S;                    Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 82991, 25-Aug-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(22): 242241 (1991).
"Energy converters based on electrochemical nuclear fusion".
** "The app. contains an electrolytic cell comprising a cathode from an
alkali-metal-doped pi-electron-type compd., a noble-metal anode, heavy H2O,
and an electrolyte contg. a support material, where the cathode and anode are
immersed in the electrolyte". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bockris JO'M, Subramanyan PK;                Electrochim. Acta 16 (1971) 2169.
"The equivalent pressure of molecular hydrogen in cavities within metals in
terms of the overpotential developed during the evolution of hydrogen".
** In the electrolysis of water at a metal, an overpotential is forced on the
metal/water/hydrogen system, and at a corroding metal, an overpotential arises
due to the corrosion processes. In both cases, hydrogen enters the metal to
some extent and can accumulate in cavities, sometimes leading to embrittlement
of the metal. This paper tries to find a relation between the hydrogen
pressure and the overpotential. The Nernst equation, relating these
quantities, is dismissed at the outset as inapplicable. The relative rates of
the electrochemical step, leading to adsorbed hydrogen, and of the
dimerisation of these to D2, affect the cavity pressure, and this is
investigated. It turns out that for a fast electrochemical step followed by a
slow dimerisation, rather large fugacities, corresponding to the Nernstian
figures, can appear. At the other extreme - fast electrochemical, slow
dimerisation - it is unity, i.e. 1 atm. Real systems probably lie between
these extremes. There is a figure relating real pressure to fugacity. E.g.,
the fugacity of 1E30 corresponds to about 1000 atm.
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendk cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.17 / Latvala Ari /  Errata ?
     
Originally-From: latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala Ari)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Errata ?
Date: 17 Dec 91 09:18:30 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology

 
In
>Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 707 papers on cnf)
>Message-ID: <CCB05676375F0025F6@vms2.uni-c.dk>
>From: BRITZ%kemi.aau.dk@VM1.NoDak.EDU (Dieter Britz)
>Date: 16 Dec 91 18:14:03 GMT
..
..< text deleted >
..
>4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bockris JO'M, Subramanyan PK;                Electrochim. Acta 16 (1971) 2169.
>"The equivalent pressure of molecular hydrogen in cavities within metals in
>terms of the overpotential developed during the evolution of hydrogen".
>** In the electrolysis of water at a metal, an overpotential is forced on the
>metal/water/hydrogen system, and at a corroding metal, an overpotential arises
>due to the corrosion processes. In both cases, hydrogen enters the metal to
>some extent and can accumulate in cavities, sometimes leading to embrittlement
>of the metal. This paper tries to find a relation between the hydrogen
>pressure and the overpotential. The Nernst equation, relating these
>quantities, is dismissed at the outset as inapplicable. The relative rates of
>the electrochemical step, leading to adsorbed hydrogen, and of the
>dimerisation of these to D2, affect the cavity pressure, and this is
>investigated.
 
**>It turns out that for a fast electrochemical step followed by a
**>slow dimerisation, rather large fugacities, corresponding to the Nernstian
**>figures, can appear. At the other extreme - fast electrochemical, slow
**>dimerisation - it is unity, i.e. 1 atm.
 
Excuse Sir, but should above marked two sentences be corrected.
You are stating twice same definitions: fast electrochemical step, slow
dimerisation, and drawing opposite conclusions.
 
Ari Latvala latvala@cs.tut.fi
 
>Real systems probably lie between
>these extremes. There is a figure relating real pressure to fugacity. E.g.,
>the fugacity of 1E30 corresponds to about 1000 atm.
>==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--
Ari E. Latvala, HB 420, RIFIT/TUT, POB 553, SF-33101, TAMPERE, FINLAND
RIFIT (Research Institute for Information Technology),
TUT   (Tampere University of Technology), Hermitec HB 420
Tel: +358-31-161910 Fax: +358-31-162913, Internet: latvala@cs.tut.fi
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlatvala cudfnLatvala cudlnAri cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.18 / Dieter Britz /  Re: MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 05:19:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
 
>I wrote:
>>Or a sheet about 220 cm per dimensions, or about 5.5 feet on a side.
>
>Make that 7.2 feet on a side, heh heh.
 
Maybe this was their 2000 m long Pd wire... I'm too lazy to reach over for
my calculator, for the surface area.
 
>Since I am getting a 2 volt drop in my efforts to remain at the suggested
>current density per unit surface area of the cathode (1ma per cm^2),
>this means that the actual input power is just about four times as much
>as the "calculated" input power.
 
I don't get this. 20 mA and 2 V gives 40 mW input power total, or 2 mW/cm**2
if you want. Where does this factor of 4 come in, and how do distinguish
between "calculated" and actual input power?
 
The rest of the message depends on this factor 4. Please explain.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.18 / Dieter Britz /  New bibliography archival
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New bibliography archival
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 05:20:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A few days ago, I asked what you think about a change in the way I archive the
bibliography files. I was unhappy with the previous system, since one needed
to merge the 5 archives, with all their sections, in order to get the total
picture. I got about three responses and they more or less agreed with my new
plan - although a preference was expressed for a data base. I would like this
as well, but it would not be easy - or cheap - to implement. For the moment,
then, this is the new system:
The 5 sections,
1. books
2. scientific papers, patents
3. commentary
4. peripheral papers not directly dealing with cold fusion
5. unpublished stuff, preprints (Vince Cate) and Terry Bollinger's references
   on hydrogen in metals, etc
will be archived separately. All bar section 2 can go into single files each.
Their names will be
1. cnf-bks
2. (see below)
3. cnf-cmnt
4. cnf-peri
5. cnf-unp
and section 2 will be broken up into a chain of files, named
cnf-pap1...cnf-pap5 (at the moment). To get what might have been cnf-pap, i.e.
the whole papers file, you have to GET all 5 files (and this number might get
bigger as the papers file expands still more) and simply string them together.
The file cnf-pap1 has all entries from Abell to Delley, etc. This means no
more merging, and if I find an error, it is easy for me to fix it in the
archives.
 Some of you might just miss the old system, although noone said so. For this
reason, I will leave the old files in the archives until about the middle of
January 1992, and then wipe them. The new ones ought to be in place now, but
I haven't had an acknowledgement from the system yet.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.18 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Errata ?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Errata ?
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 15:57:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re: Who needs recombination?
 
Originally-From: latvala@cs.tut.fi (Latvala Ari)
Ari correctly points out that I incorrectly wrote in my abstract:
 
>**>It turns out that for a fast electrochemical step followed by a
>**>slow dimerisation, rather large fugacities, corresponding to the Nernstian
>**>figures, can appear. At the other extreme - fast electrochemical, slow
>**>dimerisation - it is unity, i.e. 1 atm.
 
and asks
 
>Excuse Sir, but should above marked two sentences be corrected.
>You are stating twice same definitions: fast electrochemical step, slow
>dimerisation, and drawing opposite conclusions.
 
>Ari Latvala latvala@cs.tut.fi
 
Yes, Sir, I excuse you {:] and I apologise for this confusing mistake. I'll
fix it at once, also in the archived file (damn it). It should of course be
 
>figures, can appear. At the other extreme - slow electrochemical, fast
>dimerisation - it is unity, i.e. 1 atm.
 
Thanks, Ari, for the tip-off.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.18 / John Logajan /  Re: MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MKF cell dimensions vs power input.
Date: 18 Dec 91 17:07:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>>Since I am getting a 2 volt drop in my efforts to remain at the suggested
>>current density per unit surface area of the cathode (1ma per cm^2),
>>this means that the actual input power is just about four times as much
>>as the "calculated" input power.
>
>I don't get this. 20 mA and 2 V gives 40 mW input power total, or 2 mW/cm**2
>if you want. Where does this factor of 4 come in, and how do distinguish
>between "calculated" and actual input power?
 
MKF say that input power is defined as (V-1.48)*I.
 
Since 1.48 rounds to 1.5, and since I am applying 2 volts in order to
get the MKF recommended current density, they would only count the
difference between 2 volts and 1.5 volts (.5 volts) times the current
as calculated input power.   Ergo 0.5*I.   But we know that I am
really running at 2 volts or 2*I.  Clearly the "real" input power
is four times (2/0.5) the calculated input power.
 
Of course, the "missing" power is assumed to be going off in the
form of chemical energy stored in the seperate H2 and O2 gases --
which can be recovered by burning them, and thus the motivation to
calculate input power rather than measure it directly.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.19 / John Logajan /  Some MKF cell notes
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some MKF cell notes
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 05:51:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I have noticed that the MKF cell voltage drop increases from its initial
value (maintaining a constant current rate of 1ma per cm^2) of about 2.0V
to about 2.3V after 12-24 hours and then remains there.  This is at a
temperature of about 25C.  The Ni cathode seems to turn slightly lighter
in color.  I'm not sure what effect my using an Ni anode has on this.  I've
only just gotten ahold of some Pt and haven't used it yet.
 
There is also an inverse relationship between cell resistivity and temperature.
If I raise the cell temperature to 50C it only takes 2.15V applied to maintain
the current density.
 
I should point out that the voltage/current ratio is quite sensitive to various
factors and are only approximates.  For instance, reversing the current
through the cell temporarily can cause an extended recovery period to again
stabilize.  Another thing is surface area, which I only have an estimation of,
since I am using a mesh rather than a solid (the complications of using the
available materials.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.19 / John Logajan /  Electroplating of nickel
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Electroplating of nickel
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 05:57:42 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I am doing some non-cold-fusion experiments and would like to know how to
electroplate nickel onto another metal.  I can get nickel in pellet form,
but I'd like it in maximum surface area.
 
Electrolyte, polarity, current density, and suitable base metals are the
things I need to know in order of importance to me.
 
Thanks.
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.19 / Mark North /  Re: What about palladium affinity for H.
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What about palladium affinity for H.
Date: 19 Dec 91 19:08:10 GMT

alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
 
>If I understand correctly Pd has an affinity for H, which means that a
>piece of Pd will absord H2 under normal circumstances. This process is most
>likely exothermic since the system will try to achieve the lowest energy.
 
The process you describe is endothermic.
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.20 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 711 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 711 papers on cnf)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 15:50:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
I'll dash these off and add them to the archived files (maybe Monday). We have
two Chinese contributions. Jin et al look for possible explanations of cnf,
while Qin et al have looked at surface loading, experimentally. Boya also
tries to find a mechanism, and looks to the alpha/beta hysteresis among other
possibilities, all to do with some sort of nonequilibrium. He suggests the
application of ac current. Lastly, Kuehne coins a new abbreviation: MHF or
micro hot fusion, what we have called fractofusion until now. Rather than
finding an explanation for cold fusion, he suggest explanations for not
finding it. I find his remark about ion implanation interesting. Many have
used ion and plasma beams to load deuterium into metals, and not all were
aware of the self targetting effect, i.e. the well known fusion resulting from
beamed deuterons hitting deuterons already sitting at the metal surface. If
the beam has some kV energy, this has been known since the 1950's (maybe even
earleir) to cause fusion and thus neutrons. Kuehne points this out and says
that these might have been hiding cold fusion neutrons.
 Have a nice Christmas, for those of you who celebrate it, or whatever else
you celebrate (if it's Hanukkah, it's all over but take it retroactively).
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 20-Dec. 1991
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 711
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boya LJ;                                              An. Fis. B86 (1990) 221.
"Possible mechanisms for cold fusion in deuterated palladium".
** Some speculation about cold fusion in the Pd lattice. The stationary state
is first discussed. Deuterium is thought to be present as the neutral D most
of the time, and as d (i.e. deuterons, D+) only a small part of the time; and
to be colliding frequently ("because of the repulsive and big Pd ions").
However, this will not favour their fusion. Possible mechanisms should
therefore be looked for in some non-stationary condition, such as the passing
of a current, or an attractive d-d force in the alpha phase, or lattice
interaction such as overlapping pseudolocalised Bloch waves; or lattice
vibrations; or hysteresis in the alpha/beta transition region. Suggestions are
made for experiments to throw light on the puzzle: the use of ac current to
enhance the current effect, and heating and cooling to exploit the hysteresis
effect.                                                               Sep-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jin S-X, Ding Y-B, Wu B-L, Liu Y-Z, Yao D-C;  Science in China A34 (1991) 697.
"The possibilities of electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium".
** Rather than what the title suggests, this paper looks for some possible
explanations for cold fusion. First the paper calculates the charging time,
based on current density (not diffusion). In section II, the lattice system is
said to be a strongly coupled plasma, and the screening effect of the mobile
electrons might allow closer d-d approach than otherwise. In section III, two
possible mechanisms are suggested. One is the thermal motion of and collision
between deuterons; this results in a large enhancement of fusion at normal
temperatures, but still not enough to measure it. Only at temperatures higher
than the Pd melting point might there be a sufficient effect. The other
possibility is the fusion of D2 molecules formed in the lattice. Again, the
enhancement due to screening is not enough, and loadings thousands of times
that which can be achieved would be required. So some nonequilibrium process
in the lattice may be responsible for the observations.          Jun-89/Jun-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuehne RW;                                        Phys. Lett. A159 (1991) 208.
"Possible explanations for failures to detect cold fusion".
** Kuehne first gives a summary of some of the explanations for the Jones+89
effect, i.e. statistical (pro and con), cosmic influx variations, solar flares
and muon catalysis; all these are now rejected, he says. He then states that
what he calls MHF (micro hot fusion or fractofusion) is the likely candidate.
This would take place in cracks formed by bubbles at dislocations, and those
investigators who did not have the right conditions for this to occur, observe
nothing. E.g., the optimum temperature range is -100..0 degC, and most people
work outside this. Ion implanation would not lead to bubbles and in any case,
any neutrons from MHF would be overwhelmed from self target effects. Neutrons
must be measured at very low background, not easy. Lastly, the burst frequency
is rather low and one must wait a sufficient time. These four factors conspire
to prevent the detection of MHF. The paper gives 108 references, most of which
are "real" (as opposed to preprints or conferences).             May-91/Oct-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qin G, Peng Q, Fu J, Zhang L, Zhang B;
Wuli Xuebao 40(6) (1991) 943 (in Chinese, English abstract).
"Evolution of hydrogen (deuterium) in palladium-hydrogen (deuterium) system
and the distribution of hydrogen near the surface".
** "Hydrogen and deuterium were introduced into palladium cathode in an
electrolysis process for 150 h with light and heavy water as electrolyte,
resp. The palladium cathode used had quenched or annealed after a thermal
treatment at 950 degC. The variation of diffraction pattern and lattice const.
of beta phase of palladium-hydrogen system in air with time were measured by
x-ray diffraction method. The distribution of hydrogen in the surface layer of
palladium-hydrogen system was measured by the nuclear reaction
1H(19F,a-gamma)16O. Comparing a quenched palladium cathode with annealed
palladium cathode, it is shown that the former has higher initial concn. of
hydrogen and faster evolution velocity than the latter after electrolysis. The
concn. of hydrogen reaches max. at the surface of palladium hydrogen system
and its min. at a depth of several hundreds angstroms from the surface".
(Direct quote from the English abstract). Further information from the paper
itself: NaOH and NaOD were used as electrolytes as well as LiOH (LiOD) and
currents of 60 mA/cm**2 and 300-400 mA/cm**2.                    Jul-90/Jun-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.20 / Steven Finberg /  Fleischmann lecture at MIT
     
Originally-From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fleischmann lecture at MIT
Date: 20 Dec 91 09:25:28 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 
Yesterday on 18 Dec 1991 Dr Martin Fleischmann addressed an
overflow crowd at MIT.  There were no major surprises at least to
regular readers of this news group. The talk covered his early
work, some of his motivations and many of the positive results
from other labs.  Most notable was lack of detail on his present
experiments.  I will leave the detailed accounting to any of the
regular reporters present (who likely have a better notes and
literary style!) and will only comment on a few more interesting
statements. The audience was generally friendly and receptive if
skeptical, with two noted exceptions from the MIT Plasma Fusion
lab who were openly hostile.
 
The first is he is still confident they are observing fusion, the
prime evidence of which is heat.
 
On reproducibility - they do get good reproducibility within a lot
of electrode material, however some lots ordered to the same spec
do not work.  It was apparent they don't know why.  He mentioned
the possibility of sample testing lots and making electrodes
from good lots available to other labs.
 
On questions as to analysis of the electrodes during the
experiment he said they do not stop a running cell until it boils
or otherwise stops it self.  Further once stoped they do not have
much luck restarting a cell.   ?? Does this say the electrodes
are one shot??  In discussions after the Q & A he mentioned the
electrodes appear quite pitted after running and speculated the
He4 products of fusion may be escaping by damaging the Pd
lattice.
 
D loading to near 1-1 is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for excess heat.  They assure sufficient loading by properly doing
the electrolysis, which he thinks needs a poison in the
solution.  In the Q & A he wouldn't commit to the necessary
poison :-(.  They do not measure the loading in their cells.
Others have measured loading by a 4 point resistance measurement,
but he felt this was complicated and required to many wires.
In an overheard discussion he mentioned "experimenters would do
well to use Pyrex cells" I took this to be a comment that the
poison would leach out of Pyrex glass.  However he would not
specify the necessary poison.
 
They run their experiments with 99.7% D2O which the cell further
concentrates.  He felt many unsuccessful experiments were due to
diluted D2O.  They have not tried to stop a running cell by adding
H2O.  When asked about the Mills work with H2O cells he said to
ask the people who did it.
 
When questioned as to his candidness and withholding details, he
said he felt he was being very open,  however he is only willing
to comment on things he is sure of.
 
As for his present work, he has gone somewhere "where he won't be
disturbed", correspond via his Southampton address.  They are
working with an alloy material to solve some cracking problems
encountered with pure Pd. He wouldn't say what though.
 
All of the above is from a scribbled set of notes so any
additions, corrections or further comments are certainly welcome.
**********************************************************************
Steve Finberg	  W1GSL				  w1gsl@athena.mit.edu
PO Box 82 MIT Br  Cambridge MA 02139		          617 258 3754
       ....They don't pay me enough to have opinions...
**********************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenw1gsl cudfnSteven cudlnFinberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.22 / John Moore /  Re: Fleischmann lecture at MIT
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann lecture at MIT
Date: 22 Dec 91 03:21:26 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1991Dec20.092528.19472@athena.mit.edu> w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven
 L. Finberg) writes:
]Yesterday on 18 Dec 1991 Dr Martin Fleischmann addressed an
]overflow crowd at MIT.  There were no major surprises at least to
 
]experiments.  I will leave the detailed accounting to any of the
]regular reporters present (who likely have a better notes and
]literary style!) and will only comment on a few more interesting
]statements. The audience was generally friendly and receptive if
 
Thanks for the report. The Wall Street Journal also had a (less technical)
article on it.
 
 
]They run their experiments with 99.7% D2O which the cell further
]concentrates.  He felt many unsuccessful experiments were due to
]diluted D2O.  They have not tried to stop a running cell by adding
]H2O.  When asked about the Mills work with H2O cells he said to
]ask the people who did it.
 
It is my understanding that they used open cells. In an open cell, the
D2O exposed to the air will fairly rapidly be diluted with H2O as
the molecules enter and leave solution at the surface. Thus, one would
expect that any cell left open for a while would end up losing most
of its deuterium.
 
Comments anyone?
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Affirmative Action is Racism by another name - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Fleischmann lecture at MIT
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann lecture at MIT
Date: 22 Dec 91 19:52:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>It is my understanding that they used open cells. In an open cell, the
>D2O exposed to the air will fairly rapidly be diluted with H2O as
>the molecules enter and leave solution at the surface. Thus, one would
>expect that any cell left open for a while would end up losing most
>of its deuterium.
 
This strikes me as tremendously improbable.  As far a I am aware, only in
saturated air is the loss of molecules in equilibrium with the gain of
molecules.  Anything less than saturation results in a net loss due to
evaporation.  The further from saturation the more dominant the loss becomes.
 
Surely you will get some tiny contamination from the atmosphereic H2O, but
the whole solution is more likely to evaporate completely than to become
significantly contaminated  (speaking intuitively, of course.)
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
processed with cud.prl ver. 0.4
