1989.04.14 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: the deal - media coverage Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: the deal - media coverage Date: 14 Apr 89 17:04:00 GMT From a New York Times story in the April 14 edition: "FUSION EXPERIMENT REPORTED FLAWED ... At Georgia Tech, however, a scientific instrument that was used to measure neutrons ... apparently gave inflated readings because the liquid it was measuring became as hot as 120 degrees F. 'We're concerned about an apparent temperature dependence of the neutron probe we are using,' Dr. James Mahaffey, leader of the Georgia Tech group of researchers, said ... two graduate students [Van Eden and Wei Liu] at the University of Washington said yesterday that they had tentatively repeated the Utah experiment. ... when the experiment was done with heavy water they appeared to detect tritium ... Each time regular water was substituted, ... the signal for tritium went away. ... The signal ... indicating the possible presence of tritium was made on on a mass spectrometer ... Mr. Eden said he and his colleague had been conducting the experiment for at least 10 days, alternately using water and 'heavy water' ..." cudkeys: cuddy14 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.15 / John Moore / Fusion Calorimetry Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion Calorimetry Date: 15 Apr 89 14:48:45 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc., Phoenix AZ Is there someone out there who understands the calculations in the F&P paper that could explain them a little more clearly? The F&P paper is quite terse in the area where they describe the breakeven calculations, and a more detailed explanation, written for non-electro-chemists would be helpful. As I read it, you can compute for one experiment that it yielded better than breakeven just by comparing the watts out to the electrical energy in - IFF you use 1.54 volts as the supply voltage. However, there will be some ohmic losses in the electrode that are not accounted for by this. However, the paper doesn't say what the voltage applied TO THE ELECTRODES is. Does anyone know? -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's. :-) cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / EFH100@PSUVM.B / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: EFH100@PSUVM.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 16 Apr 89 02:35:27 GMT Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing Some additional considerations: (1) The more delivery vehicles that are used, the lower the likelyhood that a few malfunctions could cause the target to remain untouched because not enough (none?) missles get through. (2) Large numbers of delivery systems make it more difficult for a first strike to negate the retalitory action (more missles make a first strike less likely). (3) If an anti-missle system comes into use, more delivery systems will be necessary to ensure that some will get through. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenEFH100 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Henry Spencer / Re: Confirmations and the high-T-superconductivity precedent Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Confirmations and the high-T-superconductivity precedent Date: 16 Apr 89 05:50:27 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <8483@polya.Stanford.EDU> gilham@polya.Stanford.EDU (Fred Gilham) writes: >>So how do we send rockets into outer space, then? > >Multi-stage rockets, right? We don't actually lift that much weight out of >the earth's gravity well. Right stick, wrong end: most of the mass of the fuel does not get lifted out of the Earth's gravity well, regardless of whether you use multiple stages or not. The exhaust mostly stays behind! (It is possible to get into orbit with a single stage, although with current technology the payload is small, meaning that weight growth during development might wipe it out entirely. Which is why nobody's seriously tried to build one yet.) -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Ted Dunning / Re: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Originally-From: Andreas.Nowatzyk@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: He's dead Jim. Subject: Re: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed Date: 16 Apr 89 06:48:17 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI >From: jrmstrng@vax1.tcd.ie (John V. Armstrong) >Subject: Fusion in Dublin > >14th April Fusion in Dublin ! > > Prof. Michael Coey in Trinity College Physics department, today >demonstrated a possible indication of cold fusion, to about 300 people during >the course of his public lecture 'Cold Fusion - fact or fantasy'. > This demonstration consisted of two electrolysis cells wired in parallel >to 7 volt power supply. Each cell used gold/titanium electrodes one containing >ordinary water and the other with heavy water (D2O). After 40 minutes of >electrolysis the temperature of the water cell was 41 C and that of the heavy >water was 45 C !! This corresponds to roughly 250 mW power output from fusion? >Naturally there were gasps of amazement from the packed audience, but needless >to say, more controlled experiments are in progress. It is not clear from this that the same power went into both cells (we really would like to know the voltage and the amperage). So, the temperature difference could be just due to different amounts of current going into each cell given the information we have to go on. But for now let us assume that the two cells get the same power. The heavy water cell produces a little more heat than regular water. This is consistent with: "The average value for absorption of deuterium being reported as 8379 cal/mole compared with 9605 cal/mole for hydrogen." From page 125 of "The Palladium Hydrogen System" by Lewis Since absorbing hydrogen/deuterium is endothermic the cell with hydrogen absorbs 9605 cal/mole and the deuterium cell absorbs 8379 cal/mole. The net result is that the deuterium cell runs hotter. I am assuming that both cells are able to hold more hydrogen/deuterium (they should not be full in 40 minutes). Did Fleischmann and Pons overlook this heat of absorption? I did not see it mentioned in their paper. If they thought they were at 100% during the charging period (refrigerator running) and then after the palladium was full of deuterium it got hotter (refrigerator stopped) they would think they were getting extra heat out. If this is the case then the 8379 cal/mole is just right to explain the extra heat in their experiment. They got 1.11 times as much energy out in the form of heat as they put in in electricity (11% extra). It takes 68K cal/mole to electrolyze water. If we put in 68K cal/mole electricity and get out 68+8K cal/mole of heat we would be getting out exactly 111% of what we put in. The extra 8K is really due to zeroing the scale while the refrigerator was on. The fact that the numbers work out exactly makes me think they did overlook this. As for the tritium that someplace found: >From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) > ... >First, a word about this experiment. Commercially-available heavy water tends >to be contaminated, to a small degree, with tritium, and electrolysis of heavy >water could therefore be reasonably expected to produce DT in small quantities >without any fusion at all occurring. Alt.fusion was fun while it lasted, Vince Cate vac@cs.cmu.edu Below is a CMU post that I think describes what is going on: ******************************************************************************* 06-Apr-89 12:13 Andreas.Nowatzyk Fusion update Originally-From: Andreas.Nowatzyk@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU In case you are not reading the 1-2 dozen messages/day on fusion in the various news groups, I attached one to this post that has the most plausible explanation to the P&F results that I have seen so far. There are 2 parts to the P&F claims: 1. nuclear evidence (neutrons and gamma-ray observation) for cold fusion in condensed matter and 2. calorimetric evidence for same. Claim 1. is in line with the BYU results and appear to be confirmed by the Brookhaven national lab. This is certainly an interesting result which will lead to a new research field in physics. However, the observed reaction rate is way too low to be interesting as an energy source. It is about where the plasma fusion people were 20 years ago (actually even less than that). Claim 2. is far more interesting and controversial because it implies a net energy production at very significant levels (1W in --> 4W out). In a nutshell, the calorimetric experiment runs like this: The electrolysis cell is placed in a vacuum flask for good thermic insulation. A small heater is included and a sensitive thermometer that is continuously monitored (chart recorder). A little current is dumped into the heater for precisely defined period and after equilibrium is established, the observed temperature increased in the flask is used to determine the heat capacity of the apparatus. Also, the heat loss due to imperfect insulation is calibrated. Once this is done, experiment is turned on. All energy that is fed into the cell is measured (current and replacement electrolyte) as is anything that leaves the cell (D2 and O2 gas). Heat loss is determined by the temperature difference between the inside and the surrounding environment and is accounted for in the balance based on the calibration mentioned above. Any change in cell temperature that is not covered by this balance must be due to some internal process. After turning the experiment on, a certain rise in temperature is expected because of the electric energy dumped into the system. Thermal efficiency for resistive heat from a DC current is 100%. After the precharge time, P&F observed a rise in temperature corresponding to a thermal efficiency of 112%. There extra 12% are f&P's evidence for fusion. Once you recover the electrical energy that went out in from of D2 and H2 gas (say in a fuel cell), over all heat generation is 4 times (or more, depending on the amount of resistive loss and the efficiency of the recovery process) the invested electrical energy. So far, so good. The message attached below describes a more mundane explanation: During the precharge time, D is diffusing into the Pd rod. This requires heat that is taken from the cell. This is similar to what happens if you dissolve NH4NO3 in water, the principle behind instant cold packs. If P&F neglected to account for this heat loss during the precharge period, their initial 100% thermal efficiency is really only 90% due to the built in refrigerator. Once the Pd rod is saturated with D, no further heat loss occurs and the thermal efficiency jumps up. This explanation fit most known results so far (and does not require any new magic): 1. It depends on the volume of the Pd rod, as claimed by P&F 2. Heat "production" persists for as long as you care to run the experiment. The apparent energy production can be made large enough to rule out any chemical process. Again in line with P&F's claims. 3. Efficiency goes up as the current density decreases because the resistive loss is proportional to the square of the current, while the cooling effect is diffusion limited (about constant). At very low currents, it becomes proportional to the current (D production drops below diffusion limit). Hence by reducing the current, the impact of the heat loss becomes more significant. Again in line with the observed results from P&F. This explanation predicts that P&F's experiment will still show "fusion" heat if the D2O is substituted with plain H2O. I'm somewhat surprised that P&F don't mention this obvious control experiment which could be done double blind: P fills H2O and D2O in 2 identical looking bottles labeled x, y. F does the experiment twice with x and y and should have no trouble telling which was which. This would prevent any systematic error such as the one outlined. Well, maybe this wasn't quite up to the invention of fire after all... sigh. ---------------- sci.physics article follows ------------------- Article 7105 of sci.physics: Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Subject: Re: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed As an illustration of the problems in replicating the P&F experiment, here is a simple experiment: Electrolysis is performed with a platinum screen anode surrounding a cathode made by depositing an approximately 5 micron deep layer of palladium on a 5 mm molybdenum rod. The electrolyte is a 0.1 M solution of Li OD in D2O formed by solution of pure metallic lithium. The D2O is approximately 98% pure. Various current densities are used, and accurate temperature records are kept. The electrolysis cell contains approximately 50 cc of D2O and is super-insulated. After current is turned on, the cell reaches thermal equilibrium in a few minutes. After 15-20 minutes, the temperature of the cell takes a small jump. This time is consistent with the expected charge time as described by Pons and Fleischman. The temperature jump is approximately the same size as the original temperature increase. Question: What is happening? Answer: Hydrogen absorption is endothermic. The first equilibrium is due to the balance of joule heating, heat storage due to beta phase absorption, and heat loss. When the palladium saturates, a new equilibrium is reached which balances joule heating and heat loss. Question: Does this look like some amazing heat source? Answer: Yep. After 15 minutes of baseline, it looks like a heater switches on. Question: Is this what P&F found Answer: ... -- cudkeys: cuddy16 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.15 / Colin Smith / Re: Media cover of cold fusion (was Re: The deal) Originally-From: colins@idec.stc.co.uk (Colin Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media cover of cold fusion (was Re: The deal) Date: 15 Apr 89 16:02:26 GMT Organization: STC Network Systems, Stevenage, UK The British "quality" press and TV have been covering this story on a relatively regular basis (every 2 - 3 days). This might just be because Professor Fleischman is British. On the other hand giving them the benifit of the doubt they might have understood the revolutionary potential of this process should the results be reproducable and the process can be scaled. Colin S. Smith cudkeys: cuddy15 cudencolins cudfnColin cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Cary Lewis / Cold Fusion Growing Colder Originally-From: cslewis@lily.waterloo.edu (Cary Lewis) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Date: 16 Apr 89 20:13:11 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Well it appears ladies and gentlemen that the supporting evidence for the F&P cold fusion technique is rather disappointing to say the least. Even though it is still early in the ball game, the naysayers are ahead by a whole bunch of runs, and it looks the umpires are definitely not on our sides. I have very mixed emotions about all this, here I was a fourth year student just finishing off my math/computer science degree and thinking I was seeing the dawn of a new age. Now not even a month later I am not so sure. True enough I don't know enough about physics or chemistry to claim any scientific reason for feeling that this is going to turn out be nothing, and yet I don't feel nearly as optomistic about cold fusion even working (let alone being viable as an energy source) as I did two days ago. One of the positive aspects of these recent events is that people began to think about what it would be like to live in a world where the cost the energy to do something was negligible. There were all the stories of ending world hunder by irrigating deserts, reports on how the poor nations of the world would suddenly be able to afford giving their citizens an abundant source of energy. The thing that kills me about all these positive stories is that it doesn't have to take someone harnessing fusion to do all this. We spend a trillion dollars a year on arms (conventional and nuclear). Twenty percent of that on nuclear weapons, that by all rights can never be used; unless we really want to turn our planet into a cinder, a lifeless hunk of rock. I guess I'm trying to say is that if we live in a world where thousands of computers can communicate around the world, and we have amazing discoveries (even if they don't always pan out) we can make this hunk of rock we call home quite nice for everyone who lives on it. I'm sure one day fusion will become a reality (the experts say 20-50 years before hot fusion can become realistic) I hope we don't have to wait that long before some of our world problems finally are addressed. As a sidebar, the prices of palladium have gone up quite a lot, and some small Canadian mining stocks have more than doubled, I wonder how much money has been made in the Univeristy community since all this started. Anyone with any sense of economics would have to know that the markets would go crazy with the speculation (by the way I missed my chance, you still need money to make money in this world). Doubling your money in the course of a week is a pretty good return rate. I'm not suggesting anything by this comment, but it does give us something to think about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "home is where the heart lies but if the heart lies where is home, it's where the heart lies, but where is home?" - fish cudkeys: cuddy16 cudencslewis cudfnCary cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / osmigo@ut-emx. / Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 16 Apr 89 21:27:52 GMT Organization: Speech Communication UT Austin I've been discussing possible applications of fusion technology with some friends, and one idea that has come up is using cold fusion devices as a source of heat for steam engines. The cold fusion device reportedly achieved a temperature of over 5000 degrees. The major obstacle to steam power thus far has been an easily transportable and quick-starting heat source. Could it be that we now have it? Just for the record, the automobile known as the Stanley Steamer made the world's speed record (over 100mph) back around 1915 or so. The water used for the steam would be recycled, i.e., a closed system. This would produce vehicles (cars, planes, boats, etc.) with literally unlimited range, with a pollution level of zero. The impact would be pervasive. Surface warfare technology would be revolutionized. The economy would be heavily impacted, because of greatly reduced costs for operating manufacturing machinery and shipping goods. It would certainly be feasible for individuals to have small, steam-driven power generators in their back yards, or even underground, practically wiping out the power industry. Comments? Ron =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > Ron Morgan {ames, utah-cs, uunet, gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!osmigo < > Univ. of Texas {harvarly we could generate energy from fusing basketballs, ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 14:01:43 CDT Reply-To: FUSION%ZORCH@UUNET.UU.NET Sender: "Fusion - Redistribution of alt.fusion" From: fusion%zorch@UUNET.UU.NET Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Why the little schools? Date: 17 Apr 89 07:42:21 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <24201@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >In article <748@nsscb.UUCP>, det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: > >> [...] How long would it take >> a berkeley grad student to get the funds and permission to try one >> of these experiments? > >Well, I can't speak for Berkeley or some of the other places, but it took >Los Alamos three *days* to start an experiment from the first announcement >by F&P. This included getting the necessary "permission" (which could >better be described as "powerful encouragement"), rounding up apparatus, >and forming the appropriate collaborations, which don't involve grad >students as much as they do scientific professionals with from 10 to 30 years' >experience after their Ph.D.'s. > >That hardly speaks of bureaucratic inertia and conservatism to me. It does to me. Three DAYS organizing before you STARTED!? (No wonder Los Alamos hasn't announced. Fusion-in-a-drum, and you handed the rest of the world a two-and-a-half-day lead.) The approach I'm familiar with would have you in the lab within an hour of the news. You'd wake people as necessary to get access to components, or pick the lock on chem stores and/or the NMR lab and leave reciepts. Form your collaborations from those with enough interest to get to the lab, or call in. Rouse somebody if you're short a skill, or if he really should be in on it. A couple hours to design, measure and set up, and something bubbling on the bench by dawn. Straighten out the paperwork during those three days, while the experiment bubbles away. If this means you get the thing started before you realize you need to do something differently, start a second experiment later. I'll bet that's how it happened at a lot of universities, some of whose names you're now seeing posted. If an administrator gives you flack for doing it this way, FIRE him! His job is to FACILITATE your efforts, not REGULATE them. But I doubt you'd get any flack from your current administrators. If they're giving you "powerful encouragement" when you're asking for permission, and getting things started in three days despite your researchers' insistance on going through channels, I'd bet they've got the right stuff. (Bet they'd have been right beside you all night, and keys are easier than picking the locks. If you have one of that sort, put his name on the paper. He earned it.) Take this letter to them, and ask them what they think of this approach. The answer might surprise you. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenosmigo cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Michael McClary / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 17 Apr 89 08:58:46 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <29097@apple.apple.com> jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) writes: > >[] If >you are gonna talk about the work of Pons and Fleischman, that's >fine, but Pons and Fleischman are VERY unlikely to have reported >anything about anything having reached 5000 degrees! "We have to report here that under the conditions of the last experiment even using D2O alone, a substantial portion or the cathode fused (melting point 1554 degrees C) part of it vapourized and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the experiment were destroyed." (From _Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium_ by Martin Fleischmann & Stanley Pons.) They also have a table entry of "WARNING IGNITION? (see text)" for the excess rate of heating of that experiment. Since they're talking about nuclear, not chemical, processes throught the paper, I read "IGNITION" as initiation of a nuclear chain reaction, with the potential of fireball temperatures. I also presume they're not claiming this, but warning other experimenters to be careful just in case. >Moreover, that particular experiment took a long time (months? >That's about what I recall) to start. This is not my idea of >quick. Neither is it mine. On the other hand, that's the initial charging time for the metal. Once you've gotten it filled up and driven around with it a bit, is it unreasonable to expect it to start heating right away when you turn on the current after a night in the garage? (If so, why not do what the Stanley owners did: leave the "pilot light" on overnight?) cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / L Anthony / Re: May he rest in peace. Originally-From: lanthony@sunybcs.uucp (Lawrence Anthony) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: May he rest in peace. Date: 17 Apr 89 11:37:05 GMT Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science In article <4742@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: >[...] > As palladium gets hot it holds less deuterium. As it releases >deuterium it releases heat. I find it very difficult to reconcile the above two statements. As described, the system is intrinsically unstable. Whatever happened to Le Chatelier's Principle? According to D. P. Smith in the compendium "Gases in Metals" (American Society for Metals, Cleveland, 1953), the _absorption_ of hydrogen in palladium in _exothermic_. Presumably, the behavior of deuterium is similar. Will he who claims otherwise please cite chapter and verse? I have not been able to obtain a copy of F. A. Lewis, "The Pd-H System". Does he differ with Smith? bitnet: lanthony@sunybcs.bitnet internet: lanthony@cs.buffalo.edu cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenlanthony cudfnLawrence cudlnAnthony cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Ronald Mayer / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 17 Apr 89 10:36:06 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <29097@apple.Apple.COM> jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) writes: > >The experiment that blew up in the night (What was it that the >dog did in the night, Holmes?) appears to have melted some >Palladium, which requires a temperature above 1500 degrees >Celsius if I recall correctly, > I'm not sure if anyone mentioned something like this before, but I was talking to someone working on this (yes, really, but he wants to remain anonymous), who has a possible explanation. After 'charging' the palladium for a couple of days, he removed it from the water, and within a short time, it started glowing red hot!!! What happened was that the palladium was acting as a catalyst for the stored hydrogen reacting with the oxygen in the air. His guess is that sometime that night, the water level lowered, exposing part of the electrode, and this reaction caused the palladium to melt, and possibly also causing the hydrogen and oxygen created earlier that night to explode. -Ron Mayer armin@portia.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenarmin cudfnRonald cudlnMayer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / John Woods / Re: My previous comments about fusion experiments. Originally-From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: My previous comments about fusion experiments. Date: 17 Apr 89 01:15:00 GMT Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us In article <23041@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, greg@jif.berkeley.edu (Greg) writes: > But at the same time, do we really have to pretend that all schools > are equal? No, it is completely unnecessary to pretend that. However, for your statements to make sense ("Little schools announce results, Big schools say nothing, ergo nothing") it is necessary to pretend that everyone not in an Ivy League (or "Ivy Group" if you want to include MIT) school is an incompetant idiot, and I think you will find very little evidence for that point of view. I would like to note that despite no announced confirmation, MIT has announced the filing of some patents based on some theories of how cold fusion might work. What THAT says about my alma mommy I'd rather not think about... -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Healed Head BAD, Bleeding Head GOOD! cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnWoods cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / George Hagerman / CALL FOR DISCUSSION on creation of sci.energy Originally-From: george@gwusun.gwu.edu (George Hagerman) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION on creation of sci.energy Date: 17 Apr 89 02:02:29 GMT Organization: Seasun Power Systems, Alexandria Virginia This article expands on the call for discussion in news.groups by John Kelso on the creation of a newsgroup sci.energy (posted 12 Apr 89). John and I have been friends for years, and he has recently turned me on to electronic mail. In scanning through the list of active newsgroups, we noted nothing that deals with energy issues such as emerging renewable technologies (solar, wind, wave), end-use efficiency (for lighting, motors, appliances), or more conventional technologies (fossil-fuel, nuclear fission). We propose the creation of a newsgroup that would serve many types of readers: (1) Those with rural homes, boats, or RV's that are not connected to the utility grid. Despite their energy independence, many of these folks do have access to a computer and modem. (2) Those who plan to some day be in the above category, and would like to learn about the costs and operating aspects of producing your own power. (3) Researchers at utility, government, and academic institutions who wish to exchange information on the technologies they're researching. (4) Those concerned with the energy needs of developing countries. (5) Those concerned with national and state government energy policies. The greenhouse effect, nuclear waste disposal, and ocean oil spills are all problems related to energy. These issues are so emotionally charged, that there is a great deal of misinformation spread around. One goal of this newsgroup is to present information that is solidly referenced, so that interested readers can go to the original source. I would propose a well-defined method of titling articles, such that each title begins with a keyword, chosen from a specific list. This will enable readers to see immediately which unread articles are of interest to them. The proposed list of keywords is given below: KEYWORD TYPICAL SUBJECT MATTER Nuclear Nuclear fission (there is already a separate newsgroup for fusion - no need to duplicate effort) Fossil-fuel Coal, oil, natural gas, synfuels (oil shales, tar sands) Biomass fuel Wood stoves, ethanol production, agricultural wastes Waste-to-energy Mass trash burning, pelletized fuel plants Cogeneration Electrical power from industrial process heat Hydroelectric Water power from rivers, streams, creeks Thermoelectric Thermoelectric generators Solar Photovoltaics, solar thermal electric (parabolic reflector or solar pond), solar cookers, space and water heating Wind Wind turbine-generators, sail-assisted ships Ocean Power from waves, tides, currents, thermal gradient (OTEC) Hydrogen Research related to a future hydrogen energy economy Transmission Overhead lines, underground/submarine cables, home wiring Conversion Transformers, inverters, rectifiers Protection Voltage regulators, circuit breakers, fuses, safety Storage Batteries, fuel cells, pumped storage (air or water) Efficiency Super-efficient lighting, motors, appliances Architecture Building design features for natural lighting, heating, and cooling; insulation; window glazing Systems Examples of complete systems that combine several of the above categories (cost, performance, lessons learned) Vehicles MPG standards, alternative auto fuels, solar electric cars Education College and high school curricula, science fairs Infosources Bibliographies, lists of contacts Government National and state government initiatives (info only, reserve support/dissent comments for next keyword) Opinion Editorials, comments, ideas, newsgroup issues Please feel free to suggest additions or changes during the discussion. As it stands, the list contains 23 keywords. Following the keyword would be one of three designators, typed in all capital letters: ORIG, QUERY, or REPLY. ORIG designates first-time information posted on the bulletin board, and may be followed up by a QUERY, which in turn may be followed up by a REPLY from the ORIG author and from knowledgable readers. A QUERY may also originate without reference to a specific ORIG article. Example titles: Solar/ORIG/Coast Guard biggest U.S. user of photovoltaic panels Conversion/QUERY/DC-AC inverters for boats Storage/REPLY/Sources of deep-cycle lead-acid batteries Education/ORIG/Hawaii to hold solar car race for high schools Opinion/ORIG/The underlying cause of the Valdez oil spill Unless an article is "Opinion" or reports the author's own research or experience, we encourage everyone to cite a traceable reference when posting an ORIG article. Two printed publications have offered to post their articles in this newsgroup, if it's created. One is "Helio", the quarterly newsletter of the Rhode Island Solar Energy Association. Editor Domenic Bucci culls an amazing number of tidbits from a variety of energy-related newsletters, most of them concerned with issues that are international in scope. Tidbits that are not geared specifically to Rhode Island would be posted under the appropriate keywords. Example: "Vehicles/ORIG/Helio spring issue 1989" would contain two tidbits, one on GM's Sunraycer and one on the impact of a 1 MPG improvement in auto fuel efficiency. The second publication is "Home Power", a bi-monthly magazine written for and by folks who produce their own power. Their most recent issue, for example, has articles on an Oregon family's photovoltaic and gasoline powered home (Systems), the care and feeding of lead-acid batteries (Storage), and super-efficient home lighting (Efficiency). Editor Richard Perez has offered to post the text of such articles in this newsgroup. I hope this is enough to kick off the discussion. If you have questions or comments specifically for me, please reply to the address below. Per the 2nd Official Guidelines, we expect to issue a call for votes around 1 May 1989. This expanded call for discussion has been posted in five sci. newsgroups (environment, edu, misc, research, physics) and in alt.fusion, but all follow-up discussion should be posted in news.groups. Thanks for your time and thoughts. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ George Hagerman, Seasun Power Systems 124 E. Rosemont Ave., Alexandria VA 22310 (703) 549-8067 george@gwusun.gwu.edu -or- uunet!gwusun!george cudkeys: cuddy17 cudengeorge cudfnGeorge cudlnHagerman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Brad Pierce / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 17 Apr 89 02:52:09 GMT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <12105@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP writes: >I've been discussing possible applications of fusion technology with some >friends, and one idea that has come up is using cold fusion devices as a >source of heat for steam engines. > << Many interesting points omitted. >> >Ron Thus avoiding the need for improved battery technology and the cost of converting heat into elecricity into motion that are associated with exploiting a realization of cold fusion by using electric vehicles. Assuming that cold fusion were possible and practical, it does seem easier to imagine semitrucks powered by steam engines than ones powered by giant battery packs. -- Brad cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenpierce cudfnBrad cudlnPierce cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Michael Brooks / Re: He's dead Jim. Originally-From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: He's dead Jim. Date: 17 Apr 89 06:40:58 GMT Organization: Stanford University With regard to via comments of >Claim 2. is far more interesting and controversial because it implies a net >energy production at very significant levels (1W-->4W out). >2. Heat "production" persists for as long as you care to run the experiment. >The apparent energy production can be made large enough to rule out any >chemical process. Some good insight into the calorimetric aspects of the problem where posted by the authors. Many thanks, there are people here who have a long history of working on hydride batteries for energy storage, and I would welcome further comments from those folks who have some familarity with this aspect of the problem. The calorimetry aspects have always been controversial (actually less interesting to this reader) and the only strong point in F&Ps studies via calorimetry is the twice reported melting of the cathode (the 0.8cm rod and the 1x1x1cm cube). This is not to denigrate the calorimetric work done by F&P, only to say that I don`t understand it, while destruction of the cathodes is something I can understand (I realize my limitations in interpreting their work quanitatively). Back to the batteries, a question is relevant here: can energy storage be driven in such a way that the stored chemical potential is large relative to the free energy of formation of the constituents of the battery; in this case a PdHx cell? Under appropriate conditions of release perhaps melting can occur? One must bear in mind that the electrolyte solution will have been evaporated off during "storage of energy" thus limiting the transfer of D or H to Pd at some point. Normally such hydride cells can accept H via the gas phase for storage (please correct me if I am wrong). In summary, the idea is to account for destruction of the cathode ("battery") via "overcharging" through the liquid phase (or perhaps a left over, conductive solid residue) transfer of energy; this later being via charge and D(or H). Does your model entertain this possibility? And how about you battery folks, is it possible? Michael B. Brooks /Solid State Electronics Lab/Stanford University/ I like this one: (from Walter Levin, MIT astronomer): "Abscence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of abscence." cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Michael McClary / Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Date: 17 Apr 89 08:15:15 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <705400006@cdp> caulkins@cdp.UUCP writes: > >$(Canadian)425 per Kg for heavy water is pretty pricey ! > [] > >My work in computer communications hardly qualifies me as a >chemical engineer. Still, the heavy-chemicals part of the >process seems straightforward; pumping a bunch of water and gas >around at moderate pressure through a pair of heated reaction >towers, then distilling the enriched result. Where does all >the expense come from ? > Energy to heat and distill the reactants? (And if all you need is low-grade heat, and your product is duterium oxide...) cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Michael McClary / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 17 Apr 89 08:30:25 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <12105@ut-emx.uucp> osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP writes: >I've been discussing possible applications of fusion technology with some >friends, and one idea that has come up is using cold fusion devices as a >source of heat for steam engines. [] > >Just for the record, the automobile known as the Stanley Steamer made the >world's speed record (over 100mph) back around 1915 or so. I've been asking where to find a Stanley since about two days after the F&P announcement. The thought of painting a trefoil on it and driving it down the freeway gives me the giggles. (Even if it's NOT converted...) Probably can't afford it. (Yet...) >The water used for the steam would be recycled, i.e., a closed system. This >would produce vehicles (cars, planes, boats, etc.) with literally unlimited >range, with a pollution level of zero. If you're willing to accept water vapor "pollution" (exhaust) and filling up with water (working-fluid only) now and then, you can save a lot of weight by eliminating the condensor. cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Date: 16 Apr 89 03:41:00 GMT $(Canadian)425 per Kg for heavy water is pretty pricey ! Assuming my arithmetic and financial data are accurate, heavy water works out to cost $(US)0.357 per gram, about 1.7 times the price of silver. Unless large scale production of heavy water can lower the price, or unless the energy yield from the P/F process is very large, it appears the oil companies are not in for much competition. My work in computer communications hardly qualifies me as a chemical engineer. Still, the heavy-chemicals part of the process seems straightforward; pumping a bunch of water and gas around at moderate pressure through a pair of heated reaction towers, then distilling the enriched result. Where does all the expense come from ? Dave C cudkeys: cuddy16 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / bass randale / He's Still Breathing [was Re: He's dead Jim.] Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: He's Still Breathing [was Re: He's dead Jim.] Date: 16 Apr 89 13:57:20 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <4737@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: > >The heavy water cell produces a little more heat than regular water. >This is consistent with: > > "The average value for absorption of deuterium being reported > as 8379 cal/mole compared with 9605 cal/mole for hydrogen." > > From page 125 of "The Palladium Hydrogen System" by Lewis > >Since absorbing hydrogen/deuterium is endothermic the cell with hydrogen >absorbs 9605 cal/mole and the deuterium cell absorbs 8379 cal/mole. The >net result is that the deuterium cell runs hotter. I am assuming that >both cells are able to hold more hydrogen/deuterium (they should not be >full in 40 minutes). > I think that if you and I have copies of "The Palladium-Hydrogen System" by Lewis, then Pons and Fleischmann also were probably able to get copies. I will not comment on the veracity of Mr. Coey's experiment in Dublin. He has obviously not performed careful calorimetry in his experiments. If you burn paper in the second flask, the temperature will be higher than in the ordinary water flask. I do not think that his experiments have any meaning in the context of cold fusion. > > >Did Fleischmann and Pons overlook this heat of absorption? I did not see >it mentioned in their paper. If they thought they were at 100% during the >charging period (refrigerator running) and then after the palladium was >full of deuterium it got hotter (refrigerator stopped) they would think >they were getting extra heat out. > This could only happen if they calibrated their experiment during the charging period. This is highly unlikely from someone who had done calorimetry before. I think that to suggest that two groups have performed calorimetry incompetently is to suggest the improbable, to say the least. >If this is the case then the 8379 cal/mole is just right to explain the >extra heat in their experiment. They got 1.11 times as much energy out in >the form of heat as they put in in electricity (11% extra). It takes 68K >cal/mole to electrolyze water. If we put in 68K cal/mole electricity and >get out 68+8K cal/mole of heat we would be getting out exactly 111% of what >we put in. The extra 8K is really due to zeroing the scale while the >refrigerator was on. The fact that the numbers work out exactly makes >me think they did overlook this. I think current numbers are in the 1000% to 1200% range for total energy overproduction. I assume that heat generation has climbed with this. More on this "refrigeration effect" later. >Alt.fusion was fun while it lasted, > > Vince Cate > vac@cs.cmu.edu It is not this simple. Alt.fusion can continue. > > >Below is a CMU post that I think describes what is going on: > >06-Apr-89 12:13 Andreas.Nowatzyk Fusion update > >Claim 2. is far more interesting and controversial because it implies a net >energy production at very significant levels (1W in --> 4W out). > > [more calorimetry descriptions deleted] > >The message attached below describes a more mundane explanation: > >During the precharge time, D is diffusing into the Pd rod. This requires heat >that is taken from the cell. This is similar to what happens if you dissolve >NH4NO3 in water, the principle behind instant cold packs. If P&F neglected to >account for this heat loss during the precharge period, their initial 100% >thermal efficiency is really only 90% due to the built in refrigerator. Once >the Pd rod is saturated with D, no further heat loss occurs and the thermal >efficiency jumps up. > >This explanation fit most known results so far (and does not require any new >magic): > >1. It depends on the volume of the Pd rod, as claimed by P&F > >2. Heat "production" persists for as long as you care to run the experiment. > The apparent energy production can be made large enough to rule out any > chemical process. Again in line with P&F's claims. No. Even assuming an undergraduate error on the part of two well-respected scientists, the enthalpy increases associated with the heat of adsorption are only available upon desorption of the deuterium, and then only in finite quantities. This "referigeration effect" can not continue in equilibrium forever, the heat must come from somewhere. A small calculation will suffice to show that this "refrigeration effect" can not be happening, even with the postulated idiocy of Pons/Fleischmann. Nearly 5 MJ are released during the production of heat. 6 Grab 10% as the excess = 0.5 x 10 J. 3 Density of Pd = 12 gm/cm 3 Electrode volume = 1.3 cm Thus electrode weight = 15.6 gm. Thus we have ~0.15 mol of Pd. Very generously assume 3 (three) deuterons per Pd (if this is the case then the case for fusion increases dramatically). We thus have 0.45 mol of D. The heat of adsorption is ~33,600 J/mol D. Thus our "phantom heat" cannot appear to be more than about 20,000 J or 0.02 MJ even under the most ridiculous assumptions of deuterium absorption. We do not see an apparent 0.5 MJ production even assuming complete incompetence on the part of Pons/Fleischmann (note: they cannot be completely incompetent, a graduate student is working with them to check up on their errors). A few calculations go a very long way towards recognition that an extraordinary process is occurring here (either electrochemical or fusion). >This explanation predicts that P&F's experiment will still show "fusion" heat >if the D2O is substituted with plain H2O. More by your argument, significantly more. Remember, calorimetry is fairly well developed. Any 1/8 increase in heat production will be noticed. >Article 7105 of sci.physics: >From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) >Subject: Re: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed > > [arguments of the same nature by Mr. Dunning] > > Once again, Pons and Fleischmann melted an electrode.... ... A simple back of the envelope calculation shows that the exothermic reaction of the desorption of deuterium could not cause a high enough rate of heating to melt the cathode. 2 2 2 Heat of absorption of H ~ 8000 cal/mol H = 33600 J/mol H 3 density of Pd =~ 12 gm / cm 2 specific heat of Pd-D system = C = 33.6 J/deg mol H p 3 largest Pons and Fleischmann rod volume is 1.3 cm 2 If we liberally assume that the Pd lattice soaks up 2 H per Pd then the largest rod ingests ~ 0.3 mol of deuterium. Also assume for grins that the rod starts at 400K. 2 If all of the H flees the lattice simultaneously, we can determine the change in temperature via C delta T = delta Q p 2 2 delta Q = 33600 J/mol H * 0.3 mol H = 10,800 J So T - 400K = (1 / 33.6) * 10800 or T ~= 500 K Of course if we halved the specific heat we would get to 600K, which is still not enough to melt the Pd electrode. Note that we have assumed instantaneous desorption which is not realistic even for Pd-H. I think that we are going to have to be more creative than just lattice energy to explain this one.... Yours repetitively ... dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.edu cudkeys: cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / William Johnson / Re: Why the little schools? Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Why the little schools? Date: 16 Apr 89 15:14:15 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <748@nsscb.UUCP>, det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: > >I'm not going to continue with my speculations about why Texas A&M and > >Georgia Tech have gotten more press over cold fusion than MIT (and for > >that matter Los Alamos and Livermore). I find it strange. If other > >people think this is perfectly natural, I would like to hear an > >informed opinion on why exactly it is no surprise. > > Because they are on top, and have been for 30 years (you say)! [...] Gee, nice of you to say that ... :-) > [...] How long would it take > a berkeley grad student to get the funds and permission to try one > of these experiments? Well, I can't speak for Berkeley or some of the other places, but it took Los Alamos three *days* to start an experiment from the first announcement by F&P. This included getting the necessary "permission" (which could better be described as "powerful encouragement"), rounding up apparatus, and forming the appropriate collaborations, which don't involve grad students as much as they do scientific professionals with from 10 to 30 years' experience after their Ph.D.'s. That hardly speaks of bureaucratic inertia and conservatism to me. -- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Vincent Cate / May he rest in peace. :-) Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: May he rest in peace. :-) Date: 16 Apr 89 22:18:09 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI >From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) >Subject: He's Still Breathing [was Re: He's dead Jim.] > > ..... > > I think current numbers are in the 1000% to 1200% range for > total energy overproduction. I assume that heat generation > has climbed with this. More on this "refrigeration effect" later. The higher numbers were calculated based on subtracting out some of the energy that they put in. For example, it seems reasonable to subtract out the energy of electrolysis since you could get it back using a fuel cell. If there is an error of 11% of the original energy you put in, as you subtract off parts of the input energy you will make this error percentage larger. > A small calculation will suffice to show that this "refrigeration effect" > can not be happening, even with the postulated idiocy > of Pons/Fleischmann. > > Nearly 5 MJ are released during the production of heat. > 6 > Grab 10% as the excess = 0.5 x 10 J. The 4 MJ in the paper comes from 10 watts for 120 hours and my theory is that the 10 watts is not real. If they made the postulated mistake then it would look like there was more heat than there really was. If the 10 watts are not real then the 4MJ are not real and there is no extraordinary process going on. >Once again, Pons and Fleischmann melted an electrode.... > > ... A simple back of the envelope calculation shows > that the exothermic reaction of the desorption of deuterium > could not cause a high enough rate of heating to melt the > cathode. > > ... > > T ~= 500 K As palladium gets hot it holds less deuterium. As it releases deuterium it releases heat. It seems to me that under the right conditions you could get an explosion. Now maybe its not enough energy to melt 12 grams of palladium but it would not surprise me if it could make an explosion big enough to destroy the experiment. In their paper, Fleischmann and Pons say that some of the palladium was "vapourized" but later they admit that they were not there at the time of the explosion and just could not find all of the palladium after the explosion (not so hard to believe). -- Vince Cate -- cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.16 / Jan Genemans / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan Genemans) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 16 Apr 89 23:52:01 GMT Organization: U.S.M.M.A., Kings Point, NY > The speed of > light is the same regardless of your frame of reference. If you fly > towards a flashlight at half the speed of light, the light is still > coming at you at about 300,000 km/sec. If you run away from the > flashlight, then the light is still coming at you at 300,000 km/sec. > Photons' rest mass is an abstraction, because a photon can't ever be at > rest, or even slow down the tiniest fraction. The speed of light does not remain the same. It travels 299,792.5 km/sec in a vacuum and it 299,708 km/sec a difference of 84.5 km/sec. It changes speed as it travels through mediums of different densities just as sound or other forms of wave propagation. -- Jan K. Genemans, Consultant Jan.Genemans@Dartmouth.edu Engineering Department U. S. Merchant Marine Academy Kings Point, NY 11024-1699 "Live long and prosper." -Spock cudkeys: cuddy16 cudengenemans cudfnJan cudlnGenemans cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 17 Apr 89 10:47:00 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Thanks to Dale Bass (crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu) and Jon Singer (jon@Apple.COM) for their responses to my post Re: heat of absorption of H in Pd; They both quote F.A.Lewis indicating that H into Pd is actually *endo*themic, rather than exothermic, to my mortifying embarassment. Looks like I'm going to have to eat some crow on this one; serves me right for relying on my memory and logic, rather than looking it up ... < wry 1/2 :-) >. A couple of clarifications and comments: >Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) > > > > I agree strongly with Mr. Pusch on the likelihood of Pons/Fleischmann > making a silly mistake in heat balances. ... Actually, I'd didn't say that (though I may wish I had, soon...). I was agreeing with P&F that the sort of energy-releases they reported, *assuming they are correct*, were far too large to be easily explained chemically, as some posters argued. However, I will strongly agree with Mr. Bass that the P&F energy balance arguements *do* look a bit funny (yes, I *have* read the paper). In particular, the way they attempt to compensate for the difference between the actual power supplied to the cell and joule heating seems questionable. (This difference arises from the electrochemical component of the voltage drop; apparently there is some uncertainty on P&F's part as to exactly which reaction determines this drop, so they can only report upper and lower bounds on the fraction of the input power which actually goes into Joule heating.) If I were going to be on the hypothetical team of chemists *and* physicists it's going to take to properly confirm this experiment (-: I won't be; I'm a Theorist :-), I would want pay careful attention to the heat-flow's detailed time-behavior during the soi-disant ``charging'' phase, and particularly its approach to equilibrium. I would also like to see a somewhat different apparatus used. According to the preprint, the P&F apparatus uses a ``dewer'' flask immersed in a constant (300K) temperature water-bath for the cell, and two thermometers to monitor the temperatures of the cell and bath, respectively. While they are rather vague, I gather they calculate heat production by measuring the temperature difference between the cell and the bath.I would prefer an *active* approach: use a heater and feedback- system to maintain a constant *known* temperature difference across the cell wall, so that the heat production can be measured *directly*. Also, one could eliminate the unknowns in the e-chem. voltage drop by filling the space above the water with gaseous D2, putting in a Platinum catalyst unit (a-la sealed lead/acid batteries), and sealing it. Then all the oxygen evolved by electrolysis will recombine with the D2, re-releasing its heat of formation; the *total* amount of D2O in the cell will then remain constant, so that the *net* heat produced will just be that of the hypothetical fusion reaction, once the apparatus reaches equlibrium. > ... As to the heat of adsorption of deuterium ... > > ... Notice that this shows that the desorption of deuterium is > exothermic not endothermic and that energy (ie electromigration) > must be supplied in order to fill the lattice with deuterium. As I said, this came as quite a surprise to me, and I don't really understand it (but then, endothermic reactions always seemed a bit weird to me, *anyway*). If one must do work to cause the H to enter the Pd, then why does it *stay* trapped? And if it absorbs heat in the process, why would *further* heating (a-la Texas A&M) drive the H off? Paul Dietz (private communication; quoted w/out permission, and I hope you aren't mad at me, Paul) suggests to me that absorbtion is analogous to evaporation: % ... It happens because the [ D2 ] molecules get broken into ions, % which raises the entropy (the same reason liquids evaporate, even % though that is an endothermic process) ... I suppose that at high temperatures, the maximum entropy state shifts back to the gaseous phase? Maybe I got confused between ``heat'' and ``temperature'' ... Back to Dale Bass: > ... A simple back of the envelope calculation shows > that the exothermic reaction of the desorption of deuterium > could not cause a high enough rate of heating to melt the > cathode. [details of a *very* nice estimate of temperature rise due to ``catastrophic desorption'' deleted. Bass finds T(final) ~= T(initial) + 100 K ] > ... Note that > we have assumed instantaneous desorption which is not realistic > even for Pd-H. I think that we are going to have to be more creative > than just lattice energy to explain this one.... I would add that to me such a ``catastrophic desorption'' seems almost as difficult to understand as cold fusion! I know of no physical principle which would cause all the D's to want to leave at once ... 'course, I've already admitted that I don't physically understand why they go *into* the Pd endothermically *either* ... Note that endothermicity (is that a word?) makes the Texas A&M result even harder to understand; Responding to my argument that: >> ... The Texas A&M result (using a Pd rod baked out at 600 C to remove >> any initial stored hydrogen), observed heat almost immeadiately, i.e. >> without P&F's ``charging period''. Similarly, Georgia Tech, using a >> special surface treatment on their Pd electrode, observed neutron >> emission immeadiately. No ``charging period'' ==> no (or very little) >> ``stored energy'', ergo the P&F cell is not (primarily) acting as a >> battery. Jon Singer writes: > ... Various people have mentioned another interesting item, > particularly John V. Armstrong, quoted in Vincent Cate's recent > posting, <4737@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, who reports as follows: > `"The average value for [heat] absorption of deuterium being > reported as 8379 cal/mole compared with 9605 cal/mole for hydrogen." > [From page 125 of "The Palladium Hydrogen System" by Lewis] > > The claim is made in several places, at least one of them > quoted here, that when the Pd becomes largely saturated with > the gas, this refrigeration effect is markedly reduced, which > gives the unfortunate experimenter an apparent heating (if they > haven't taken the refrigeration into account.) ... > > ... To quote Armstrong again, > ... Did Fleischmann and Pons overlook this heat of absorption? > I did not see it mentioned in their paper. If they thought > they were at 100% during the charging period (refrigerator > running) and then after the palladium was full of deuterium > it got hotter (refrigerator stopped) they would think they > were getting extra heat out ... > ... The [extra heat energy] is really due > to zeroing the scale while the refrigerator was on... But as he goes on to state, this makes the recent report that Pons sees excess heat released even from H2O even to understand: > This is, of course, conceivable, but it would cause them to have > an even larger "fusion" heat output from H2 than from D2, no? I agree, on two counts: 1) The heat of absorption of H2 is lager than D2. 2) The diffusion constant of H2 is about an order of magnitude higher, leading to a much more powerful ``refrigerator''. Furthermore makes the Texas A&M experiment becomes even harder to understand; they should have seen the temperature immeadiatly *drop*, not *rise*. >** Please note: if the current is high, I would expect that a >thin layer near the surface saturates quite rapidly, and that >further absorption is dominated by the diffusion of the H or D >into the lattice (I seem to recall a rate of 10^ -7 cm/sec? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [that should be 10^(-7) cm^2/sec] >In any case, it should take some days or weeks to `charge' a 1cm >diameter object.) This points to problems with the refrigerator >notion, at least at large currents. At small currents, it may be >hard even to notice, yes? Yes, it works out to about 30 days (modulo dropped factors of 2 and/or pi; like I said, I'm a Theorist ;-). But it's hard to imagine P&F would be unaware of this; nor can I imagine that careful and well-respected Chemists working for *5 years* on an experiment of this type would assume their apparatus's calibration wouldn't drift over *30 days*. However I cheerly admit that I've probably done things at least that stupid, so maybe they did, too ... Gordon ``Dammit, Jim, I'm a Physicist, not a Chemist!'' Pusch Physics Dept., VPI&SU | Blacksburg VA 24061 | cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.11 / Sean Bossinger / Rampant speculation and betting pool Originally-From: sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Sean M. Bossinger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re:Rampant speculation and betting pool Subject: Rampant speculation and betting pool Date: 17 Apr 89 00:59:58 GMT Date: 11 Apr 89 17:44:24 GMT Organization: UF CIS Department Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, Ca. From uflorida!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!mega tek!spot!mark Sun Apr 16 19:56:05 EST 1989 Article 263 of alt.fusion: Path: uflorida!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!mega tek!spot!mark >From: mark@spot.megatek.uucp (Rocket J. Squirrel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Rampant speculation and betting pool Message-ID: <524@megatek.UUCP> Date: 11 Apr 89 17:44:24 GMT Sender: news@megatek.UUCP Reply-To: mark@megatek.UUCP () Distribution: alt Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, Ca. Lines: 20 >Ok campers, so it appears that there is SOME way, whatever the mechanism >turns out to be, to extract heat energy from seawater. It seems clear to >me that the first major use of this will be to replace nuclear and coal >fired electrical plants. >So who wants to speculate on which big industrial concern will be the first >to sell a commercial, ready to operate, fusion reactor to your friendly >local electrical company? GE? General Atomic? Westinghouse? Somebody in >France or Japan? Someone we have never heard of yet? >If you chose to speculate, please state *WHY* do you chose the company >you do. Remember, there may be a major long term investment windfall in >picking the right company now. Probably either: 1)A company we have never heard of, or 2)Westinghouse (to put themselves back in the nuclear power plant production business). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean | 33-304 Fletcher Hall M. The Univeristy of Florida | Gainesville, Florida 32612-3301 Bossinger sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu | (904) 395-7299 cudkeys: cuddy11 cudensb1 cudfnSean cudlnBossinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Joe Buck / Re: Graduate Students report Cold Fusion Originally-From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Graduate Students report Cold Fusion Date: 17 Apr 89 17:14:56 GMT Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA In article <2175@mit-caf.MIT.EDU> paul@mit-caf.UUCP (Paul Meyer) writes: > Talking to a Chemist grad student here, it appears that the >set up used by the Washington students is a known way of enriching >tritium. There is tritium in heavy water. The palladium may simply >be allowing tritium through the electrode. The reason it would not >work with plain H20 is simply because there is much less tritium in >water than in D20. I've seen this suggestion posted twice, and it seems backwards to me. Consider that one of the ways to produce deuterium is by electrolysis -- the lighter hydrogen isotope is preferentially separated, and the heavier one preferentially stays in the water. Yes, there will be a lot more tritium in the D2O than in the H2O, but if it exists in the form of DTO it shouldn't appear that much because of electrolysis. Possible control experiment: replace the palladium with a metal that doesn't absorb (or adsorb) hydrogen to any great extent and repeat. Then you'd get a good level for the amount of tritium you'd expect to be created by electrolysis alone. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjbuck cudfnJoe cudlnBuck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Doug Roberts / Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 18 Apr 89 21:10:11 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Dr. Stanley Pons gave a presentation here at Los Alamos this afternoon. I'll give a very brief summary of my impressions of the talk: He opened with a well received joke (the audience, overall, seemed politly skeptical). The joke: Prior to departing for Los Alamos this morning, the Dean of the U of U wished Dr. Pons a safe trip, and then commented: "It's hard to believe what an electro-chemist has to do to get invited to speak at Los Alamos." One other quip received a lot of yuks as well. He was showing a slide of his glass dewar electrode apparatus. The equipment was resting in a plastic K-Mart rubber dishwashing tub. "And this is the U-1 Tokomak fusion reactor," he said. It was particularly amusing to me because the director of one of the Los Alamos containment fusion projects was sitting in my row in the audience. Not being a physicist, I'll not try to recap all of the technical issues presented (many were discussed during the 45 minute questions period). Instead, I'll just repeat a few of them: 1. He did state that he has sustained a reaction now for over 800 hours, and that approximately 8 times as much energy has been released as was supplied to the system. 2. A soon to be released paper will show a strong correlation between the production of He4 and heat production. I came away from the presentation believing that the "cold fusion" phenomenon is real, not a laboratory mistake. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Peter Desnoyers / Re: Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter Originally-From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter Date: 18 Apr 89 21:20:29 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <4716@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: > >I have scanned in another paper on cold fusion: > > "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" > J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley > University of Arizona > S. E. Jones > Brigham Young University > March 27, 1989 > I got a copy of this paper and would be willing to mail it to anyone on UUCP. Although the uncompressed files total 6 meg, the compressed uuencoded files are about half a meg. You will need a unix machine with uncompress and uudecode, as well as a postscript printer, to read them. (They are postscript-format bitmaps, I think, and take forever to print.) Send me a message with the lines: REQUEST SEND ALL to desnoyer@apple.com. You will get 17 mail messages in response, with the compressed files and directions. Peter Desnoyers cudkeys: cuddy18 cudendesnoyer cudfnPeter cudlnDesnoyers cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / bass randale / Re: He4 found Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 18 Apr 89 20:33:43 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <4822@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes: > >[Copied from the Los Angeles Times April 18, 1989, without permission. >LFM] > >"Two University of Utah chemists announced Monday that they have >detected a rare form of helium ... [more press stuff deleted] > >... mainly produces a rare form of helium called helium-4." > A rare form of helium? dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: He4 found Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 18 Apr 89 18:45:26 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <4822@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes: > [Copied from the Los Angeles Times April 18, 1989, without permission. > LFM] So it's not your fault, but..... > > "One theory was advanced by Pons a few days after the controversial press > conference, and a scientist as MIT, Peter L. Hagelstein, recently > voiced the same speculation. That theory argues that the process > mainly produces a rare form of helium called helium-4." > He4 is the *usual* form of helium. By weight, it is more than a quarter of all the mass in the universe. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Ted Dunning / Pons talk at los alamos Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Pons talk at los alamos Date: 18 Apr 89 21:21:13 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science pons gave a talk at los alamos today. my spies who saw the talk mentioned the following new items: a) cast rods worked, but milled ones do NOT. this is completely new, and speaks volumes about surface problems and possible metallurgical processes. b) he has a `blank rod' which is milled palladium which does not react in any of his experiments. c) he says that he has had 60 (note sixty) confirmations that have communicated privately to him, but do not want their names mentioned yet. this is astounding news. d) the impression is that he again is very scientific and not at all selling anything. i hope to be reviewing a video tape of the talk soon to compare it with pons' utah presentation. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / J Henderson / He4 levels measured in P/F cell. Originally-From: jlh@uplherc.UUCP (Jordan Henderson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: He4 levels measured in P/F cell. Date: 18 Apr 89 00:02:56 GMT Organization: Utah Power & Light, Salt Lake City In a news conference at the University of Utah today (4/17), Drs. Simons and Walling, of the U of U Chemistry Dept., announced that they have measured He4 associated with the P/F experiment. The amounts of He4 measured can only be explained by nuclear fusion, say Drs. Simons and Walling. Simons and Walling claim they have developed a theory to explain the phenomena. Pons will be in contact with scientists from Los Alamos tonight and tomorrow to discuss joint research. Pons claims that Los Alamos researchers have duplicated the "cold fusion" experiment and is puzzled at Los Alamos' reticence with regard to public confirmation. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjlh cudfnJordan cudlnHenderson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Steve Smith / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: smith@cos.com (Steve Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 18 Apr 89 22:03:52 GMT Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA In article <12105@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP writes: |I've been discussing possible applications of fusion technology with some |friends, and one idea that has come up is using cold fusion devices as a |source of heat for steam engines. | |The cold fusion device reportedly achieved a temperature of over 5000 degrees. |The major obstacle to steam power thus far has been an easily transportable |and quick-starting heat source. Could it be that we now have it? | |Just for the record, the automobile known as the Stanley Steamer made the |world's speed record (over 100mph) back around 1915 or so. |It would certainly be feasible for individuals to have small, steam-driven |power generators in their back yards, or even underground, practically |wiping out the power industry. | |Comments? | |Ron | Nope. The problem with steam engines is that the car and small engine manufacturers use internal combustion engines, just because that's what they use. Whazisname Lear (inventor of the Learjet) got a fat gov't contract sometime in the 70's to develop a steam car. He produced an ultra high tech, turbine driven monstrosity, proving that a businessman with a gov't grant will spend it all. At the same time, Stanleys were being banned (so I heard) from classic car races. No fair to hit the Interstate at 80 mph .... As to using a F-P reactor in a car or your backyard, the No Nooks types would be after you with pitchforks and torches. Some guys ain't got no sense of humor .... -- -- Steve (smith@cos.com) ({uunet sundc decuac hqda-ai hadron}!cos!smith) "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." cudkeys: cuddy18 cudensmith cudfnSteve cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Jeanne DeVoto / Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Originally-From: jdevoto@Apple.COM (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,misc.legal Subject: Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Date: 19 Apr 89 00:19:31 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <1284@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: >Peter Hegalstein of MIT has proposed theories on the process of cold >fusion, and MIT wants to get patents for it. > >But, from what UPI is saying about his theories (basically D+D => He4 + >energy to the lattice) he is merely repeating what has already been >said on the Usenet! (probably with more quantitative analysis :) > >So the Usenet people "published" first, I say patents and Nobel medals >all around! Seriously, assuming the facts about the patent application are as stated, could this be used to deny a patent? I seem to remember something about "non-obvious to an experienced practitioner in the field" as a necessity for a patent to be granted.... Also, how can you patent a theory? I thought only a process could be patented, not the understanding of a process. So it seems Jones/Palmer and/or Pons/Fleischmann should be first in line.... Followups to misc.legal. jeanne a. e. devoto jdevoto@apple.com cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjdevoto cudfnJeanne cudlnDeVoto cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Randell Jesup / Re: At the Crossroads Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: At the Crossroads Date: 18 Apr 89 18:43:02 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <3737@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >other absorbed gasses). On the other hand, the reaction soon gets quenched >when the oxides of iron and other metals that will form by oxidation by D[2]O >cover the electrode sufficiently to prevent further electrolysis. >Incidentally, if this hypothesis is correct it would mean that at least one of >the metals in the BYU electrolyte is a suitable substitute for palladium in >the cold fusion reaction. I believe one of the metal salts included Ti, which has some hydrogen adsorbing (note: not absorbing) capabilities, and might be able to work in a similar manner to palladium. -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Randell Jesup / Re: Cold fusion with normal water Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion with normal water Date: 18 Apr 89 19:14:12 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <744@nsscb.UUCP> det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: >In article <38613@bbn.COM> syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) writes: >>Richard Harris reported on NPR this morning that Stanly Pons stated at an >>American Chemical Society meeting yesterday that he has been trying the >>cold fusion experiment with normal water during the last several weeks, and >>produced a reaction similar to, although not as strong as, that produced >>when using heavy water. Virtually no details were given. Harris also >>reported that Pons said that the normal water experiments were not very >>interesting. I think everyone is getting worked up over a misreported fact. I suspect (no certain data) that NPR misunderstood, and reported that Pons said there was some heat generated. They missed the fact that whenever you run a current through a (non-superconducting) wire, you get ohmic heating. Also energy is being added to the system in the dissociation of H2O. I assume that Pons reported the heating that occured was what was expected (and factored out of the D2O experiment), and this supports the assumption that no unexpected chemical reaction is taking place. I say interviews with the attendees of the ACS conference after the talk, and they said he had answered almost all their questions and quelled most of their scepticism with his answers. If he had made the statement that NPR says he did, they would have jumped on him like a ton of rocks. Therefor, I doubt the NPR reporting until confirmed (reliably). -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / William Johnson / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 18 Apr 89 23:32:01 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Doug Roberts has already summarized the Pons colloquium, and I will not repeat what he already said; however, a couple of other comments come to mind. Not much came out of this talk that has not already been reported elsewhere. He addressed the normal-water experiment in response to a question from the audience. The answer was somewhat garbled, but he appeared to be stating that some theorists (at Utah?) claimed that the slight excess heat could be explained by p+d fusion. (After all, normal water does contain some deuterium.) The claim, if I understood it correctly, was that the p+d->He-3 reaction would also be speeded up enormously in the palladium lattice. Take this with a grain of salt -- I'm not sure I heard his explanation correctly. Another interesting tidbit was that one of the Utah palladium rods, quote, "never got started" producing fusion. He attributed this to the fact that that rod had been milled (!). The impression was given that there is a significant amount of "magic" in the production of an electrode that works. Pons also held a press conference after the colloquium; I did not attend that, but a member of our collaboration did, and he indicates that basically the same old things were said. I pass this observation on without comment. It was interesting, however, to hear that according to Pons, something like *200* laboratories are now attempting a confirmation. -- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Donn Seeley / local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Date: 19 Apr 89 01:30:45 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept The press conference mainly revolved around the new theory proposed by Cheves Walling and Jack Simons, both professors in the Utah chemistry department. The authors are not exactly modest about their accomplishment... The Salt Lake Tribune ran an article on the announcement and had this to say about the theory: The theory devised by Drs Walling and Simons seems to support the empirical evidence of the Pons/Fleischmann experiment. In simplified form, the theory maintains that two heavy hydrogen (deuterium) atoms fuse to form a single helium-4 atom, which transfers its fusion energy to nearby electrons, which in turn give up energy as heat. The process is known as 'internal conversion'. 'This model is consistent with all of the experimental data presently available and makes predictions that can be checked in the lab,' said a press release from Drs Walling and Simons. They have submitted a paper on the theory to the Journal of Physical Chemistry. Dr Walling said Monday that the concept could be the most exciting scientific development of his lifetime, exceeding the Manhattan Project that provided the theoretical underpinnings for the atomic bomb. He said the theory he formulated with Dr Simons explains why the reaction occurs so quickly and why heat is the main byproduct. Dr Simons said the hypothesis was 'a helluva lot better than others I've heard of, including MIT's,' referring to a comparable 'quantum tunneling' theory proposed by Peter Hagelstein at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pons's group has been looking for predicted effects of the model: Dr B Stanley Pons confirmed ... that helium-4 was detected in experiments conducted at the chemistry department Thursday and Friday. ... 'The helium results are important,' said Dr Simons, adding that his original skepticism about the validity of the fusion claim was eroded by the amount of helium produced. 'How can you get helium-4 without a nuclear reaction? Chemistry doesn't make helium.' ... Dr Pons said he likes the theory because 'it's the only one I've seen that predicts and explains.' He added that amounts of helium-4 produced in experiments 'are pretty much precisely what the theory predicts.' What the article did not say about the theory was interesting too. According to tonight's evening news, Pons said that they did observe heat from an experiment involving ordinary H2O. Neither Pons, Fleischmann, Walling nor Simons have said that they have any clue about the significance of this. A nuclear engineer who understands the Walling-Simons theory says that if the model is correct, the apparatus should emit beta radiation (electrons) and should visibly glow a blue hue. He went to see the experiment and verified that neither of these side effects are observed. Other people have similar problems with the model, as the Trib article observes: U of U physicist Michael Salamon, who has expressed skepticism about the process, told The Tribune that he would prefer to reserve comment until he could study the theory and test results in detail, but added 'my initial guess is it's unlikely.' He said that if the concept is correct, light should be emitted as electrons leave the palladium bar, where the reaction is theoretically occurring, and enter the surrounding 'heavy' water. 'If that light is there, that means something is going on and we should pay attention to the Walling/Simons model. If not, something is probably wrong. As soon as Pons has the model up and running, we'll see,' Dr Salamon said. 'The nice thing about the model is that it's easily testable.' Dr Pons still reports far more optimistic confirmation results than the press does: Dr Pons told reporters he has talked to more than 60 scientific institutions which have indicated positive results in duplications of the tabletop experiment he and Dr Fleischmann set up. He said about half of those institutions confirmed privately that heat produced by the process far surpassed the amount of energy consumed, a claim that has sparked considerable doubt about the discovery. Italian scientists from the National Agency for Alternative Energy outside of Rome are expected to announce Tuesday that they have created nuclear fusion following the Pons/Fleischmann experiment. Dr Pons said other institutions probably haven't published their confirmations for legal reasons or have encountered problems because of slight differences in their experiments. Funding agencies are eager to provide cash to the U to continue research; the state has allocated a $5 million fund which will be administered by a committee that meets for the first time tomorrow. I haven't seen a list of the 9 members of the committee, but the Deseret News described them as 'scientists and business representatives' and said that the two 'academicians' on the committee were faculty from Utah State in Logan -- the state wanted the committee to be 'independent' of the U and BYU. The News quoted one of professors: 'The confirmation will have to be based on several things,' said Wilford Hansen, a Utah State University physics and chemistry professor and a member of the committee. Like other committee members contacted Monday, he was unsure how to decide when to give the all-clear signal to spend money. 'It's hard to say absolutely, unless we get one confirmation from which there is no doubt,' he said. Another funding source was observed by the Trib: [Pons] noted that the Office of Naval Research has provided a $1.2 million grant to continue the fusion studies. Some interesting trivia... The News reported that Dr Pons is familiar with the German helium-from-palladium story: [Pons] likes to tell the story of the German scientists who in the mid-1920s conducted a 'unique' experiment. The process, Pons said, included the production of helium gas by the electrochemical combination of deuterium from heavy water, using a palladium electrode. Pons said patent applications on the German project were sought but denied and [subsequently] withdrawn. And the discouraged scientists said they had made a mistake. The Trib says that Dr Fleischmann wanted to wait until 1990 before announcing the work: 'I did not want to publish anything about this for another 18 months, largely because we wanted to do another comprehensive series of experiments,' Professor Martin Fleischmann said in an interview broadcast throughout the world on Radio Netherlands ... 'We knew we wanted to write two papers on the subject covering different aspects of the work, and we knew we needed 18 months for that work,' said the scientist. 'We had a very well-defined program which we wanted to execute. If you publish early, you have to take the consequences of this, and that many other people will start doing similar experiments and therefore you cannot write what is called a definitive paper.' 'If you've kept things quiet for five years, you would like to write one definitive paper. It's not the first time this has happened to me,' he said. But the professor also said he understood why 'my colleagues in the University of Utah' decided to make the arch 23 announcement. 'It's not my normal style of operation,' he said, but 'I could see that there were reasons for holding it, there was so much information coming out already anyway all over the place, misleading information, that I could understand that they wanted to have this press conference.' Finally, the U of U student newspaper, the Daily Utah Chronicle, said that Pons has withdrawn the Nature paper: ... [F]ollowing the press conference, Pons told the Chronicle he withdrew his paper from Nature Saturday. Pons said the paper submitted to Nature was merely an abbreviated form of the full paper that was submitted to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, and was meant to be a 'professional announcement' of the project. However, the extended paper was published in the electrochemical journal April 10, and Nature had asked for a more complete paper with updated information, which Pons felt would be useless to write, since he has not had the time to gather further data than was first published. Also, Monday was the deadline to submit the complete paper and Pons said he did not have the time to write the requested response, so he withdrew the paper. Sorry about the length, but it was a busy day, Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@cs.utah.edu 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 utah-cs!donn cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / L Hutchinson / A call for cub reporters. Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: A call for cub reporters. Date: 18 Apr 89 18:28:15 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. We netters have all been following the cold fusion story with great fascination (or at least amusement) for the last few weeks. The problem is that our only sources of information are the news media and the net. The net has been really great, but it suffers from one major problem: only a very tiny subset of the physics community is represented. I would dearly love to know what the top-notch nuclear physicists and fusion researchers think of this whole mess. For this reason, I would like to call upon those of you that have the appropriate contacts (or at least chutzpah) to go out and suck a few of em' dry and then report back to the net. Ask for both information and opinions. Let them remain anonymous if they so desire, but it would be nice to have direct attributable quotes. For example I would like someone at Princeton to walk up to Harold Furth (sp?) and say "So Harry, baby: whaddaya think?" (or words to that effect). [ And I don't' want anybody complaining that Furth is from the old guard and will just try an protect his turf -- each of us can interpret the results in our own way.] Here are a few example topics and questions: What do you think P&F observed? Is there any validity at all to the current explainations for the lack of radiation relative to thermal output: a) 3-body interactions. b) MeV phonons. c) Botched calorimetry d) ___________ What do you know of attempts to replicate the P&F results? (Other suggestions?) So grab your clipboard or recorder and go!! Quickly, before P&F find their calorimetry error :-) Larry Hutchinson, Tektronix, Inc. PO Box 500, MS 50-383, Beaverton, OR 97077 UUCP: [uunet|ucbvax|decvax|hplabs]!tektronix!tekgvs!larryh ARPA: larryh%tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET CSNet: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Roger Tang / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 19 Apr 89 00:07:58 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Well, with FURTHER replications at Stanford and in Italy, if cold fusion is "dead," then it's a pretty damn lively corpse. Heat is variable to He4, hm? Interesting..... cudkeys: cuddy19 cudengwangung cudfnRoger cudlnTang cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Michael Frank / Re: May he rest in peace (D/Pd Absorption heat) Originally-From: bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: May he rest in peace (D/Pd Absorption heat) Date: 19 Apr 89 01:54:11 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <4749@pt.cs.cmu.edu> agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu (Andreas Nowatzyk) writes: >turns out that the Pd/H system is very complex. The absorption heat depends >on the H-concentration already in the Pd, the pressure, the temperature, the >surface treatment, the *history* of the Pd, ..., (the phase of the moon :-). >Hall, in his PhD. Thesis, MIT 1926, on this subject states flatly that >calorimetric measurement of the absorption heat is not possible because the >Pd/H system is so unstable (in this temperature range). Most sources derive >the absorption heat indirectly from other measures. Did it occur to anyone that maybe the *reason* the Pd/H system is so thermally complex is *because* low levels of fusion perhaps occur under certain conditions even with 1H? Instead of presuming that the calorimetry results are innaccurate because they don't take into account the weird behavior of Pd/H, we could presume that the weird behavior of Pd/H is due to fusion (or something equally interesting). Just a thought. -- ,-------M-i-c-h-a-e-l---F-r-a-n-k------------------------------------------. | AI Stanford Microsoft philosophy Alas,Babylon Chattanooga,TN | | Amiga swimming Star Trek Pink Floyd nanotechnology Gainesville,FL | `-----------b-u-g-b-o-y-@-p-o-r-t-i-a-.-s-t-a-n-f-o-r-d-.-e-d-u------------' cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbugboy cudfnMichael cudlnFrank cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Dave Remien / Re: Pons press conference today Originally-From: dave@pmafire.UUCP (Dave Remien) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pons press conference today Date: 18 Apr 89 18:11:01 GMT Organization: WINCO, INEL, Idaho In article <1602@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: >The local news tonight presented portions of a press conference by >Stanley Pons and his co-workers. [various interesting items deleted] > + They claim to have come up with a plausible nuclear physics > explanation for the reaction, and a paper submitted to the > Journal of Physical Chemistry will give details about why the > reaction produces less radiation and other reaction products > than expected -- one author of the JPC paper is Jack Simons, > another full professor in the Chemistry Dept.; I've been wondering if Jack Simons was involved in any of this; he taught "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" in a manner that one could actually understand, back in my undergrad days at the U. of U. Chem Department (no mean feat). It would be interesting to see if he cares to shed some light on the cold fusion matter (above and beyond the above mentioned paper). >Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@cs.utah.edu -- Dave Remien - WINCO Computer Eng. Group -{uunet | bigtex}!pmafire!dave- "I'm looking for the same old place. You must mean the old same place. It's right out back, sonny, here's the key." (Firesign Theater, ca. 1970) cudkeys: cuddy18 cudendave cudfnDave cudlnRemien cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / S Strassmann / Congressional Testimony by R. Ballinger, MIT Originally-From: straz@mit-amt (Steve Strassmann) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Congressional Testimony by R. Ballinger, MIT Date: 3 May 89 08:36:17 GMT Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA I asked Prof. Ballinger for a copy of his Congressional testimony, and his secretary kindly gave me a Mac disk and permission to distribute it on the net. The original is a Microsoft Word document, which I've converted to plain ascii and enclosed below. I've also sent the Mac document to Vince Cate (vac@cs.cmu.edu) in case he wants to make it publically accessible, along with the other papers (thanks, Vince!). I have two other short documents, but not in electronic form. One lists the names of 19 faculty and grad students as members of the "MIT Cold Fusion Group". The other, is Prof. Ballinger's bio, which says (in part) that has a joint appointment at MIT's Dept. of Nuclear Engineering and MIT's Dept. of Material Science and Engineering. His areas of specialization are (1) Environmental effects on material behavior, (2) Physical metallurgical and electrochemical aspects of environmentally assisted cracking in aqueous systems, (3) Stress corrosion cracking and hydrogen embrittlement in Light Water Reactor systems, (4) The effect of radiation on aqueous chemistry and stress corrosion cracking, (5) Experimental fracture mechanics techniques and analytical methodology, and (6) Materials development for cryogenic applications. Steve Strassmann grad student, MIT Media Laboratory (not a fusion researcher!) straz@media-lab.media.mit.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments on "Cold Fusion" Testimony presented to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. by Professor Ronald G. Ballinger Department of Nuclear Engineering Department of Materials Science and Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts April 26, 1989 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am Ronald Ballinger, a faculty member of the Departments of Nuclear Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I am very grateful for your invitation to convey my views related to the recent reports of the achievement of "cold fusion". I am a member of an interdisciplinary team at MIT that is involved in an attempt to reproduce the reported "Cold Fusion" results of Professors Pons and Fleischmann of the University of Utah. The teams' principals include Dr. Ronald R. Parker, Director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Center; Professor Mark S. Wrighton, Head of the Chemistry Department; and myself. (A complete list of team members and areas of expertise is included). The team is composed of experts in the fields of physical metallurgy, electrochemistry, plasma physics, instrumentation, and radiation detection. The team has been involved in attempts to reproduce the results, reported by Professors Pons and Fleischmann since shortly after their results were released to the press and for publication in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. As I am sure that you and the members of this committee are aware, any breakthrough in the area of energy production that has the potential to supply current and future energy needs in a non polluting manner must be given serious attention. Quite apart from its impact on basic science, the results recently reported by Professors Pons and Fleischmann, should they prove to be correct, represent such a breakthrough. The basic nature of their results have been described and discussed by earlier testimony before this committee. Basically, the team at the University of Utah has reported the fusion of deuterium atoms in a palladium matrix at room temperature. As evidence that "cold fusion" has taken place the production of excess heat and neutron radiation has been reported. The reported magnitude of both of these is such that their presence could be verified by other investigators. Much more modest results have been reported by a team of investigators at Brigham Young University. We feel that it is important to distinguish between the BYU results, which are of scientific interest but of limited or no practical significance and those of the University of Utah which, should they prove correct have major implications for future energy production. Since the reports of these results, a number of teams worldwide have been attempting to reproduce these results. To my knowledge, with the possible exception of the Stanford results and results from Europe and the USSR of which I have no personal knowledge, no team has been successful. As far as the results of attempts by the team at MIT are concerned, we have been thus far unable to scientifically verify any of these results. This is in spite of the fact that we are employing calorimetry and radiation detection methods of even greater sophistication and sensitivity than those of the University of Utah. Having said this I can assure you that these negative results have not been the results of a lack of effort. The MIT team has been, as I am sure is the case with other teams, laboring around the clock. However, we and the other teams have been handicapped by a lack of enough scientific detail to guarantee that we are actually duplicating these experiments. In the scientific community the soundness of experimental or theoretical research results is evaluated through peer review and duplication. For results such as those reported, whose potential impact on the scientific community and the world are so great, this review process is absolutely essential. Unfortunately, for reasons that are not clear to me, this has not happened in this case - at least so far. The level of detail concerning the experimental procedures, conditions and results necessary for verification of the Pons and Fleischmann results have not been forthcoming. At the same time, almost daily articles in the press, often in conflict with the facts, have raised the public expectations, possibly for naught, that our energy problem has been "solved". We have heard the phrase "too cheap to meter" applied to other forms of electric energy production before. And so the scientific community has been left to attempt to reproduce and verify a potentially major scientific breakthrough while getting its experimental details from the Wall Street Journal and other news publications. Experiments conducted in haste and based on insufficient detail coupled with premature release of results have often resulted in retractions and embarrassment on the part of the scientific community - caught in the heat of the moment. I guess we are all human. The result of this unsatisfactory situation has been that a healthy skepticism and, in some cases, distrust of the reported results has developed. We at MIT share this skepticism. At the risk of becoming too technical in my comments, I feel that I must be a bit more specific with regard to the source of this skepticism. As I mentioned earlier the major results, reported by the University of Utah group are that there has been a generation of excess heat and the measurement of neutron radiation. By excess heat I mean that there has been a measurement of more energy produced than has been supplied to the system. From our standpoint, the key point of verification is the detection of neutron radiation. From an engineering point of view, however, the importance of excess heat production is critical. On these two critical points we have found that the results reported in the few available published documents from the University of Utah are inconclusive or unclear. For example, with respect to the detection of neutrons, critical products of the fusion reaction, the reported results are confusing. They either do not agree with or are not presented completely enough to show that they are consistent with what one would expect from the emission of neutrons from the deuterium fusion reaction. Specifically, the gamma-ray spectrum shown in the Fleischmann/Pons paper and attributed to neutron emission does not exhibit a shape and intensity that demonstrates the increase reported in the number of detected neutrons above normal background. Further, the reported rate of neutron emission and level of tritium production are consistent with natural background. The results have nevertheless been reported as "significant". Those inconsistencies can only be resolved by a full disclosure of the details of the experimental measurements for examination by the scientific community. Until such time as this occurs we feel that the data is insufficient to demonstrate the presence of neutrons. As far as the issue of excess energy is concerned we are also faced with a confusing situation. While the presence of excess energy is documented in the Journal of Analytical Electrochemistry paper, the method by which this excess energy was determined is not clear. With metals, such as palladium, which act as hydrogen storage media and at the same time as catalysts for many chemical reactions, both situations which can result in discontinuous chemical energy releases, it is critical that a total energy balance over time be done. To us it is not clear that this has been the case. Until this issue is clarified we are unable to make a judgement concerning the excess energy issue. In conclusion I feel that it is safe to say that the scientific community is (1) excited about the possibility of a significant advance in the area of fusion energy research, (2) but is, at the same time, skeptical of results that have not been verified to this point and (3) is very frustrated at the methods by which the discovery has been handled both in the scientific and non-scientific community. Thank you. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenstraz cudfnSteve cudlnStrassmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Date: 2 May 89 20:46:00 GMT Further information about buying D2O. Ontario Hydro sells quantities at and above 50 Kg (45 L) in drums at about $(US)280 per Kg; $14,000 per drum. Kilogram amounts are available from: Cambridge Isotope Labs 30 Commerce Way Woburn, MA 01801 (1-800)322-1174 1 Kg of 99.9% D2O is $400. The tritium in this D2O is less than 0.015 microcurie/Kg. Dave C cudkeys: cuddy2 cudencaulkins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Paul Dietz / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 11:49:53 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <4052@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: >I agree wholeheartedly. I don't know whether cold fusion actually took >place in Utah or anywhere else, but I have found the public comments of >"heavyweights" at Priceton, Harvard, MIT and elsewhere repulsive. Scorn >and belittlement have no place in academic society. Nonsense. There is a big difference between being open-minded and empty-headed. F & P's errors are so grotesque that they are either incompetent (for not realizing it) or unprofessional (for misrepresenting their results). If I, as a computer scientist, could spot some of the errors, why couldn't they, experimental chemists, do likewise? F & P have caused many man-years of effort to be wasted. Scorn is an appropriate response. So is pity. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu Caption of S. Harris cartoon: "I didn't even know there *was* a Nobel Booby Prize." cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / L Eriksson / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 3 May 89 06:49:54 GMT Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Stockholm (Kista), Sweden In article <3464@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic (Dave Mack) writes: >The CO2 balance triggers the actual reflex of breathing; I'm talking >about being able to tell that there is quite literally no oxygen in the >gas you're breathing. It's really obvious. Your lungs are full, but >you're suffocating anyway. > >Try holding your breath for a minute or so. Think about how your lungs >feel at the end of that time. Then imagine that when you exhale and take >your next breath, that feeling doesn't go away. > But it does go away, doesn't it? Isn't the feeling of suffocation you describe caused precisely by high CO2 content in the blood, rather than lack of oxygen? Why else can people drop unconscious after hyperventilating? Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: lhe@sics.se Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09 Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09 S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN -- cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenlhe cudfnLars-Henrik cudlnEriksson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Jon Singer / Palladium Hydrides in air (was Re: Fusion-driven steam engines) Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Palladium Hydrides in air (was Re: Fusion-driven steam engines) Date: 19 Apr 89 04:46:15 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In his followup to my reply to Gordon Pusch, Ron Mayer says > ...a possible explanation. After 'charging' the palladium for a > couple of days, he removed it from the water, and within a short time, > it started glowing red hot!!! What happened was that the palladium > was acting as a catalyst for the stored hydrogen reacting with the > oxygen in the air. His guess is that sometime that night, the water > level lowered, exposing part of the electrode, and this reaction > caused the palladium to melt, and possibly also causing the hydrogen > and oxygen created earlier that night to explode. > -Ron Mayer > armin@portia.stanford.edu This is, of course, entirely possible. I have a few problems with it: 1) "Red hot" just ain't gonna melt the palladium. You ever see anything at 1500 degrees Celsius, it ain't red. My recollection is that P&F do claim that at least some of the Pd was melted. (Course, I could be misremembering, as could P&F...) 2) Hydrogen (presumably Deuterium also) burns very nicely, and with a fairly hot flame. When it explodes, though, things may be different. I don't know how wide a range of explosive mixtures it forms in air, and I don't know what it's like at the edges of that range. In the middle, at the stoichiometric mixture, it goes "BANG!" in any reasonable quantity, but I have seen a guy hold soap bubbles of the mix ON HIS HAND and set them off with a bunsen burner. The noise was almost deafening at a distance of 30 feet in the auditorium, and he looked at his hand to see if it was still there, but it was. He did this every year, in fact, for quite a while. A very memorable demo. Note that inside the soap bubbles, the stuff is not free to mix with the air, and will retain its stoichiometry better than loose H2 or D2 can. 3) A buddy of mine who is trying to duplicate this thing has also had occasion to pull his Pd out of the electrolyte, and he merely reported that when he put it back in, after cleaning it, it fizzed a lot until he turned the current back on. Of course, he hadn't been stuffing D into it for months. :-) It seems to me that there are likely to be conditions under which the Pd will get hot, and conditions under which it won't; I wish I could remember which posting it was, in the last day or 3, in which details of the process of stuffing H and D into Pd were discussed. (It was excellent.) ...Anyway, it's still eminently possible that the description given above is at least partly accurate. Cheers jon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Under the spreading Basil Bush | I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist. My lovely sweetheart lies | Pesto vapors on her breath | Jon Singer is jon@Apple.COM, or And Parsley in her eyes | (AppleLink) SINGER2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Doug Roberts / Re: At the Crossroads Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: At the Crossroads Date: 19 Apr 89 04:01:35 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <6618@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: I believe one of the metal salts included Ti, which has some hydrogen adsorbing (note: not absorbing) capabilities, and might be able to work in a similar manner to palladium. Dr. Pons mentiond titanium as a possible alternative candidate (to palladium) for cold fusion during his talk at Los Alamos today. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Randell Jesup / Re: He4 found Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 19 Apr 89 02:36:36 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <12171@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >> voiced the same speculation. That theory argues that the process >> mainly produces a rare form of helium called helium-4." >> >He4 is the *usual* form of helium. By weight, it is more than a quarter >of all the mass in the universe. True, but it's rare for it to come out of a D+D fusion experiment. At least until now. :-) -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Tom Frauenhofer / Pons Fusion on NPR Originally-From: tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Pons Fusion on NPR Date: 18 Apr 89 12:49:29 GMT Organization: CCI, Communications Systems Division, Rochester, NY I was listening to "Morning Edition" (the morning NPR news program) and they had a story on Pons's preliminary results using H O instead of D O. It sounds 2 2 like he got MORE energy using the regular water, which would invalidate the fusion hypothesis. Does anyone have any more information on this? Has anyone else tried the experiment with regular water? Thomas V. Frauenhofer ...!rutgers!rochester!cci632!ccird7!tvf *or* ...!rochester!cci632!ccird7!frau!tvf *or* ...!rochester!rit!anna!ma!tvf1477 FRAU BBS: (716) 227-8094 2400/1200/300 baud - log in as "new" to register cudkeys: cuddy18 cudentvf cudfnTom cudlnFrauenhofer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Samuel Fuller / Re: Thermocouples? Originally-From: sbf10@uts.amdahl.com (Samuel Fuller) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermocouples? Date: 19 Apr 89 01:45:13 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA In article <42b05990.5e96@dl5e96.engin.umich.edu>, offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) writes: > How efficiently could fusion-generated heat be turned into electricity > using thermocouples? > > Dan Offutt > offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu > > Probably about the same as the Plutonium powered ones -- about 5% Sam Fuller/ Amdahl System Performance Architecture cudkeys: cuddy19 cudensbf10 cudfnSamuel cudlnFuller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Samuel Fuller / Re: He4 found Originally-From: sbf10@uts.amdahl.com (Samuel Fuller) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 19 Apr 89 01:58:44 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA In article <4822@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes: > > "One theory was advanced by Pons a few days after the controversial press > conference, and a scientist as MIT, Peter L. Hagelstein, recently > voiced the same speculation. That theory argues that the process > mainly produces a rare form of helium called helium-4." According to my chart of the Nuclides He4 is not very rare. In fact, it has a percent abundance of ~100. Never believe anything that you read in the papers. If it turns out that the F&P mechanism favors the D + D --> He4 reaction then cheap safe energy may be around the corner. Heavy Water + Palladium = Heat + Helium. Can't beat that! > > |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA| > |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 | > |UUCP: {ames!cit-vax,psivax}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem | > |ARPA: jpl-devvax!leem!@cit-vax.ARPA -or- leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV | Sam Fuller / Amdahl System Performance Architecture cudkeys: cuddy19 cudensbf10 cudfnSamuel cudlnFuller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / EFH100@PSUVM.B / Fusion re Education Originally-From: EFH100@PSUVM.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion re Education Date: 19 Apr 89 05:16:02 GMT Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing I am writing a paper for a comp. course on how P/F's experiment and the subsequent attempts at duplication are reflective of the physics/ engineering programs at the institutions involved, their philosophies toward research of this nature and toward confirming experiments originally performed by others. (I am an undergrad in nuc. eng.) I would appreciate any comments on this matter, by E-mail, please, so that net space is not wasted. Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Ed =>The above is mine--all mine<= cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenEFH100 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / C Daffinger / Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Originally-From: cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Date: 19 Apr 89 07:35:47 GMT Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington In article <1612@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: ^| [...] The Salt Lake Tribune ran an article on the ^|announcement and had this to say about the theory: ^| ^| ^|What the article did not say about the theory was interesting too. ^|According to tonight's evening news, Pons said that they did observe ^|heat from an experiment involving ordinary H2O. Neither Pons, ^|Fleischmann, Walling nor Simons have said that they have any clue about ^|the significance of this. A nuclear engineer who understands the ^|Walling-Simons theory says that if the model is correct, the apparatus ^|should emit beta radiation (electrons) and should visibly glow a blue ^|hue. He went to see the experiment and verified that neither of these ^|side effects are observed. Other people have similar problems with the ^|model, as the Trib article observes: ^| ^|[...] ^| He said that if the concept is correct, light should be emitted ^| as electrons leave the palladium bar, where the reaction is ^| theoretically occurring, and enter the surrounding 'heavy' ^| water. ^| ^| 'If that light is there, that means something is going on and ^| we should pay attention to the Walling/Simons model. If not, ^| something is probably wrong. As soon as Pons has the model up ^| and running, we'll see,' Dr Salamon said. 'The nice thing ^| about the model is that it's easily testable.' ^| Beta particles are easily stopped, if I recall. A piece of paper can in fact stop a beta particle. Considering that this reaction is occurring within the Pd, rather than on the surface (or so the consensus is), then whatever beta particles are emitted would be stopped. The layer of Pd on the surface, since it is not participating in the reaction, would a) not emit any beta particles, and b) stop any beta particles from the core of the electrode. Or are there other suggestions? -charles -- Charles Daffinger >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water< (812) 339-7354 cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf Home of the Whitewater mailing list: whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencdaf cudfnCharles cudlnDaffinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Paul Dietz / Energy to electrons Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Energy to electrons Date: 19 Apr 89 12:10:21 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY The problem with the d+d+e- --> He4 + e- model is that the electron(s) have a lot of energy. They should produce bremmstrahlung (energetic photons) as they travel through the Pd electrode. These photons should have been easily detectable by F & P's scintillation detector; they could escape fairly easily from Pd electrodes only a few mm thick. More believable would be d + d + Pd --> He4 + Pd, with the Pd atom conserving momentum. Here the energy is taken away by the helium nucleus. Someone should try Pd with some beryllium mixed in to detect energetic alpha particles (this would make many more neutrons). Milled vs. cast electrodes: perhaps if there are too many lattice defects, D will accumulate there. It might be interesting to try a Pd alloy that does not have a miscibility gap (which also generates dislocations). Single crystal electrodes might also be interesting. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.18 / Claudio Nieder / Room-temperature fusion in Italy Originally-From: claudio@forty2.UUCP (Claudio Nieder) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Room-temperature fusion in Italy Date: 18 Apr 89 21:33:06 GMT Organization: Exp. Physics University Zuerich This evening the news program (TG1) of the italian television RAI 1 transmitted the notice, that italian scientist have discovered roomtemperature fusion in a setup which is different from that of UU or BYU. Apparently they used titanium and deuterium gas and NO electrolysis. I have written down what was said and report it here in italian, as it was transmitted. At the moment I'm preparing an english translation of this and I'll try to describe what was shown in television. Take this for the moment: Speaker Gli scienziati dell'ENEA (Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Alternativa) sono convinti di aver ottenuto un importante risultato scientifico sperimentando nel laboratorio di Frascati la fusione nucleare a freddo con un sistema del tutto diverso da quello degli scienziati americani, ma confermano che occorreranno parecchi anni perche dai successi di laboratorio si arrivi alla rivoluzione energetica attesa da tutti. Il nostro servizio sulla presentazione ufficiale dei risultati: Background Ufficio brevetti di Roma ore 11. Un rappresentante dell'ENEA sta facendo registrare il sistema per la produzione di neutroni e calore da fusione nucleare in gas assorbito su metallo. Pochi minuti e gli interessi dello stato italiano dovrebbero essere stati tutelati. Nello stesso momento in un'altra zona di Rome si sta celebrando una grande festa per l'ENEA. Sono parole del ministro per l'industria Battaglia intervenuto insieme al ministro della ricerca scientifica Ruberti, alla conferenza stampa per illustrare l'avvenuto esperimento di fusione nucleare fredda realizzato nei giorni scorsi nei laboratori di Frascati. L'attenzione e tutta per il professore Francesco Scaramuzzi, l'ideatore di un metodo che pur prendendo lo spunto dai ricercatori d'oltre oceano si discosta sensibilmente da quello utilizzato da Pons, Fleischman e Jones. Prof. Scaramuzzi: