1995.09.07 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion Date: Thu, 07 Sep 1995 08:18:31 GMT Organization: Improving In article <42gqok$1fv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ZoltanCCC wrote : [snip] >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) > I believe this last should be: d + d + e -> T + p + e + nu > >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 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy07 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / Robin Spaandonk / CF emissions Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: CF emissions Date: Thu, 07 Sep 1995 08:18:34 GMT Organization: Improving Regardless of the actual reaction involved, it would seem to me that any reaction "beyond chemistry" would have to result in at least some photons in the visible spectrum, either directly or indirectly. This means that any such experiment that was actually producing excess energy, ought to glow in the dark. Does this happen? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy07 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / Richard Schultz / Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced! Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced! Date: 7 Sep 1995 08:30:36 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: >You are quite right. There was a lot of sloppy, scandalous CF work from >professional scientists -- leaders in their fields even -- in the early >days of CF. The experiments at Cal Tech and MIT were particularly >egregious examples of this. Quite unforgivable. Schlock science. You can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try. *Either* the experiments at Cal Tech and MIT were done correctly (although misinterpreted) and yielded positive results *or* they were "sloppy" "schlock" science and do not prove anything one way or the other. >The papers from Pons and Fleischmann, on the other hand, were a model of >how to do groundbreaking science on a shoestring. Their papers are always >difficult, even for an expert, but they are superb, and everything they >said about calorimetry and excess heat has been proved right. They were >a little off on neutrons, but as Stan Pons says, being half right in >science is a great accomplishment. If you think that Pons and Fleischmann's only mistake was being "a little off" in the neutrons then you must not have read the same papers I did. The original neutron "spectra" were not "a little off" -- they were completely wrong, and clearly presented by people who didn't understand what they were doing. Likewise for their original claims to have detected beta particles. Likewise for their claim of a "meltdown" for an experiment that was pretty clearly the victim of a hydrogen fire. Likewise their "forgetting" to include the name of the third author on the original paper. I wouldn't call their original claim of 4x excess heat a mistake or even a lie, but I think to say "we *would* have goten 4x heat had we done the experiment a different way" to be a trifle misleading. -- Richard Schultz "French bread makes very good skis" cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / Bruce TOK / Re: Fusion by "Hyper-shear" Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion by "Hyper-shear" Date: 7 Sep 1995 11:30:51 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching MRichar353 (mrichar353@aol.com) wrote: : barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: : >You forget to cover solar fusion, muon-catalyzed fusion, and the : >spontaneous generation of the universe. But I'm sure your theory is : >general enough to cover these effects as well. : I have a feeling that his theory is general to cover all phenomena, even : those which don't occur. I guess that may be why we won't see an MHD simulation of his vorticity shear phenomenon any time soon. -- Mach's gut! Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / I Weld / Sonoluminescence Water Originally-From: iweld4u@aol.com (I Weld 4U) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Sonoluminescence Water Date: 7 Sep 1995 10:53:06 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I'm building an icosahedral array of piezoelectric transducers to see if higher and more uniform sound fields will give brighter sonoluminescence. The array will be immersed in degassed water. Since I'll be using so much water I need a way to prepare lots and don't want to try batch after batch. My proposed process would be to boil water in the microwave for five minutes in a pressure cooker and then cool without breaking the regulator seal, in the fridge, and to break the seal only just before use. I think I want a floating cover over the immersion tank to limit air reabsorbtion. Ideally, I'd like to buy 55 gallon drums of appropriately processed water. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudeniweld4u cudfnI cudlnWeld cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / Anderson Mpower / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: mpowers9@temasek.teleview.com.sg (Anderson @ Mpower) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 7 Sep 1995 23:06:11 +0800 Organization: Teleview, Singapore Telecom On behalf of Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net), who wrote: : In article <1995Aug31.110105@oxvaxd>, dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk wrote: : > In article , : browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes: : > > In article <41vumi$1t96@seminole.gate.net>, wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan : > > G. Wallace) wrote: : > : > snip : > : > > : > >>In doing a literature search for our Eckerd College Ionics Research : Project, I : > >>came across a series of articles published from 1949 to 1966 in the journal : > >>REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS. The articles gave detailed : instructions on : > >>how to make relatively simple gas discharge tube D + D and D + T neutron : > >>generators and how to measure the neutrons produced by them. My log entry : > >>dated 8/15/74 shows we could get 10g of lithium deuteride from Merck & : Co. for : > >>$73 and a 50 liter lecture bottle of 99.5% pure deuterium for $58 from : > >>Matheson Gas Products. The Ionics Lab already had all the vacuum and >snip< -read on-... : > I was waiting for someone else to point this out, but no one has, so I : > guess I will. Such devices are in fact quite common and are commercially : > available. They consist of a tube with an electrostatic accelerator and a : > target with deuterium or tritium. They are used to produce neutrons for well : > logging. They do not by any stretch of the imagination produce net energy : > gain, however. : > : > Dave Wark : An intriguing post! Very puzzling. What, exactly, do you mean by "well : logging?" Surely such a device is not lowered into bore holes! : >snip!< : Am I in the ball park at all? : --Mitchell Jones : =========================================================== The answer is yes: Neutron absorption is a characteristic measured during the logging operation of petroleum drilling. I seem to recall something about the relationship between lithological density, velocity, and the absorption of neutrons. Precisely how this information is used, I forget, but you could always call up Schlumberger Wireline Services and ask them... <@slb.com> I heard about this during my years _upstream_ of the well-digging operations in the seismic side of geophysics. regards, Paul Anderson -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Discover the businesses of MENSA members at the MpowerBase: http://cyber-active.com/mpower Mpower Consultants, Ltd.(M^) cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenmpowers9 cudfnAnderson cudlnMpower cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / Arnie Frisch / Re: FULLERENE FUSION SEARCHING FOR LIQUID D Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: FULLERENE FUSION SEARCHING FOR LIQUID D Date: 7 Sep 1995 08:01:54 -0700 Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR In article <42inok$dub@newsbf02.news.aol.com> coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar) writes: >We are working with endohedrally loaded carbon fullerenes as a confinement >matrix. We are interested in the highest possible concentration of >deuterons inside the fullerene cage. We are interested in running an >experiment...... ....... ...... .... ... .. >....... We have established some intellecutual property >rights in this area a successful collaboration could be very rewarding. What intellectual property rights? A set of unproven conjectures? Certainly not a patent? Arnold Frisch Tektronix Laboratories ------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / VNONINSKI@FSC. / Recombination and Excess Heat Originally-From: VNONINSKI@FSC.EDU Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Recombination and Excess Heat Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:34:18 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Dear Colleagues, Mitchell Jones has the right to question the conclusions in the paper by Steven Jones et al (J.Phys.Chem. 99, 6973 (1995)). The type of recombination these authors consider cannot explain the apparent excess heat during electrolysis of water. This should be evident to anyone who carefully reads the paper in question. I will post on this matter in another message to the net. Sincerely, Vesselin Noninski cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenVNONINSKI cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / Mark Hittinger / ? Singularity Technology ? Originally-From: bugs@news.win.net (Mark Hittinger) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: ? Singularity Technology ? Date: 7 Sep 1995 12:22:11 -0400 Organization: Win.Net Communications, Inc. Just saw this come in - haven't seen any mention on this group... FYI > From: (Charles Cagle) > Newsgroups: misc.invest.stocks > Subject: Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough - Need Cash > Date: Thu, 07 Sep 1995 02:12:40 -0800 > Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc. > Looking for non-flame advice. > I just filed a patent application on a new process associated with nuclear > fusion. I have spent years on the project and most of last year writing > out the specification etc. which went to 67 pages with 13 formal > drawings. This is brand new breakthrough technology. The end result is > that it makes it possible to build a safe, small, portable, clean, nuclear > fusion reactor which a desktop sized model could power a home for 10 years > on less than $10 worth of deuterium. > Got any suggestions on how I should obtain financing for this project? > Or know anyone who might be interested in such a venture? I am currently > putting together a SCOR offering for Oregon. (Small Corporate Offering > Registration). Most SCOR offerings don't fly, however, so I'm trying to > find alternative sources of capital. -- "This is going to cause more confusion than a mouse in a burlesque show." - Foghorn Leghorn. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / Alan M / Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Date: Thu, 07 Sep 1995 17:45:47 +0100 Organization: Home In article: <42n67j$qe7@ns1.win.net> bugs@news.win.net (Mark Hittinger) writes: > Just saw this come in - haven't seen any mention on this group... FYI > Cagle posts here occasionally. His messages make him sound like a close relative of Archimedes Plutonium and/or Bryan Wallace. He gets *very* angry with anybody who doesn't show adequate respect for non-orthodox physics. (Now THAT'S one use I wouldn't like to see Tom Droege's $700 put to! ) -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy07 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / Barry Merriman / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 7 Sep 1995 17:26:20 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <42fj1k$gqc@newsbf02.news.aol.com> zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes: > > > The Lithium deuteride reactor would be a fusion-fission reactor because > the bulk of the energy is produced by fusion, the neutron amplification is > caused by fission. Based on this thread the reactions are: > > d + d -> He3 + n Partly from the initiator device > > Li7 + n -> Li6 + n + n Neutron amplification > > n + Li6 -> T + He4 > > T + d -> He4 + n > > d + Li6 -> He4 + He4 > > > > So to summarize, I propose a cone shaped Lithium deuteride device that > produces heat when exposed to neutrons from a gas discharge electric > neutron source. Uhhh...thats what currently invisioned fusion reactors (tokamaks, etc) essentially are, though there is no need to deuterate the Li as d + Li reaction isn't going to occur (too much coulomb barrier). -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.06 / Dave Oldridge / Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Originally-From: doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Dave Oldridge) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 16:40:53 -0300 Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: > In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > > >browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes: > > > > "The issue isn't whether or not several watts of power have been > > detected. The issue is what produces that heat." > > > >No, the issue is that the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry, and that power > >density and I/O ratio is very high in some cases. Whatever produces it must be > >an important scientific mystery, and a potentially vital technology. What > >matters is the fact that the heat exists, not what causes it. > > From a business perspective, I agree that it might not matter where the > heat comes from. However, from a scientific perspective the origin of the > heat and mechanism is the issue. It would be utterly ridiculous for a > scientist to ignore the origin of the heat an mechanism of its production. I think, in the long run, it matters from a business persepctive as well. The only way we are going to fully exploit any technology based on these findings is to get to the bottom of the underlying physics. That's why I'm encouraged when I see people making things that CAN be duplicated readily. Only by very carefully examining an operating device with consistent behavior, then modifying one thing at a time by small increments, can we be really sure that we know exactly what's going on. And only by knowing exactly what's going on will we be able to fully exploit it commercially. You don't have to know much about fire to use it effectively, but you also won't be able to build an efficient furnace unless you do understand it a lot. -- Dave Oldridge doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca cudkeys: cuddy06 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.06 / Dave Oldridge / Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited Originally-From: doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Dave Oldridge) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 17:07:26 -0300 Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network In article <21cenlogic-0509951113520001@austin-2-12.i-link.net>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > ***{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}*** This can, I think be experimentally verified with a probe in the electrolyte near the affected electrode. There should be a fair sized voltage difference. -- Dave Oldridge doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca cudkeys: cuddy06 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.07 / ZoltanCCC / Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited Date: 7 Sep 1995 01:56:21 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) The protons while they are in the liquid do not acquire an electron shell because there are no electrons in the liquid. The cathode on the other hand is a metal with easily moving electrons roaming in it. As soon as a proton or deuteron is nearby the cathode it acquires an electron shell because it is energetically favorable for the electron to orbit the proton. The electrons are not just inside the cathode but they also fly out to a short distance. As soon as the proton acquires its electron shell it becomes free in terms of electrostatic attraction to the cathode but it does not buble out because it is attracted to the cathode by van der walls forces. (a result of the perturbation of the electron shell by the field of the cathode) If the cathode cannot absorb hydrogen it will just collect on its surface until the atoms organize into H2 molecules that form a buble which will have water surface tension to keep its shape and water pressure pushing it up separating it from the cathode. On the other hand if the cathode metal can absorb hydrogen and it is currently empty (this depends on cathode preparation and outgassing) the H atoms will enter the cathode simply because of thermal diffusion. P & F talks about some kind of electric pressure pushing them in but I don't see how. Regarding the water molecules surrounding every proton they probably reduce the proton's mobility while it is in solution and just float away when the proton becomes neutralized. Incidentally Kasagi et al was saying that they routinely deuterated Titanium to a level of 1.2, I wonder whether that means that deuterating Palladium to 1.2 is feasible. Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.06 / Charles Cagle / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: (Charles Cagle) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories, ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.rese rch,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 23:44:25 -0800 Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc. In article <42dtc2$gg5@navajo.gate.net>, wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace) wrote: Various and sundry remarks concerning Lithium fusion. Added to this were remarks by others who thought that the 'Shrimp' device somehow generated 15 Kilotons of TNT explosive power by being a pure fusion weapon. Threads like these make it evident that few of the participants have done their homework. The neutrons are useful for initiating or boosting the fission portion of the weapon primarily. The catalyst for envolvement of the lithium deuteride rod are the soft x-rays generated by an intense burst of hard x-rays and gamma rays (from the fission portion of the weapon) which ionizes a high Z foil which separates or lies between the fission portion of the weapon and the fusion fuel rod. The high Z atoms absorb the high energy gamma and hard x-rays and immediately re-emit them as soft x-rays which then pours through the fusion fuel rod in an intense burst. There is a coupling which occurs between the deuterons and the soft x-rays which cannot occur between hard x-rays or gamma rays. The exact mechanism which engenders fusion at this point is totally missed by the designers themselves. It is not the energy imparted to the deuterons but a special relationship that develops between them (and is not collisional) which allows them to undergo nuclear fusion. So, simply because a fusion bomb works is not evidence that those who design them know the exact mechanism of fusion itself. The Chinese had gunpowder for a thousand years and brought it to a high art without understanding the chemistry behind it. Because they have not known this one secret is the reason why controlled 'hot' fusion processes will never work. Best Regards, -- Charles Cagle Singularity Technologies, Inc, 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W. Salem, OR 97304 emai> singtech@teleport.com Ph/Fx 503/362-7781 I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed, Hid privily, a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts. - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound email> singtech@teleport.com cudkeys: cuddy06 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.01 / jonesse@plasma / Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons Date: 1 Sep 95 14:03:03 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University In article <199508301742.MAA26875@shark>, Paul Dietz writes: > In article <199508301356.JAA46619@pilot06.cl.msu.edu> > blue@pilot.msu.edu wrote: > > > Kasagi et al. bombarded a titanium deuteride target with 150 keV deuterons > > and observed the charged particle spectrum emitted. The claim is that > > there are "anomolous protons" at 17 MeV included in that spectrum. > > > > Before we read too much into this result I think a simple discussion of > > the likely experimental problems is in order. First we need to ask the > > basic question, "How clean is the experiment?" In other words what is > > there in the target other than titanium and deuterium, and what is in the > > beam other than 150 keV deuterons? > > > The other question to ask is: is(are) the detector(s) they used > susceptible to pileup? If so, one can get roughly 17 MeV by, for > example, combining the proton from d+d fusion with the neutron from t > + d fusion (other pileups are also possible.) If the tritium > recoiling from one d+d fusion itself reacts before stopping in the > target, the two particles would be produced nearly simultaneously, and > this artifact could occur even at low beam current. > > Paul The probability of getting a neutron from t+d fusion following d+d --> t + p is down by about a factor of a million from the d+d fusion. Then the probability of detecting this 14 MeV neutron in a thin surface barrier detector is also very small, I'd guess less than 10^-4. So the pile-up suggested evidently cannot yield the 17 MeV proton signal at a rate of 10^-6 that of 3 MeV protons (from the d+d primary reaction). The numbers do not work out. Still, some kind of reaction with contaminants may be occuring as Dick suggests, or some kind of pileup or even electronic artifact. However, Kasagi et al. do see a change as they change angle -- the kinematic studies are highly suggestive of a three-body reaction, as hard as this is to believe. The broad bump at 17 MeV is seen for Ti (first tried), but also for Zr, Pd, Pt, and Au targets now. The question is: why not check out the claim? This is rather straightforward given a 150 keV d+ beam and TiDx targets, and surface barrier detectors. A delta-E & E telescope would be ideal; or one could simply use foil degraders to knock out the 3 MeV p signal from d+d to prevent interference from this reaction. Dick and Paul: please send your updated FAX numbers so I can transmit the Kasagi paper to you for further comment... (others welcomed, too). I'd like to try this experiment unless a real problem is identified. --Steven Jones/BYU cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.01 / jonesse@plasma / Recombination and apparent xs heat Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Recombination and apparent xs heat Date: 1 Sep 95 14:15:55 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University Mitchell Jones questions the possibility that recombination of D2 and O2 (or H2 and O2) in an electrolytic cell could result in apparent excess heat, as we claimed in our paper, "Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during electolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in 'cold fusion' cells," J. Phys. Chem., 99 (1995) 6973. Mitchell would be well advised to read our paper before making such comments (he obviously has not done so yet). Briefly, the problem arises when experimenters use open cells then *assume* that all the input energy which goes to decompose the water is simply lost as the gases all bubble out of the cell. P&F (early experiments at least), Mills, Srinivasan and others made these assumptions, for example. But what we (and others) have shown is that recombination *in* the cell can be in fact significant. This chemical process leads to generation of substantial heat, which appears to be excess heat when 100% Faradaic eff. (no recombination) is erroneously assumed. Read the paper, Mitchell. --Steven Jones cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Sep 8 04:37:05 EDT 1995 ------------------------------