1995.09.19 / Thomas Nugent /  Re: Making He3 and related questions
     
Originally-From: nugent@gol.com (Thomas J. Nugent, Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 22:47:08 +0900
Organization: JSTMP

In article <43fpnl$lfk@marlo.eagle.ca>,
Simon Rowland <simon@curtis.eagle.ca> wrote:

>   I read on space.tech that tritium breaks down into He3. Does that 
>mean that we could manufacture it earthside? or would it just react with 
>the tritium? Anyway, what's the power yield with H (and could or would 
>existing nuke plants be converted if there was a supply)? 
>
>   Also, what's the deal with lunar He3? Does it exist or is it mere 
>specuation? How could we detect it (aside from spraying H around and 
>hoping you're not vaporized)? What would be its value if there were nuke 
>plants ready to accept it?

OK, now that I've seen your question in 3 different posts, stated
in different ways, and have not yet seen any replies, I'll reply.

H and He3 don't just "combine" and let off lots of energy.  They
need to be _forced_ together (which takes lots of energy) in order
to fuse, at which point they release energy.  This is fusion.
All nuclear reactors today utilize _fission_, which is what happens
when heavier elements such as uranium "fall apart" which they
do without being forced to, at a certain rate (which determines
their half-life).  So "spraying around H" would not cause
you to get vaporized - it would NOT react (in a nuclear sense
that is) with the He3, unless you "sprayed" it with _very_
high energy.

Currently there is alot of research going on into making fusion
a feasible power supply.  But it still takes _more_ energy
to fuse elements than is released by the reaction, hence it's
not worth it.  Furthermore, different elements can be fused,
with varying degrees of difficulty.  The first fusion reactors
will probably use Deuterium (D) and Tritium (T), because the
energy needed for a D-T fusion is lower than a H-He3 fusion.
But D-T releases neutrons, which is undesirable because that's
"harmful" radiation.  But H-He3, on the other hand, creates
almost exclusively charged particles, which are "easier" to 
use to convert to energy, plus they can be contained with
electromagnetic fields; they don't need a few meters of concrete.

Economic fusion, especially that using He3, is projected to be
at least 20 years in the future.  Of course, it was also projected
to be that far in the future 10 or 20 years ago, or so I've
heard.  :-)  Don't hold your breath.

As far manufacturing He3, yes it comes from the decay of Tritium
(which has a half-life a little over 12 years), which is used
in H-bombs, so just go around and collect the decay products from
your bombs and you can get _some_ He3, but not huge quantities.

Oh, and to detect He3, it would be detected the way you'd detect
any other materials - through spectrographic analysis of the lunar
surface.  I believe the Lunar Prospector will have a gamma-ray
spectrometer onboard for this very purpose, but I'm not sure.

 -- Tom N.



Tom Nugent: Interning through U. Pittsburgh JSTM program at Ishikawajima-
Harima Heavy Industries, Yokohama Research Institute, Japan.  But just 
because I'm associated with them doesn't mean I speak for them.
email: nugent@gol.com        URL:   http://www2.gol.com/users/nugent
Join the JapanSpace mailing list by sending me email w/ your email address
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudennugent cudfnThomas cudlnNugent cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 19:07:04 -0900
Organization: none

In article <43mk1o$63n@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

> I have noted that the mass given for the H atom in the CRC Handbook is
> equal to the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron. So what is
> so surprising about that you may say?
> Well if the proton and the electron are treated as classical point
> charges of opposite sign, then at normal atomic sizes, the electron
> has a considerable potential energy relative to the proton. In fact
> the amount of energy that this represents is determined by the
> distance to which they approach each other. Now in an electron
> capture, that distance becomes very small.
> In fact if you do the sums, it turns out that the electron needs to
> approach the proton to within a distance of 1.841 F in order that the
> energy delivered is equal to that required to make up the .782 MeV
> difference in mass between H and a neutron. Now it seems to me that
> 1.841 F is a very reasonable distance for electron capture. In other
> words, if electron capture is to take place, in fact little or no
> extra energy need be supplied to the Hydrogen atom. This energy in
> fact is already present in the potential energy of the two charges
> relative to one another in the original atom. 
> This further implies that when a neutron decays into a hydrogen atom,
> no extra energy is released. 
> 
> Now will someone please tell me where I went wrong?
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>

On page 1-3 of the 71st edition I find:

Neutron:  1.6749286 E-27 Kg     939.56563 MeV
Proton:   1.6726231 E-27 Kg     938.27231 Mev
Electron: 9.1093897 E-31 Kg       0.51099906 MeV

Wrong edition? Misprint? Forgot your glasses? Surprised by those heavy
objects measured in Kg? Shocked by those MeV?  8^)

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Ian Gay /  Re: Making He3 and related questions
     
Originally-From: gay@sfu.ca (Ian Gay)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 22:00:22 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University

In article <43k16f$h4@hopper.kenyon.edu>,
   Timothy Sullivan <Sullivan@kenyon.edu> wrote:
>He-3 is a decay product of tritium and tritium is used in hydrogen 
bombs. 
>Hence, He-3 is a byproduct of our nuclear weapons stockpile. So it is 
>being manufactured "earthside". Quite expensive, but I don't have a 
>figure. Off the top of my head I seem to remember $1000/STP-liter.

Just tried to look it up. All my current isotope catalogs fail to give a 
price (Why? wildly fluctuating?) and say 'please call'. An old 1980's 
catalog I have gives $200/L.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengay cudfnIan cudlnGay cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 20:02:51 -0900
Organization: none

In article <1995Sep18.122908@oxvaxd>, dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk wrote:

> In article <43c9f9$pds$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com>, Prasad,Ramon 
> <100437.530@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> 
>    That's it, I'm out of here.  I have scanned this group on occasion to see 
> if there was any progress on finding out where the anomalous heat production
> in some CF experiments comes from.  I strongly suspect it is some systematic
> in the calorimetry, but it could be a lot of things and I have been curious 
> to see how it comes out.  I have even on occasion been coaxed into saying 
> something.  But over time the amount of actual experiment discussed has 
> steadily declined to be replaced by ridiculously simple-minded "theories"
> which betray nearly complete ignorance of the most basic physics.  People 
> claim that quantum mechanics must be basically flawed without any real 
> understanding of what it is, and then become petulant when their rubbish is
> ignored.  HINT:  A real scientific theory makes quantitative predictions, a
> new theory both predicts (quantitatively) behavior not previously understood
> and explains how the old theory (which must have been wrong or incomplete in
> some way or you wouldn't have needed a new one) gave the correct predictions 
> for enough experiments to have been accepted in the first place.  I have seen
> nothing that qualifies, or even tries to qualify here.  Now I find myself 
> spending time reading:
>  
> > 
> >>How long do the neutrons remain within the range of the nuclear
> >>interaction?
> > I don't know. My surmise was that, as a deuteron is a stable 
> > object, charge independence of nuclear forces would suggest
> > that the dineutron is also stable. But I don't know this.
> > --
> 
> Charge independence would imply the same binding for a dineutron as for a
> neutron and a proton IN THE SAME EIGENSTATE.  What is the spin of a deuteron?
> Do you know?  Do you care?  Do you understand why it is significant?  As a
> hint, what would the Pauli exclusion principle have to say about a dineutron
> in the same eigenstate?  Ignoring any theoretical argument whatsoever, the
> absence of any strongly bound state of the dineutron (and especially the 
> diproton) is one of the most fundamental facts of nuclear physics (how long 
> to you thing the sun would shine if there existed a strong bound state of the
> diproton?  Do you understand the relevance of the question?).  Please get an
> elementary text on nuclear physics, another on particle physics, and another
> on quantum mechanics.  Read them.  DO THE PROBLEMS.  Only then will you have
> a chance to really add something to human understanding (although by then you
> may begin to appreciate how hard it is to do so, and how many more books, 
> papers and problems lie between you and the frontier).  Even if you think the
> theories are complete crap you must at least have a grasp of the experimental
> constraints which exist.  And if you do think that the theories are complete
> crap you might want to find an explanation that will satisfy your audience for
> how a quantum field theory (quantum electrodynamics, or QED) got the right 
> answer for g-2 of the electron to 12 decimal places.  Some lucky guess, huh?
> And remember, real physical theories come with a mathematical model attached,
> not just poorly defined jargon.
>     
>     In any case I think my chances of learning anything useful here have sunk
> to the point that I will unregister this newsgroup.  It has been entertaining
> if not particularly educational.  If somebody does come up with some genuinely
> useful data on the CF cells I hope I get to hear about it.  Of course if it
> does turn out to just be a calorimetry error I am sure the Wall Street Journal
> will publish a page one retraction.  It would be the honorable thing to do,
> after all, and I am sure that journalistic ethics means more to them than 
> circulation :-).
> 
> Have fun everybody,
>      Dave Wark        

Do you professional and educated researchers take no reposibility for the
void that was left in this newsgroup for the amatuers to play in? Are you
not embarrased that so much experimental work is being done by those least
qualified and least paid to do it?  Are you not surprised at the chaos of
results and claims? Do you feel no responsibility to respond
constructively to enlighten those of us who care enough about the future
of mankind to swim upstream in this field? Do you have no understanding of
the envy and jealousy in those of us not fortunate to have had the
wherewithall to join the educated elite? Can you not sense the percieved
injustice felt by those who struggle to accomplish something alone, on our
own limited money and time, while the elite live on our taxes and enjoy
their infrastructure?   Do you not understand why conventional fusion
stands on the brink of a funding loss? 

If you were talking we would be listening. If there were quality dialog
instead of diatribe maybe the likes of me wouldn't have butted into your
precious space. But you are right, there is very little here in the way of
results because there is very little in the way of mutual support
intellectually and monitarily. This is a social club. Too bad, eh? If you
don't like that it seems like you would at least have the fortitude to try
to change it, or the courtesy to leave without complaint. Many people here
have toned down their rhetoric lately. Maybe it was that nasty
unmentionable thread name that finally did it.  We in the USA clearly need
to be mutually supportive regarding funding. Probably the situation in the
UK is not much different. In any event, our fusion budget is going to
affect your fusion budget. I have a lot more to say about this, but I am
awaiting authorization from Gene Mallove to quote his book.

Where is your contribution?  At least I and others here who dare to
propose hypotheses, straw horses to pick at, tear down and build up, are
offering some kind of positive stimulation, some kind of learning
experience. Whatever you think of the content, you should respect the
personal risk taken. Who knows, some crazily constructed set of words seen
by the right person at the right moment will kick off an idea that will
save us all or our children from runaway global warming.

Have fun at what you are doing and I hope it is worthwhile.

Regards,

Horace

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Horace Heffner /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:42:49 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-1709951519560001@199.172.8.133>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[snip]

> However, I also believe that a fragment of an explanation is not an
> explanation, and that "necessary" is not the same thing as "sufficient."

Necessary means that without it, you have a problem.  Since you have
created a list of many areas in which we have disagreed, this seems a good
place to restate my position and disagreemnt and questions regarding those
and some other issues you raise. By the way, isn't asking questions a form
of contribution to the gestalt of this group?

> For example: 
> 
> (1) It is necessary to understand the geometry of the lattice--how the
> atoms are arranged, and the length of the distances between them. Some of
> the posters in these threads had such understanding; others did not. And
> the same could be said of the lurkers. However, such an awareness, though
> necessary, is not sufficient to explain "cold fusion," because, obviously,
> a fragment of an explanation is not an explanation.   

Isn't it necessary to know that the geometry of Palladium is cubic, face
centered. This means the unit cell is bounded by a cube. The centers of
the six faces of the cube are the locations of the centers of the six Pd
atoms bounding the octahedron.  An octahedron is symmetric about all three
axes. It can be chopped up into pairs of tetrahedrons in three ways.
However, you are chopping up the same volume when you do this. There is no
tetrahedral interior, only a single octahedral interior. If you idealize
the Pd atoms to be spheres of radius 1/2 the bond lentgh of 2.751 A, which
they are not, the maximum sphere that can be included in the octahedral
cell is .5697 A. Given an H covalent radius of .32 A, it is possible to
include an H2 atom in the cell with only slight expansion of the lattice. 


Isn't it necessary to know the triangular faces of the octahedral cell,
under the above assumptions, will permit a sphere of radius .2128 A to
enter,  and that, this radius is far more sensitive to the erroneous
assumption of spherical Pd atoms. With a lattice in sufficient motion, it
is very possible .32 A diameter H2 molecules can diffuse in molecular form
through the lattice, and also that H2 can be trapped in the facial sites,
the making the Pd lattice expand.

> 
> (2) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand the nature of the
> unit cell of the lattice--that it consists of two four-sided pyramids
> joined base-to-base (an octohedron). 

Isn't it necessary to know that, excluding boundaries, there is the same
number of Pd atoms as octahedral cells? That this is true for typical
electrode metals Pd, Ni, Al, Pt, Cu, Au, AG, and Pb, as well as true for
Ca, Sr, Ac, Yb, Th, Ce, and Ge? Thus doesn't a loading above 100% results
in doubly occupied cells?
  
> 
> (3) It is necessary to understand that the radius of a neutral hydrogen
> atom, with its electron at the innermost Bohr orbit, is a good, snug fit
> into the center of a unit cell. Again, however, while this fragment of
> information is necessary, it is not sufficient to explain "cold fusion." 
> 

The atomic radius of hydrogen is .79 A, covalent H is .32.  The separation
of D2 nuclei is .74 A.  Molecular D2 can fit with a slight expansion of
the Pd lattice.  Isn't it necessary to know expansion due to heavy loading
has been observed?

> (4) It is necessary, but not sufficient, to understand that while there is
> room in the unit cell for a neutral hydrogen atom, the opening into the
> unit cell is too small to permit the passage of a neutral hydrogen atom. 
> 

Isn't this debatable? There is not much difference between .2128 A and .32
A, considering it is known the .2128 is too small.


> (5) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that H+ ions are
> small enough to enter a unit cell. 

Since extensive and verified diffusion modelling has been done, isn't it
important to find out what the established mechanism of diffusion is?

> 
> (6) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that there exists a
> small voltage gradient across the cathode which is sufficient to draw H+
> ions into the lattice.

There is a voltage gradient across the solution. There is only a nominal
and inconsequential and transient gradient in the electrode. Isn't it
important that the current in the electrode is carried by the
electromagnetic force, that the rate of travel of current is near light
speed. D+ ions in solution are subsonic. There is a few orders of magitude
difference. Isn't it important to consider that he electrode is fully
charge balanced to the H+ ion before it touches the lattice?
 
> 
> (7) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that when H+ ions meet
> electrons in occupied cells, they do not have room to form neutral
> hydrogen atoms. 

Isn't it important to figure out where the H+ ions got the 13+ volts to
get ionized deep inside that lattice?


> 
> (8) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that these
> conditions, given insufficient energy for the electron to escape the H+
> (the proton), would lead the electron to spiral down toward the nucleus
> and would produce the unstable state that I termed a "protoneutron." 
> 

Isn't it important that there is no experimental evidence that electrons
spiral down to a nucleus.  There is lots of evidence that slow moving
electrons are too de-localized to "reach" a nucleus in a whole sense.
Consider the two slit electron interference experiment. If an electron can
go through 2 slits simultaneously, how is it going to localise enough "get
to" that little nucleus without a lot of accelerating, not decellerating? 


> (9) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that the accumulation
> of such entities (protoneutrons) could occur in a loaded lattice. 
>

If such things exist, why is our sun not a neutron star? There is plenty
of energy and much more confined conditions, and lots of gamma radiation
of all denominations. Wouldn't the whole thing become a bunch of pn's and
then neutrons in the core?
 
> (10) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that such an entity,
> given an appropriate dose of energy, could transform into a thermal
> neutron. 

Wouldn't an exact coupling would be required to do this?

> 
> (11) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that thermal neutrons
> tend to be absorbed into nuclei, and that when they are, the resulting
> nucleus typically  emits a giant gamma and drops to ground state. 

Isn't the mean free path of thermal neutrons in Pd much farther than the
size of a typical electrode?

> 
> (12) It is necessary but not sufficient to conceive of the possibility
> that protoneutrons are characterized by a *rapacity* for the energy of
> transformation into neutrons--that they may be incredibly efficient
> absorbers of electromagnetic radiation at the needed frequencies, and
> possibly at many other frequencies. 

Due to their small size, wouldn't it take a latice totally packed with
them? In fact, wouldn't every cell have to be totally choked with them?
Wouldn't the Pd electrode would have to have tons of them to absorb enough
gamma radiation to prevent death of the experimenter. 

> 
> (13) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that gamma absorption
> in a large accumulation of protoneutrons could trigger a chain reaction of
> a new type, in which the event sequence was: 
> 
>      (a) pn (protoneutron) + gamma --> n.
> 
>      (b) n + nucleus --> isotope shift + gamma. 
> 
>      (c) Return to step (a). 


Why have step (b) at all, why not just:

         pn + nucleus -> isotope shift + gamma    8^)

Why not do an isotopic analysis on the glass of that bottle?

> 
> (14) It was necessary to recognize that the palladium lattice contained
> nuclei (e.g., H, D) that upon neutron absorption emitted gammas large
> enough to produce the formation of multiple neutrons--which means: large
> enough to mediate an *accelerated* chain reaction. [As I have noted, p + n
> --> d + 2.22 Mev (gamma). In addition, d + n --> t + 6.25 Mev (gamma).
> Etc.]
> 

If true, how does all that high energy stuff stay in one tiny bottle?


> And the list goes on and on and on, Zoltan. 

[snip]

> A good way to illustrate such a process is with an analogy. Suppose that
> there exists an immense being, in whose body each galaxy is an atom. To
> him, time runs slowly. Each rotation of a galaxy, which takes many
> millions of human years, is in his time scale a tiny fraction of a second.
> Thus we are part of what, to him, is the microcosm. Result: he has as much
> trouble measuring events in his microcosm as we have measuring events in
> ours. For example, it might be that, using his finest instruments, he can
> only detect human beings on the earth if they do not move for at least a
> month. Result: if he applies "quantum mechanics," he will be convinced
> that only the dead and the dying exist on earth, because only corpses and
> people in comas (or strapped to torture racks) remain immoble for that
> long. If, therefore, he is a practitioner of "quantum mechanics," our
> hypothetical being will declare that the less stable, faster moving,
> hard-to-detect states do not exist. If he is a believer in classical
> mechanics, on the other hand, he will simply declare that other states may
> exist that are beyond the accuracy of his instruments. --Mitchell
> Jones}*** 
> 

Can you apply this analagy to the 2 (through n) slit experiment for
electrons? When electrons are passed through through 2 or more adjacent
slits an interference pattern develops, even when they pass through one at
a time. Do you account for this by the little guys quickly running back
through the holes a second time and running so fast they bump into
themselves?  Maybe they see the n slits coming and split up into n smaller
guys, go through the slits and then bump into themselves? This thought 
reminds me of a Keystone Cops fire drill I saw once 8^).

Seriously, it seems like there are many inconsistancies and unanswered
questions in your hypothesis, the most important being how does all that
tiny subatomic neutral stuff, at the speed of light, and at 2200 m/sec,
stay in the electrode or bottle long enough to be absorbed?

Regards,

Horace

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 19:55:29 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-1909951604030001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>In article <43ljfe$s50@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
>(Richard Schultz) wrote:
>
>> In article <21cenlogic-1809950953540001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
>> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >(1) It may be that protoneutrons soak up gamma energy before the photons
>> >reach the speed of light. 
>> 
>> I was going to ask what on earth this statement means, but on second thought,
>> I suspect that I probably don't want to know.
>
>***{Far be it from me to burden you with unwanted knowledge. --Mitchell
>Jones}***

Your response to Schultz's comment suggests this wasn't a typo or joke.
Are you seriously suggesting there are photons traveling at less than the
speed of light?
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / 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, 19 Sep 1995 15:38:50 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-1709951913210001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1709951519560001@199.172.8.133>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >In article <43e7b5$3e3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
> >(ZoltanCCC) wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> As a matter of fact instead of talking about protoneutrons you could just
> >> say that lots of electrons and protons occupy the same region.
> >
> >***{Such a formulation doesn't work. If it did, a hydrogen plasma would be
> >a sufficient condition for fusion. In that case, "hot fusion" would have
> >succeeded 40 years ago, and this entire discussion would be moot.
> >--Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> Isn't this a fairly strong indictment of a protoneutron theory? Surely
> given the conditions present in a plasma you would think there would have
> to be collisions between protons and electrons and there would be
> sufficient energy to form a protoneutron. 

***{You misunderstand: the protoneutron is a low energy state, not a high
energy one. If an electron approaches a proton in a loaded portion of the
lattice, where there is insufficient room for even the innermost Bohr
orbit, that fact alone does not mean a protoneutron will be formed. If the
electron has too much energy, it will speed up on approach to the proton,
pass escape velocity, and simply fly away. It is only in those cases
where, due to random collision effects in the lattice, it fails to achieve
escape velocity, that it will spiral down through the inner, classical
orbits to linger at what I call "grazing altitude" above the nuclear
envelope, thereby forming a thermal protoneutron. --Mitchell Jones}***

  It seems to me completion of a
> protoneutron theory must explain the lack of observation of these effects
> in convential fusion experiments.

***{A hydrogen plasma, under normal circumstances, is a cloud of hydrogen
gas in which the particle velocities are so high that the protons and
electrons separate from one another, becoming ions. The problem is that
the interaction probability (the "cross section") tends to drop as the
relative velocities of the particles increase. Particle velocities are so
high in standard hydrogen plasmas that the neutron formation cross section
is virtually zero. To form thermal protoneutrons, on the other hand,
particle velocities must be lower than are normally found in a plasma.

Interestingly, as I have noted in other posts, it is possible that
protoneutrons are disrupted when they encounter fast-moving magnetic flux
lines of the sort, for example, that accompany orbital shell electrons. To
the extent that such disruptions occur in the loaded palladium lattice, it
follows that we do not merely have protoneutrons afoot there, but that we
also have an odd type of low temperature hydrogen plasma. Because it is a
low temperature plasma, it has a higher cross section for the p + e --> n
interaction than the standard plasmas which form at high temperatures.
However, because the plasma protons and electrons do not linger in the
vicinity of one another, their cross section for neutron formation is
lower than is the case for protoneutrons. While the low-temperature plasma
undoubtedly exists and may mediate occasional thermal neutron formation,
it is unnecessary to the explanation of "cold fusion," while the lingered
pairing (protoneutron) condition *is* necessary. 

Why? The most obvious reason is that it is necessary that protoneutrons
absorb all gammas, not merely those that are larger than .78 Mev. Even .5
Mev gammas are big enough to escape from the lattice and kill the
experimenters, if there is no mechanism to sop them up. The mechanism I
proposed was that protoneutrons absorb gammas over .78 Mev by forming
neutrons, and absorb gammas under .78 Mev as kinetic energy. In the latter
case, the result is a protoneutron flying through the lattice in a quasi
bound state until it comes to an empty unit cell, where it "pops" into a
neutral hydrogen atom, and delivers up its kinetic energy to the lattice
as heat by means of a series of collisions. In other words, if the
close-approach lingering state which I call a "protoneutron" does not
exist, then the theory gives up the ability to explain the absence of
gammas that are smaller than .78 Mev. With nothing but a low-temperature
hydrogen plasma in the loaded lattice, the experimenters would be just as
dead as in the case where no gammas were absorbed at all. (By the way:
protoneutrons may also absorb x-rays as kinetic energy. This is not
absolutely necessary to the theory, since x-rays do not penetrate metal
very well, and would be mostly trapped in the lattice anyway, but it is a
very real possibility: it seems unlikely that protoneutrons use the human
distinction between gamma rays and x-rays to decide what to absorb and
what not to absorb!)

I would also note that if an electron is to combine with a proton to form
a neutron, it must pass through the space separating it from the proton.
Otherwise, the principle of continuity is violated, and the entire
structure of human knowledge collapses. And once we grant that the
electron can pass through the intervening classical orbits, we have tossed
out "quantum mechanics" already, so there is no point in trying to save it
by denying, a la Zoltan, that close approach lingering states are
possible. 

--Mitchell Jones}*** 
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  continuation of Infinite Energy vol. 1 No. 3 review
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: continuation of Infinite Energy vol. 1 No. 3 review
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 15:46 -0500 (EST)

The article "Application of the Nucleon Cluster Model to Experimental Results"
discusses a theory where the protons and neutrons clump into groups of NP PNP
and NPN only.  If it is not possible to make an atom using these combinations
(such as hydrogen) then there is in addition antimatter particles with these
clumps.  IE hydrogen is postulated to be composed of a PNP and an anti NP.
Also it can be composed of 2 NP and an anti NPN or 5 NP and 2 anti NPN and an
anti PNP.  This theory claims to show why the numbers 20, 50, 82 and 126 are
special.  This article has left me scratching my head.  I plan on studying it
some more, but at this point I am not quite sure what to make of it.

The article on "Excess Heat in Cavitation Devices, World-wide Testing and
Reports" assembled by Eugene Mallove is exactly what the title indicates.
Scott Little's report on the Potapov Device (which has for the most part
already been posted in here) is reported, as well as additional testing on that
device by Jeff Driscoll and Eugene Mallove at their thermogenerator research
lab.  Also the Schaefer Steam Generator was reported on, and of course the
Griggs device is also mentioned.

An article titled "Mechanisms of a Disobedient Science" A Cold Fusion Theory"
by David Moon discusses a number of theories dealing with cold fusion. He
breaks his theory down into different "windows" of opportunity, and discusses
each seperately. The theory is based on the idea that once a lattice is loaded
with deuteriums they will act collectively and coherently. By vibrating
coherently, it is possible for the motion to be focused at a grain defect or
boundry.  This paper gets pretty deep, and I have not totally read it to be
honest.

"Hypothesis for Cold Fusion of Hydrogen Isotopes within Metallic Matrices" by
Marshall Dudley.  This a basically a paper based on what has been called the
"Marshall Dudley hypothesis" in this news group lately.  It postulates that two
hydrogen or deuterium nuclei can approach each other within tunneling distance
due to the shielding effect of the electron cloud in the outer shell of a
metal.  Fusion could easily be a 3 body action, which would include an electron
from the outer orbit of the metal, and this additional electron could account
for the lack of neutrons and gammas under CF conditions.

"How to miss the Energy Boat" by Hal Fox.  This article discusses how the US is
missing the boat on CF due to vested interests preventing financing and the
issuing of patents.  Authur C. Clark is quoted as saying "If a competent
scientist tells you that something can be done, he is probably right, if a
scientist tells you that something cannot be done, he is probably wrong."

The New products section discusses some products from JET Technology, including
nickel electrodes that give graded amounts of excess energy.  Other products,
such as Calorimetrey and Stoichiometry, control sytems, and coolant pumps are
discussed.

The "Experimenter's Corner" reports on a science fair project on cold fusion by
Michael Belcher", and "Sonoluminescence in the basement lab, Not so easy, but
try it!" by Scott Little.

Jed Rothwell reviews the book "A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear
Effects, A guide for the Perlexed About Cold Fusion".  Ironically the review
and a comment from the editor called "A breif History of a Book" left me
somewhat perplexed.  Obviously a lot more is going on here than simply the
writing of a book.

Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:04:03 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43ljfe$s50@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1809950953540001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> 
> >(1) It may be that protoneutrons soak up gamma energy before the photons
> >reach the speed of light. 
> 
> I was going to ask what on earth this statement means, but on second thought,
> I suspect that I probably don't want to know.

***{Far be it from me to burden you with unwanted knowledge. --Mitchell
Jones}***
> --
>                                         Richard Schultz
> 
> "You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:03:47 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <tomkDF4xwA.8o1@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1809950953540001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> 
> >Now, back to your post: frankly, I don't understand why you bother to make
> >posts like that. Maybe you think that your unsupported opinion is going to
> >carry the day, somehow, and that is why you do it.
> 
> Excuse me Mitchell, but can you explain how your protoneutrons
> attract these photons? As we all know there is very little chance
> of any specific photon hitting a protoneutron.

***{An odd statement, coming from a person who probably doesn't believe
that protoneutrons exist at all! In any case, I believe that the gamma
absorption cross section of a protoneutron is *enormous.* This assumption
is necessary to explain the fact (a) that the "excess heat" due to "cold
fusion" is real, and (b) that the experimenters who have observed this
effect are not all dead. 

In addition there are classical mechanical reasons for suspecting that
this may be the case. However, I am not going to get into those reasons
here. I have given away too much of my theoretical framework already, and
I have to draw the line somewhere. It may turn out that the protoneutron
theory is refuted by experiment. However, if it it turns out to be
confirmed, *that will mean I have given away an enormous amount of money
by posting it here.* It leads to all sorts of technological ideas
regarding how to initiate the "excess heat" effect and control its
intensity. If the theory is valid, then virtually anyone who understands
it can use it to solve such problems, and can, under existing law, patent
the resulting devices. Result: if the theory is true, the people who apply
it get rich, and I get nothing. Frankly, that prospect irritates the hell
out of me. I kept my mouth closed about the theory quite literally *for
years* because I kept thinking I would find the funding to set up a lab
and test it myself, and then patent the resulting devices myself. It was
only as the magnitude of the built-in obstacles facing "uncredentialed"
scientists became clear to me that, in a moment of madness, I posted it
here. (How fitting that this occurred on the same day that I fulminated at
Steve Jones for no reason! I have no idea what got ahold of me. Something
that I ate, perhaps. Who knows?) 

Fortunately, I have other theories, and those theories also have
implications. Even if the protoneutron theory is confirmed by
experiment--by no means a sure thing--I will have other fish to fry and
other projects to pursue. But not if, in an ongoing bout with madness, I
continue to give away for free theories that I have developed over a
period of thirty years. Believe me, all of those theories are not wrong,
even if the present one turns out to be! --Mitchell Jones}***    

In fact, it's probably
> vanishingly small. So if there are photons of gamma {intensity} floating
around
> _most_ of them would be escaping wouldn't they? And they do move
> ever so fast.
> 
> I just assumed that Blue thought you were joking.

***{Us foks aot hir inna wuds is tu dum ta tel joks. Wir so iggerent we
think we ken du fisiks! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Richard Blue /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 14:30:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

EXCUSE ME, Mitchell, if I read something into your posts relatating
to protoneutron formation that you did not intend to say.  I have
probably made the unwarranted assumption that you were attempting
to explain a process that results in a net release of a significant
quantity of energy.s that results in the net release of a significant
quantity of energy.  I would appreciate it if you could recap for
us what you assuming happens after the formation of a "protoneutron."

There are, of course, a few questions to be cleared up as to just what
a protoneutron is assumed to be.  When, if ever, does it start to
behave like an ordinary neutron?  Since you seem to be using numbers
appropriate for the mass of an ordinary neutron I seem to have gotten
ahead of you to conclude that a protoneutron becomes, in some sense,
a neutron.  Is that not a part of your theory?

You do seem to recognize that ordinary energy conservation goes against
the formation of protoneutrons, and as I recall, you say there is
0.748 MeV required each time you make one of these things.  Now, at this
point, I seem to remember something to the effect that you expected
to deliver this energy via gamma ray absorbtion.  Have I gotten things
wrong on this point?

Your hypothesis as I remember it seems to require a flux of gamma radiation
to provide the energy of formation for your protoneutron thingies.  Now
here is where I feel I may have been misled.  Did you not suggest that
the gamma flux could be the result of the capture of neutrons by protons to
form a deuteron?  That was surely in someones post on this topic, but I may
have become entrangled in all the nested quotes and blamed you for someone
elses contribution.  Sorry about that.

Well, since you now seem to be disowning the concept of neutron capture as
the source of your assumed gamma flux where does that leave us?  What exactly
is a protoneutron?  What is the reaction responsible for the production of
excess heat?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / A Plutonium /  All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:37:44 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

 All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a
hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it
is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with
extra energy.

  The Superposition Principle of QM, is merely an equivalent statement
to the fact that all matter is the linear equations sums of Hydrogen
Atom Systems.

  Reverse, if all atoms were not the sum total of Hydrogen Atom
Systems, eg, 231PU, plutonium is merely 231 Hydrogen Atom Systems,
then, physics esq Quantum Physics would have never had a Superposition
principle.

  In other words, I have reduced the Superposition Principle of QM, and
the fact that physics is linear,  linear,   linear  partial
differential equations,  is because all matter, all atoms are built up
from one building block Hydrogen Atom Systems.

  The reason neutrons act as glue for the protons is because the
neutron shares that electron inside it with neighboring protons. The
nucleus is sort of like a "metallic bond".

  The Superposition Principle == Hydrogen Atom Systems.

  Now, the bleeding gutter snipes of physics will be quick to spew
"well what about quarks?"  And I tell you what is about quarks. Quarks
are merely the fact that in math, there exists 3 and only 3
geometries-- Riem, Eucl, and Loba and when you have an entity that is
not ever reducible down further, or incapable of being further cut,
like a proton, then it reveals all 3 possible geometries
simultaneously. Quarks are not physics reality. Quark are merely the
statement that a particle like a proton is bundled up into the 3 and
only 3 existing geometries simultaneously.  So do not bother about the
mindrot of quarks when talking about the real physics, that of Hydrogen
Atom Systems.

  And don't drivel about a electron beam or proton beam being protons
and electrons in "isolation". That is circus clown physics. The Bell
Inequality evinces that proton and electron are always tied or
correlated.

  If Hydrogen Atom Systems is not true, then the Superposition
Principle of QM plus the Conservation of Charge plus the Bell
Inequality are not true.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Making He3 and related questions
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:43:42 -0600
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company

In article <43fpnl$lfk@marlo.eagle.ca>, Simon Rowland
<simon@curtis.eagle.ca> wrote:

>   I read on space.tech that tritium breaks down into He3. Does that 
>mean that we could manufacture it earthside? or would it just react with 
>the tritium? Anyway, what's the power yield with H (and could or would 
>existing nuke plants be converted if there was a supply)? 

Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen which does decay via beta
emission to He3 with a half life of 12.26 years. However, tritium is not a
naturaly occuring form of hydrogen.

Manufacture of He3 on earth via tritium decay is certainly possible. This
may not be the most economic or efficient way to go about making He3. I am
curious though as to why anyone would want to manufacture He3.

As to "power yield with H" and converting existing nuclear plants, what
are you talking about? Existing nuclear plants are *fission* reactors and
do not use any form of helium or hydrogen as "fuel".

-- 
"Against supidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Michael Varney /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: Michael Varney <mcvarney@holly.colostate.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: 20 Sep 1995 06:17:27 GMT
Organization: C.S.U Department of Physics

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a
>hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it
>is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with
>extra energy.

What are you talking about? If a 'hasys' is an hydrogen atom with extra energy,  and 
any other atom is just the hydrogen atom with more energy, then why would a neutron 
be a hydrogen atom with extra energy?  A neutron is NOT even an atom!


<Crap Clipped>...


Use some of the massive amounts of money you make washing dishes and playing the 
stock market and take some physics classes at Dartmouth.  You 'Might' learn somthing 
and possibly cure you terminal athlete's mouth. 

Also,  since you already told me to go to hell, (styx that is) it would be silly to 
do so again.  It's not so bad in hell (styx that is),  exept I have to listen to 
some Plutonium god blather at me all the time.  Oh well...  <sigh>
  




-- 
Michael Varney

Department of Physics

Colorado State University

*************************************************************************
           If as*holes could fly,  it would be perpetually dark!

                  
             Of course, one kind person will lift the darkness.

*************************************************************************
     mcvarney@holly.colostate.edu

     http://holly.colostate.edu/~mcvarney


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmcvarney cudfnMichael cudlnVarney cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 /   /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 20 Sep 1995 01:44:23 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

>I have noted that the mass given for the H atom in the CRC Handbook is
>equal to the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron. So what is
>so surprising about that you may say?
>Well if the proton and the electron are treated as classical point
>charges of opposite sign, then at normal atomic sizes, the electron
>has a considerable potential energy relative to the proton. In fact
>the amount of energy that this represents is determined by the
>distance to which they approach each other. Now in an electron
>capture, that distance becomes very small.
>In fact if you do the sums, it turns out that the electron needs to
>approach the proton to within a distance of 1.841 F in order that the
>energy delivered is equal to that required to make up the .782 MeV
>difference in mass between H and a neutron. Now it seems to me that
>1.841 F is a very reasonable distance for electron capture. In other
>words, if electron capture is to take place, in fact little or no
>extra energy need be supplied to the Hydrogen atom. This energy in
>fact is already present in the potential energy of the two charges
>relative to one another in the original atom. 
>This further implies that when a neutron decays into a hydrogen atom,
>no extra energy is released. 
>
>Now will someone please tell me where I went wrong?

Be glad to. Even considering the atom classically, conservation of energy
still holds. The electron-proton system has a total energy of the sum of
the masses minus the binding energy of several electron volts, and the
total energy stays constant even if the electron executes a highly
eliptical orbit, i.e. it loops very close to and then far from the proton.
As the electron approaches the proton it's kinetic energy increases but so
does it's (negative) potential energy, and the total stays constant.

Of course the atom is *not* a classical system, but the above still
basically holds true.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Ramon Prasad /  Re:Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Multineutron systems
Date: 20 Sep 1995 04:03:55 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


mrichar353@aol.com (Mark Richardson) wrote (amongst other things) :

>The lack of a bound state for the dineutron has nothing to do with
>the weak force (beta decay), it is entirely a strong interaction issue.

The idea that it is possible to devise an interaction between nucleons
which causes the proton and the neutron to form a bound state and
which leaves two neutrons unaffected has yet to be demonstrated.
Strong interactions are supposed to be charge independent. Why 
then is the n-p system bound and yet the n-n and p-p systems
unbound. These are experimental facts and do not come out of
anybody's theory.

>Electron capture only happens when an electron hangs around
>for a long time as in an atom...

OK. So how do we know that that is not what is happening in a
palladium lattice which is loaded up with deuterium at a ratio 1:1
or above.

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Horace Heffner /  Re: HELP: ELECTROCHEM LOADING C60
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HELP: ELECTROCHEM LOADING C60
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:15:09 -0900
Organization: none

In article <42tlrc$fbu@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:


> 
> Why should they go through the cage, in preference to going around it
> to get to the cathode?
> 

In most of the passes, the D+ ions would miss or hit the buckeyballs and
go around. Given the buckyballs' massive size, their inertia and
resistance to motion should allow some of the D+ ions past the van der
Waals barriers. By using very high voltage high frequency fields, it is
anticipated the low voltage barrier should be penetrable by the very small
D+ ion. The high voltage field should be sufficient to tear the D+ ion
away from the D2O molecule when it makes contact with a C60. If 2 volts
can do it at the electrode, a massive voltage should be able to do it at
the surface of the conducting Buckeyball. The equilibrium state should be
a condition where the Buckeyball is packed, because, once inside the
conducting buckeyballs, there is no net force to get them out.

Regards,

Horace

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 20 Sep 1995 04:15:26 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Thanks Horace for reminding us the numbers. I am totally dazed and
confused now because the numbers don't add up.

If I add the numbers and subtract them properly I get that the mass
deficit is 0.782 and this is the energy we need to put in to make electron
capture possible. In beta decay of a neutron we get this energy in the
form of the total energy of the electron and the antineutrino. So the
picture should be clear except that I don't know how the potential energy
of the electrostatic field is accounted for. I am pretty sure that most of
the electron's rest mass comes from the mass-energy stored in its field.
If I look at the numbers, it seems that the electron will gain enough
energy to perform the electron capture just by falling into the proton
(Assuming that Robin is not off by a factor of ten in the energy
computation. The 1.8 fm is about right for the proton's radius in fact it
is a little high. It is not clear to me if the electron will radiate and
slow down while falling, it might. Instead of radiating the electron might
just collect the energy and unite with the proton. Most of this
acceleration occurs at the very last few fermis of travel since that is
where the field is concentrated. Being so close to the proton may prevent
the photon emission resulting from this enormous acceleration. Photon
emission may also be prevented by the fact that the two charges are only a
few fermis apart so from a distance they appear to be neutral. This now
improves the chances of the electron capture theory I think.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
Date: 20 Sep 1995 04:15:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Robin writes:

>In fact if you do the sums, it turns out that the electron needs to
>approach the proton to within a distance of 1.841 F in order that the
>energy delivered is equal to that required to make up the .782 MeV
>difference in mass between H and a neutron. Now it seems to me that
>1.841 F is a very reasonable distance for electron capture. In other
>words, if electron capture is to take place, in fact little or no
>extra energy need be supplied to the Hydrogen atom. This energy in
>fact is already present in the potential energy of the two charges
>relative to one another in the original atom. 

Horace writes:

>On page 1-3 of the 71st edition I find:
>Neutron:  1.6749286 E-27 Kg     939.56563 MeV
>Proton:   1.6726231 E-27 Kg      938.27231 Mev
>Electron: 9.1093897 E-31 Kg         0.51099906 MeV
>
I have not yet checked the energy computation but for now I am assuming
that Robin is right about the 1.8 fermi approach distance which is needed
for the electric field to accelerate the electron to the energy level
required for the electron capture to happen.

If this is right we have the following questions:

1. Does the electron radiate during its acceleration and if not why not?
2. If electron capture is so easily possible why does it not happen in hot
fusion experiments?
3.If electron capture is so easy why is hydrogen stable in the universe?

To answer 1 I propose that since most of the acceleration occurs in the
vicinity of the proton the radiative emission is not happening since the
acceleration happens over a distance much shorter than the photon
wavelength, over a very short time, in the vicinity of the proton, where
the proton charge is shielding the effect of the electron's charge. (I.e.
from a distance the two close together look like a neutral object) Any of
these explanations will do. It also might happen that the photon gets
reabsorbed into the electron capture reaction system, perhaps because it
is emitted in the direction of the proton (I don't really believe that
photons have directions but so what).

For 2 I say that in hot fusion the electron energies are high and so the
reaction cross sections are vastly reduced.

For 3 I say that a quantum mechanical effect reduces the electron capture
cross section in a system where the electron is orbiting the nucleus. This
would be the same mechanism that prevents the electron in orbit from
radiating. Energy needs to be put in to decelerate the electron from
orbit. (I don't really believe in this classical picture but it is so easy
to use it to describe the phenomena.) When there is available energy the
electron will decelerate and fall like in case of unstable proton rich
nuclei.

The conditions that promote electron capture mediated cold fusion are:

-- Naked, thermal (low energy)  deuterons or protons
-- Thermal electrons
 
Apparently these conditions are met in a deuterated lattice because: 

-- Some deuterons or protons are squeezed into spaces where there is no
room for an electron shell to form. (See Mitchell's posts)
-- The metal lattice provides an ample supply of valence electrons

The electron capture causes thermal neutrons to appear. These are hard to
detect, they probably don't leave the lattice (?) and they cause element
transmutations. Many such transmutations have been observed. Thermal
neutrons will collide with deuterons to produce tritons (tritium has been
observed) and so on. Gamma emissions have been observed.

Why does not this reaction happen in a plasma:

Because the electrons are too fast, the reaction cross section is
negligible

Why does it not happen in a gas:

Because there are no naked deuterons

Why does it not happen in a liquid:

There may be naked deuterons but no free electrons are present.

The only possible place for these reactions is the lattice with its
abundance of electrons and deuterons at low temperatures.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Muon Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon Fusion Question
Date: 19 Sep 95 12:16:11 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <43dv76$367@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:
> Has muon catalyzed fusion ever been used
> with H2 (not D2) in order to compute the
> rate of p + p fusion?

No -- the rate of muon decay is far greater than the rate for muon-catalyzed
p-p fusion.  We have looked at p-d, d-d, d-t and p-t fusion rates using
negative muons as catalysts.  Even muon-catalyzed d-3He fusion won't cycle,
since even if a muonic d-3He molecule should form, the muon is quickly 
transferred to the 3He where it goes to a lower level and can no longer
participate in molecular binding.  There it decays.  So mu-c-f is effective
only between isotopes of hydrogen; for D-T mixtures the process is the
most effective, but misses commercial breakeven by an order of magnitude
(by the most optimistic estimates).  In our experiments at LAMPF, we achieved
150 d-t fusions per muon, on average.   

Muon-catalyzed fusion is the only
verified form of "cold fusion;" there is no compelling evidence for *any*
fusion in electrolytic cells!

> 
> (And, aside from that, how do they know the
> cross section for p + p fusion, which is
> incredibly small.)
> 
Calculations, which seem to agree reasonably well with energy output from
the stars.  Still, there may be a few neutrinos missing...

> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
> 
> 

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: What to do with the $700/Kasagi experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What to do with the $700/Kasagi experiments
Date: 19 Sep 95 12:49:22 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,

Several weeks ago, I brought to the attention of the "college of s.p.f." 
a report of the
experiments by Jirohta Kasagi et al. regarding deuteron bombardment of
titanium deuteride -- and the observations of protons up to 17 MeV and
alphas up to 6.5 MeV.  I have also faxed copies of the paper (from the
Journal of the Physical Society of Japan) to a number of people -- none
of whom has found a significant possible source of error in the experiment.
Even Martin Sevior recently retracted his criticisms of the Kasagi claims,
in a post to s.p.f. 

This is not to say that the paper is correct in claiming anomalous nuclear
reactions involving deuterided titanium.  But I do think the issue now
merits an experimental check of the claims.  So I propose to do this experiment
here  with the help of students.  We will use charged-particle
detectors, as did Kasagi, and we can readily add neutron detection later if his
charged-particle claims are born out.

I have written to Tom Droege about using the remaining $700 in the "s.p.f.
pool" to support students, to get this experiment going quickly here.
He concurs -- if contributors to the fund (readers out there) can agree
that this is a reasonable use of the pool.  He'd like to dispose of the
fund this year, and we can do the experiments in this time scale.
Prof. Lawrence Rees, a nuclear physicist at BYU, has agreed to help 
-- perhaps s.p.f. readers would
like to be involved?  (Please let me know.)  

The proposed funding would go to students (not faculty) and would help
get the experiment started right away.  That's what a little funding to
students can do.  Of course, the design and results of the experiment would
be reported here, for scrutiny by Dick Blue, John Nix, Martin Sevior, 
Art Carlson, Barry Merriman, Dieter Britz, Frank Close, Douglas Morrison,
-- all of you (excuse please the short list of names).  
Such an effort may bring renewed purpose to this group,
just as our support of Tom Droege's experiments did.

Please let Tom or me know what you (contributors to the fund) think of this
proposal, either here on spf or by private e-mail.

Best Regards,
Steven Jones


In article <1995Sep12.133019.2403@plasma.byu.edu>, 
jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
> In article <425pm3$f14@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>, 
> Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
>>>In article <1995Aug21.164345.2367@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
>> says...
>>>>
>>>>2.  I am intrigued (on the other hand) by a recent paper by J. Kasagi et al.
>>>>of Tohoku University which shows results from a 150-keV deuteron beam
>>>>impinging on titanium deuteride.
>>>>J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 64 (1995) 777-783.
>>>>
>>>>  Their work is clearly not "cold fusion,"
>>>>since the beam energy is 150-keV.  But the results do seem to show anomalous
>>>>production of protons of energies up to 17 MeV and alphas up to 6.5 MeV.
>>>>If a few readers (please e-mail fax number) would be interested in reviewing
>>>>the J. Phys. Soc. Japan paper, I will send copies by fax.  I'd appreciate
>>>>comments as it looks, well, anomalous yet rather convincing.  The numbers of
>>>>high-energy protons and alphas are 10^-6 of the number of p's from d-d-fusion,
>>>>so this is not an "excess heat" or power producer.  But there may be some
>>>>interesting physics here, I think.
>>>
>> 
>> These results are easily explained with  conventional Physics. What happens
>> is that recoiling 3He nuclei from the reaction d + d=> 3He + p 
>> initiate the reaction:
>> 
>> 3He + d => p + 4He. This second reaction releases 18 MeV and is the source of
>> the high energy protons and Helium.
>> 
>> The d + d =>  3He + P reaction occurs with an energy release of about 4 MeV.
>> 
>> The 3He comes off with 1 MeV and the proton with 3 MeV due to their different
>> masses.
>> 
>> The 3He travels about 1 micron in the deuterium loaded lattice. This means
>> each 3He nucleus sees an effective deuterium target of around 5*10^18 deuterons
>> per cm^2.
>> 
>> The cross section for the reaction 3He + d => p + 4He is about 6 barns above
>> the coulomb barrier, averaging over the energy loss of the 3He as it slows
>> down, let's assume a cross section of 1 barn.
>> 
>> Then the number of 3He + d => p + 4He reactions intiated by the recoiling 3He's
>> is:
>> 
>> 5*10^18 * 1*10^-24 = 5*10^-6.
>> 
>> More than enough to explain the observed 10^-6 anomalus events. The tails of
>> alpha's and protons that extend to 6 MeV and 19 MeV are pile-up events of
>> protons from the primary dd reactions on top of these secondary reaction
>> products.
>> 
>> Nothing magic here, unlike the Patterson Cell.
>> 
>> Martin Sevior
>> 
> Nope, not so simple.  Kasagi et al. deal at length with the D(3He,p)4He
> reaction, suggested by Sevior above -- and rule it out.
> 
> 1.  The proton spectrum extends up to 17 MeV in a broad bump -- but
> this cannot be pile-up with protons from the primary dd reactions as Martin
> suggests, since the peak remains when a 200 micron Al foil stops the 3 MeV
> p+ from dd fusion.  (The peak is shifted to lower energies, of course, by
> the degrader -- and the amount of the shift shows that these particles at
> energies up to 17 MeV are indeed protons.)
> 
> 2.  The alpha spectrum extends up to 6.5 MeV.  The spectra were measured at
> 135 and 155 degrees wrt the incident d+ beam.  The calculated spectral shape
> from the D(3He,p)4He reaction disagrees severely with the observed spectra.
> 
> This is not a naive or amateurish experiment.  A delta-E/E telescope 
> was used to identify
> the alphas, for example, and alpha energies clearly extend up to 6.5 MeV.
> (cf our paper on anomalous charged particles, presented at the BYU conference
> "Anomalous nuclear effects in deuterium/solid systems," Provo, 1990,
> AIP Conf. Proc. 228.)
> 
> I have not yet found their error.  Significantly, they claim 100%
> reproducibility when TiDx is bombarded with 150 keV d+ (a claim we could
> never make).  I do not mean to make too much out of this yet, but it
> bears further scrutiny.
> 
> I'm sending the paper out to several others who requested a copy (including
> Martin Sevior) for further discussion.
> 
> --Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
when? / A Plutonium /      
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle,sci.che

Subject: Equation which tells the limit of what isotopes exist
Date: 20 Sep 1995 11:41:42 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <43nnoo$elv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a
> hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it
> is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with
> extra energy.
> 
>   The Superposition Principle of QM, is merely an equivalent statement
> to the fact that all matter is the linear equations sums of Hydrogen
> Atom Systems.
> 
>   Reverse, if all atoms were not the sum total of Hydrogen Atom
> Systems, eg, 231PU, plutonium is merely 231 Hydrogen Atom Systems,
> then, physics esq Quantum Physics would have never had a Superposition
> principle.
> 
>   In other words, I have reduced the Superposition Principle of QM, and
> the fact that physics is linear,  linear,   linear  partial
> differential equations,  is because all matter, all atoms are built up
> from one building block Hydrogen Atom Systems.
> 
>   The reason neutrons act as glue for the protons is because the
> neutron shares that electron inside it with neighboring protons. The
> nucleus is sort of like a "metallic bond".
> 
>   The Superposition Principle == Hydrogen Atom Systems.
> 
>   Now, the bleeding gutter snipes of physics will be quick to spew
> "well what about quarks?"  And I tell you what is about quarks. Quarks
> are merely the fact that in math, there exists 3 and only 3
> geometries-- Riem, Eucl, and Loba and when you have an entity that is
> not ever reducible down further, or incapable of being further cut,
> like a proton, then it reveals all 3 possible geometries
> simultaneously. Quarks are not physics reality. Quark are merely the
> statement that a particle like a proton is bundled up into the 3 and
> only 3 existing geometries simultaneously.  So do not bother about the
> mindrot of quarks when talking about the real physics, that of Hydrogen
> Atom Systems.
> 
>   And don't drivel about a electron beam or proton beam being protons
> and electrons in "isolation". That is circus clown physics. The Bell
> Inequality evinces that proton and electron are always tied or
> correlated.
> 
>   If Hydrogen Atom Systems is not true, then the Superposition
> Principle of QM plus the Conservation of Charge plus the Bell
> Inequality are not true.


  For a long time now I have had my search modes on for finding the
formula which gives the limits of existence for each elements isotopes.
Can an isotope of say 10 neutrons and 1 proton for a hydrogen atom
exist?  Can an isotope of say 350 neutrons for plutonium exist?

   These questions are very very important to physics and more
important is the nature of the beast of Strong Nuclear force.

   Now, with Hydrogen Atom Systems I believe I have found the correct
path. I will use Bose Einstein Condensate. I will picture the Strong
Nuclear Force as really not much different than the Metallic Bond.
Recall in metallic bonding that the electron is a sea of electrons and
that which gives the metal its properties of malleable and ductile etc.

   Picture the Strong Nuclear Force as electrons shared by protons.
Picture the Neutron as a Hydrogen Atom System which has a very very
energetic electron. The reason that nuclei are held together is because
the Nucleus is nothing but a sea of protons which greedily share those
sparse electrons which are delivered to the nucleas by neutrons. Once
neutrons get into the nucleus, they are merely Hydrogen Atom Systems
which Share, share their energetic electrons with the other protons.

   This picture of electron sharing which makes up the Strong Nuclear
force is also the beginnings of the way for explaining muon mass and
muon catalyzed fusion. The Muon is a quantization of Hydrogen Atom
Systems. 

   Within the Bose Condensate and muon characteristics and with
Hydrogen Atom Systems, within those particulars lies the beginnings for
a equation or formula expressing the total possible number of isotopes
each element has.

  All of this deal about Hydrogen Atom Systems must be correct, because
it is consistent with these QM principles, laws and experiments ---
Superposition principle, Schroedinger Eq. linearity of form, quantum
conservation of charge, Bell Inequality.

  If Hydrogen ATom Systems is false, then the Superposition Principle
and Schroedinger linearity, charge conservation and Bell Inequality are
all false ideas.
cudkeys:
cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudszM 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 05:40:03 -0900
Organization: none

In article <MkLjIBK00iV9E5i7d8@andrew.cmu.edu>, Paul Karol
<pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 19-Sep-95 Lost neutron mass
> and elect.. by Robin van Spaandonk@nets 
> > In fact if you do the sums, it turns out that the electron needs to
> > approach the proton to within a distance of 1.841 F in order that the
> > energy delivered is equal to that required to make up the .782 MeV
> > difference in mass between H and a neutron. Now it seems to me that
> > 1.841 F is a very reasonable distance for electron capture. In other
> 
> Assuming total energy is constant, how does an electron approach a
> nucleus, changing the potential energy, and therefore its kinetic
> energy, and therefore its velocity, and not radiate energy as required
> classically for an accelerating charge?
> 
> PJK

According to my own personal copy of the CRC handbook, 29th edition, not
the unreliable 71st edition I borrow from the library, the masses are
shown on page 2589 as follows:

p=    1.67248 E-28       (CRC)
e=    0.00091066 E-24    (CRC)
 ----------------------
H=    1.67339 E-24       (CRC)

Robin is definitely on to something here!  This is proof positive that
relativity, not just QM, is all just a bunch of malarkey.  Therefore we
would not expect the accelerating electron to radiate, would we?  Or would
we?   8^)

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:25:55 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43lafr$710_001@ip028.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
wrote:

> In article <h9IidLq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> >Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
> > 
> >>No need to do the experiment. It's already been done. The water does gain 
> >>heat. The Rothwell measurement protocol would identify it as cold fusion -- 
> >>heat beyond chemistry, but the heat gain is explained by conventional 
> physics. 
> > 
> >Nonsense. You have not read any of my papers about Griggs. A waterfall is
> >an example of mechanical energy added to the water. This is exactly like
> >the blank or null runs I reported with the Griggs machine. There is no
> >excess.
> 
> 
> Are you saying that a measured temperature difference is insufficient to 
> justify a claim of cold fusion? If so, I'm glad you finally agree with me. Do 
> you understand that you are arguing with yourself, not me?  I said 
> conventional physics explains the heat gain, and it is in no way related to 
> any definition of "cold" fusion.
> 
>  
> >Incidentally, when and where did anyone measure the water temperature above
> >and below Niagra Falls? Do you have any specific references or do you recall
> >any work like this? I know that the temperature at other waterfalls has been
> >measured. J. P. Joule measured one during his honeymoon. But I do not know
> >if anyone has checked Niagra. It is so large that it might harbor an anomaly
> >-- if any waterfall does.
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly haven't measured it. I purposely left open the question of 
> counteracting processes just to give you something to think about. It
wouldn't 
> surprise me if some waterfall, some where, might have an unrelated "cooling" 
> process sufficient to offset the known heat gain. But, that doesn't
change the 
> heat gain by converting potential energy to internal energy. Would it change 
> you belief in cold fusion if the output of a Patterson cell were
directed to a 
> bucket of ice where temperature measurements were made? 
> 
>  
> >This comment of yours is typical of the "ignorant skeptic." You put words in
> >my mouth even though all of my papers about this very subject (Griggs)
> >specifically and repeatedly say just the opposite of what you claim I say.
> >You pay no attention to the literature or to previous messages; you invent
> >arguments and statements and then you pretend that I said them. This is the
> >"straw man" technique of debating. It is irrational, impolite and it is a
> >waste of everyone's time, including yours, so you should stop doing it.
> > 
> >- Jed
> 
> 
> Jed, over the last couple of weeks you have turned livid trying convince 
> people that all you need to test for cold fusion is a temperature difference 
> and a measurement of electric energy input. I have given you several absurdly 
> simple examples where your assertion is obviously FALSE.
> 
> I suggest that you read the "literature", your own posts, to see what
you have 
> been saying. Clearly, your memory is failing.
> 
> Now, go to your room until you have had time to think this over.

This is a totally absurd post--unconscious, even. The question of whether
converting potential energy into heat could explain the Griggs result was
discussed in this very thread in the recent past. A calculation was even
done. The result, if memory serves, was that a 50 foot line pressure head
dropping to zero across the device would only add 172 BTU's per hour to
the heat output. In a device in which electrical energy is being converted
to heat at rates approaching 300,000 BTU's per hour, such a consideration
is totally inconsequential. This means that a measured heat difference
can, and has, excluded the possibility that you claim it cannot exclude.
The point: if you had been reading the debate in this thread, you wouldn't
waste everybody's time bringing up junk that's already been discussed and
refuted.

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Richard Blue /  Re: Why no CF maybes?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why no CF maybes?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 15:25:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My question concerning the significance of the statistics of CF
results has generated two replies.

Robin van Spaandonk suggests that there is some global variable
that has a determining role in the CF process in addition to the
details of purity, loading, etc. that Jed Rothwell claims are
established requirements of a successful CF run.  This is just
the kind of thing I was hoping might come from my raising this
question.  It should be clear from the nature of CF results that
there must be one or more significant experimental variables that
have never been address and which appear not to be well controlled
in the experimental protocols.  Even Jed estimates that "correct"
experiments have a success rate at the 50% level.  With regard
to there being some unspecified global requirement, does anyone
have a clue as to what that may be?  Is it the phase of the moon,
perhaps?

Robert I. Eachus makes a very interesting and more concrete suggestion
to explain the lack of MAYBE results.  In a sense it is a sort of
global requirement as Robin suggests.  However, in this case, the
requirement is connected to the specifics of the surface condition of
the Pd cathode.  Robert's suggestion is that there must be at least
one "good" surface area on the cathode in order for the high loading
condition to be achieved.  It would be nice, then, if we could further
refine the concept of there being a sweet spot on the surface.

The problem I have with the Eachus proposal may be the result of my
fundamental ignorance of electrochemistry.  One of the key features
of CF experimentation, it seems to me, is they long running time that
it takes of the CF conditions to express themselves in a convincing
way.  I would suggest that for most of the experiments with which we
are familiar the chemistry of the electrolysis cell has typically
not been tightly controlled or monitored.  In fact a common weakness
of CF experimentation is that the chemical conditions are not well
determined.

Since the chemistry is never discussed in detail I am assuming that
people such as Miles, McKubre, Pons and Fleischmann have not considered
the details of cathode surface condition as being anything they should
devote much of their resources to.  As I recall what we do know is that
the surface chemistry of the cathode in a long run does undergo significant
changes.  For want of a better word, the cathode gets gunked up.

We also know that there are physical changes in the cathode surface.  The
cathode that comes out of the the electrolysis does not look much like
the one that went in.

What I would tend to think about the surface layer of the cathode is that
any sweet spot requiring very special surface conditions is unlikely to
be preserved through the course of an experiment.  If you accept that
statement as being correct I think we are back to where I started.  It
may work for awhile and then quite half way through the run or 1/4 of
the way or 99 and 44/100 % of the way.  There should be a spreading of
the results that extends from zero out to the max.  There should be some
MAYBE results.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Ira Blum /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: 20 Sep 1995 14:53:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <43nnoo$elv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|>  All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a
|> hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it
|> is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with
|> extra energy.
|> 

Nope.  A neutron has less energy than that of a proton + electron.  (You 
can look it up)


|>   The reason neutrons act as glue for the protons is because the
|> neutron shares that electron inside it with neighboring protons. The
|> nucleus is sort of like a "metallic bond".
|> 

Nope, its been observed that instead of exchanging electrons (which makes 
little to no sense as lots of neutrinos would be produced), they exchange 
either pions or way off-shell W particles

|>   The Superposition Principle == Hydrogen Atom Systems.
|> 
|>   Now, the bleeding gutter snipes of physics will be quick to spew
|> "well what about quarks?"  And I tell you what is about quarks. Quarks
|> are merely the fact that in math, there exists 3 and only 3
|> geometries-- Riem, Eucl, and Loba and when you have an entity that is
|> not ever reducible down further, or incapable of being further cut,
|> like a proton, then it reveals all 3 possible geometries
|> simultaneously. Quarks are not physics reality. Quark are merely the
|> statement that a particle like a proton is bundled up into the 3 and
|> only 3 existing geometries simultaneously.  So do not bother about the
|> mindrot of quarks when talking about the real physics, that of Hydrogen
|> Atom Systems.

Well, what about pions?  what about Kaons?  what about Muons?  these are 
all particles which are smaller than protons.  Are they fundamental?  
Why?  What about rho's and phi's and omegas and etas and all of the other 
particles which cannot possibly be made of protons because they are 
smaller than protons?  Hydrogen atom systems tells absolutly nothing 
about the science of high energy physics.  Trying to explain the 
existence of a J/Psi resonance in terms of HAS would be ludicrous.

|> 
|>   And don't drivel about a electron beam or proton beam being protons
|> and electrons in "isolation". That is circus clown physics. The Bell
|> Inequality evinces that proton and electron are always tied or
|> correlated.

How so?  What about electron positron pairs?  No protons there....

|> 
|>   If Hydrogen Atom Systems is not true, then the Superposition
|> Principle of QM plus the Conservation of Charge plus the Bell
|> Inequality are not true.

You are severly reaching AP.

-- 
Ira
iblum@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
Benji Gil for AL Rookie of the Year!!!
"You might be a Redneck if"
- Jeff Foxworth
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Richard Blue /  capture of atomic electrons
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: capture of atomic electrons
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 15:35:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is wondrous to behold how the notion of the capture by an atomic
nucleus is being tossed about here as if this were an entirely new
concept.  Do you protoneutron enthusiasts think no one has ever
considered the possibility that the hydrogen nucleus might capture
its electron?  There is plenty of atomic hydrogen out there in the
universe just waiting to go poof!  It does not happen.  We are all
here to give witness to that fact.

Now in any elementary quantum mechanics course the hydrogen atom is
discussed in some detail.  The time average electron distribution is
something you can find in any QM text.  Guess where the electron spends
its time when hydrogen is it its ground state?  Before you ramble on
about electrons spiralling into the proton don't you think you ought
to look at where it is!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Muon Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon Fusion Question
Date: 20 Sep 1995 11:26:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <1995Sep19.121611.2407@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
writes:

> So mu-c-f is effective
>only between isotopes of hydrogen; for D-T mixtures the process is the
>most effective, but misses commercial breakeven by an order of magnitude
>(by the most optimistic estimates).  In our experiments at LAMPF, we
achieved
>150 d-t fusions per muon, on average.   

In the reaction:

d  +  t  -> He4  +  n  

17.6 MeV energy is liberated in the form of mostly neutron energy. If you
multiply this with 150 you get 2640 MeV which is significantly more than
the mass of the muon which is around 105. The energy of the neutrons can
be converted to heat by neutron absorbing media. I don't know the
efficiency of the accelerator that produces the muons but I assume all the
losses of the muon-producing equipment are dissipated in the form of heat.
It seems to me that the system should be over breakeven if we assume a
heat exchanger that recovers heat from the whole equipment and eventually
from the neutron absorbing media. I would be curious about the details of
why the system cannot be commercialized, is it the price of the tritium?
Is it the cost of the muon source? The neutron could also be used to
generate tritium in the reaction chamber or to cause other nuclear
reactions.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Richard Blue /  Experimental data for Prasad
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Experimental data for Prasad
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 16:05:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Prasad seems to be confused about the binding of various two nucleon
systems so I thought I would help him out with just the most basic
experimentally determined facts.

The n-p system forms a bound state the ground state of the deuteron.
The n-n system does not form any bound states.
The p-p system does not form any bound states.

Now when someone kindly offered an explanation of the physics that
underlies these observed facts you went off on some tangent concerning
charge independence, etc.  Where do you think the notion of charge
independence comes from if not from the measurements made on the three
systems as described above?

Basic quantum mechanical principles make it clear that the lowest energy
state of the n-n system can not be identical to the lowest energy state
of the n-p system.  You may rant and rave all you want as to what you
think about the binding energy of these systems.  It matters not one bit.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 10:48:24 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-1909951956070001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1909951604030001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >In article <43ljfe$s50@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
> >(Richard Schultz) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <21cenlogic-1809950953540001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
> >> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >(1) It may be that protoneutrons soak up gamma energy before the photons
> >> >reach the speed of light. 
> >> 
> >> I was going to ask what on earth this statement means, but on second
thought,
> >> I suspect that I probably don't want to know.
> >
> >***{Far be it from me to burden you with unwanted knowledge. --Mitchell
> >Jones}***
> 
> Your response to Schultz's comment suggests this wasn't a typo or joke.
> Are you seriously suggesting there are photons traveling at less than the
> speed of light?
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

Of course I am! The context of my comment about protoneutrons soaking up
gamma energy involved an attempt to account for CF "excess heat" by the
following series of reactions:

(1) The basic reaction is the following: pn (protoneutron) + .78 Mev --> n
(By the way, I don't generally waste space showing "neutrinos," for
reasons that are irrelevant here.)

(2) The neutron can then be absorbed in several ways: p + n --> d + 2.22
Mev gamma; or d + n --> t + 6.25 Mev gamma; etc. (We also have Pd + n and
other neutron absorption reactions, each producing an isotope shifted
nucleus which drops to ground state via gamma emission.)

At this point, we have to ask ourselves how a gamma photon gets spat out
as the isotope shifted nucleus drops to ground state. The question is, do
we visualize a series of transitional states in which the photon
accelerates to the speed of light, or not? By the "quantum mechanical"
mode of thinking, there is not merely no problem in imagining an entity
leaping from zero velocity to the speed of light without passing through
all of the intervening transitional states, but such images are positively
to be encouraged! However, as I have noted elsewhere, such imagined gaps
in motion violate the principle of continuity. However brief the velocity
rise time may be, the principle of continuity requires that the photon
pass through all the intervening states of motion. Period. The fact that
we have not measured such states does not mean they do not exist. Indeed,
they must exist because the principle that requires their existence (the
principle of continuity) supports the entire structure of human knowledge.
To question its validity self-reduces to an absurdity.

By the way, please do not assume that I am alone in visualizing such
transitional states. Even physics gurus routinely do it. Unlike me,
however, they are careful to kiss the behinds of the powers that be by
pretending to believe in the sacred mumbo-jumbo of "quantum mechanics."
For example--and it is one among many--check out the various "dressing
transformations" that have been applied to the original Hamiltonian to
curve fit it to newly emerging experimental data. If memory serves, Pauli
applied such a transformation to explain the Biot-Savart law. His
interpretation was that the magnetic field which accompanies a moving
charged particle consists of a cloud of "bound photons" which move along
with it. (Yes, Virginia, photons don't always move at the speed of light!)


Anyway, the bottom line is simple: you guys are all agog at my "heresy"
because you are stuffed full of the crapola mythology which is spoon-fed
to undergraduates. You don't realize that *real* physics is done by people
who, in the privacy of their own minds, don't buy into the myths. Instead,
however they may outwardly conform to the absurdities of the prevailing
dogma, in the privacy of their own thoughts they employ classical
mechanical thinking to view the world. And sometimes, as in the Pauli
example above or in the Schwinger example discussed several weeks ago
(where he employed ether theory to analyze CF), they inadvertently let
their words reveal the true nature of their thoughts.

By the way, speaking of ether theory, are you aware that the existence of
the ether was proven more than 60 years ago, and is generally accepted by
top physicists today? I'll bet not. That's because you buy into the
dissembling and the crapola. You don't notice that every knowledgeable
physicist today accepts the existence of "Dirac's ocean"--a particulate
medium that pervades all of space and accounts for most of the phenomena
of electromagnetism. Of course, they have all agreed to not *call* it the
ether, because that would have required them to clash head-on with another
dogma: that of Einstein's hare-brained "relativity" theory. But behind the
political dissembling lies the reality of classical mechanics triumphant,
in all areas of physics. The myth of its demise is a politically expedient
fantasy, nothing more. And soon even that will be gone.  

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Alan M /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 14:25:40 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <browe-1909951956070001@10.0.2.15>  browe@netcom.com (Bill 
Rowe) writes:
> Your response to Schultz's comment suggests this wasn't a typo or 
joke.
> Are you seriously suggesting there are photons traveling at less than 
the
> speed of light?

That's probably where the excess energy is coming from!

has anybody actually tested experimentally for slower-than-c photons?

Perhaps we could run this in reverse, and get a faster-than-light 
machine!
-- 
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:
cuddy20 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Jeff Olson /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: jeffo@rayleigh.lanl.gov (Jeff Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 16:27:43 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <43p9t2$9ja@news.utdallas.edu> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:

>Nope.  A neutron has less energy than that of a proton + electron.  (You 
>can look it up)

>iblum@utdallas.edu

According to the ancient periodic table on my wall here (back when O was 
exactly 16 au), the neutron has a rest mass of 1.0087 au and an H atom of 
1.008 au.  If the neutron mass were less, why would it decay?

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

Jeff Olson
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjeffo cudfnJeff cudlnOlson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 /  94515@figmnt.t /  Critical Mass??
     
Originally-From: 94515@figmnt.tayloru.edu (LIBERTY U, GANNON U.
S.U., I.U., F.S.U., ANYWHERE BUT TAYLOR U.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Critical Mass??
Date: 13 Sep 95 14:07:51 -0500
Organization: Taylor University

HELP ME!
I'm a student at Taylor University - Fort Wayne... I'm looking for the formula,
or whatever for determining the critical mass of either Plutonium or Uranium...
any help would be greatly appretiated....
you can respond directly to me at 94515@tayloru.edu
thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden94515 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Bob Haley /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: haley@pt9255.ped.pto.ford.com (Bob Haley)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: 20 Sep 1995 18:47:48 GMT
Organization: Ford Motor Co., Powertrain Electronics

Michael Varney (mcvarney@holly.colostate.edu) wrote:
: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
: > All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a
: >hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it
: >is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with
: >extra energy.
: What are you talking about? If a 'hasys' 
is an hydrogen atom with extra energy,  and 
: any other atom is just the hydrogen atom 
with more energy, then why would a neutron 
: be a hydrogen atom with extra energy?  A neutron is NOT even an atom!

: <Crap Clipped>...

: Use some of the massive amounts of money 
you make washing dishes and playing the 
: stock market and take some physics classes 
at Dartmouth.  You 'Might' learn somthing 
: and possibly cure you terminal athlete's mouth. 

: Also,  since you already told me to go to hell, 
(styx that is) it would be silly to 
: do so again.  It's not so bad in hell (styx that is),  
exept I have to listen to 
: some Plutonium god blather at me all the time.  Oh well...  <sigh>
:   
: -- 
: Michael Varney
: Department of Physics
: Colorado State University
: *************************************************************************
:            If as*holes could fly,  it would be perpetually dark!
:                   
:              Of course, one kind person will lift the darkness.
: *************************************************************************
:      mcvarney@holly.colostate.edu
:      http://holly.colostate.edu/~mcvarney


Hey, I remember you !  I saw you in hell, Styx that is.  Do not upset the
Plutonium Gods because we may end up in more hell, Acheron that is.

Nice to know one can have company in hell,
Bob Haley

NOTE: In no way is my employer responsible for any information conveyed
      in THIS post.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhaley cudfnBob cudlnHaley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Paul Karol /  e, p and H masses
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: e, p and H masses
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 15:18:53 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

For all those interested, here, quoted without much comment, are the
masses as listed in the table of "Fundamental Physical Constants" from
the August 95 issue of Physics Today.

m(e)   =   .00091093897 (54) x 10-27 kg
m(p)   =  1.6726231     (10)    "

 the sum of these is 1.6735340 (10) X 10-27 kg

Bringing together an electron and a proton and releasing binding energy
would give the mass of the H-atom, right.  IF the binding energy is
13.59 eV = 2.18 X 10-18 J corresponding to mass = E/c^2 = 2.42 X 10-35
kg =
0.0000000242 X 10-27 kg which is beyond reach of the precision in the sum.

The neutron mass is given as

m(n)   =  1.6749286 (10) X 10-27 kg

PJK

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Dale Alexander /  gamma transport calculations
     
Originally-From: Dale Alexander <dalexander@anl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: gamma transport calculations
Date: 20 Sep 1995 21:27:04 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

Is calculation data available regarding gamma ray flux spectra in any of 
the proposed/existing MCF reactors?  I'm interested in the spatial and 
energy distributions of gamma rays generated, I suspect, primarily via 
Brehmsstalung and through neutron activation of components, in these 
reactors.  Such info is routinely produced in fission reactors for the 
purpose of dosimetry and shielding calculations.  Can anyone suggest 
references for MCF?


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendalexander cudfnDale cudlnAlexander cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Ira Blum /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: 20 Sep 1995 21:27:06 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <jeffo.326.306040FF@rayleigh.lanl.gov>, jeffo@rayleigh.lanl.g
v (Jeff Olson) writes:
|> In article <43p9t2$9ja@news.utdallas.edu> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:
|> 
|> >Nope.  A neutron has less energy than that of a proton + electron.  (You 
|> >can look it up)
|> 
|> >iblum@utdallas.edu
|> 
|> According to the ancient periodic table on my wall here (back when O was 
|> exactly 16 au), the neutron has a rest mass of 1.0087 au and an H atom of 
|> 1.008 au.  If the neutron mass were less, why would it decay?
|> 

M(p) = 938.27231 +/- 0.00028 MeV
M(n) = 939.56563 +/- 0.00028 MeV
M(e) = 0.51099906 +/- 0.00000015 MeV
M(p+e) = 938.78331 +/- 0.00028 MeV

|> Otherwise, I agree with your post.

I guess you are right, I haven't looked at it in quite some time, so 
there is more energy in a neutron than a proton and an electron.  (also 
the dominant decay is n-> p e nu  (note that the neutrino is present and 
carries away momentum.)

-- 
Ira
iblum@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
Benji Gil for AL Rookie of the Year!!!
"You might be a Redneck if"
- Jeff Foxworth
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Sep 21 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
