1995.09.12 / Mitchell Jones / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 15:40:56 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <4321gi$c6e@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote: > This is the first time I have heard about the protoneutron theory of cold > fusion. I would be interested in finding out if there have been previous > references to it anywhere. ***{My basic approach to physics has been developed extensively in articles which I have published in recent years. Those articles contain the theoretical underpinnings of the protoneutron theory. As for explicit allusions to that basic idea, well, they have been confined to private conversations plus an occasional comment in this newsgroup or in e-mail to the effect that "Cold fusion ain't fusion." Otherwise, I have avoided getting into the theory because (a) it has massive technological implications, and (b) I had hoped to somehow acquire financing and set up a lab to develop those implications. However, that was not to be. (I have no "credentials" in physics, so why would anyone invest in a company that pursued research paths chosen by me?) Bottom line: the first formal presentation of the theory was in the post to which you responded. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > In any case this theory very much resembles what I posted recently under > the heading "The electron capture theory of cold fusion". ***{This strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Let's check it out together. Your "electron capture" post, with my annotations, follows. To distinguish my annotations within this quoted material from those outside of it, I will use $$$ rather than *** for purposes of demarcation. Your "electron capture" post follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This has been presented by me before but I feel that it deserves its own > thread because I recently re-read some stuff about electron capture in > tritium embedded into a metal lattice. > > This theory was proposed by me earlier under the thread: "Marshall Dudley > hypothesis" and several of us contributed to its development. $$${Note: Marshall explained his hypothesis as follows: "When Palladium absorbs hydrogen, it is not going into the interstices of the crystal. Instead it is combining with the Palladium chemically, sort of. 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. Normally an ionic bond creates two atoms attracted to each other electrostaticly. However when hydrogen loses an electron, it no longer has a shell, all we have is a proton (or proton and neutron with deuterium). Thus we cannot have two atoms attracted electrostatically. Instead the proton is electrostatically attracted INTO the outer shell of the palladium. At this point it sees part of the charge of the palladium nucleus and is repelled back outside of the outer shell. When outside the shell it sees a -1 charge, but when inside the outer shell it sees a +11 charge (the outer shell of Pd had 10 electrons, plus the extra from the hydrogen). This action I will call porpoising, since it is similar to how a porpoise swims at the surface of the water. I would expect that the proton would be inside of the outer shell only about 9% of the time due to the differences in the charges it sees when inside vs outside the shell." [End of quote from Marshall] Note that Marshall is using a totally different concept of lattice loading than the one employed by me. In my view, at the beginning of loading the unit cells in the lattice are empty, and so when an H+ ion acquires an electron, it forms a neutral hydrogen atom and becomes lodged in the unit cell where the event occurred. In Marshall's view, on the other hand, the protons do not become neutral hydrogen atoms trapped in a specific unit cell. Instead, they lose their electron to the outer shell of one of the adjacent palladium atoms, and thereafter "porpoise" in that outer electron shell. Marshall's picture of the situation was the context of Zoltan's comments, which follow. --Mitchell Jones}$$$ > > Marshall proposed that porpoising deuterons fuse by suddenly appearing on one > side of the electron shell in close proximity to one another. After fusion > they de-excite by transferring energy to electrons in the nearby shells > and to free roaming electrons in the lattice. The weakness of this theory is > that the excited He4 particle is more likely to de-excite by neutron > emission. Any theory of cold fusion needs to explain the lack of high > energy and flux particle emission. > > I believe that the electrons form a sort of cloud near the embedded > deuterons, with a charge distribution that is denser near the deuterons > than elsewhere. $$${Here you continue to work within the context of Marshall's picture of the situation, speaking of the deuterons as being "embedded" in the outer shells of palladium atoms in the lattice. Let me reemphasize, therefore, that in my opinion when an H+ (or a D+, as you are discussing) acquires an electron in an empty unit cell, it forms a neutral hydrogen atom and becomes trapped in that cell. It does *not* give up its electron to a palladium outer shell and begin to "porpoise" there. --Mitchell Jones}$$$* There are a number of electrons involved in this cloud $$${True: the outer shell of a neutral palladium contains 18 electrons. Under Marshall's hypothesis, that number, plus 1 more acquired from the porpoising deuterium nucleus, gives a total of 19 electrons in the outer shell of the palladium. On the other hand, by my theory of loading, none of this is happening. I see the deuterium (or hydrogen) nucleus with an electron in its K shell, wedged in the center of the unit cell, and relatively immobile. You and Marshall, on the other hand, see it as "porpoising" in the outer shell of a palladium. These are radically different views of the situation. --Mitchell Jones}$$$ , > and this situation creates a shielding effect which might promote fusion > reactions, on the other hand raises the possibility of electron capture. > The equation for electron capture is: > > p + e + 0.782MeV -> n + nu > > From this equation it can be seen that electron capture will not happen > until the energy becomes available. On the other hand experimental > evidence shows that the reaction happens, electrons are captured from the > K and even higher shells such as L,M or N if a proton rich nucleus can > cover the energy needed by converting to a less proton rich nucleus. In > our case the electron mediates close approach of two deuterons and so I > believe has a high likelihood of being captured. $$${Here, you are discussing the situation that arises, under Marshall's theory, after more than one deuterium nucleus is "porpoising" around the same palladium. The idea which Marshall had was that one of the porpoising D+ nuclei would be just inside of the palladium's electron shell while the other would be just outside, but near the same location on the shell. Result: the intervening "electron cloud" would screen their positive charges from one another, attenuate their Coulomb repulsion, and allow fusion of the two nuclei. Here, you begin to disagree with Marshall. The picture is the same: you, like him, are visualizing two D+ ions porpoising on opposite sides of a palladium shell at the same location. However, by your "electron capture" theory, the two porpoising nuclei do not fuse. Instead, one of them captures the electron that is screening them from one another, and collapses to form a neutron. At this point, Zoltan, we are massively in disagreement. Not merely do I reject this picture of "porpoising" hydrogen nuclei, but I also reject your notion that neutron formation would occur under these circumstances. The reason: *you have not filled the unit cell.* Plenty of space is available for the p + e pair to form a neutral hydrogen atom, and the energy for such a transformation is thermally available. Given those facts, it is manifestly absurd to suppose that the preferred reaction path would involve a collapse of the two particles together to form a neutron! As is noted in every elementary textbook on nuclear physics, and as you yourself admitted in your post, a proton-electron pair needs to somehow acquire more than .78 Mev to form a neutron! That energy is manifestly *not* available, except in the vanishingly rare cases where a stray gamma or cosmic ray happens to tool through the lattice from outside. With the energy necessary to form a neutral hydrogen atom being orders of magnitude less, and with the required space available, *it is obvious that this will be the preferred transformation.* Bottom line: your "electron capture" scenario is not a theory at all, because it posits a double absurdity: that the first H+ or D+ to meet an electron in the cell would "porpoise" (rather than form a neutral atom and wedge in the center of the unit cell) and then, to compound the matter, that the second one would "porpoise" as well. *It won't happen, Zoltan.* The first D+ (or H+) into the cell will form a neutral hydrogen atom, and the second one in will form a protoneutron. The protoneutron, in turn, will only have a fleeting existence, unless it is created in a region of the lattice where all of the unit cells are occupied. Bottom line: your "electron capture" notion does not explain "cold fusion." Instead, it posits magical events which, themselves, cannot be explained. Nor does it "very closely resemble" my protoneutron theory. You were working with a totally different visual model of what is happening in the lattice, and the neutron formation mechanism which you postulated could not, in fact, occur. To repeat: neutron formation is *not* the preferred reaction path in the situation which you have set up. While neutron formation is, in fact, the key process underlying "cold fusion," *it is not enough to merely suspect that to be the case.* In addition, you have to explain the circumstances which render neutron formation the preferred reaction path. This you utterly failed to do. Your picture of what is going on in the lattice is totally wrong, and your mechanism for rendering neutron formation the preferred path is totally nonexistent. --Mitchell Jones}$$$ > capture we have a weird system that consists of a proton and three > neutrons. This is like T with an extra neutron. $$${Here we have yet more evidence that you were working with a totally invalid picture of what is going on. You continue to begin your analysis, as per the Marshall Dudley hypothesis, with two deuterons "porpoising" at the same location, on opposite sides of the outer electron shell of a palladium. But this is totally wrong. The first D+ (or H+) that meets an electron in a unit cell does not "porpoise:" it forms a neutral deuterium atom which jams itself into the center of the cell. Because of that, the next deuterium nucleus to meet an electron in that cell *has no room to form another neutral deuterium atom*, and so it lingers briefly as a wildly unstable protoneutron, until it finds the space to form a neutral atom or the energy to form a neutron, whichever comes first. And, unless it comes into existence inside a massive region in which all the unit cells are occupied, it will find the space it needs first. And that, Zoltan, is the key to the understanding of this situation. Bottom line: in those cases where a hydrogen (or a deuterium) meets an electron and collapses into a neutron, the result is not " a weird system that consists of a proton and three neutrons." This would result only if two porpoising deuterons were facing off when the electron capture occurred. This means that we are in total disagreement about what is going on here, and it is totally false for you to state that the protoneutron theory "very much resembles what [you] posted recently under the heading 'The electron capture theory of cold fusion.'" --Mitchell Jones}$$$ The extra neutron has no > binding energy so it could float away as a thermal neutron or it could > take some energy from the T with it. I think it is also possible that the > energy available and this neutron rich situation will cause immediate beta > decay. In the beta decay an electron and antineutrino are emitted carrying > away energy. The complete picture I propose is: > > d + d + e -> He4 + e + nu + nu' (1) > > or > > d + d + e -> He3 + n + e + nu + nu' (2) > > or > >d + d + e -> T + n + nu (3) > > > In the (3) reaction no beta emission occurs. In all three reactions the > products are hard to detect and benign. Thermal neutrons as well as > neutrinos go undetected. The thermal neutrons slowly move until they > collide with nuclei and cause further reactions that may result in low > levels of radiation. $$${Not true: thermal neutrons, when absorbed, tend to produce *huge* gammas, which are most assuredly *not* hard to detect. What happens is that, at the instant of absorption, the absorbing nucleus goes into an "excited" state. Then, an instant later, it goes to the "ground" state, tossing out a giant gamma in the process. I gave one example of such an emission, in my post entitled "The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion." In that reaction, we have: p + n --> d + 2.22 Mev (gamma). Similar reactions occur when thermal neutrons drift into the nuclei of the various isotopes of palladium that are present in the lattice. This error highlights yet another flaw in your "electron capture" notion: you provide no explanation whatsoever for the fact that the various experimenters who have observed "cold fusion" are not all dead! I, on the other hand, provided a testable hypothesis intended to explain that specific fact, and described how it might be tested. To repeat: there is no resemblance whatsoever, save at the most utterly superficial level, between your "electron capture" speculation and the protoneutron theory. --Mitchell Jones}$$$ The high energy electrons can promote new electron > capture reactions, promoting the number of thermal neutrons in the system. > > > > Zoltan Szakaly ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is the end of the section discussing your "electron capture" post. At this point, I will cease using the $$$ thingie as a demarcator. --Mitchell Jones}*** There is one > crucial difference though. I never assumed a classical model (I think it > is foolish to do so ***{For the record: does this statement mean that you believe that motion in the microcosm is discontinuous--i.e., that particles in that realm move by means of a series of "quantum leaps" or "quantum jumps," and thus that they literally *do not exist* in the in-between positions? Do you believe, for example, that when an electron "jumps" from a high orbit to a position in a lower one, it does so without passing through the intervening space? --Mitchell Jones}*** ) but instead assumed a series of events and quantum > states which are compatible with existing quantum theory. ***{Actually, your vague scenario is in flagrant violation of existing quantum theory: by that theory, a proton and an electron will virtually *never* merge to form a neutron, given that they have the space and thermal energy they need to form a neutral atom and do *not* have the *huge* energy they need to form a neutron. --Mitchell Jones}*** Quantum > mechanics is much more than a mathematical formulation that gives the > correct results. The wave nature of particles is a physical reality. ***{In that case, we must be talking about "waves in nothing," right? In my view, this is nonsense on stilts. --Mitchell Jones}*** The > quantum waves are the physical objects whose propagation and evolution is > computed by the universe if regarded as a computer. It would make sense to > use a quantum mechanical model to describe macroscopic phenomena but not > the other way around. ***{Again, I disagree: in principle, all waves can be explained as the aggregate effects of underlying particles; but the notion that all particles can be explained in terms of waves leads straightaway to the absurd notion of "waves in nothing." Since the principle of continuity--that no entity may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing--rules in the particulate realm, classical mechanics must ultimately rule in the realm of physics. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > In a loaded lattice freely moving electrons, bound electrons, metal ions > and protons or deuterons exist creating the possibility of electron > capture. The electron will not linger around the proton to form a > "protoneutron", it does not have to. ***{True: it will immediately form a hydrogen atom if it meets an electron in an unoccupied unit cell. Protoneutrons do not linger unless they find themselves in regions of the lattice that are tightly loaded. --Mitchell Jones}*** With a sea of electrons roaming all > over the place there is always likely to be one near a proton which has no > electron shell, in fact quantum mechanics allows a higher wave function > density near a positive charge than elsewhere. This creates the > possibility of electron capture as long as it is followed by fusion, > because the fusion needs to supply the energy. ***{Utter nonsense. The energy must be supplied *first.* The equation is p + e + .78 Mev --> n + nu. You are reversing causality. --Mitchell Jones}*** After fusion (D + D fusion) > we need to explain why the HE4* does not de-excite by neutron or proton > emission. ***{No we don't: D + D fusion is a bit player in the process we are discussing. You are continuing to harken back to the "porpoising protons" idea. To repeat what I have said several times already: (a) this scenario has nothing to do with the protoneutron theory that I have proposed; and (b) cold fusion ain't fusion. --Mitchell Jones}*** This could be explained by the energy removed in the form of a > neutrino and possibly beta decay which emits an energetic electron and > another neutrino. I fail to see how the "protoneutron theory" contributes > new information to what I said earlier in the "Electron capture theory." ***{That is because you do not yet understand the protoneutron theory, Zoltan. Perhaps after you read this post and think about it, you will no longer feel the urge to make such statements. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Zoltan Szakaly =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Alan M / Re: Cold Fusion information available Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion information available Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 05:52:19 +0100 Organization: Home In article: <4325ka$eqe@news.asu.edu> kurtz@imap2.asu.edu writes: > Can we assume your postings on other topics in this newsgroup have all > the accuracy and reliability that this post on set unions demonstrates? > You don't expect Jed to waste his time learning about the *theory* of set theiry, do you? It's enough that it works, to fill the otherwise blank spaces between his capital letters and his full stops. And no matter what the appropriate information -> verbiage conversion rate is, I think we are all convinced he is already demonstrating a well over unity performance. -- 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: cuddy13 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Robert Eachus / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: 13 Sep 1995 15:21:24 GMT Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. In article <21cenlogic-1109951052420001@austin-1-9.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > > Now, the Pd lattice is cubic, face centered. > ***{It is misleading to refer to this lattice as cubic. The > smallest unit cell consists of two four-sided pyramids (e.g., like > the Egyptian pyramids) joined base-to-base. The faces of each > pyramid are equilateral triangles with a side length of about 2.67 > Ċ. The cubic unit cell to which you refer is three times as > large, and is not a satisfactory conceptual unit for present > purposes. The reason: when loading takes place, it is the > double-pyramid unit cells that are loaded--i.e., that have H atoms > placed in their centers. --Mitchell Jones}*** Apparently here you are saying that it is the octahedral void in the center of the cube that the hydrogen occupies. Fine. > ...At this point, it is appropriate to ask ourselves what sort of > loading ratios result from such a process. For example, if there > is one H atom inside each unit cell of the lattice, what is the > loading ratio? Well, for an infinite lattice the count of unit > cells is simply three times the count of the number of Pd atoms in > the lattice. Wrong! Independent of the crystal type--as long as the crystal is pure and symmetric, each Pd atom can occupy the same location relative to a void once. You either have six voids around each Pd atom, and six atoms around each void, or eight voids and eight atoms. (Tetrahedral structures give you four and four, but those don't apply here.) The easy way to think of it is that each atom can be the top left front atom around one void, and vice versa. So loadings above 1.0 indicate more than one atom or ion per void, independent of the crystalline structure--unless the deuterium atoms become part of the crystalline structure, and that would be a new ball game. > Once a particular unit cell is occupied by an H+ ion, the next > step is to hand it an electron, converting it into a neutral H > atom which, because the radius of the innermost Bohr orbit is .53 > Ċ, is now trapped inside the unit cell. This is the way the > lattice is loaded, *because it has to be.* To repeat: electrons > that are given over to H+ ions before they enter the unit cells of > the lattice result in gas production, not loading. Trapping assumes no quantum tunneling. I'm not sure how important tunneling as opposed to drift as ions is, but I assume that, in the long times required to attain high loadings, the deuterium will be fairly uniformly distributed through the Palladium. The interesting effects of tunneling and drift will be the distribution of empty, filled, and multiply filled void sites at high loadings. Interesting question: Can this be determined by experiment or is modelling required? And if modelling is needed, is there an analytic solution. I suspect not. The redistribution effect of both ion drift and tunneling will tend to minimize local fluctuations--a doubly filled void next to an empty one won't last long, but large scale density differences--from the surface to center, will only slowly decay. Note that this experiment, if someone can figure how to do the measurement, would be of great interest independent of any cold fusion effect. And if it does turn out that to see whatever effect may exist does require local over unity loadings, a direct measurement technique for doubly loaded sites would be a start on making experiments repeatable. (Hmmm. Magnetic resonance possibly? Deuterium has spin one, but do the doubly loaded sites have spin zero? If so you could get a map of even and odd loadings. If you know the amount of deuterium, then detecting less would be evidence of D2 in the metal. Of course now we get back to the old voids and cracks debate...) > ...that the full anode charge migrates to the surface of the > cathode, then let me emphasize again that this is not necessary... Both James Clark Maxwell and Michael Faraday would disagree. ;-) (There can be no net charge within a conductor, it is all on the surface.) > ...This fact implies that there is going to be some degree of > migration of the anode charge into the outer portion of the > cathode, but does not necessitate that the full anode charge do so. Again, no net charge inside a conductor. But that doesn't mean you can't have ions neutralized by displacement of conduction band electrons, so you can (and will) have D+ ions inside the metal, the question is how many, and how mobile? -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... cudkeys: cuddy13 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Richard Schultz / Citations Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Citations Date: 13 Sep 1995 05:41:57 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article , wrote: >I would like >to point out something about the dialog here. It starts out with me saying: > > "And I would add that you have not read the literature, the patents, or > papers like "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect" by Ed Storms. . ." >You see that I started out -- as I always do! -- citing a specific paper. A >few messages later on Mr. Skeptic accuses me of stonewalling and cutting off >discussion by not citing a specific paper. This has happened countless times. Apparently, you do not know what is meant by "citation" when the word is used, not just by scientists, but by researchers in all fields. Saying "it's in 'How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect' by Ed Storms'" is *not* the same as providing a citation. I know that this has been explained to you before, but as that explanation did not seem to take, I will try once again. A *citation* includes *all* information that would be necessary for a second person to find the reference. Thus, unless you include (for a journal article) the name of the author, the name of the journal, the date of publication, the volume number, and the page numbers [some citation styles require only the first page, and others require the title, although in general the title is not required in scientific writing] you have *not* provided a citation. Is this clear? And in the very sentence above that you claim "cit[es] a specific paper" begins with "And I would add that you have not read the literature" -- the exact statement that others find objectionable. And nowhere in that sentence do you in fact provide a citation as the term is generally understood. >I sometimes wonder if I should simply post the list of 1500 CF papers every >week, so all readers learn that there is such a thing as original scientific >literature and *you too* can go to the library and read it. It is universally the practice in scientific circles to include citations to those specific references that are being used as background literature for the *current discussion*. Once again, your refusal to understand the nature of referencing is matched by your perennial obfuscation. If the topic at hand is reproducibility, then you don't have to say "read 1500 papers." All you have to say is "researcher X, in paper X(1), reproduced result Y that researcher Z had reported in paper Z(1)." By doing this, you will have focussed the discussion on the scientific matter at hand. I really do not understand why you find this concept so difficult to grasp. >People who are too lazy to do >their own homework are contemptible and ill-mannered. In an academic setting >(which is more or less what a "sci." newsgroup is) such behavior is grossly >inappropriate. They should be told they are out of line and treated like >people who talk during movies. Would "not knowing what you are talking about" count as "not doing your homework"? What do you know of how discussions of the literature are done in academic settings? And what makes you think that Usenet has anything even remotely in common with an "Academic" setting other than its being a major time sink for people who don't own a copy of "Doom"? -- Richard Schultz "You just make this crap up and publish it without thinking. . . You did not have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing. . . Did you ever think, for even a second, what might happen to you if these people turn out to be right?" -- Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 6 January 1993 cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / ZoltanCCC / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: 13 Sep 1995 02:11:54 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Thank you for your rather detailed post Mitchell regarding our cold fusion theories. Here I will try to clarify my views regarding the subjects that came up. I myself do not have credentials of physics but I did formally study quantum mechanics as part of my electrical engineering curriculum. I do have the desire to build a nuclear reactor sometime but due to lack of time I restrict myself to building robot wrist force sensors and controllers for robot arms. I belong to the group of people who share Dr. Fredkin's views who thinks that the universe is a cellular automaton and all behaviours of elementary particles can be explained if you now what rule governs the computations of this machine, what structures correspond to various particles and what topology the interconnections have. I do not agree with him completely though because I think the universe might just be a fancy holodeck, the computations may be performed by a computer which is not actually in our universe. I had discussions on this with Dr Feynman who absolutely believed in quantum mechanics and thought that perhaps Fredkin was right but only to the extent that the universe computes the quantum mechanical wave function. I tend to agree with him but there is a problem of dimensionality. In any case I think we can agree that we are somewhat more likely to be right if we explain cold fusion in terms of quantum mechanical phenomena as opposed to a classical theory. Based on my reading of the literature I absolutely believe that cold fusion is actually happening, I have no doubt in my mind. If we think that cold fusion is happening we need to explain what is the mechanism that does away with the repulsive force between nuclei and we need to explain why excessive radiation is not emitted. In fact we know that fusion is happening and if we try to figure out how it is happening, the lack of excessive radiation is a helpful hint as to what may be going on. For our explanation we have a soup of particles including Pd ions, Li ions, p, d, e and possibly contaminants. We are pretty sure that if the e forms a shell around the proton or d particle it will make fusion impossible due to its large radius and in that case only a free neutron can penetrate and transmutate it. So either we don't have electron shells around all d particles or we have free neutrons roaming about or maybe we have both. Free neutrons can only be created locally in the lattice because they decay by beta emission after a short time (15 minutes or so) although they may be created by the cosmic radiation and later multiplied by some reaction in the lattice. It seems a little easier to assume that some protons or deuterons do not have shells around them. In your "Protoneutron theory" you assume that already existing hydrogen shells totally fill up the available space in the lattice and newly arriving deuterons cannot form a shell because there is no room. The electrons arrive and they are attracted to the proton (deuteron) but they cannot form a shell sphere because all space is occupied, so they just hang around and you call this the "protoneutron". Marshall on the other hand would rather assume that the deuterons find a place to hang out in the electron shells of the metal ions and do not have a shell of their own. In this case the hydrogen is metallized sort of and gives up its electron to the lattice just like the metal ions did. I think that Mitchell you are right in that the hydrogen ion will be repelled by the metal ions and will occupy a spot in the middle of the unit cell, subsequently acquireing an electron shell. On the other hand you are wrong in that the free electrons will form a "protoneutron" with the free deuterons. I think the free electrons will accelerate on approach to the deuteron and decelerate going away from it. They will not form any kind of bound state. If we don't assume free roaming neutrons in the latti cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / jedrothwell@de / Re: query: CF current/voltage Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: query: CF current/voltage Date: Tue, 12 Sep 95 10:58:27 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Anderson @ Mpower asks: "In the CF experiments using electrolysis: 1) What are the electrical parameters being used ? Are they predominately low-voltage/high-current DC ?" With Pd, current must be kept low during the initial loading phase or the metal will crack. After the metal is fully loaded, current is ramped up to between 100 and 150 milliamps per square centimeters to trigger the reaction. In some cases it can later be backed off, or turned off completely, and the reaction will continue by itself for a while. Direct current is usual, but for best results I think it should be ramped up and down after the initial loading period. Slow alternating current is used with proton conductors. "Could someone post what electrical parameters are being tested ?" It gets complicated. I suggest you read the literature, particularly Storms. "2) What electrolytic solutions are being used ? Are they primarily D20, or is there more than a few solutions which seem to produce positive results ?" With palladium, D2O must be used, and it must not contain more than a few percent light water contamination. Since heavy water acts as a getter for light water, it is difficult to prevent contamination, and many of the early experiments probably failed for this reason. Pd absorbs light water more readily than heavy water, so a small percent of light water contamination will be concentrated at a higher percent in the metal, amplifying the problem. Lithium is added to make the solution conduct electricity. Some people think the lithium takes part in the reaction. Some workers add trace amounts of aluminum, boron or other elements to enhance loading. Some elements, like carbon, must be carefully excluded because they poison the reaction. This is another complicated issue, like the electrical parameters. In order to grasp it I think it is essential you read the literature. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / Ed Falk / Re: Censorship of my posts? Originally-From: falk@peregrine.eng.sun.com (Ed Falk) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts? Date: 12 Sep 1995 22:10:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation In article <433rh0$aaf@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >In article <432grg$k52@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> >Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > >> >> Perhaps 30 posts were censored and deleted yesterday. It was not I. >> And I asked a person in charge here at Dartmouth, reply being "not >> Dartmouth." Hence, someone outside has forged my name and cancelled 30 >> of my posts. Is it really that easy? > >Here is one of the forged cancels: > >]Path: ...!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!bga.com!news >]From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) >]Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math >]Subject: cmsg cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> >]Control: cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> >]Date: 10 Sep 1995 21:21:50 GMT >]Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates >]Lines: 1 >]Message-ID: <42vkte$324@giga.bga.com> >]NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.181.162.16 >] >]Article cancelled from NR/2 It looks like the culprit is either o bga.com o apm0_16.realtime.com (204.181.162.16) o clever enough to fake all the headers. whois indicates that *both* bga.com and realtime.com have the same contact info: Bob Gustwick & Associates, Inc 6721 N. Lamar, Ste. 103 Austin, Texas 78753 Administrative Contact: Wenzel, George (GW23) [No mailbox] 5124510046 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Gustwick, Bob (BG99) gustwick@BGA.COM (512) 451-0046 I would suggest that you send a *polite* email to gustwick@BGA.COM and ask them to help track down the canceller. Include a complete copy of a few of the offending cancel messages. Content-based censorship is unacceptable. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems falk@sun.com Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't make it art. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenfalk cudfnEd cudlnFalk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Eric Remy / Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Originally-From: edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Remy) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,mis .industry.utilities.electric Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Date: 13 Sep 1995 15:01:44 GMT Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA In article , Arthur Carlson TOK wrote: >In article jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes: > >> Right now the IFE has the odds at between 5% and 10%. If you think it is >> less likely than 5% you can sell at 5% and make, at a maximum, 5% on your >> money if you are right. > >That's a weird way to calculate odds. But it doesn't really matter >since we're talking about Monopoly money, right? I'd love to find >someone willing to bet real dollars (or marks) at 10:1! Don't tell >anyone, but I'd go up to at least 1000:1. Not that I think the plasmak >has anything close to a 1 in 1000 chance of delivering as described >here, but at some point I start worrying about dishonest judges and >the bother of remembering that somebody owes me a few dollars. The problem here is a known flaw in IF. When you buy or sell coupons, then money goes to the bank: you don't keep it. Thus, the banks holds your money for 10 years _without_ interest while the claim is decided. Most people can do better than 5-10% over 10 years, so few people are willing to drive down the price below 10-20 on a long term claim, no matter how unlikely. -- Eric R. edremy.xrcc@xerox.com "Any desired property can be calculated from the Schrodinger equation of the system. The solution is left as an exercise for the reader." JIR, 3rd ed. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenedremy cudfnEric cudlnRemy cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Jim Bowery / Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,mis .industry.utilities.electric Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 15:11:18 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Arthur Carlson TOK (awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote: : since we're talking about Monopoly money, right? I'd love to find : someone willing to bet real dollars (or marks) at 10:1! Don't tell : anyone, but I'd go up to at least 1000:1. Not that I think the plasmak : has anything close to a 1 in 1000 chance of delivering as described : here, but at some point I start worrying about dishonest judges and : the bother of remembering that somebody owes me a few dollars. Well, the person I've asked to judge this particular claim is Nick Szabo who was just published in the most recent issue of "Extropians" magazine as predicting economical fusion sometime around the year 2400... that's right, you heard right, 400 years hence. He has been asked to judge several of the claims in the IFE, and I figure his "public figure" status combined with his, uh, skeptical stance toward fusion should be rather attractive to folks like Art and Bruce. Come on, guys... It's not just fun... it's a way to increase the signal to noise ratio of the world. -- The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population. The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival. Change the tools and you change the rules. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / 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, 12 Sep 95 21:55:59 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Mitchell, Thanks for assembling these different messages from this thread. I would like to point out something about the dialog here. It starts out with me saying: "And I would add that you have not read the literature, the patents, or papers like "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect" by Ed Storms. . ." And soon we have someone saying: > I doubt that anyone has read ALL of the literature on any topic, so a > non-specific "you haven't read the literature" argument accomplishes very > little. How much better it would be to say something like > > "I'm basing my arguments reported by so-and-so in such-and-such > journal. I recommend that you get a copy and give me your comments." > > or > > "So-and-so reached just the opposite conclusion in his article in > such-and-such journal. Why do you disagree?" > > These examples would further discussion. Jed uses the argument as a putdown > to cut off discussion. You see that I started out -- as I always do! -- citing a specific paper. A few messages later on Mr. Skeptic accuses me of stonewalling and cutting off discussion by not citing a specific paper. This has happened countless times. I sometimes wonder if I should simply post the list of 1500 CF papers every week, so all readers learn that there is such a thing as original scientific literature and *you too* can go to the library and read it. Over the years the "skeptics" have repeatedly accused me of not telling what literature I have in mind. This is a particularly dumb thing to say about me, of all people, because as it happens, I just spent $85 making copies of that paper (with Ed Storms' permission of course) and handing them out to a couple dozen people who contacted me via e-mail. They contacted me because I regularly post a list of "Recommended Publications" here and in a few other Internet Newsgroups. I would also point out that my review of ICCF5 included 14 footnotes and copious quotes from the Abstracts and lectures at the conference, whereas the "skeptical" review of that conference by Morrison did not quote a single paper or list any titles. Furthermore, I am a contributing editor to "Infinite Energy" and I contribute to "Fusion Facts." I have gone on record again and again in this forum and in others with hard facts, publication titles, and other resources, and I have helped hundreds of people get original source material on CF. Yet in spite of this, the "skeptics" whine, moan and complain that I am holding back and not spoon feeding them every fact and every title the moment they demand it! As you said: "The truth is, you guys (CF skeptics) tend to be blockheaded, stubborn, and virtually impervious to reason. Dealing with you is extremely frustrating, and after awhile it is very difficult to be nice." I think that being nice is the wrong approach in many cases. It is like giving a failing student a passing grade. This is part of the modern "I'm okay, you're okay" ethic, which I do not agree with. People who are too lazy to do their own homework are contemptible and ill-mannered. In an academic setting (which is more or less what a "sci." newsgroup is) such behavior is grossly inappropriate. They should be told they are out of line and treated like people who talk during movies. As a humorous footnote, let me add that not only do "skeptics" attack me for not giving them information, but recently one of them whined and moaned because I gave too much, making it too readily available. When I posted my "Recommended Publications" over in sci.physics and three other locations, Jim Carr complained that I am "spamming the network." I pointed out to him that just before I posted, the Hot Fusion FAQ was posted in a half dozen groups, including several that I missed, and that the Hot Fusion FAQ filesize is roughly ten times bigger than my humble, short little list of peer-reviewed CF publications. Apparently Jim thinks it is "spamming" when I put out 4 copies of a 10 KB file three times a year, but it is perfectly okay to put out a dozen copies of a 100 KB file every month when the subject is hot fusion. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / Arthur TOK / Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,mis .industry.utilities.electric Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Date: 12 Sep 1995 09:53:26 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching In article jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes: > Right now the IFE has the odds at between 5% and 10%. If you think it is > less likely than 5% you can sell at 5% and make, at a maximum, 5% on your > money if you are right. That's a weird way to calculate odds. But it doesn't really matter since we're talking about Monopoly money, right? I'd love to find someone willing to bet real dollars (or marks) at 10:1! Don't tell anyone, but I'd go up to at least 1000:1. Not that I think the plasmak has anything close to a 1 in 1000 chance of delivering as described here, but at some point I start worrying about dishonest judges and the bother of remembering that somebody owes me a few dollars. By the way, there were a few days after the original Fleischmann-Pons announcement that I would have given cold fusion 1 chance in 10 of working. That didn't last long. -- To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin Dr. Arthur Carlson Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics Garching, Germany carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / Tom Droege / Re: Heat of occlusion of hydrogen in palladium Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Heat of occlusion of hydrogen in palladium Date: 12 Sep 1995 22:47:31 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <42scj9$h0n@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, iweld4u@aol.com (I Weld 4U) says: > >In Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, third edition (1958!), p.22, >under "Adsorption", is found "Occlusion is a type of adsorption, or >perhaps more properly absorption, exhibited by metals or other solids (snip) This has been discussed at length here in the past. I actually made measurements of this in my experiments. It is a relatively small effect on the scale of things. For example, the heat lost due to the hydrogen not being recombined is greater than the heat of absorbtion. Not only that, but it may be that above some loading the heat of absorption turns negative. In any case, the value does not even begin to explain the excess heat claimed in even P&F's lowest yield cells. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / Amarat / Re: Censorship of my posts? Originally-From: amarat@aol.com (Amarat) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts? Date: 12 Sep 1995 18:00:45 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) BGA= Bogus Giant Asshole :) Jason Jason Bender, "Not another Tag Line Sellout" Well, Ok - Send Me Money cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenamarat cudlnAmarat cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Andrew Cooke / Re: Censorship of my posts? Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts? Date: 13 Sep 1995 10:25:31 GMT Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh i wouldn't have thought it was very difficult to forge cancels. you could check out the net newsgroups since people there cancel `spams'. as far as i know all that is necessary is that you get the syntax right (including the correct reference and author address). if you took apart the code for a program that does posting you could find out how it sends messages. if you're on a unix machine you'll probably have no problems - i installed a newsreader here without needing root access. people who cancel postings should realise that if they can do it then it's not impossible, and that their own actions encourage others to do the same. i suspect they are arrogant enough to feel that their postings are `important' and others aren't - there's not a lot you can do about such people. personally i don't think you should worry too much. it was probably a one-off. you probably post a lot more than they have time to cancel. andrew p.s. don't forget that you have to be careful so that the forged cancel cannot be traced back to yourself. In article <433rh0$aaf@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >In article <432grg$k52@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> >Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > >> >> Perhaps 30 posts were censored and deleted yesterday. It was not I. >> And I asked a person in charge here at Dartmouth, reply being "not >> Dartmouth." Hence, someone outside has forged my name and cancelled 30 >> of my posts. Is it really that easy? > >Here is one of the forged cancels: > >]Path: ...!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!bga.com!news >]From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) >]Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math >]Subject: cmsg cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> >]Control: cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> >]Date: 10 Sep 1995 21:21:50 GMT >]Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates >]Lines: 1 >]Message-ID: <42vkte$324@giga.bga.com> >]NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.181.162.16 >] >]Article cancelled from NR/2 -- A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk work phone 0131 668 8357 home phone/fax 0131 667 0208 institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / Tom Droege / Return to Rome?? Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Return to Rome?? Date: 12 Sep 1995 22:53:54 GMT Organization: fermilab I have been contacted by a TV producer from the UK. It is a NOVA like program that is being produced to look at "Over Unity" claims. It looks like they are going to try to get Frank Close, Jim Griggs and myself together in Rome to discuss the Griggs device. Sigh! I don't really want to return to Rome, but it may be necessary to support Frank. If they won't pay my expenses, this may solve the $700 problem. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / Mitchell Jones / Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 18:54:45 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <4333r3$6t0_001@ip022.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote: > In article <432dt9$dh7@volcano.jrv.qc.ca>, > Joseph Raulet wrote: > >>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > > > >>And I would add that you have not read the literature, the patents, or > >>papers like "How to Produce the Pons-Fleishmann Effect" by Ed Storms, so > >>you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This *has* been > >>achieved for the most part with CF experiments, but you don't happen to > >>know bout it. Don't confuse your own ignorance with the state of the art. > >> > >>- Jed > > > >:And Bob Sullivan wrote: > > > >:5-yard, delay-of-game penalty for the you-haven't-read-the-literature > >:argument. > > > >:15 yard penalty, personal foul -- ad hominem attack. Don't confuse ad > >:hominem > >:attacks with scientific argument. > > > >Very interesting mister Sullivan! The sense of humor is a great and > >necessery quality to maintain a psychologic equilibrium in our time, > >but I think Jed has a crucial point: How can somebody evaluate the > >state of the art in any domain without reading the literature. If you have > >a special technic, I would be happy if you could share it with me because > >I have not always the time to read (I have a little girl!). I know that > >Jojo the psychic have wrote a book about the subject and the title was: > >***How to talk about everything without knowing nothing!"***. Is it > >the technic you recommand? > > > >One of your fans... > > > >Joseph Raulet > > > > I doubt that anyone has read ALL of the literature on any topic, so a > non-specific "you haven't read the literature" argument accomplishes very > little. How much better it would be to say something like > > "I'm basing my arguments reported by so-and-so in such-and-such > journal. I recommend that you get a copy and give me your comments." > > or > > "So-and-so reached just the opposite conclusion in his article in > such-and-such journal. Why do you disagree?" > > These examples would further discussion. Jed uses the argument as a putdown to > cut off discussion. Bob, you have a point, but your criticisms of Jed need to be leavened with understanding. I myself have (mildly) chastised him, via e-mail, for his temperamental outbursts. "You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," I told him. But now, with more experience in this newsgroup under my belt, I am beginning to see why he deals with people the way he does. The truth is, you guys (CF skeptics) tend to be blockheaded, stubborn, and virtually impervious to reason. Dealing with you is extremely frustrating, and after awhile it is very difficult to be nice. You all begin to blend together, and it becomes very difficult not to be a grouch. A perfect example is my reply to Steve Jones, which is posted in the solar stove thread. In it, I momentarily forgot that I had not dealt with him before, that he had not exhibited blockheaded behavior in response to me, and that, therefore, he ought to be treated with respect. Instead, in a moment of apparent madness, I permitted him to become symbolic of every unyielding, illogical, blockheaded post which you guys have hurled my way in the past few months, and I unfairly dumped on him. The moral of the story is simple: people must be judged, and dealt with, as individuals, rather than as representatives of amorphous collectives *but such a standard, in this group, is very hard to meet.* If Jed is less than perfect in his adherence to that lofty principle, *so too are we all,* and we ought to try to understand where the problem really lies--to wit: this is a very contentious group, and it has a lot of people who post the first idiotic thing that comes to mind, and then sit back and wait for someone else to do the thinking that they should have done before they sent it out. This is the true source of most of our difficulties, and we can all contribute to solving the problem by being self-critical of our posts before we reach over and hit that "send" button! --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Martin Sevior / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 00:43:34 GMT Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics Mario Pain writes: >I disagree, > France has detonated a nuclear device and plans to detonate seven others >before the signature of the Test Ban Treaty in ordre to be ready to develop >nuclear weapons under simulation, should this be necessary. USA does not >need extra tests because it has made enough tests already to be able to >develop these weapons under simulation. By the way, the commitment to the >Test Ban Treaty by president Clinton is much weaker (it made some reservations) >than president Chirac. > But the nuclear tests by France have also another goal: to make credible >the french nuclear deterrent, by showing that France is still a sovereign >country and is ready to take soverign decisions and carry them out whatever >the rest of the world may think of it. > From this point of view, I can only agree with this policy."My country, >right or wrong" (rather like "my mother, drunk or sober"). >Mario Pain There are several issues here all of which make people in the South Pacific extremely angry at the French. a) What so special about France that it needs it's own nuclear weapons? There are hundreds of soverign nations in world. Why shouldn't Germany, Japan, Australia or even New Zealand have tem too? They would certainly be within thethe technological capabilities of these countries. The answer of course is that these countries recognize that their security is enhanced by nuclear non-proliferation. They trust the US to police nuclear weapon development. No such trust exists for France as it has shown throughout it's history that it only ever persues it's own interests. b) If France must develop weapons and set them off, why not do it in it's own region of the world? Why not set them off under an island off the French coast? There are very few issues about which the Australian people have been so united. 96% of Australians believe France is wrong in it's nuclear testing program. If the French think that they gain respect or even fear from the possesion of nuclear weapons they are badly mistaken. Martin Sevior Melbourne, Australia cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.14 / Barry Merriman / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: 14 Sep 1995 07:16:12 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <21cenlogic-1209950014220001@austin-1-3.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > ***{Why not? What is the source of this hangup about changing your > opinion, Barry? If you should ever try it, you will discover that it > neither blinds your eye nor breaks your leg! --Mitchell Jones}*** Changing what opinion? As I have said, while I have opinions, I don't attch great significance to them. Understanding is what I'm after, not opinions or arguments. For example, you say >***{Barry, I suspect that you are aware of my contempt for "quantum >mechanics." How can one have contempt for QM? If nothing else, its a very useful quanititavive description of atomic phenomena. Its wonderful! I suppose you are bothered because it doesn't conform to your philosophical predilictions. Well, that is your problem. I'm all for efforts to find theories with even greater validity than QM, which is no doubt not perfect, but I'm very glad to have a theory as succeful as QM is. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.14 / Barry Merriman / Question for Jed Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Question for Jed Date: 14 Sep 1995 07:19:44 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE Jed, what do you consider to be the best current reference papers for CF, i.e. those that most forcefully establish the existence of the effect. I have a little time, and I'd like to catch up on some reading. I looked for Ed Storms reveiw paper on the INSPEC database, but it apparently has not appeared anywhere yet? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Richard Schultz / Re: Cold Fusion information available Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion information available Date: 13 Sep 1995 14:57:20 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article <226997817wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote: >And no matter what the appropriate information -> verbiage conversion >rate is, I think we are all convinced [Jed] is already demonstrating a well >over unity performance. Not only that, but the verbiage out appears to be completely uncorrelated with the amount of information provided to him by others, which, as he correctly points out, it just what you'd expect from a self-sustaining reaction. -- Richard Schultz ". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate." Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_ cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / prasad / Re: Potential-Power transformation Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Potential-Power transformation Date: 13 Sep 1995 18:37:09 GMT Organization: sometimes Look what I found in sci.energy... Here's at last the Chernetsky data I had been asking around for! The newspaper clipping I'd got in India in late '89 had mentioned something about virtual photons and ZPE, and that had had me intrigued. Well, no accelerators, no vaccuum energy.. (Looks like Don Kelly's still in the business, too.) ------ In article <42bap3$mte@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes: |> Here's what happens when someone puts pen to paper without even the |> most elementary understanding of physics or engineering. Enthusiasm is |> not an effective substitute for knowledge. |> |> Sorry to be this blunt, but the net already has too much of this |> meaningless techno-babble. |> |> Harry C. |> |> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |> |> |> alex (alex@frolov.spb.su) wrote: |> : POTENTIAL-POWER TRANSFORMATION |> : Theory and experiments |> |> : by Alexander V. Frolov |> : P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024, Russia |> : email alex@frolov.spb.su |> |> : INTRODUCTION |> |> : Present article classify extraction of excess power by means of |> : electric discharge ( arc ) as special case for application of electric |> : potential field for creation of power. |> |> : DEFINITIONS |> |> : Energy is the possibility to make the work. |> : Power is process of work per unit of time. |> : Potential is the value of energy that can be used to make the work. |> |> : PREHISTORY |> |> : It is clear that any experimental data can be interpretated by |> : different conceptions. N. Tesla's research work for wireless power transmission |> : from the point of view of energetics is transformation of high-voltage and |> : high-frequency electric field energy in output power to make useful work |> : in load. The direction of some Tesla's patent research [1] was derivation |> : of excess power from electric discharges. |> |> : In the end of 1960s Prof. Alexander V. Chernetsky and Uri A. Galkin, |> : Institute of Electrical Engineering, Moscow, made experiments for strong arc |> : current and observed so call "self-generating discharge". Figure 1 show |> : the voltage U and current I for this special case of arc. |> : _ _ |> : / \ current I |> : /\ \ |> : / \ \ |> : _ / \ \ _ _ |> : ----------------\--------------------------- t |> : \ -- |> : \ / \ |> : \ _/ voltage U |> |> : Figure 1 |> |> : Note that for part of cycle the current is increasing when voltage |> : is decreasing. |> : dI/dt>0 for dU/dt<0 F.1 |> |> : Negative resistance have place |> |> : R = U/I F.2 |> |> : This fact means that in process for self-generating discharge, by Chernetsky, |> : the power |> : P = I U F.3 |> |> : inflow into system from outside. |> : Detailed description for Chernetsky's experiments published in |> : English in [2] and [3]. Power output was up to 500 Kwatts and fact for |> : reverse current from experimental system into electric station was detected. |> |> : Swiss M-L converter described in [4] and [5] use high potential source like |> : Wimshurst machine that is connected to "spark gap cylinders". It is capacitor |> : that have spires between cylinders to create "slow electrical arc" between |> : inner and outside cylinders. |> |> : SCHEMES FOR EXPERIMENTS |> |> : Let us find what is general for all technologies above. |> : Chernetsky's scheme published in magazine Energy and Ecology'86 in Russian, |> : was the next: |> |> : I L1 I |> : I I |> : I________/\ /\ /\ ______I |> : \/ \/ \/ |> : =============== |> : ___ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ ___ |> : I \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ I |> : I L2 I |> : I I |> : __I__ _I_ |> : _____ C1 I I |> : I I I R1 |> : I arc gap I___I |> : I__________ ___________I |> : I I |> : I Sw1 I |> : I____/ _____I |> |> : Figure 2 |> |> : A.V. Chernetsky used 5 lampes for 220 AC in series as load. So, transformer |> : was like 220/1000 Volt, 50 Hz. The discharge gap had carbonic electrodes. |> : When switch Sw1 is open the power in load is increasing. |> : I used hand-made transformer 28/2800 VAC for 5 KHz input, high-voltage |> : lamp as load and metal electrodes. The gap was 2-3 mm. Voltmeter and ammeter |> : are checking input power. |> : You can easy find in this experiment that output power is increasing |> : when arc have place but power in primary circuit is decreasing. |> : You can check that Conservation Law is right: when Sw1 is closed and |> : current of conductivity have place, the connection of load lead to increase |> : of comsumption power. |> : So, "plasma element" in circuit allow extract additional power from |> : outside of system but not from primary source. |> |> : Now let us consider other simple experiment that is close connected |> : with scheme above. More detailed description of it published in [6]. |> : Take the metal piece, screew-driver, for example, and create arc |> : between end of it and one wire of high-voltage transformer. |> |> : I I |> : I L1 I |> : I_ /\ /\ __I |> : \/ \/ \/ _____________ |> : ================ ______________[ \ |> : __/\ /\ /\ ____________ I metal [ insulator / |> : \/ \/ \/ arc I______________[ \ |> : L2 [_____________/ |> |> : Figure 3 |> |> : Check the power input and be sure that power process of arc is free |> : from input source. No any power consumption increase when powerful arc have |> : place even for hot screw-driver. |> : Next version of experiment is possible if you have single-polarity |> : potential of the end of wire for pulsed current transformer. For positive |> : potential on wire the arc is more powerful than for other wire. This |> : difference is not demonstrated for AC transformer. Both ends of AC coil can |> : be used for creation of arc. |> : This difference show the nature for such sort free power arc. |> : Positive potential of wire make work for attraction of free electrones from |> : metal of screw-driver. It is not the current of conductivity but displacement |> : current. |> : Application of effect above into useful form can be made like known |> : Avramenko-Zaev-Lisin experiments [7]. The scheme is |> |> : I L1 I VD1 |> : I /\ /\ /\ I ____|/|_____ |> : \/ \/ \/ \/ I |\| I |> : ================== A I _I_ |> : _/\ /\ /\ /\____________I I I |> : \/ \/ \/ I I I R |> : L2 I I_ _I |> : I____|\|_____I |> : |/| |> : VD2 |> : Figure 4 |> |> : The alternating potential in point A is sufficient for conductivity |> : current in close circuit VD1-VD2-R. This diodes pair have the name as |> : Avramenko's plug. I used for this scheme 30 VAC hand-made generator for L1, |> : frequency 10 KHz, transformer 30/3000 Volts and diodes for 1.5 KV pressure. |> : The ammeter can be used as load R. Note that ammeter in wire between |> : transformer and point A don't show any current. |> |> : CONCLUSIONS |> |> : There are experimentally proved possibility to create power in load |> : by means of potential only. By similar approach mechanical motion, rotation |> : and propulsion force can be created. |> : So, free energetics can be formulated as transformation of potential |> : in power or Energy-Power Transformation. Since the power is process, the |> : question is the parameters of process only. |> |> : Alexander V. Frolov |> |> : REFERENCES |> |> : 1. Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol.13, Number 4, 1990, |> : p.249, Donald Kelly, A Review of the Free-Energy Scenario. |> : 2. EFE-Denver Report, p.94-B22-02, Vacuum Energy Developments, Andrew |> : Michrowski, Published by Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc., |> : 100 Bronson Av., Suite 1001, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6G8, Canada. Order by |> : email 100276.261@compuserve.com |> : 3. A.V. Chernetsky, About physical nature for bioenergy, Moscow, 1989, |> : in Russian. |> : 4. Newsletter of Space Energy Association, Vol.2 p.3 Published by SEA/US, |> : P.O.Box 11422, Clearwater, FL 34616, USA. |> : 5. Dr. Patrick G. Bailey, Proceeding of Denver'94 Conference, "Other |> : voices: A Summary of Research not Present. Re: Paul Baumann's Methernitha |> : Free-Energy Machine. Institute for New Energy email address: INE@padrak.com. |> : 6. The single-wire electric power transmission, A.V. Frolov, published |> : by New Energy News, December 1994, p.13-14. P.O.Box 58639, Salt Lake City, |> : UT 84158-8639, USA. Email INE@padrak.com. |> : 7. N.E.Zaev, S.V.Avramenko, V.N.Lisin, "The measuring of Conduction Current |> : that is stimulated by Polarization current, Journal of Russian Physical |> : Society, No.2'1991, in Russian. |> : ======================================================================== -- // email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / George Cebulka / cmsg cancel <437b8j$rn0@news.psc.edu> Originally-From: georgec@remus.psc.edu (George Cebulka) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <437b8j$rn0@news.psc.edu> Date: 13 Sep 1995 16:43:07 GMT EMP/ECP (aka SPAM) cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca. See news.admin.net-abuse.announce, report 19950913.07 for further details cudkeys: cuddy13 cudengeorgec cudfnGeorge cudlnCebulka cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Wolfgang Wuster / Re: Censorship of my posts? Originally-From: Wolfgang Wuster Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts? Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 14:27:26 +0100 (BST) Organization: University of Wales, Bangor. On 12 Sep 1995, Benjamin J. Tilly wrote: > Wolfgang, I do not care HOW much you may dislike Archimedes. He has a > right to post without interference I am not saying that he does not have the right to post. I also do not particularly approve of someone cancelling his posts, although I am not complaining about having less noise:signal in my news folder. However, I am suggesting that he might care to consider WHY someone would want to cancel his posts. We all have all sorts of rights, but some reflection on how and when we exercise them would make life a lot more pleasant for everybody, and avoid others feeling the need to violate them, as in this case. > as long as he stays within > acceptable limits. And nobody has the right to decide based on content > what acceptable limits are other than the Dartmouth administration (who > can decide whether he has the right to an account on their machines). I do not see why the Dartmouth admin should be the only judge of what are acceptable limits, except to the extent where it affects them directly. The newsgroups where he is posting are not property of Dartmouth. They exist for the benefit of all readers and users, and it should be up to the user community to determine what is or is not acceptable. To me, the continual spamming of irrelevant material to the extent of drowning out "normal" traffic is unacceptable, and from what I have seen here, I am certainly not the only one who feels that way. The only end result of this kind of spamming is an increased tendency towards moderated newsgroups, where acceptable limits will be determined by one moderator. I personally prefer a more open forum, but that requires some responsibility by everybody, and perhaps also somewhat stronger discouragement to those who consistently violate all rules. > There are certain situations where cancels are justifiable. Basically [edit] > And the last is if he spams. ...which is exactly what he is doing. Check the newsgroups line: 8 newsgroups, including some which are entirely unrelated to most of his posts, such as sci.bio.misc, which is where I am posting from. In some of these groups, Archie Pu's posts make up about half of all the traffic in the group. I call that spamming. -- Wolfgang Wuster School of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK e-mail: bss166@bangor.ac.uk Thought for the day: If you see a light at the end of the tunnel, it is probably a train coming your way. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenbss166 cudfnWolfgang cudlnWuster cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.14 / Dieter Britz / Biblio Update Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Biblio Update Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 10:50:40 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Journal Papers: Current count = 997 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ # Bazhutov YuN, Kuznetsov AB, Surova TD, Chertov YuP; Teo. Eksp. Issled. Vopr. Obshch. Fiz., Min. Obshch. Mashin. SSSR 1991, 37 (in Russian). "Study of the possibility of a cold nuclear fusion reaction by electrolysis of heavy water with a titanium electrode". ** Experimental, 5M LiOD, Ti, tritium, x-ray film, res+ Two series of experiments were run in Apr-May 1990, using a 20*10*2 mm^3 Ti plate in 5M LiOD/D2O, and 5A or ca. 1A/cm^2. Tritium was monitored from aliquots taken out, by scintillation counts. In one series, 7 hours of electrolysis roughly tripled the tritium counts from 124000 to 412000 c/min/ml. In another series, the current was reversed twice while checking for tritium; there was an increase in the tritium count at those periods when Ti was the cathode (roughly doubling during these times, 40 min and 20 min, resp.). The paper does not state what the other electrode was, it was presumably an inert metal like Pt. There was also an x-ray film in some runs, placed close to the electrodes, and this was found to be fogged only at the Ti cathode, indicating x-rays. #......................................................................Sep-95 Patents: Current count = 192 ^^^^^^^ # Ahern BS, Johnson KH; Clark HR Jr (MIT); U.S. US 5,411,654, 2-Jul-93. Cited in Chem. Abstracts 123:20447 (1995). "Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys". ** "For a condensed-matter system contg. a guest interstitial species such as H or its isotopes dissolved in the condensed-matter host lattice, the invention provides tuning of the MO degeneracy of the host lattice to enhance the anharmonicity of the dissolved guest sublattice to achieve a large anharmonic displacement amplitude and a correspondingly small distance of closest approach of the guest nuclei. The tuned electron MO topol. of the host lattice creates an energy state giving rise to degenerate sublattice orbitals related to the 2nd nearest neighbors of the guest bonding orbitals. Thus, it is the nuclei of the guest sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the orbital topol. This promotion of 2nd nearest neighbor bonding between sublattice nuclei leads to enhanced interaction between nuclei of the sublattice. In the invention, a method for producing dynamic anharmonic oscillations of a condensed-matter guest species dissolved in a condensed- matter host lattice is provided. Host lattice surfaces are treated to provide surface features on at least a portion of the host lattice surfaces; the features have a radius of curvature of <0.5 mu. Upon dissoln. of the guest species in the treated host lattice in a ratio of at least 0.5, the guest species undergoes the dynamic anharmonic oscillations". (Direct quote from CA) #...................................................................... Sep-95 Kubota H; Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 07 84,076, 15-Sep-93. Cited in Chem. Abstracts 122:324649 (1995). "Cold nuclear fusion devices". ** "Substances having catalytic action, such as Pt, Ni, Ti, or Pd, are used as a cathode and an anode. A D-diffusion layer is installed between the 2 electrodes, which are placed in a reactor vessel contg. D gas, and elec. current is passed between the electrodes. Without using an H-absorbing metal and by the synergistic effect of a Pt catalyst and the catalytic action of the elec. current, the nuclear fusion of D is realised". (Direct quote from CA). #...................................................................... Jul-95 Mizuno T (Mizuno T, Araki Masao); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo JP 07,104,080, 5-Oct-93. Cited in Chem. Abstr. 123:42842 (1995). "Reaction apparatus for generating cold fusion by using heavy hydrogen-containing gas". ** "The reaction app. contains a proton conductor. The reaction app. is manufd. by sintering a mixt. of powd. metal oxides to form a proton conductor, and an electrode layer is formed on it. An a.c. is applied to the reaction body in a heavy hydrogen-cntg. atm. to bring about cold fusion. Cold fusion can be initiated and run continuously with high efficiency and good controllability" (Direct quote from CA). #...................................................................... Sep-95 Takeuchi T (Matsushita Electric Co. Ltd); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo JP 07,120,574, 26-Oct-93. Cited in Chem. Abstr. 123:95815 (1995). ** "The app. contains a means to detect the quantity of heavy hydrogen occluded in the hydrogen-occluding metal. Optionally, the app. may contains [sic] a means to detect >=1 of radiation and nonradioactive particles generated from the surface of the metal. The heat-generating reaction can be carried out stably". (Direct quote from CA). #...................................................................... Sep-95 How to retrieve the archived biblio files: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try dir fusion.cnf-* and then get or mget what you want. 2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message get fusion.. To find out what there is, send index fusion This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you. --- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Das Miller / Re: Censorship of my posts? Originally-From: dasmiller@aol.com (Das Miller) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts? Date: 13 Sep 1995 02:16:06 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) from falk@peregrine.eng.sun.com (Ed Falk): >Content-based censorship is unacceptable. Of course, this begs the question . . if content isn't sufficient, what is? And if nothing is, why the reference to content? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark S. Miller dasmiller@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "One measure of the quality of your life is the amount of time you spend doing things you don't want to do for people you don't like." cudkeys: cuddy13 cudendasmiller cudfnDas cudlnMiller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.14 / Joseph Raulet / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: Joseph Raulet Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: 14 Sep 1995 15:38:18 GMT Organization: RAULET Informatique Dick Blue wrote: >>Cold fusion investigations are going nowhere, a fact >>that becomes increasingly evident with the passage of time. What are you saying Mister Blue? You think that progress in CF are not fast enought? If you realy think this, it is because you don't know the history of science neither the history of hot fusion reserch in particuliar. Have a nice day! ;-) Joseph Raulet cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / Horace Heffner / For lunatic eyes only: the Straw Horse Hypothesis Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: For lunatic eyes only: the Straw Horse Hypothesis Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 23:44:58 -0900 Organization: none I understand the lunatic fringe has taken over this news group. If you are reading this, you must be a fellow member of the lunatic fringe. If not, hurry, there is still time to escape without being seen! Well, since we are both still here, I say: Greetings fellow member of the lunatic fringe! Due to itıs sensitive nature, the following communication is secret, only to be shared with fellow members of the lunatic fringe. It is yet another straw horse hypothesis to mull over and pick at, presented so I and fellow lunatics can maybe learn something. To be sure you know I qualify as a lunatic: I have no significant relevant education or work experience. I am retired, living on a pension and doing my lunatic experimenting on a shoestring budget, courtesy of the understanding of my loving wife and two teenage kids. I have *not* read the literature extensively. I canıt afford to buy reprints and expensive books, and I am not associated with a university. I live outside a small town in Alaska, and have to drive fifty miles each way in my 1976 Chrysler to look at what periodicals and books are available in Anchorage. I am strictly an amateur and never expect to make a buck. Most of what little experimenting I do is with high voltage stuff because, even if it doesnıt work as expected, something cool to look at usually happens! Also, a more than desirable adrenalin jolt usually occurs due to the possibility of killing myself once too often. Now, I have established my credentials as a lunatic, my Curriculum Vitae, so you can appropriately evaluate the Straw Horse Hypothesis which follows below. Here it is: Assumptions concerning experimental results to be explained: 1. CF effects, i.e. excess heat and nominal fusion ash, have been observed at low voltages and temperatures in hydrogen loaded metal cathodes of electrolytic cells. 2. The subject CF effects donıt occur in the electrolyte or anode. 3. The subject CF effects generally occur in metal hydrides loaded above 85%. 4. The subject CF effects seem to inexplicably, uncontrollably and suddenly turn on, run a while, and then turn off. 5. High frequency sound has been measured in association with measured CF effects, but not conclusively. 6. Some high frequency cell transients have been measured, but not enough was measured to account for the excess heat. 7. Cracks are typically observed in metal cathodes after loading. 8. Warmer seems to be better. Hot cathodes have been reported by some experimenters to be more likely to activate the CF effect. The Straw Horse Hypothesis: A feasible hypothesis must account for how the environment of the metal is different from the environment of the electrolyte. The proposed significant differences are the rigid structure of the metal lattice and itıs ability to readily conduct low voltage electrons. Assumptions about electrons follow in the next six paragraphs. A key distinction made in this hypothesis is between electrons bound in metal atom shells, free electrons, and electrons associated with an electric current. Electrons in an orbital require an integral number of quanta of energy to jump out of the orbital, usually provided by absorption of an appropriate wavelength photon. Electrons jumping into a particular orbital give off a specific wavelength photon, the wavelength of which depends on what energy state they jumped in from. Electrons in an orbital exist as a very large (angstrom size) wave function, an electron charge probability distribution function. Free electrons used to bombard small nuclei in a target exhibit small waveforms (appear particle like) in their reactions with the small nuclei. There is no lower limit established for the size of an electron. High momentum electrons are so small they have been successfully used to distinguish the graininess of quarks in nucleons. For this reason, it is assumed there must be some physically manifested difference between the actions of electrons bound in shells and free electrons. The former manifests more of itıs wave nature, the latter more of itıs particle nature. Electrons involved in flowing current in metal do so in very low energy orbitals, so can jump from atom to atom very readily. The atoms of a metal lattice are all bound together, yet have unused low energy orbitals, so provide continuous conduction bands for electrons throughout the lattice. This accounts for the environmental difference between the electrolyte and the cathode. Although electrons, in response to an inducing field, readily move in cold metal, electrons on a cold metal surface in a vacuum can not break free unless enormous electrostatic field gradients (compared to electrolysis gradients) are present. However,this condition changes rapidly as the metal is heated. The hot end tail of the electron energy distribution expands in area rapidly as temperature, and therefore average conduction band electron energy, increases. The hotter the metal the less gradient needed to expel a free electron due to the lattice heat, and the presence of infra-red photons corresponing in energy to the heat of the cathode. The electron ejection probability for a given area is a function of *both* temperature and voltage gradient. Occupied orbitals are not readily compressed or distorted or migrated through by the ingress of another atomıs orbital. If you doubt this try biting your fork the next time you eat. It is this quality that gives matter itıs bulk. If it werenıt for this property we would all be living on neutron star earth. Another relevant quality of metal lattices is the ability to transmit electrons, i.e. electron displacement waves, in response to very small charge movement s near or in the metal. With suitable amplification, quantum level current fluctuations can be played on a loudspeaker, observed on an oscilloscope, or digitized for use in random cipher masks. This current (electron wave flow) response to a change in potential travels at near the speed of light. Because of the near light speed response to small field effects, we can expect a proton (use proton to mean any H nucleus) moving at thermal speeds,located in a lattice site, to readily attract conduction band electrons to itıs immediate locality as it thermally moves and approaches the band. Likewise, if departing a band the induced electron charge in the band would be expected to dissipate, i.e. in a net sense move around the cell the proton is trapped in to the locality the proton approaches. Thus we would expect conduction band electrons, in a net sense, to pair up with free protons. These paired up electrons would then have their mobility reduced because they are tied to the diffusion mobility of the proton. The conduction band electrons are initially supplied by the current source driving the electrolysis. As a free proton approaches itıs paired conduction band electron, a voltage gradient is created such that it, along with the thermal energy of the vibrating lattice, if the combined effect is sufficient, a photon exchange will occur that will expel the conduction band electron and make it a free electron. The expelled free electron, now exhibiting itıs more particle nature, accelerates toward the free proton, possibly forming an orbital, but in some cases not being able to because there is no room for an orbital. The crux of this hypothesis is that in the case of a partial orbital around the free proton , which terminates at a conduction band of a metal atom, there is a momentum distribution, i.e energy distribution, created which is greatest at the electronıs closest point of approach to the free proton, and less in all directions the further away from the free proton. Now, looking at this from a particle point of view, as the electron approaches the end of itıs free proton partial orbital, the possibility for tunneling exists. This is because there is an energy barrier, which if suddenly leaped, would result in a one way jump of the electron to the conduction band. An electron so doing would carry to the metal lattice the net momentum and energy gained by itıs acceleration toward the free proton initially, which has not been paid back, plus emit a photon to correspond to the original transaction that freed it. The process described would generate most of the free energy of CF. There is no ash. The conditions described could also generate fusion through mechanisms as described in other posts, but the size of the tunneling effect should be much larger than any fusion effects due to a higher probability of occurrence and the longer average tunneling distance of an electron. What would be the conditions to initiate CF? The conditions would be loading to a degree that there is no room around orbitals for a significant number of lattice occupying H nuclei, plus thermal and electrical agitation. Thermal agitation is partially caused by the electrolysis current, but not enough to trigger an episode. Once loading reaches a critical point, minor crack develop in the lattice. These cracks immediately fill up with neutral hydrogen, thus can act like a local capacitor. In addition, the sudden crack produces a high voltage wave and an acoustical shock in the lattice. At first these conditions are not sufficient to create a critical mass of self perpetuating events. Eventually though, in some cases, a ³critical mass² of cracks provides enough capacitance, and enough electromagnetic energy from cracking, to sustain a large collection of ultra high frequency resonant oscillating circuits. These localized electrical fluctuations and heat provide the needed conditions to create massive numbers of free electron partial orbitals , some portion of which generate enough excess heat and electromagnetic energy to sustain the process. The process can be expected to vary in intensity sporadically due to the unpredictable nature of a particular lattice with respect to fracturing, loading, etc. The end of the episode would occur at a highly unpredictable duration and energy output. It could not not be expected that a cathode would be reusable without some kind of annealing process being performed. If an episode occurred, we would expect a measurable amount of sound or electromagnetic oscillations to occur, or both. The experimental results to be explained are, at least qualitatively, explained. To verify the hypothesis, and improve the likelihood of results, several things might be done. High frequency electrical oscillations in the electrode, separate from the electrolysis DC current flow, can be created by including the cathode in an oscillator circuit. The oscillator could be made small and included in a calorimetry cell along with the electrolysis cell. The current oscillations would not be through the electrolyte, but the cathode only. The cathode might be constructed in thin layers containing isolated non conducting capacitive regions which can create local ultra high frequency resonant zones. Many small circuits could be fabricated which would resonate at high frequency in response to a slower fluctuating external magnetic or electric field. Possibly NMR effects could also be utilized for this purpose. Experiments should be run at higher than room temperatures, and possibly with loading occurring by other means than electrolysis. Summary: A hypothesis has been presented to explain many observed CF experimental effects. The hypothesis is an extension of known physical effects to an atomic level, plus the assumption of the possibility, where complete orbitals can not form, of formation of a partial electron orbital terminating in a conduction band. This assumed condition gives rise to an energy barrier that permits an energy creating electron tunneling effect. The hypothesized effect produces no ash. -- Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.12 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: CF emissions Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF emissions Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 20:09:07 GMT Organization: Improving In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote : >Robin van Spaandonk writes: > >>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? > >Not that I am aware of, but it could be that nobody has checked. In many >cold fusion experimnts, the cathode is sealed inside a steel cell, where >it could not be seen. In other experiments it is inside a glass container, >usually submerged in a bath. I do not know if anyone has tried turning >off the lights to look for a glow. How strong do you suppose this light >might be? Would it require a photomultiplier? > >- Jed Given that we can see the light of a glow worm, (micro-watt light levels), once our eyes become accustomed to the dark, and that CF cells are purported to produce energy in the watt range, then I suspect that no photomultiplier would be needed. Though a fluorescent coating around the device might not hurt, if UV or very soft x-rays were produced. The reason for my initial statement, was that I have difficulty trying to find an energy dispersion mechanism, that starts with high energy photons (?)- highly localized (CF), and ends with low energy photons (heat) widely distributed, without going through the intervening energy spectrum (i.e. light). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Tom Droege / Re: How To Spend the $700 Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700 Date: 13 Sep 1995 17:33:22 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <436vpl$ish@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) says: > >I was actually not joking. I do intend to build a reactor and to >experiment with various propulsion systems possibly nuclear. I just don't >want to go out and do work before I understand what I am doing. Building a >device takes a lot of time and money and thinking can save a whole lot of >effort, so I try to think a lot before I jump to action. I thought this >newsgroup would give me some good info to consider before I build my >nuclear reactor. I don't think any government agency would stand in my way >especially if I don't go around asking everybody' s permission. Of course >I still have to excersize due diligence when it comes to safety, I have to >ensure that I don't endanger myself and others. > >Zoltan Szakaly Uhhhh! I think you will find that there are plenty of laws in place that will prevent you from building a reactor. I doubt that you could comply with the paper work requirements for under $10,000,000.00. That is before you buy your first # of uranium. If you try to do it on the sly, you will find that not only is the US bureauracracy after you on the paperwork, but also every federal criminal agency. Then the greens will be after you. Mid- east terrorists will try to steal any successes, and if none of these get you then commercial interests will sue you over patent infringement. Woops, I forgot the environmental impact statement that you will have to file. But go for it. I like to encourage madness. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.13 / Robert Heeter / Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Date: 13 Sep 1995 03:38:53 GMT Organization: Princeton University In article <-1209950110160001@204.119.61.82> , singtech@teleport.com writes: >I have little choice to allow or disallow funding for any project which >might suit the fancy of the myriad of scientists supported at places such >as LANL or PPPL so the portion of my taxes devoted to DOE, DOD, etc. which >gets funneled to such places are so funneled without my assent. Sure - >write my congressman. What can be done by or within the law is not always >moral. I consider any national expenditures made past 1958 after closure >of Project Sherwood to accomplish fusion to have been pretty much an >ongoing con game. Not all players are cons by intent but they are all >Welfare Queens In White Coats in spite of their intentions or character. And you complain about establishment physicists having nasty attitudes! Sheesh! Now you say anyone who does fusion research with government support is a priori a welfare queen in white coat, regardless of intentions or character? Perhaps you might get a little more respect from the establishment if you showed a little more class - and allowed a few shades of grey in your world view. In particular: (1) Funding decisions are not made by scientists. They are made by administrators and congressmen (albeit with some input from the scientists). The projects we pursue mostly suit the fancy of the people who finance the projects - and that's true in industry as well as government sponsored research. Don't blame me for the fact that the US spent $350 million on fusion this year, if you don't like it. I'm just trying to chip in so the money is as well spent as it can be. (2) If you're an average citizen, you paid in about $1.50 for fusion research last year. Supposing you're insanely wealthy, you might have contributed $15 or even $150. Yet you've wasted countless $$ worth of your own time bellyaching about it, not to mention far more in taxpayer resources by posting articles on the fusion group. Do you know how much it costs to distribute and archive a single posting here? You might want to consider aiming at a target that's worth the fuss, such as entitlements given to wealthy senior citizens. (Social Security is 1000 times more costly than fusion research, and income transfers from the young to the elderly hardly promote economic growth!) I realize it's a question of principle for you, but this is like complaining about a speck of dust on your coat while you're standing waist-deep in horse manure! If you've got a better idea for how to reach fusion, let's hear about it. This very week there's a meeting going on in Monterey where the physicists are looking at ways to design more economical fusion reactors. These people are receptive to ideas that work, but not half-baked nonsense wrapped up in hostile rhetoric. (I'm not pointing any fingers, but I'll tell you that anything wrapped up in hostile rhetoric is a lot more likely to be considered half-baked nonsense.). I'm perfectly willing to take you seriously provided you drop this blanket condemnation about welfare queens. The research done by these "welfare queens" is what drives innovation and economic growth these days - notice that despite a three-year recession the Japanese government is actually *increasing* its support for science research! ----------------------------------------------------- Bob Heeter Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.14 / Bruce Simpson / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 05:03:09 GMT Organization: FaxMail Technologies Mario Pain wrote: >I disagree, > France has detonated a nuclear device and plans to detonate seven others >before the signature of the Test Ban Treaty in ordre to be ready to develop >nuclear weapons under simulation, should this be necessary. USA does not >need extra tests because it has made enough tests already to be able to >develop these weapons under simulation. By the way, the commitment to the >Test Ban Treaty by president Clinton is much weaker (it made some reservations) >than president Chirac. > But the nuclear tests by France have also another goal: to make credible >the french nuclear deterrent, by showing that France is still a sovereign >country and is ready to take soverign decisions and carry them out whatever >the rest of the world may think of it. > From this point of view, I can only agree with this policy."My country, >right or wrong" (rather like "my mother, drunk or sober"). Hang on - France's previous nuclear tests (a lot of them, both atmospheric and under-ground) have already proven to the world that they are a nuclear power with an awsome arsenal. The lie that they need to further refine their technology is patently ludicrous. You can only kill someone *once* and any attacking country would be as "deterred" by nuclear weapons that were 10 years old as they would be by state-of-the-art. Fission and fussion have known effects when used in weapons, improving the efficiency by 20% isn't really going to be the deciding factor that turns an invading army away. Besides which it is the job of NATO to protect Europe from agressors. NATO is already armed to the teeth with state-of-the-art nuclear armament. By ignoring this fact and effectively thumbing their nose at their supposed allies, France is effectively saying that it doesn't trust the other countries which have NATO membership. Personally if I were a NATO member I'd feel more than a little offended by this arrogance. It has already been suggested that *no* nuclear war is winable and it is this no-win situation that makes nuclear weapons the ultimate deterrent. Given that a nuclear weapon is only an asset if one is not forced to use it - what point is there in making it any better than the minimum required. One must ask why, In this age of disarmament when both east and west are busy destroying their nuclear stockpiles and returning to "deterrent" levels, are France building up their own arsenal. This smacks to me as the actions of a potential agressor than that of a nation simply interested in self defense. Given that the *majority* of French citizens are opposed to the testing yet the government (in the form of Mr Chirac) carry on regardless, one has to wonder about the true health of democracy in that country. To perhaps overstate and make wild extrapolations - does anyone remember the 1930's? Remember how Germany built up its military might far beyond that necessary for defensive purposes and how a humble house-painter 'took control' of the nation, disregarding any viewpoints which were at odds with his own? When the French complain about how they have been invaded three times during this century one has to wonder if perhaps revenge is not on someone's mind? Sounds silly doesn't it? Check your history books - stranger things have happend on a regular basis! It is time that the western world took France to task over its arrogant and delinquent behaviour. Why should we have to put up with a country that chooses to flout such institutions as the European and World Courts? The French Government places itself above the law and is not above using agression and unethical tactics to achieve its ends. When agents of its secret service engaged in an act of inernational terrorism on foreign shores by killing a Greenpeace member and bombing the Rainbow Warrior they then blackmailed the New Zealand government into releasing the agents which had been caught and convicted of the attrocity by threatening to block NZ's access to the valuable European export markets. So instead of deservedly serving sentance for the murder of an innocent man and the violent invasion of a friendly nation, the convicted agents were reluctantly repatriated to France with New Zealand under threat of loosing a key export market. Let's face it, Chirac is a loose cannon, it's about time he stopped and listened to his own citizens, and the almost universal condemnation of his actions by almost every other nation on earth. BTW: do you realise that the French Government is moving to make the use of encryption by French citizens a criminal offense? Even posessing a copy of something as innocuous as PGP could earn you a prison sentance. Do you *still* think that there isn't something *very* wrong with the French democratic process? Do you *still* think that a country whose leader has these attitudes to democracy and privacy, and who places himself above the law should be entitled to continue the development of an already awsome nuclear arsenal? 'Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it' *----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----* | bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz | *--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-* cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Sep 15 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------