1995.09.05 / ZoltanCCC / The electron capture theory of cold fusion Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: The electron capture theory of cold fusion Date: 5 Sep 1995 02:29:40 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) This has been presented by me before but I feel that it deserves its own thread because I recently re-read some stuff about electron capture in tritium embedded into a metal lattice. This theory was proposed by me earlier under the thread: "Marshall Dudley hypothesis" and several of us contributed to its development. Marshall proposed porpoising deuterons fuse by suddenly appearing on one side of the electron shell in close proximity of one another. After fusion they de-excite by transferring energy to electrons in the nearby shells and free roaming electrons in the lattice. The weakness of this theory is that the excited He4 particle is more likely to de-excite by neutron emission. Any theory of cold fusion needs to explain the lack of high energy and flux particle emission. I believe that the electrons form a sort of cloud near the embedded deuterons, with a charge distribution that is denser near the deuterons than elsewhere. There are a number of electrons involved in this cloud, and this situation creates a shielding effect which might promote fusion reactions, on the other hand raises the possibility of electron capture. The equation for electron capture is: p + e + 0.782MeV -> n + nu From this equation it can be seen that electron capture will not happen until the energy becomes available. On the other hand experimental evidence shows that the reaction happens, electrons are captured from the K and even higher shells such as L,M or N if a proton rich nucleus can cover the energy needed by converting to a less proton rich nucleus. In our case the electron mediates close approach of two deuterons and so I believe has a high likelihood of being captured. After the electron capture we have a weird system that consists of a proton and three neutrons. This is like T with an extra neutron. The extra neutron has no binding energy so it could float away as a thermal neutron or it could take some energy from the T with it. I think it is also possible that the energy available and this neutron rich situation will cause immediate beta decay. In the beta decay an electron and antineutrino are emitted carrying away energy. The complete picture I propose is: d + d + e -> He4 + e + nu + nu' (1) or d + d + e -> He3 + n + e + nu + nu' (2) or d + d + e -> T + n + e + nu (3) In the (3) reaction no beta emission occurs. In all three reactions the products are hard to detect and benign. Thermal neutrons as well as neutrinos go undetected. The thermal neutrons slowly move until they collide with nuclei and cause further reactions that may result in low levels of radiation. The high energy electrons can promote new electron capture reactions, promoting the number of thermal neutrons in the system. Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / ZoltanCCC / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 5 Sep 1995 02:29:52 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I overlooked the fact that the reaction: n + Li7 -> Li6 + n + n requires a high energy neutron and it produces two low energy ones. On the other hand this will not effect our scenario since the other reactions: n + Li6 -> He4 + T D + T -> He4 + n produce energetic neutrons and the reaction D + Li6 -> He4 + He4 produces plenty of heat. Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / Philippe TE / Status of sonoluminescence? Originally-From: phv@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Philippe Verplancke TE ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Status of sonoluminescence? Date: 5 Sep 1995 09:37:20 +0200 Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching Hello, Can somebody bring me up to date on the status of the experiments on sonoluminescence? The last I know was an announcement of upcoming measurements of neutron rates by William Moss and co-workers at Lawrence Livermore NL in the December 1994 issue of Science. Thank you! Regards, Philippe Verplancke, PhD student cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenphv cudfnPhilippe cudlnTE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / Quentin King / Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Originally-From: qak@jet.uk (Quentin King) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Date: 5 Sep 1995 13:11:29 +0100 Organization: JET Joint Undertaking jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: >There were many experiments peformed in 1989 in which people did not see any >positive results, but they did not publish their work, so I do not count them. >How can I? They are invisible. I have heard stories and rumors that "hundreds >of people did CF experiments." I do not think this is true. Whenever I try >to track these stories down, all of the "negative experiments" turn out to be >the same three: Harwell, MIT, and Cal Tech. Since they were all positive, that >reduces the grand total of negative 1989 experiments to zero. What happens >is this: a fellow says, "oh yes, here at XYZ university, we tried CF. It >did not work." I ask, who tried it, what did they do, where did they publish. >The fellow says "I am not sure, it was over in the chemistry department. I >heard someone ran it over there." Call the chemistry department and they say >they heard it was over in the physics department. It turns out the physics >people heard a rumor about an experiment over at another university, they did >not actually try it. It turns out, in most cases, that this other university >was Harwell, MIT or Cal Tech. There are few other documented cases of people >who actually did rush to do a CF experiment, notably at Georgia Tech, but >these experiments were slapped together, begun and finished in less time than >it takes a real CF scientist to finish calibrating a calorimeter, so I do >not think these "rush job replications" mean anything. Some of them were >marred by gross errors like filth and dead insects in the electrolyte. For what it's worth (probably not a lot), I did a CF experiment in June 1989 at the physics department of Bath University (England). I used a small titanium rod as the cathode for discharges of H2O and D20 at a few millibars pressure and about 1kV potential. A plastic disc (high in H atoms) was placed between the flask and a NaI crystal to act as a crude neutron detector and the whole lot was surrounded by an impressive lead shield to protect me and reduce the background count. The detector had a spectrometer connected to measure the energy of incident protons or gammas in the MeV range. I figured that if CF would work with this arrangement, then even a trivial amount of excess heat (which I wasn't attempting to measure) would result in a substantial neutron flux which would be easy to detect (and be dangerous to be near!). Of course I saw nothing at all on the detector, but I did photograph some beautiful purple discharges! Jed, you keep saying that the Harwell results were positive, but I thought that Steven Jones had explained why this was the case and had showed that it was not a reliable positive result. Something to do with cells being open not closed. How sure are you that the Harwell results really were positive? If they were, why didn't the researchers pursue the investigation further? Quentin King ***** **** ***** +--++--+ Quentin King Tel: +44 1235 464438 * * * | /||\ | CODAS Division Fax: +44 1235 464404 * *** * ||*||*|| JET Joint Undertaking Complex problems have * * * * | \||/ | OX14 3EA simple, easy to ** **** * +--++--+ England understand wrong answers. -- *** Quentin King * CODAS * J2/A11 * 4438 (1603) *** =============================================================================== The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking =============================================================================== cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenqak cudfnQuentin cudlnKing cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / jedrothwell@de / Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 09:29:52 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes: "Let me understand what you are saying. If two experiments match in heat output I can claim experimental replication. Suppose I remove the electrodes from the cell and replace them with an ordinary resistive heat element. Clearly, I can chose the resistive element to duplicate the heat signature. Equally obvious is this is not evidence of experimental replication." Don't be ridiculous. Of course I did not mean that. Read the literature and you will see what I meant. Read McKubre. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / Dieter Britz / Re: CF Project Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF Project Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 16:10:05 +0200 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University On 28 Aug 1995, Joseph Raulet wrote: > realmikel@aol.com (REALMIKEL) wrote: > >I am a student doing a project trying to creative positive results with a > ^^^^^^^^ > >CF device or theory. Can anyone help or guide me, please email > > And M. Pain answer: > > >I can only give you one piece of advice: forget it !!! > > > >M. Pain > > Why telling this mister Pain? > Are you suggesting that anyone who try to studing > CF lost its time, or you think that stuying > a subject that has not the approval of the > scientific establishement is an act of herisy? > Maybe both? > > Joseph Raulet I can't speak for M. Pain but I would have said the same, and I can tell you why. Whether you want positive results or not, even a simple CNF experiment is too much for a "project". "Realmikel" ought to read the paper by Green and Quickenden, J. Electroanal. Chem. 389 (1995) 91, "Calorimetric studies of of highly loaded deuterides and hydrides of palladium". In my opinion, this is one of the most careful studies done, and I was surprised at the total lack of comment after I posted my abstract of it here a few months ago. This is the way such experiments should be done, and if Realmikel thinks he can handle that within a project, then I'd say go for it; if not, leave it alone. A shoddy project would only add to the great volume of shoddy work already done in the field. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / prasad / Re: How To Spend the $700 Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700 Date: 5 Sep 1995 13:34:56 GMT Organization: sometimes In article <199509011926.AA15102@storm.fnal.gov>, droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: |> If you all will look at: |> |> http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~richmond/tass.html |> |> you will see what I am up to. It is not "cold fusion". Also better than plain charity. And maybe the ET that might be discovered by the sky search will have working water heaters for sale. Though I'd personally like to see *real* cold fusion, like melting Titanium at 4.2 K... Which fusion is easier, metallurgical or nuclear? :) [There really is a surprise answer, just a year around the corner.] Here's an ode to the CF/GG affair, equally incomplete and unsatisfactory where we're leaving it: ... Stars to the right of them Stars to the left of them Twinkled and thundered.(*) Theirs was not to reason why, Theirs was just to search the sky, Zooming strips of dots and fax. Onto the ridge with CCDs rode the 700... (*) -- 'cos of hot fusion! All right, Tom, here's "relinquishing my hold", with this footnote: .FF If you'd keep the contest open for another year, it might give me just about enough time to wrap my thesis up and claim it, considering that Jed, Tinsley, et all are quite unwilling to flex any theoretical muscles. .FE cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / jedrothwell@de / Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 10:35:19 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Quentin King writes: "I figured that if CF would work with this arrangement, then even a trivial amount of excess heat (which I wasn't attempting to measure) would result in a substantial neutron flux which would be easy to detect (and be dangerous to be near!)." If cold fusion was hot fusion you would be right, but cold fusion produces roughly 10 million times fewer neutrons per watt of heat than hot fusion, so with cold fusion it is much easier to detect the heat than the neutron flux. Nobody knows why, but this fact was known in June 1989. It is a pity you did not confer with other people doing the experiment, they would have told you. "Jed, you keep saying that the Harwell results were positive, but I thought that Steven Jones had explained why this was the case and had showed that it was not a reliable positive result. Something to do with cells being open not closed." I disagree with Jones. The heat at Harwell does not look like it is caused by recombination. Recombination does not turn on after a long loading period. It does not fluctuate like that. It appears soon after you first turn on the cell, and it stays the whole time. When it is intermittent, the bursts would be fairly close together. Light water control cells were wired in series with the heavy water cells. They had the same geometry, but they showed no sign of recombination. (Recombination is caused by inept cell geometry. It rarely occurs.) Melich told me it is conceivable this is recombination, because Williams et al. made no effort to measure effluent gas, and the power levels are barely within the limits of recombination, but the evidence is against that hypothesis. Since the laws of nature are uniform, it seem more likely to me that this is the same excess heat phenomenon seen in so many other cells under similar conditions. Steve Jones dismisses most of these other experiments as "recombination," including the ones at Thermocore which produce 5*I*V and the ones at Amoco and SRI in closed cell flow calorimeters, in which recombination is physically impossible. Jones would probably say that the gas loading and ion beam results are recombination too, if he thought he could get away with it. I do not think that Harwell was a particularly "reliable positive result." It was not a well done experiment. It was a rush job. It was performed by well- meaning young grad students who had no experience in electrochemistry or calorimetry. They got it wrong the first time, but to their credit, they went back and tried again with improved techniques. If they had been allowed to work on it a few more months, or a couple of years, perhaps they would be getting spectacular results by now. The experiment was quickly terminated, just as they were beginning to learn how to them right. They did not get much excess, and they failed to see what little they got. Their algorithms were too complicated. It took Melich & Hansen, who are experienced professionals, to set them straight and improve the precision by an order of magnitude, simply by selecting better methods of processing the data ("least squares optimization over various [selected] time intervals with simultaneous fitting of Kc and Qf.") They managed to work around the inherent design faults of the cells. As they say, "the tidal variations and the wild gyrations are simply due to poor cell design and function." M&H know how to work around these problems. The grad students would have learned how. If they had read the literature through 1992, they also would have learned how to eliminate the tidal variations and other hardware troubles. "How sure are you that the Harwell results really were positive?" I agree with Melich & Hansen's analysis in ICCF3 Proc., p. 307. Careful analysis shows that results agree with P&F and many others. We know that P&F and these others cannot be seeing recombination, and the heat at Harwell does not look like recombination, so I rule that out. "If they were, why didn't the researchers pursue the investigation further?" I do not know, you would have to ask them. My guess is that this was never intended to be a serious replication. There was a rush to judgment about CF in 1989, and an atmosphere of hysterical, irrational antipathy, fear and loathing which continues to this day. As Schwinger said, we are seeing the Death of Science. He meant it, and so do I. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / Dieter Britz / Re: The Amateur Sky Survey Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Amateur Sky Survey Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 16:38:03 +0200 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University On 1 Sep 1995, Tom Droege wrote: > In case any of you have been wondering what I have been doing, > you can look at the home page for The Amateur Sky Survey that > was generously created for tass by Michael Richmond. [...] > If no one can think of a better use soon, I will ask that I > be allowed to spend the $700 on tass. > > Tom Droege Some time ago, we who contributed to the fund that sent Tom to look at Griggs voted that the remaining $700 should go to Scott Little, for testing the Potapov device. I believe Scott may have got one for nothing, but he must still have had some expenses. I don't think we can now simply decide not to send Scott the money, without another vote (I am NOT volunteering to handle that vote!). What's the problem, Tom? After the vote, the only thing left was to send Scott the check. To all the paranoid knights in shining armor: I know Tom and am in no way suggesting that he wants to keep the money; I remember he once posted a plea to help him get rid of it. So I guess there is indeed a problem, something I missed while away during August. Fill me in. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / John Seney / cmsg cancel Originally-From: john@wd1v.mv.com (John Seney) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel Date: 5 Sep 1995 10:43:37 GMT EMP/ECP (aka SPAM) cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca. See news.admin.net-abuse.announce, report 19950905.18 for further details cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSeney cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / Dieter Britz / Garbage heap Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Garbage heap Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 16:55:43 +0200 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University I have been away during all of August, and had no access to Usenet at all; even email was hard. I didn't notice any withdrawal symptoms from not reading this group. On the contrary, I notice distinct boredom and frustration now, seeing that nothing has changed. We still have bloody Wallace and his farce, and Ludwig Pu, and plasmoids, Tom Potter, and silly arguments. This group has been taken over by the nut fringe, and I don't feel like reading it anymore, let alone posting to it. For want of a relevant group, I guess I will still post bibliographic updates here, but other than that, I think I'll leave this garbage heap to the sorters of garbage. Noone seems to want to discuss cold fusion anymore. To the TBs of cold fusion, I have a nice quote I found in a little book by Max Perutz, "Is Science Necessary?" (p.196), in a review he wrote of Peter Medawar's book "Advice to a Young Scientist": "Medawar admonishes the young to formulate hypotheses but not to identify with them. 'The intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or false'. Voltaire put it more strongly: 'In fact, no opinion should be held with fervour. No one holds with fervour that 7 x 8 = 56 because it can be shown to be the case. Fervour is only necessary in commending an opinion which is doubtful or demonstrably false'. I am told that when anybody contradicted Einstein, he thought it over, and if he was found wrong he was delighted, because he felt that he had escaped an error." I leave you to draw your own personal conclusions. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / John Lewis / Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced! Originally-From: court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced! Date: 5 Sep 1995 15:49:44 GMT Organization: Physics Dept at Memorial University NF In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: |> John Lewis writes: |> |> >Redondi emphasises that Galileo was one of the "stars" of Italian thought, |> >with much support among the powerful, including the Pope himself. He |> |> Yes, I know. That is why Galileo got away with such a lousy first-iteration |> experiment. They cut him a lot of slack because he was a scientific V.I.P. Like Martin Fleischmann, F.R.S. |> If he had been some nobody (grad student), they never would have come to look |> through the telescope in the first place. Of if they had come, they would |> have said: "For goodness sake get this thing mounted properly! Get rid of |> these double images. Call us back when you are ready to do the experiment |> right." My point (Koestler's point, really) is that he did a sloppy job at |> first, but he got away with it anyway. We have a romantic, oversimplified |> version of history today, in which the opponents were all nincompoops who |> refused to look through the telescope. Some of them were, but others were |> good scientists with high standards who refused to settled for a half-baked |> experiment. When he started doing it right, they came around. |> |> The parallel to CF is instructive. Many of the 1989 replication were schlock |> science. Hastily contructed by people who did not know what they were doing, |> these experiments proved nothing either way. Even when they appeared to work, |> they proved nothing. However, by the end of 1989, and by mid 1990 many |> good, careful replications emerged. A true scientist at that time would |> critisize the early work, suspend judgement, and wait. When the quality |> experiments from people like Bockris, McKubre and Miles came along, a true |> scientist would come around. That is what the Japanese did, and that is why |> they are seriously at work on CF today. They understand that you have wait, |> and look at results a few years down the road. In the U.S., unfortunately, |> people dismissed CF in a couple of months, before the quality experiments |> even began. This rush to judgement was absurd and unscientific. At the time, |> I was could hardly believe those rabid denouciations. ... However you cut it, I think that CF has been something of a scandal, with supposedly competent, professional scientists, leaders in their fields in some instances, reporting work that was sloppy and ill-considered. Of course, many of them were chemists, which I suppose may explain, if it does not excuse, their work ... half :-) |>Jed John Lewis Newfiejohn cudkeys: cuddy5 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / John Lewis / Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Originally-From: court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Date: 5 Sep 1995 16:15:02 GMT Organization: Physics Dept at Memorial University NF In article , matt@godzilla EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) writes: |> In article browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes: |> |> > You make a valid point that those who haven't studied a field extensively |> > are likely to make mistakes experts wouldn't. Couldn't the same point be |> > made about electrochemists? In essence, they are making claims counter to |> > prevailing expertise of physics and fusion experts who have spent years |> > studying their fields. |> |> Except that, by and large, electrochemists *aren't* saying that. It's |> unfair to tar all electrochemists by pointing to a couple of cranks |> who happen to have degrees in electrochemistry. Martin Fleischmann is NOT a crank. He is (or was) a rather distinguished chemist. |> The vast majority of |> electrochemists aren't making any bizarre claims about getting nuclear |> reactions by pumping current through water. Certainly a true statement. I do think however, that many chemists have attempted to extrapolate their "feel" for chemical reactions to nuclear reactions, without fully appreciating how different the two realms are - for starters, how different the energy scales are. If you've spent your whole life working with energy changes of less than 10 eV per reaction, then 25 keV, let alone 25 MeV, is just a number without affect. And then the *slight* differences [ :-) ] between protium and deuterium - no weak force in chemistry! I would say that the chemists I talked to were much more sanguine about the initial reports about CF than were the physicists - they thought that it might, just might, be some novel form of catalysis. > -- |> Matt Austern He showed his lower teeth. "We |> matt@physics.berkeley.edu all have flaws," he said, "and |> http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt mine is being wicked." |> John Lewis Newfiejohn  cudkeys: cuddy5 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / dchatterjee@ku / Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick Originally-From: dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick Date: 5 Sep 95 11:20:28 CDT Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services Just a thought: The person who first generated the title must be radiating brilliance. - Deb Chatterjee cudkeys: cuddy5 cudendchatterjee cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 11:13:52 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote: > In article <21cenlogic-0109951032360001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>, > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > > In article <420esk$5me@seymour.sfu.ca>, David Naugler wrote: > > > > > Marshall Dudley wrote: > > > > > > >Normally Pd forms covalent bonds sharing electrons. However with hydrogen > > > >and deuterium it forms a ionic bond, with the hydrogen or deuterium losing > > > >an electron to the outer shell of the palladium. (from now on when I say > > > >hydrogen, I mean both hydrogen and deuterium). This leaves the palladium > > > >atom with a -1 charge. > > > > > > I think the Marshall Dudley Hypothesis is worthwhile and parallels my > > own thinking. > > > However, I think the chemistry described above is backwards. The relative > > > electronegativities of hydrogen and most metals is such that the > > hydrogen is found as a > > > -1 hydride and the metal is positive. > > > > ***{Your description does not seem to apply to an electrolysis > > experiment--not while the current is turned on, at any rate. In > > electrolysis experiments, hydrogen ions are attracted to the negative > > terminal (the cathode), which implies that their charge is positive. (If > > they were negatively charged, they would move in the opposite direction.) > > Moreover, in the Pons-Fleischmann setup (which is being discussed here), > > the cathode is made of palladium, which would make the palladium negative > > by definition. Further, I can't see how your description would apply to a > > loaded palladium cathode even after the current was turned off. I would > > expect that the H ions within the lattice (i.e., the protons and > > deuterons), due to their positive charges, would slowly migrate to the > > surface of the metal, pick up stray electrons, form H2 molecules, and > > bleed off into the atmosphere. A loaded palladium cathode, when the > > current was turned off, would thus retain a sizable positive charge for > > some time, due very explicitly to the presence of the protons and > > deuterons. Does anyone know if this description fits the facts? --Mitchell > > Jones}*** > > > > > I believe as the H+ ions enter the cathode a corresponding flow of > electrons enters the cathode. Otherwise, the cathode would quickly reach > millions of volts! So, we can assume an electrically balanced condition > inside the cathode. ***{The point here is to accurately visualize what is going on in the palladium cathode. To do that, we must accept the fact that the hydrogen ions (protons and/or deuterons) retain their positive charges until *after* they enter the cathode. Think about it: if, when a hydrogen ion appeared at the surface of the cathode, it were to be handed an electron, it would immediately become electrically neutral, and would cease to be attracted to the cathode. In that case, it would bubble away as a gas and loading would be impossible. Here, instead, is what must happen: (1) When an H+ reaches the surface of the cathode, it retains its charge, and enters the lattice structure. (2) The presence of H+ ions within the outer layers of the lattice gives those layers a positive charge, while the inner layers retain their negative charges. (3) When enough H+ ions have packed into the outer layers of the cathode to neutralize the charge of the cathode, the voltage gradient between the anode and the surface of the cathode disappears, and the H+ ions in solution are no longer attracted to the surface of the cathode. Thus the + charge in the outer layer of the cathode does not build up to "millions of volts," but only to the level necessary to eliminate the voltage gradient from anode to the surface of the cathode. In effect, the anode charge migrates into the outer surface of the palladium electrode, and the cathode charge retreats into the inner portion of the palladium electrode. (4)) Once the anode's charge has migrated to the surface of the cathode via this mechanism, loading of the palladium electrode does *not* cease, because H+ ions on the inner surface of the positive region are constantly having electrons passed to them from the negatively charged central region. Each time this happens, the affected H+ ion becomes a neutral H atom. However, it can't bubble out of the solution, because it is trapped inside the palladium electrode. (5) Each time a new, neutralized hydrogen atom is added to the pool of those trapped inside, the positive charge of the surface region drops slightly, and a new H+ ion enters the surface region from the outside, again eliminating the voltage gradient between the anode and the surface of the cathode. (6) Then, another H+ ion inside the palladium electrode is handed yet another electron and neutralized. (7) Then, another H+ ion enters the surface. And on and on it goes, until saturation loading is approached, and, hopefully, "cold fusion" kicks in. Bottom line: it isn't necessary that the cathode achieve a charge of "millions of volts;" but it *is* necessary that it build up a positively charged region on its outer surface, in order for the loading process to take place at all. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some mistaken thoughts I > previously posted here. First, some data from the Handbook of Chemistry > and Physics (HCP) and a Sargent-Welch periodic table. All sizes in A > (1e-10 m). > > Radius of Pd atom: (Pd) 1.79, (Pd covalent) 1.28, (Pd+2) .80, (Pd+4) .65 > Radius of H atom: (H) .79, (H-1) 1.54, H (covalent) .32 > Bond lengths: (H-H) .746, (Pd-Pd) 2.751 > Density of Pd: 12.0 g/cm^3 > At. Wt. of Pd: 106.4 > > Now, the Pd lattice is cubic, face centered. You could imagine building > this lattice by taking 1 atom thick sheets of spheres arranged in square > patterns and laying them one on top of each other, but the top layer atoms > resting naturally in the spaces between the bottom layer atoms. The bonds > formed are between atoms in seperate layers only. If we call the distance > between alternate sheets S, then the bond length D will be 1/2 the length > of the diagonal of the cube S^3, or .866 S. I seem to recall the jist of > this being posted before. > > For simplicity sake let's assume all atoms are spheres. Now, applying > common sense, suppose we considered an imaginary Pd made up of only > alternate sheets. It would have half the density, or 6.0 g.cm^3. Also, > each atom would occupy a cube (S^3) of volume V. Applying Avogadro's > number we get 6.79E22 atoms/cm for Pd. Our half density sheets would > therefore have 3.40E22 atoms/cm^3, so V = 2.94E-23 cm^3, and S = 3.09E-8 > cm^3 = 3.09 A. This gives D = 2.67 A, which corresponds within about 3 > percent with the published bond length of 2.751. So this is good, common > sense and published values agree. > > Now this means we have a radius R for Pd in the lattice because R =.5 D = > 1.38 A. This radius corresponds best with a covalent radius. > > Now, the largest sphere that can be placed between the Pd spheres is > diameter d = S - R - R = S - D = .134 S. Since S = 3.09 A, d = (.134 * > 3.09) A = .414 A. This means the H atom will have a radius r = .5 d = .207 > A. This appears to be too small to be covalent (i.e. .32), so we are led > to think the bond must be ionic. This agrees with other chemistry if I > recall correctly, and is the basis for Marshall Dudley's Hypothesis. > Loading above 1-1 leaves no room for H orbitals. > > Anyone, please comment on flaws in this line of reasoning. > > > For palladium with valences of +2 and +4 there > > > would be two deuterides, PdD2 and PdD4 possible. Note that if these are > > formed at the > > > cathode surface, free deuterium cations (deuterons) in solution would be > > accelerated into > > > a deuteride (anion). Quantum mechanics is rich enough to allow a > > decription of a process > > > where the deuteron tunnels through the electron cloud of the deuteride. > > Note that the > > > electrons provide a shielding of the mutual electrostatic repulsion of > > the nuclei, just > > > like in muon calalyzed deuterium fusion. > > > > > > > =========================================================== > > -- > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace, your posts are tightly focused, high on content and relevant logic, and are excellent food for thought. I, for one, appreciate them very much. Thank you! --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy05 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / ZoltanCCC / Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion Date: 5 Sep 1995 15:10:38 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I made a mistake in the (3) reaction above, correctly it should read: d + d + e -> T + n + nu (3) Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / Lawrence Mead / Re: Cold Fusion information available Originally-From: lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion information available Date: 5 Sep 1995 13:40:08 GMT Organization: University of Southern Mississippi Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote: : Note followup. : In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: : > : >Let me start with the last question from Patrick P. E. Esch : >: : > : > "Why didn't anybody see anything, except these Japanese corporate : > scientists ?" : > : >Hey, Pat: please rewind the thread and go back to my first message with the : >short bibliography. : Which was, unfortunately, spammed to both sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion : without followups being set to the appropriate group -- sci.physics.fusion. : If it had been crossposted with the followup set correctly, I would not : have to read the same repetitive discussion in two places and Pat would : find a place with lots more than this being said. : This entire discussion belongs in the fusion newsgroup, not here. : It is reasonable to have periodic cross posts, such as the hot fusion : FAQ introduction, but keep fusion discussions where they belong. And why shouldn't we discuss fusion here?? It seems to me that fusion is an entirely appropriate topic for sci.physics, Jim. -- Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION ! http://www.usm.edu/usmhburg/sci_tech/phy/mead.html cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenlrmead cudfnLawrence cudlnMead cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / Emeka Nwankwo / USED EQUIPMENT FOR AFRICAN HIGH SCHOOL Originally-From: nwankweo@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Emeka Nwankwo) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: USED EQUIPMENT FOR AFRICAN HIGH SCHOOL Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 15:22:48 GMT Organization: DuPont Hi: I just received a rather urgent request from a high school principal in Africa for USED science equipment, OLD computers, and USED books. Does anyone know where to start looking? Any leads? Thanks a million. Emeka cudkeys: cuddy5 cudennwankweo cudfnEmeka cudlnNwankwo cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.05 / jedrothwell@de / Re: CF Project Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF Project Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 17:28:12 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Dieter Britz writes: >"Calorimetric studies of of highly loaded deuterides and hydrides of >palladium". In my opinion, this is one of the most careful studies done, >and I was surprised at the total lack of comment after I posted my >abstract of it here a few months ago. This is the way such experiments >should be done, and if Realmikel thinks he can handle that within a >project, then I'd say go for it; if not, leave it alone. A shoddy project I have not commented on it because I have not read the paper yet. However, I did discuss the work with the authors, and I disagree with your statement that "This is the way such experiments should be done." I say this is the way such experiments should be begun. Do it just like that, but pay more attention to the pretesting and cathode preparation techniques, and do it several dozen times more than Q&G did it." McKubre had to repeat his experiment many more times than Q&G did for each hot run. Based on his success rate, I would not expect them to see anything. Q&G ran out of time. They were heading in the right direction, but they were not able to give the experiment a fair chance of success. I cannot say more because I do not know the details yet. I do know how many times they ran it. (Or at least, I have that number written down somewhere, and I compared it to McKubre's hit rate.) I agree 100% with your statement that a shoddy project is worse than nothing. You and I do not often see eye to eye, but in this case I think you hit the nail on the head. From what I have heard so far I also agree that Q&G probably did a good job, but I am sure they did not do it enough. To some extent, looking for a CF reaction is like searching for a quark. You have to keep shooting at the target many times before you hit it. I also think that Q&G may not have conferred with the other CF scientists as much as I would have recommended. I think it is essential to speak directly with the other experts, and ask for explicit instructions and help. SRI has now published their patent applications and a great deal of other detailed information. I do not know if Q&G got a chance to read that material, but even if they did I would urge them to also discuss the matter directly with McKubre and others if possible. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Sep 6 04:37:12 EDT 1995 ------------------------------