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: L'idea e nata col quesito, e proprio necessaria l'elettrolisi per realizzare questa interazione tra il deuterio e un metallo del tipo palladio o titanio ? E si e arrivati alla conclusione che era pensabile un esperimento relativamente semplice, per lo meno un tentativo di esperimento, ma era necessario disporre di un serio rilevamento di neutroni. E cosi e stato possibile nel giro di pochi giorni montare un semplicissimo esperimento che voleva soltanto vedere se si avevano delle indicazioni di un tipo di reazione come quello visto dagli americani. Background: Il primo esperimento e cominciato a Frascati il 7 Aprile. Due giorni dopo i primi risultati positivi, poi alcuni insuccessi, di cui presto si sono capite le cause. Infine un altro successo accompagnato da un'emissione di neutroni in quantita giudicata significativa. Niente palladio ne deuterio liquido, ne soprattutto elettrolisi, ma titanio e deuterio gassoso. Question to Prof. Scaramuzzi: Perche siete ricorsi al titanio ? Answer Prof. Scaramuzzi: Ma, avevamo analizzato un po la situazione, avevamo individuato un certo numero di metalli che sembravano interessanti e promettenti, e poi abbiamo scelto il titanio perche era disponibile, bastava prelevarlo in magazzino. Question: Pensava di avere questi risultati in cosi poco tempo ? Answer: No. Cioe quello che mi sarei aspettato ottimisticamente era di vedere dei conteggi significativi, ma non cosi elevati. Question: Quali sono le prossime tappe ? Answer: La prima tappa e completare l'esperimento come ho avuto occasione di dirle. Questo e un esperimento che e in una fase estremamente preliminare, che in condizione normali non avremmo reso pubblico a questo stadio. Background: I prossimi giorni comunque si metteranno al lavoro tre gruppi di scienziati per proseguire e approfondire la scoperta. Speaker: Il professor Umberto Colombo, presidente dell'ENEA e ospite del TG1. Abbiamo appena sentito il professore Scaramuzzi dire "Non mi aspettavo questi risultati". Quando voi avete cominciato a fare questi esperimenti, anche nel mondo accademico si e detto, va bene partecipano pure loro per stare nel gruppo. Ecco, lei se li aspettava questi risultati, voglio dire e un colpo di fortuna o e il frutto di un livello scientifico solido. Umberto Colombo: Io ricordo di essere venuto anche qua, subito dopo la scoperta di Fleischmann e Pons e avere detto, che occorreva essere prudenti, ma prendere molto sul serio questa ricerca, questa nuova strada verso la fusione nucleare. Confermo quello che ho detto allora, l'esperienza dell'ENEA ha dimostrato che si puo semplificare le condizioni sperimentali in cui hanno operato i ricercatori americani e l'inglese Fleischmann attraverso l'uso di deuterio gassoso, attraverso l'uso di un metallo in trucioli anziche attraverso il ricorso all'elettrolisi in fase liquida che poi genera problemi per i sali presenti, tutta una complicazione non necessaria. Abbiamo ottenuto un numero di neutroni molto rilevante, mille volte superiore al fondo naturale, siamo convinti che ci sia una strada da battere di estremo interesse, ma ancora non possiamo dire nulla circa le applicazioni pratiche quanto alla produzione di energia. Ecco vi voglio soprattutto dire che questo e un grande risultato scientifico, ma non e ancora un risultato che ci consente di cantare vittoria quanto alla fusione nucleare. Speaker: Professore, stamattina, come abbiamo visto prima nelle immagini, siete andati a brevettare. Questo che significa, che nessun altro, in nessun altro paese potra usare lo stesso sistema, che questo tipo di ricerca e riservato agli scienziati italiani, come funziona il brevetto di una cosa di questo genere ? Umberto Colombo: No no. La ricerca e aperta a tutti; fortunatamente ciascuno puo fare la ricerca nonostante l'esistenza di brevetti. Adesso noi cercheremo di coprire questo primo brevetto con una serie di altri brevetti mano a mano che scopriremo altre cose. Noi, e mi auguro gli altri italiani del CNR (Centro Nazionale Ricerca) dell'INFN (Istituto Nazionale per la Fisica Nucleare ?) e delle universita e dell'industria e speriamo di avere un mantello di protezione brevettuale sufficiente a batterci, perche gli altri che utilizzeranno eventualmente il processo, se mai sara applicabile, pagheranno a noi delle royalties, delle percentuali sui brevetti che abbiamo, sul costo dell'energia che avranno ci dovranno dare qualcosa se la produrranno, ammesso che questo serva per produrre energia. Speaker: Ecco: e vero professore che occorreranno, come e stato detto in questi giorni, decine di anni perche tutto questo poi possa dare dei risultati pratici sul piano energetico ? Umberto Colombo: Io ritengo che prudenza voglia che si mantenga questa asserzione. Ma io credo che sia molto diverso fare una scoperta che conduce all'osservare un flusso di neutroni. Probabilmente nelle prossime settimane osserveremo anche lo sviluppo di una quantita di energia. Ma da questo ad andare ai quantitativi di energie, alle potenze necessarie per le applicazioni industriali, c'e una strada enorme da fare e credo che la dovremo fare insieme con gli altri europei, e la dovremo fare con calma senza farci prendere da troppo facili entusiasmi e senza abbandonare le altre linee di ricerca che sono molto importanti. Speaker: Un'ultima cosa: in Italia non ci sono stati molti quattrini per la ricerca. Risultati di questo genere hanno un effetto trainante ? Umberto colombo: Io credo di si. Questa sperimentazione, ho fatto proprio il conto stamane, e costata una trentina di milioni all'ENEA. Forse qualcosa di meno. Pero sarebbe assurdo concludere che basta poco per fare la ricerca. Credo che la preparazione di questa gente, di Scaramuzzi e dei suoi colleghi, il tipo di strumentazione, il livello di sofisticazione degli strumenti di analisi, tutto richiede una mole di ricerca e di lavoro tale quale si poteva avere nel centro di Frascati e non e molto comune mettere insieme. Quindi io credo che dobbiamo tutti essere incoraggiati a favorire la ricerca in Italia. That's all for now. claudio UUCP: claudio@forty2.uucp BITNET: K538912@CZHRZU1A Mail: Claudio Nieder, Kanalweg 1, CH-8610 Uster Disclaimer: I'm not working or studying at the Physics Institute, I'm omly using their computers. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenclaudio cudfnClaudio cudlnNieder cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Paul Koloc / Re: Cold Fusion .. possible reactions Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion .. possible reactions Date: 19 Apr 89 11:21:16 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 In article <3078@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <1118@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >>A L L D + D reactions form (superscript 4)He, an alpha, in a very >>excited state.. . These >>reactions toss out either a neutron or a proton and leave behind >>a (superscript 3)He or tritium, respectively. >OK. I'm clear about this part. >> However, .. . the excited nascent alpha from the d-d reaction in >>the metal lattice gives up its energy to the surrounding medium >>by a form of viscous damping. >If the lattice gains energy, this might show up as lattice vibrations. >Since particles are waves and vice versa in the wonderful world of >quanta, this is equivalent to saying that the energy is given off as a >phonon (yes, lattice vibrations can be treated as particles bouncing >around -- I always thought this was cool). But what does a phonon >with a MeV of energy look like? This seems way above the energy that >any vibration level could have. This possible reaction seems to be: 4 * 4 D + D -> He -> He (ground state) + matrix energy (23.85Mev) but, that decay could be a cascade (series of very discreet phonons. Imagine a egg shaped superball with super fast rotation and vibration that is turned loose inside a pin ball machine. Very rapidly (but spread over numerous collisions) this energy would be coupled to translational energy and then into the "bumpers" in the machine. The classical picture is that deuterium fuse by slamming together and going "splat". That may not be the case here. The deuterium are so dense confined in the small microvolumes of the palladium metal that from the lattice point of view, it is difficult to distinguish two close deuterium from a helium (four) (within a Debye length). I'm implying that cold fusion may be quite (relatively) slow, forming several virtual He (four) like states before actually certainty of fusion is evident, (helium spectral characteristics are observable). This is the most wild of the suggestions, .. but, so far anomalous amounts He (four) have been observed at Utah, and not much evidence for copious strong x-rays. Another interesting possibility is 4 * 4 D + D -> He -> He (ground state) + Y (23.85Mev) or cascade gammas ------- where Y means gamma (lower case) A cascade of the energy (multiple soft x-rays) could be swallowed up by the palladium metal and surrounding material envelopes. And finally, a combination of these two cascade scenarios could also be happening together. In these cascade cases the lattice would be heated most efficiently. Unfortunately, the data points are seldom. So -- WHAT's to do? -- the comprehensive measurements and cut the pussy footing. At least have the results ready to announce as soon as the plasma-fusion budget is secured in appropriations.. okay?? Note: The gamma decay suggested by J. Rand McNally (retired ORNL) is possible because of a low energy mass-energy resonance at low deuterium energies of 24.4 MeV, and this was calculated by Gerry Hale at LANL using R-matrix theory. It has a width of several MeV and therefore will accommodate the rapid decay of the 23.85 MeV energy excess. P. Hagelstein at MIT and L. Whaley at LBL have theories, which seem to come to the same endpoint and have some of the same features. It will be interesting to see their papers. I may see Peter in a week or so. >But the excited He4 can't lose energy continuously. It has to lose >it as quanta. It can't damp out gradually. If there are intermediate >excited states of He4, it can lose energy in several steps. Exactly, .. but that gradually - continuously -> very many little lessening decays.. I was using a very broad pen.. .. . and if TIME is quantized then temporal continuity is just a perception of unimaginative physicists. For us analog TV viewers, it's not a problem ;-) -- we integrate. +-------------------------------------------------------************ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 ** FUSION ** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 *** this *** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ** decade ** +-------------------------------------------------------************ cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / L Eriksson / Translation of Swedish fusion patent article. Originally-From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Translation of Swedish fusion patent article. Date: 19 Apr 89 11:44:46 GMT Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Stockholm (Kista), Sweden Since several people have asked me, here is my translation of the article in the Swedish magazine "Ny Teknik" [New Technology]. Sorry for any errors in the text, I have not put down a great deal of effort to get spelling and language right, also I did not have access to a Swedish-English dictionary of chemical and physical terminology. After spending a couple of hours doing the translation, I really don't know why I made the offer in the first place. Perhaps I just enjoy seeing my name in print (on the screen, that is)... :-) Anyway, here is the translation. My own comments are within square brackets. The article is distributed with permission of the author and is copyrighted (c) 1989 by Ny Teknik, Bertil Berggren. The translation is copyrighted (c) 1989 by Lars-Henrik Eriksson [myself]. 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- HE APPLIED FOR A COLD FUSION PATENT BACK IN 1927 Nothing is new under the sun. The much noticed experiment with cold fusion at the university of Utah is very similar to experiments done in Sweden back in 1927 - more than 60 years ago. [A picture of a stern middle-aged man with small glasses and slightly unruly hair, wearing a laboratory coat. He holds up a test tube with a dark liquid in it and looks intently at it. In the background, one can see shelves with many bottles and part of some experimental apparatus. The caption reads "JOHN TANDBERG at the Electrolux laboratory 1956".] By Bertil Berggren ------------------ He has been called one of the greatest scientists of Swedish industry, John Tandberg (born in Norway 1896), professor at Lund university, chemist and physicist. During almost 40 years, 1925 - 1962 he worked at the Electrolux laboratories in Stockholm, the last years as scientific director and manager. [Electrolux is a large electrotechnical Swedish company, these days multinational. It is most well known (in Sweden at least) as a manufacturer of larger household appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines.] Today he is almost forgotten, you have to leaf through modern Swedish encyclopediae for a long time before finding his name. Still, he was a pioneer, one of the first in the world to make serious attempts to solve the riddle of nuclear fusion. Perhaps he succeeded as well, without himself or the rest of the world quite realising it. These days he is of more interest than ever. The experiment in Utah, where the american Stanley Pons and the englishman Martin Fleishmann claim to have produced nuclear fusion at room temperature in a test tube [sic!], was done under conditions that were very similar to certain experiments Tandberg did at the Electrolux laboratories at Grev [Count] Ture street in central Stockholm in the late 1920's and early 1930's. In his laboratory he became the first Swede who tried to find both a theoretical and practical solution to exploit nuclear energy by particle fusion, the fusing of atomic nuclei. In the book "Our alchemist in Tomegraend [Tome alley]", a biography of John Tandbergs life and work, the early work of Tandberg on fusion research is portrayed. The narrator is Torsten Wilner, a collaborator in Tandberg's group for several years. During the 1920's forceful efforts were made in Germany to produce large quantities of helium for airships. [After world war I, Germany was not permitted to build airplanes]. There was unrest in the world and the only large producer, the U.S., was reluctant to export helium, made from natural gas, to Germany. At the university of Berlin, the chemists Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters sought other ways to produce helium, among other by catalysis of hydrogen. The basic thought was to investigate "whether hydrogen without the supply of energy could be partially transformed to helium in the presence of a cathalyst, primarily palladium". The hypothesis of Prout - the old thought that hydrogen could be the "primordial substance" from which all other elements where constructed - had been given renewed actuality by the dawning research on radioactivity. After their studies of hydrogen absorption the the metal palladium (one volume of palladium will absorb 850 volumes of hydrogen), Paneth and Peters were of the opinion that there should be a possibility for spontaneous reactions between the hydrogen nuclei that were contained, close to each other, within the palladium atom lattice. They reasoned that perhaps some kind of "nuclear cathalysis" could be expected with helium as a result. By diffusing hydrogen through a red-hot palladium capillary, the two Berlin chemists claimed to have produced helium. The amount was small and hardly measurable. It did not suffice to fill airships. The results of Paneth and Peters soon reached Sweden and John Tandberg, who was interested in the relation of hydrogen to metals. He promptly began thinking about how an improved helium yield could be obtained in the process of Paneth and Peters. Tandberg's idea was to increase the concentration of hydrogen atoms in the cathalyst using electrolysis. He expected the hydrogen atom density within the palladium to be greater than in liquid helium. By using high pressure, about 1000 atmospheres, and starting the electolysis process at a low temperature, Tandberg believed that the process should be even more effective. The result was an application for a Swedish patent, "A way to produce helium", that was filed on february 17, 1927. The patent application also comprised a method "characterized in that the reaction vessel is put into thermal contact with a device that converts the produced heat into a technically useful form (mechanical work, electrical energy, cooling or light)". Recieved but not understood, was the reply from the patent office. The application was rejected on november 17 the same year with the reason that "the description is not complete enough that by its use an expert is likely to be able to practise the invention" [Isn't this a great way of putting it...?]. But John Tandberg was not a man who let himself be put down by an unappreciative surrounding. With the headline "A nuclear blast in 1932" (20 years before the detonation of the first american hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean in 1952), Torsten Wilner relates in his book: "The discovery by Urey in 1932 of heavy hydrogen, deuterium, meant greater possibilities for research in nuclear physics. Nuclei of heavy hydrogen, deutrons, have a greater ability to achieve nuclear reactions than the light nuclei, protons, do. John was quick to take advantage of this. At a rather early stage, he managed to obtain heavy water, containing deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen. One day after work, John told me that he intended to do an interesting experiment in the evening. He showed me a small wire of the metal palladium. By electrolysis of heavy water, using this wire as cathode, he had saturated it with deuterium in the same way he had previously done with ordinary hydrogen (1927). Consequently, it could be expected to contain very densly packed deuterium nuclei. He was now going to blast the wire by letting a condensor battery, charged with a high voltage, discharge through it. This would mean a sudden vaporization during a violent increase of pressure and temperature. The densly packed deutrons should get a high energy and there should be good conditions for violent collisions with nuclear reaction and fusion as a result. These reactions involve some loss of mass by the nuclei, so one could expect energy generation according to Einstein's theory. That sounded exciting, so I asked John how large the energy generation could be if all of the deuterium reacted. He calculated for a while, and replied: - About a million kilogramcalories [About 4.2*10^9 Joules]. - But that is equivalent to a thousand kilogrammes of dynamite! I exclaimed. - You are right about that, John replied, but added: - I think you should go home now. If anything particular happens you can tell people afterwards what it was. I went home, and when I returned the next day, everything was as before. John performed experiments repeatedly, but no disaster struck. Later the experiments become routine. I was present myself, together with John, at several occations, and certainly the experiments caused deafening bangs. The electric discharges sounded like powerful shots, but some nuclear physical effect - hard radiation or radioactive residues - could not be detected with the equipment John possessed at the time." Torsten Wilner concludes his impressions of John Tandberg: "In later years I have tried to reconstruct John's calculations. I also had opportunity to discuss the matter with the plasma and fusion researcher, professor Bo Lehnert. He pointed out the similarity between Johns experiments and later experiments that really led to fusion reactions. At the same time, he demonstrated the large energy losses that must be taken into account in experiments of Tandberg's kind. If John had succeeded in demonstrating a certain - even if very slight - effect it would have been an extraordinary remarkable discovery for its time." So far Torsten Wilner in the book "Our alchemist in Tomegraend". John Tandberg died in Lund 1968. The scientific world is now waiting with excitement for the scientific paper about the Utah fusion experiment that is said to be due for publication in the magazine Nature in May. Perhaps it turns out to be "only" a repetition of John Tandberg's experiment of more than 60 years ago. -- cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenlhe cudfnLars-Henrik cudlnEriksson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / David Singh / Abstracts of mit theory Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Abstracts of mit theory Date: 19 Apr 89 13:44:28 GMT Organization: Theory Center, Cornell U., Ithaca NY "Cold Fusion" Theory Here is some information of MIT professor' throey. Dr. Hagelstein says that the focus of his analysis has been on the exotic reaction: D + D going to He + 23.8Mev (lattice) This means that two deuterons react to form a helium-4 nuleus and an amount of energy--- 23.8Mev--that goes NOT into a dangerous gamma ray, but into energy that stays in the palladium lattice and eventually appears as heat. He has submitted 4 papers to Physics Review Letters. I have got the copies of these papers. The following are the abstracts: Paper 1: A Simple Model for Coherent DD Fusion in the Presence of a Lattice A simple model for DD--He fusion in the presence of a lattice is proposed. The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to (an expression). This effect gives much higher transiton rates at low temperature than the conventional fusion rates for DD---He +n, T+p, which are proportional to (an expression). Although this calculation illustrates that coherent effects can be important, the model cannot by itself account for the effects observed by Fleischmann and Pons. Paper 2: Dephasing in Coherent DD Fusion and the Long Chain Model We explore a simple model for dephasing in coherent DD fusion, and conclude that the fusion rate is inversely proportional to the thermal dephasing rate. we propose a long chain model in which rapid coherent fusion transition occur following an initail transition to a first fusion state. consideration of this model suggests that phononic excitation and tritium beta decay are unlikely initiators of fusion chains, but background radiation sources may be. Paper 3: Rates for Neutron and Tritium Production in Coherent DD Fusion reaction rates for production of neutrons and tritium in coherent DD fusion are given within the framework of a simple model which we have previously used to study He production. the fusion rates for neutron and tritium fusion reactions are found to be roughly equal to each other, and proportional to the square of the He rate. Paper 4: Phonon Interactions in Coherent Fusion we have examined the role played by optical phonons in coherent fusion, focusing on the primary nuclear/lattice energy transfer. We find that coherent fusion is stimulated by optical phonons which are present in the vicinity of the fusion reaction. From a simple statistical argument, we find that the coherent transition rate is boosted by a factor of (an expression) over the zero-point fusion rate. With this result, the overall mechanism for coherent fusion appears to require initiation by cosmic rays or equivalent, stimulation by optical phonons, possible stimulation by electrical current, a moderate to long thermal relaxation time, and coherent transitions between degenerate levels. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / David Singh / Re: Abstracts of mit theory Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Abstracts of mit theory Date: 19 Apr 89 14:03:26 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Sorry for the interruption, but please do not send mail to this account. I got this abstracts from my friend , but not the paper. Thanks. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 19 Apr 89 13:59:47 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24225@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > It was interesting, however, to hear that according to > Pons, something like *200* laboratories are now attempting a confirmation. Only 200? He must mean that something like 200 labs have communicated directly with him. -- 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: cuddy19 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Paul Dietz / Eco-stupidity Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Eco-stupidity Date: 19 Apr 89 20:41:24 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Well, it looks like phase 3 of the reaction to a major breakthrough ("It's immoral") is beginning! Paul Ehrlich has said that cheap fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." And Jeremy Rifkin says "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." The argument [sic] is that by giving people cheap plantiful power, we'll be able to manipulate the planet more than we can now, which would be awful. Even worse, it could mean that larger populations could be supported (apparently, it upsets these sociopaths that so many other people exist). I am appalled, but not surprised, that the likes of Rifkin could hold such opinions. What pieces of disgusting slime they are. Fortunately, with something this important they will be ignored, and, if they interfere, steamrollered. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Chuck Karish / Re: America's Non-Existent Nuclear 'Crisis' Originally-From: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: America's Non-Existent Nuclear 'Crisis' Date: 19 Apr 89 19:47:54 GMT Organization: Mindcraft, Inc. In article <2237@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) wrote: >The fact of the matter is that tritium has a short half life, and constant >tritium production is required to maintain current weapons. If we decide >to dismantle our arsenal of h-bombs, fine - we don't need tritium any more. Even then, we'll still need tritium for watch dials that glow in the dark, and for tracers in biological research. It's been suggested that enough tritium to keep nuclear warheads usable could be produced using a particle accelerator, which might cost $300 million, as opposed to several billion for several graphite/uranium reactors. The accelerator would not produce plutonium, which has a long half-life and is available from other sources. Chuck Karish hplabs!hpda!mindcrf!karish (415) 493-7277 karish@forel.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenkarish cudfnChuck cudlnKarish cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Carl Ellison / Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Originally-From: cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Date: 19 Apr 89 20:34:04 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: > (Maybe somebody should send a copy of the alt.fusion archive to the > patent examiners? B-) ) Yup -- but it should be everyone who has saved an archive, not Someone. I've suggested various things for Someone to do in the past and I've learned that he procrastinates worse than I do. :-) --Carl cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencme cudfnCarl cudlnEllison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / John Logajan / Re: A call for cub reporters. Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A call for cub reporters. Date: 19 Apr 89 20:13:02 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN Larry Hutchinson writes: > > The problem is that our only sources of information are the > news media and the net. Yeah, a lot of this reminds me of the old story about the noon whistle blower who called the operator to find out what time it was, and the operator who set her clock by the noon whistle :) Toot toot. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Henry Spencer / Re: Thermocouples? Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermocouples? Date: 19 Apr 89 15:36:04 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology 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? The words "efficient" and "thermocouples" do not belong in the same sentence, in general. :-) -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Mike Pelt / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 19 Apr 89 23:40:44 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <1989Apr19.164125.645@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >Well, it looks like phase 3 of the reaction to a major breakthrough >("It's immoral") is beginning! Paul Ehrlich has said that cheap >fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." And Jeremy >Rifkin says "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Well, it was only a matter of time. I expect the rest of the Luddite Chorus to start tuning up pretty quickly. Pickets set up around all University Physics and Chemistry departments suspected of delving into Things Man Was Not Meant To Know, the usual twits chaining themselves to the front doors, etc. One nice thing, the fact that the BYU group measured 100 curies/day of tritium being emitted by Mauna Ulu will make it a bit more difficult for them to use tritium to scare people with. Unfortunately, a populace which gets most of its technical information from a media which believes that 4He is "an extremely rare isotope of helium" is capable of believing absolutely anything. -- Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe, Video 7 No whimper, no blast. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp His life's goal accomplished, Zero risk at last. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Ed Nather / Re: He4 found Originally-From: nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 19 Apr 89 18:49:14 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <12171@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: > He4 is the *usual* form of helium. By weight, it is more than a quarter > of all the mass in the universe. Aw, c'mon, Tecumseh, if it aint "rare" it aint a thrilling story, either. Reporter's license. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin cudkeys: cuddy19 cudennather cudfnEd cudlnNather cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / M Gerlek / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: mikeg%watson.c3@lanl.gov (M.P.Gerlek) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 19 Apr 89 23:57:11 GMT From article , by egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf): > Doug, Please... This is a highly technical audience who might wish to > pursue the details of these experiments. I MUST correct one technical > detail in your description of the experiment. Someone may fail to > properly verify these experiments due to incorrect equipment. > >> 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. > > The dishwashing tub was by Rubbermaid. Which may go a long ways toward explaining the Tupperware Episode at Georgia Tech a couple days ago. :-) ` M.P.Gerlek (mikeg@watson.c3.lanl.gov) "To tweak, ' ` Los Alamos Nat'l Lab / Merrimack College Or not to tweak? ' ` Disclaimer: They don't tell me That is the ' ` anything worth disclaiming. Question. ' cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenc3 cudfnM cudlnGerlek cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Michael McClary / Re: Startup time for experiments Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Startup time for experiments Date: 20 Apr 89 00:00:38 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <24210@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: >[ref. my earlier posting that it took Los Alamos three days to get an F&P-like >experiment on line following F&P's announcement] >> >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.) > >Time out. Isn't a smiley missing here? Please? [] >But please tell me that the author just doesn't understand the smiley >conventions. Yes, I'm aware of the smileys. The above was intended to be a humorous overstatement of a serious point, so I'll give you half a smiley. :-j The serious point is the difference between the institutional and hacker approach to research. >> 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. > >To get access to *what* components? It took a lot longer than an hour after >the F&P announcement to gain enough information to reproduce their experiment >even in the most approximate sense. Of course. That hour is getting back to the lab, after which you try getting Pons on the phone. He invited contact, remember? >Three weeks after the announcement we are >still not sure we have the setups "right" (in the sense of including little >twists that F&P may not have mentioned in their paper), despite a face-to-face >between Pons and a Los Alamos straw boss. Are *you* willing to go out on a >limb and assert that, within an hour of the F&P announcement, you knew >enough about the experiment to do a *meaningful* attempt at confirming it? >If so, I'd like to know what your information pipeline is. Probably not as good as yours, and I bet if a big-name from Los Alamos called UofU and asked for Pons he'd have a better chance of getting him. (Especially if he let on that Los Alamos was going to start trying replication tonight, so if there's anything they should know about the risk of a fireball ... (There I go again. :-j )) No, I'm not willing to assert I'd get it right the first time. But as soon as I got hold of a preprint of the F&P paper, I'd have been willing to try. (By the way, when did you get hold of the preprint? And when did the "straw boss" get hold of Pons?) But the rest of your posting tells me we're not talking about the same experiment. There are at least three sorts available: A) Electropump deuterium into palladium, and look for neutrons, gammas, and MeV nuclear fragments (p, 3H, 3He, and/or 4He). B) Ditto, and carefully measure excess heat. C) New experiments to test new theories or look for additional phenomena. (See my previous posting "Things I'd like to see" for examples.) I'm talking "A". If you set up "B" in three days you have my applause. If you set up "C" in three days, you have my LOUD applause (provided you're going to publish the results where a security clearance isn't needed to read them, and sit on them for less time than F&P did). >[] The three days' startup time was not a >matter of "asking for permission"; it was THINKING time. Time spent first to >decide whether the F&P experiment was worth duplicating, which was (and is >still) not at all obvious; there is plenty of crackpot science that could be >"duplicated" if there was any percentage in doing so. Hold on! "Crackpot"? F&P are hardly unknown, and if you weren't sure, just ask a good electrochemist, or look them up in one of the Who's Whos, or Science Citations. (Did concern over looking gullible enter the decision-making process?) >Once the decision is >made to attempt a confirmation, figuring out just who the right >collaborators are, and enlisting them, takes time. And getting the required >apparatus together to do a *good* experiment isn't so trivial, either. THAT'S what I'm talking about. "A" requires almost nothing. D20, Pd, Li, Pt, some glassware, a power supply, radiation detectors. (Anybody thought of adding a little extra to the D2O to make a scintilation cocktail out of it?) The setup cost would be less than you're paying people to think about whether to do the experiment. If it doesn't work, salvage the Pd, Pt, and radiation counters and go back to the plasma lab. If it DOES work, you can't mistake it, and you KNOW it's worth spending some REAL money and effort on "B" and "C". When you're used to making decisions about whether to spend the M$ on a particle accellerator, plasma mag bottle, or giant laser (and you only get ONE of whichever), it takes a shift of mental gears to make the right tradeoffs on a four-figure experiment. But "figuring out just who the right collaborators are"? Because you need their skills? Fine. Because you need a big name, or to impress funding agencies, or because they've got too much pull to be left out? Not fine. "and enlisting them"? If you have to talk them into doing it, they're the wrong people. If you have to convince them to include you, it's time you found others with enough skill and smaller names. >Finally, there are real-world safety concerns that had to be addressed; to >duplicate an experiment alleged to have melted through a concrete floor is >not something one should undertake lightly. Remember the F&P claim that >residual radiation levels were tripled due (apparently) to the neutrons >produced in their "meltdown"? If that really did occur, it should give >*anyone* pause in trying to "reproduce" it. Yes, that's a very good reason for thinking it over before proceeding. On the other hand, it also makes it imperitive that the general public be confident someone is working on it, and that the results will be published rapidly and accurately. Else many are likely to try it, with less precautions than Los Alamos would use. (Two of my friends have obtained the requisite Pd, and neither is a chemist OR a physicist.) >A similar pause to reflect would probably have strengthened some of the >university-based experiments, for that matter. I have heard that the Texas >A&M experiment was offered assistance from their school's fine nuclear physics >program -- and declined it. This is incomprehensible to me. An understanding >of the nuclear physics, or at least measurements to learn the stuff we *don't* >understand about it, would be an essential part of any serious attempt at >replicating F&P, I would think; the nuclear observables are the only really >convincing means of establishing that *fusion* was going on rather than >poorly-understood electrochemistry. The nuclear folks at TAMU have a solid >reputation, and their participation in a F&P experiment would certainly have >improved that experiment's credibility in the community. By rejecting them >in the (apparent) rush to get an experiment going, the actual experimenters >weakened the impact of their work. I wondered about that too. Then I got to thinking about who would get the credit from a fusion paper with both chemists and physicists on the byline... B-) It doesn't take a physicist to operate a radiation detector, and there are plenty of chemists working regularly with radioactive material. (I agree, though, that planning for the radiation detectors' flaws cuts the chance you'll have to retract and rerun. And I'd expect radiation physicists, such as yourselves, to already know the characteristics of your equipment.) >Yes, a (bad) experiment could have been mounted almost immediately. But >there are plenty of bad experiments being mounted anyway; we want to do a >good one. Please, let's not mistake "fast" or "inexpensive" for "bad". Feynman did some very good (AND very showy) science with a C-clamp, a pair of pliers, and a cup of ice water. Darn. I'm really not after a flame war between chemists and physists, or institutions and garage mechanics, or me and Los Alamos. I'm after answers to a series of questions - answers that might lead to cheap, clean, safe fusion power. I've already thought of five processes that MIGHT get fusion power converted to usable forms more efficiently than by dumping it into a heat engine, IF it is there to get and IF the reaction has some of the right characteristics. And four ways to try to coerce it if the characteristics aren't quite right. The equipment for some of these is garage-machine-shop stuff. But finding out those characteristics is a set of "C" experiments. And some of them are much easier to conduct with a radiation laboratory and a particle accellerator than with a beaker and reagents, or with a lathe. So there's plenty for physicists to do, and lots of credit for them to collect. IF they have the will to do the work, and IF the have the will, and the ability, to publish the results. A radiation laboratory full of physicists is of no use to me if it can't publish because of government secrecy, if it can't muster the will to do the experiment, or if it won't publish for five years, while it tries to fit a theory to all the data. And what chance does a computer programmer have to get his questions examined if professors of electrochemistry are considered possibly too "crackpot" for their experiments to be worth replicating, or too slipshod to measure heat? But a lot answers you could get in a week with your lab could be obtained in a month with a garage shop. So if you don't want a thousand backyard nuclear fusion projects going, you need to convince a thousand garage hackers that they'll get their answers, and get them faster, by waiting for you to announce. You won't do it by debunking F&P without publishing any data of your own. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Henry Spencer / Re: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Date: 19 Apr 89 19:34:44 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <2593@cps3xx.UUCP> porkka@frith.UUCP (Joe Porkka) writes: >If life is so 'easy', why are there still so many people ( in the >same industrialized countries) homeless+hungary? Also, why is >there so much crime? The number of homeless is vastly exaggerated by media coverage; there is a real problem there, but not of the size you'd think. And although a substantial number of people have trouble making ends meet, serious malnutrition or starvation is most uncommon in said countries. There is a lot of crime because it is profitable, the risks are low, and social inhibitions against it have diminished. The reasons can (and should) be debated elsewhere, not here. >If we suddenly get free energy, will these ills go away, or will >the rich get richer.... The most likely effect, in the industrialized countries, is the same one that's been happening for a long time: the rich get richer... *and* the poor get richer, just not as quickly. Comparing the poor to the rich will always make the present day look bad; try comparing the poor today to the poor a few centuries ago. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Joe Buck / Re: Contaminated heavy water and the U of Washington announcement Originally-From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Contaminated heavy water and the U of Washington announcement Date: 19 Apr 89 22:54:26 GMT Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA In article <24212@beta.lanl.gov > mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >If one assumes that the heavy water used in the U of W experiment was of >similar composition, it follows immediately that the reported 10**10 mass-5 >molecules would be produced in the electrolysis of about 0.01 mole of heavy >water -- "about" because, as has been pointed out by several people, there >is experimental evidence that the heavier hydrogen isotopes are emitted >preferentially in electrolysis of water. A smaller amount of electrolysis >might suffice. There is no such experimental evidence. You've got it backwards. Electrolysis is one of the methods used to produce deuterium. 1H is preferentially emitted. The D stays in the water. Sorry. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjbuck cudfnJoe cudlnBuck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / The Ick / Another twist in the Fusion Confusion! Originally-From: cs211s66@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (The Ick ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Another twist in the Fusion Confusion! Date: 19 Apr 89 21:44:53 GMT Organization: University of Hawaii Say...I hear that the Georgia Tech team renounced their claim of neutron detection. Something about detecting heat or somthing instead? Anyone know anything about this? If true, then what may be the possible implications? Thanks in advance, cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencs211s66 cudfnThe cudlnIck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Edward Celarier / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: eacelari@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward A Celarier) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 20 Apr 89 01:59:30 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <24225@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > >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. > Not at all uncommon in electrochemistry (one of the things that makes it so tricky), and other surface-dependent physical phenomena, such as catalysis, that the surface preparation is the most important factor in whether it works or not. Edward A. Celarier Department of chemistry Princeton University. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudeneacelari cudfnEdward cudlnCelarier cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / hbo@nobbs.ucsb / Re: He4 found Originally-From: hbo@nobbs.ucsb.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 20 Apr 89 02:44:28 GMT Organization: UC, Santa Barbara. Physics Computer Services In article <12212@ut-emx.UUCP>, nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes... >In article <12171@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >> He4 is the *usual* form of helium. By weight, it is more than a quarter >> of all the mass in the universe. > >Aw, c'mon, Tecumseh, if it aint "rare" it aint a thrilling story, either. > >Reporter's license. > Another article on cold fusion appeared in today's (4-19) LA Times. Roughly quoting, the reporter wrote "Helium-4, while the most abundant isotope of the element in nature, is extremely rare as the product of fusion reactions." If this isn't what he meant yesterday, the clarification is at least a nice recovery. 8-) -- Howard Owen, Computer Systems Manager internet: hbo@nobbs.ucsb.edu Physics Computer Services BITNET: HBO@SBITP.BITNET University of California, Santa Barbara HEPNET/SPAN: SBPHY::HBO "I am not a pay TV service!" 805-961-8366 (work) cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenhbo cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / C Fogg / The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 04:21:54 GMT Organization: Univ of Washington, Seattle [line eater] From a Seattle Time's cover story: (w/o permission) "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich. Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would let the planet support many more people than the current population of 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. What would the planet be like without "psychological space?" asks Richard Charter, a coastal lobbyist and environmentalist who notes that many of the aberrations and turmoil of inner cities can be blamed on "just plain crowding without hope." In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for that." ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) ------------ Are their concerns reasnable? --CF cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencfogg cudfnC cudlnFogg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Date: 19 Apr 89 00:00:00 GMT Following up on John Nickerson's leads to Canadian heavy water production by Ontario Hydro, I've come up with the following estimates for the production of heavy water, made by people in the business. A plant of the same size and type as Ontario Hydro's Bruce B type (800 tons of HW per year) would cost about $(US)1.1 billion and take 3 years to build. The plants are not small - each has four 8 meter diameter 90 meter high towers made from 80 mm steel. Each month a Bruce B type plant will require 100 MW of thermal energy (in the form of steam) and 30 MW of electricity to operate. Compared to these energy costs, other costs (like the H2S) are small. Any such plant should be sited near a source of water AND a source of steam. Ontario Hydro's Bruce plants are near a fission reactor. If someone more knowledgeable than I will hazard a guess as to how many mega-joules can be gotten from a kilogram of D2O in industrial-size Pons/Fleischmann cells, and how many kilowatt-hours would be needed to carry on the electorysis required, I'll run up a little economic model and report here on the results. One of the HW experts to whom I spoke said that cold fusion experimenters must be very careful to know the history of their HW. If it has been used as the moderator in a fission reactor, the amount of tritium in it will be misleadingly large. Only 'virgin' HW straight from the H2S/water enrichment process should be used. Dave C cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Paul Chisholm / "free" energy (was: Cold Fusion Growing Colder) Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: "free" energy (was: Cold Fusion Growing Colder) Date: 20 Apr 89 01:53:37 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article <2593@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: > Hmmmm. I wonder... If we get 'free' energy, will the world become > a blissfull place, where deserts get irrigated + government > decide to be nice to the people? >... > If we suddenly get free energy, will these ills go away, or will > the rich get richer.... I expect that this will be like any other technological advance: it will make the rich richer; it will widen the gap between the rich and the poor; and it will *still* improve the lot of the poor, though not as much as we'd like. An environment which offers little or no chances for advancement won't start creating openings just because electricity is much cheaper. But the effort to use fusion will create new jobs (more than it'll destroy, if I read this one right). For the "unemployable" (if there is such a creature), no. For the entry-level worker, maybe; but some experienced, previously entry-level folks will get shots at some of the new jobs, leaving entry-level slots in their place. And the fusion generator that powers a millionaire's mansion can cut the heat and light bills at a non-profit hospital, too. Assuming, of course, that all this works out. Looks good to me! Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Paul Chisholm / Re: Thermal efficiency Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermal efficiency Date: 20 Apr 89 02:09:40 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article , ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > > it is important to note among all of these calculations of thermal > efficiency that a considerable amount of the energy put into an F&P > cell comes right back out in the form of O2 and D2 gas. You're saying that the energy is used to disassociate hydrogen and oxygen, right? I'm with you so far. > these can be recombined in a fuel cell with very good efficiency to > generate electricity directly. Whoa, there. You're right, of course; but the implication seems to be that you can split water into two gasses, burn the gasses, and end up with more energy that you started off with. Both of those reactions are well-understood, and the energy out is the energy in (less waste). Fuel cells are wonderful if you've got a cheap source of electricity in one place, and need it in another. Spacecraft and hydrogen-powered cars are hard to operate with a sufficiently long extension cord, so fuel cells work there. But if you burn the hydrogen right where you created it, all you get is heat. Why not use a heat pump (or an electric heater) instead? > and the actual mysterious (possibly fictional, even) `fusion' output We have some seemingly reliable confirmation of some of the experimental results (pretty remarkable, considering how little time there's been), and some believable theory on what's happening. You're free to be skeptical, of course, but it might be time to turn it down an iota. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Roger Tang / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 06:11:06 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > > "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing > technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is > 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul > Ehrlich. > > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, > he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile > balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. > > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. > > ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would > let the planet support many more people than the current population of > 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without > forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. What would > the planet be like without "psychological space?" asks Richard Charter, > a coastal lobbyist and environmentalist who notes that many of the > aberrations and turmoil of inner cities can be blamed on "just plain > crowding without hope." > > In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura > Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy > will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for > that." > > ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political > or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) > >------------ >Are their concerns reasnable? >--CF Some are, some aren't. In particular, Ehrlich's comments on Third World problems are pretty much dead on. Applying technological solutions to social and political problems is almost guarunteed not to solve them. Dreams of an energy rich utopia are just that--pipe dreams. What will probably occur is th same dreary problems of the haves vs. havenots that has been playing out on the world stage for the last few decades. The situation is not going to change until changes permeates the bottom through top layers. Trickle- down, top-down, marxist, what have you solutions have not worked too well in the past; there's not much hope they're going to work in the future. Long as we understand controlled fusion is a tool, not a solution, then we'll avoid most of the problems the naysayers are mumbling about (even at that, it's a tool that isn't even in existence; practical applications are decades off). On the other hand, you have to note that the doomsayers are taking the view that use of fusion will take into account the short term only. I'd have to say that short-termed/short-minded thinking can easily produce the gloom and doom scenarios they've predicted. For examples of that, we need only look to Valdez, Alask and Exxon for prime examples of greedy, short-sided thinking where the bottom line overules common sense. So how's that for a useful answer? It just depends......8) cudkeys: cuddy20 cudengwangung cudfnRoger cudlnTang cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Tim Maroney / Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Originally-From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Stanley Pons at Los Alamos Date: 20 Apr 89 05:42:11 GMT Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco In article egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) writes: > >Doug, Please... This is a highly technical audience who might wish to >pursue the details of these experiments. I MUST correct one technical >detail in your description of the experiment. Someone may fail to >properly verify these experiments due to incorrect equipment. > >> 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. > >The dishwashing tub was by Rubbermaid. Well, Skip, that's true as far as it goes, but I have to say you put it rather badly. Anyone reading your message would think the tub was actually made of rubber. In fact, it was made of a synthetic polymer. Not only that, but you completely failed to mention that because of the lowered speed of light when passing through such a medium, any emitted neutrons travelling at faster than the localized speed of light through its walls would be expected to emit radiation. -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" cudkeys: cuddy20 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMaroney cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Paul Dietz / Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D20 For Sale, Refining Date: 20 Apr 89 13:07:00 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <705400007@cdp> caulkins@cdp.UUCP writes: >A plant of the same size and type as Ontario Hydro's Bruce B >type (800 tons of HW per year) would cost about $(US)1.1 >billion and take 3 years to build. ... > Each month a Bruce B type plant will require 100 >MW of thermal energy (in the form of steam) and 30 MW of >electricity to operate. ... >If someone more knowledgeable than I will hazard a guess as to >how many mega-joules can be gotten from a kilogram of D2O in >industrial-size Pons/Fleischmann cells, and how many >kilowatt-hours would be needed to carry on the electorysis >required, I'll run up a little economic model and report here >on the results. It would be inappropriate to use the efficiency of F&P's experiment in economic calculations -- the system is not optimized; hell, we don't even understand the physics yet. However... 800 tons of heavy water, if fused as D+D-->He4, yields 8e19 joules of heat (about 2.5 terawatt-years). Clearly, the energy required to separate the heavy water is negligible. Capital cost of the fusion plant would dominate. If, as Pons said, 1000 W/cc of Pd is a reasonable goal, the amortized cost of Pd would be minor, at current prices. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Steven E / Re: Thermocouples? Originally-From: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermocouples? Date: 19 Apr 89 17:52:40 GMT Organization: Tektronix TV Measurement Systems, Beaverton OR In article <42b05990.5e96@dl5e96.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel M. Offutt (offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu) writes: > How efficiently could fusion-generated heat be turned into electricity > using thermocouples? In the late 1960s, I worked for the Earth Sciences Department of Montana State University, maintaining a weather radar and other electronic goodies. Some of our remote sites were powered by thermal generators built by Telan. These generators used a constant propane flame on one side of a Peltier stack, with a heat-sink on the other side. Efficiency of the Peltier devices was claimed to be about 6%. This is probably an order of magnitude (maybe two orders of magnitude!) higher than the efficiency of thermocouples. Because the output voltage was very low (even though several Peltier devices were electrically in series), a dc-to-dc converter built with germanium power transistors (for low base-emitter and saturation voltages) stepped the output up to 12 volts. Overall efficiency was probably around 2 percent. Steve Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! * new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com [phone (503) 627-1320] old: {decvax | hplabs | uunet | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenstever cudfnSteven cudlnE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Claudio Nieder / Room-tempreature fusion in Italy Originally-From: claudio@forty2.UUCP (Claudio Nieder) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Room-tempreature fusion in Italy Date: 19 Apr 89 01:41:07 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 reported it in italian, in an earlier posting. I have tried to translate it into english. Maybe somebody else should try to do a better translation. Anyway here is what I got: Speaker Scientists at ENEA are convinced of having obtained an important scientific result by getting in their laboratories in Frascati roomtemperature fusion using a method different of the one used by the american scientists. They confirm that several years are needed to turn the laboratory sucess into the energetic revolution everybody waits for. Background voice: Rome patent office 11: 00 MET. A representativ of ENEA applies for a patent for a method to produce neutrons and heat of nuclear fusion in a gas aborbed on a metal. [ On the papers which are handed over you see can see a diagram of the setup looking like: _ / \ | | \_/ +---+ | +--+ +--[X]--+---+-----[X]-----+ | +---+ | | | [X] | | | | [X] V | | | +------+------+ +-----+-----+ | | | | | | | | +---+---+ | | | | |#######| | | | | +-+###+-+ | | | | |###| | | | | |###| | | | | |###| | +-------------+ | +---+ | \_________/ Unfortunatly I was not able to read any of the annotations to this diagram. ] At the same moment, in another part of Rome, a press conference is hold. Industry minister Battaglia and Research and Science minister Ruberti illustrated the experiment which was realized during the last few days in the laboratoried in Frascati. The atttention is directed to professor Francesco Scaramuzzi who developed the methode which takes the american experiments as starting point, but which is quite different from the on used by Pons, Fleischmann and Jones. Prof. Scaramuzzi: The idea arised from the question: "Is electrolyse really necessary to produce this interaction between the deuterium and the palladium or titanium ?" And so we arrived to the conclusion, that a relativly simple experiment could be envisaged, but you had to have a serios detection of neutrons. And so it was possible to set up a simple experiment within a few days, with which we simply waned to see if there were any indications of the reaction observed by the american scientists. [ During the explanations of prof. Scaramuzzi a slightly different drawing of the setup is shown: _ / \ | | \_/ | +--+------[X]--+------[X]-----+ | | | valve | [X] [X] | | _ | +--+ Temperature [X] |/ \ | | | measurement | | | | +--+ -+- \_/ + | / \ vacuum pump | | | | +---+---+ | | ______ |#titan#| | | / \ +-+###+-+ | | |neutron | |###| cooled with | | |detector| |###| <------------ | | \______/ |###| liquid nitrogen +-------+ +---+ When the whole drawing was shown, it was not possible to read any of the text on it. Then they showed the lower right corn er of it and then the labelin of those parts was readable. Background voice: The first experiment was started in Frascati the 7th april. Two days later the first positiv results, then some failures, wher the causes were soon understood. Finally another success which showed a significant amount of neutrons. No palladium and no heavy water and especially no electrolysis, but titanium and deuterium gas. Question to Prof. Scaramuzzi: Why did you choose titanium ? Answer Prof. Scaramuzzi: We had individuated several metals which we considerd interesting and then choosed titanium because it was available. Question: Did you expect these results in such a short time ? Answer: No. What I had, optimistically, expected was some neutron count, but not so high. Question: Which are the next steps ? Answer: The first step will be to complete the experiment. This experiment is in a very preliminary phase and under normal conditions we wouldn't have made it public at this early stage. Background: The following days three groups of scientists will start their work to continue and further explore these new reults. Speaker: (To prof. Umberto Colombo president of ENEA) We have just heard prof. Scaramuzzi say "We didn't expect these results. " When you started working on these experiments some people said "so they also do some research in fusion. ." Did you expect these results, where you just lucky or does this result from sound scientific work ? Umberto colombo: I remember that I came here just after the discovery of Fleischmann and Pons and I then said, that we had to be cautious, but we have to take this research, this new way to nuclar fusion, very seriously. I confirm what I said last time, this new experiment at ENEA has showed that you can simplify the condition of the fusion experiment by use of deuterium gas and by use of a metal in chip form instead of using electolysis in a liquid which then causes problems because of the salts present in it. Alot of complications which are not necessary. We have obtained a very remarkable neutron count, thousend times background, and we are convinced that there is an interesting way to follow, but we cannot yet say which will be the pratical application especially for the generation of energy. I want to point out that this is a great scientific discovery, but we shouldn't think that we have the solution to nuclear fusion. Speaker: We have seen, that tomorrow you have patented your experiment. does this mean that nobody else in no other country can use this system, that this kind of research is reserved to the italian scientists ? Umberto Colombo: No, no research is open to everybody. Now we wil try to support this first patent with a series of other patents as soon as we discover other things. We, and I hope the other italians in the CMR, INFN and the universities and industry hope to get a protectiv coat through patents, so that others who eventually want to use this process, if it ever becomes useful, will have to pay us royalties for our patents. Speaker: Is it true, that as it was said these last days, it will take some decades until all these deiscoveries will give useful results for energy production ? Umberto Colombo: I think that we must be cautious and keep up this assertion. It is quite a difference to dicover a process which produces neutrons or even some energy from brinign this to the scale needed for industrial energy production. There is a long way we will have to go together with other europeans and we should not abandon other lines of research which are also very important. Speaker: A last question: in italy there have never been much money available for research. Do such results as this one have some pulling effect ? Umberto colombo: I think it will. This experiment costed ENEA 30 million lire (approx 20 thousand US dollar). But it would be absurd to conclude that it takes such small amounts to do research. I think that the type of instruments, the quality of the analysis instruments that all needs the volume of research and work which were available at the center in Frascati. Therefor I think we should all be encouraged to support research in italy. claudio UUCP: claudio@forty2.uucp BITNET: K538912@CZHRZU1A Mail: Claudio Nieder, Kanalweg 1, CH-8610 Uster Disclaimer: I don't work or study at the Physics intitute, I'm only using their computers. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenclaudio cudfnClaudio cudlnNieder cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Dave Newman / Energy cost of Heavy Water? Originally-From: newman@ut-emx.UUCP (Dave Newman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Energy cost of Heavy Water? Date: 20 Apr 89 05:29:03 GMT Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas A quick question from an educated layman who's been following as closely as he can: Is this process economical given the energy cost of making heavy water? I remember seeing some calculations on the breakeven cost of the process, but I don't remember whether they included the cost of the heavy water. I guess it really comes down to the speed with which the heavy water is consumed? Obviously, noone knows the real answer yet, so educated guesses are OK! >>Dave Disclaimer: A Thousand Pardons! I'm only a philosopher! cudkeys: cuddy20 cudennewman cudfnDave cudlnNewman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Mike APD / Re: Fusion in Portland / Poor Reporting Originally-From: mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts @ APD x1302) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Fusion in Portland / Poor Reporting Date: 1 May 89 20:30:26 GMT Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation, Beaverton Oregon From article <5018@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, by arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch): > In article <545@gandalf.littlei.UUCP>, writes: >> The following is a full reprint (without permission) from The Oregonian, >> Portland, Oregon, Science Section, Thursday, April 27, 1989. >> >> ============== >> >> "Cold-fusion experiment energizes PSU scientists" >> 'Researchers report brief energy burst in table-top lab test' > > This is, by far, the most absurd report yet. It is representative > of the worst experimental technique, including an almost total > lack of experimental design. What they basically said was, "we > threw this thing together and we almost sort of had an explosion, so > we shut it down. Then we looked at it under a scanning microscope > and it sort of looked funny, so we decided to publish." That was my reaction, too, until I happened to get some better information. It appears the Oregonian got it wrong, as newspapers often seem to do. This looks to me like a good example of the difference between a newspaper report and a proper scientific paper. On Saturday, I spoke with someone who works with Patrick Keefe, the grad student who works with Prof. Dash at Portland State. I'm told the reason the energy burst was brief is that as soon as they saw a six degree C temperature rise in one second, they dropped the current, so as to avoid violent results. At a lower current level, they observed heat output of 4 times the electrical input, continuously for the rest of the experiment, and then they shut it down to do the electron microscopy on the electrode. They told the Oregonian reporter all this, but the article only reported on the 'burst'. They used an undisclosed electrode treatment which shortened the precharge time, and there are undisclosed aspects of the electrolyte. They are setting up another experiment, and I assume they will report on their work properly when they are ready. The above is hearsay, based on third hand information, and is quite possibly incorrect. I write this mainly to make a point that an experiment that sounds flaky in the newspaper isn't necessarily flaky. Maybe it's the newspaper that's flaky. Nor is work that sounds good in the paper necessarily good. This episode looks to me a good example of what may happen when a dim-witted local newspaper reports on scientific work, especially when they are breathlessly describing the brilliant successes of Local U. I'm sure our local daily is no better or worse in this regard than most others. Very few newspaper reporters have had any scientific training. Even if the author gets it all straight, who's to say what the editor will do to the piece. A newspaper is just not a good medium for scientific reporting. Irregardless of whether Dash and Keefe's work is good or bad, it reminds me that I need to keep in mind the fact that it's unwise to jump to conclusions, positive or otherwise, based on anything I read in the newspapers. Indeed, if I were a scientist with fusion results, I might just not let the media mess it up, and patiently send a paper to a journal instead. I suspect this fact is behind some of the lack of news on results + or - so far, given the 100's of experiments going on. -- Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005 ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts OR mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmbutts cudfnMike cudlnAPD cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 13:54:53 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Dave Skinner deplores "the repugnant behavior of [some] physicists" when dealing with F&P. He writes: > > I always felt that physcists (like all scientists) were, or at > least should be, careful to give their colleagues the benefit > of the doubt on any scientific claim that their colleagues > might make until after the verdict was in. Even then, > scientists would usually let the stigma of going public and > being wrong be sufficient punishment for the guilty. > This is because the researchers suffer not only the > embarrassment of the moment, but are undoubtedly haunted by > their mistake throughout the remainder of their careers. > All of this seems fitting and proper; the punishment fits the > crime, so to speak. That is fine as long as the "crime" is limited to journals, conferences, and lab benches, and the only thing that is in jeopardy is the reputation of the scientists making the claim. However, when a dubious claim threatens to disrupt the life and work of hundreds of thousands of people and cause huge piles of money (public and private) to change hands, then I think scientists who disbelieve the claim have not only the right to voice their opinion, but indeed the DUTY to do so, without regard for academic comraderie. Paul F Dietz asks: > > Is it my imagination, or did the critics' kid gloves come off > after Pons and Fleischmann asked congress for $25 M (which > would come from the hot fusion program)? Yes, and what is wrong with that? If it is fine and proper for F&P and UU to junk the rules of scientific debate in order to maximize their slice of the pie, then why is it wrong for hot fusion scientists to fight their jobs and lifetime work by stating their opinion loud and clear? Or should they just sit there and watch, while their research programs are cut and their money is diverted to UU, just because two guys there *said* they got this fantastic result, that is inconsistent with the physics that they know? Dave Skinner writes: > > The repugnant behavior of physicists, and apparently physicists > alone, has entered a new even more repugnant phase. > These guys have a lot to lose monetarily if F&P are right, but > do they have to lose their self respect as well? [...] > > How many physicists will have to "eat crow" if cold fusion > (with energy levels in excess of breakeven) is actually > occurring like F&P claim? More important, how much damage will > be done in the mean time to the reputation of all physicists in > the eyes of John Q. Public, in the eyes of their funding > sources (usually the U. S. Government), and in the eyes of > the rest of the science community if this behavior continues? *IF* F&P's claims are actually true, any damage caused by the physicists' skepticism will fall (very hard) mostly on the physicists themselves. Why does this possibility bother you so much? Wouldn't you consider it a fitting punishment? If anything, those physicists should be admired for their courage in stating their disbelief loud and clear, when it would be much smarter for them to keep quiet or make some encouraging noises. (Obviously, if cold fusion is real, no amount of disbelief will make it go away.) On the other hand, *IF* F&P's claims are false, the damage they have done so far is already HUGE. For starters, there is the time wasted by scientists around the world trying to replicat the experiment (this item alone can easily be in the tens of millions of dollars). Add to that the cost of equipment, lab space, phone and fax bills, travel, media coverage, USENET traffic, etc. All this because the physicists did exactly what good scientists are supposed to do: rushed out to the lab and tried to replicate the claimed results. I am neither a physicist nor a chemist, and the little I know about the F&P claim comes mainly from reading their paper and the postings on these newsgroups. From this limited perspective I got the impression that as far as bad science is concerned, F&P are more guilty than the physicists that criticize them. Their paper was quite obscure and ambiguous, and over the past month they seem to have done precious little to fill in its gaps, even on basic questions of measurement methods and control experiments that couldn't possibly affect their patent plans. Of course, there is still the possibility that F&P are right. Even if they are wrong, they may have had plenty of good excuses. However, ther is no question that the ball is now on their court. The physicists did their homework, much better (on the whole) than F&P did theirs. Those who disbelieve F&P's claims and accuse them of serious methodological errors seem to have very good reasons to do so. Self-interest has certainly influenced the tone of the their comments, but when Dave says that that "money, rather than common sense, is directing the mouths of these physicists", he seems to be commiting the same "repugnant" slandering that he so deplores, only multiplied a thousandfold. Why are F&P more respectable, honest, and incorruptible _a priori_ than all their critics put together? Why should untold millions in potential royalies leave a chemist cool and objective, whereas the prospect of a mere principal investigator's salary is enough to make a physicist lie and cheat? Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi) DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / M Russotto / Re: Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Originally-From: res12@snoopy.UMD.EDU (Matthew T. Russotto) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Date: 3 May 89 14:44:36 GMT Organization: University of Maryland, College Park In article <13328@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan Genemans) writes: > >IF the cold fusion phenomena is real and P & F are applying for patents -- One >must assume that they are doing this for monetary gain, thus hindering the >advancement of science by keeping it a secret. The question of scientific >morality to the hinderance of the advancement of the human race toward a energy >abundant and pollution free global society must be asked??? Is it morally >correct for a scientist to retain scientific knowlege for personal gain??? >(apparantly what P & F are doing...) I think it can be summed up in one simple >statement: "Absolute power breeds absolute corruption" > >Any comments reply via e-mail or post it. > > > > / Jan Genemans, Consultant USENET: Jan.Genemans@Dartmouth.edu \ >/ Engineering Deptartment UUCP: dartvax!mac.dartmouth.edu!Jan.Genemans \ >\ U.S. Merchant Marine Academy / > \ Kings Point, NY 11024-1699 "Live long and prosper" -Spock / The idea of a patent is to allow the free release of the information while ensuring the inventor reaps a benefit from his discovery. It's too bad that some countries laws make it impossible to disclose any information before a patent is filed in their country, but if F&P have something, they will, with patents, eventually release it. If there were no patents, they would have to keep it a secret FOREVER, in order to gain anything from it. As you may have guessed, I don't see anything morally wrong about a scientist using scientific knowledge for his own personal gain. If F&P have something, and they chose not to release it, they have not hindered world progress, they have only refused to help it. -- DISCLAIMER: Not only does the University not share my opinions, they don't want me sharing my opinions. "This 'Pnews', what does it do?" Matthew T. Russotto res12@snoopy.umd.edu (this semester only) cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenres12 cudfnMatthew cudlnRussotto cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM 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 15:08:03 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <13714@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >Paul F Dietz asks: >> Is it my imagination, or did the critics' kid gloves come off >> after Pons and Fleischmann asked congress for $25 M (which >> would come from the hot fusion program)? >Yes, and what is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. F & P's congressional shenanigans were despicable. I was not criticizing the critics. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Roger Nelson / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 05:32:09 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ At breakfast this morning, my wife and I shared amazement and some dismay over the reports, including recorded quotes from speakers, of the American Physical Society meeting in Baltimore. It was disturbing to hear the tones of litany in the speakers' entertainments and their fellow scientists' eager resopnses. The posting to which I am responding says elegantly most of what needs to be said, but because science is the best means we have of exploring the unknown, I want to add encouragement to the independent voices raised at the APS meeting, and elsewhere, counseling respectful attention and decrying the arrogance that alone can underlie such grating derision and laughter as was heard in Baltimore. The only other time I heard the like was a few years back at a AAAS meeting when The Amazing Randi -- a fine entertainer, but no scientist -- spoke at a session on the frontiers of science. I guess those frontiers do need to be defended. Roger Nelson rdnelson@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenrdnelson cudfnRoger cudlnNelson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / John Robinson / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 14:20:31 GMT Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge MA In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu>, cfogg@blake (C.E. Fogg) writes: [the story about Ehrlich and Rifkin's dire warnings] While I am sympathetic to these guys in a lot of respects, I find these quotes pretty unjustified. My first reaction was to think that maybe they are about where most physicists and chemists were on March 25 with respect to getting their stories in place. Maybe they thought they couldn't be heard above the clamor without making really inflammatory remarks. > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. Jeesh! If they are going to gouge the land, is it better that they pollute the air while they are at it? > They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without > forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. The birth rate slows with industrialization to near or below replacement. Will the industrialized countries start having babies again because power got cheaper? It seems as likely to me that ZPG will occur sooner rather than later. If I don't need 9 kids to scour the landscape every day for firewood, maybe I'll stop at 8. If my clean tractor refills its own fuel tanks each night over at the stream, I could get by with 7 or 6... (is D2O as plentiful in surface water as oceans?) > ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political > or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) By far the most important aspect of the cold fusion work is its economics, not its technology. Clearly the raw materials are legally and (relatively) economically available to third world countries *now*, unlike things like plutonium. This presents a situation far different than other advanced technologies. Finding a weapons application for cold fusion could of course blow this. If I were a terrorist or non-nuclear club country, I would probably be laying in a big store of palladiuim and ordering a D2O plant right now (oops, does the NNPT forbid the latter?). One sad scenario is the creation of a new club of haves, and poorer-still have-nots. The gap between rich and poor in a given country may be reflected in the gaps between countries. Did I hear correctly that Brazil announced a F&P confirmation? That is encouraging, in my view. Awaiting the first economic models with interest... -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr C'mon big money! cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjr cudfnJohn cudlnRobinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Brian Yamauchi / Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Originally-From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 14:52:16 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: >[line eater] > > > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > (w/o permission) > > "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing > technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is > 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul > Ehrlich. > > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, > he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile > balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. > > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. So at last the truth comes out. These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't like mankind. Read the passages quoted above. Do Ehrlich and Rivkin advocate safety regulations or cautious development of fusion? No (but they will once they realize that they have overstepped the bounds of public opinion -- then they'll try to make the regulations as Byzantine and restrictive as possible). They are inherently opposed to giving mankind power. Remember these quotes the next time they say that all they want is caution. (Building houses is evil? Are these the same people who blame homelessness on capitalism?) > ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would > let the planet support many more people than the current population of > 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without > forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. What would > the planet be like without "psychological space?" asks Richard Charter, > a coastal lobbyist and environmentalist who notes that many of the > aberrations and turmoil of inner cities can be blamed on "just plain > crowding without hope." So what's the point? Birth control is an issue that is orthogonal to fusion power. It's the underdeveloped nations which have a problem with too many people being born. Changing this will require basic changes in the social (and possibly religious) structures in those nations. Cold fusion will neither help nor hinder this. The population levels in the U.S. and Europe are at zero (possibly negative) population growth, and it's the developed nations who will be the primary beneficiaries of fusion. > In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura > Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy > will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for > that." Not all mankind will be better off, but a large segment will. > ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political > or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) This is true but irrelevant. Cold fusion won't solve all of the world's problems. It will only (!) solve the energy shortage and eliminate energy-related pollution. >------------ >Are their concerns reasnable? >--CF In a word, no. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenyamauchi cudfnBrian cudlnYamauchi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Chuck Karish / Palladium producers Originally-From: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Palladium producers Date: 20 Apr 89 14:58:22 GMT Organization: Mindcraft, Inc. In article <1989Apr19.154146.25338@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) wrote: >At 1000 w/cc it would be economical to build powerplants using Pd, at >current prices, modulo all the engineering details. No doubt Pd would >get very expensive if no substitutes are found. > >What companies mine palladium? North American producers: Sudbury, Ontario: International Nickel (I think) Stillwater, Montana: Chevron Resources Johns-Manville Sudbury produces platinum group elements as byproducts of nickel-copper mining. The Stillwater mine is a platinum play, but it produces four to five times as much palladium as platinum. The producers have been at a loss as to how to sell the palladium without flooding the world market. If actual sales prices catch up to the options market, they may now have a way. As of 1979, the US was using 65 metric tons a year of PGEs, of which most was imported from South Africa (74%) and the Soviet Union (8%). Presumably, this has changed as the Stillwater operation has been expanded. I don't think any of the North American producers make a significant portion of their income from palladium. It would take a very large demand for Pd to have much impact on their earnings. Chuck Karish hplabs!hpda!mindcrf!karish (415) 493-7277 karish@forel.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenkarish cudfnChuck cudlnKarish cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Bernie Cosell / Re: P + F RTF Paper -- WITHDRAWN -- WSJ Originally-From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: P + F RTF Paper -- WITHDRAWN -- WSJ Date: 20 Apr 89 15:42:30 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA In article <1123@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: }According to this mornings Wall Street Journal, Pons and Fleischmann }withdrew their paper from Nature. It speculated that compliance }with issues raised would further handicap the time the researchers }need for current studies and it wasn't worth the effort. Not to mention that with the FAXes humming for the past couple of weeks virtually everyone already HAS a copy of the paper :-) __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencosell cudfnBernie cudlnCosell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: Media cover of cold fusion (was Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media cover of cold fusion (was Date: 19 Apr 89 18:01:00 GMT Extracts from fusion stories in the New York Times of 19 April (Page A4): "... Dr. Francesco Scaramuzzi, a mathematician and physicist at the [Italian] National Agency for Nuclear and Alternative Energy ... said that he had exposed titanium scraps to deuterium gas. ... the Italian researchers ... did not conduct an electrochemical experiment and used no electrolytic cell and no electricity. Instead, the Italian scientists said that they had changed temperatures and pressures to achieve fusion. In one experiment, the pressure was kept high while the temperature drifted up and down, with the lowest temperature being 200 degrees C below zero ... In a second experiment, the liquid nitrogen was removed so that the temperature rose toward room temperature, and the deuterium gas was also removed. ... 'We believe it was the dynamic condition that was more important than the precise point of the pressure or of the temperature,' [Dr. Umberto Colombo] said. ... Dr. Scaramuzzi said: 'Our interpretation is that in the first experiment there was absorption of deuterium. In the second test the metal was getting rid of the deuterium.' The second test produced the most neutrons. ... in the first experiment 20 to 40 neutrons were measured in successive 10-minute periods. ... In the second experiment researchers measured flows of 200 to 300 neutrons every 10 minutes for 12 hours, which was more than 100 times the background level, he said. Despite the high neutron yield, the team members said they had obtained virtually no energy." On the same page there was a report of a successful Stanford experiment: "... [Dr. Robert A. Huggins] and his six-member team began their experiment on April 5, and it eventually included five separate electrolytic cells. ... the experiment included not only cells filled with heavy water but also ones filled with regular water ... The results ... were an excessive heat production in the flasks containing heavy water, but nothing like that in the ones filled with regular water. 'As fas as we can tell, we've got a direct comparison,' Dr. Huggins said. 'This negates any possible chemical effects,' adding that 'this is the comparison that the physics community insisted upon.' He said the amount of heat energy produced was 'in the general range' of that reported by Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann. ... cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Prem Sobel / Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Originally-From: prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Patents for the Usenet users! Date: 20 Apr 89 15:01:21 GMT Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA In article <4871@cloud9.Stratus.COM> cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison) writes: >In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: >> (Maybe somebody should send a copy of the alt.fusion archive to the >> patent examiners? B-) ) > > > >Yup -- but it should be everyone who has saved an archive, not Someone. >I've suggested various things for Someone to do in the past and I've learned >that he procrastinates worse than I do. :-) Anyone know if there is a FAX number in trhe patent office or any way to find out? Otherwise it is easy (in the system here) to get our selected archive onto a DOS floppy disk. Prem [munchies for the line eater .....] cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Mike Pelt / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 18:09:45 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: [Erlich & Rifkin "Fusion is Awful" quotes from Seattle Times deleted] #So at last the truth comes out. # #These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people #who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always #claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. #was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical #and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the #real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't #like mankind. I would like to quit using the term "environmentalist" to describe these people. Obviously, they are far more concerned about their other agenda than they are about the environment. How about "Granola Fascist"? I heard this at SDC in Denver last year, and it's the most fitting description I've heard yet. #Read the passages quoted above. Do Ehrlich and Rivkin advocate safety #regulations or cautious development of fusion? No (but they will once #they realize that they have overstepped the bounds of public opinion #-- then they'll try to make the regulations as Byzantine and #restrictive as possible). They are inherently opposed to giving #mankind power. Remember these quotes the next time they #say that all they want is caution. This is what I'm really afraid of. By the time the Granola Fascists and the empire-building bureacrats get finished with us, you'd be able to get more power by burning the paperwork than from fusion. One of the scariest aspects is if you consider the implications of the Drexler quote in my .signature... If democracy is to survive, we must find some way of bypassing the obstructionism of an anti-democratic minority who uses fear-mongering and sabotage-by-lawyer to halt all progress. -- Mike Van Pelt Video 7 ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp "... Local prohibitions cannot block advances in military and commercial technology.... Democratic movements for local restraint can only restrain the world's democracies, not the world as a whole." -- K. Eric Drexler cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Perry Metzger / Fusion: Panacea or Problem Originally-From: perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion: Panacea or Problem Date: 20 Apr 89 15:31:54 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ What annoys me about Rifkin and Company is that they don't seem to realize that, in spite of everything, modern technology HAS made the lives of millions far better. Anyone who wants to go back to, say, the good old days of the early 19th century, when people died of simple infections, thousands died in cholera epidemics, there was no indoor plumbing or central heat, thousands died in "developed" countries from famines, etc, is more than welcome to. No, cold fusion won't, for instance, cure homelessness. But it does give us a fighting chance to cure the greehouse effect and several forms of polution. It might not mean that a poor family will be able to afford a bigger house, but it might mean that they would be able to heat the one they have. It might not cure starvation in africa, but it could mean that it would be practical to irrigate the sahara. With distiled water so that there won't be long-term residue build up. And even if we DON'T irrigate the sahara, we could still ship food to the starving more cheaply. As for overpopulation destroying countries where technology is too advanced, this seems to be the plague of countries where the technology isn't advanced enough! The US has a population that is nearing stability (although it is still growing). India has an exploding population. Raising people's standards of living traditionally lowers the birthrate dramatically. Lastly, even if we can't control the population, cold fusion would allow us to build cities in space and on other planets in the system, thus giving the billions of people who look like they will be born (even if his Highness, Jeremy Rifkin, does not give them permission) someplace to go. Its not going to be a panacea, no. But it doesn't look like the costs will outweigh the benefits. Perry cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenperry cudfnPerry cudlnMetzger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / V Lakshmanan / Re: Room-tempreature fusion in India Originally-From: vlak_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Venugopal Lakshmanan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Room-tempreature fusion in India Date: 20 Apr 89 16:03:11 GMT Organization: University of Rochester Today's New York Times, April 20, 1989 reports: Fusion Repetition reported in India. The Indian scientists used the same technique as P&F but "slightly different materials". The experiment used heavy water, and titanium and platinum electrodes. C.V. Sundaram, director of the Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research near Madras, reported a "30 percent increase in neutrons over the background level, but that the energy produced had not been measured". The heavy water also contained 0.2percent Ni and Pd Chlorides in place of the Lithium salts used by P&F. Brazilians also report replication of the Utah expt, at Sao Paulo. -Venu Lakshmanan cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenvlak_ltd cudfnVenugopal cudlnLakshmanan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Jim Meritt / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 15:56:48 GMT Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: } From a Seattle Time's cover story: } (w/o permission) } } ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would } let the planet support many more people than the current population of } 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without } forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. What would } the planet be like without "psychological space?" asks Richard Charter, } a coastal lobbyist and environmentalist who notes that many of the } aberrations and turmoil of inner cities can be blamed on "just plain } crowding without hope." } }Are their concerns reasnable? Absolutely! The best thing that could happen for this world is to have WWIII fought with megaton warheads and asteroid bombardments to clean the scum of mankind off the earth so the planet could be that wonderful pristine beauty it is meant to be! ;-) :-) ;-) Complete with methane-ammonia atmosphere, thermal extremes, and everything shaded varying shades of gray... Disclaimer: "It's mine! All mine!!!" - D. Duck cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjwm cudfnJim cudlnMeritt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / William Johnson / Re: Startup time for experiments Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Startup time for experiments Date: 20 Apr 89 15:38:29 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: > In article <24210@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > >In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: > >[ref. my earlier posting that it took Los Alamos three days to get an F&P-like > >experiment on line following F&P's announcement] > >> >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.) > > > >Time out. Isn't a smiley missing here? Please? [] > >But please tell me that the author just doesn't understand the smiley > >conventions. > > Yes, I'm aware of the smileys. The above was intended to be a > humorous overstatement of a serious point, so I'll give you half a > smiley. :-j Thanks ... I needed that. The rest of this posting is excellent, and I only want to make a couple of points about it: > Hold on! "Crackpot"? F&P are hardly unknown, and if you weren't sure, > just ask a good electrochemist, or look them up in one of the Who's Whos, > or Science Citations. (Did concern over looking gullible enter the > decision-making process?) No implication that F&P are either "crackpots" or "unknown" was intended; they are neither. However, even some very big names sometimes come up with some very bad science, and even though F&P have solid reputations in their field, those of us working in fields relevant to their experiment *other* than electrochemistry -- specifically, us nuclear guys -- take a little more convincing that the science is worth while. > [The safety issue] also makes it imperitive that the general public > be confident someone is working on it, and that the results will be > published rapidly and accurately. Else many are likely to try it, with > less precautions than Los Alamos would use. (Two of my friends have > obtained the requisite Pd, and neither is a chemist OR a physicist.) Thank you; a good point. Let it be known that Los Alamos IS working on F&P-like experiments (at least six different ones, in fact); I'll pass reports on them along as they are released, but not before. [ref. my wonder why Texas A&M's nuclear people weren't involved in the A&M experiment] > I wondered about that too. Then I got to thinking about who would get > the credit from a fusion paper with both chemists and physicists on > the byline... B-) Sad but true, and no smiley need be attached. One of the unfortunate aspects of the F&P work is that it has led, to some extent, to a tendency to conduct science through press releases. This is bad for several reasons. First, the experiments that get the press are the "loudest" and not necessarily "best". (Note that the two may overlap -- maybe.) This creates animosities within the research community that aren't helpful in getting the real objective -- proof that the science works, and if so, conversion into something useful -- worked on. Second, it encourages a "Ready ... fire ... aim" approach to doing the work. Retractions, after all, are cheap, and a lot of people don't read them anyway. Consequently, a lot of ill-conceived and therefore inconclusive experiments get rushed into production, and when they don't turn anything up (or when they *do* come up with something but it is scoffed at), they don't prove anything after all. Finally, if this all pans out there will be PLENTY of research bucks to go around, I confidently predict. Emphasis on the press rather than on the science is setting the experimenters up for a fall during the longer, post-excitement stage of doing grunt science to really figure out what's going on. > It doesn't take a physicist to operate a radiation detector, and there > are plenty of chemists working regularly with radioactive material. Yes and no. IMHO, it *does* take a physicist to operate a detector AND be aware of all the experimental pitfalls. The people at Georgia Tech, notwithstanding a relatively high degree of expertise, did wander into one of those pitfalls, and got egg on their faces as a result. > (I agree, though, that planning for the radiation detectors' flaws > cuts the chance you'll have to retract and rerun. And I'd expect > radiation physicists, such as yourselves, to already know the > characteristics of your equipment.) Thank you. That's my point. > Darn. I'm really not after a flame war between chemists and physists, > or institutions and garage mechanics, or me and Los Alamos. I'm after > answers to a series of questions - answers that might lead to cheap, > clean, safe fusion power. No flame war was assumed, nor did my posting intend to incite one; if that was the effect, excuse me. Your points, in general, are well taken, and I only want to point out that there are some valid reasons for moving slowly and carefully as well as quickly and aggressively. -- "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: cuddy20 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Doug Roberts / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 16:28:11 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: >[line eater] > > > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > (w/o permission) > > "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing > technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is > 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul > Ehrlich. > > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, > he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile > balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. > > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. So at last the truth comes out. These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't like mankind. I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population growth trend. The solution, though, is _not_ to suppress the new emerging technology. The realistic approach is to address the problem of controlling the global population's tendency to grow past the bounds of society's ability to adequately support it. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Peter Desnoyers / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 18:22:30 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >So at last the truth comes out. > >These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people >who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always >claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. >was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical >and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the >real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't >like mankind. > No. They raised a valid point - cheap, clean energy will only eliminate one main pollution source among many. It probably won't even eliminate pollution from cars. (It hasn't in the Pacific Northwest, which has had cheap hydro-power since WWII.) At the same time, it will allow other pollution sources and environmentally destructive activities to be carried out at an accelerated pace. Our society is addicted to activities which destroy the environment. Giving it cheap energy may be like giving a drug addict money - he may use it for treatment, but will probably use it to continue his habit. Peter Desnoyers cudkeys: cuddy20 cudendesnoyer cudfnPeter cudlnDesnoyers cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / C Hayes / Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Originally-From: cjh@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Christopher J. Hayes) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,su.etc Subject: Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Date: 20 Apr 89 17:41:56 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1708@Portia.Stanford.EDU> brooks@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Brooks) writes: >An authorized quote or two from the Stanford Campus Report follows: > >The experiment was done by Prof. R.A. Huggins (Dept. of Materials >Science and Engineering) as previously mentioned: >"Huggins` team ran two experiments simultaneously in a red picnic >cooler for more than two weeks and found that the experiment ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >involving heavy water produced 50 percent more heat than the same ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >experiment using ordinary water, even though the amount of electricity ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >going in was the same." The reporter made a slight error here. The heavy water experiment produced 50% more energy (in the form of heat) than was put in (in the form of electricity), while the ordinary water experiment produced no more energy than was put in, according to the article in the Stanford Daily. I would tend to trust the Daily writer, because he's a physics major (and a friend of mine :-). (Non-Stanford people on alt.fusion: the Campus Report is the University's official newspaper; the Daily is the student newspaper.) ---cjh -- Christopher J. Hayes (Chris) | Internet: cjh@portia.stanford.edu Snail Mail: 620 Mayfield Ave. | Bitnet: as Internet, or cjh%portia@stanford Stanford, CA 94305-8466 USA | UUCP: decwrl!portia.stanford.edu!cjh AT&T: +1 (415) 322 1528 | or uunet!portia.stanford.edu!cjh cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencjh cudfnChristopher cudlnHayes cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Ed Nather / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 20 Apr 89 14:14:48 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <12205@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: > > In view of the fact that Georgia Tech withdrew their results following > reports of the extreme temperature sensitivity of their neutron detector > one wonders what the details of the Italian experimental setup were. > I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, each in its own way, or that cold fusion is real? [I *love* ex-post-facto statistical calculations!] -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin cudkeys: cuddy20 cudennather cudfnEd cudlnNather cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Paul Dietz / Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 20 Apr 89 18:38:00 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY The Italian result is interesting. They seem to get fusion when there is a net movement of deuterium through the titanium, rather than when it is stationary in the metal. Also, Steve Koonin sent me a preprint that (among other things) speculates that gross movement of hydrogen through the metal may be important in increasing the fusion rate. So, in the F&P type electrolytic experiments, I wonder whether it is important to not fully immerse the cathode in the heavy water. That way, deuterium will be pumped into the bottom of the cathode, diffuse upwards, and be released out the top. If the cathode is fully immersed then there will be less net motion, so perhaps no fusion. This might also explain F & P's melted cube: when they cut the current, perhaps deuterium started rapidly flowing out. This motion (not some "shock wave") perhaps made fusion occur. It might also explain cathodes that become red hot when removed from the heavy water. This line of reasoning also suggests the use of higher temperatures or ultrasound to increase the mobility of deuterium in the metal. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Gordon Banks / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 16:44:54 GMT Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA. In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > > ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would > let the planet support many more people than the current population of > 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without > forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. It also might allow us to build habitats in space and preserve the earth as a gigantic nature park. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudengeb cudfnGordon cudlnBanks cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: political/ecological (was Re: Eco-stupidity) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: political/ecological (was Re: Eco-stupidity) Date: 20 Apr 89 16:21:35 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas I am no closer than I was 4 weeks ago to deciding whether or not cold fusion is a reality and economically interesting, but I will assume (for the sake of argument) that it is both. Folks, this is a tool. If you are firmly convinced that the human race is inherently incapable of treating this planet with respect then it is a tool that we will be used to destroy ourselves. Of course, without it we'd just use alternative methods. In the long run it won't make a bit of difference. If you believe that the human race has the capacity to act in its own long term interests then cold fusion will be used to confer on our descendants a much richer life, with a greatly reduced amount of environmental stress, then would be otherwise achievable. Obviously, the existence of cold fusion is not going to make the second choice inevitable. It is just possible that by making the short term less painful it could make an environmentally sane future more likely. -- 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: cuddy20 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Thomas Wang / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 20 Apr 89 21:20:04 GMT Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo In article <1989Apr20.143800.14572@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >The Italian result is interesting. They seem to get fusion when there >is a net movement of deuterium through the titanium, rather than when >it is stationary in the metal. Also, Steve Koonin sent me a preprint >that (among other things) speculates that gross movement of hydrogen >through the metal may be important in increasing the fusion >rate. This might be an interesting experiment to do in light of the above hypothesis: Basically two flasks of P & F experiment setups. One flask has contineous 7.5 volts flowing throught it. The other has the voltage altering between 5 volts and 10 volts hourly. When the voltage is changed, presumely the concentation of D ions in palladium will shift. One can measure the neutron production difference of the two setups, and come to some interesting conclusions. -Thomas Wang ("I am, therefore I am." - Akira ) ttwang@polyslo.calpoly.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenttwang cudfnThomas cudlnWang cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Ted Dunning / Re: He4 levels measured in P/F cell. Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: He4 levels measured in P/F cell. Date: 19 Apr 89 03:45:59 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <182@uplherc.UUCP> jlh@uplherc.UUCP (Jordan Henderson) writes: 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. of course!!! he must have gone there to tell them that they had succeeded, since they apparently haven't figured it out themselves. this sort of comment kind of puts a damper on the figure of 60 confirmations doesn't it. (damn, depressive cycle is back. and i thought the manic phase was permanent this time). cudkeys: cuddy19 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / John Campbell / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 20 Apr 89 16:15:16 GMT Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ From article <1989Apr19.164125.645@cs.rochester.edu>, by dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz): > Well, it looks like phase 3 of the reaction to a major breakthrough > ("It's immoral") is beginning! Paul Ehrlich has said that cheap > fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." And Jeremy > Rifkin says "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." I trust Ehrlich knows more about the issues than I do, but as a self-proclaimed (albiet unpublished) environmentalist I find the prospect of turning off those coal and fission plants pretty exciting. Seems to me this should be the best thing to happen to our planet. After all, the appetite for energy is directly responsible for North Slope oil research, Brazilian rain forest destruction and a host of other things I'd rather see stopped. > > The argument [sic] is that by giving people cheap plantiful power, > we'll be able to manipulate the planet more than we can now, which > would be awful. Even worse, it could mean that larger populations > could be supported (apparently, it upsets these sociopaths that so > many other people exist). And I'm a sociapath also (by your definition). The planet seems overcrowded to my backcountry mentality as it is. Perhaps Ehrlich is right and population is our greatest "bomb" after all. As a young anthro student I calculated the % of arable land and used a figure that I read about for the amount of space a bushman needed (they don't farm, but maybe their population density is more our "norm") to come up with a 90% reduction in population. Sure, which 9 out of 10 people do I want to kill off? Can't answer that, but next time you're in a traffic jam, ask yourself, wouldn't it be better if 9 out of 10 of those cars weren't there? > > I am appalled, but not surprised, that the likes of Rifkin could > hold such opinions. What pieces of disgusting slime they are. > Fortunately, with something this important they will be ignored, > and, if they interfere, steamrollered. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu I am appalled that you want to create such a schism between cold-fusion enthusiasts and environmentalists. Hopefully there are a few, like me, who can enjoy/appreciate both technologies. (Never thought of environmentalism as a technology? For shame.) -- John Campbell ...!arizona!naucse!jdc CAMPBELL@NAUVAX.bitnet unix? Sure send me a dozen, all different colors. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjdc cudfnJohn cudlnCampbell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Ted Dunning / lanl talk yesterday Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: lanl talk yesterday Date: 19 Apr 89 16:22:56 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science in their coverage of yesterday's talk at lanl by pons, the albuquerque journal reported that pons said that the light water version of the experiment produced no excess heat. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Ted Dunning / Re: Thermal efficiency Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermal efficiency Date: 20 Apr 89 15:33:47 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science your perpetual motion detector is set too low. read on. In article <2806@pegasus.ATT.COM> psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: > > it is important to note among all of these calculations of thermal > efficiency that a considerable amount of the energy put into an F&P > cell comes right back out in the form of O2 and D2 gas. You're saying that the energy is used to disassociate hydrogen and oxygen, right? I'm with you so far. right... but this is a side effect of the apparatus. the primary effect is putting D into Pd. > these can be recombined in a fuel cell with very good efficiency to > generate electricity directly. Whoa, there. You're right, of course; but the implication seems to be that you can split water into two gasses, burn the gasses, and end up with more energy that you started off with. Both of those reactions are well-understood, and the energy out is the energy in (less waste). this is NOT the implication here. the point being made is that to have an effective fusion generator based on P&F's experiment, you have to generate the electricity to power the electrolytic packing. if you can recover most of the power wasted in electrolysizing water by using a fuel cell, you avoid the wasteful side trip to heat and back. this considerably impacts the total useable power output of the generator. for concrete example sake: assume that pons figure of fusion output equal 800% of waste heat is correct, and that total heat output without reconverting the d2 and o2 is 1.11 times electric input. waste heat is thus .11 of input, and fusion heat is 1.0 of input. electrolytic output is .89 of input (in the form of d2 and o2. with fuel cell recycling: convert the 0.89 of input back to electric power 0.8*0.89 = .71. convert the 1.11 to electricity at 30%, and get 0.33. thus we have our original input generated via recycling and fusion, plus useable output of 0.04. not real good, but kind of neat. this means that we are roughly at economic breakeven. now without fuel cell recycling: convert the 0.89 chemical energy to heat at 100% efficiency and get a total of 2.0 in terms of total heat output. now convert back to electricity to drive the reaction, and get 0.6. the generator is well below breakeven. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Chris Phoenix / More possible environmental objections Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: More possible environmental objections Date: 20 Apr 89 21:43:05 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. "Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. 1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. What right do we have to do that? 2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty ridiculous), people will be giving them. Anyone want to have some facts ready for them? (Note: Read "The Sahara" as "Any significant land mass that we'd irrigate more if we had cheap distilled water.") -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 20 Apr 89 21:19:58 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <330@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: ..speaking of Rifkin et al. > > How about "Granola Fascist"? I heard this at SDC in Denver last > year, and it's the most fitting description I've heard yet. I read a review of "Entropy" in Nature in which the reviewer took Rifkin to task for a number of amazing misrepresentations of science. For me the most disturbing accusation was the reviewer's claim that Rifkin indulges in the speculation that too much knowledge circulating in the general population is a form of "entropy" which should be minimized. Evidently in his utopia a small elite of environmentally and politically correct people manage knowledge as a sort of priestly elite. Presumably this would take care of the dangers of fusion power. I've never felt interested enough to actually read the book and see if this accusation was fair. (I also have no wish to contribute money to his activities by buying the book.) Has anyone actually *read* this book, and is he the shithead that this makes him out to be? -- 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: cuddy20 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / John Mundt / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: john@chinet.chi.il.us (John Mundt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 20 Apr 89 18:16:57 GMT Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > From a Seattle Time's cover story: (w/o permission) > > In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura > Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy > will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for > that." > > ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political > or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) > >------------ >Are their concerns reasnable? No problem!! We simply deny the Third World this potentially detrimental new form of energy! They will then be surely no worse off, according to the two people quoted above, and it will provide a boon for sociological research as a side benefit. :-) Several comments have derided the "Luddites" and dismissed them as being on the fringe -- which they might well be. However, they do sway public opinion in our democratic system where votes are not weighted by their enlightened value. Fusion has come just in time, now that the North Slope will be shut down shortly! Jefferson did warn about the tyranny of the majority, not to mention the necessity of an enlightened electorate... -- -------------------- John Mundt Teachers' Aide, Inc. P.O. Box 1666 Highland Park, IL john@chinet.chi.il.us (312) 998-5007 (Day voice) || -432-8860 (Answer Mach) && -432-5386 Modem cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMundt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Henry Spencer / Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Date: 20 Apr 89 19:56:14 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <19819@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes: >Beta particles are easily stopped, if I recall. A piece of paper >can in fact stop a beta particle... You're thinking of alphas; betas are somewhat more penetrating. Not enormously so, mind you. If beta particles were being emitted, you'd have to explain why at least the outer millimeter or two of Pd wasn't doing it. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / William Johnson / Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 20 Apr 89 20:58:59 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article , ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > > in their coverage of yesterday's talk at lanl by pons, the albuquerque > journal reported that pons said that the light water version of the > experiment produced no excess heat. What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. You may infer from this what you will regarding the mechanism of heat production, but the inference regarding press coverage is much more obvious, I think. The Albuquerque Journal is certainly not a newspaper in the class of the New York Times, but based on some other projects I've worked on that have seen print there, they also are used to presenting technical things and do a better job at it than most papers I read. If they can't quote Pons straight, I seriously wonder about some of the other articles that are coming out. -- "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: cuddy20 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Mary Holstege / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 20 Apr 89 23:37:57 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1363@naucse.UUCP> John Campbell responds to Paul Dietz calling those concerned about the environment in general and human overpopulation in particular "sociopaths": >I trust Ehrlich knows more about the issues than I do, but as a >self-proclaimed (albiet unpublished) environmentalist I find the >prospect of turning off those coal and fission plants pretty exciting. >Seems to me this should be the best thing to happen to our planet. >After all, the appetite for energy is directly responsible for North >Slope oil research, Brazilian rain forest destruction and a host of >other things I'd rather see stopped. I'm with John, here. I don't think it is particularly sociopathic to want a future for our grandchildren that includes more than just humans, human food, and vermin. I don't find it particularly sociopathic to want a population level that would permit me to live like a human being instead of a battery hen. Where I part company with Erlich is that I think cheap power, particularly a technology that looks like it might well work well on a small-scale local level, might be just the ticket to bring up development around the world. (And consequently bring population down; it seems to work that way.) I also find the prospect of better energy sources than coal, oil, and fission reactors in the hands of the irresponsible exciting. I have a great deal of respect for Erlich, despite his tendency to overstate his case at times. I don't think there needs to be an environmentalist/fusionaut rift; quite the contrary. Now Rifkin... the respect I have for Rifkin is contained in the nail parings of my little finger. Calling him a Luddite demeans the original Luddites, who were at least fighting for their livelihood. So far as I can tell, Rifkin fights for interviews. Every time I hear him open his mouth he misrepresents facts. He is either a fool or a scoundrel. He sure ain't no environmentalist. -- Mary Holstege@polya.stanford.edu ARPA: holstege%polya@score.stanford.edu BITNET: holstege%polya@STANFORD.BITNET UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!holstege cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenholstege cudfnMary cudlnHolstege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Brian Sturgill / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: brian@ms.uky.edu (Brian Sturgill) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 21 Apr 89 01:57:52 GMT Organization: U of Ky, Math. Sciences, Lexington KY In article , roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: .... > I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we > have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for > that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite > philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy > source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population > growth trend. .... While I in general believe it is possible that cheap energy would cause as much or more problems than it would solve, one problem that might be solved is the problem of too many people congregated in one place. Why do people congregate in cities? They find more things of value there (jobs, etc). Why are there more things in a city? It is more economical to have them there (other factories nearby, more resources readily available). With cheap energy and our advances in modern communications networks, it might be feasible for people to live spread out. Brian ---------- Brian Sturgill System Manager University of Kentucky Departments of Mathematical Sciences {uunet,rutgers}!ukma!brian brian@ms.uky.edu brian@UKMA.BITNET cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnSturgill cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / S Chandrashekha / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: chandy@brand.usc.edu (Sundaresan Chandrashekhar) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 02:26:49 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article <1989Apr19.164125.645@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: }:Well, it looks like phase 3 of the reaction to a major breakthrough }:("It's immoral") is beginning! Paul Ehrlich has said that cheap }:fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." And Jeremy }:Rifkin says "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." }: }:The argument [sic] is that by giving people cheap plantiful power, }:we'll be able to manipulate the planet more than we can now, which }:would be awful. Even worse, it could mean that larger populations }:could be supported (apparently, it upsets these sociopaths that so }:many other people exist). }: }:I am appalled, but not surprised, that the likes of Rifkin could }:hold such opinions. What pieces of disgusting slime they are. }:Fortunately, with something this important they will be ignored, }:and, if they interfere, steamrollered. }: }: Paul F. Dietz }: dietz@cs.rochester.edu I think you are missing the point these guys are trying to make. What they are saying, in essence, is that the problems of the world(overpopulation, pollution, ecological damage, etc.) cannot be solved by advances in science and technology alone. If we continue to treat the Earth as something meant for the explicit enjoyment of mankind, instead realising that we are just one of two million species in an extremely complex ecosystem, we will sooner or later destroy our fragile environment, and with it our chances of survival. We have a tendency to get carried away by our scientific achievements, often ignoring the heavy responsibility that comes along with them. We learned how to burn fossil fuels for energy, and it is causing the `greenhouse effect'. We learned how to manufacture and use CFCs, and are screwing up the ozone layer in the process. We learned how to make paper from wood, and are rapidly destroying our forests. And the list of our ecological misdeeds goes on. So, given our poor environmental record, one has every reason to be pessimistic about the eventual outcome of any scientific discovery. Which is not equivalent to saying that scientific research has to cease immediately - it only means that we have to analyse carefully the environmental effects of any new technology. In the past this analysis has almost always been ignored in the euphoria following new discoveries and inventions. -------------- chandra. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenchandy cudfnSundaresan cudlnChandrashekhar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Rob Warnock / Re: Abstracts of mit theory Originally-From: rpw3@amdcad.AMD.COM (Rob Warnock) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Abstracts of mit theory Date: 21 Apr 89 04:52:43 GMT Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA +--------------- | Paper 2: | consideration of this model suggests that phononic excitation and tritium | beta decay are unlikely initiators of fusion chains, but background radiation | sources may be. +--------------- So all we need to do is back a muon generator up to an F&P cell, and let a *few* muons kick off a lot of "fusion chains"??? Wouldn't be the first power plant that had a fairly hefty "exciter" stage... Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403 cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenrpw3 cudfnRob cudlnWarnock cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Brad Pierce / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 06:20:36 GMT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <16680@usc.edu> chandy@brand.usc.edu (Sundaresan Chandrashekhar) writes: > I think you are missing the point these guys are trying >to make. What they are saying, in essence, is that the problems >of the world(overpopulation, pollution, ecological damage, etc.) >cannot be solved by advances in science and technology alone. >If we continue to treat the Earth as something meant for the explicit >enjoyment of mankind, instead realising that we are just one of >two million species in an extremely complex ecosystem, we will sooner >or later destroy our fragile environment, and with it our chances of >survival. I don't know if that's really what these guys are trying to say, but I'd agree with it. << Examples of ecological misdeeds omitted. >> >Which is not equivalent to saying that scientific research has to cease >immediately - it only means that we have to analyse carefully the >environmental effects of any new technology. In the past this analysis >has almost always been ignored in the euphoria following new >discoveries and inventions. >-------------- >chandra. No, it means that humans must change their exploitative attitude towards the world. The proverbial "long run" always exacts a high price from the immoral. Technology just amplifies these consequences (or shortens the length of the long run). Our illusory "dominion" over this living planet blinds us to the real riches it can provide. Technology is good and so are people, but our philosophy of living is something else entirely. -- Brad cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpierce cudfnBrad cudlnPierce cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Donald Geddis / Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Originally-From: geddis@polya.Stanford.EDU (Donald F. Geddis) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,su.etc Subject: Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Date: 21 Apr 89 06:36:46 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1713@Portia.Stanford.EDU> cjh@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Christopher J. Hayes) writes: >>[Stanford Campus Report] the experiment >>involving heavy water produced 50 percent more heat than the same >>experiment using ordinary water > > The reporter made a slight error here. The heavy water >experiment produced 50% more energy (in the form of heat) than was put >in (in the form of electricity), while the ordinary water experiment >produced no more energy than was put in, according to the article in >the Stanford Daily. Assuming both experiments had the same amount of electricity put into them, we would have: Heavy water (out:in) 1.5 : 1 (50% more) Ordinary water (out:in) 1 : 1 which coincidentally yields [Heavy water out] : [Ordinary out] 1.5 : 1 (50% more) So both formulations of the experiment are correct. -- Don -- Geddis@Polya.Stanford.Edu "Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day..." -- Pink Floyd cudkeys: cuddy21 cudengeddis cudfnDonald cudlnGeddis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Stanley Kameny / Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Originally-From: stan@valley.UUCP (Stanley L. Kameny) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Date: 19 Apr 89 00:13:56 GMT The hot news in today's LA Times is that two chemists, Cheves Walling and John Simons at the University of Utah, using a mass spectrometer, have detected from one of the fusion experiments enough He4 output to account for all of the excess heat produced in the reaction. [Apparently, if you use a thin Pd cathode, you can see a small quantity of n + He3 and p + T reactions occurring, but not much heat; but if you use a massive Pd cathode, you get mainly He4 + heat. This explains the F + P results and also, by a similar mechanism, explains the deficiency of production of n and neutrinos by the Sun and other stars. -- my speculation (Stan Kameny)] stan_kameny@rand.org cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenstan cudfnStanley cudlnKameny cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / EFH100@PSUVM.B / Re: Startup time for experiments Originally-From: EFH100@PSUVM.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Startup time for experiments Date: 21 Apr 89 04:11:41 GMT Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing In article , (Michael McClary) writes: >...Please, let's not mistake "fast" or "inexpensive" for "bad." >Feynman did some very good (AND very showy) science with a C-clamp, a >pair of pliers, and a cup of ice water"... Yes, but recall that Feynman took the time to investigate the problem rather deeply AND perform his experiment ahead of time before he put his reputation on the line in front of everyone. He did not just "jump in head first." --Ed cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenEFH100 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Chuck Karish / Re: He4 found Originally-From: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 21 Apr 89 05:36:28 GMT Organization: Mindcraft, Inc. In article <1495@hub.ucsb.edu> hbo@nobbs.ucsb.edu wrote: > Another article on cold fusion appeared in today's (4-19) LA Times. Roughly >quoting, the reporter wrote "Helium-4, while the most abundant isotope of the >element in nature, is extremely rare as the product of fusion reactions." How does the reporter think the helium in stars formed? Spontaneous generation? Chuck Karish hplabs!hpda!mindcrf!karish (415) 493-7277 karish@forel.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenkarish cudfnChuck cudlnKarish cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Avatar / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 21 Apr 89 01:18:01 GMT Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: + 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul + Ehrlich. + Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's + the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, + In the euphoria over fusion power, UC Berkley anthropologist Laura + Nader says, many people just assume that cheaper, more abundant energy + will mean that mankind is better off, " and there is no evidence for + that." + ..Most problems in the Third World, for example, are social, political + or economic, not technological... (Ehrlich) + +------------ +Are their concerns reasnable? +--CF Will you please get real? None of these people are in a position to judge something like this, their concerns mirror their anti-technology mindset! NONE OF WHICH HAS A DAMN THING TO DO WITH 'SCI-PHYSICS' !!! Please, please...post this kind of garbage to alt.fusion, or talk.bs, or alt.religion.luddites or wherever..but please not here...here we are concerned with physics, not the sniveling babble of a bunch of cowardly idiots, most of whom have been quite vocal about their childish fears. To confound the issue, these people would object to the discovery of damn near anything that they feel Mankind does not "deserve"! Screw 'em! ..And you can quote me on that! (enough!) ;-) -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz ** cudkeys: cuddy21 cudensorgatz cudlnAvatar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Robert Woodhead / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 04:49:18 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? A good point, but man, by definition, is that animal that purposefully changes his environment to suit himself. The questions is not whether we have the right to do it, but _is it a change for the better?_ >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" Ok, you dump the salt back into the ocean (the ocean, btw, is VERY BIG AND VERY DEEP), and the water onto the land. Where does the water go? Think about it. Some gets evaporated and comes out as rain again (mostly over the ocean, as there is more ocean than land), some goes down and replenishes the water table, and most just runs off into rivers and goes back to the sea. Net effect : close to zero in the long term. If you desalinized enough water to cover the earth's surface chest deep, you would probably change the salinity of the oceans by 1/100th of 1%, if that. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. ...!uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The NY Times is read by the people who run the country. The Washington Post is read by the people who think they run the country. The National Enquirer is read by the people who think Elvis is alive and running the country..." cudkeys: cuddy21 cudentrebor cudfnRobert cudlnWoodhead cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / T Wells / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 21 Apr 89 04:39:57 GMT Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale In article roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: : In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: : : So at last the truth comes out. : : These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people : who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always : claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. : was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical : and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the : real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't : like mankind. : : I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we : have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for : that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite : philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy : source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population : growth trend. You may like technology, the environment, and mankind. However, you would benefit by getting some of your notions about them clearer. In most industrialized countries, it is not the case that there are too many people. In fact, in many of them, if it were not for immigration, their populations would decrease. And this trend is growing stronger. It is only in the *nonindustrialized* world, the world where technology is a distant dream, that population is out of control. There is plenty of room in the US. Cities exist, not because there is not enough room for the people, but because it is more economic for people to crowd together than to spread out. Fortunately for those of us who don't really like crowds, technology is changing the economics of cities; some day there may not even *be* large cities. --- Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill (BTW, I'm may be looking for a new job sometime in the next few months. If you know of a good one where I can be based in South Florida do send me e-mail.) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenbill cudfnT cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / cscmrs@csun.edu / Withdrawn... Originally-From: mx!cbcscmrs@csun.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Withdrawn... Date: 21 Apr 89 10:45:35 GMT Organization: CSU, Northridge School of Engineering & Computer Science The original paper has been withdrawn. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudencbcscmrs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Paul Dietz / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 11:42:30 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <1363@naucse.UUCP> jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) writes: > I find the >prospect of turning off those coal and fission plants pretty exciting. >Seems to me this should be the best thing to happen to our planet. Absolutely. Even more important, cheap clean energy is probably a prerequisite for world-wide industrialization, which is the only known way to reduce the birth rate. Ehrlich should have known better -- if the birth rate is not reduced, the death rate must eventually increase. What would *you* call a person who in effect advocates gigacide? > As a >young anthro student I calculated the % of arable land and used >a figure that I read about for the amount of space a bushman needed > ... to come up with a 90% reduction in population. Sure, which >9 out of 10 people do I want to kill off? Can't answer that, but >next time you're in a traffic jam, ask yourself, wouldn't it be >better if 9 out of 10 of those cars weren't there? Why should the population density of bushmen have any relevance to a modern society? I don't think I'd be better off if the world's population was 90% smaller. Large affluent populations mean scientific and technical progress occurs faster. Economies of scale reduce costs of production, and make a wider variety of goods and services available. And, frankly, I *like* people. >I am appalled that you want to create such a schism between cold-fusion >enthusiasts and environmentalists. Hopefully there are a few, like me, >who can enjoy/appreciate both technologies. I hope environmentalists see the benefits of cold fusion, and do not agree with the malignant misanthropy of Rifkin and Ehrlich. I do see a schism between "selfish environmentalism" (my view), which holds that we should be careful to avoid environmental damage that could harm us, and "Earth Mother environmentalism", a quasi-religion that gives nature moral precedence over mankind, even if that means mankind must suffer. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Bob Gray / Re: He4 found Originally-From: bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: He4 found Date: 20 Apr 89 14:10:28 GMT Organization: Edinburgh Concurrent Supercomputer Project In article <4822@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes: >"(A) claim came Monday from Italy. The National Agency for >Alternative Energy in Frascati, just outside Rome, said it has verifed >the experiment. It announced a press conference for today." Just to make things even more confused, if that is possible. According to a report on the BBC's "Tomorrow's World" on Tuesday evening, an Italian group had confirmed the experiment but using Duterium gas and a special electrode arrangement. Has anyone else heard of this report? Anyone in Italy reading this who would have presumably heard more about this? Bob. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenbob cudfnBob cudlnGray cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Svante Lindahl / Palladium - the bubble that burst Originally-From: zap@front.se (Svante Lindahl) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Palladium - the bubble that burst Date: 20 Apr 89 23:25:39 GMT Organization: Front Capital Systems, Stockholm, Sweden This is based on an article in the Swedish business daily "Dagens Industri", Thursday. The headline was "Palladium - the bubble that burst". The article states that the Italians have cold fusion using titan instead of palladium. Price of palladium is now going down sharply. From an all-time high of $180 per ounce it is now down to just above $160/ounce. Platinum, that also went up when Pd did, is now [Wednesday] $543.10/ounce, down $4 since Monday. The palladium market has been pretty dormant until the recent announcments of cold fusion. The price has been between $100 and $125 per ounce during most of the eighties. [A graph shows the price from January this year until now: $125 at new years, going up to $145 by March first, and stayin at $145 until late March, then quickly rising to $180, and finally going down even sharper than it went up.] Pd is used for electronics (50% in 1987), dental industry (31%), car industry (6%) and jewelry (5%). The main producers are Soviet Union and South Africa. SU produced 56%, or 1.8 million ounces, of the total 3 million ounces produced in 1987. SA produced about 1 million ounces. Supply has been following demand, and risen somewhat during the last two years, because of increased use in electronics. Even if cold fusion were to develop in such a way that demand would increase dramatically, there is no reason to worry about a shortage of palladium, says the analyst Johnsson Matthey. It will likely be at least ten years before commercial use of the new fusion process. By then, South Africa will have increased their production enough to meet demand. Should the price remain at todays high levels, new producers will emerge, and demand from todays large consumers would decrease. There are alternative materials that could be used both by the electronics industry and the dental industry. According to the very latest reports from researchers, it will be possible to use other materials than palladium for the new fusion process. Italian researchers reported Tuesday that they had conducted successful experiments with titan instead of palladium. Todays price of titan is $13 per kilogram, i.e. less than $0.50/ounce. Palladium is to a great extent a secondary product when mining platinum and nickel. If production of palladium was to rise, then the markets for platinum and nickel would not go unaffected, the metal analysts in London the predicts. -- Svante cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenzap cudfnSvante cudlnLindahl cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Donald Benson / Re: Thermal efficiency Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Thermal efficiency Date: 21 Apr 89 01:48:32 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > Whoa, there. You're right, of course; but the implication seems to be > that you can split water into two gasses, burn the gasses, and end up > with more energy that you started off with. Both of those reactions > are well-understood, and the energy out is the energy in (less waste). I doubt he meant to imply that. If a small percentage of the H fuses (I hope its small, or the experiments which melted down would have done a lot more!), then much of the electrical energy in was wasted by conversion to chemical energy. With fuel cells, it can be recovered. Was the experimental result something like: 1 unit electrical energy + heavy water -> more than 1 unit heat energy + O + H + He ? If so, they seem to be way ahead of the game. However, I wonder if they counted *all* the electrical energy put in over time, or just what was put in when the reaction took place. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Paul Dietz / Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Date: 21 Apr 89 12:43:58 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <56.UUL1.2#239@valley.UUCP> stan@valley.UUCP (Stanley L. Kameny) writes: >The hot news in today's LA Times is that two chemists, Cheves Walling >and John Simons at the University of Utah, using a mass spectrometer, >have detected from one of the fusion experiments enough He4 output to >account for all of the excess heat produced in the reaction. If d+d-->He4 is the fusion mechanism, then Pons' claims of 67 W/cc & 800 hours (not clear if this is at the same time) --> 200 MJ/cc --> 5e19 helium atoms/cc (about 300 micrograms), or about one helium atom per thousand palladium atoms. If the alpha particles carry the energy, this should cause massive damage to the metal lattice, which should be readily apparent. I do read that the Pd cathode becomes hardened after prolonged operation. I am told that He4 down to about 1e10 atoms can be detected by mass spec (1e4 atoms for He3). It is interesting that they did not report detection of He3. They should also look in control cathodes from H2O experiments and in virgin cathodes, to be sure this is no artifact, and test D2O cathodes to confirm that He4 levels increase with time. >[Apparently, if you use a thin Pd cathode, you can see a small quantity >of n + He3 and p + T reactions occurring, but not much heat; but if you >use a massive Pd cathode, you get mainly He4 + heat. Must we infer that d+d-->n+He3 or p+t reactions in fact occur? d+d-->He4 might make an energetic alpha particle that could make neutrons and tritium by reaction with lithium-7. Also, I wonder what the reaction rates for the (alpha,n), (alpha,t), (alpha,He3) reactions on palladium are, for E(alpha) = 23 MeV. These reactions should be faster in titanium (lower atomic number). Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Sean Bossinger / P&F replicated at the University of Florida Originally-From: sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Sean M. Bossinger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: P&F replicated at the University of Florida Date: 21 Apr 89 13:54:40 GMT Organization: UF CIS Department University of Florida researchers said Thursday [20-April-1989], that they have produced radioactive material in an experiment that lends further support to Utah scientists' claims of room-temperature nuclear fusion. University of Utah researchers last month rocked the scientific community by announcing they had created nuclear fusion in a glass jar at room temperature. Since then, researchers from around the world have been trying to duplicte their efforts and study the phenomenon. --The Alligator, Campus Newspaper, Friday April 21, 1989. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean M. Bossinger | USnail: 16220 s.w. 282 st | Dave, I think I Internet:sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu | Homestead, Fl 33033 | am okay now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudensb1 cudfnSean cudlnBossinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >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. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- 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: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >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 between a home cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >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. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- 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: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >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. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- 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: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >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. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- 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: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad ------------------- ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >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. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- 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: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / James Rouse / Re: fusion revisited Originally-From: james@tcom.stc.co.uk (James Rouse) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion revisited Date: 20 Apr 89 11:17:11 GMT Organization: STC Telecomms, Access Systems Engineering, Harlow. ESSEX In article <3088@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>1. The measurement of all that excess He4 is probably done by using a >>mass-spec. Then any D2 _atoms_ might act exactly like He4. >I presume you mean D2 _molecules_ (or D2+ ions). >You can't tell D2+ from He4+ (same charge and mass -- roughly), but >D2++ cannot exist, so you can be sure He4++ is what you think it is. He4++ has (approx) the same mass/weight ratio as D+. If the ionising potential in your spectrometer is high enough to make He4++ then it will also be high enough to cause D2 molecules to become D atoms and then D+ ions - which will give a peak in the same position as He4++. A better way to prove that helium is being produced is to look at the emission spectrum of the gasses. ----- James cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnRouse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 15:47:34 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett) writes: > > There are 2 issues: can this sort of experimental setup produce cold > fusion, and can it produce net energy output. [..stuff deleted..] > Now we just have to try to figure out the quantum mechanics, figure out > whether it can be scaled up, and figure out whether it will compete > cost-effectively with other energy sources. As previous posters have > demonstrated, if the energy density of the reaction can't be > dramatically improved (and we don't have much basis for speculation > either way here), then the capital costs of palladium are currently the > biggest problem - the cost of the fuel is negligable. Not many people > will spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate > an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts.... Of course, other metals > might work, although F&P say they have tried lots of others. > > -Neal McBurnett, att!druhi!neal Neal, think carefully about what you just said, * * * * "ever-lasting net output of 54 watts" * * * * That's 1.296 Kilowatt Hours per day, 38.88 per month. *** continuous *** Ten such cells keeping batteries charged would do me for the foreseeable future for a cost in fuel of only $1,500. You can add in a heck of a lot of associated costs before that would stop being a better deal than current electric/oil energy for a home. Sign me up as one willing "to spend over $150 for a troy oz. of palladium in order to generate an ever-lasting net output of 54 watts!" My only question now, is how can I easily determine the purity of a H2O/D2O solution? _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway A recent posting notified the world of the availability of: "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley University of Arizona S. E. Jones Brigham Young University From host unh.cs.cmu.edu. What is the net address of this host? I cannot connect to it without this information, as it is not in our lookup tables. Thanks, tom c cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 23:36:24 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >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. I'm just a lowly Programmer with a degree in Electrical Engineering, but does this really require "magic"? Wouldn't the milling process damage the crystalline lattice, at least at the surface? And, on the other hand, casting would let the lattice form "naturally". Could surface (or possible deeper) damage to the lattice affect the rate/possibility of diffusion into the rod? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!bucc2!pwh ......cepu/ cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ when? / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NSubNewsgroups: alt.fusion t.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fOrganiDate: 20 Apr 89 21:15:16 GMT ay Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway and the predicted 1000 watts per cm^3 Pd, what will the equivalent BTU output be? I'm interested in seeing a performance comparison between a home water (or pool) heater and using fusion to heat water. What sort of mechanism would be the most efficient to transfer heat from the Palladium/D20 to H20? /----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------\ | Craig Keithley | C43CJK@ENG1.GM.HAC.COM | | | GM DSO-SBO | C43CJK%ENG1.GM@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM | | \----------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------/ ------------------- Please! If you're sending msgs to either sci.physics, physics-digest, alt.fusion or fusion-digest. Please don't use dashed lines in your msgs. If you do, please make sure that they don't start in column 1, or that if they do, that they consist of less than 20 dashes. To those of us who get the digests noted above, a line of 20 or more dashes, beginning in column 1, is used as a message separator. When we 'undigestify' the digests, each set of dashes is used to define a separate msg. I know it sounds like a triviality, but what I do when I read these digests, what I do is to undigestify first. Then I delete the original file and the trailer(s). Then I reorder the msgs according to date, and read them in chronological order. Invariably the first couple of msgs I read are people's .sig files and the like. It's kind of a drag, especially if I want to email to the person, and the only valid address I can get for him is in the .sig. It can be kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks, tom c "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" ARPA: tcora@pica.army.mil -or- tcora@ardec.arpa UUCP: ...!{uunet,rutgers}!pica.army.mil!tcora BITNET: Tcora@DACTH01.BITNET cudkeys: cudenfusion cudszM ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Duncan Murdoch / Re: May he rest in peace Originally-From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: May he rest in peace Date: 21 Apr 89 12:47:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <12246@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I think there're now enough data to do a statistical test: > >What is the liklihood that all of the reported experiments are in error, >each in its own way, >or that cold fusion is real? Well, I've heard of 5 or 10 confirmations so far (lets call it 20 to be on the safe side), and rumours of "hundreds" of laboratories attempting them. If there are 400 labs (or more), I'd be willing to absorb all the confirmations into the usual 5% false positive rate :-) cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmurdoch cudfnDuncan cudlnMurdoch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Patrick Gaughan / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: pgaughan@dante.nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 14:26:54 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have on global warming... Patrick Gaughan pgaughan@nmsu.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpgaughan cudfnPatrick cudlnGaughan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press reporting of RTF results (was: lanl talk yesterday) Date: 21 Apr 89 13:47:23 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <24243@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > What he actually said was quite different. According to my notes, he tried > to do the experiment in light water with an electrode believed "good" on the > basis of experiments in the heavy-water cell, and excess heat did result in > the light-water cell as well (at a much lower level). Then he tried using > an electrode that, quote, "never got started" in the heavy-water cell. That > electrode didn't produce (excess) heat in the light-water cell either. Can someone explain to me why he shouldn't have worried about the retention of deuterium in this previously used electrode (or did he heat it in vacuo to drive it out?)? -- 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: cuddy21 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / David Singh / Halgenstein Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Halgenstein Date: 21 Apr 89 18:04:30 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY From 064400 bhadra dilip@e ( ga) on 04/21/89 at 10:30:29 Subject : 'Cold Fusion' Theory Here are some notes from what I understand to be Prof. Hagelstein's theory: The central part of his study is on the possibility of the exotic reaction D + D = He4+23.8Mev(Lattice). This amount of energy presumably does not go into Gamma rays but into energy that stays in the Pd-lattice and supposedly appears as heat. The model considered for the fusion process is that of a coherent transition between degenerate macroscopic states. As a result, one finds that the transition rate is proportional to the transition matrix element rather than to its square (as one may expect from Fermi's Golden Rule). This results in a considerable enhancement of the fusion rates at low tempe temperatures. The lattice-nuclear coupling could occur collectively and the fusion process itself may proceed via coherent transitions between degenerate degenerate states with different numbers of fusion events present. If the thermal relaxation is weak, then the coherence could persist over quite a large number of fusion reactions. If this is correct then a substantial amount of fusion energy could be generated for a given initial event ( which may be started by a cosmic ray or alpha particles ). The stimulation of such a coherent fusion reaction process may be attained in the presence of optical phonons, either thermal or nonthermal in nature. It is conjectured that the nuclear energy can be coupled, indirectly through the phonons, to current flow in the Pd, leading to the enhancement of the interaction matrix element.The fusion rate for the lattice is found to be proportional to: [N/T**1/3]*Exp-[const./T**1/3] where N is the number of deuterons in the lattice, T is the temp. and the const. includes reduced mass ,electron mass ,Planck's const,etc. The mechanism is n mechanism should not be restricted to DD reactions only. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.17 / Jack Jansen / H/D fraction. Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: H/D fraction. Date: 17 Apr 89 21:14:56 GMT Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the whole universe? Inquiring minds want to know..... -- -- Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: jack@cwi.nl dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Bob Clements / How much heat, worldwide? Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How much heat, worldwide? Date: 21 Apr 89 16:45:58 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I hate to add to the non-atomic-physics part of this discussion, but let me raise a technical (rather than political) point. The US and other highly industrialized countries consume much more energy per capita than the rest of the world. Suppose that with cheap clean energy we raise our consumption by, say, 50% and the rest of the world catches up. Every person in China, India, Malaysia, ..., starts consuming the same amount as us. How much heat is that? What happens to the global atmospheric temperature? Consider how much warmer the air is in New York City than out in the sticks in the winter. I would like to believe that the extra heat would all radiate away just fine, given a halt to the greenhouse effect when we stop burning hydrocarbons. But I would like to see some educated guesses about the real numbers. Anybody got a good almanac and the right mathematical model? /Rcc cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:29:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. The 4/20 San Francisco Chronicle has a LA Examiner story saying that the oceans are rising faster than previously expected. Do the polar ice caps have salt in them? If not, then we might have to worry about the oceans becoming *less* salty instead of more salty. If we desalinate and use enough water, maybe we can keep the rising ocean from flooding a bunch of coastal cities? -- Ramsey W Haddad ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Frans Otten / Limits on Cold Fusion paper Originally-From: fransvo@htsa.uucp (Frans van Otten) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Limits on Cold Fusion paper Date: 21 Apr 89 14:21:33 GMT Organization: AHA-TMF (Technical Institute), Amsterdam, The Netherlands Yesterday the FOM (Dutch research institute) gave a talk about hot fusion in tokamaks. Cold fusion was mentioned, but the tone was very sceptical. In their cold fusion experiment, all they have observed are bubbles (oxygen and D2). Anyway, I got a copy of the paper "Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter: A Parametric Study". As I haven't seen this one in ascii yet, I decided to type it out. The paper I got is a copy of a fax of a fax of a ... so there might be errors. Also, as ascii doesn't support Greek characters, I wrote them (where used) fully out (like sigma, beta etc). Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter: a Parametric Study J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D. Harley Department of Physics University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 and S. E. Jones Department of Physics Brigham Young University Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602 March 27, 1989 The rate of nuclear fusion of d-d hydrogen isotopes is established quantitatively as function of relative energy in the range of 500 eV; as function of maximum allowed hydrogen separation; as function of the effective mass of the electron and as function of the effective charge of the electron. It is shown that a neutron rate of 10E-33 /s/atom can arise from a combination of these effects within a perhaps plausible range of parameters. 1. Introduction In view of the recent interest generated within the scientific community regarding the possibility of cold fusion of hydrogen nuclei within metallic hydrides [1], we wish to present along with our experimental results, a few theoretical observations arising in part from our work in muon catalyzed fusion. It is well known that the fusion of hydrogen isotopes can be made to occur within 10E-8 to 10E-11 s at room temperature, in the presence of a muon [2]. Together with two hydrogen nuclei, the muon forms a muo-molecule of about 250 fm in size, squeezing the hydrogen nuclei together and allowing them to penetrate the Coulomb barrier that usually strongly inhibits their fusion. In an ordinary hydrogen molecule, which is about 0.74 angstrom in size, the fusion rate resulting from the electron binding is expected to be in the order of 10E-74 /s [3], or about 85 orders of magnitude less than in the case of the muomolecule. This extraordinary variation in magnitude, resulting from a decrease in the molecular size by a factor of 2000, leads one to suspect that even a small pertuberation of the hydrogen molecule's wavefunction could result in a dramatic change in the spontaneous fusion rate. This was the motivation leading to the first theoretical study undertaken [3] and to the experimental work [1] to which this note directly refers. We report here on the detailed but schematic results arising from variation of a few of the physical conditions arising in solid state, hydride environment, that could lead to an observable fusion rate of about 10E-23 /s. Our results are consistent with the experimental finding [1] of cold fusion in metal hydrides. In the next section, we examine a nuclear reaction picture of fusion resulting from a current of deuterons passing through a hydride and establish the values of the nuclear reaction constant. In section three, we examine the consequences of imposing boundary conditions on the hydrogen molecule's nuclear wave function, hoping to simulate in this way the confinement of nuclei within a lattice cell. In section four, we examine in turn the effect of introducing a "pseudo-mass", and "pseudo-charge", that would form a more tightly bound hydrogen molecule. We should mention here that none of this discussion in intended to form the basis of a realistic model for cold fusion; instead, we intend to provide an order of magnitude lesson for ourselves and to demonstrate the surprising sensitivity of the fusion rate to external conditions. In the theoretical methods employed we follow closely the established techniques developed for muon catalyzed fusion research. 2. A reaction description of dd fusion in a hydride The first analysis one might perform of fusion at low relative deuteron energy, is to simply compute the event rate resulting from a current of deuterons I, passing through a hydride containing a density of deuterons ro. The event rate resulting from such a system would the be: dN/dT = I/I0 * ro*v*sigma (1) Here, I0 is the current of a single particle, v is the velocity of the incident current, and sigma id the energy dependant cross section for dd-fusion. s can be easily computed from the S function, which is a slowly varying function of energy and is related to the fusion cross section by: 2S(E) -beta/sqrt(E) s(E) = ----- e (2) E For energies less than a few keV, the fusion neutron S-function is expected to be about 53 keV barn, and beta = 44.4021 sqrt(keV) [4]. The resulting event rate for an incident current of 1 ampere impinging on a hydride of hydrogen density 4*10E22 atoms/cm3 is given in figure 1, as a function of energy. One finds that it is possible to obtain an event rate of one fusion per second, if the incident current of deuterons has an energy of about 380 eV. It is unlikely that any mechanism for the generation of such energies can be found in a cold solid exposed to potentials of O(10 V). We can therefore conclude that any standard d-d collision description of an observable nuclear fusion process is unlikely to succeed. At this point let us introduce the reaction constant K0 related to the S function by: 2S K0 = lim ---------- (3) E->0 pi*alfa*mu where alfa is the file structure constant (=1/137), mu is the nuclear reduced mass. K0 is defined in such a way, that the fusion rate in a static environment where the relative wave function of two deuterons is PSI, is given by: 2 labda = K0 |PSI(0)| (4) K0 is the fusion constant describing the fusion from the l = 0 partial wave as the relative nuclear velocity goes to zero. For the d(d,n)3He reaction, of particular interest to us here, 2 K0 is found to be 1.48*10E-16 cm3/s. |PSI(0)| is the probability amplitude that the two hydrogen nuclei come close together; in the following calculations we shall use a nuclear interaction range of 3 fm for the d-d nuclear fusion. 3. The effect of boundary conditions on the (dde)+ ion In this section, we confine two hydrogen nuclei to be a sphere, on which we impose the condition that the nuclear wavefunction be zero on the boundary. As the sphere is decreased in size, the nuclei are squeezed together and the ground state energy is raised, as the amplitude of the wave function increases at the origin. In our calculation, we included the electron binding by obtaining the adiabatic effective ground state energy of a single electron as a function of the nuclear separation, and including it as an addition to the Coulomb repulsion in the calculation of the relative nuclear wavefunction. The Schrodinger equation for the nuclear wave function was solved numerically subject to the boundary conditions that the wavefunction be zero at some finite radius Rmax, and be regular near the origin. The result, presented as the fusion rate against the boundary size Rmax, is presented in fig. 2. The boundary size is given in units of electronic Bohr radius a0, which is equal to 0.529 angstrom. This can be compared to the equilibrium nuclear separation in a D2 molecule, which is 0.74 angstrom, and the lattice spacing in metallic hydrides, which is about 2.5 angstrom. Through this presentation we do not wish to imply that such "confined" hydrogen structures are actually present as static objects in hydrides, indeed our calculations show that such systems are typically unbound, thus allowing the hydrogens to move freely. When the d-d system is confined to regions of about 0.3 a0, we find that the fusion rate is of the order of 10E-24 /s. Although this is somewhat smaller than the lattice cell size, one should note that Coulomb forces between the deuterons and ionic centers in the metallic lattice could lead to such a configuration in a _dynamical_ process of hydrogen flow, leading to a change in the fusion rate by fifty orders of magnitude. The confinement of the d-d motion is of course only achieved at the cost of raising the system energy. The total energy cost of achieving a fusion rate of 10E-24 by confinement turns out to be about 70 eV in our schematic approach, consisting of relative nuclear energy of about 150 eV, less the electron binding. The relative nuclear energy is considered less than the estimate of about 400 eV in the previous section, _and_some_of_this_energy_ can_be_provided_by_the_electron_binding_to_the_confined_d-d_system. The exact amount would depend on the details of the hydride environment, a point we have not considered in this first calculation. 4. The effect of the electron mass and charge on the fusion rate It is interesting to speculate what the effect of a larger electronic mass and charge would be on the fusion rate in a true (dd-mu)+ molecule. It is known, from theory and experiment, that the fusion rate in a (dde)+ ion is about 10E11 /s, an increase of 85 orders of magnitude as compared to the fusion rate in the (dde)+ ion [3]. What is perhaps not so widely realized is that the last 33 orders of magnitude in the fusion rate are achieved at a cost of 103 MeV in the binding particle's mass; simply increasing the mass of the electron from 0.5 to 3.0 MeV results in an increase in the fusion rate by 52 orders of magnitude ! This is illustrated in fig. 3, which gives the fusion rate in a (dd-emeff)+ ion, "emeff" being at present a particle of charge -e and mass meff. As one can see, a fusion rate of 10E-23 /s is achieved for an effective mass of about 2.6 MeV, that is 5 times the regular electron mass. This result can be understood theoretically quite easily: the penetration probability (the Gamov factor) below the Coulombic barrier scales as sqrt(mu/m). Thus a change by factor 5 in the electron mass changes the suppressing exponent by more than a factor 2, resulting in the fusion rate quoted. Changing the mass by a factor 200 then makes the penetration integral much smaller, but other factors of the exact wavefunction lead to the fusion rates found in the field of muon catalyzed fusion, which are of the magnitude 10E11 /s. We have verified our calculations, that when the mass of the "effective" electron reaches that of the muon, we recover the expected result. At this point it should be noted that a similar gain in the fusion rate as due to the electron mass can be accomplished by reducing the relative nuclear reduced mass mu, e.g. by using the proton as one of the nuclear fusion particles. A second quantum mechanics exercise in playing with the fundamental constants is to vary the electron's charge. This was achieved by computing the effective potential between two d nuclei resulting from the presence of the electron, and then multiplying this potential by a factor eeff/e. The resulting fusion rate in a (dd-eeeff) ion is presented in fig. 4, as a function of the effective charge, where the mass is that of the electron's. The effective charge is varied between e and 2e, resulting in a variation in the fusion rate by 22 orders of magnitude. It is worth noting that an effective charge of eeff = 1.06 used in the (dde)+ ion reproduces the D2 molecules binding energy of -4.6 eV, with a corresponding fusion rate of 2*10E-73 /s. We therefore do not expect the addition of a second electron to a (dde)+ ion to significantly influence the fusion rate. This conclusion has also been reached in ref. [3]. The effect of the increased effective electron mass and charge is to bring the (dd-eeff) system closer together; again we see the high sensitivity of the response to the precise nature of the physical parameters governing the inter-nuclear properties. 5. The combined effects of confinement, mass and charge The final question we wish to address is what the combination of all of the above effects has on the fusion rate. To illustrate that the above effects are _cumulative_, we have selected particular combinations of Rmax, meff and eeff and computed the resulting fusion rates. These we then compare to the individual contributions, which are collected in table 1. We fist note that fpr Rmax = 6 a0 we recover the spontaneous fusion rate of the regular molecular ion, with meff/me = 1, and eeff/e = 1. For the set of parameters Rmax = 0.5 a0, meff = 2 me, and eeff = 1.5 e, we find the combined effect is to increase the fusion rate by no less than 16 orders of magnitude over and above any of the _individual_ contributions, as shown in table 1. meff/me efff/e Rmax (a0) labda fus /s 1 1.0 6.0 8.3*10E-77 1 1.5 6.0 2.3*10E-61 2 1.0 6.0 1.1*10E-47 1 1.0 0.5 5.7*10E-37 1 1.5 0.5 1.4*10E-36 2 1.5 1.0 2.8*10E-33 2 1.0 0.5 7.1*10E-21 2 1.5 0.5 1.4*10E-20 2 1.2 0.4 2.4*10E-16 2 1.5 0.3 1.6*10E-12 Table 1: The fusion rate resulting from the simultaneous variation of boundary conditions, effective electronic mass and charge, as compared to the fusion rate resulting from the individual variations of these parameters. [ Note: the exponents are hard to read, some might be wrong. ] 6. Conclusion While it is difficult to imagine how a collective effect in a metallic hydride could confine a d-d system to 0.5 angstrom, or/and increase the electron's effective mass to 1 MeV or effective charge to 1.5 it's [sic] usual value, the foregoing experimental result [1] and the encouraging order of magnitude considerations presented in this work suggest that one should investigate with great care the various systems of interest. Our numerical exercises have highlighted the extraordinary sensitivity of the (dde)+ fusion rate to pertuberations in the constants and the enviroment that determine the fusion rate. We wish to emphasize that the actual physical explanation of the experimental results of ref. [1] must account for the dynamical effect associated with the infusion of hydrogen isotopes into metal lattices, a point that has been nearly totally ignored in this work. Furthermore, our free use of the mass and charge of the electron as parameters in our calculations should not be construed to imply that we know of any means by which such changes can be arrived at in our context. Acknowledgements: We thank M. Danos, B. Muller and H. Rafelski for stimulating and interesting comments. This work was supported by the Advanced Energy Projects Division of the US Department of Energy. Figures (approximate). | Event rate for 1 ampere dN 10E9 + -- (/s) | * dt | * 10E6 + * | * | * 10E3 + * | * | * 10E0 + * | * | * 10E-3 + * | * +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--- 0.5 1.0 E (KeV) Figure 1: The neutron fusion event rate dN/dt for 1 ampere of deuterons impinging on a deuteron sample at density 4*10E22 /cc at energy E. | log (labda fus) | * Fusion rate vs. box size (labda fus in /s) -20 + * | * | * -30 + * | * | * -40 + * | * | * -50 + * | -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+- 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Rmax (a0) Figure 2: Neutron fusion rate as function of maximum allowable separation Rmax (a0) between two deuterons. | log (labda fus) | Fusion rate vs. effective mass (labda fus in /s) -20 + * | * | * | * -40 + * | * | * | * -60 + * | * | * |* -80 +--+----+---+--+--+--+-+-+-+-+++++ 1 2 3 meff (MeV) Figure 3: Neutron fusion rate as function of the electron effective mass in the (dde)+ structure. -50 + Fusion rate vs. effective charge log (labda fus) | * (labda fus in /s) | * | * | * -60 + * | * | * | * | * -70 + * | * | * | * --+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+- 1.0 1.5 2.0 theta eff / e Figure 4: Neutron fusion rate as function of the electron effective charge in the (dde)+ structure. References. [1] Jones, S.E., Palmer, E.P., Czirr, J.B., Decker, D.L., Jensen, G.L., Thorne, J.M., Taylor, S.F. and Rafelski, J. "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter", submitted to Nature. [2] Jones, S.E. Nature 321, 127-133 (1986); Rafelski, J. and Jones, S.E., Scientific American 257, 84-89 (July 1987). [3] Van Siclen, C.D. and Jones, S.E., Journal of Physics G, Nucl. Phys. 12, 213-221 (1986). [4] Jarmie, N. and Brown, R.E., Nuc. Inst. Meth. b10/11, 405- 410 (1985), and private communication. -- Frans van Otten Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam Technische en Maritieme Faculteit fransvo@htsa.uucp cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenfransvo cudfnFrans cudlnOtten cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Sean Bossinger / More information on Fusion at the Uni. of Fla. Originally-From: sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Sean M. Bossinger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: More information on Fusion at the Uni. of Fla. Date: 21 Apr 89 19:23:19 GMT Organization: UF CIS Department This reported from the Gainesville Sun, Friday 21 April 1989 Two University of Florida researchers say they have produced a radioactive isotope in an experiment that may partially confirm the claims of scientists who say they have achieved fusion at room temperature. Glen J. Scoessow and John A. Wethington Jr. of UF's nuclear engineering sciences department say their work with an electrochemical-nuclear cell resulted in the production of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. While the UF researchers do not claim to have achieved fusion, fusion of deuterium is the only known process that could produce tritium in such a cell. "Our conclusion from this experiment is that it has independently confirmed that an electrochemical-nuclear reaction is taking place, with tritium as a major product," Schoessow said. The UF cell uses the same materials as those employed by researchers at the University of Utah (palladium, platinum, heavy water, and lithium) who claim to have achieved fusion at room temperatures. And, while they did not set out to duplicate the Utah experiment, the UF team said their findings "partially confirm" the claims of Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton. "The point is that radioactivity was created with an electrochemical-nuclear reaction," Wethington said. "Supposedly, it is impossible for this to occur without fusion or some other nuclear reaction taking place." The UF team detected a tritium buildup of approximately one trillion atoms after 48 hours of electrolysis. After 100 hours, the buildup was almost 20 times greater. The researchers ran control experiments using heavy water without electrolysis, and the difference in tritium content between the treated cells was statistically so high that the margin of error is negligible, they said. Heavy water contains a type of hydrogen called deuterium, which is heavier than the more common hydrogen atoms. Heavy Water would provide an unlimited supply of fuel if the elusive goal of controlled fusion is ever achieved. Schoessow said they used the presence of tritium to test the results of the reaction because the substance can be measured with great accuracy. The UF researchers also subjected the palladium metal to a special treatment before the experiment, but they said that they were uncertain which of their adaptations may have contributed to their findings. ---John Gibbs, The Gainesville Sun (Friday, April 21, 1989) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean M. Bossinger | USnail: 16220 s.w. 282 st | Dave, I think I Internet:sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu | Homestead, Fl 33033 | am okay now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudensb1 cudfnSean cudlnBossinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / James Propp / Re: Cold fusion: an otherworldly explanation Originally-From: propp@cartan.berkeley.edu (James Propp) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion,rec.arts.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Cold fusion: an otherworldly explanation Date: 21 Apr 89 20:25:15 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <22974@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> I wrote: >Think about it. Isn't test-tube fusion EXACTLY the sort of joke you'd >expect from the guy who disgraced Morton Thiokol using just an O-ring >and a glass of ice-water? A couple of people have written to me asking for more details about this incident (which relates to Feynman's participation in the committee to investigate the explosion of the space-shuttle Challenger). Rather than tell the story, I'll tell you where to find the definitive account: in Feynman's recent (and, unfortunately, last) book, "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" Jim Propp cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpropp cudfnJames cudlnPropp cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Mike Pelt / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 20:20:02 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <1363@naucse.UUCP> jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) writes: *And I'm a sociapath also (by your definition). The planet seems *overcrowded to my backcountry mentality as it is. Perhaps Ehrlich *is right and population is our greatest "bomb" after all. As a *young anthro student I calculated the % of arable land and used *a figure that I read about for the amount of space a bushman needed *(they don't farm, but maybe their population density is more our *"norm") to come up with a 90% reduction in population. Sure, which *9 out of 10 people do I want to kill off? Can't answer that, but *next time you're in a traffic jam, ask yourself, wouldn't it be *better if 9 out of 10 of those cars weren't there? I rest my case. -- Mike Van Pelt "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in Video Seven front of Congressional hearings." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Meryl Streep cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Mike Pelt / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 20:31:25 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? Why not? The Sahara is the way it is (a parched wasteland) because humans chopped down all the trees for fuel. Using fusion for fuel, planting trees, and irrigating will put things back the way they were before. -- Mike Van Pelt "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in Video Seven front of Congressional hearings." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Meryl Streep cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / John Logajan / Rifkin suicide would set example Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Rifkin suicide would set example Date: 21 Apr 89 17:21:22 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN When Jeremy Rifkin, Paul Ehrlich, Richard Charter and Laura Nader (all quoted in the controversial article) voluntarily report to the gas chambers, I will begin to believe that they take their own arguments about over-crowding seriously. Until then I have to assume that they merely want to keep others unsuccessful so that they can better enjoy the advantages they have over those in less fortunate circumstances. Harsh? Perhaps, but upon who do present energy costs weigh most heavily, Rifkin and company, or third world children? That he would deny them this energy source in hopes that their numbers will decrease speaks volumes about the values this man places on lives other than his own. He truly is disgusting. To assume that this man holds the moral high ground is tragic. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / John Logajan / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 21 Apr 89 19:39:10 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN In article <838@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: > You may like technology, the environment, and mankind. However, you > would benefit by getting some of your notions about them clearer. Amen. > It is only in the *nonindustrialized* world, the world where > technology is a distant dream, that population is out of control. And, for those who care to investigate the matter, it is known why populations in non-industrialized countries are large. It has been found that the largest families are the most successful -- not the least successful, as might be assumed by not-so-carefull researchers. So population is not "out of control" in these countries -- it is a direct result of these people realizing what actions to take to insure their personal survival!!!!!!! As soon as it makes survival sense for them to reduce family size, THEY DO! In all cases where industrialization has been introduced, family size has rapidly dcreased. So the statement that industrialization will not solve the over- crowding problem is contrary to known evidence!!!!!! Humans the world round take actions to insure their personal survival -- including the reduction of pollution as soon as it becomes evident that it has harmful effects. Our difficulties with pollution is not because technology is out of control or capitalism is evil or man is basically evil. The problem with pollution is that it is a recently "discovered" problem. There was a very short period of time between the ozone/fluorocarbon link and efforts to reduce such emissions. So again, the problem is not EVILNESS or GREED, the problem was a lack of pertinent INFORMATION! -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Mike APD / Thermoelectric power Originally-From: mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts @ APD x1302) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Thermoelectric power Date: 20 Apr 89 22:21:22 GMT Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation, Beaverton Oregon Here's some info on the direct conversion of heat into electricity using a thermocouple, based on a detailed article in the McGraw- Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. A theromelectric generator consists of two dissimilar materials, one junction of which is in contact with a heat source, the other junction of which is in contact with a heat sink, generating electricity according to the Seebeck effect. Lead telluride is most widely used, doped to produce p-type and n-type material, and useful over a range of 80 to 800 degrees F. The maximum theoretical efficiency is approximately 18%. The best actual thermal efficiency of a real device is between 6% and 10%, obtained by operation between 80 and 1250 degrees F. The overall efficiency of radioisotope generators is about 5%. Specific powers of 12 watts/lb have been obtained. There are major problems blocking improvement and severe engineering problems involving low contact resistances, mechanical and thermal shock resistance, heat transfer, packaging, and long-term contamination of thermoelements by diffusion. Thermoelectric generators have been built and are used for many special applications, but are not used widely for these reasons. My comments: It looks to me heat engines would be preferred for fusion power plants, such as a Stirling engine or a steam turbine at 30 to 40% efficiency driving a conventional generator. Thermoelectric generation may be restricted to very small applications (like portable equipment) or very reliable, 'no-moving-part' requirements, like space missions. All of this assumes that cold fusion can be made to generate heat reliably and economically at temperatures high enough for decent thermal efficiency. On a related note, a recent theory has the fusion energy ending up in energetic electrons. If this is true, could a potential difference be arranged so we could draw off electric power directly? -- Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005 ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts OR mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenmbutts cudfnMike cudlnAPD cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Daniel Fuchs / Re: Cold fusion and Japan Originally-From: dmf@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Daniel Fuchs) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Japan Date: 21 Apr 89 21:44:18 GMT Organization: Stanford University I'd like to think the whole thing is legit, but one small point gives me pause: Why no positive results reported from Japan? The skills certainly exist in many government-run and private sector labs, yet nothing from Japan has yet shown up on alt.fusion or in any of the more mainstream media. What's going on -- do researchers in Japan not have access to D2O? -- Dan Fuchs My opinions are irrelevant anyway, so why bother reading them? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendmf cudfnDaniel cudlnFuchs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Jonathan Quist / The Colonial Side (was: Re: The dark...) Originally-From: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: The Colonial Side (was: Re: The dark...) Date: 21 Apr 89 19:05:52 GMT Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, Il. In article <2662@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: >> >> ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would >> let the planet support many more people than the current population of ... >It also might allow us to build habitats in space and >preserve the earth as a gigantic nature park. Then instead of riding "Space Mountain" at Walt Disney World, we could ride "Earth Mountain" on Walt Disney Satellite! :') But seriously. Does anyone know the geological details we got from the Mars probes? Assuming a suitable composition, with sufficient native water, could a low-radiation heat source be used for the terraforming of Mars over a short (50-100 year) period? (Please, no computations of the heat capacity of a planet vs. the heat output of a tabletop F-P reactor. I'm just wondering if large amounts of heat could do nice things like put free water in the atmosphere, start Earth-like weather cycles going, or whatever.) Time to brush up on my Esperanto for The Expansion... Jonathan E. Quist Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, IL Sol-3-60540-1031 Now, where's the tech manual for the Eludium Pu-38 Explosive Space Modulator? cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenjeq cudfnJonathan cudlnQuist cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 20 Apr 89 21:53:13 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > Long as we understand controlled fusion is a tool, not a solution, >then we'll avoid most of the problems the naysayers are mumbling about (even >at that, it's a tool that isn't even in existence; practical applications are >decades off). Who necessarily needs a "solution"? Let's use it as a tool to leave this gravity well and START OVER FROM SCRATCH. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...uiucdcs\ Pete Hartman ......noao >!bradley!pwh ......cepu/ INTERNET: bradley!pwh@a.cs.uiuc.edu ARPA: cepu!bradley!pwh@seas.ucla.edu cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Kevin Scott / Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Originally-From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups Subject: Cross Posting from sci.physics Subject: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 22 Apr 89 01:47:20 GMT Date: 21 Apr 89 00:46:42 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Organization: Computer Center, UCSF Originally-From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups Subject: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 21 Apr 89 00:46:42 GMT Reply-To: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Organization: Computer Center, UCSF Could someone crosspost this to alt.fusion? This is a call to vote for the newsgroup sci.physics.fusion as per the news.groups guidelines. A discussion period of more than two weeks has passed since <910@zorch.UU.NET>. Sci.physics.fusion is for discussing fusion and fusion related topics. Technicly this is a movement of a newsgroup alt.fusion to an area of wider distribution. The goal is to make fusion related articles available to everyone and to curtail the crossposting to sci.physics. The group is to be unmoderated. Note: The voting period will be 30 days. Votes must arrive at kscott@cca.ucsf.edu before midnight May 20 to be counted. Votes must be mailed, not posted to the net. Votes must unambiguously state yes or no and state the name of the newsgroup. ______ Thank you, Kevin Scott kscott@cca.ucsf.edu If you want to vote, try hitting the F key and checking one of these boxes or deleting the unwanted line. [ ] I vote for moving alt.fusion to sci.physics.fusion [ ] I vote against moving alt.fusion to sci.physics.fusion -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenkscott cudfnKevin cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Perry Metzger / Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 22 Apr 89 02:46:35 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ According to some people I have spoken to, milled metals generally have had the crystaline structure of the metal disrupted near the surface by the milling process, and are thus not suitable for use in many chemical processes. This would appear to be something that an electrochemist trying to reproduce the experiment would take for granted, but a nuclear physics expert might not. Reportedly, Pons has stated that the experiment does not run with a milled palladium electrode he has been using as a "blank" in setups. Could someone from LANL confirm or deny the rumor that the initial work at LANL was being done with milled palladium electrodes? Perry cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenperry cudfnPerry cudlnMetzger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / w25y@vax5.CIT. / Irrigating the Sahara Originally-From: w25y@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Irrigating the Sahara Date: 22 Apr 89 03:21:55 GMT Organization: Cornell Information Technologies, Ithaca NY I have seen people raise various objections to using fusion to distill seawater and "irrigate the Sahara". Two observations: a) Why waste time and money irrigating the Sahara when there is plenty of INHABITED farmland, with inhabitants who would pay dearly for the water? b) The Sahara is a MAN-MADE desert. Would irrigating it necessarily be worse than overgrazing it in the first place? -- Paul Ciszek W25Y@CRNLVAX5 Bitnet W25Y@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Internet "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse." --Bruce Cockburn cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenw25y cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / L Hutchinson / Any CNFers going to CLEO? Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Any CNFers going to CLEO? Date: 21 Apr 89 20:21:44 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. Are any of you CNF news junkies going to CLEO next week? I would like to get a group together over lunch or dinner to have a gossip session on the technical/scientific aspects of P&F's work. If you are interested, take a look at the messages bulletin board from time to time. I will put up a note describing where and when to meet. I just wish I had thought of this a little earlier -- I apologize if you read this _after_ you return from CLEO. I wonder if the subject might come up during the "Progress in Inertial Confinement Fusion" sessions (room 309, Monday)? I suspect that they will have a policy of not talking about CNF. Otherwise I would think the seminars might stray just a tad from the anounced topic! P.S. CLEO => Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics Baltimore Convention Center 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: cuddy21 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Thant Tessman / Re: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Originally-From: thant@horus.SGI.COM (Thant Tessman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Growing Colder Date: 20 Apr 89 16:09:01 GMT Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <1989Apr19.193444.5162@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <2593@cps3xx.UUCP> porkka@frith.UUCP (Joe Porkka) writes: > > >If we suddenly get free energy, will these ills go away, or will > >the rich get richer.... > > The most likely effect, in the industrialized countries, is the same one > that's been happening for a long time: the rich get richer... *and* the > poor get richer, just not as quickly. Comparing the poor to the rich > will always make the present day look bad; try comparing the poor today > to the poor a few centuries ago. Hear hear! (Although there is definately a diversion of funds (read: taxes, trade restrictions, unions, etc.) that keep the poor poorer than they would otherwise be.) It's also worth noting that it's in the poorer countries that the population is growing the fastest. In poor countries, childeren are considered a resource, and people *try* to have as many as possible. How do you cure this? A thought that keeps me less woried is that the military-industrial complex makes money off the threat of nuclear war, not nuclear war itself. The world already produces enough food to feed everyone. Cures have been found for most the world's (previously) major diseases. The problem is one of distribution. If someone builds a fusion powered, self contained, inexpensive food machine that you dump rocks and garbage in on one side and out comes food on the other, it will be outlawed, and only people with 'liscences' will be allowed to have them. thant@sgi.com cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenthant cudfnThant cudlnTessman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / L Hutchinson / Inside story. Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Inside story. Date: 21 Apr 89 20:45:42 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. An informant tells me that Pons and Jones colaborated early on. At some point they decided they were not talking the same language (physics vs electro-chem) and they decided to sever communications. Pons submitted a paper to Nature and they chose Jones as a referee. At this point Pons went to the head of the department who went to the head of the university. They brought in Edward Teller who stated that their results could not be explained with classical physics. They then decided to go public. And the rest is chaos. Any confirmation/refutation? Also, I hear that Fort Monmouth in NJ has had 10 people working for 3 weeks with no success. 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: cuddy21 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Abhay Sawant / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 21 Apr 89 21:30:31 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I think both extreme positions (1. that fusion promises a solution to all the ills of mankind and 2. that if anything, it's going to make the planet a more miserable place than where we started out) are pretty unwarranted. It's pretty obvious that a wide variety of human ills aren't really prone to technological fixes. A little of Genghis Khan popped up in Hitler and Stalin, and i have every confidence in our ability to go through such episodes (witness Cambodia) again. At the same time, if the *well-being* of an average human is considered, i think there is a very clear feedback from progress in science to enchanced wellbeing. From the Industrial Revolution to the age of electricity and automobiles to electronics and communication, advances in science and technology have finally impinged upon the existence of ordinary people on a massive scale. I'm pretty optimistic that cold fusion technology would do the same. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You're never too old to have a happy childhood. ajay shah (213)745-2923 or sawant@nunki.usc.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudensawant cudfnAbhay cudlnSawant cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 21 Apr 89 22:32:00 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway COLLOQUIUM Tuesday, 25 April Fermilab Auditorium 4 PM "Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter" Prof. Bart Czirr (one of Steve Jones's gang) Brigham Young University Coffee and cookies at 3:30 in the 2nd-floor lounge. ------------------------------------------------------- Hmm, what should I say for global distribution? Fermilab is about 40 miles due west of downtown Chicago. Look for a lone 17-story building sticking out of a flat prairie. Get off Interstate 88 and head north on Illinois 59, turn left at Batavia Road, and head for Wilson Hall (the big building). Swithchboard is 840-3000, Public Information is 3351. ______meson Bill Higgins _-~ ____________-~______neutrino Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory - - ~-_ / \ ~----- proton Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET | | \ / NEW! IMPROVED! SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS - - Now comes with Free ~ Nobel Prizewinner Inside! Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Mark Brader / Re: Translation of Swedish fusion patent article. Originally-From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Translation of Swedish fusion patent article. Date: 22 Apr 89 00:34:34 GMT Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto I can't resist (as the superconductor said). Lars-Henrik Eriksson translates: > Today he is almost forgotten, you have to leaf through modern Swedish > encyclopediae for a long time before finding his name. ... Someone really should tell the Swedes about alphabetical order. Thanks very much, Lars-Henrik, for posting this fascinating article in English. -- Mark Brader "... there is no such word as 'impossible' in SoftQuad Inc., Toronto my dictionary. In fact, everything between utzoo!sq!msb 'herring' and 'marmalade' appears to be missing." msb@sq.com -- Douglas Adams: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency This article is in the public domain. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmsb cudfnMark cudlnBrader cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Ted Dunning / Experimenters note pad Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Experimenters note pad Date: 21 Apr 89 23:46:02 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science I am interested in starting a mailing list for people active in cold fusion experiments to trade tips, techniques and suggestions. Unfortunately, I can know of only three regular net contributors who are actually involved in replication work, and would really think that there need to be more people in the group if it is to be of much help. It would be nice to moderately restrict the distribution of this group to improve the signal to noise ratio, and, at the discretion of the actual experimenters, to restrict redistribution and poor quoting of partial results. This is not intended to abnormally restrict information flow, but to provide a forum for experimenters to exchange information without the worry that they will see their partial (and potentially very misleading) results in the morning paper. In particular, I have been very happy with the accuracy and timeliness of the networkers and applaud the extraordinary efforts of those who have provided translations or who have manually keyed in article preprints. Could people who are interested in being on such a mailing list send email to me? People who just have comments are also welcome to send them to me as well. ted@nmsu.edu ted at nmsu should work as a bitnet address cudkeys: cuddy21 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Donald Benson / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 21 Apr 89 15:42:34 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > (not some "shock wave") perhaps made fusion occur. It might also > explain cathodes that become red hot when removed from the heavy > water. Another explanation would be that absorbed hydrogen catalytically combines with oxygen. You would have to repeat this experiment while testing for alpha, beta, neutrons, He, or whatever. I don't have my books handy. How much energy is released in fusing enough H to produce some quantity, say, 1cc @ ambient pressure, of helium? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Tim Maroney / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 21 Apr 89 17:41:26 GMT Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco Geez Louise, let's invite all the hard-liners out to a picnic and bury them in radioactive waste. Point one: Low-radiation fusion (like the P&F experiment seems to show) could theoretically eliminate many of the more destructive forms of power generation, especially fossil fuels and nuclear fission. An end to oil spills and partial meltdowns is a wonderful thing, and of course coal and oil burning and nuclear fission also have hundreds of other waste products which we could stop dealing with. Point two: Cheap energy can be used to disrupt the environment, and will be used to such purposes as long as there's a buck in it. The projections about increased reduction of rainforests, increased strip mining, and so forth, are hard to refute. If there really is a cheap energy breakthrough, these seem inevitable consequences. Governments are going to have to start treating the environment as a serious issue, or the costs of fusion could easily outweigh the benefits. Point three: The costs can be minimized through government action to protect the rain forests, limit strip mining, and so forth. Point four and final: There is no such thing as an unmixed blessing. Anyone who thinks there is, especially from technology, is an idiot; far more of an idiot than those who subject each technological innovation to a round of adversarial criticism. We may not always agree with technology critics, any more than we always agree with defense attorneys, but we ought to be glad there's an adversarial system in place. The same cannot be said for the nearly mindless technology boosters. Criticism always serves a useful purpose, but cheerleading does not. -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "Do what you wanna, do what you will; Just don't mess up your neighbor's thrill. And when you pay the bill, kindly leave a little tip To help the next poor sucker on his one-way trip." - Frank Zappa, "You Are What You Is" cudkeys: cuddy21 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMaroney cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Tim Maroney / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 17:49:53 GMT Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? With due respect to Chris, I should point out that his presentation of this idea was in the capacity of devils advocate. The answer is easy enough. The Sahara Desert is not a naturally ocurring feature. It is former grassland that was massively overgrazed by nomads in prehistory. It is one of the greatest ecological disasters created by humanity, a result of the technology of animal herding, and it is incumbent on us to repair it if at all possible. I suspect most environmental activists who would be inclined to make Chris's point are already cognizant of this fact. -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." -- Thomas Jefferson cudkeys: cuddy21 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMaroney cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Samuel Fuller / Population Explosion and Cold Fusion Originally-From: sbf10@uts.amdahl.com (Samuel Fuller) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Population Explosion and Cold Fusion Date: 22 Apr 89 02:54:50 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Are they still teaching that population explosion garbage? How can cheap energy make more babies? 'Honey, this fusion heater in the house sure makes me horny!' If cheap energy increases the rate of population growth on the Earth, it is only because it increases the Earth's capacity to support us. Most likely, the status quo will be maintained. There aren't too many people. There are too many hungry people and there are too many fat people. Fusion promises heat and power without pollution. I find it hard to believe that people can find fault with it. Sam Fuller / Amdahl System Performance Architecture cudkeys: cuddy22 cudensbf10 cudfnSamuel cudlnFuller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Perry Metzger / Irrigating the Sahara Originally-From: perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Irrigating the Sahara Date: 22 Apr 89 04:29:49 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ I was the person who first mentioned irrigating the sahara with distilled water, and I haven't seen so much as one acknowledgement. :-) Perry PS On the topic of Rifkin and company slowing research, let me only remind people of something K. Eric Drexler has often said about the possibility of slowing technological progress. People in certain democratic countries may be able to stop research within their own borders, but no such restraints every apply to totalitarian regimes. Trying to stop a technology whos time has come is impossible. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenperry cudfnPerry cudlnMetzger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Michael Nolan / Re: H/D fraction. Originally-From: nolan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael C Nolan) Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.fusion Subject: Re: H/D fraction. Date: 22 Apr 89 04:58:38 GMT Organization: University of Arizona, Lunar and Planetary Laboratory In article <8036@boring.cwi.nl> jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: >Is the figure of 1 deuterium per 1000 protons a figure specific to >earth, or is it also valid for the rest of the solar system, or even the >whole universe? > The D/H ratio varies widely even in our own solar system. Standard Mean Ocean Water (SMOW) : 156 ppm (parts / 10^6): the ``standard'' D/H ratio primordial solar nebula: about 1/8 of that carbonacious meteorites: up to 30-100 times that Giant Planets: varying from 20 to 170 ppm Comet P/Halley: 60 ppm < D/H < 480 ppm Venus: 20 to 200 ppm depending upon altitude (increasing with altitude) The error bars on these tend to be large, but the range is probably indicative of the truth. I have references for many of these, if anyone cares, but the collection is from a Ph. D. dissertation (D. H. Grinspoon, 1989 (fitting, isn't it.)). -- nolan@hiips.lpl.arizona.edu; ...!noao!solpl!hiips cudkeys: cuddy22 cudennolan cudfnMichael cudlnNolan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Doug Roberts / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 22 Apr 89 01:38:52 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <838@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: > In article roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: > : In article <1989Apr20.105216.28475@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > : > : So at last the truth comes out. > : > : These "environmentalists" (i.e. neo-Luddite eco-guerrillas, not people > : who have valid concerns about environmental safety) have always > : claimed that the reason they were anti-industrial, anti-nuclear, etc. > : was because of all the air pollution, water pollution, and chemical > : and radioactive waste that was a "danger to mankind". Finally, the > : real reason comes out: they are anti-technological because they don't > : like mankind. > : > : I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we > : have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for > : that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite > : philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy > : source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population > : growth trend. > > You may like technology, the environment, and mankind. However, you > would benefit by getting some of your notions about them clearer. > > In most industrialized countries, it is not the case that there are > too many people. In fact, in many of them, if it were not for > immigration, their populations would decrease. And this trend is > growing stronger. > > It is only in the *nonindustrialized* world, the world where > technology is a distant dream, that population is out of control. > I repeat: go visit Mexico City or Los Angeles for examples of population out of control. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Donn Seeley / alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: alt.fusion in the news Date: 22 Apr 89 05:56:27 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept I achieved my allotted minutes of fame on Wednesday, although it was only two or three minutes total and it went on display in the local village rather than in the global village. Alt.fusion received its first and hopefully only exposure to the regular media. I don't know if we need help from local TV news to make alt.fusion seem inane or banal: ======================================================================== Nourse: ... spreading all the chitchat around. News Specialist John Hollenhorst explains that. [Cut to CS staff lab, where Seeley walks over to a color HP 9000/370 monitor and sits down. A pile of HP disks marked with blue Post-It notes sits next to the monitor; on the wall is the 'Explanation for Geologic Map of Wyoming', by J D Love and Ann Coe Christiansen.] Hollenhorst: If you're a scientist, you have a computer, right? And so do thousands of other scientists around the world. And many of them are tied together by something called 'Net News', a sort of electronic 'bulletin board'. [Close-up of subject lines from alt.fusion.] Lately, Net News has been jammed with news about the hottest story in science, 'cold fusion'. [Caption: Donn Seeley, U of U Computer Sciences [sic] Dept.] Seeley: Oh, there's incredible excitement, people are starving for information here. And one of the reasons why they pay a lot of attention to this is because the information gets to them fast. [Close-up of text from an alt.fusion article.] H: Some of the computer chitchat is serious, news about the hundreds of experiments under way around the world, the latest theories on what's really happening. [Close-up of Woody Allen quote in Ethan Vishniac's .signature.] But this hi-tech rumor mill also carries gossip, jokes and wild speculation about fusion. [Cut to Seeley, gesturing fatuously.] S: Anybody can send anything they want to this and so the actual value of the article depends on who it came from. H: Is some of it not very useful? S: A lot of it is not very useful. A lot of it is very entertaining. [Caption: John Hollenhorst, Eyewitness News; he sits in Seeley's chair and points at the screen; cut to close-up of sci.physics article by Frank Reid.] H: Here's an example: The computer wizards are trying to figure out what the fusion process should be called once it goes commercial. This writer proposes calling it 'Mr Fusion' but he says Pons and Fleischmann better hurry before they're beaten by Fusion-san, Herr Fuzion or Comrade Fusion. [Scene from BACK TO THE FUTURE -- voice-over:] H: 'Mr Fusion.' Get it? You remember, in BACK TO THE FUTURE. ['Wait a minute. What are you doing, Doc?' 'I need fuel!' Close-up of Mr Fusion.] H: So now cold fusion has a nickname, borrowed from a movie. [Cut back to Seeley; close-up of Howard Owen's sci.physics article touting Mr Fusion as the fair alternative to the P/F vs. F/P Process.] It also has a fan club of optimistic scientists around the world and a legion of skeptics, all gossiping up a storm on a world-wide electronic chatterbox. John Hollenhorst, Eyewitness News at the University of Utah. ======================================================================== I haven't the faintest idea who clued Channel 5 in about alt.fusion or gave them my phone number. My boss wasn't too happy to see them but we got away in reasonable shape and with some free publicity besides. On Thursday night Channel 5 aired a 1-hour fusion special. This was remarkably information-free, but it did contain some interesting non-technical tidbits. A wonderful quote at the beginning helped to set the tone: 'Stan and I thought that this experiment was so stupid, we decided to finance it ourselves,' said Martin Fleischmann. You'll never guess whom Channel 5 selected as their noted fusion futurist -- none other than Dr Jerry Pournelle, interviewed live, who gave us another great quote: 'I have more information in one place than anybody in the world.' He came up with at least one wonderfully brainless bit of bragging: he claimed that cold fusion solves the pollution problem, because given the energy, he will be able to reduce the waste to its constituent elements. No one suggested reducing Jerry to his constituent elements, however. The show went on to look at the competition between the (state-owned) University of Utah and (church-owned) Brigham Young University. It seems that a week or so before the fateful press conference, U of U president Chase Peterson visited BYU to discuss the rival fusion projects. According to (church-owned) Channel 5, Peterson suggested that the two universities both sit on their discoveries until Nature published their respective landmark papers in the same issue. BYU officials supposedly agreed, and hence they were rather disturbed when the U conducted a press conference to claim all the glory. When Channel 5 interviewed the BYU officials for the show, they were quite cynical -- they were sure that money was the main motivation for the early U of U announcement. Chase Peterson of course denies that any deal was struck. Next came a profile of Stanley Pons. Pons grew up in North Carolina, did his undergraduate work at Wake Forest University, then went off to work for his father's textile company. Eight years later he decided to return for an advanced degree and enrolled at the University of Southampton in the UK, where he studied under Martin Fleischmann. Pons and Fleischmann became good friends, and when Pons moved to Utah, Fleischmann came to visit two or three times each year. The idea for cold fusion started during one of these visits; Channel 5 showed tape of Mill Creek Canyon, one of my own favorite hiking places, and gave us a tour of Pons's kitchen. Pons enjoys cooking, and he and Fleischmann would often spend an evening chopping vegetables and scribbling formulae on a convenient white board. Pons has two pre-teen kids -- I think their names are John and Joyce. (This makes the rumors about Pons's son and the hole in the concrete rather difficult to believe...) Pons likes to work on his PC and listen to rock music -- we are told that his favorite band is Dire Straits. Pons's wife says that Pons and Fleischmann discussed the concept of cold fusion for a long time before actually trying an experiment... The show went on to interview Utah legislators about the prospects for the economy in the advent of commercial cold fusion. It was not a pretty sight. Some sample (slightly paraphrased) quotes: 'We wouldn't have to worry about taxes,' the idea perhaps being that Utah would turn into another Saudi Arabia with a guaranteed income for all citizens; 'we could fund our whole education system,' as though we won't want to if cold fusion doesn't work out; 'we can extract all the heavy water we need from the Salt Lake,' and get free minerals besides, not taking into account just how corrosive Salt Lake 'water' is to almost all materials. You could almost see university and state officials drooling; it reminded me of a sight I encountered last weekend on my bike -- two large dogs standing rigidly at attention next to a woman barbecuing dinner on a hibachi. Next week Pons and Fleischmann will testify before Congress on behalf of Rep. Wayne Owens's bill to establish a fusion technology center in Utah. Almost makes you forget about the suggestion made by tax protesters last year that the University stop doing research and fire redundant faculty to save money; or for that matter the budget cuts a couple years ago that called for almost 100 faculty and 200 staff to be laid off. Gotta run, the Mr Fusion just pinged, 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 PS -- Except for the Hollenhorst transcript, which came directly from the videotape, everything is based on my usual vague and inaccurate notes, so take it all with a few milligrams of lithium. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Dennis Thurlow / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 21 Apr 89 21:04:55 GMT Organization: AT&T NSSC S. Plainfield, NJ >>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 1910 model of this car was probably the best automobile ever made. Henry Ford exploited the fear of boiler explosion (actually impossible, as there was a release valve) to promote his car. The Stanley brothers did not belive in advertising, and their market dried up. There are a few of these cars around with over 600,000 miles on them, that have never had a major overhaul. -nsscb!det cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendet cudfnDennis cudlnThurlow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Mark Zenier / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 21 Apr 89 23:55:40 GMT Organization: SSC, Inc., Seattle, WA In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu>, cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > (w/o permission) > > "And even if it were, given mankind's dismal record in managing > technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is > 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,' Stanford biologist Paul > Ehrlich. The byline for this article is actually "Paul Ciotti, Los Angeles Times". Mark Zenier uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz markz@ssc.uucp uunet!amc! uw-beaver!tikal! cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenmarkz cudfnMark cudlnZenier cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / Bob Pendleton / Re: "Places that *don't* confirm cold fusion" and a request. Originally-From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: "Places that *don't* confirm cold fusion" and a request. Date: 19 Apr 89 16:53:21 GMT Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah From article <7756@fluke.COM>, by blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski): > I concur that there may be a pattern, but I'm not sure the pattern that I > observe is the same as the one the author comments on. In yesterdays (April 18, 1989) Salt Lake Tribune Dr. Pons was quoted as saying that he has recieved private confirmation of the P&F results from over 60 instituions. People aren't taking a stand on this. I think everyone is trying to be the first to explain it or to find something unique and patentable about it. Not to mention security restrictions at the national labs. A request: I'm sitting about a mile from Dr. Pons's office. The local papers, T.V., even the rock'n roll radio stations, are full of coverage of fusion. What is the local coverage like in the rest of the world? I'd appreciate it if people could send me a very short note describing local coverage in your area. I know I'm taking a chance on getting swamped, but my curiosity on this subject is driving me nuts. Thanks Bob P. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Paul Hudson / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: paul@moncam.co.uk (Paul Hudson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 21 Apr 89 11:33:20 GMT Organization: Monotype ADG, Cambridge, UK In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu>, cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > From a Seattle Time's cover story: > .... > > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, ... > > ..And clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. > > ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would > let the planet support many more people than the current population of > Are their concerns reasnable? > --CF Nope. Just as bad as the people who say "We should determine what you read, see ...". "Energy censorship"? You may only use energy for what we say you can. Paul Hudson Snail mail: Monotype ADG Email: ...!ukc!acorn!moncam!paul Science Park, paul@moncam.co.uk Milton Road, "Sun Microsysytems: Cambridge, The Company is Arrogant (TM)" CB4 4FQ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnHudson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Paul Hudson / Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Originally-From: paul@moncam.co.uk (Paul Hudson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Heat production from cold fusion reported at Stanford Date: 21 Apr 89 13:15:26 GMT Organization: Monotype ADG, Cambridge, UK References: <18284@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <8593@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <1708@Portia.Stanford.EDU> In article <1708@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, brooks@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Brooks) writes: > An authorized quote or two from the Stanford Campus Report follows: > > The experiment was done by Prof. R.A. Huggins (Dept. of Materials > Science and Engineering) as previously mentioned: > "Huggins` team ran two experiments simultaneously in a red picnic ^^^^^^^^^ > cooler for more than two weeks and found that the experiment ^^^^^^ That's two brands of (artificial) rubber mat and now a picnic cooler. Forget palladium, it's the polymerised hydrocarbon derivatives. Paul Hudson Snail mail: Monotype ADG Email: ...!ukc!acorn!moncam!paul Science Park, paul@moncam.co.uk Milton Road, "Sun Microsysytems: Cambridge, The Company is Arrogant (TM)" CB4 4FQ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnHudson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Marc Rassbach / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: marc@lakesys.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 22 Apr 89 14:18:22 GMT Organization: Lake Systems - Milwaukee, Wisconsin In article <8904201653.AA24944@bradley.UUCP> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: >Let's use it as a tool to leave this gravity well and START OVER FROM >SCRATCH. That have been my idea for years. Let's find another planet, kick off the present life forms, and screw it up like we have done here. Anyone care to start Alt.I'm.outta.here ???? -- Marc Rassbach marc@lakesys If you take my advice, that "I can't C with my AI closed" is your problem, not mine! If it was said on UseNet, it must be true. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmarc cudfnMarc cudlnRassbach cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Jay Hinkelman / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: akf@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jay Hinkelman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 22 Apr 89 15:04:53 GMT Organization: Purdue University Computing Center In article <838@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >Fortunately for those of us who don't really like crowds, technology >is changing the economics of cities; some day there may not even *be* >large cities. Kind of funny you should put it that way. I live about half an hour south west of Chicago and, considering the amount of development that's going on in our neighborhood, if large cities disappear it will be because the entire country will be one big city. 8-( -- Jay Hinkelman, Raving-Egotist-in-Remission, akf@mentor.cc.purdue.edu cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenakf cudfnJay cudlnHinkelman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.21 / Gordon Banks / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 21 Apr 89 21:10:03 GMT Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA. In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? We should certainly be careful of changing climates. However, climatic change occurs naturally and we are natural beings. The earth is not a static or equilibrium system (otherwise we'd still have dinosaurs stomping around) and there can be good changes and bad changes. >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > Some leaching may occur, but I doubt if you could change the salt content of the oceans much over the short term without truly massive amounts of leaching. Jus taking water out of the ocean won't change the salt content unless it isn't allowed to flow back in (such as being locked up in ice caps or some such). Such wouldn't be the case with irrigation. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudengeb cudfnGordon cudlnBanks cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Jon Singer / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 22 Apr 89 21:03:06 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Just a quick note about Stanley Steamers - my understanding is that the impossibility of a boiler explosion did not derive from the presence of a relief valve (relief valves have jammed many times) but from the construction of the boiler itself - it was not a mono- lithic device made in the shape of a steel box, but was an entirely different type of design, and could spring leaks but could not blow up. (I forget the exact details, but this is what I remember reading.) 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: cuddy22 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Chris Phoenix / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 22 Apr 89 21:10:45 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. In article <7059@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >[stuff deleted] >Point two: Cheap energy can be used to disrupt the environment, and >will be used to such purposes as long as there's a buck in it. The >projections about increased reduction of rainforests, increased strip >mining, and so forth, are hard to refute. If there really is a cheap >energy breakthrough, these seem inevitable consequences. Governments >are going to have to start treating the environment as a serious issue, >or the costs of fusion could easily outweigh the benefits. Things such as mining take much more than energy to do. They take machinery, and time, and it has to be worthwhile. A lot of strip mining today is for coal. (Figures, anyone?) Without an energy need, coal will probably not be worth mining a lot of--we can get lots of petrochemicals from oil. As far as I know, rain forests are mainly stripped for lumber and agriculture. With cheaper energy, metals will be cheaper to produce and so wood will not be needed as much. Agriculture could be revolutionized by an inexpensive indoor light source. We might be able to grow our plants in factories, and not have to clear as much forest. I'm not saying that we don't have to worry about such issues--we do, of course. But there will probably be solutions provided by the energy, that can remove the problems if properly applied. Some people are claiming that fusion will hurt the earth/the people/the environment/ the cause. This is false. It will, unless we act sensibly. >Point three: The costs can be minimized through government action to >protect the rain forests, limit strip mining, and so forth. > >Point four and final: There is no such thing as an unmixed blessing. >[more stuff deleted] I think all of us agree on this. From what I've read, it looks like some people are saying, "If we aren't very careful, we could get really hurt by this." And others say, "Yes, but it's not necessarily harmful." "You aren't worried enough about the environment." "You're not looking at the potential benefits." "Environmental rapist!" "Luddite!" "Tastes great!" "Less filling!" Before you reply to an environmental question article, sit back and think about whether you really disagree with what the author is saying. -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy22 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / A Palfreyman / Re: Cold fusion and Japan Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Japan Date: 22 Apr 89 23:05:43 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <1749@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, dmf@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Daniel Fuchs) writes: > Why no positive results reported from Japan? The skills certainly exist in > many government-run and private sector labs, yet nothing from Japan has > yet shown up on alt.fusion or in any of the more mainstream media. What's > going on -- do researchers in Japan not have access to D2O? The Economist, April 15th, reports that Showa Denwa, Japan's sole supplier of D2O, has had its entire 6-month inventory snapped up, at Y 70,000/ litre, by Japanese scientists. So, as you can see, much is at least bubbling under....if you're travelling to Japan, don't forget the D2O! [[ This has been unfortunate for the fusion speculative frenzy in Japan, since many invested in Showa Denwa, only to find the cupboard bare! Big investing institutions grabbed stock from Mitsubishi Metal, Nippon Mining and Sumimoto Metal Mining. Next target for the frenzy has been Toho Titanium and Osaka Titanium, then turning to Toshiba and Fuji Electric (because of their backgrounds in electrical generating equipment). In all, six of the ten most actively traded issues were fusion-related.]] ===== Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Chris Phoenix / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 22 Apr 89 21:33:24 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. In article <1636@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: [stuff deleted] >... You'll never guess whom Channel 5 >selected as their noted fusion futurist -- none other than Dr Jerry >Pournelle, interviewed live, who gave us another great quote: 'I have >more information in one place than anybody in the world.' He came up >with at least one wonderfully brainless bit of bragging: he claimed >that cold fusion solves the pollution problem, because given the >energy, he will be able to reduce the waste to its constituent elements. >No one suggested reducing Jerry to his constituent elements, however. I thought someone else suggested disposing of highly toxic stuff by breaking it down with a fusion torch. Obviously, pollution in the ecosphere is a lot harder to handle, but it could sure help the disposal problem, couldn't it? Could this be what Jerry was talking about? How much energy would it take to break down all the waste we produce that is illegal to put into landfills? I know, I know... Our landfills are filling up already. I also know that this wouldn't help with radioactives. A thought: What happens after stuff is broken down by the torch? Does it recombine into something worse than before unless you take extreme measures to prevent it? Would it be possible to actually use the by-products as a source of pure(?) elements? -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy22 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Matthew Walsh / Re: "Places that *don't* confirm cold fusion" and a request. Originally-From: walshm@sun.soe!clutx.clarkson.edu (Matthew S. Walsh) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: "Places that *don't* confirm cold fusion" and a request. Date: 22 Apr 89 22:50:09 GMT From article <1284@esunix.UUCP>, by bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton): > I'm sitting about a mile from Dr. Pons's office. The local papers, > T.V., even the rock'n roll radio stations, are full of coverage of > fusion. What is the local coverage like in the rest of the world? I'd > appreciate it if people could send me a very short note describing > local coverage in your area. I know I'm taking a chance on getting > swamped, but my curiosity on this subject is driving me nuts. > Up here in Potsdam, NY, I listen to the radio every day and have heard no mention of Fusion. Nor have I seen reports on TV, though I am an infrequent viewer. It was alt.fusion and my Physics V course that gave me the information about the discovery. I'm sure all of the faculty and most of the students know about the discovery, but few know who F&P , U of U, or BYU are or their significance. I think its Mario Cuomo banning the discussion of developments that aren't in his state. He'll probabally ban fusion to people under 21 or make a restriction of 55 kwh. __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ 209 Olson Aint' seen nothing like him / / \ |\/| | / \ | | | |\ Clarkson U in any amusement hall, | | |-| | | |- | | \ / |- |/ Potsdam,NY he is the master MATT WALSH `-| | | | | |_ \_/ \/ |_ |\ 315-268-2052 AKA KING OF PINBALL cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenwalshm cudfnMatthew cudlnWalsh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Matthew Walsh / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: walshm@sun.soe!clutx.clarkson.edu (Matthew S. Walsh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 22 Apr 89 23:06:12 GMT From article <8640@csli.Stanford.EDU>, by cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix): > In article <7059@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >>[stuff deleted] >>Point two: Cheap energy can be used to disrupt the environment, and >>will be used to such purposes as long as there's a buck in it. The >>projections about increased reduction of rainforests, increased strip >>mining, and so forth, are hard to refute. If there really is a cheap >>energy breakthrough, these seem inevitable consequences. Governments >>are going to have to start treating the environment as a serious issue, >>or the costs of fusion could easily outweigh the benefits. > The current expensive energy puts a considerable drain on the ecosystem now. Oil spills at sea kill plant life and fish, and petroleum emmissions cause smog and deterieration of the protective ozone layer. Then there is the perpetual waste of fusion reactors which has no place to go. If fusion is possible in automobiles, a great deal of pollution will be eliminated. And I'm sure that people will readily switch to fusion cars if the power cost is as cheap as speculators say, provided they have decent performance capabilities. The same will be true for factories. The ecology problem will improve, not decline. It is unfortunate that a fusion powered bulldozer will make rain forest destruct easier, but the solution to this problem should not be technological restriction, rather it should be political enforcement and social compliance. __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ 209 Olson Aint' seen nothing like him / / \ |\/| | / \ | | | |\ Clarkson U in any amusement hall, | | |-| | | |- | | \ / |- |/ Potsdam,NY he is the master MATT WALSH `-| | | | | |_ \_/ \/ |_ |\ 315-268-2052 AKA KING OF PINBALL cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenwalshm cudfnMatthew cudlnWalsh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Philip Stephens / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: prs@oliven.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 23 Apr 89 00:33:13 GMT Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca In article <1989Apr20.143800.14572@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >The Italian result is interesting. They seem to get fusion when there >is a net movement of deuterium through the titanium, rather than when >it is stationary in the metal. Also, Steve Koonin sent me a preprint >that (among other things) speculates that gross movement of hydrogen >through the metal may be important in increasing the fusion >rate. > >This line of reasoning also suggests the use of higher temperatures >or ultrasound to increase the mobility of deuterium in the metal. I would suggest (I forget whether I posted this before) using electrical ocsilation, probably biased by a DC component for electrolysis (but maybe not!). I have no idea what frequency will be best; this will be determined by experiments, whenever someone decides to try it. Note that this is not the same as the suggestion by someone else to do an hourly step-change between 5 and 10 volts; that is a good suggestion for basic research, while I suspect mine is a good lead for practical application (then again, maybe not!!!) Could be that the very things P&F say to avoid, especially sintered or powdered Pd, would work with little or no DC current under the influence of moderate (??) AC current *or AC field* (possibly radio or microwave frequency, but audio or even 60Hz would be worth trying). At lower frequencies, one can choose the waveform, and a square-wave would indeed give the greatest Pd motion for any given *peak* voltage. The resulting advantage may not be great enough to be worth the extra trouble when scaling it up, but that's a problem for later... say 1990! (Of course, I barely know what I'm talking about, so take with the usual grain of salt. But I can follow the clues in what's been posted, and this seems to follow). - Phil prs@oliven (Phil Stephens) or: (hplabs,ihnp4,sun,allegra,amdahl)oliveb!oliven!prs Can I have my Nobel Prize now, please? B-) PS, I think I was first to mention "coherant" other than in jest, so do I get to contest with that thar MIT fellar????? (Nawww.... I think I phrased it as a question; the guy at MIT phrased it as a THEORY complete with sophisticated justification. Plus he has credentials. Guess I'll have to settle for patting myself on the back for the FASER joke). cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenprs cudfnPhilip cudlnStephens cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / T Wells / Industry and population Originally-From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Industry and population Date: 22 Apr 89 21:13:45 GMT Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale In article roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: : In article <838@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: : : > In article roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: : > : I like technology, the environment and mankind. However, I _do_ feel we : > : have too much of the latter: go visit Mexico City (or Los Angeles, for : > : that matter) if you don't agree. While I disagree with a Luddite : > : philosophy, I am sympathetic to the concern that a very cheap energy : > : source will tend to accelerate an already out of control population : > : growth trend. : > : > You may like technology, the environment, and mankind. However, you : > would benefit by getting some of your notions about them clearer. : > : > In most industrialized countries, it is not the case that there are : > too many people. In fact, in many of them, if it were not for : > immigration, their populations would decrease. And this trend is : > growing stronger. : > : > It is only in the *nonindustrialized* world, the world where : > technology is a distant dream, that population is out of control. : > : I repeat: go visit Mexico City or Los Angeles for examples of : population out of control. Repeating a non-germane and even false statement does not make it germane or true. In both cities, and in fact in all large congregations of people, it is *economic* forces, not population pressure, that brings people to the city and results in the unpleasant aspects of the conditions there. If nothing else, you are using local phenomena to judge global phenomena, and the reality is that this is a situation where doing that is not justifiable. Read the following to see why I think your notion of "out of control" is irrelevant. --- Copyright 1989 by T. William Wells. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted for electronic distribution of this work on Usenet and other networks attached to it provided that this copyright notice is retained and unaltered. People move to already crowded places like LA and Mexico City because they believe that there is a better chance for their personal or familial advancement at those places. On a micro-scale, the phenomenon looks like this: a person looks at where he is now, and finds himself dissatisfied. In Mexico, his dissatisfaction might be with a starvation-level diet; in the US, his dissatisfaction might be with the local area's job prospects. Anyway, he looks around. He often discovers that whatever it is that he's looking for can be found where other people are, since it is other people who create it. So he moves there. On the macro-scale we see big cities springing up. It is not usually the case, except in *industrialized* countries, that people move from overpopulated areas *because* they are overpopulated. [As a side note, one might define "overpopulated" as having more people than can be supported, given the economic circumstances of the region; in that case, one measures overpopulation by the starvation rate. On that scale, one might call a howling wilderness overpopulated if it had more than a few dozen people inhabiting it. Of course, what we usually mean by overpopulated is just that there are more people than we'd like to see in a given area. If we were to use the starvation rate as a measure, then there is an obvious and unarguable correlation between industrialization and overpopulation: industrialized societies have less overpopulation.] In industrial countries, birth rates go *down* in comparison with nonindustrial countries. Why? Economics: in nonindustrial countries, the bigger families do better. In industrial countries, a smaller family is more economic. Consider the differential pressure here: in a nonindustrial country, the more people you have supporting your family, the more economic power you have, since economic power is largely directly related to the amount of muscle you can apply. In industrial countries, on the other hand, the benefits of extra individuals is much smaller: one has basically the same investment of time (or more, as we come to believe that parents should put more effort into childrearing) but the return is, relatively speaking, much smaller. In nonindustrial countries, people move to the cities, by and large, because their underpopulated homes are not economically viable; in other times the Four Horsemen would simply have killed off the excess people, but now there are cities where there seems to be the possibility, however remote, of simple survival. So people move to the cities. And of course, many people also move to the cities out of the simple desire to improve themselves, even when not goaded by starvation. In industrial countries, this trend is largely complete. Not only did people move to the cities, but the rate of industrialization turned out to be sufficient to keep most of them from starving. (You can ask why this hasn't been true for many of the cities in today's nonindustrial countries. Looking to government policies will prove enlightening.) So here are how things work: 1) Completely nonindustrialized (but agricultural) countries (very few of which exist today) tend to have only villages; larger cities don't work. There is no real advantage to bringing people together because most activity is farm-related and requires that people spread out in order to be near the land they work on. Life in this kind of society tends to be nasty, brutish, and short. Economic power is dominated by the amount of land you control; families tend to be large, most children die. 2) You can attempt to fix the above by improving the efficiency of the farms or by improving medical care. The former merely leads to a different population plateau. The latter merely leads to a greater starvation rates. 3) You can attempt to fix the above by introducing significant industry. (Industry being loosely defined as a system of making and using artifacts to increase the productiveness of human effort.) However, since we know of no way to uniformly introduce both the industry and the attitudes needed to make it work over a large area, we must do so in limited areas. This is guaranteed to result in immigration into the newly industrialized area. In fact, it is guaranteed to result in too many people immigrating to the newly industrialized area. Why? Each potential immigrant sees the same data: that there is this city, where life is better, starvation is less rampant, their children have a better chance to live to adulthood, whatever. Each immigrant makes the same choice: to move himself and maybe his family to the city. Each, unfortunately, is unable to take into account the choices of his fellow immigrants. Thus too many people flock to the cities. The problem is that the immigration rate is determined by the information flow and physical transport rates which permit a much larger flow of people than the rate of industrialization can support. (The former has time constants of the order of days or weeks, the latter, because of the necessity of education, generations.) The result of this is the state of most of today's nonindustrialized countries: a few partly industrialized and overpopulated cities surrounded by lots of farms and villages. 4) As time goes on, the rate of population growth is overtaken by the productivity of industrialization. The reason is this: the rate of immigration has a fixed upper bound: the nonindustrialized areas can only provide people at a fixed rate, bounded by, among other things, the capacity of the land to provide food to its population. The population growth in the cities, on the other hand, is initially exponential, as the limits to growth on the family size are suddenly relaxed, but this eventually slows down as the economics of the situation become apparent to the cities inhabitants or as people starve from lack of food. Industry, too, grows at an exponential rate. The best case is that industry grows fast enough to provide for all the people in the city, but even if it doesn't, the population growth eventually slows to a sub-exponential rate and industry then catches up. Now, every sentence above was laden with assumptions about people's choices, government action, accidents, plagues, rates of industrialization, etc. I'll leave it to the reader to examine the effects of changing each of the assumptions. [You may wonder where the food to support the cities comes from. If the farms are living at capacity, you'd think there's be no food left over for the cities. And you'd be almost right. What happens is this: first, cities account for a small percent of the population. Even at the beginning of this century, the rural populace accounted for well over half the people in the US. Second, they do get their food from the farms, who (ideally) trade some of their food for efficiency enhancing products from the cities. Cities can grow when marginal value of this efficiency exceeds the marginal cost of loosing the food. Or when there is a big and nasty force which takes the food regardless of cost.] 5) Once this stage has been reached, it is possible for the rural population to shrink dramatically, with most people moving into cities. The controlling factor is this: the results of industry can increase dramatically the efficiency of the rural areas. Once that happens, many rural inhabitants have to go, since they no longer have a place. Of course, they move to the cities, but they don't have to overload the city's systems. Oddly enough, it is another technological effect that makes the overloading that we do see possible: the increase in efficiency of transportation! It brings in immigrants from much further away than would otherwise have occured. Once people move to the cities, they tend to stay in cities. And, with today's technology, larger cities are often more attractive than smaller cities. Thus we see the various cities which have become uncomfortably crowded at the expense of other cities which loose population or grow more slowly. This state, one in which the bulk of the people live in cities and move from city to city, with a trickle from the associated rural areas and a maybe flood from more distant areas (thus repeating, somewhat, stage 4), is the one which most industrial countries find themselves today. 6) ????? :-) Seriously, though, this process certainly hasn't run to completion. The short of it is that people make choices between the alternatives open to them, this is what economics is all about. In this sense, the future is determined by the economic effects of technology; will technology make it more or less economical to crowd together in cities? Will people be in a position to recognize and act on the differential advantage? Will governments distort the effects of technology and produce a result diametrically opposed to what I'm going to predict? Will future archaeologists discover another Iridium anomaly dated somewhere between 10,000BC and 10,000AD? Short term predictions are impossible, and all prediction must ignore the blind-alley effect and the unpredictable, but one can investigate the long term effects by considering the economic equilibrum that would result. In that case, enabling technology, that which makes the individual effort have greater economic results, is likely to *decrease* the size of cities and *increase* the size of families in industrialized countries. It is likely to decrease the size of cities by making it less valuable to be congregated in one place. As long distance transportation costs go down, as more technology exists in the form of information, as efficiency eliminates economies of scale, we can expect that the costs of crowding will become large enough that people want to *get away*. As evidence for this, consider the concern that people show for pollution and for too many people in their neighborhoods, and their efforts to improve this aspect of their lives. That is clear evidence that people are beginning to see the costs of cities and are wanting to do something about it. I seem to recall seeing a study that shows that, if one discounts immigration into the US, there is a net decrease in the population density. As for why I predict an increase in the size of families: there are two factors limiting the family size, one being simple pragmatics and the other being the cost of the time that has to be devoted to raising the family. Right now, it is the latter which dominates in industrial countries, thus an increase in leisure time should decrease the cost of childrearing, with the expected effect of increasing the family size. This should happen till the marginal costs again balance or till pragmatic reasons again dominate. --- Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill (BTW, I'm may be looking for a new job sometime in the next few months. If you know of a good one where I can be based in South Florida do send me e-mail.) cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbill cudfnT cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / A Palfreyman / Re: Cold fusion and Japan Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Japan Date: 23 Apr 89 00:06:39 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara "Showa Denwa" should have been "Showa Denko" - apologies. -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / A Palfreyman / Lotza ergs Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Lotza ergs Date: 23 Apr 89 00:12:25 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Given the assumedly unlimited etc. energy supply we are about to enjoy, looks like no-one will bother with CMOS anymore - back to bipolar and ECL! Sell your stocks NOW! -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Philip Stephens / Re: Experimenters note pad Originally-From: prs@oliven.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Experimenters note pad Date: 23 Apr 89 01:35:33 GMT Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 10:18:27 CDT Reply-To: FUSION%ZORCH@UUNET.UU.NET Sender: "Fusion - Redistribution of alt.fusion" From: fusion%zorch@UUNET.UU.NET Originally-From: martinb@inteloa.intel.com (Martin L. Buchanan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 23 Apr 89 04:06:42 GMT Organization: BiiN Corp., Hillsboro, OR THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLEAN COLD FUSION Copyright (c) 1989 by Martin L. Buchanan. Permission to reproduce this entire article in free publications or postings is granted. This posting predicts the economic, political, and social consequences of clean cold fusion. It predicts dates for particular consequences and gives free investment advice. This article refers to a Fleischmann-Pons fusion reactor as a "Puff" reactor (Pons/Utah/Fleischmann/fusion). The associated process is the Puff process. PREMISES 1. The Puff process works as claimed. 2. The amount of ionizing radiation produced can be made low enough that use in vehicles, homes, and offices is practical. PREDICTION #1: RAPID DEVELOPMENT Puff experiments can and will be done by garage shop operations. The Puff process will be well-characterized in a few months. Experimental Puff engines will be constructed this year. An experimental Puff vehicle will be constructed by the end of '89. By the end of 1990 there will be working prototypes of Puff cars, trucks, light aircraft, and home heating/electrical plants. PREDICTION #2: POLITICAL OPPOSITION THAT FAILS Threatened economic interests will wage fierce battles to restrict use of Puff technology. The first U.S. battles will be in federal regulatory agencies and then the Congress: * Appeals for the federal government to restrict experimentation and access to deuterium and certain metals. * Proposed federal laws that would forbid the use of Puff in vehicles or homes, or that would impose such stringent radiation limits that shielding makes Puff impractical. Supporting restrictions will be oil companies, electric utilities, some environmentalists, and Congress-critters from oil- and coal-producing states. Opposing restrictions will be auto manufacturers, airplane manufacturers, general business lobbies, businesses with high energy costs, and advocates of the free market, such as the Libertarian Party. The public will decide with a deluge of mail and phone calls supporting Puff 10:1. When the battle to forbid Puff fails in Congress, there will be these new federal legislative ideas: * Federal tax/license fees on Puff reactors to reduce the deficit and fund the new Federal Fusion Administration. * Federal taxes on Puff inputs such as deuterium, heavy water, and certain metals. * Transition assistance from taxpayers for certain impacted industries and workers. * Billions for cold fusion research so that we stay ahead of the Japanese. There will be hundreds of grant proposals from unemployed Tokamak jockeys. The battle will also move to state and local governments where state laws and local ordinances banning Puff, regulating Puff, or requiring licenses will be fought. Some short-lived ordinances will be passed in places like Cambridge, Mass. or Berkeley, CA. Licensing could become commonplace. However, bans or radiation restrictions beyond what health requires will eventually be repealed. PREDICTION #3: F/P PATENT GRANTED AND UPHELD Fleischmann and Pons will be granted a broad patent covering all use of cold fusion in a metal lattice to generate energy. The University of Utah and probably the University of Southampton will share in the largess. The patent-holders will license the patent on very generous terms, seeking a one-time payment for each Puff built in proportion to its power output. For example, a $.001/W capacity (tenth of a cent per Watt = $1.00 per Kilowatt capacity) license fee could generate a revenue stream of billions of dollars per year within a few years. The universities, the inventors, and the inventors' heirs will be among the richest institutions and persons in the world as we enter the 21st century. PREDICTION #4: SCHEDULE 1989 Process characterized. Experimental Puff engine and vehicle. 1990 Forecasters dub the new decade "The Fusing Nineties." Working prototypes of Puff cars, trucks, light aircraft, home heating plants, and home electrical plants. 1991 Auto companies introduce Puff models. Puff vehicle prices are initially high but drop rapidly. Puff hot water heater on the market. 1992 Portable computer appears powered by Puff and thermocouple. Puff home electrical power system on the market. 1993 Light aircraft manufacturers introduce Puff models. First large Puff ship puts to sea. 1994 First Puff central power station with more than 100M Watts capacity. First Boeing Puff 797F ("F" for fusion) enters commercial service. 1995 Puff-powered ion-electric rocket deployed in orbit (for orbital transfers, not surface to orbit). PREDICTION #5: INVESTMENTS These investments will benefit: Companies involved in extracting heavy water or in building new heavy water plants. Mining companies extracting the metals used, such as Palladium. Vehicle manufacturers including auto-makers, airplane-makers, ship-builders, truck-builders, and locomotive-builders. Companies that build electric generating plants; they have the expertise to build Puff-based plants. Companies that can manufacture cheap and very sensitive radiation detectors. Companies that can build cheap Puff-based desalination plants. Energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum companies Real estate and retail businesses around the University of Utah and possibly the University of Southampton. These investments will suffer in the long run: Fossil fuel (oil and coal) extracting, refining, distributing, and retailing. The preexisting nuclear energy industry (based on fission). Companies manufacturing solar-electric, hydro-electric, and wind-electric equipment. Parts manufacturers and anything related to internal combustion engines. This includes tuneup shops, vehicle repair shops, and so on. Electric utilities and natural gas utilities. Electric utilities won't disappear but will be under price pressure due to home or business direct generation of power from their own Puff plants. PREDICTION #6: GEOPOLITICAL CONSEQUENCES Economies based on fossil-fuel extraction will decline in relative wealth (though their absolute wealth may be greater in a more abundant world) and in relative power: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the Persian Gulf states, Brunei, Mexico, Venezuela, Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, West Virginia. Those economies with large financial reserves and small populations, such as Saudi Arabia, will do much better than those with large populations and no financial reserves, such as Mexico. (Note that the list of affected areas does not pretend to be complete.) A diverse economy such as Texas will handle the transition much better than a one-product economy. Japan and the U.S. will be stronger, eventually freed from any dependence on imported fossil fuels (total dependence in Japan's case), and with market-oriented cultures that will quickly take advantage of these new developments. The same will be true of Korea and Taiwan. The growing economic pie/increased abundance made possible by Puff technology will aid the process of perestroika/glasnost/ restructuring in the communist nations, from the Soviet Union to Eastern Europe to China. PREDICTION #7: MACROECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES Puff will fuel an economic boom as the world replaces a large part of its capital stock. Of course some investments and areas will fare poorly in the transition. PREDICTION #8: POLITICAL AND CULTURAL CONSEQUENCES Puff will result in: * More positive attitudes towards science and technology * More young people interested in science and technology * More positive attitudes towards markets, freedom, and classical liberal/libertarian ideas * More openness to entrepreneurs, crackpots, and others with new ideas * More skepticism about the value of government-funded science * Less "zero-sum" thinking = less trade protectionism and less anti-immigration sentiment PREDICTION #9: CONTINUED INNOVATION Puff will lead us to a new understanding of nuclear processes. This new understanding and the innovative efforts of thousands of engineers and scientists will overcome initial Puff limitations if physically possible. Some possible innovations include: * Desktop deuterium factory. Someone will build a miniaturized device to separate heavy water or deuterium from water. * Air-powered Puff plant. An advanced Puff plant may take water vapor out of the air and extract the deuterons that it needs to power itself. * Cold fusion-powered Earth to orbit rocket. The initial Puff has relatively low operating temperatures, because the palladium lattice must be solid. Presently unknown cold fusion techniques may allow much higher power densities and operating temperatures. Such a rocket could use plain water for its reaction mass if a high-enough exhaust velocity is achieved. * Miniaturized Puff plants. For example, a Puff-powered artificial heart. PREDICTION #10: OPENING THE HIGH FRONTIER Even without direct cold fusion surface to orbit rockets, cold fusion will help open the high frontier of space in these ways: * Low power costs for laser launching or launch loops or LINAC (linear-accelerator)-assisted launching or antimatter production if antimatter is used for energy storage on such vehicles (see Forward's "Mirror Matter" book). * Unbounded power for ion drive ships in space. * It *may* be profitable to mine the Moon or asteroids for certain metals. * With a wealthier global civilization on Earth and much lower space travel costs, millions of people will be able to afford space travel for pleasure. I'll close with a final prediction: within 30 years, you will be able to buy a personal spaceship that will take you and your family to the Moon and back. Its price will be under one million 1989 dollars. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenprs cudfnPhilip cudlnStephens cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / C Schanck / Now, a confirmation to believe in! Originally-From: schanck@harmonica.cis.ohio-state.edu (Christopher Schanck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Now, a confirmation to believe in! Date: 23 Apr 89 07:26:34 GMT Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Ok folks, now a confirmation to believe in. Tonight on "Saturday Night Live" on the Weekend News Update with Dennis Miller, anchorman Dennis performed a cold fusion experiment live. His apparatus included several parts which I have not heard mentioned by Pons et al, including portions from the famous game "Mouse Trap". He did not wear any protective clothing, so I assume he was unconcerned about possible neutron emmisions. (What the hell, it's the weekend... :-) Chris -=- So you see, I don't feel this is all really worth a .sig! Christopher Schanck (schanck@cis.ohio-state.edu) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenschanck cudfnChristopher cudlnSchanck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Matt Bartley / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: mdbomber@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Matt Bartley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 23 Apr 89 06:36:03 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <763@nsscb.UUCP> det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: >>>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 1910 model of this car was probably the best automobile ever made. >Henry Ford exploited the fear of boiler explosion (actually impossible, >as there was a release valve) to promote his car. The Stanley brothers >did not belive in advertising, and their market dried up. >There are a few of these cars around with over 600,000 miles on them, >that have never had a major overhaul. >-nsscb!det I have been told that the danger involved with the Stanley Steamer cars was in the event of a crash. After all, you've got a whole bunch of highly pressurized water above 100 degrees C. Release the pressure by suddenly rupturing the container, and not only do you get a blast from the pressure pushing out, but the water flash-vaporizes. What you get is a BIG explosion. And I don't see how having safety release valves would help in a crash. I've seen demonstrations of so called 'mechanical explosions' where a small amount of water is sealed tightly (no air) in glass, and then a bunsen burner is put under it. After a couple of minutes of heating .... BOOM!!! They did this with tiny glass vials that contained at most one cubic centimeter of water, and the explosion was powerful enough to shatter plexiglass, and it was LOUD. Incidently, I've also heard that the crash explosion hazard is one reason that turbine powered cars have not been commercially developed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Bartley Internet: mdbomber@portia.stanford.edu Bitnet: mdbomber%portia@stanford.bitnet Disclaimer: I don't pay $tanford enough money (cough,hack) to speak for the university. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmdbomber cudfnMatt cudlnBartley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Larry Wall / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 23 Apr 89 06:35:43 GMT Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Doug Roberts writes: : I repeat: go visit Mexico City or Los Angeles for examples of : population out of control. This big city bashing is, of course, an oversimplification. I don't want to go on record as saying that big cities are *nice*, but there are certainly more trees in the Los Angeles basin than there would be if nobody lived here. Pity you can't see them half the time, darn sagebrush fumes... :-) Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov "New Nukes!" cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Larry Wall / Deep thoughts Originally-From: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Deep thoughts Date: 23 Apr 89 07:12:29 GMT Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. It's after midnight, so I've started working on believing six impossible things before breakfast... Has anyone thought about the fact that Mssrs. F & P may have just invented self-sufficient (more or less) underwater cities? Who needs the sun anymore? Speaking of which, if we get plastered by a comet, I'd much rather we all had fusion reactors than solar cells. And nuclear winters are so much more depressing when your solar water heater freezes. Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov "New Nukes!" cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Ronald Mayer / Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 23 Apr 89 07:56:41 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > > > Could someone from LANL confirm or deny the rumor that the initial > work at LANL was being done with milled palladium electrodes? > > I talked to one researcher from LANL today, and he mentioned that he called up their supplier and asked for cast palladium rods for this experiment, and they told them that the only rods of palladium of the required dimentions are drawn, not cast. The supplier claimed that if F&P did use cast rods, they were most probably cast specially for this purpose in England. (I've no Idea why he suspected this.) -Ron Mayer armin@portia.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenarmin cudfnRonald cudlnMayer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Rob Thurlow / CBC's The Journal report, Apr. 20 (was Re: Inside story.) Originally-From: rthurlow@van-bc.UUCP (Rob Thurlow) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: CBC's The Journal report, Apr. 20 (was Re: Inside story.) Date: 22 Apr 89 19:09:14 GMT Organization: Wimsey Associates, Vancouver, BC. In article <4985@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) writes: > >An informant tells me that Pons and Jones colaborated early on. At some >point they decided they were not talking the same language (physics vs >electro-chem) and they decided to sever communications. Pons submitted >a paper to Nature and they chose Jones as a referee. At this point Pons >went to the head of the department who went to the head of the university. >They brought in Edward Teller who stated that their results could not >be explained with classical physics. They then decided to go public. And >the rest is chaos. A couple of problems, according to what aired on Canada's CBC-TV program "The Journal", Thursday, April 20, 1989. What they said was: - Pons described his work in a research grant application. The granting agency chose Jones as a referee; information of this sort is *not* known to the applicant. Nature was not involved. - Jones was very interested in the application, and made the extremely unconventional step of approaching Pons and suggesting collaboration on research. What Jones was in a posution to contribute at that point was quite frankly not apparent to me from the report. - After a few discussions, Pons seems to have 'hung up', and maintains that nothing came of the 'collaboration', while Jones maintains that there was an agreement struck that they would publish together. - The same paper was submitted to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and to Nature. The JEC went with it after a few clarifications, but Nature produced a long list of questions it wanted addressed before it was acceptable. Pons simply didn't have the time to address the concerns of the editors of Nature in the time before the publication deadline, and withdrew the paper. - Pons was uncomfortable with going public, but agreed when many wild rumors about the research started to circulate. Pons had wanted to wait until late 1990 to have the time to thoroughly research the phenomenon, but was under great pressure from the department and the University to publish. In the interview, Pons came across as very much the hero, with Jones as just another person wanting to get a bit of the glory. The report was very good, with a lot of research put into it, as is typical of The Journal's team when they do their best work. They did the report mainly from Pons' viewpoint, but their handling of Jones viewpoint seemed fair. If this research holds up, the Nobel committee is going to have a bloody job on it's hands. I just hope all the principals live until awards are presented, unlike Rosalind Franklin and the DNA prizes. -- "There was something fishy about the butler. I think he was a Pisces, probably working for scale." - Nick Danger Robert Thurlow {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rthurlow Vancouver, BC, Canada or rthurlow@van-bc.UUCP In the heart of Kitsilano or rthurlow@wimsey.bc.ca cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenrthurlow cudfnRob cudlnThurlow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Rick Farris / Re: Cross Posting from sci.physics Originally-From: rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cross Posting from sci.physics Date: 23 Apr 89 04:12:54 GMT Organization: Serenity BBS, Del Mar, California In article kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) writes: > Sci.physics.fusion is for discussing fusion and fusion related > topics. Umm, shouldn't that be sci.chemistry.fusion? > Votes must be mailed, not posted to the net. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Good plan, but... > If you want to vote, try hitting the F key... ^^^ To Follow-up? How about the Reply key, instead! > ______ Thank you, Kevin Scott kscott@cca.ucsf.edu At least you tried. :-) Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.uu.net ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757 cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenrfarris cudfnRick cudlnFarris cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / James_J_Kowalc / Re: Inside story. Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Inside story. Date: 23 Apr 89 02:15:15 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) writes: >An informant tells me that Pons and Jones colaborated early on. At some >point they decided they were not talking the same language (physics vs >electro-chem) and they decided to sever communications. Not a very good informant. >Pons submitted >a paper to Nature and they chose Jones as a referee. No. Actually Pons (& Fleischmann) submitted a grant proposal to the US DOE to fund their research. The DOE sent the proposal to Jones to referee. Jones approached Pons for a possible collaboration, but Pons declined. Jones also offered the services of the neutron detectors at his disposal, but Pons also declined, stating he prefered to measure heat. According to Jones (quoted in the newspapers here), he and Pons had a "gentlemen's agreement" to submit back to back papers to Nature. I have not heard Pons comment on this. However, Jones was apparently caught off guard by the March 23, 1989, press conference. He promptly sent his manuscript to Nature after he had heard about it. It is interesting that the DOE recently approved Pons' grant request, but Pons promptly turned it down, prefering funding from Office of Naval Research. >At this point Pons >went to the head of the department who went to the head of the university. >They brought in Edward Teller who stated that their results could not >be explained with classical physics. They then decided to go public. And >the rest is chaos. I have never heard this version of the story. I am not saying it is not true, but given the inaccuracy of the rest of your informant's information, I wouldn't give it too much credence. >Any confirmation/refutation? See above. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu Disclaimer: I have tried to stick to the facts as I have learned them. Much relies on word of mouth and newspaper accounts close to the source. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Matt Rhodes / Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Originally-From: rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 23 Apr 89 16:18:16 GMT Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA An article on cold fusion appeared in Sunday, April 23 Boston Globe's **BUSINESS** section. This article contained no technical content but had one or two interesting facts. I am excerpting a some of it here. These excerpts appear without permission. All bracketed text is my own commentary HEADLINE: "COLD FUSION: NEW PROFITS IN A COOL TEST TUBE?" by Frederic M. Biddle, Globe Staff Far-thinking decision-makers nationwide from mulitnational oil companies to the US Department of Energy - are beginning to ponder the commercial possibilities of a rash of recent experiments that may have produced energy from room-temperature fusion. ... And to many fusion and energy specialists, any talk of commercial- ization of the process remains so premature as to teeter on the absurd. "Imagine you were in the airline industry, and all of a sudden somebody comes along and tells you the world is about to go antigravity," says Robert McCrory, a professor and director of the laboratory for Laser Energenics at the University of Rochester. "Well, this makes about as much sense, actually." [Dr. McCrory may not be a disinterested party, however. Despite the above statement the rest of the article is spent discussing possibility of commercialization ---] "If it is real, it has the ability to replace all energy," says Frank Graham, a consultant to the US Committee for Energy Awareness. ... Already, the first tenative steps have been taken toward determining the commercial future of the biggest, newest "maybe" in science. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has applied for patents on an unspecified technology based on theories of Peter L. Hagelstein... Brigham Young University and the University of Utah...have also applied, on the possibility that a broad commercial patent might someday be worth billions of dollars. And at the world's biggest producer of nuclear-power generators, Westinghouse Electric Corp., a top planner has guardedly described a scenario for a "switch" toward developing cold fusion technology. ... Harnessing fusion energy for everyday use, however, would be another matter. ... ....The nation currently draws nearly 80 percent of its electricity from coal, natural gas, oil, and other fuels and the other 20 percent from nuclear fission. "We got burned on the total experience of fission, and that might make us a little slow to catch on to fusion," Mills says, "But in the end, the real question that sells a technology always is, 'What's the cost?'" [Seems like a great time to write your congressman in favor of pollution taxes!! The real economic cost of fossil fuel usage must be reflected in the producers costs if we expect them to make an intelligent decision on the alternative sources of power] ... The Electric Power Research Institute, an industry trade group, has helped finance two of the cold fusion experiments annouced so far. And Westinghose Electric Corp. ... has signed an agreement with the University of Utah for access to its cold-fusion research. Westinghouse said it will evaluate Utah's patent applications while searching for commercial appli- cations for its fusion experiment. ... Two-thirds of the world's oil is used to power moving vehicles, and part of the remainder is used to make petroleum-based products, such as plastics. Even if fusion were to become a commercially viable energy source, it would not pose an immediate threat to the oil industry, many in the industry say. "There's no way you're going to be putting those things on airplanes and cars," said one chief scientist for one of the world's biggest oil companies. Other researchers say that may be a short-sighted view. In the 1950's, fission scientists produced highly efficient fission jet engines - the problem was, the engines emitted dangerous amounts of radioactivity that could be contained only with prohibitively heavy shields. Fusion engines, theoretically no less powerful, might get around the radioactivity problem. Fusion has been sufficiently tempting that most of the nation's oil companies have spent tens of millions on research over the years. In the 1950's and 1960's, many oil companies thought they might someday harness fusion to power their refineries. A lack of progress killed the research. But many say that the sheer resources of the oil industry make it better poised to exploit fusion technology than any other business sector. ... Ironically, the most immediate economic effect of cold fusion technology could be felt in the fusion research financed by the federal government - a $500 million-a-year effort that, after more than $8 billion overall, has so far produced no result that would make fusion commercially attractive. "It would certainly have to be re-evaluated," says Stephen O. Deane, president of Fusion Power Associates, a fusion trade group and think tank. "It might be that [cold] fusion will be good for power plants and we will have to figure out what else our research is good for. When the automobile came along, the horse-and-buggy makers had to scramble." cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenrhodes cudfnMatt cudlnRhodes cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Vince Heuring / Deuterium Resources (was: Re: More info. on Fusion at Uni. Fla.) Originally-From: heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Vince Heuring) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Deuterium Resources (was: Re: More info. on Fusion at Uni. Fla.) Date: 23 Apr 89 17:17:45 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder In article <29421@apple.Apple.COM> thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) writes: >In article <20150@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu () writes: > >(much stuff omitted) > >I've seen this assertion a lot lately. Exactly how much is "unlimited," >really? (By the way, it seems to me that energy never gets "too cheap to >meter"; the cheaper it gets, the more of it people are gonna use, and if fusion >... >Anyway, at current >consumption levels, how long (like how many million years or whatever) would >the world's deuterium supply be likely to last (and how fast would it be Quoting from "The Energy Handbook," Rob't. D. Loftness, Van Rostrand, 1978, "Deuterium is abundant, about one atom of Deuterium to each 6700 atoms of hydrogen in water. In a cubic meter of water there about 10**25 atoms of D which would privide, in a [hot] fusion reaction, about 7.5E9 Btu (7.94E12 joules). The same energy would be available from 300 metric tons [!] of coal, or 1500 barrels of oil. The energy available from 1% of the D in the oceans (total volume of the oceans is about 1.5E9 km**3) would be about 110 million Quad [1Q = 10E15btu] (which is 1.2E29 joules), or about 500,000 times the energy available from the world's fossil fuels." Cazart! ---- Vincent Heuring Dep't of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Colorado - Boulder heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenheuring cudfnVince cudlnHeuring cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Paul Dietz / Fusion Cars? Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion Cars? Date: 23 Apr 89 18:57:00 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY It's amusing to speculate how a fusion powered car might operate, if rapid fusion in solids is a real phenomenon. I'll assume in this message that fusion is real and produces negligible radiation, and that the power density and materials will be such that the cost of the fusion cell itself is small. We can't use the Otto cycle with fusion. An obvious approach is to instead use a Stirling engine (as mentioned in a previous posting). The closed-cycle Stirling engine has problems with disposing of waste heat. If fusion works, it's probably ok to trade off a smaller, hotter radiator vs. a more efficient engine, since fuel consumption would not be a significant cost. An amusing possibility for a closed cycle Stirling engine would be to make deuterium gas the working fluid, and make the regenerator double as the hydrogen-absorbing fusion catalyst and heating element. Each cycle would force deuterium in and out of the catalyst. The Brayton cycle (gas turbine) seems suited for use with an electromagnetic transmission. The engine would be connected to a DC generator that would be used to drive high efficiency motors at the four wheels. Recent progress in NdFeB magnets makes these electronically commutated motors rather compact. By reversing the function of the generator and motors, this system also naturally allows regenerative braking, with the engine acting as a flywheel. A final idea is to use a cold, easily vaporized material, say liquid nitrogen, as a working fluid. Each car would carry a large tank of the stuff. The fusion cell would vaporize and heat the liquid, making a hot, high pressure gas that would drive a turbine or piston engine. Exhaust gases would pass through a heat exchanger to preheat incoming LN2. With an EM transmission, the power semiconductors and motors could also be cooled in LN2, decreasing resistive losses and recycling the lost heat back into the engine. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy23 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Michael McClary / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 23 Apr 89 19:17:27 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <29346@apple.apple.com> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: > >[] cheap, clean energy will only eliminate >one main pollution source among many. It probably won't even eliminate >pollution from cars. (It hasn't in the Pacific Northwest, which has >had cheap hydro-power since WWII.) When an alternative fuel system for automobiles (such as making hydrogen at stationary plants and converting cars to hydrogen/water injection) becomes cheaper than pumping, shipping, and refining oil, you'll see large-scale changeover. Pacific Northwest hydro-power is far from cheap enough to have such an effect. Perhaps fusion will be cheap enough to swing it. In case you're unfamiliar with it: Hydrogen alone is the pits for octane rating, producing hot, fast flames, which means nitrogen oxides and knocking. Spray in some water for the hydrogen flame to boil, and the flame becomes cool, slow, and smooth, and you don't get much NOx. It's hard to get unburned hydrocarbons, carcinogenic partiall-burned hydrocarbons, soot, carbon monoxide, or lead in the exhaust without carbon or lead in the fuel. This just leaves two problems: - Hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline. - Hydrogen is more hazardous to store and handle than hydrocarbon liquids. If fusion fixes the first, some design and training could fix the second. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Michael McClary / An experiment a friend suggested. Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: An experiment a friend suggested. Date: 23 Apr 89 19:53:40 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA The F&P cell, as described by F&P, has a large input of electrical energy, and may be far from electrochemical equilibrium as well. Some people are concerned that the observed heating may be an error measurement or in accounting for the various possible heat sources (or of calibrating the instruments in the presence of temporary electrochemical heat sinks). A friend has suggested a modification that would simplify separation of fusion heat: - Run a F&P cell normally until it begins to produce signs of fusion. - Change the electrolyte (or move the electrode(s) to a new cell). The new electrolyte should be nearly pure D2O. The new electrolyte will have drastically reduced conductivity, allowing you to maintain the electrostatic pressure at the boundary of the Palladium electrode, and pump in small amounts of additional duterium, without adding large amounts of excess energy to be accounted for. It should also leave the electrode near chemical equilibrium, cutting another source of noise. With electrochemical heat sources greatly reduced, fusion heat measurements would be easier and more accurate. While a positive result from such an experiment would be much harder to refute, a negative result wouldn't be definitive. Some other possible explanations for a negative result: - Loss of duterium from the electrode during the changeover. Such loss would take a while to make up with reduced currents. - Sensitivity of the reaction to something other than duterium concentration, such as duterium flux, other effects of the current, or unknown effects of the electrolytes. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Michael McClary / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 23 Apr 89 20:11:30 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <8608@csli.stanford.edu> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > >Whether or not these are valid objections (I suspect the second is pretty >ridiculous), people will be giving them. Anyone want to have some facts >ready for them? >(Note: Read "The Sahara" as "Any significant land mass that we'd irrigate >more if we had cheap distilled water.") Ignoring for the moment that 1) is a non sequitur: Wouldn't the fact that the Sahara Desert is the result of human activity (overgrazing by domestic sheep and goats), tell an eco-activist that the human race not just a "right", but a "duty", to restore it to its previous lush state? B-) Yes, 2) is ridiculous. That irrigation water ends up back in the ocean, and it takes geologic time for any salts it leaches off the land to make a dent in the salinity of the ocean. Meanwhile, the first thing it will leach from the land is the salt left by previous attempts to irrigate with well water. It will eventually leach some other useful stuff off the land, in exactly the way, and to exactly the extent, that an equivalent amount of rainwater would. Both the biosphere and farmers are adept at replacing such losses. Irrigation of the land with sewater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It's called "rain". cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Michael McClary / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 23 Apr 89 20:53:37 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <203@opus.nmsu.edu> pgaughan@dante.UUCP (Patrick Gaughan) writes: > >Concerning irrigating the Sahara with distilled water... > >Any production of energy in a continuing process (ie. a cyclic process used >in any power plant large or small) produces a great deal of waste heat. I >wonder what effect creating and using energy with such wild abandon will have >on global warming... It will reduce it. B-) (Actually, the displacement of the use of fossil fuels by fusion power would reduce the greenhouse-effect heating, to the point that a LOT of extra fusion heating would be needed to stay even. Irrigating the Sahara would help a little, but we might need oribital solar mirrors in a couple hundred years, anyhow.) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / John McKernan / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 23 Apr 89 20:33:25 GMT Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo I don't think it would be necessary to place a fusion reactor in every car. If fusion makes electricity cheap enough, use it to get hydrogen from water, and run cars on that. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems before it butts in with tomorrow's. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjmckerna cudfnJohn cudlnMcKernan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Perry Metzger / Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Originally-From: perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 23 Apr 89 18:28:10 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ Er, wouldn't you say that a lot of this is a bit premature? Many of your predictions are, how does one say it nicely, not based on the facts. As an example, how does one know what terms F & P would make their invention available at? There is no basis in fact to support the majority of your contentions. Admittedly, there is no way to disprove some of them, either, but they are improbable. For instance, the probability that there would be even prototypes of aircraft propelled by cold fusion early next year approaches zero; aircraft design, especially aircraft design involving a radically new technology, takes far too long. They would have to be designing the things NOW, and there aren't any fusion engines available yet, or even any proof that fusion power could be used in an aircraft engine. There are many more examples of both kinds of fallacy in this article; the above are merely examples. Perry cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenperry cudfnPerry cudlnMetzger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Chris Phoenix / Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 23 Apr 89 20:22:19 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. In article <4334@omepd.UUCP> martinb@inteloa.UUCP (Martin L. Buchanan) writes: > > THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLEAN COLD FUSION I can't comment on most of this. It certainly looks rosy. However, I don't believe that some of the inventions/innovations listed here are possible. >PREMISES > >1. The Puff process works as claimed. >2. The amount of ionizing radiation produced can be made > low enough that use in vehicles, homes, and offices > is practical. I think you mean, "without shielding," based on some of the devices you propose. You could easily put 3" of lead or paraffin around a vehicle engine or a home power plant, but not around an artificial heart. It is much less likely that we can do it without any shielding than that we can do it at all. >1992 Portable computer appears powered by Puff and > thermocouple. Assume that the computer uses 20W of power (pretty low) and that the thermocouple efficiency is 5% (pretty high). Then your portable computer will have to dissipate 400W of power. This could be a problem. >1993 Light aircraft manufacturers introduce Puff models. Again, shielding could be a problem. >1995 Puff-powered ion-electric rocket deployed in > orbit (for orbital transfers, not surface to orbit). I don't know enough about this one. Could someone tell me (e-mail) how we could get ions from heat, without putting in a heat-engine=> generator=>converter system, which would slow it down a lot? Besides, this assumes that we're doing enough in space to make it worthwhile. You haven't mentioned how Puff will help us get out of the gravity well. Obviously, you could use electrolyzed H2 for fuel, but I think that's not the main cost of a rocket, even a "reusable" one like the Space Shuttle. Figures, anyone? Disclaimer: I'm not an ME. Take what I write with a grain of salt. If I've said something stupid, please tell me but don't flame me. -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy23 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / John Woods / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 23 Apr 89 03:13:00 GMT Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes: > "Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit > massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. > 1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? Uh, just what species do you think CREATED the Sahara in the first place? (Well, actually it was sheep, but it was *our* idea) What right? What right does a beaver have to dam up a stream? > 2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" > The Sahara is 3.5 million square miles. Let's give it 5.28 feet of effective rainfall a year (I don't know, but I think that classifies it as a rain forest). That's .035 million cubic miles of water. Some incredibly rough calculations indicate that the oceans contain about 135 million cubic miles of water. The leaching is more of a problem, but (a) on a geologic scale, the Sahara won't remain a desert forever, and (b) with enough water you can disperse the stuff that leaches out, rather than concentrating it somewhere else because you are being parsimonious with rainwater. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnWoods cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / John Woods / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 23 Apr 89 15:09:00 GMT Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us In article <1300@frog.UUCP>, john@frog.UUCP (I) wrote: > The Sahara is 3.5 million square miles. Let's give it 5.28 feet of effective > rainfall a year...That's .035 million cubic miles of water. No, that's .0035 million cubic miles (damned English measurement system!). Even less of a drain. As someone pointed out, it will evaporate and return to the ocean anyway (except for that fraction which is tied up in plants). (unless, of course, you use a fusion engine to melt some of the Sahara to put a glass bubble around it :-) -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnWoods cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / J Schneider / Re: Now, a confirmation to believe in! Originally-From: jeremy@mips.COM (Jeremy M. Schneider) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Now, a confirmation to believe in! Date: 24 Apr 89 00:40:27 GMT Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA In article <44829@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >Ok folks, now a confirmation to believe in. Tonight on "Saturday Night >Live" on the Weekend News Update with Dennis Miller, anchorman Dennis >performed a cold fusion experiment live. His apparatus included >several parts which I have not heard mentioned by Pons et al, Mr. Miller produced "fizzion", as in "Plop, Plop, Fizz ...". Plus, he cheated and used a particle accelerator. -- Jeremy M. Schneider jeremy@mips.com MIPS Computer Systems {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!jeremy 930 Arques Avenue (408) 991-7805 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 "Everything I say is true." cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjeremy cudfnJeremy cudlnSchneider cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Mark Zenier / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 22 Apr 89 18:06:53 GMT Organization: SSC, Inc., Seattle, WA In article <1989Apr20.143800.14572@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > > This line of reasoning also suggests the use of higher temperatures > or ultrasound to increase the mobility of deuterium in the metal. Has anyone listened to fusion? You might get some interesting results by putting a wide range ultrasonic transducer in a fusion cell and hooking it up to a spectrum analyzer. Mark Zenier uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz markz@ssc.uucp uunet!amc! uw-beaver!tikal! cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmarkz cudfnMark cudlnZenier cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Bela Lubkin / Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Originally-From: filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 01:23:52 GMT Organization: R Pentomino In article <15534@bellcore.bellcore.com>, perry@bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) says: >Er, wouldn't you say that a lot of this is a bit premature? [...] For >instance, the probability that there would be even prototypes of >aircraft propelled by cold fusion early next year approaches zero; >aircraft design, especially aircraft design involving a radically new >technology, takes far too long. They would have to be designing the >things NOW, and there aren't any fusion engines available yet, or even >any proof that fusion power could be used in an aircraft engine. IF the other assumptions are correct, i.e. that the cold fusion mechanism will be well-understood and that power sources will be commercially available based on the process -- I don't think he's a bit premature. You read "aircraft" and you think "Boeing or McDonnell Douglass". I think of the people who build human-powered (and lawnmower-engine-powered) aircraft. Those people aren't going to be sitting around waiting for a "proof that fusion power could be used in an aircraft engine", they'll just build one. Yes, it will probably take a bit (or a lot) longer for commercial airliners to react to the new technology. There may be an intermediate stage using liquid hydrogen (if it can be stabilized against explosion >even in a crash<). ** Bela Lubkin Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl, (408) 476-4633 <-- preferred ** filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu <-- preferred Internet * filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenfilbo cudfnBela cudlnLubkin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Robert French / Quoting the net Originally-From: rfrench@athena.mit.edu (Robert S. French) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Quoting the net Date: 24 Apr 89 01:52:02 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology I don't remember who originally said this, but it looks like USENET is getting quoted again: (From New York Times article) Another excerpt from the electronic bulletin board contains the plea: ``Would appreciate further commerce from anyone, repeat anyone, who actually understands all of the ins and outs of P & F's calorimetry,'' a reference to the Utah experimenters' heat-detection instrument. ``What exactly did they measure and how -- has anyone seen the data?'' Another person on the network reminded everyone that there are four stages of reaction to a great invention: 1. It's impossible. 2. It's impractical. 3. It's immoral. 4. I said all along, it was a great idea. Rob cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenrfrench cudfnRobert cudlnFrench cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / John Moore / Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 23 Apr 89 15:16:24 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <1773@Portia.Stanford.EDU> armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) writes: >In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: ]> ]> ]> Could someone from LANL confirm or deny the rumor that the initial ]> work at LANL was being done with milled palladium electrodes? ]> ]> ] ]I talked to one researcher from LANL today, and he mentioned that he ]called up their supplier and asked for cast palladium rods for this ]experiment, and they told them that the only rods of palladium of ]the required dimentions are drawn, not cast. The supplier claimed ]that if F&P did use cast rods, they were most probably cast specially ]for this purpose in England. (I've no Idea why he suspected this.) This brings up a question: Where are the hundreds of labs doing this getting their rods? And, does anyone know how to cast palladium and could post it to the net? We have been trying for several days without finding a suitable mechanism (of course, another trip to the library may yield the answer... :-) ) -- 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: cuddy23 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Shel Kaphan / idle speculation Originally-From: sjk@lucid.com (Shel Kaphan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: idle speculation Date: 24 Apr 89 04:06:20 GMT Organization: Lucid, Inc. Menlo Park, CA If this stuff really works...(and let's assume it does)... Then this is about the equivalent in importance to the discovery of fire. Due to the media, FAX, and perhaps especially this network (in spite of the signal:noise ratio), the invention has spread across the entire world in essentially no time. If it's workable, there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. No way anyone can stop it. Not even the combined might of the fossil fuel industries and their paid-off politicians. Maybe in our lifetimes we'll actually see our world get off the fossil-fuel tit. What a pleasant thought! It strikes me as pretty unbelievable that a technical fix is likely to be what gets us out of oil-dependency and all the ugly political ramifications thereof. (You could even trace much of the current unpleasantness all over the middle east to the acts of certain major powers to guarantee their access to strategic oil resources. What happens when the motivation for that goes away?) I was all set for a major reorientation of the world to increasingly hard to find/hard to use energy sources. On the other hand, if there's a way that greed can put a stranglehold on the dissemination of this technology, it will certainly try... Can you imagine what it would be like had *fire* come with patent protection??? My big question is, how is this going to change the world in ways we can't even imagine now? (Of course, by definition, this is unanswerable!) At the beginning of any new technology, there is no possible way to ask the right questions as to what the major effects and side effects are going to be somewhere down the line. I wasn't there at the time, but I suspect at the invention of the internal combustion engine, nobody was much concerned with the greenhouse effect, suburban sprawl, or the irritating effects of yuppies driving BMWs. When the computer was invented, I doubt if anybody saw it turning into a global collective mind/sand box for society via networks like this. So, what happens next? We've seen all kinds of remarkable predictions for how to use and apply this (I have nothing to add to the list). Will we see the entire concept of "wasting energy" disappear? It reminds me of people who always justify their 30-megabyte programs by saying things like "memory is cheap and getting cheaper". Right, and programs are big and getting bigger. So will we end up pigging out on energy to the point of depleting the oceans of deuterium? (Yes, I know it might take a while, but if we all use 1000 or 1000000 times as much energy as we do now, and we stay on the planet for a few hundreds or thousands of years...) I guess the thing to think about is all the processes that are currently limited by availability of energy, and imagine what happens if/when that limitation goes away. It sounds like an entirely different world. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudensjk cudfnShel cudlnKaphan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Vincent Cate / One month without knowing?!?! Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: One month without knowing?!?! Date: 24 Apr 89 04:09:33 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI It seems we would know for sure by now whether or not fusion was the source of the heat in the Fleischmann/Pons experiment if they had released all of the information they had when they made the press announcement one month ago. If the heat is really due to fusion we would NOT have wasted so much time floundering around trying to reproduce their experiment. As it is everyone has been trying madly to reinvent this wheel. If this is real and it took F/P a few years to get to where they are we now have 100s of people trying to replicate this work. If they have made a mistake then the waste will be embarrassing. Given the complete details about their experiment and the results that they got people could analyze what they did. If there was a mistake it probably be found soon after the information was released (1 or 2 weeks). As it is, when someone does an experiment and gets a negative result it can be ignored by simply saying they must not have done what Fleischmann and Pons did, what ever that is. If we had a detailed description this would not happen, negative results would be meaningful. As I see it, there are two reasons for not releasing the details of their experiment. One is to increase the chances of getting a patent and the other is to maintain their lead in cold fusion research. One of the requirements for granting a patent is that the idea must not be obvious to someone in that field. I think we have floundered long enough to prove to the patent office that the idea is not obvious. What other patent reasons are there? As for maintaining a lead, if the rest of the world is passing information around and working together, there is no way that the U of Utah is going to keep a lead generated by two people working for 2 years. They maintained their lead long enough to get money and I think that is all they could really hope to do. So, as I see it, there is no reason to keep on withholding the details of their experiment. Am I missing something? Vince Cate vac@cs.cmu.edu Disclaimer: The above message was generated by a glitch on the net. -- cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / John Robinson / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 24 Apr 89 05:41:00 GMT Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge MA In article <1636@wasatch.utah.edu>, donn@wasatch (Donn Seeley) writes: ... a most amusing account of his encounter with the Salt Lake local news - thanks, Donn! ... On my way to dinner Friday evening, I heard a teaser on NPR that sounded like a possible pickup of this story. They said something about the heat the fusion story is generating on electronic bulletin boards around the world. But I couldn't stay to hear it. Anyone listen in? (it wasn't on Saturday's "weekend edition") -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr C'mon big money! cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjr cudfnJohn cudlnRobinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / newton2@violet / Re: One month without knowing?!?! Originally-From: newton2@violet.berkeley.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: One month without knowing?!?! Date: 24 Apr 89 07:54:10 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Are you missing something, as to reasons for F&P to hamper people from knowledgably critiquing their work? Yes. The more mystery, "art", special technique that is alleged to inhere in "successful" "fusion" experiments, the longer the Great Discoverers, the New Prometheans, can milk a gullible ignorant scientifically childlike public for celebrity, adulation and-dare I suggest-- money!!?? I predict, when all the straggling results from the *real* labs in the world (i.e. physics facilities who know what fusion means, and don't just ascribe any as-yet unknown generator of heat to nuclear processes) that F&P will indignantly withdraw from the bigoted nest feathering academic world and start a company, eagerly funded by all the self-made Real Americans who know that a couple of Wrights in a bicycle shop can beat all the beatnik Einsteins any day. Cold Fusion will go on forever, like Stanford Ovshinsky's company, and will thrive *because* of the disdain of the orthodox science world. I wouldn't be too quick to cliff-dive in any P&F-powered ultralight anytime soon, however. doug maisel 24 April 1989 cudkeys: cuddy24 cudennewton2 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / John McCauley / Cast, Draw, or Milled Pd? (was milled vs. cast pd) Originally-From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cast, Draw, or Milled Pd? (was milled vs. cast pd) Date: 24 Apr 89 06:19:21 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <1796@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >This brings up a question: Where are the hundreds of labs doing this >getting their rods? And, does anyone know how to cast palladium and >could post it to the net? Let me start another speculation -- F&P decided to recycle their Pd rods in-house to save money and for a rougher surface. The Jones group had to roughen their Titanium rods as well. It is indeed my impression that in the two weeks after the news broke, everyone who had $$$$$$ was trying drawn Pd wire or machined rods. [Actually I have heard that machined rods work some of the time (<40%?)] Probably hitting your Pd rods with a hammer and/or using abrasive to scratch up and roughen the surface is all you need. Now I think everyone is trying cast rods -- we'll see if this sets off a new round of foot-in-mouth disease. Don't you like it when the NYTimes has replaced J. Nucl Fusion? Scott P.S. Possible cure for the foot-in-mouth disease -- don't use equipment you don't understand. -- Scott McCauley, jsm@phoenix.princeton.edu (INTERNET) Home: (609) 683-9065 Office: (609) 243-3312 (FTS 340-3312) Fax: (609) 243-2160 (FTS 340-2160) cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / James_J_Kowalc / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 00:00:26 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) If the proposed Sci.physics.fusion is not moderated, how do you propose to keep out all the "fusion as weapon", "fusion as environmental disaster", etc., articles? Or will they be relegated to alt.fusion? Or will alt.fusion be removed? I will vote Yes for creation of sci.physics.fusion if it will cut down on the number of non-scientific articles I have to wade through each day. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Philip Stephens / Email path trouble, Re: Experimenters note pad Originally-From: prs@oliven.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Email path trouble, Re: Experimenters note pad Date: 24 Apr 89 07:58:08 GMT Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca >ted@nmsu.edu >ted at nmsu should work as a bitnet address Sorry to post again. Ted Emailed saying to try uunet. Sounded good, as uunet is in our system map. But it bounced, and uunet told me via mimsy that nmsu is unknown. Address I tried was nmsu!ted@uunet ... did I misinterpret how to formulate the address via uunet??? [I hope this path discussion is useful (eventually) to others; if not please accept my apologies and hit 'n' key] - Phil prs@oliven (Phil Stephens) or: (hplabs,ihnp4,sun,allegra,amdahl)oliveb!oliven!prs cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenprs cudfnPhilip cudlnStephens cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Philip Stephens / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: prs@oliven.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 24 Apr 89 08:22:30 GMT Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca [Correcting a minor typo in my own article...] In article <40873@oliveb.olivetti.com> prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) writes: >In article <1989Apr20.143800.14572@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >>The Italian result is interesting. They seem to get fusion when there >> [...] >At lower frequencies, one can choose the waveform, and a square-wave >would indeed give the greatest Pd motion for any given *peak* voltage. ^^ ... Of course, I meant 'greatest motion of D+ w/i Pd or Ti lattice'; poor proofreading on my part. While I'm at it, another: >frequency, but audio or even 60Hz would be worth trying). Could have said this more clearly; various audio-range and ultrasound frequencies may be interesting to try, or even simple 60 cycle power stepped-down and isolated via a transformer. (A further thought: run it through a full-wave rectifier, and try with varying amounts of smoothing, ie the ratio between peak and valley voltage potentials. Or do half-wave rectification, but with partial bypass of rectifier, yielding DC bias to net effect of sine-wave). - Phil prs@oliven (Phil Stephens) or: (hplabs,ihnp4,sun,allegra,amdahl)oliveb!oliven!prs cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenprs cudfnPhilip cudlnStephens cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Bernie Cosell / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 24 Apr 89 12:43:25 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA In article <39002@bbn.COM> jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) writes: } }On my way to dinner Friday evening, I heard a teaser on NPR that }sounded like a possible pickup of this story. They said something }about the heat the fusion story is generating on electronic bulletin }boards around the world. But I couldn't stay to hear it. Anyone }listen in? (it wasn't on Saturday's "weekend edition") Yup, that was us ---- interviews with several of the regular-posters [how's your cramming for your quals coming?? :-)] and a pretty reasonable description of what's going on [and the interesting cicumstance that if almost anyone in the world says _anything_ about this topic, a usenetter is probably not far away and it shows up here *QUICK*]. Another thing it mentioned (which seems to be true) is that this newsgroup is NOT being used by the *researchers* to sort things out and compare results, but mostly be *watchers* keeping track and speculating (and that most the speculators generally know more about Pascal than they do about Palladium :-)). Anyone know how NPR heard about us? [do they have a feed?]. Also, anyone know how the *researchers* are staying in touch --- we've been told that most of the obvious places (LANL, etc) coupled with a BUNCH of other places are all madly doing one thing or another.... do they talk to one another? __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy24 cudencosell cudfnBernie cudlnCosell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / Mike Shawaluk / Infinite Energy (was Re: Eco-stupidity) Originally-From: mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Infinite Energy (was Re: Eco-stupidity) Date: 23 Apr 89 16:10:09 GMT Organization: Lake Systems - Milwaukee, Wisconsin In article <8640@csli.Stanford.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >Agriculture could be revolutionized by an inexpensive indoor light source. >We might be able to grow our plants in factories, and not have to clear >as much forest. Somehow, when I read the above line, it reminded me of the movie "Silent Running", which is a science fiction movie of a future in which U.S. Department of Forestry (or some equivalent organization) has taken wildlife and plant samples into space in giant domes, as their natural habitat seems to have been destroyed over the years (something early in the movie about preserving them in space until "something can be done about it", at which time they would bring them back. Or so my foggy memory tells me, it's been quite a while since I saw the movie.). Anyways, the triggering scene was at one point in the movie, where one of the characters sets up lamps in one of the domes for the plants, with no apparent exhaustable source of power (I don't want to say much more, or I'll spoil the movie for those who might not have seen it). The thing that I remember about that movie is that none of the characters seemed to give the issue of where the power/energy was coming from a second thought, and I guess I was thinking that this type of thinking COULD come about if "Mr. Fusion" became a reality... -- - Mike Shawaluk (mikes@lakesys.lakesys.com OR ...!uunet!marque!lakesys!mikes) "Where were you on the night of August 12?" cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmikes cudfnMike cudlnShawaluk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / William Watson / German refutation of cold fusion Originally-From: watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: German refutation of cold fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 16:07:47 GMT Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX This is a copy of an article from the internal news system at Tandem. Copied By: WATSON_WILLIAM @AUSTIN SENT: 89-04-21 07:06 FROM: SCHWARTZ_GERHARD @FRANKFT TO: DL.ALL_TANDEM @FRANKFT SUBJECT: 3:"Cold fusion" - just a flop ??? Hello world, a lot of exitement had been caused by the Fleischmann/Pons experiments. Here is a report by German scientists which raises substantial doubts. If those findings prove to be correct, this may well mean the end of the cold fusion dream for quite some time. Sorry 'bout that, Gerhard ----------------------- TEXT ATTACHMENT ---------------------------- SENT: 89-04-21 07:06 FROM: SCHWARTZ_GERHARD @FRANKFT The German scientists Kreysa, Marx and Plieth did experiments at the institute for anorganic chemistry of the Berlin university to verify the Fleischmann/Pons experiments at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. The German Society for Chemical Technology (Dechema) produced a report, which states: "Fleischmann and Pons did electrolyse heavy water (deuterium oxyde) using Palladium electrodes and noticed the following effects. Appearantly, neutrons were generated at the electrode as well as a possible fusion product of deuterium, Tritium. The reaction between neutrons and the water bath surrounding the electrolytic cell produced gamma rays. The Palladium electrodes produced more heat than would be expected from the electric energy that was applied to the cell. In one experiment, a palladium cube of one cubic centimeter produced that much heat that it melted partly and did distroy parts of the experimental setup in a blast. However, the heat production of the supposed fusion of Deuterium (as calculated from radiation measurements) was that low that it could explain just a small fraction of the heat actually produced. The authors therefore postulated another, yet unknown core reaction process. The three German scientists were able to show with their experiment, that all observations (in principle) were correct. However, by further verification experiments they were able to further substanciate doubts whether a cold fusion is required to explain the effects. In the natural radiation that surrounds us, there are always some neutrons, their number is subject to change substancially both with time and different locations. Fleischmann and Pons did measure on their test location three times the neutron flow than at another location within the same building. However, a verification measurement at the test location was not done. At about the same energy required to produce the gamma rays in the water bath, there is the radiation of the Bismut isotope 214, which is a decay product of Radium and can be found in almost every building. The measurement setup used by Fleischmann and Pons was not accurate enough to differentiate that isotope radiation from gamma rays. The three German scientists used a more accurate measuring technique to achieve this. They also found that the Tritium observed was in the heavy water from the beginning and did accumulate during the electrolysis at the electrodes. The strong heat is caused by the fact that the Deuterium produced by the electrolytic process is dissolved in the Palladium electrodes and distributes within them. The Deuterium also gets into the electrode's surface above the electrolytic fluid. There, it reacts with oxygen by the catalytic action of the metal and produces great amounts of heat. This effect is known since 1823 and was used in the so-called "Doebereiner cigarette lighter". At the experiment in Salt Lake City using the Palladium cube, appearantly there was a high content of Deuterium in the cube which could not react with Oxygen because the cube was completely submerged in the fluid. Because the fluid level was reduced by the electrolytic process, at a certain point the cube's upper surface got in contact with air, and the resulting reaction between Deuterium and Oxygen did destroy the cube in an explosion. In their experiments, the German scientists used a Palladium sheet loaded with Hydrogen. After removing it from the electrolytic cell, it produced that much heat that it caused a burned spot on the table surface. This can only be explained by the spontaneous catalytic oxydation of the hydrogen dissolved in the Palladium electrode with the oxygen in the air. Of course, this effect is not relevant for producing energy because more electric energy had to be used in the electrolytic process. A simple technology to use fusion energy would indeed be very beneficial for mankind. However, according to the results and conclusions by the three German scientists, one has to conclude that the results produced by Fleischmann and Pons up to now are not sufficient to prove that a cold fusion actually did occur." cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenwatson cudfnWilliam cudlnWatson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Paul Dietz / Retraction Rumor Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Retraction Rumor Date: 24 Apr 89 15:32:14 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY I talked to the public information office at Texas A&M. The person I talked to this morning (4/24) said the researchers there have *not* retracted their claim. He said there was some confusion apparently originating in a report in last wednesday's Washington Post, where it was erroneously claimed that a retraction had been made. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Paul Dietz / Re: German refutation of cold fusion Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: German refutation of cold fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 17:00:09 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY A bit of thought shows that the chemical mechanism proposed by the Germans cannot explain the main F & P result, the measurement of excess heat production over a long period. Yes, deuterium can burn in oxygen, but the heat thus produced is ultimately derived from the electrical energy input. F & P claim to have measured more energy out than was put in. Assuming (big if) that their measurements are correct, it is difficult to see how chemistry could explain them. Publication via newspaper is sleazy for both sides in this affair. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / David Detlefs / Re: One month without knowing?!?! Originally-From: dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: One month without knowing?!?! Date: 24 Apr 89 16:36:54 GMT Organization: CMU CS Department Let me say up front: "I believe in cold fusion." Now let me explain why. We've seen a lot of posts where people say things like "well, a few places have confirmed the Utah observations, but look at all the places that haven't! Especially all the prestigious places that haven't!" It seems to me that in a situation like this negative results are inherently less informational than positive results, for the following reasons. 1) I don't know about the technology of neutron detection and mass spectroscopy, but calorimetry does not strike me as difficult (heck, we did it on a small scale in *high school*!). I tend to believe that someone with a Ph.D. in chemistry who will announce on television that they've measured excess heat probably has, especially in the amounts we're talking about. Of course, the Texas A&M retraction could prove me wrong, but I don't believe anything I've seen on the net till I read it six separate times. No smiley. 2) I'm not worried about unsuccessful experiments. As people have noted, the details of the experiments are somewhat hazy. The published descriptions may be incomplete for any of the nefarious motives bandied about, or it may be that the researchers themselves do not *know* yet what details are important to the effect. If there are unspecified details, certainly different labs will make different decision on these details, and the ones that make the right combinations of these decisions will get results. And they won't know what they did differently from those that didn't get results, either! It could be things like "Oh, when I learned to attach an electrode to a wire, we just wrapped it, we never soldered it!" Or something equally outlandish. Gee, hope I'm right. -- Dave Detlefs Any correlation between my employer's opinion Carnegie-Mellon CS and my own is statistical rather than causal, dld@cs.cmu.edu except in those cases where I have helped to form my employer's opinion. (Null disclaimer.) -- cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendld cudfnDavid cudlnDetlefs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / T Kunselman / Fusion Article in The Chronicle of Higher Education Originally-From: tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion Article in The Chronicle of Higher Education Date: 24 Apr 89 17:53:44 GMT Organization: U of Ky, Math. Sciences, Lexington KY Here is another article to add more skepticism to the mess! CONFUSION CONTINUES OVER ROOM-TEMPERATURE FUSION Re-typed without permission from Page A8, April 26, 1898 The Chronicle of Higher Education -Kim A. McDonald Is room-temperature nuclear fusion one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of this century? Or is it an overly publicized mistake, compounded by erroneous reports of verification? Nuclear physicists, who plan to put those questions to the test next week in Baltimore at a meeting of the American Physical Society, are still not sure. But mounting evidence from laboratories around the world suggests that an unknown nuclear process may be responsible for the unusual results of researchers who claim to have obtained fusion in a flask. Last week, scientists at Stanford University, the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, and the National Agency for Nuclear and Alternative Energy in Italy joined a growing number of laboratories reporting positive results from experiments that have sought to duplicate last month's seemingly incredible report of room-temperature fusion. PHYSICISTS REMAIN SKEPTICAL On March 23, two chemists, B. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton in England, announced that they had sustained a nuclear-fusion reaction in a flask of water containing deuterium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen, that produced 10 times more energy than it consumed. Many physicists remain skeptical about the purported breakthrough, saying that most of the hundreds of laboratories that have attempted to duplicate the experiment by sending a small electrical current through a palladium electrode dipped in deuterium water have seen nothing at all. But the unusual characteristics of the positive results have piqued the curiosity of many scientists. At Stanford, a team of researchers reported that two experiments -- on using deuterium water and a control, using ordinary water - eliminated the possibility that the energy release was caused by a chemical reaction, as some scientists have speculated. "The effect is real and it is substantial," said Robert A. Huggins, a professor of materials science who headed the Stanford investigation. "We're running excess heat above and beyond any chemical system." 50 PCT. MORE HEAT The Stanford scientists, who obtained 50 per cent more heat from five identical experiments using deuterium water than from those using ordinary water, did not measure the output of neutrons, subatomic particles that are a by-product of nuclear fusion. But in Italy, a team of researches headed by Francesco Scaramuzzi, a physicist at a government nuclear-energy institute, said it had obtained a stream of neutrons 100 times the background level from one of its experiments. The Italian group, in a departure from the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, exposed titanium scraps to a stream of deuterium gas to achieve it's results. The group has filed a patent application on its technique and plans to publish details of its results in the journal, Europhysics Letters. NEUTRON MEASUREMENTS DIFFICULT In Brazil, researchers at the Institute of Physics of the University of Sao Paulo working jointly with the Institute of Nuclear and Energy Research there, said they had also measured neutrons from an attempt to duplicate the Pons-Fleischmann experiment. They said the levels of neutrons obtained were twice as large as the background level. Some skeptical physicists, noting that neutron levels are difficult to measure accurately, said that only careful measurements repeated at a large number of laboratories would persuade them that some kind of nuclear reaction was occurring. Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology who two weeks ago reported a more than tenfold increase in neutrons from their attempt to duplicate the experiment, for instance, discovered later that they were in error because their neutron counter was sensitive to heat emanating from a bath of water used in the experiment. Even if researches establish that the reaction is, indeed, producing neutrons, skeptics say they are extremely puzzled by the fact that the levels being reported are a billion times lower than conventional nuclear fusion. That process, which requires temperatures of millions of degrees, is the energy-liberating mechanism that powers the sun and the stars. "I think physicists are just skeptical of anything that is a radical departure from what they know about this," said Phillip F. Schewe, a physicist who is a spokesman for the American Physical Society. "The attitude is 'Let's make sure we have it right.'" PRESS ACCOUNTS CRITICIZED Robert L. Park, a condensed-matter physicist who heads the Washington office of the society, said press accounts about the fusion experiments had given a distorted picture of the overwhelmingly skeptical opinion among scientists, because the reports had generally focused on positive reports. "While there are some people who are seeing positive results, there are many more people who aren't seeing anything at all," he added. "You don't call a press conference to say that I didn't find anything." Mr. Park said the society's meeting next week, which will devote a late-night session to the failures as well as successes of researchers attempting to duplicate room-temperature fusion, should produce a lively debate on the subject. -- Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek Office of Institutional Research bitnet: tek@ukma.bitnet Kentucky State University internet: tek@ms.uky.edu Frankfort, KY 40601 cudkeys: cuddy24 cudentek cudfnThomas cudlnKunselman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / S Schoettler / Pd structure (was: Re: Cast, Draw, or Milled Pd? (was milled vs. cast Originally-From: shs@uts.amdahl.com (Steve Schoettler) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Pd structure (was: Re: Cast, Draw, or Milled Pd? (was milled vs. cast pd) Date: 24 Apr 89 16:30:09 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA In article <7930@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.) writes: >In article <1796@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >>This brings up a question: Where are the hundreds of labs doing this >>getting their rods? And, does anyone know how to cast palladium and >>could post it to the net? > >Probably hitting your Pd rods with a hammer and/or using abrasive >to scratch up and roughen the surface is all you need. > > Scott >Scott McCauley, jsm@phoenix.princeton.edu (INTERNET) How about a materials perspective? We know that the fusion is a VOLUME effect, not a surface effect. Sure the surface matters, but what about the lattice structure inside? If the reaction depends on the continuous interstitial diffusion of hydrogen, in the paladium electrode, then we really want a structure that promotes this: Lots of vacancies in the lattice (increase probability of H migration), and Small grain size (since diffusion happens most rapidly along grain boundaries, you want more grain boundaries) It would seem to me that heating the electrode, as was done at Texas A&M, would not only help remove the Hydrogen, but would also help organize the structure as above, especially if it were quenched it afterward. Does anyone know how the electrode was COOLED? Another way to achieve these volumetric effects would be hard working the metal, such as hitting it with a hammer. Steve [I'm not a meterials engineer, but I play one on the net.] -- Steve Schoettler shs@uts.amdahl.com {sun,decwrl,pyramid,ames,uunet}!amdahl!shs Amdahl Corp., M/S 213, 1250 E. Arques Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94088 cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenshs cudfnSteve cudlnSchoettler cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Joseph Hall / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 24 Apr 89 18:19:37 GMT Organization: North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC In article <6991@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >>If I remember an article by Kostas Tsipis in Sci. Am. a few years ago >>correctly: >> >> - a 1 megaton air burst on a very clear day could create a 10 mile >> radius firestorm. .. .>> - thus the radius of destruction of a 1 gigaton bomb would be about >> 100 miles. (!!!) However, the same area could be destroyed by 100 >... Well, actually, very large thermonuclear weapons begin to "punch through" the upper atmosphere at yields in the 40+ megaton range, and throw a disproportionate amount of energy out into space. The classic (if you want to call it that) book on applied nukes is "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," which is probably still available from whatever the appropriate gov't agency is now. (NRC? DoE?) It used to come with a little circular slide rule in a pocket inside the back cover so you could figure blast effects (ionizing radiation, thermal radiation, peak overpressure, velocity of broken glass, etc.) just about as fast as you could think of cities and yields. -- v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court v v s s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511 v sss || joseph@ece007.ncsu.edu (Try this one first) -----------|| Standard disclaimers and all that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjnh cudfnJoseph cudlnHall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Alien Wells / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 24 Apr 89 14:04:03 GMT Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass. In article <8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >"Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? Actually, quite possibly even more than that. Massive changes like this affect weather patterns quite far removed from them (sort of like midwest polluters creating the snow belts over upstate New York). There would be quite a bit of humidity put into the air, which would translate into more rain downstream. There are other, more subtle, effects. As to 'what right do we have to do that?', presumably the same right that the US had to massively irrigate the central plains semi-desert and turn it into the most productive farm-land in the world. It is hard to get up on a moral soapbox and preach unless we are willing to let the Mississippi basin return to its natural state. >2) The increased water use would tend to result in increased leaching, > as well as concentration of salt in the oceans from massive desalinization. > We could upset the balance of the entire ocean!" This is more than rediculous, it is ABSURD! Water ends up in the oceans. Period. Unless you are actually storing it somewhere (and do you know where you could store a significant % of the ocean) or turning it into something other than water (same question), it evaporates, runs off, etc and ends up right back where it started from. -- ============================================================================= A path is a terrible thing to waste ... decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien ============================================================================= cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenalien cudfnAlien cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Ted Dunning / Re: Room Temperature Fusion Research Precautions Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: sci.research,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion Research Precautions Date: 24 Apr 89 18:30:44 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science from what i have seen, the chances of a runaway reaction is vanishingly remote, but In article <124@hydra.ecrcvax.UUCP> johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: ... As a precaution, might RTF researchers keep up to date lab notebooks at remote sites (via these wonderful computer networks). It might be very useful to know the events/experiments/results/theories that led up to an explosion that wiped out all the apparatus. ... even if the chances are very remote, this isn't a bad precaution. i would hate to have to try to figure out what a person did to cause a disaster without some hints. the cost of maintaining the secondary copies are really pretty small, the chances of needing them are minute, but the possible payoff (not to the experimenter, unfortunately) is significant. what does anyone else think about this? cudkeys: cuddy24 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Doug Roberts / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 24 Apr 89 18:41:15 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory >Also, anyone > know how the *researchers* are staying in touch --- we've been told that most > of the obvious places (LANL, etc) coupled with a BUNCH of other places are > all madly doing one thing or another.... do they talk to one another? > I believe that there is at least one researcher here at Los Alamos who reads the news (it's not me: I'm a LISPer). --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Ted Dunning / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 24 Apr 89 18:56:18 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <40933@oliveb.olivetti.com> prs@oliven.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens) writes: >At lower frequencies, one can choose the waveform, and a square-wave >would indeed give the greatest Pd motion for any given *peak* voltage. ^^ ... Of course, I meant 'greatest motion of D+ w/i Pd or Ti lattice'; poor proofreading on my part. While I'm at it, another: >frequency, but audio or even 60Hz would be worth trying). Could have said this more clearly; various audio-range and ultrasound frequencies may be interesting to try, or even simple 60 cycle power stepped-down and isolated via a transformer. (A further thought: run it through a full-wave rectifier, and try with varying amounts of smoothing, ie the ratio between peak and valley voltage potentials. Or do half-wave rectification, but with partial bypass of rectifier, yielding DC bias to net effect of sine-wave). this assumes we have a working experiment to optimize. (not trying to sound negative, it is just that it seems to be a hard thing to do). just about the quickest and most direct way to characterize linear systems is to use a synthesized pseudo-random noise with known (and specifically wonderful) auto-correlation. the output of the system under test can then be processed using fourier transforms and the transfer function computed directly. the pseudo-random noise can be generated in real time using software, and if necessary can be band-width limited at the same time using very simple digital filters. the characterization of a non-linear system is much more difficult, unless the non-lineararity is a small perturbation of an nearly linear system. such systems are usually modelled as linear systems with small product terms. an excellent reference on the prediction (which is what we are trying to do) of complex dynamic systems (which is what we may well have), is Doyne Farmer and John Sidorowich's tech report titled `Exploting Chaos to Predict the Future and Reduce Noise'. This is lanl tech report number LA-UR-88-901. I think this is available from T-division or from the center for non-linear studies. the method used is to characterize a discrete map derived by sampling a continuous system. this map is embedded in a state space and relatively simple methods are used to obtain an estimation of the map. they claim that in the case of predicting rayleigh-bernard convection, their techniques are as much as 50 times better than conventional methods. all of these methods are far superior to random twiddling if the system is complex, or if careful optimization is important. random twiddling has the major advantages of being a very low overhead approach, and letting the experimenters get a good intuitive feel for the model. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Umesh Garg / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: umesh@nikhefk.UUCP (Umesh Garg) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 14:55:13 GMT Organization: Nikhef-K, Amsterdam (the Netherlands). In article <17541@cup.portal.com> James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com writes: > >I will vote Yes for creation of sci.physics.fusion if it will cut down >on the number of non-scientific articles I have to wade through each day. > >Jim Kowalczyk > Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu DITTO -Umesh Garg umesh@nikhefk cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenumesh cudfnUmesh cudlnGarg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / M Hadeishi / L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy Originally-From: mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy Date: 24 Apr 89 07:51:36 GMT Organization: Whole Earth Lectroinic Link, Sausalito, CA Summary of extract presented below: In a stunning discovery Monday, April 17, Walling and Simons at U. of Utah lent great credence to D+D -> 4He theory by discovering 4He in palladium electrode in a Pons' experiment. The amounts are consistent with a fusion process and the heat being observed. On Tuesday, Italian scientists confirmed cold fusion in a parallel experiment using deuterium gas and titanium electrodes. They report high neutron count but not significant heat output. However, it is clear evidence of the feasibility of cold fusion. On Wednesday, Stanford reported that they have confirmed the P&F experiment in a setup that includes a control experiment with normal water. They repeated the experiment five times and got significantly greater heat output from the heavy water experiment. The heat measured is similar to that observed by P&F. On the same day Czechoslovakia claimed to have reproduced the experiment, following up claims by Moscow University and Hungary last week that they have also reproduced the experiment. Extract (full article minus details USENET readers already know) from Wednesday's edition of the L.A. Times, Part I page 3: by LEE DYE, Times Science Writer . . . Stanford University revealed experiments that indicate nuclear fusion, and not some kind of chemical reaction, is the most likely explanation for heat generated by a table-top apparatus at the University of Utah. The Stanford discovery came on the heels of discovery of helium-4 in the Utah experiment, a discovery that fits perfectly with a growing number of theories that explain why it might be possible to achieve fusion at room temperature with a simple experiment. . . . . Many physicists have argued that it is essential to conduct a "control" experiment, which would reveal whether the heat detected in the Utah experiment comes from a chemical reaction or nuclear fusion. That could be done by running parallel experiments, one with "heavy water," . . . and one with ordinary water. . . . . A Stanford team of seven researchers, led by Robert A. Huggins, professor of materials science, has conducted a series of control experiments and found that the experiment with regular water produced no heat. But the one with heavy water produced heat "comparable to that reported by Pons and Fleishmann," Huggins said. The experiment was repeated at least five times in side-by-side versions---always with the same result. . . . . "We are seeing quite a difference" between the two experiments, Huggins said. "The thermal effects are real." . . . The experiment apparently produces so few radioactive byproducts that they are almost impossible to measure. Huggins stopped short of saying that the work at Stanford confirms that nuclear fusion is the only explanation for the heat generated by the experiment, but it clearly shows that deuterium plays a key role in whatever is going on. "We think the result is significant," he said. . . . . Huggins said he can understand why many other laboratories are having trouble replicating the experiment. "It sounds simpler than it really is," he said. "It's easy for people to do bad experiments." . . . . Cheves Walling, a widely respected chemist who pioneered the study of nuclear reactions, and fellow chemist John Simons put one of Pons' heat-generating experiments in their mass spectrometer and determined that the experiment was producing helium-4. Helium-4 is the most common form of helium, but it is extremely rare as a byproduct of deuterium fusion, and its presence in the palladium used in the Pons-Fleishmann experiment is extremely significant, Walling said. From the beginning, physicists have been skeptical of the Utah claims because the experiment should have produced far more neutrons than were detected by Pons and Fleishmann . . . . . . . "I think it's the last nail in the coffin," pioneering nuclear physicist Robert Cornog said of the discovery of helium-4 in the electrode. "It's almost as exciting as the original announcement." . . . . Eerkens, who has held a wide range of posts in the nuclear industry, said in an interview that helium-4 is being produced instead of helium-3 because of something he calls the "wall effect." . . . . in the palladium electrode used in the Utah experiment, the deuterons are packed tightly into the crystal lattice of the palladium itself, Eerkens said. When deuterons fuse in the palladium, he said, the helium-4 bangs into "the wall" of palladium. "The wall absorbs the energy," he said, which is then released as heat. The helium-4 remains trapped in the alttice, although it occasionally turns into helium-3 and releases a neutron. . . . . When Walling and Simons set out to see if the Pons- Fleishmann experiment had produced helium-4, they had one advantage over everyone else: They had access to the same experiments used by Pons. They chose an electrode that was already producing heat, and while it was running they checked to see what elements it was producing. They found helium-4, Walling said, and in amounts consistent with the heat that was being generated. That development may not be as exciting as some other parts of this ongoing scientific drama, but for dozens of theorists trying to come up with an explanation for what is going on, it was stunning news. "It's a major advancement," said Cornog, who decades ago took part in some of the earliest experiments in nuclear physics at UC Berkeley. In one of the more peculiar developments Tuesday, Italian scientists announced that they had created nuclear fusion in a small apparatus that is very different from the Utah experiment. . . . . Unlike the Pons-Fleishmann results, the Frascati experiment emitted a substantial number of neutrons, which Scaramuzzi and other Italian scientists said could only have come from a cold fusion reaction. "The results of the Frascati experiment leave us extremely convinced that fusion was obtained," Scaramuzzi said in a Rome press conference. "From the scientific point of view, we are confident." In the Italian experiment, shavings of titanium were placed in a small tube containing deuterium gas. Like palladium, titanium also lends itself to the compaction of deuterium. . . . . The Italians did not reveal exactly how the experiment was conducted, but Scaramuzzi said it was repeated several times and emitted several hundred neutrons per second---still far below what would have been expected prior to Pons and Fleishmann but, if true, high enough to indicate nuclear fusion. Meanwhile, the Czechoslovak news agency CTK said that a group of physicists and mathematicians from Bratislava's Comenius University had also achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature in an experiment conducted Monday, but further details were not available. That brings to five the number of nations with scientists claiming to have duplicated the Pons-Fleischmann experiment. ******* END OF EXTRACT ******* As far as I'm concerned, this is enough evidence for me: we have fusion, it's D+D -> 4He or something related (D+D+D -> 4He + D?). And this is GOOD NEWS INDEED. Had we not found something like this, we would be faced with the running out of liquid petroleum fuels within the next twenty years or so not to mention the increasing problem of CO2 increase. If we switch to this process ASAP and phase out petroleum burning, these problems are now basically controllable. Now, on to the ozone layer . . . we've got to figure out a new way to make things *cold* now, looks like we've got *heat* figured out . . . Mitsu Hadeishi A former Harvard physics major, since graduating employed at Electronic Arts, where they let me create OOP development systems reach me at ucbvax!well!mitsu or more simply mitsu@well.UUCP cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenmitsu cudfnMitsuharu cudlnHadeishi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / M Hadeishi / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 24 Apr 89 08:41:13 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Re: population effects of inexhaustible energy source Before this "debate" gets too far out of hand, I'd like to make some basic points about population biology that have been overlooked here. First of all, I'd like to say that I consider myself an environmentalist, however a thoughtful one and I try to keep up to date with the science (I was a physics major at Harvard). The fact is that population growth has nothing at all to do with availability of energy sources, rather it has to do with death rates. For some unknown reason, human populations tend to match birth and death rates with a lag time of about one generation. This has been substantiated with extensive statistical research, and a prime example of this is that the so-called developed countries have essentially a zero or even slightly negative population growth if you discount immigration (including the United States). This is despite the fact that these countries have the best food, energy, and medical care supplies in the world. What this means is that if you dramatically decrease the death rate there will be a population explosion for a period of time followed by a stabilization. This is substatiated by declining birth rates in almost every underdeveloped country. However, these birth rates are not declining quickly enough to avoid a population doubling before stabilization. I want to make it perfectly clear: the population level WILL STABILIZE, and this is a well-known fact, and it doesn't matter how much energy we produce. The fact is that birth rates negatively correlate with education level, to the degree that, for example, even a couple extra years of elementary-school education leads to an average of a couple fewer children. Thus it is quite clear that better living conditions and educational levels actually HELP the population problem, they do NOT HURT. Myths to the contrary only hamper efforts to provide improved health care and educational aid to developing nations. Now it is my belief that we have no right to dictate to these countries what they need. Imperialist powers in previous centuries have proven the terrible consequences of such an approach in these lands. In particular it irks me no end that Rifkin would be so irresponsible as to say that providing these countries with the capability to feed their starving people, if that is what they want, would be "disastrous" for the world---yes, this technology, like any other, can be misused, but I hope responsible environmentalists will fight to prevent real misuse of technology and retain the credibility they need by speaking out against something only when it is necessary, not because of a blanket anti-technologism or any other such stupid left-brain conceptual structure. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenmitsu cudfnMitsuharu cudlnHadeishi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / wyant / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 24 Apr 89 18:11:39 GMT From article <39002@bbn.COM>, by jr@bbn.com (John Robinson): > On my way to dinner Friday evening, I heard a teaser on NPR that > sounded like a possible pickup of this story. They said something > about the heat the fusion story is generating on electronic bulletin > boards around the world. But I couldn't stay to hear it. Anyone > listen in? (it wasn't on Saturday's "weekend edition") Last Friday evening, on NPR's All Things Considered, the interest generated by the cold fusion discussion was covered. The brief article mentioned the topics and issues under discussion on an unnamed electronic network. There were even telephone interviews with two Usenet luminaries who offered their summaries of activities on this unnamed network. One of the shortcomings of the network for this particular topic is the paucity of physical scientists who participate. However, the unnamed network is still heavily employed for rumors and discussion. Does this mean that Usenet is now respectable? Patrick Wyant Engineering Physics Lab E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Wilmington, DE 19880-0357 *!uunet!eplrx7!wyant cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenwyant cudlnwyant cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.23 / T Wells / Re: Lotza ergs Originally-From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lotza ergs Date: 23 Apr 89 19:19:10 GMT Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale In article <109@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) writes: : Given the assumedly unlimited etc. energy supply we are about to enjoy, : looks like no-one will bother with CMOS anymore - back to bipolar and ECL! : Sell your stocks NOW! Bull. Consider batteries for portables along with the problem of heat production. Cold fusion, assuming that is real and practical, does nothing about energy storage and the efficiency of energy use. --- Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenbill cudfnT cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Perry Metzger / German refutiation of cold fusion? Originally-From: perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: German refutiation of cold fusion? Date: 24 Apr 89 20:11:28 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ Let me start by saying that I am not yet convinced that F&P have actually produced fusion. However, the logic in the reposted German article is weak at best, and can hardly be considered a "disproof" of piezofusion. For those that didn't read, it can be likened to... 1. The excess neutrons are the result of differences between the background count at the location where the background was taken and background at the location where the experiment was conducted. 2. The excess heat is all due to catalysed recombination of the D and O at the surface of the palladium. Lets start with 2, because it is easier. The energy released by the D and O recombination can't be higher than the quantity of electric energy added to the system. F&P counted the total quantity of electrical energy added as "input" in their calculations. Ergo, this is meaningless; they have already accounted for the possibility. It is silly for anyone to mention it since it is clearly handled in the paper. As for 1, this is potentially more damning, but for the area around the experiment to be three times hotter than a region only a few feet away, and with (presumably) the same quantity of shielding from the outside, seems quite unusual. I am sufficiently unimpressed by the neutron detection work that F&P did that I would like to see a lot more done on this before I believe that they actually detected neutrons. HOWEVER, the presense of a possible explanation for the behavior hardly constitutes a disproof as the poster has suggested, and since F&P have repeated the experiment several times simultaneously, I find it hard to believe that all the sections of the lab would have an elevated neutron count about the experimental apparatus by coincidence. I am suprised that the German paper had to go to these lengths to explain the problem; why not just chalk it up to bad use of the detector equipment, as with the Georgia Tech people? To summarise, the excess heat hasn't been explained away, and there is hardly any damning evidence against the elevated neutron count IN THIS PAPER. Perry cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenperry cudfnPerry cudlnMetzger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Kevin Allred / cold fusion -- what is wrong with this picture? Originally-From: allred@ut-emx.UUCP (Kevin L. Allred) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: cold fusion -- what is wrong with this picture? Date: 24 Apr 89 20:45:28 GMT Organization: UT-Austin, Dept. of Chem. Engr I have been reading the postings about cold fusion since they began appearing almost a month ago, and I have forwarded a number of interesting postings to my brother who is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University. He formulated his thoughts on the subject and asked me to post this for him. As he does not have USENET at his sight, replies should be sent to him at his internet address: allred@xray.byu.edu. ------- Comments on the abstract of the preprint on "Catalysis of Deuterium Fusion in Metal Hydrides by Cosmic Ray Muons" by Guinan et. al. of LLNL. Their model is at odds with all that is known about muon chemistry. The muon stops on atoms according to the Fermi-Teller Law. In a mixture or compound the probability that a muon stops on an atom is according to its atomic number, Z. Thus in SiC, for example, the Si would get the muon 14/(14+6) fraction of the time and C 6/(14+6) fraction of the time. There are deviations to the Fermi-Teller Law but they are not large. There is no evidence anywhere that a large heavy atom can become "invisible" as the abstract claims. It gets worse for their argument. Once the electron in captured by an atom it starts falling down the energy levels towards the 1s. If it is captured on an atom with z equal or greater than 2, it will normally be stuck. If is captured on one of the three isotopes of hydrogen, it will form a very small neutral atom. The muon is massive so that the Bohr radius is very small. This will drift through the surrounding matter basically free. Because it is neutral, it behaves much like a neutron, free to penetrate deep inside the electron clouds of the surrounding atoms. Its path is random and may take it near other hydrogen nuclei or the nuclei of other atoms. The first is the origin of muon catalyzed fusion as normally understood. The second event leads to the transfer of the muon to the heavy atom, where it is lost to fusion catalysis. Work has been done on muon chemistry in a variety of compounds as well as hydrides. See, for example, Knight et. al. Phys. Rev Lett. 38(1977) 953. and R. A. Naumann Zeitschrift Fuer Physik A291 (1979) 33. The heavy atom gets the muon sooner rather than later. A more telling argument against the muon model will be statistics. The cosmic ray muon model will require 700 neutrons in one microsecond. Only if the muons seen in the D-D experiments come out in microsecond clusters will that be viable. If they don't the model has little validity. Concerning Hagelstein's work: Abstracts, of course, don't tell the whole story but his efforts seem to be aimed at shoring up the hypothesis that D+D goes to 4He plus more than 22 Mev Energy. He has tried to invent schemes to get the energy out into the lattice without the presence of lethal and very detectable gamma rays. The idea of doing that is hardly original. Where people are showing their creativity and style is inventing schemes. All I have seen fall flat when you consider basic laws of physics like conservation of momentum, entropy and the like. I have trouble with the arguments because the scales of the phenomena - nuclei vs atoms - are so different. 20 MeV of excess energy in the 4He compound nucleus is about 4 million times the energies seen in normal condensed matter (solids, liquids and gases). The nucleus is unbound by a few MeV. Entropy and experience show that the excess energy will be dissipated by the quickest way possible. The protons and neutrons in the nucleus are moving relative to one another, colliding and redistributing the energy they suddenly share at a frightful rate. It doesn't take long until one nucleon, a proton or a neutron, ends up with most of the energy and it moves away from the rest. The strong force attraction between it and the nucleons it leaves behind falls to zero and the Coulomb repulsion, in the case of a proton, takes over. How long does this take? Blinding speed but it can be quantified. The speed of a 2.5 MeV nucleon (neutron or proton) is about 0.07 times the velocity of light that is about 20 million meters a second. Nuclei are small, about one fermi or 10 to the -13 meters. It takes a nucleon about 5 times 10 to the -21 seconds for it to move about one fermi and that is about how long the original compound nucleus lasts. In order for the compound nucleus not to decay with the emission of a neutron or proton the energy has to be siphoned off in 10 to the -21 seconds. That is hard to do. Even the formation and emission of a gamma ray, a high energy photon, is unfavorable relative to the emission of a nucleon. In the time frame of this decay the atom's own electrons, neighboring atoms and their electrons are frozen in space. The characteristics time for atoms to vibrate in their position is about 10 to the -13 second. This is still blindingly fast in human terms but 100 million times slower than the time the nucleus takes to decay. This is about the same ratio as 3 years is to one second. It doesn't do much good to transfer the energy to the electrons in the solid either. As others have observed, if you transfer all 20 Mev to one electron it will be relativistic and give off the characteristic "blue glow" seen above swimming pool reactors. If you imagine that the energy is given to many electrons so that they are not relativistic you are faced with the problem of getting thousands if not millions electrons to each receive a small portion of the energy which must be dissipated. Even if there were a mechanism to do this the time frame is wrong. The energy can travel to the electrons no faster than the speed of light. The diameter of atoms is about 2.5 times ten to the -10 meters. It takes light 10 to the -17 seconds to reach 10,000 atoms around a point and ten times that long to reach millions of atoms. This time is thus 10,000 to 100,000 longer than the time in which the energy will be released from the compound nucleus by the release of a nucleon. To put the energy scales in to more understandable terms let us move from the arena of eV to that of gravitational potential energy and the earth. Let each foot that a standard object, lets say for example a glass of water, is raised above the surface be one electron volt (1 eV). This means that people operate in the range of several eV. This is like a solid. Nuclear potentials are much higher. The greater than 20 MeV compound nucleus corresponds to a glass of water at 20 million feet -- about 4000 miles up!! Imagine that the glass of water is balanced on the top of a pole 4000 miles high and your job is to lower it safely to the ground without spill a drop ever, and you will get an idea how improbable it would be to imagine the energy will consistently be removed from the compound nucleus as atomic excitations. Remember that this must happen 99.999999 % of the time or else far more neutrons and tritium will be produced than anyone has seen in the Pons-Fleishmann effect. I'm quiet sure that some have postulated or will come up will special stabilization mechanisms that will keep the nucleus together while the energy is safely drawn off. Such attempts are usually improbable at best and, to me, sound too much like Deux ex Machina solutions. If there really is fusion then some unlike explanation must be true, but in spite of four weeks of work, there remains no good evidence that the Pons-Fleishmann thermal effect is fusion except for wishful thinking and the fervent testimonials of true believers. Until the numbers come out right it isn't proven to be fusion and it should not have been announced that it is. The physical sciences are first and last numerical and insufficient attention has been paid to numbers by apologists for the P-F thermal effect. In fact with respect to the Pons-Fleishmann thermal effect, the whole area, increasingly sounds like the "true believer" syndrome. Some people are latching on to the smallest signs as confirmation and castigating the skepticism of others as on one hand, the fussiness of physicists who would rather preserve their equations than walk through the door way of "cold fusion" into the new age, or on the other hand, the self-interest of the fusion establishment who doesn't want to see their funding dry up. Inevitably, a nuclear confirmation of the Pons-Fleischmann thermal effect is billions to trillions of times too small and many times disappears upon close scrutiny. There may be some fusion occurring in the Pd wires, but if so, it releases less than one billionth the energy claimed to be seen. It is difficult to see why first, so many people rush to claim they have seen the effect before they can systematically check and compare with other results, or why second, others propose nuclear explanations, apparently without doing simple calculations. As an example of the first consider the lack, until recently, of the control experiment of using normal water. For an example of the second (without apparently doing simple calculations), consider the explanation by a Texas A&M chemist that the reason neutrons weren't seen in the U of U experiment is that the branching ratio changes so that protons rather than neutrons emerged from the compound nucleus. Even if you ignore the argument that nuclear processes can't, and don't, depend strongly on chemistry, the alternative quickly leads to a contradiction. The energy level for the P-F thermal effect requires about 10 to the 13th fusions per second. In one day this leads to 10 to the 18 atoms of tritium. Even if it took a while for most to make their way out of the Pd, a finite fraction would emerge within a day. How much radiation do you get from 10 to the 18 atoms of tritium? Well, the half life of the tritium as most now know by heart is 12 years; there are 3 times 10 to the 7 seconds per year, so the decay rate for tritium is about 10-8 per second. The supposed amount of tritium would then give you 10 to the 10th decays per second. The definition of a curie is that quantity of a radioactive material that gives you 3.7 time 10 to the 10 disintegrations per second. Thus the experiment with the supposed branching ratios would have produced curie levels of radiation every three or four days and, no matter what mechanism for diffusion you postulate, released millicurie levels of tritium into the room. Since tritium exchanges rather freely with water in human beings, such levels are hazardous and would be noticed. Journalists aren't familiar with such matters and may be forgiven for not catching the error, but why didn't the people who postulated the mechanism catch themselves right away before they went public. The argument I just went through should be generally well known by now. It is simple enough that no one can claim brilliance for coming up with it. What is remarkable, bordering on scandalous, is that those that proposed the process as a way of escaping the neutron dilemma apparently didn't do the calculation. At least the press gave no indication that they had reservations of this type. We teach such calculation in the beginning university physics series and in undergraduate physical chemistry. The numbers are not hard to find. Maybe there is a shortage of envelopes for "back-of-the-envelop calculations". The question of the hour may not be "Where are the neutrons?" or even "If it is fusion?" , the question may be "Why can't Professor Johnny think?" Maybe its too much pressure, the worry that if you don't say it someone else will. The case of 4He which has presumed to have been seen in the U of U experiment may fall into the same categories. Determination, in part, was reported to have been by mass spectroscopy. Unless extraordinary care is taken and/or a mass spectrometer capable of resolving the mass defect part per thousand of one amu is available (and preferably both), the helium will be obscured by D2 molecules which we know they have in abundance. The solution is to catalytically burn the gas coming off. Helium will they be apparent. Whatever the case may be, many are growing weary of seeing the headlines, mostly in Utah, scream "Fusion Confirmed Again", by which is meant the P-F thermal effect and maybe a few neutrons and/or tritium in the parts per trillion or parts per billion range has been seen again. Again, until the numbers come out right it isn't confirmed fusion and it should not be announced that way. To do otherwise, is like finding a few dollars in change in the desk of some government official and saying "Great, now we can pay off the National debt." In fact, since those who claim to have seen the effect are only a factor of ten or so off on attributing the effect to chemical sources and off by billions on attributing it to nuclear sources any unbiased observer will give you odds that the P-F thermal effect is chemical not nuclear. The physical sciences are first and last numerical and more attention has to be paid to numbers by anyone who reports on the P-F thermal effect. The P-F thermal effect as fusion energy is dead unless the numbers come out, and those who will explain it must go through the numbers carefully. But perhaps, we are to the point that, in the near term, the most profitable work on "cold fusion" and the P-F effect will be done by social scientists. Like anthropologists studying the interaction of the scientific community, political scientists studying the role of technology in decision making and psychologists studying modern mass hysteria. The whole area is ripe for humorists, in any case. A local wag, Ray Perkins, has made this observation. "In order to explain the experimental data of the recent past, a new physical principle has been formulated. It is an exclusion principle and states: 'You can measure heat, or you can count neutrons, but you can't measure both at the same time or in the same experiment. ' (This is a slightly altered version of the one recently formulated by P. Matheson. Some call this the Ponzi effect since it leads to a pyramid of press releases)." Dr. David D. Allred Department of Physics Brigham Young University allred@xray.byu.edu -- Kevin Allred allred@emx.cc.utexas.edu allred@ut-emx.UUCP cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenallred cudfnKevin cudlnAllred cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Alien Wells / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 24 Apr 89 14:15:10 GMT Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass. In article <11553@s.ms.uky.edu> brian@ms.uky.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes: >In article , roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: >> ... [talks about Mexico city being an example of extreme population growth] > >... Why do people congregate in cities? They find more >things of value there (jobs, etc). ... Actually, one of the real reasons for the population being centralized in Mexico City (and continuing to consolidate at an impressive rate) is that the government knows that all the political power (ie: votes) are in Mexico City and basically rapes the countryside to subsidize life in the city. Public transportation is basically free, the typical citizen pays about $1 per month for his subsidized electric bill. Food is heavily subsidized. On top of all of this, public sector jobs (a very large percentage of a heavily socialized economy) are centered in Mexico City. Will fusion help this? No. Political power and its abuses are remarkably unaffected by technological progress. Technology (like national media, electronic voting booths, etc) helps to make better government possible, but technology hardly mandates it. Similar kudos for the rest of the 3rd world. A government that intentionally starves its people so it can use western aid as bait to lure in ethnic minorities for slave camps isn't likely to become benevolent with increased technology. -- ============================================================================= A path is a terrible thing to waste ... decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien ============================================================================= cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenalien cudfnAlien cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Zap Savage / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: tim@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 24 Apr 89 17:14:44 GMT Organization: Savage Research In article <29346@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: >No. They raised a valid point - cheap, clean energy will only eliminate >one main pollution source among many. It probably won't even eliminate >pollution from cars. (It hasn't in the Pacific Northwest, which has >had cheap hydro-power since WWII.) Hydro-power is not on the same scale as cold fusion. It seems possible that individual households could have reactors (buried possibly to reduce radiation hazard). It may even be possible that reactors could be built small enough to power cars. I hope they wouldn't be steam powered unless the cycle is closed. So.Cal can't afford to throw around water like that. > Our society is addicted to activities which destroy the environment. >Giving it cheap energy may be like giving a drug addict money - he may >use it for treatment, but will probably use it to continue his habit. We do seem to have that tendency. Cheap fusion might allow us to repair some of the damage we've done. Salt water desalinization would allow us to stop using the Colorado River (for example) to water the Southern half of California or at least cut back the amount we pull from the river. -- Zap Savage Savage Research, APS Systems "Zap who?" Charter: Charged with sparking interest in Alternative Power Sources cudkeys: cuddy24 cudentim cudfnZap cudlnSavage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / David Matuszek / Re: idle speculation Originally-From: dave@emerald.PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: idle speculation Date: 24 Apr 89 18:33:08 GMT Organization: Unisys Corporation, Paoli Research Center; Paoli, PA In article <2001@edsel> sjk@lucid.com (Shel Kaphan) writes: > > On the other hand, if there's a way that greed >can put a stranglehold on the dissemination of this technology, it >will certainly try... Can you imagine what it would be like had *fire* >come with patent protection??? There was a letter to the editor in my local paper a day or two ago that said, essentially, cold fusion is too important to allow it to be patented. Bushwa. As I trust most people in this news group realize, patents are a device to encourage invention and the spread of information. In return for getting exclusive rights to his/her invention for a period of time (long enough to get rich), the inventor *makes public* all the information necessary to duplicate the invention. During the period that the patent is in effect, it is in the interests of the inventor to do everything possible to encourage the development and spread of the invention. Personally, I hope that all the key players in the fusion breakthrough are billionaires by the end of the century. (Of course, this will not happen unless cold fusion lives up to its promise!) The current patent laws may not be perfect, but for the most part they do succeed in promoting new technology. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable. ** Fusion now! Remember the Exxon Valdez! ** cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendave cudfnDavid cudlnMatuszek cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Henry Spencer / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 24 Apr 89 22:47:20 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <1989Apr19.164125.645@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >... Paul Ehrlich has said that cheap >fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." And Jeremy >Rifkin says "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Verily it is said, there is nobody true revolutionaries hate so much as the man who hints that paradise might be possible without the revolution. Or, as Santayana put it: "fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim". -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Dennis Thurlow / Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Originally-From: det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Date: 24 Apr 89 21:51:43 GMT Organization: AT&T NSSC S. Plainfield, NJ >Must we infer that d+d-->n+He3 or p+t reactions in fact occur? >d+d-->He4 might make an energetic alpha particle that could make >neutrons and tritium by reaction with lithium-7. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu I recall responding to a post where-in I proposed just this sort of thing, but the all mighty administrator must have deleted it, as I never saw it. Apparently theorists aren't appreciated unless they come from some "appropriate" background. :-( -nsscb!det cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendet cudfnDennis cudlnThurlow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / N Truher / Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 25 Apr 89 00:24:02 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <1773@Portia.Stanford.EDU> armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) writes: >I talked to one researcher from LANL today, and he mentioned that he >called up their supplier and asked for cast palladium rods for this >experiment, and they told them that the only rods of palladium of >the required dimentions are drawn, not cast. The supplier claimed >that if F&P did use cast rods, they were most probably cast specially >for this purpose in England. (I've no Idea why he suspected this.) This is purely speculation, but the above SOUNDS kinda like typical salesman talk, i.e., "If we ain't got it, it don't exist. Would I lie to you?" cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenthrash cudfnNathaniel cudlnTruher cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Jonathan Quist / Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Originally-From: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Date: 24 Apr 89 16:23:43 GMT Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, Il. In article <1309@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: > >When Jeremy Rifkin, Paul Ehrlich, Richard Charter and Laura Nader (all quoted >in the controversial article) voluntarily report to the gas chambers, I will >begin to believe that they take their own arguments about over-crowding >seriously. Until then I have to assume that they merely want to keep others >unsuccessful so that they can better enjoy the advantages they have over those >in less fortunate circumstances. > >Harsh? Perhaps, but upon who do present energy costs weigh most heavily, >Rifkin and company, or third world children? That he would deny them this >energy source in hopes that their numbers will decrease speaks volumes about >the values this man places on lives other than his own. He truly is >disgusting. To assume that this man holds the moral high ground is tragic. On the other hand, it is also tragic to assume that "third world children" need or want cheap energy. I think we have it pretty good here (in the U.S.), that doesn't give us the right (or need) to inflict American culture, values, or technology in parts of the world that, in some cases, are better off without it. Sure, there are cultures that will ask for it. Fine. Teach them, and help them, but don't make them dependant upon us. In parts of the world, a bit of knowledge (of such things as nutrituion and sanitation) will have a far greater impact on the welfare of the people than cheap fusion power. Teach them agricultural techniques that can be used where they live; this will be of more use than a shipload of hot dogs and Hostess Twinkies. There is an old proverb (of Chinese origin, I beleive) that goes something like this: Give a man a fish, and tommorrow he will hunger. Teach a man to fish, and he will forever feed himself. I'm not about to assume that Rifkin, et al, hold the moral high ground (I disagree with the quotes I've heard from him), but I don't think anyone else has it either. Cold fusion power will not be the end of civilization as we know it. (Then again, maybe that wouldn't be so bad? :') It is not immoral. But if we ship a fusion power plant in a Winnebago to the Starving in Ethiopia, it will sit on the docks alongside all the rotting grain shipments waiting for the ruling class to change their minds. If you want some perspective on technology in "primative" cultures, go to your local videodrome and check out "The Gods Must Be Crazy". It will give you something to think about, and will also make you laugh quite a bit in the bargain. enough rambling, Jonathan E. Quist Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, IL. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjeq cudfnJonathan cudlnQuist cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Jonathan Quist / Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Originally-From: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 17:00:52 GMT Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, Il. In article <4334@omepd.UUCP> martinb@inteloa.UUCP (Martin L. Buchanan) writes: > > THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLEAN COLD FUSION > >Copyright (c) 1989 by Martin L. Buchanan. Permission to >reproduce this entire article in free publications or >postings is granted. >PREDICTION #4: SCHEDULE > >1989 Process characterized. > > Experimental Puff engine and vehicle. > >1990 Forecasters dub the new decade "The Fusing Nineties." > > Working prototypes of Puff cars, trucks, light aircraft, > home heating plants, and home electrical plants. > >1991 Auto companies introduce Puff models. Puff vehicle > prices are initially high but drop rapidly. In an interview marking the 25th anniversary of the Ford Mustang, a Ford spokesman commented that the average investment required to bring a car to market is currently 7 years and 1.5 BILLION dollars. I suspect Detroit will wait and see. > Puff hot water heater on the market. Sounds almost practical... >1993 Light aircraft manufacturers introduce Puff models. Not bloody likely. FAA type certification alone would take 3-5 years. Not to mention that the number of new (commercial) light aircraft designs introduced in the past 30 years can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And, considering that the number of commercially available non-turbine aircraft engines that use post-war technology can also be counted on one hand, it appears that you've got a bit of inertia to overcome. Most likely, a fusion powered plane would come from a member of the Experimental Aircraft Association. Look for it at the Oshkosh Fly-In in a few years. >1994 First Puff central power station with more than > 100M Watts capacity. > > First Boeing Puff 797F ("F" for fusion) enters > commercial service. The FAA type certification of a new airliner is likely to take more than 3-5 years. The design phase alone, probably 7 years. (Boeing is on the net... any comments, folks?) >I'll close with a final prediction: within 30 years, you will >be able to buy a personal spaceship that will take you and your >family to the Moon and back. Its price will be under one >million 1989 dollars. But the moon is SO BORING! Besides, "Puff" is already a trademark. :'> jeq cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjeq cudfnJonathan cudlnQuist cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Henry Spencer / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 24 Apr 89 22:57:31 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <332@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >*next time you're in a traffic jam, ask yourself, wouldn't it be >*better if 9 out of 10 of those cars weren't there? Provided, of course, that yours is one of the remaining 1 out of 10. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Henry Spencer / Re: political/ecological (was Re: Eco-stupidity) Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: political/ecological (was Re: Eco-stupidity) Date: 24 Apr 89 23:17:50 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <1037@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu.UUCP (John Sahr) writes: >With cheap, plentiful power, it certainly _is_ the case that we can >manipulate the planet more than we do now. Whether we actually do, >and how we do is the tricky part. It is clear that humans have >managed to strongly perturb the environment... Let us not forget, also, that the ability to manipulate the planet is not always a bad thing. Assuming we do something about the greenhouse effect, sooner or later we're going to get another ice age or asteroid impact. Mother Nature is *not* our friend; she doesn't give a damn whether we live or die, and she's got a mean streak. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Laurence Leff / Fusion/Land Use Originally-From: leff@smu.edu (Laurence Leff) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion/Land Use Date: 24 Apr 89 22:59:54 GMT Organization: Southern Methodist University, CSE Dept. Dallas, TX A recent discussion in this forum is the impact of fusion energy on land conservation. Fusion will enable the feeding of many people while using less land and water. Currently, there is a hydroponic factory that grows spinach and herbs. It produces spinach with a hundred times less land and ten times less water than would be needed by conventional architecture. Sadly, the spinach costs more, largely because of the need for large amounts of electricity for the artificial lighting. * This is where low-cost fusion energy helps. (See articles in The Economist and High Technology) It is interesting that spinach is mentioned. Spinach, as a source of protein, is eight times more efficient per acre than growing wheat, corn, etc. (See Francis Moore Lappe's book, Diet for a Small Planet). Most of our land is taken up with agriculture. For example, one percent of the United States is taken up by cities. Another one percent is used for highways. Thirty to fourty percent are used for agriculture. Also, much of the damming of rivers is done to provide irrigation water. Agriculture uses 70% of our water. Thus land that would be used for farms could be made available for wilderness or other recreational needs with the farming done by hydroponic factories. Perhaps, recreational land might be the only commodity in scarce supply in a post-industrial fusion/biotechnology based civilisation. The access to such would be the chief driving force and status symbol that would be available to such as programmers, biotechnologists and engineers. Those who choose not to work would be forced to live in an urban environment. * They are selling to restaurants and others that need a year-round supply of high-quality fresh spinach and herbs. They are profitable with demand exceeding capacity and are planning franchising their operations. Laurence Leff A job is like sex, when you do it for money Complete Address: 75275-0122, You take away all the fun. Phone: 214-692-2859 Moderator comp.doc.techreports/TRLIST, Symbolic Math List convex!smu!leff leff%smu.uucp@uunet E1AR0002 at SMUVM1 (BITNET) cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenleff cudfnLaurence cudlnLeff cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Erik Fortune / Re: cold fusion -- what is wrong with this picture? Originally-From: erik@gnome4.pa.dec.com (Erik Fortune) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: cold fusion -- what is wrong with this picture? Date: 25 Apr 89 01:04:44 GMT I can't comment on the physics in this article, but I do see the hysteria. On both sides of the issue. It seems to me that most of the people expressing strong opinions on whether or not fusion is occuring made up their minds some time ago and haven't moved a whole lot. We've got optimistic people running around saying "Look! Heat!" without checking first to see if the beaker is on the stove; On the other hand, we've got skeptical people plunking a lump of palladium in a glass of heavy water, shaking it for a few minutes and deciding that cold fusion is a hoax. It seems to me that we have precious few facts to go on. From what I know (P+F, the Italian Experiment, and the Stanford Experiment) I think that something strange is going on. How strange (or useful) I don't know. It seems to me that labs that are trying to reproduce this are going to be *real* careful before they announce any kind of results, especially when we take the two (one?) early retractions into account. Now... Could somebody near Texas A+M try to get more details about the experiment and whether or not it was retracted and let us all know. -- Erik cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenerik cudfnErik cudlnFortune cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Dave Suess / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: zeus@zapodid.aero.org (Dave Suess) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 24 Apr 89 18:49:39 GMT Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA In article <39002@bbn.COM> jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) writes: >On my way to dinner Friday evening, I heard a teaser on NPR that >sounded like a possible pickup of this story. They said something >about the heat the fusion story is generating on electronic bulletin >boards around the world. But I couldn't stay to hear it. Anyone >listen in? (it wasn't on Saturday's "weekend edition") I heard the latter part of the story: someone (whose name I unfortunately didn't catch) was walking the interviewer through some articles, describing who was saying what, mentioning different topics discussed here. But I did hear Henry Spencer talk a bit about the quality of posting being related to who wrote it --- surprisingly, though I grew up near the Canadian border (and further north than most Canadians), and though I knew he was in Canada -- I was surprised to hear a "Canadian accent" --- the net can't capture that, I guess! It was spooky for me, too... I had the radio on in another room, and had just started reading articles in alt.fusion, when I realized that the voice on the radio was describing an article I was just reading at the time! {insert Twilight Zone music} Dave Suess zeus@aerospace.aero.org cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenzeus cudfnDave cudlnSuess cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Eric Geislinger / New desktop fusion magazine? Originally-From: ericg@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Eric Geislinger) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: New desktop fusion magazine? Date: 24 Apr 89 20:49:08 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. \ / \/ PERSONAL FUSION *------------------------------------------> /\ The News Magazine for Desktop Nukes / \ ********************************************************* The following is a PROPOSED press release that we're thinking of sending out in the near future. Before that actually happens, we need to know what the interest level is out there. We also hope to gather the bulk of our writers right here on the net. We'll pay for articles - 8 cents/word. So we actually have two questions: 1) Would you be interested in such a publication? 2) Would you write articles, send news items, interview researchers, etc? (If, "yes" - please include your phone number.) So hit "r" and let us know! (We can also be reached on GEnie (TRANSONIQ), and on CompuServe (73260,3353). Thanks! ********************************************************* Portland, OR - The recent news breaks indicating probable confirmation of the "cold fusion" process discovered by University of Utah researcher B. Stanley Pons and his British colleague Martin Fleischmann make it clear that the world is witnessing the beginnings of a revolution in energy production. Personal Fusion is a new monthly magazine dedicated to covering the development of this new energy source as it matures in the lab and moves out to the commercial world. Coverage will include related news, up-coming events, theory, safety concerns, applications and speculations, legal and regulatory aspects, and interviews with people in the field. Commercial and University laboratories experimenting in this area are requested to add Personal Fusion to their media distribution lists. Personal Fusion will be written for a general/semi-technical audience. The first issue will premier in June, 1989. Subscription orders may be placed by calling Subscription Services at 1-800-XXX-XXXX. The subscription rate is $25 for 12 monthly issues (1 year). Callers should have their Visa or Mastercharge card ready. Writer guides, ad rate cards and subscription information may be obtained from: Personal Fusion, 1402 SW Upland Drive, Portland, OR 97221. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenericg cudfnEric cudlnGeislinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / A Palfreyman / Re: Lotza ergs Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lotza ergs Date: 25 Apr 89 00:48:16 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <862@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: > In article <109@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) writes: > : Given the assumedly unlimited etc. energy supply we are about to enjoy, > : looks like no-one will bother with CMOS anymore - back to bipolar and ECL! > > Bull. Consider batteries for portables along with the problem of heat > production. Cold fusion, assuming that is real and practical, does > nothing about energy storage and the efficiency of energy use. If you think that 5MJ/cc in an inchoate prototype "does nothing about energy storage" then it's my turn to Beef. Light-heartedly, though. Should have provided an explicit smiley (sigh). Live well and prosper. -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Brian Sturgill / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: brian@ms.uky.edu (Brian Sturgill) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 25 Apr 89 02:12:43 GMT Organization: U of Ky, Math. Sciences, Lexington KY In article <10615@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes: > I don't think it would be necessary to place a fusion reactor in every car. > If fusion makes electricity cheap enough, use it to get hydrogen from water, > and run cars on that. > > John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. Someone else recently mentioned that there was a problem with steam powered cars exploding in a accident... Wouldn't hydrogen powered cars have the same problem? Brian ---------- Brian Sturgill System Manager University of Kentucky Departments of Mathematical Sciences {uunet,rutgers}!ukma!brian brian@ms.uky.edu brian@UKMA.BITNET cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnSturgill cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / A Palfreyman / Where will all that Palladium come from? Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Where will all that Palladium come from? Date: 25 Apr 89 02:00:49 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In the spirit of premature speculation, for which this group is famous... This week's Economist, in addition to devoting its front cover to "The Dawn Of Fusion _?_" and three articles to the topic, also published total electrical supply figures for Europe and the USA in 1988. The annual figure is stated to be in total about 1e4 Terrawatt-Hours. Averaged out (ignoring storage issues) requires a power supply of 1 TW. This caused a reflex twitch for my trusty Casio. The various uses to which cold fusion could be put has been the topic of considerable speculation in this group, and electrical power supply is just one of many. Perhaps the energy requirements for automobiles is on the same order - I am too uninformed to figure this out. Also, being the race of inveterate but frustrated energy junkies which we are, electrical supply itself is not likely to remain frozen at 1988 levels - not to mention the ramping up of the third world - as has been discussed here. The palladium, at this early stage, is capable (according to Pons, I believe) of about 1 KW/cc or, at 12gm/cc, say 100 KW/Kg. (This sounds enormous, but what the heck..). This would imply, for Europe and the USA at 1988 levels of electrical supply only, a one-off palladium requirement of 10 M Kg. Current mining annually provides about 4 million troy ozs of palladium, or about 100,000 Kg. There is some margin for increased supply (it has been stated - mainly from S.Africa) but it is unclear to what extent and for how long. Total reserves are projected to be..? So the simplistic maths calls for 100 years worth of palladium mining to satisfy only a portion of those applications of cold fusion which are being mooted (excluding already-mined reserves and recyclable scrap volume). Perhaps this is 2 or 3 orders too pessimistic, (sintered powders, films, etc.. might fare better) but then so is the restricted consumption scenario. It looks like titanium, which I believe is among the top 10 most abundant metals, is a more pragmatic proposition. Can anybody refine these figures? - for example, as regards automobile energy requirements. Can we hack it? ======== -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Brian Sturgill / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: brian@ms.uky.edu (Brian Sturgill) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 25 Apr 89 02:22:41 GMT Organization: U of Ky, Math. Sciences, Lexington KY > I will vote Yes for creation of sci.physics.fusion if it will cut down > on the number of non-scientific articles I have to wade through each day. > > Jim Kowalczyk > Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu I too would like to see sci.physics.fusion moderated, but would not want it to exclude relevant consequence/background discussions. Brian ---------- Brian Sturgill System Manager University of Kentucky Departments of Mathematical Sciences {uunet,rutgers}!ukma!brian brian@ms.uky.edu brian@UKMA.BITNET cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnSturgill cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Norman Yarvin / Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: ins_anmy@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Norman Yarvin) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Safety of hydrogen Date: 25 Apr 89 01:53:59 GMT Organization: JHU In article michael@xanadu.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes: >This just leaves two problems: > - Hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline. > - Hydrogen is more hazardous to store and handle than hydrocarbon liquids. >If fusion fixes the first, some design and training could fix the second. I read an article in the paper at some point about a group that was pushing hydrogen as one of the safest fuels around. They used the example of -- you guessed it -- the Hindenburg, where over half the people survived (1/2 :-) ) because the escaping hydrogen rose upwards very quickly. Also, hydrogen can be confined within a metal (not necessarily palladium) at about twice the density of liquid hydrogen (for the newest alloys). A test was done at one point where a bullet was fired through a "tank" of this stuff, and a tank of gasoline. The hydrogen burned at both entrance and exit holes with a strong blue flame; the gas tank exploded. Norman Yarvin (seismo!umcp-cs | allegra!hopkins) !jhunix!ins_anmy "At Hopkins, we have 50% pre-meds and 50% engineers. This leaves 25% for us liberal arts people." cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenins_anmy cudfnNorman cudlnYarvin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Jef Poskanzer / Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Originally-From: pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Date: 24 Apr 89 22:02:35 GMT Organization: Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric, Ada Lovelace Cabal In the referenced message, logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) wrote: }Harsh? Perhaps, but upon who do present energy costs weigh most heavily, }Rifkin and company, or third world children? Right. The real energy crisis is in places like India, where they burn cow shit to cook their dinners, and are clogging their rivers with silt from cutting down the few remaining trees. It was pointed out a decade ago that the best use for a solar power satellite would be to put the 10 gigawatt rectenna in India and use it to power a network of a few dozen methanol synthesis plants. The methanol would be distributed to villages by bicycle. This idea is just as good for fusion as it is for satellite solar. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@helios.ee.lbl.gov ...well!pokey Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenpokey cudfnJef cudlnPoskanzer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Vincent Cate / Four more fusion papers. Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Four more fusion papers. Date: 25 Apr 89 04:31:49 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI I have scanned in 4 more papers on cold fusion: ws "Two Innocent Chemists Look at Cold Fusion" Cheves Walling and Jack Simons Chemistry Department, University of Utah h1 "A Simple Model for Coherent DD Fusion in the Presence of a Lattice" Peter L. Hagelstein Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT April 10, 1989 h2 "Phonon Interactions in Coherent Fusion" Peter L. Hagelstein Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT h3 "Rates for Neutron and Tritium Production in Coherent DD Fusion" Peter L. Hagelstein Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT April 10, 1989 I would like to publicly thank the anonymous person who sent me copies of these papers, THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!! The digitized pictures are in compressed postscript files. ws - 9 pages - total 366 K h1 - 18 pages - total 487 K h2 - 12 pages - total 335 K h3 - 11 pages - total 300 K To get a copy of the "ws" (or h1, h2, h3) paper, replace the XX below with ws (or h1, h2, h3). ftp unh.cs.cmu.edu anonymous anonymous cd /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp/XX-scanned binary mget * quit To print it from a unix csh shell: source print.XX If you can not FTP from your location please do not send mail asking me to type in the file or email you all of the files. For those who do not have unh in their host table: 128.2.254.150 unh.cs.cmu.edu If you send me mail and I do not respond it's probably because I can not figure out how to send you mail (include an arpanet usable address). If you have a cold fusion paper that I do not have please send me mail! If I can get a copy I will scan it in and put it here with the other papers (assuming I can get any needed permission). If you have trouble FTPing from CMU (i.e. it looks like our net connection is overloaded) and you can be an FTP site, please make copies of the papers available. Vince Cate email: vac@cs.cmu.edu FAX: (412) 681-1998 smail: School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon Pittsburgh PA, 15213 Older fusion papers that are in: /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp Please take the .ascii version if it exists since it is about 1/10th the size. gcm "Catalysis of Deuterium Fusion in Metal Hydrides by Cosmic Ray Muons." M. W. Guinan, G. F. Chapline, and R. W. Moir Submitted to Physical Review Letters Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory April 7 1989 rj "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 fp "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium" Martin Fleischmann - University of Southampton Stanley Pons - University of Utah March 20, 1989 jpr "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter" Jones, Palmer, Czirr, Decker, Jensen, Thorne, Taylor - Brigham Young University Rafelski - University of Arizona March 23, 1989 -- cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Larry Brader / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 25 Apr 89 02:46:55 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. >If the proposed Sci.physics.fusion is not moderated, how do you propose >to keep out all the "fusion as weapon", "fusion as environmental disaster", >etc., articles? Or will they be relegated to alt.fusion? Or will alt.fusion >be removed? > I vote Yes .. All this mental masturbation is giving me a headache B-} We are still in the scientific phase of understanding this new type of fusion. I'm sick of "wow this can change the world".... No kidding. I only got access to the net a little while ago and sorting through alt.fusion looking for hard facts.. they are there.... and of late things seem to getting worst with the SNR I say keep alt.fusion for idle speculation or secondary paths that will develop as this thing unfolds...and it will ;-) -- Larry Brader :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net Of course these are my views, any resemblance to reality is merely a concidance. "He's dead Jim, You grap his tricorder and I'll get his wallet" cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenlarryb cudfnLarry cudlnBrader cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / G Sullivan / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) Originally-From: uw-beaver!rutgers!sullivan@asuvax.eas (G. Allen Sullivan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 24 Apr 89 21:51:25 GMT Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 01:11:21 MST Organization: SSC, Inc., Seattle, WA A repost from some E-mail Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 01:11:21 MST Originally-From: uw-beaver!rutgers!sullivan@asuvax.eas (G. Allen Sullivan) I have no posting priviledges......post this if you want. Given the ultrasonic transducer, and the powerful 24? MeV phonons shaking the lattice from D + D fusion = He(4) [did I get all that correct?], with the speed of sound in some metals being about 4000? feet/sec, then in a one inch cube [with cooling water channels to avoid the 1 cm^3 fate], we should hear the cube ring with each individual or chain fusion at roughly [without solving the differential equations] 48,000 Hertz. But is 24 MeV above the noise floor? A 50 ohm sensor would have -204 decibels/hertz noise referred to 1 watt; a 50,000 ohm sensor or preamplifier would have -174 decibels/hertz to watt; a 50,000 ohm sensor and 100,000 Hertz bandwidth gives -124 decibels/hertz; so a realistic sensor and useful bandwidth has thermal noise of power 10^(-12.4) or about 0.5 * 10^12 watts So someone lookup the ergs and turn into watts. Can we hear fusion???? Allen Sullivan Arizona State University cudkeys: cuddy24 cudensullivan cudfnG cudlnSullivan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Robert Woodhead / Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Originally-From: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Date: 25 Apr 89 04:32:45 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. In article <2270@laidbak.UUCP> jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) writes: >On the other hand, it is also tragic to assume that "third world children" >need or want cheap energy. Oh bullshit. If "Mr. Fusion" becomes a reality, the best thing to do would be to give _every_ family in the third world several of them, to heat their homes and cook their meals. Why? So they don't keep chopping down all the trees. Why? Because deforestation ruins the land. Can you say _Ethopia_? When the land is ruined, people starve to death. Rather than bemoan such tragedies, I would suggest you ask the average Somalian woman if she would like a little box that will keep her warm and cook her food that runs on water. It will be easy to spot her; she's the one with the big bundle of firewood on her head that she's spent most of the morning collecting. Either that, or she's been whiling away the hours in the pleasant task of making fuel out of dung that would be more productively used as fertilizer. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. ...!uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The NY Times is read by the people who run the country. The Washington Post is read by the people who think they run the country. The National Enquirer is read by the people who think Elvis is alive and running the country..." cudkeys: cuddy25 cudentrebor cudfnRobert cudlnWoodhead cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Steven E / Racism (was Re: political/ecological (was Re: Eco-stupidity)) Originally-From: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Racism (was Re: political/ecological (was Re: Eco-stupidity)) Date: 24 Apr 89 16:45:02 GMT Organization: Tektronix TV Measurement Systems, Beaverton OR In article <1037@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU>, John Sahr (johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu.UUCP) writes: > As far as population goes, how can anyone deny that in several places > the local population is far too large to be supported? You don't have > to hate Indians (from "Inja") to wish there were fewer of them (in India). > Then there is Ben Wattenberg's thesis that WASPS (like me) should be > raising more children, to compete with the minority influx and growth, > and to provide a happy economic climate. I can't help feeling this is > racist, despite Wattenberg's protestations to the contrary. Talk of the pot calling the kettle black!!! First John tells us he wishes "there were fewer of them [Indians] (in India)." Then, he grumbles that Ben Wattenberg's thesis [that whites should have more children] seems "racist." Come on, come on!! If the people of India want large families, for whatever reason, it is their own business. To poke one's (lily-white) nose into another race's or culture's reproductive life, wishing "there were fewer of them" is racism, pure and simple. Let's at least pretend in public that we have learned the lessons of the Civil Rights years, shall we? Steve Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! * new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com [phone (503) 627-1320] old: {decvax | hplabs | uunet | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenstever cudfnSteven cudlnE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / David Reeck / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: reeck@lclark.UUCP (David Reeck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 24 Apr 89 17:46:49 GMT Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR In article <1989Apr23.145701.10580@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >It's amusing to speculate how a fusion powered car might operate, if >rapid fusion in solids is a real phenomenon. I'll assume in this >message that fusion is real and produces negligible radiation, and >that the power density and materials will be such that the cost of the >fusion cell itself is small. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu I also find this speculation amusing, and was thinking about it one morning in the shower. The most amusing part of it didn't occur to me until after I got out of the shower and turned it off. How do we turn the Fus-mobile off? Sure we can isolate the reactor, but are we gonna shut it off? A big part of this depends on whether or not the reaction can be started up with out a 2 week charging period or what-not, eh? But when we get some more solid facts, what say you and me get an engineer and start up a company, Paul? What shall we call it... DORF? Dave Reeck REECK@LCARK.BITNET !tektronix!reed!lclark!reeck .sig-less stardust -- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // David Reeck !tektronix!reed!lclark!reeck // // Home of the Pio's -- Pio's of what you ask? Well, we're researching that...//\\ " cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenreeck cudfnDavid cudlnReeck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / caulkins@cdp.U / gonzo science Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: gonzo science Date: 24 Apr 89 18:39:00 GMT Maybe the time has come for some gonzo science - a bunch of radio-amateur type teams of people who really try to push the state of the art. The objective would be to rapidly scout the territory looking for major effects, not to do carefully designed and controlled experiments. I believe this is a case where cleverness and intelligence are important, and a detailed knowledge of electrochemistry, fusion physics, or etc. is not only less important but in some cases may be a hindrance. Not knowing what cannot be done often leads to interesting results. To paraphrase Clemenceau (or was it Talleyrand), "Fusion is too important to be left to scientists." The resources required are modest - palladium, titanium, lithium salts, D2O, and access to reasonable shop facilities. The materials necessary should be obtainable for less than $10,000. As Pons has said, there may be dangers in using large palladium electrodes, but it should not be difficult to build appropriately safe setups with shielding and protection against high energy yields. Making an electrode which would be melted by process energy yield is precisely the kind of large effect that the teams should explore. It is natural to associate fusion with very large and violent energy yields of the H-bomb type. Is this possible by some as-yet unknown extension of the P/F effect ? I speculate that it's unlikely, since whatever the P/F process is it seems to be based on a metallic lattice structure, which would vanish at or before the melting point of the metal was reached. The process should thus be fail-safe against runaway increases in energy output. Dave C cudkeys: cuddy24 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / V Lakshmanan / Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Originally-From: vlak_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Venugopal Lakshmanan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Date: 25 Apr 89 14:32:11 GMT Organization: University of Rochester In article <11403@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer writes: > >Right. The real energy crisis is in places like India, where they burn >cow shit to cook their dinners, and are clogging their rivers with silt >from cutting down the few remaining trees. > I don't really know the relevance of this in this newsgroup, but there exists something called the "Gobar Gas Plant" that converts cow shit and maybe other stuff into methane gas that is used as fuel for stoves, boilers etc. in Indian villages. The cow shit itself is broken down into something thats supposed to be a much better manure for agriculture than if used prior to this breaking down. This is an excellent example of recycling and putting raw materials to maximum use in a part of the world where alternatives to wood burning fuels are sorely needed. -Venu Lakshmanan cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenvlak_ltd cudfnVenugopal cudlnLakshmanan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Emmett Black / Let's use those KEYWORDS! Originally-From: blackje@sunspot.steinmetz (Emmett Black) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Let's use those KEYWORDS! Date: 25 Apr 89 15:51:37 GMT Organization: GE Research; Schenectady, NY 12345 The quantity of traffic on alt.fusion has gotten quite large. In order to make it easier to filter the news, not only to eliminate items you don't want -- but to find items you do want, I'd like to suggest that we begin to use the "Keywords" field when posting. It's clear that the subject line hasn't worked very well; but I'm optimistic... sometime a subject "drifts" ... but is still applicable. Hopefully keywords could be a bit more specific. For starters, I'll propose the following keywords: speculation, announcement, politics or political, comment, criticism, discussion, technical, scientific, suggestion, and perhaps several others... How about it? Suggestions? Comments? Criticism? --Emmett J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345 blackje@crd.ge.com; ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenblackje cudfnEmmett cudlnBlack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / James Propp / Re: Cold fusion: an otherworldly explanation Originally-From: propp@cartan.berkeley.edu (James Propp) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion,rec.arts.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Cold fusion: an otherworldly explanation Date: 25 Apr 89 05:29:12 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley For those people overseas who wanted more detailed publishing information: The book's exact title is "What do YOU care what other people think?: further adventures of a curious character", by Richard P. Fenyman, as told to Ralph Leighton. 1st edition, New York: Norton, 1988. Jim Propp cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenpropp cudfnJames cudlnPropp cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Mogens Jallberg / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: jall@freja.diku.dk (Mogens Jallberg) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 15:43:51 GMT Organization: DIKU, U of Copenhagen, DK Yes! cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjall cudfnMogens cudlnJallberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Paul Dietz / Re: L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy Date: 25 Apr 89 17:50:33 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <11384@well.UUCP> mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: >Summary of extract presented below: > >In a stunning discovery Monday, April 17, Walling and Simons at U. of Utah >lent great credence to D+D -> 4He theory by discovering 4He in palladium >electrode in a Pons' experiment. The amounts are consistent with >a fusion process and the heat being observed. Excuse me, but I thought from the newspaper reports that they had discovered helium in the gases given off by the experiment, not in the cathode itself. In the WSJ (4/25) Pons says they saw 1 helium-4 atom for every 10,000 deuterium atoms emitted. I don't know what to make of this. I was under the (mistaken?) impression that helium does not diffuse rapidly through palladium, although perhaps it would diffuse more rapidly if a large concentration built up and opened small cracks in the cathode. Also, once again control experiments were not mentioned (sigh). Did they use their mass spectrometer on the gases from the "dead" cathode that was not producing heat? If not, how could they be sure that the "helium" they saw wasn't D+ or D2+ instead? Finally, if they are really seeing a 1:10,000 helium:deuterium ratio, then the heat output to electrical input ratio in their cell would likely be very high, since d+d-->He4 liberates 23.8 MeV while electrolysing D2O requires on the order of 10 eV. They should be getting at least 100 times more energy out than is put in. Perhaps most of their deuterium & oxygen is being recombined in the cell. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Ken Olum / Re: New desktop fusion magazine? Originally-From: kdo@lucid.com (Ken Olum) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: New desktop fusion magazine? Date: 25 Apr 89 17:14:40 GMT Organization: Lucid East, Sharon MA In article <4539@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> ericg@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Eric Geislinger) writes: > > \/ PERSONAL FUSION > *------------------------------------------> > /\ The News Magazine for Desktop Nukes > > Portland, OR - The recent news breaks indicating probable > confirmation of the "cold fusion" process discovered by University > of Utah researcher B. Stanley Pons and his British colleague > Martin Fleischmann make it clear that the world is witnessing the > beginnings of a revolution in energy production. First, is this for real? Do you have some financial reason to jump into print instead of waiting for more information about the reality of this phenomenon? I think that the current state of expermentation is far from "making it clear" that the heat-production stuff is for real. Even if it is, it's a long way to desktop application. I would subscribe to a magazine such as yours, except for one thing. Do you want my $25 in advance? Can I cancel my subscription and get my money back if the whole thing turns out to be a mistake? Are you associated with some larger company which is likely to make good on an offer such as this? Otherwise, when it turns out to be a mistake and everyone asks for their money back you will not have it. If people from the net offer to write for you, will you copyright their articles? Will you restrict net distribution? If so, I think we are better served by having people send their stuff to the net right away, rather than having it copyrighted and thus only published with significant delay in a magazine. Ken Olum cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenkdo cudfnKen cudlnOlum cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / wyant / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 25 Apr 89 16:29:14 GMT From article <39004@bbn.COM>, by cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell): > > Anyone know how NPR heard about us? [do they have a feed?]. Also, anyone > know how the *researchers* are staying in touch --- we've been told that most > of the obvious places (LANL, etc) coupled with a BUNCH of other places are > all madly doing one thing or another.... do they talk to one another? > The reporter for the NPR piece, Richard Harris, has appeared on the net. I think he gets his feed from Columbia in NYC. Many researchers in the physical sciences are still not conversant with networks and computers for other than numerical computations. They often use the telephone and national or local conferences (e.g., the American Physical Society Spring Meeting in Baltimore next week). Patrick Wyant Engineering Physics Lab E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Wilmington, DE 19880-0357 *!uunet!eplrx7!wyant cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenwyant cudlnwyant cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Dexter Wong / Re: Cross Posting from sci.physics Originally-From: a298319@csuchico.uucp (Dexter Wong) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cross Posting from sci.physics Date: 25 Apr 89 18:31:58 GMT Organization: California State University, Chico In article roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: >From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) >Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups >Subject: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion >Date: 21 Apr 89 00:46:42 GMT >ReplyTo: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) >Organization: Computer Center, UCSF >______ >Thank you, Kevin Scott kscott@cca.ucsf.edu > >If you want to vote, try hitting the F key and checking one of these boxes or >deleting the unwanted line. >[ ] I vote for moving alt.fusion to sci.physics.fusion > >=============================================================== >Douglas Roberts >Los Alamos National Laboratory >Box 1663, MS F602 >Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 >(505)6674569 >dzzr@lanl.gov >=============================================================== -- --- / _/_ Dexter Wong, a298319@csuchico.edu "My opinions do not __/ _ _., / _ __ a298319%csuchico.edu@relay.cs.net coincide with those (_/_ henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1037@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu.UUCP (John Sahr) writes: >>With cheap, plentiful power, it certainly _is_ the case that we can >>manipulate the planet more than we do now. Whether we actually do, >>and how we do is the tricky part. It is clear that humans have >>managed to strongly perturb the environment... > >Let us not forget, also, that the ability to manipulate the planet is >not always a bad thing. Assuming we do something about the greenhouse >effect, sooner or later we're going to get another ice age or asteroid >impact. Mother Nature is *not* our friend; she doesn't give a damn whether >we live or die, and she's got a mean streak. There was a lot of speculation 10 years ago that we would currently be in the beginning of an ice age if the greenhouse effect had NOT begun (we have already doubled atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution). Remember all those guys back in the 60s warning that quite a few timetables and observations showed an ice age to be imminent? They may have been right ... Of course, I am not making light of the greenhouse effect. The rate of CO2 increase continues to go up and things could get pretty grim (at least to the massive percentage of the worlds population that lives or plays near the ocean, not to mention the people who have a nasty habit of liking to eat ;-). But we may actually have to do something 'serious' to warm the earth if we stop burning fossil fuels. -- ============================================================================= A path is a terrible thing to waste ... decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien ============================================================================= cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenalien cudfnAlien cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Joe Buck / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 25 Apr 89 17:43:58 GMT Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA In article <39004@bbn.COM> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: >Anyone know how NPR heard about us? [do they have a feed?]. Also, anyone >know how the *researchers* are staying in touch --- we've been told that most >of the obvious places (LANL, etc) coupled with a BUNCH of other places are >all madly doing one thing or another.... do they talk to one another? Richard Harris, NPR's head science reporter, posted an article to sci.physics early on. He was posting from a BITNET site at George Washington University, so he may not have Usenet access from there, just mailing lists. The tone of the article indicated he didn't know much about the net, so maybe he had a friend at GWU who gave him access. There are quite a few journalists with net access. After the Internet worm fiasco, I saw a couple of postings from people asking, "Who told the f@#$%g journalists?" Stupid question, they read about it on the net. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjbuck cudfnJoe cudlnBuck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / David Singh / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: dsingh@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Singh) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 25 Apr 89 19:51:49 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Yes. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendsingh cudfnDavid cudlnSingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Alien Wells / Re: One month without knowing?!?! Originally-From: alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: One month without knowing?!?! Date: 25 Apr 89 12:49:24 GMT Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass. In article <4802@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: >the patent office that the idea is not obvious. What other patent reasons >are there? In many foreign countries (I think that Japan and most of Europe qualify here) the moment you publish or demonstrate your invention, you have lost the ability to patent it. In the past, American business and academia have just played by the US rules, which led to US patents but the invention becoming public domain in the rest of the industrialized world. With the increased emphesis on international trade and competition, many are starting to play by foreign rules. It's a big world out there, and we don't run it. -- ============================================================================= A path is a terrible thing to waste ... decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien ============================================================================= cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenalien cudfnAlien cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Shel Kaphan / Re: idle speculation Originally-From: sjk@lucid.com (Shel Kaphan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: idle speculation Date: 25 Apr 89 19:29:36 GMT Organization: Lucid, Inc., Menlo Park, CA In article <9999@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@emerald.PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: ... >Personally, I hope that all the key players in the fusion breakthrough >are billionaires by the end of the century. (Of course, this will not >happen unless cold fusion lives up to its promise!) > >The current patent laws may not be perfect, but for the most part they >do succeed in promoting new technology. > ... Yes, they should get rich. I simply hope they do so by developing the technology rather than by selling the patent rights to some oil conglomerate for $500M, only to see said oil co. sit on it without developing it. As we've seen with solar, the large (petroleum) energy companies don't seem overeager to develop energy sources that might, how shall I say it, disturb their sources of income. -- Shel Kaphan Lucid, Inc. sjk@lucid.com 707 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 sun!edsel!sjk (415) 329-8400 x 5527 cudkeys: cuddy25 cudensjk cudfnShel cudlnKaphan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Tom Murphy / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 25 Apr 89 17:18:56 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab In article <1662@blake.acs.washington.edu> cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg) writes: > > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, > he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile > balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. > >Are their concerns reasnable? >--CF Rifkin was at our campus several months ago, and is the only person mentioned in this message I feel I can comment on. He seems to me to be a dynamic speaker, but with little grasp on reality. He has this dream society, which he says is so great, and then catalogs all the ills of current society without mentioning the ills of his idea. (Mass starvation and medical problems come immediately to mind). If the others mentioned are of Rifkin's caliber, all we need worry about is the public buying their hogwash. I do doubt that cheap, clean energy will cure all our ills, but it will save our environment, the most pressing ill of all. Tom -- Thomas C. Murphy Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab Internet: tmurphy@zaphod.wpi.edu tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu BITNET: TMURPHY@WPI CompuServe: 73766,130 "I drank what?" - Socrates cudkeys: cuddy25 cudentmurphy cudfnTom cudlnMurphy cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Alien Wells / Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Originally-From: alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 25 Apr 89 15:31:56 GMT Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass. In article <2271@laidbak.UUCP> jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) writes: >In an interview marking the 25th anniversary of the Ford Mustang, >a Ford spokesman commented that the average investment required >to bring a car to market is currently 7 years and 1.5 BILLION dollars. That is how long the US car makers take (and a lot of the Europeans). Japanese car makers take 4-5 years, and quite a bit less money (even with the elevated yen). Honda is currently experimenting with a 3 year turn ('91 Civic), and plans to move its entire line to a 3 year product design cycle. However, it is valid to note that manufacturers will probably not be the first to use the technology, but rather people will offer retro-fits for the current installed base. For instance, I could imagine GE offering a retro package that replaced airplane engines on current planes. -- ============================================================================= A path is a terrible thing to waste ... decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien ============================================================================= cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenalien cudfnAlien cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Paul Allen / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: paula@bcsaic.UUCP (Paul Allen) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 24 Apr 89 19:02:23 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <838@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >[...] >In most industrialized countries, it is not the case that there are >too many people. In fact, in many of them, if it were not for >immigration, their populations would decrease. And this trend is >growing stronger. I live near the edge of Puget Sound City (the Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area). I don't see the population decreasing. Maybe it's all those immigrants from California? :-) >There is plenty of room in the US. Cities exist, not because there is >not enough room for the people, but because it is more economic for >people to crowd together than to spread out. There certainly is a lot of open space in the US. And the developers are gobbling it up with seemingly unstoppable zeal. In the last couple decades, the tide of Puget Sound City has started washing up into the foothills of the Cascades. People who seek to preserve little pieces of the former wild country against the onrushing flood are definitely swimming against the current. So please don't tell me there aren't enough people here, or that the population isn't growing! What will cheap energy do to the equation? Until the WPPS fiasco, the Pacific Northwest was blessed with relatively inexpensive hydro-electric power. Did that have anything to do with people's decisions to have kids? I dunno. It certainly made the area attractive for energy-intensive industries such as aluminum production. Paul Allen -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul L. Allen | pallen@atc.boeing.com Boeing Advanced Technology Center | ...!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pallen cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenpaula cudfnPaul cudlnAllen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Dennis Thurlow / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 25 Apr 89 19:14:36 GMT Organization: AT&T NSSC S. Plainfield, NJ In article <1905@ssc.UUCP> markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes: >> >> This line of reasoning also suggests the use of higher temperatures >> or ultrasound to increase the mobility of deuterium in the metal. > >Has anyone listened to fusion? You might get some interesting results >by putting a wide range ultrasonic transducer in a fusion cell and >hooking it up to a spectrum analyzer. > I recall suggesting this, along with a couple of other things that have now been suggested, in a theory I tryied to post about three weeks ago. It was apparently deleted by the administrator as not being worthy of consideration. (If I am leveling this charge in error, and my posting simply got lost, I apologise.) I'd still like to know what frequency the lattice vibrates at before and during charge up, and during fusion. -nsscb!det cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendet cudfnDennis cudlnThurlow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Dennis Thurlow / Re: cold fusion -- what is wrong with this picture? Originally-From: det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: cold fusion -- what is wrong with this picture? Date: 25 Apr 89 21:03:14 GMT Organization: AT&T NSSC S. Plainfield, NJ In article <12400@ut-emx.UUCP> allred@ut-emx.UUCP (Kevin L. Allred) writes: >...lower it safely to the ground without spill a drop ever, and you will >get an idea how improbable it would be to imagine the energy will >consistently be removed from the compound nucleus as atomic >excitations.... > Improbable doesn't mean not true. If a superconductor can conduct without resistance, why can't a lattice conduct energy "faster" than what is "probable"? Does anyone know why the superconductor works? nsscb!det cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendet cudfnDennis cudlnThurlow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / John Covici / Newtonians freakout Originally-From: covici@chinet.chi.il.us (John Covici) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Newtonians freakout Date: 25 Apr 89 10:54:41 GMT Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix April 12 (EIRNS)--ELECTROCHEMICAL FUSION BREATHROUGH CAUSES FREAKOUT AMONG NEWTONIAN SCIENTISTS. The fact that the electrochemical fusion is tending to show that fusion can be obtained in "force-free" configurations, i.e. with extreme ease, is causing a major freakout among scientists trained in the Newtonian school that forces between pairwise particles are always primary to any physical process. A prominent national laboratory plasma physicist exhibited the level of this freakout in a recent telephone conversation. (He happens to be among the best scientists in the U.S.) When asked about the meltdown that Fleischmann-Pons saw in an experiment two years ago, this researcher replied: "Livermore has determined that it was simply a chemical hydrogen fire." When asked if Livermore had made any measurements on the experiment at the time, or, had more information than has been published by Fleischmann and Pons, the scientist continued in a shrill voice: "Livermore determined that it was a hydrogen fire and that's what it was." Of course, the skilled scientists who made the actual experimental measurements report that it was definitely not a hydrogen fire. The current level of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's expertise in electrochemistry can be judged by the fact that at least Texas A&M, Georgia Tech and the Soviets have proven faster in replicating the Fleischmann-Pons experiments. Also, the former Livermore Associate Director of the Laser Program has been fired for giving out free hooded phallic symbols to his friends made from government gold. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudencovici cudfnJohn cudlnCovici cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / John Covici / Coloumb Barrier Bites The Dust Originally-From: covici@chinet.chi.il.us (John Covici) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Coloumb Barrier Bites The Dust Date: 25 Apr 89 10:59:34 GMT Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix April 12 (EIRNS)--WEST GERMAN SCIENTIST REPORTS COULOMB BARRIER KUPUT. The director of the West German Fusion Energy Foundation, Dr. Jonathan Tennenbaum, reached today for comment on the Coulomb catastrophe replied: "These experiments may be categorically demonstrating that the entire concept of pairwise interaction and forces between particles, the entire concept of particle scattering which dominates high energy physics, and the entire axiomatic basis for the Newtonian system which displaced Kepler has been proven wrong." Instead of forces, Dr. Tennenbaum suggests that the precondition to nuclear fusion consists of creating the proper coherence conditions, like that of a lasing process. April 12 (EIRNS)--UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PROFESSOR REVEALS HISTORY OF "FORCE-FREE" FUSION CONCEPT. Dr. Robert J. Moon reported that his teacher, also previously on the faculty of the University of Chicago, the late Professor William Draper Harkins, had first raised a problem with the Coulomb barrier in scientific papers published in 1917. Harkins was then working on developing geometric models of the nucleus, which included the concept of an electrically neutral particle--today's neutron. Harkins, according to Dr. Moon, saw major problems in the conclusions drawn by Lord Rutherford in his "Coulomb" scattering experiments. Rutherford had directed a beam of high energy helium nuclei, which were obtained from radioactive materials, through a metal foil. The nuclei of the foil deflect some of the beam nuclei. This deflection can be seen on a phorescent screen with the eye. From the deflection, Rutherford, using the standard Maxwellian form of electrodynamics, calculated the effective radius of the metal foil nuclei. Harkins and Moon thought that Rutherford was wrong to use this approach. Dr. Moon has calculated results from the same data, but utilizing the Ampere-Gauss-Riemann approach to electrodynamcis. The derived results are dramatically different than those of Rutherford. For example, instead of the nucleus getting bigger in size as the number of protons and neutrons in it increase, Moon found that the nuclei were actually getting smaller. Dr. Moon reports this convinced him that the Coulomb barrier concept was flawed. This led him to believe that it would be possible to construct "force-free" trajectories with electrical currents to generate "force-free" fusion, like that which Fleischmann and Pons have apparently demonstrated. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudencovici cudfnJohn cudlnCovici cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Michael McNeil / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: michaelm@vax.3Com.Com (Michael McNeil) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 25 Apr 89 19:35:47 GMT Organization: 3Com Corp., Santa Clara, CA In article <11591@s.ms.uky.edu> brian@ms.uky.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes: }In article <10615@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU }(John McKernan) writes: }> I don't think it would be necessary to place a fusion reactor in every }> car. If fusion makes electricity cheap enough, use it to get hydrogen }> from water, and run cars on that. } }Someone else recently mentioned that there was a problem with steam powered }cars exploding in a accident... Wouldn't hydrogen powered cars have the same }problem? Don't *gasoline* powered cars have the same problem? } Brian Sturgill -- Michael McNeil michaelm@3comvax.UUCP 3Com Corporation hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Mountain View, California work telephone: (415) 969-2099 x 208 Energy is eternal delight! William Blake cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmichaelm cudfnMichael cudlnMcNeil cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Douglas Miller / Re: Irrigating the Saharaexit Originally-From: dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Douglas Miller) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Irrigating the Saharaexit Date: 25 Apr 89 17:21:47 GMT Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services In article <15494@bellcore.bellcore.com>, perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) writes: > I was the person who first mentioned irrigating the sahara with > distilled water, and I haven't seen so much as one acknowledgement. > > :-) > > Perry Good idea, Perry, but water alone will not do the job. I'm afraid you will also need a great deal of organic material in the form of topsoil. Of course, it is possible to generate topsoil using organic materials and microorganisms, but its going to take one king-sized compost pile to do it. Doug Miller cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendougm cudfnDouglas cudlnMiller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Dennis Thurlow / Re: VERY cold fusion? (a speculation) Originally-From: det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: VERY cold fusion? (a speculation) Date: 25 Apr 89 17:44:30 GMT Organization: AT&T NSSC S. Plainfield, NJ In article <1989Apr22.203127.13451@sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >for normal hydrogen the boiling point is 22 K, and the freezing point 4 K Of course, if fusion is taking place in _liquid_ H at 22K, and d + d --> H4 + heat to liquid H lattice (or whatever you want to call it), wouldn't it simply appear as if the transition energy was greater than expected? (Maybe I'm using the wrong term here. What I'm talking about is the energy difference between H gas at 22K and H liquid at 22K - argument holds at liquid/solid transition too.) -nsscb!det cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendet cudfnDennis cudlnThurlow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Dennis Thurlow / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 25 Apr 89 17:58:48 GMT Organization: AT&T NSSC S. Plainfield, NJ In article <1772@Portia.Stanford.EDU> mdbomber@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Matt Bartley) writes: >After all, you've got a whole bunch of highly >pressurized water above 100 degrees C. If I recall correctly, it used pretty low head steam (75-90 #/in^2) >Release the pressure by suddenly >rupturing the container, First of all, the car was built like a tank. I don't think a crash would have ruptured the boiler. Second, the escape valve was mounted in a plug. If the valve failed, the plug popped out. It was positioned under the car, near the front (again, if memory serves). > and not only do you get a blast from the pressure >pushing out, but the water flash-vaporizes. The water wasn't heated. It dripped from another tank onto a flash pan. The only water in the pressure tank was already steam. > What you get is a BIG explosion. I don't think so. -nsscb!det cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendet cudfnDennis cudlnThurlow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Dennis Thurlow / Re: CBC's The Journal report, Apr. 20 (was Re: Inside story.) Originally-From: det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: CBC's The Journal report, Apr. 20 (was Re: Inside story.) Date: 25 Apr 89 18:13:44 GMT Organization: AT&T NSSC S. Plainfield, NJ In article <2381@van-bc.UUCP> rthurlow@van-bc.UUCP (Rob Thurlow) writes: > >In the interview, Pons came across as very much the hero, with Jones as just >another person wanting to get a bit of the glory. > And if we are to believe the story in Monday, April 24th's New York Times it was BYU's research dept. that unearthed the Swedish patent info and circulated it to cast a shadow on any attempts P&F might make to patent their work. Who first put that info in alt.fusion, and where did they hear it? -nsscb!det cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendet cudfnDennis cudlnThurlow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / John Logajan / Bandwagons unneeded Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Bandwagons unneeded Date: 25 Apr 89 22:56:39 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN I know that many people would like to jump on the correct bandwagon in this fusion free-for-all. But it really doesn't have any scientific significance. Either P+F will be proven or disproven in the fullness of time. The debunker/true believer dicotomy is completely unnecessary. Thanks. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Dan Benderly / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: benderly@cs.columbia.edu (Dan Benderly) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 26 Apr 89 01:27:55 GMT Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science My vote: A resounding YES!! Dan benderly@cs.columbia.edu cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenbenderly cudfnDan cudlnBenderly cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Michael McClary / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 26 Apr 89 03:55:25 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <39004@bbn.com> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: >Anyone know how NPR heard about us? [do they have a feed?]. The NPR science correspondent has a feed, and has posted questions to sci.physics. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / John Moore / Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 25 Apr 89 14:44:38 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <29483@apple.Apple.COM> thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) writes: ]In article <1773@Portia.Stanford.EDU> armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) ]writes: ]>I talked to one researcher from LANL today, and he mentioned that he ]>called up their supplier and asked for cast palladium rods for this ]>experiment, and they told them that the only rods of palladium of ]>the required dimentions are drawn, not cast. The supplier claimed ]>that if F&P did use cast rods, they were most probably cast specially ]>for this purpose in England. (I've no Idea why he suspected this.) ] ]This is purely speculation, but the above SOUNDS kinda like typical salesman ]talk, i.e., "If we ain't got it, it don't exist. Would I lie to you?" I called up a precious metals casting house and discussed getting rods from them. They described their process for generating rods, and it turned out they also were drawing the rods. I have a couple of books on hydrogen in metals, and they make it clear that the preparation of the palladium (casting, cold working, drawing) has a very large effect on subsequent hydrogen absorbtion, and on crystal defects and grains. I have yet to find a place that even knows of a place that actually casts palladium. -- 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: cuddy25 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Michael McClary / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 26 Apr 89 05:13:21 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <109@jetprod.uucp> zap@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage) writes: >[] It may even be possible that reactors could be built >small enough to power cars. I hope they wouldn't be steam powered unless >the cycle is closed. So.Cal can't afford to throw around water like that. Sure it can. Extracting the water from sea water would less than double the cost in duterium and palladium-or-whatever-usage. Better yet, you can design your duterium-extraction plants to use salt water in and produce fresh water out at only a small additional energy cost. This makes the the water essentially free. The steam "exhaust" from a highway full of cars would raise the humidity selectively in the populated areas of southern CA, producing dew or mild evening showers. Better than sprinklers. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / John Moore / Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 25 Apr 89 15:47:53 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc., Phoenix AZ I received the following message indirectly from an engineer at a midwestern power company, with a request to post it, so I will. The message is a bit strange and inflammatory. Please don't flame me for posting it - it was done on request. I have no idea whether the engineer is telling the truth - you can judge for yourself. Judging from the poor way that US power has handle fission power, anything is possible. Finally, this message represents neither my own views or the views of my employer - only the views of the person who requested that it be posted. ================Message Text Follows================== "The degree to which cold fusion has shook [sic] up power companies across the country cannot be described in simple terms. The message went out quickly that 'national interests' are threatened and energy interests in the U.S. have already banded together to propose legislation to head off an eventual catastrophy --- ours --- should private interests and individuals be permitted to develop their own energy sources. As you will see in these [meaning the F&P] papers, cold fusion appears a very real possiblity and easy to accomplish. From what has come into our computer terminal, here are a few methods suggested [by] others to 'protect' us. a) Outlaw purchase of deuterium from any source unless licensed to do so. b) Outlaw development and construction of any means to concentrate deuterium. c) Outlaw any and all devices using deuterium for the purpose of generating heat and/or electricity. The consensus of [the] consortium is that they might fall through the cracks if they go the self-protection approach of a,b,c above, so, at present it is thought best not to mention them. Instead, another approach is being developed. Since it is evident some gamma rays and neutrons are produced, protecting public health and welfare appears to be the approach that is likely to gain attention from congress, no matter their collective mentality. If it developes that gamma rays and neutrons are so slight that no hazard exists, then the consortium will fall back on the damages they and their investors would suffer from allowing this into the private sector. I am the delegate from [deleted] and will fill you in when I return, and --- [name deleted] --- we have been friends for [many] years now. I say this because I want full confidentiality as to my identity, but feel free to discuss this with others. Knowing you, I'll bet this will make you grit your teeth. Quite frankly, I'm gritting mine also, but being inside, one learns more than otherwise. Bye for now, your friend, [deleted]" =================End of message text=============================== Again, these are not my words. It all seems a bit paranoid too me. However, I would not be at all suprised that, when the anti-nukers find out that [assuming cold fusion in the F&P mode is real] some neutrons and tritium are produced, that they will find all sorts of reasons to prohibit research, especially by private individuals such as myself. If the power companies believe that their monopoly is threatened by practical small scale power generation, they are also likely to react. On the other hand, I would suspect that they would embrace this [supposed] technology if it works in large scale power generation. -- 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: cuddy25 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Mike APD / Stirling engines & fusion, rev. 2 Originally-From: mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts @ APD x1302) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.space,rec.autos.tech Subject: Stirling engines & fusion, rev. 2 Date: 25 Apr 89 20:29:10 GMT Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation, Beaverton Oregon Several have pointed out that my earlier posting was wider than 80 columns. Sorry about that. Here's a narrower version with a few technical points refined and with references. The subject of Stirling engines has come up in sci.space and alt.fusion. I found a very good article in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, complete with diagrams of several forms, graphs of power and efficiency vs. temperature difference, photos of actual engines, and references. I'll try to summarize here, but it's worth looking at the article. The Stirling Engine converts any form of heat differential into mechanical work. It has a cold end and a hot end, with a sealed working fluid (hydrogen) which is put through a pressure/volume/temperature cycle: Compress it on the cold end, shift that compressed gas to the hot end, where it expands against the piston, shift the hot uncompressed gas to the cold end where it is cooled and compressed again. The work from hot expansion exceeds the work of cold compression. The efficiency depends primarily on the difference between the hot and cold temperatures, according to the Carnot cycle, and secondarily on a large number of engineering factors. Actual engines have been built in the 10HP to 500HP range per cylinder. Pictures of two engines are shown, one built by Philips in Holland and the other by GM. Since they work from steady heat, these engines have a burner at one end, burning anything from gasoline to olive oil. Cooling is done with water and a radiator, as in a car. The efficiency- temperature curve shows up to 40% efficiency has been measured on an actual engine, with a burner temperature of 800 degrees C. This drops below 5% at 250 degrees C. Coolant temperature is 15 degrees C. Raising the coolant to 60 degrees C lowers max efficiency (as I read the curves) to 35%. The working fluid cycles between 800 degrees and 150-200 degrees C at max efficiency. The approximate heat balance is 40% work, 10% burner exhaust, and 50% into the cooling system. Since the engine has a closed cycle, far more heat is dissipated by the cooling system than with internal combustion, where the exhaust carries away most of the waste heat. Thus the cooling system must be much larger than in cars. The torque is nearly constant per rotation and over speed for four-cylinder engines. Speed is controlled by varying the pressure of the working fluid. The engine is completely balanced, the pistons move according to sinusoids, and there are no explosive power events, so it is extremely smooth and quiet in operation. (I want to drive one of these!) We can easily imagine a palladium fusion reactor mounted to the head of a Stirling engine. The operating temperature is extremely important, as that determines efficiency. 800 degrees C is below the melting point of palladium, so we may hope that such an engine will come to pass. If the cost and efficiency are right, we might see fusion-driven Stirling engines running cars (which are very clean and quiet and have enormous grilles). An engine like that would also be ideal for a home power station, generating electricity from the crankshaft and heating the house with the coolant. If such a device could be manufactured economically, it would be a tremendous boon to developing nations, who could get high-grade power where and when needed, without big capital investments in power stations and distribution systems, and without the pollution and economic miseries of oil. If and only if Pons is right, if enough palladium or a substitute can be found, cheap enough, if it's as free of radiation as Pons says it is, if it can be made to run at a high enough temperature for thermal efficiency, if it can be engineered, if it is appropriate for intermittent use, etc. Very big ifs, but we will certainly see! Please followup to alt.fusion. References (from McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia): M.J.Collie, Stirling Engine Design and Feasability for Automotive Use, 1979. G. Walker, The Stirling Engine, Scientific American, 229(2):80-87, 8/73. G. Walker, Stirling Engines, 1980. -- Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005 ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts OR mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmbutts cudfnMike cudlnAPD cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Jim Meritt / Re: More information on Fusion at the Uni. of Fla. Originally-From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More information on Fusion at the Uni. of Fla. Date: 24 Apr 89 16:08:45 GMT Organization: JHU-Applied Physics Laboratory In article <29421@apple.Apple.COM> thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) writes: }In article <20150@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> sb1@beach.cis.ufl.edu () writes: }>This reported from the Gainesville Sun, Friday 21 April 1989 } }(much stuff omitted) } }>Heavy water contains a type of hydrogen called deuterium, which is heavier }>than the more common hydrogen atoms. Heavy Water would provide an unlimited }>supply of fuel if the elusive goal of controlled fusion is ever achieved. } }I've seen this assertion a lot lately. Exactly how much is "unlimited," }really? (By the way, it seems to me that energy never gets "too cheap to }meter"; the cheaper it gets, the more of it people are gonna use, and if fusion }becomes a commercially viable power source, we could start processing sea water }at mind-boggling -- but presently unforeseeable -- rates). Anyway, at current }consumption levels, how long (like how many million years or whatever) would }the world's deuterium supply be likely to last (and how fast would it be }replenished, if at all)? The difference between "unlimited" (given the pacific ocean now and Jupiter later) and "limited but enormous" is so small as not to make a difference before the rest of the solar system burns and the universe falls in upon itself. (given current consumption rates) The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjwm cudfnJim cudlnMeritt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Bug Hunter / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: khearn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Bug Hunter) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 26 Apr 89 08:44:22 GMT Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo In article <10615@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes: >I don't think it would be necessary to place a fusion reactor in every car. >If fusion makes electricity cheap enough, use it to get hydrogen from water, >and run cars on that. I hear Detroit already has a model on the drawing boards. They're calling it the "Hindenburg". :-) Seriously, gasoline is very flammible, and mildly explosive (despite what Hollywood would have us believe) in liquid form. Hydrogen, however, is *highly* explosive. Would you want to drive a car that had to display an explosive gas warning sign at all times? We can make hydrogen powered cars now, but they just aren't safe in an accident. Keith Hearn -- Keith Hearn \ khearn@polyslo.calpoly.edu \ "I drank WHAT???" Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo \ -- Socrates (805) 541-2147 or (805) 756-7180 \ cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenkhearn cudfnBug cudlnHunter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Tim Ihde / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 25 Apr 89 22:06:01 GMT Organization: AT&T DSO-HQ, Morristown, NJ In article <763@nsscb.UUCP> det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: >>>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 1910 model of this car was probably the best automobile ever made. . . >There are a few of these cars around with over 600,000 miles on them, >that have never had a major overhaul. At least in part because since a steam engine generates lots of power with few revolutions, no transmition is necessary, or so I've heard. Wow, now the Aamco people will be out to stop fusion power along with the oil brokers . . . -- Tim J Ihde INTERNET: tim@attdso.att.com (201) 898-6687 UUCP: att!attdso!tim "Blimey - this redistribution of wealth is more complicated than I'd thought!" - Dennis Moore and various Presidents cudkeys: cuddy25 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnIhde cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Paul Chisholm / Re: German refutation of cold fusion Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: German refutation of cold fusion Date: 25 Apr 89 23:07:58 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article <465@halley.UUCP>, watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson) writes: > This is a copy of an article from the internal news system at Tandem. > Copied By: WATSON_WILLIAM @AUSTIN > FROM: SCHWARTZ_GERHARD @FRANKFT > TO: DL.ALL_TANDEM @FRANKFT > SUBJECT: 3:"Cold fusion" - just a flop ??? > ------------------------ TEXT ATTACHMENT ---------------------------- > SENT: 89-04-21 07:06 > FROM: SCHWARTZ_GERHARD @FRANKFT >... > However, the heat production of the supposed fusion of Deuterium (as > calculated from radiation measurements) was that low that it could > explain just a small fraction of the heat actually produced. Isn't this standard fusion refutation getting a bit cold? The neutron rate is much lower than we'd expect from 2H + 2H -> 3He + D + energy, but reasonable for 2H + 2H -> 4He + energy. If the first reaction couldn't be responsible for the observations, then the first reaction isn't happening, and something else is. But just because we aren't seeing the expected fusion reaction, doesn't mean we aren't seeing fusion. > Fleischmann and Pons did measure on their test location three > times the neutron flow than at another location within the same building. > However, a verification measurement at the test location was not done. Yet another control they might have done, had they not rushed into print a year and a half earlier than they wanted (according to some posting). Would someone post (in a new thread, not as a follow-up to this article) some details about why neutrons are so hard to detect? Yes, they're unchanged particles, and so don't leave a good ionizing trail; but I can't get over the feeling there's more to it than that. The information about the Bismuth 214 gammas is somewhat sobering. The tritium may have been a red herring all along, if we're not seeing a reaction mix that makes much tritium (and many neutrons). > The strong heat is caused by the fact that the Deuterium produced by the > electrolytic process is dissolved in the Palladium electrodes and > distributes within them. The Deuterium also gets into the electrode's > surface above the electrolytic fluid. There, it reacts with oxygen > by the catalytic action of the metal and produces great amounts of heat. > > This effect is known since 1823 and was used in the so-called > "Doebereiner cigarette lighter". If F&P found a way to burn hydrogen and oxygen, and to thus produce more electricity than it took to electrolysize (um, electro, ah, disassociate, er, you know, break up) the water in the first place, they've discovered a source of power that's truly amazing. (And far less likely than cold fusion!-) C'mon, do you really think they didn't measure the energy put across the electrodes? > Because the fluid level was reduced by the electrolytic process, at > a certain point the cube's upper surface got in contact with air, and > the resulting reaction between Deuterium and Oxygen did destroy the > cube in an explosion. I'd like to see the jar. In most electrolysis experiments, the hydrogen goes in one container, the oxygen in another. If that's the case, there wouldn't *be* any oxygen by the palladium electrode. If not, then this is an interesting explanation. (Though notice that the palladium comes into contact, not with mere "air", but a hydrogen oxygen mixture. That wouldn't help melt the palladium as much as oxygen would, but it'd sure shatter some glass!) > a Palladium sheet . . . produced that much heat that it caused a > burned spot on the table surface. This can only be explained by the > spontaneous catalytic oxydation of the hydrogen dissolved in the > Palladium electrode with the oxygen in the air. Or by fusion in the sheet. > Of course, this effect is not relevant for producing energy because > more electric energy had to be used in the electrolytic process. And isn't relevant to explain an experiment where the electric energy is measured as one of the inputs! Yeah, I sound a bit like a fusion apologist here. But I got the impression that the two scientists were trying to explain bits and pieces of the F&P experiment in ways that didn't involve fusion, and did so; but that they haven't disproven the experiment as done in Utah (or elsewhere). I think we still have some interesting years ahead of us. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Evan Hunt / Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Originally-From: evanh@sco.COM (Evan A.C. Hunt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: The dark side of cold fusion? Date: 25 Apr 89 23:49:54 GMT Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu (C.E. Fogg): > >Are their concerns reasnable? Depends how you look at it. Any new invention has potential for doing nasty things. On the other hand, I think they're grasping at straws to find examples; for instance: > ...clean-burning, nonpolluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still > could knock down trees or build housing developments on farm land. This is absolutely true, but it's an entirely unrelated issue. Certainly we'd still build cities and freeways, but that's not fusion's fault; we're doing it already. Furthermore, with fusion, we might not need to gouge Kentucky-sized holes in our biosphere to get coal anymore. > Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington D.C-based author-activist, laments "It's > the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Inexhaustible power, > he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to destroy its fragile > balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste. Also true. On the other hand, we _already_ have that ability. The only difference between now and the future is that fusion might offer us the choice _not_ to go kaka in our nest anymore. > ..Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would > let the planet support many more people than the current population of > 5.2 billion. They ask what a crowded Earth might be like without > forests, wilderness, open space or the chance for solitude. Terrible. Obviously. But now, _I_ ask what an equally crowded Earth might be like without forests, wilderness, open space, the chance for solitude, or ENERGY. Without fusion, _that's_ where we're going to go. Furthermore, it's been noted that as societies become more industrialized, the birth rate drops dramatically. I strongly suspect that widely available fusion power will mean zero population growth. -- Evan A.C. Hunt evanh@sco.COM The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. uunet!sco!evanh (408) 425-7222 evanh%sco.COM@ucscc.ucsc.EDU cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenevanh cudfnEvan cudlnHunt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / M Hadeishi / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 26 Apr 89 08:38:43 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA My coworker mentioned he had seen a technology for storing hydrogen fuel that dramtically reduced explosion problems. They showed someone shooting a rifle at a gasoline tank and one of these continainers filled with hydrogen fuel. The gas tank exploded, of course, but the hydrogen container only burned a little bit . . . apparently this problem is solvable. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmitsu cudfnMitsuharu cudlnHadeishi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Stuart Lynne / Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Originally-From: sl@unifax.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 18:57:12 GMT Organization: Wimsey Associates In article <15534@bellcore.bellcore.com> perry@bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) writes: > >Er, wouldn't you say that a lot of this is a bit premature? Many of >your predictions are, how does one say it nicely, not based on >the facts. As an example, how does one know what terms F & P would >make their invention available at? There is no basis in fact to Do you imagine that the 3rd world countries or iron curtain countries will wait for F&P to "allow" them to use cold fusion? Dream on. If F&P or anyone else tries to restrict this technology it will simply be developed elsewhere where there arn't as many restrictions. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax) cudkeys: cuddy24 cudensl cudfnStuart cudlnLynne cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Stuart Lynne / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: sl@unifax.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 24 Apr 89 19:11:55 GMT Organization: Wimsey Associates In article <39002@bbn.COM> jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) writes: >In article <1636@wasatch.utah.edu>, donn@wasatch (Donn Seeley) writes: > >... a most amusing account of his encounter with the Salt Lake local >news - thanks, Donn! ... > >On my way to dinner Friday evening, I heard a teaser on NPR that >sounded like a possible pickup of this story. They said something >about the heat the fusion story is generating on electronic bulletin Yes, a short interview with a couple of UseNet notables. Eg Henry Spencer and one or two others. Meant to replay the tape and get more details but it got re-recorded with something else. It was interesting, but I was disappointed that they kept referring to UseNet as a bulletin board. Didn't even call it by name (UseNet). Just "a global bulletin board" or words to that effect. [You might wonder how a Canuck gets to listen to NPR, we get KPLU from Tacoma on cable. I tape the morning news and listen to it during the day. They also play Jazz when they arn't doing NPR news, my only good source of Jazz since CJAZ changed their call letters and switched to light rock a few years back. You can call this a commercial for NPR / KPLU, it's pledge week. The Jazz is good and the news is great. Anyone in the Pacific Northwest who hasn't tuned in should try it.] -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax) cudkeys: cuddy24 cudensl cudfnStuart cudlnLynne cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / Mark Zenier / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 24 Apr 89 21:46:02 GMT Organization: SSC, Inc., Seattle, WA In article <763@nsscb.UUCP>, det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: > >>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 1910 model of this car was probably the best automobile ever made. I remember an article describing the greatness of the Stalney Steamer, and when they got to the part about the warmup time only being 2 minutes (and dire things would happen if it wasn't), one realized that there were other problems besides unfair competition. Mark Zenier uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz markz@ssc.uucp uunet!amc! uw-beaver!tikal! cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenmarkz cudfnMark cudlnZenier cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / T Wells / Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Originally-From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Rifkin suicide would set example Date: 26 Apr 89 03:20:00 GMT Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale This is a flame. This is only a flame. If you don't like flames, don't read this. In article <2270@laidbak.UUCP> jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) writes: : There is an old proverb (of Chinese origin, I beleive) that : goes something like this: : Give a man a fish, and tommorrow he will hunger. : Teach a man to fish, and he will forever feed himself. No, you ignorant cultural relativist, that is Christian. Perhaps you should be as "objective" about "Western" culture as you would have us be about others? You may have some idea of the nature of those cultures but your thinking of those cultures as important above and beyond the benefits they give to their people puts you way beyond any tolerance from me. And your assertion that they don't need cheap energy shows that you believe just that. It is cheap energy (actually, human efficacy, magnified by technology, powered by energy) that makes human life anything other than nasty, brutish, and short. You are quite right that just giving the products of "Western" ingenuity to the tribalists of the world is worthless but that certainly doesn't mean that they can't benefit from "cheap energy". Hardly. Let me put it this way: the starving in Ethiopia won't benefit today from cheap energy, but their children will in the millenium when "Western" values overwhelm the "traditional" values of that region. And cheap energy will hasten that day. You are the kind of person who makes Rifkin and his ilk possible by granting them a spurious intellectual legitimacy. You have earned my contempt. --- Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenbill cudfnT cudlnWells cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Steve Masticola / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: masticol@paul.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 26 Apr 89 12:34:21 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. The "memo" looks, ah, fishy. (But just in case, could someone post references to detailed descriptions of methods for concentrating deuterium? :-) BTW, if someone wanted to block dissemination of the FP cell, palladium, not deuterium, would be the obvious target for restriction. Of course, the "memo" purports to be from the electric power industry, which has a long and proud history of ignoring obvious facts when convenient. Nuff said on this topic. - Steve (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmasticol cudfnSteve cudlnMasticola cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Paul Dietz / Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 26 Apr 89 12:32:59 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <1799@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >I have yet to find a place that even knows of a place that actually >casts palladium. I've seen a reference to a British company called "Metal Crystals and Oxides" that makes single crystals of palladium. I suspect these are cast in some fashion. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy26 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Paul Dietz / Fusion mechanisms Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion mechanisms Date: 26 Apr 89 12:58:03 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY I am told that the Walling/Simons paper predicts that the P+D-->He3 fusion rate should be 600 times that of D+D-->He4. We then have to wonder: why did they report He4 being produced at Utah, but not He3? Assuming the measurement was correct, one slight possibility is that He3 quickly reacts with deuterium in Pd by the reaction He3+D-->He4+P. If so, protons are recycled, and the net reaction D+D-->He4 actually occurs in two steps. The higher coulomb barrier of He3 would argue against this idea, but what the hell. To test this, there are two experiments one could do. First, try a 50/50 mix of light/heavy water, and look for He3. Second, try the experiment with heavy water and a Pd cathode that has been saturated with He3. If p+d fusion is the rate limiting step then these may both produce higher power levels. It would also be interesting to the Frascati experiment with various mixtures of hydrogen, deuterium and He3 gas. One implication of this is that would be lots of fairly energetic (14 MeV) protons flying around inside the palladium. These might produce neutrons by (p,n) reactions. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy26 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / caulkins@cdp.U / D2O Requirements for energy prod. Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Date: 26 Apr 89 05:22:00 GMT Energy consumption/production statistics, from "Statistical Abstract of the United States" 1988, 108th edition Total 1985 energy production: World 8.836e13KWH 3.682e9 MW-days US 1.892e13KWH 7.883e8 MW-days Total 1985 US installed electrical generating capacity: 2.548e8 MW-days Here are some back-of-the-envelope calculations for cold fusion as a power source (I got these from a conversation with a nuclear power engineer): 1 MW-day requires 1.052 gm of U235 fission @ 200 MeV. The ratio of fission to fusion energy yield is 200 MeV/20 MeV, and the mass ratio of D2O to U235 is 20/235. Therefore to produce 1 MW-day of energy requires fusion of 0.8953 gm of D2O @ 20 MeV. Assuming 30% efficiency, roughly that of fission power plants, then 0.8953/.3 = 2.98 gm D2O per MW-day. To replace the 1985 US installed electrical generating capacity with fusion would require 2.548e8/2.98 = 8.55e7 gm, or 85.5 tons of D2O. Similarly, to replace the entire US energy production would require 264.5 tons, and the world's energy production could be handled with 1,235 tons. The bottom line here is that D2O will NOT be the limiting item for cold fusion energy production. Two D2O plants of the Bruce B Ontario Hydro type could easily supply the energy requirements of the entire world in 1985. It is probable that there is enough D2O stored in tanks right now to support US energy needs for a year. Caveat - this was all done in some haste, and there may be assumption, arithmetic, or conversion errors. I welcome comments or corrections. Dave C cudkeys: cuddy26 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Robert Munck / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989) Originally-From: munck@linus.UUCP (Robert Munck) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989) Date: 25 Apr 89 11:49:18 GMT Organization: Contel, Fairfax, VA (posted for someone without net access) INTRODUCTION This is a follow-up to my 20 Apr 1989 letter, in which I suggested that success of the FAP experiment depends on polarization of palladium into two distinct, physically separated phases (D+ and D-) of palladium deuteride. The earlier letter also made several corollary suggestions on the what the best physical configurations for FAP reaction systems might be, based on the assumption that the D+/D- phase separation hypothesis was valid. In this letter, I discuss the relationship of the proposed D+/D- phases to the known alpha and beta phases of palladium, describe a few more corollary suggestions for constructing FAP reaction systems (primarily metallurgical and chemical in nature), and make a few suggestions as to how a few non- electrolytic, FAP-like experiments might be performed. Such experiments might be useful for eliminating the possibility of chemical battery effects as the cause of the FAP exothermic reaction. BACKGROUND The key hypothesis of my last note (entitled "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) was as follows: Hypothesis -- The critical feature of the F&P reaction is the formation of distinct physical regions of D- (palladium deuteride) and D+ (mobile deuterons in Pd) under the influence of a strong electrical current. The F&P exothermic reaction occurs when conditions permit highly mobile D+ ions to recombine or fuse with comparatively immobile D- ions. Following this hypothesis, two mechanisms for explaining the FAP reaction were given: a "chemical battery" interpretation in which a possible energy density of up to 50.6 kjoules/cm3 of palladium was calculated based on full separation of D+ and D- phases, and a fusion interpretation in which the energy provided by D+/D- recombination within a Pd lattice somehow resulted in fusion of the two deuterons. The rather interesting physical implications of a polarized Pd model on building FAP reaction systems were then discussed. RELATIONSHIP OF D+/D- PHASES TO PALLADIUM ALPHA/BETA PHASES The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of hydrogen (or deuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. Although the D+/D- phase argument of the previous letter was constructed in terms of the net effects of the migration of deuterium ions in palladium under the influence of a strong current, it is reasonable to surmise that if D+/D- phases do exist, they could be the same as the alpha and beta solution phases of hydrogen in palladium. The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. Perhaps I am missing some key piece of information, but to me the assertion that beta Pd is D+ saturated doesn't sound right, particularly when it is then followed by the Fleischmann and Pons assertion that "...the H+ and D+ in the lattice behave...possibly as delocalized species...in very shallow potential wells." If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. Also, the localization of D to the octahedral sites between Pd atoms to me sounds closer to the behavior of a conventional anion than to the behavior of a delocalized "D+ conduction band" deuteron. The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. All in all, then, I would say that a reasonable working assumption would be that the beta phase is equivalent to the proposed D- phase, rather than to the deuteron-rich D+ phase. (Incidentally, occupation of the beta Pd octahedral sites by D- (vs. D+) ions would be a significant issue for the fusion debate, since a fair bit of the public theorizing about the FAP reaction appears to be based on the assumption that there are *lots* of free deuterons competing for space in the octahedral sites of beta Pd. I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments as would be naked deuterons.) In contrast to the poor fit of beta Pd to the proposed D+ phase, the alpha phase appears to be a fairly good candidate for the D+ phase. Particularly interesting is the lack of physical expansion of palladium when the alpha phase is formed. (The lattice constant increases by about 4% during the formation of the beta phase.) This lack of expansion could be interpreted (quite loosely!) as an indication that at least in the alpha phase, deuterium really is predominantly in the form of "delocalized" D+ ions. Even so, it is still possible that the alpha phase is not a "true" D+ phase, but rather a mixture of D+ and D- ions in which D+ and D- are comparable in density. The bottom line: There are two known phases of palladium hydride which correspond reasonably well to the D+ and D- phases postulated in my last note. The most likely correspondence of the proposed phases to the known phases is: D+ phase = alpha palladium hydride (?) D- phase = beta palladium hydride METALLURGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE D+/D- PHASE MODEL Moving on to additional experimental implications of the D+/D- polarized phase model, the metallurgical implications of the model can be summarized quite succinctly in the following rule: The number of grain boundaries crossed by electrical "lines of force" in a FAP reactor should be minimized, ideally to zero. The rational is simply that every grain boundary provides an impediment to the flow of D+ ions, and thus to the overall level of polarization of the system. One obvious implication of this rule is simply that FAP palladium components should be cast directly from molten palladium, and *not* created by powder metallurgy or extensive machining. For a cast part, the way in which it is cooled could also have a significant impact on its effectiveness. This leads to the following rule-of-thumb: During the casting of a FAP palladium component, the thermal gradient should be maintained so as to have the same general form as the electrical gradient (or its inverse) that the part will be subjected to during use. The point of this rule, of course, is to try to encourage crystal growth to follow the same general path that migrating deuterium ions will follow. For the spherical reactor suggested in the previous note, this would simply imply that the palladium sphere should be a cast part, and that cooling of the casting should be as isotropic as possible. CHEMICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE D+/D- PHASE MODEL The D+/D- phase model depends critically on the assumption that two out-of- equilibrium, physically separated phases of palladium deuteride can be created and then maintained for extended periods of time (that is, at least for many seconds, and presumably for much longer). This leads to some very interesting observations about the potential chemical fragility of FAP reaction systems, since both of these out-of-equilibrium phase systems would contain highly reactive ions (D+ and D-) which might readily react with contaminants. In particular, it is likely that many contaminants occurring both within the Pd lattice and on the Pd surface would act as positive catalysts that would accelerate the return of one or both of the two phase systems to the equilibrium state. The D+ phase would probably be particularly sensitive to such equilibrium acceleration catalysts, since the greater mobility of the D+ ions would allow them to interact quickly with even a very small percentage of contaminant atoms or molecules. On the more optimistic side, there might also exist negative catalysts (inhibitors) whose effect would be to preserve or extend the average life of D+ or D- ions. If such inhibitors exist, then doping of the palladium lattice and/or surface with them could greatly increase the effectiveness of a FAP reaction system by allowing a larger percentage of the physically separated D+ and D- ions of the D+ and D- phases to recombine. Identifying D+/D- phase accelerators and inhibitors would only be possible through direct experimentation, although a few general observations can be made. Elements from groups 1, 2, 6 and 7 would all be worth testing because of their high oxidation/reduction potentials. The effects of alkali metals such as cesium (most active Group 1 element) and lithium (the least active) could be particularly interesting to observe, due to their chemical similarity to hydrogen. Experimentally, the contrast of the Fleischmann and Pons experiment (in which only lithium was used in the electrolyte) and the Jones and Palmer experiment (in which they apparently decided to dissolve a kitchen sink in acid to make their electrolyte; nothing like adding ten or so more variables to an already complex problem...) may indicate that lithium acts as an inhibitor for one or both of the D+/D- phases, while transition elements (the Jones result) as a whole tend to act as equilibrium accelerators. In the case of lithium, it might be worth directly alloying small quantities of lithium with the palladium to test for volume (vs. surface) effects. To me it seems a bit remarkable that there has been little or no mention of the possible effects of oxygen on the palladium electrolysis experiments. Given that palladium, like platinum, is a good absorber of oxygen, I would have expected a bit more discussion of the possible effects of good old O2. In terms of the D+/D- phase model, oxygen could well turn out to be an important equilibrium inhibitor or accelerator. In a similar vein, the cathode material that is used to interface with the palladium may need to be viewed as an integral component of the FAP system. Selection of a D+ equilibrium accelerator (Copper? Silver? Gold? Is your electrical clamp keeping you out of the Great Fusion Race?) for the cathode material might lead to a vanishingly small equilibrium level of D+ ions. (Sort of like calling people in for dinner and then shooting them at the door.) It should be noted that a contaminant that is an inhibitor for one phase of a D+/D- system could very well be an accelerator for the other phase; thus, the possibility of "diode" style reactors in which the cathode/Pd region is doped with a different inhibitor from the D20/Pd "anode" region could be worth testing, providing that such inhibitors exist and can be identified. Overall, the best advice for building FAP reactors without knowing the impact of contaminants is simply to keep the materials (particularly the palladium and the electrolyte) as high in purity as possible, and to eliminate unnecessary variables whenever possible. Also, an one should keep an eye on the possibility that seemingly innocuous differences in the environment of the experiment (the cathode example again) could be drastically altering the results. NON-AQUEOUS D+/D- MODEL FUSION EXPERIMENTS A few last notes on the possibility of fusion in the D+/D- phase polarization model. If there is in fact something unique about the recombination of D+ and D- (17.45eV released energy; not exactly big potatoes by nuclear fusion standards), then it is at least possible that D+/D- fusion reaction could occur in non-aqueous environments. Some possible experiments that come to mind include: 1) Direct plasma recombination of D+ and D- at low energies. (Probably the lower the better; if direct recombination can cause fusion, it would have to be accomplished via some extraordinary form of precision, rather than brute force. [Chances for this one would seem low; also, someone surely has tried this before (?).] 2) Same as (1), but insert a thin palladium plate at the reaction point. Titanium or tantalum might also be worth trying -- and would be quite a bit less expensive, also. [I would rate this experiment as having fair odds of producing something interesting, provided you can avoid vaporizing your palladium plate via mundane plasma heating. Calorimetric measurements could also be quite interesting in such an environment.] 3) Aim a low-energy D+ plasma directly at a lithium deuteride cleavage face. (Or try cesium deuteride if the above configuration is a bit too reminiscent of an H-bomb to you.) [This one might be interesting.] 4) Same as number (3), but plate the cleavage face with a thin layer of palladium, titanium, or tantalum. [This one might also be interesting.] Cheers, Terry Bollinger (terry@ctc.contel.com) "In fact, it has been estimated that [the Soviet Union] now provides about 80% of the world's annual supply of palladium." -- W. A. E. McBryde The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmunck cudfnRobert cudlnMunck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Peter Farson / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: peter@celia.UUCP (Peter Farson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 26 Apr 89 10:27:47 GMT Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood In article <1563@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> ins_anmy@jhunix.UUCP (Norman Yarvin) writes: ) [stuff deleted] )Also, hydrogen can be confined within a metal (not necessarily palladium) at )about twice the density of liquid hydrogen (for the newest alloys). A test )was done at one point where a bullet was fired through a "tank" of this )stuff, and a tank of gasoline. The hydrogen burned at both entrance and )exit holes with a strong blue flame; the gas tank exploded. ) Well, that sounds good. But how long does it take to get the hydrogen soaked into this hunk of metal? -- Can a bee be said to be Peter Farson An entire bee if celia!peter@tis.llnl.gov Half the bee is not a bee ...{ihnp4,ames}!lll-tis!celia!peter Due to some ancient injury? cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenpeter cudfnPeter cudlnFarson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Jack Campin / Re: Fusion Article in The Chronicle of Higher Education Originally-From: jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Article in The Chronicle of Higher Education Date: 25 Apr 89 09:42:05 GMT Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie, Unthank tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) wrote: - NEUTRON MEASUREMENTS DIFFICULT [...] - Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology [...] discovered later - that they were in error because their neutron counter was sensitive to heat - emanating from a bath used in the experiment. Could somebody explain how neutron detectors work? There were rumblings here a week or two ago about F&P not using the best available technology for neutron detection; nobody then described what the alternatives were. -- Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6045 wk 041 556 1878 ho INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnCampin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Mark Thorson / Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Date: 26 Apr 89 04:40:05 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Notice these three things: 1) Many good labs haven't been able to reproduce the result. 2) Some labs have reported confirmation, then retracted when subtle problems with their experimental conditions have been discovered. 3) F&P claim neutron flux a billion times smaller than expected, given the heat. Is it reasonable to expect the discovery of RTF and a new fusion reaction simultaneously? If so, why is the neutron flux so far in the direction of the skeptic, rather than being, say, in the other direction? It seems to me that F&P have merely discovered an experiment which is very sensitive to error, not to mention belief. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Jon Webb / Quotes from Walling and Simons and Hagelstein Originally-From: webb@cs.cmu.edu (Jon Webb) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Quotes from Walling and Simons and Hagelstein Date: 26 Apr 89 12:58:27 GMT Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Courtesy of Vince Cate I have copies of 3 of the 4 Hagelstein papers and the Walling and Simons paper, all of which propose theoretical explanations of cold fusion and make new predictions. Some of these theories and predictions have appeared on Usenet before, while others haven't. Here are some interesting tidbits. The papers are "Two innocent chemists look at cold fusion" by Walling and Simons "A simple model for coherent DD fusion in the presence of a lattice", "Rates for neutron and tritium production in coherent DD fusion", "Phonon interactions in coherent fusion" all by Hagelstein. Both papers propose that the primary fusion process going on is D+D-> 4He + 23 Mev. The 23 Mev eventually ends up in the palladium lattice as heat. The reason the excited 4He doesn't decay into tritium and a proton or 3He and a neutron (usually) has something to do with the lattice -- essentially, it absorbs the energy too quickly for the decay to occur. The exact mechanism proposed in the two papers differs, and I'm not able to understand the mathematical explanation (I'm a computer scientist, not a chemist or physicist). However, I'm inclined to go with Hagelstein's explanation that ``coherent phonons'' are somehow taking it away, simply because his argument seems more strongly grounded -- Walling and Simons argument seems vague to me, and they characterize themselves as ``innocent''. Now to the predictions. Both papers agree that D+D fusion is only one of many things that can occur, which has interesting consequences. For one thing, Walling and Simons propose that H+D->T fusion can also occur, and is in fact much more likely (600 times more likely) than D+D fusion because of a greater atomic cross-section. This means that a mixture of heavy and ordinary water should work better than heavy water alone, and also that ordinary water can produce heat (by the way, I saw an article in this morning's paper where Pons and Fleischmann alluded to this result in explaining why the ordinary water experiment produced heat). The Hagelstein papers are even more interesting. He proposes that within the palladium, some process starts the fusion going, then it is kept going by phonons moving around within the material. He suggests the most likely processes to start the fusion are cosmic rays and alpha particles. The damping out of the fusion depends on the environment the palladium exists in; a palladium ball in space would fuse longer than a palladium lattice in close contact with a thermal bath. Here is the discussion section from "Phonon interactions in coherent fusion": 1) Primary energy generation takes place by the new reaction DD->4He+23.8Mev (lattice) 2)An initial mechanism is required to initiate fusion chains. The most promising candidates at the moment appear to be cosmic ray protons and alphas, and any alphas generated by radioactive sources in close proximity. Conventional tritium decay does not appear to be as effective due to the poor coupling between the low mass betas and the deuterons. 3) The presence of optical phonons stimulates the coherent fusion reaction processes. From the scaling law of this paper, it seems that either thermal or nonthermal sources of optical phonons will enable the coherent fusion process. 4) We speculate that the nuclear energy can be coupled (indirectly through the phonons) to current flow within the palladium, and that this increases the interaction matrix element. 5) Once an initial lattice/nuclear fusion occurs, coherent transitions to degenerate states of higher fusion number takes place readily. This process is made faster in the presence of large numbers of optical phonons. 6) Neutrons and tritium are produced as incoherent byproducts of the coherent fusion reaction, at levels which are low, but proportional to the square of the primary fusion rate. 7) The coherent fusion rate is inversely proportional to the dephasing rate, which for practical purposes we believe to be the thermal relaxation rate. 8) With a long thermal relaxation time, a very large number of fusion reactions may result from one initiation. 9) The coherent fusion process does not seem to be overly particular about the local environment with regard to chemical composition or whether it is solid or liquid. 10) The mechanism is not restricted to DD reactions. Essentially any fusion reaction resulting in stable products can couple coherently to a lattice. Probable 6Li+d->(2) 4He + lattice energy occurs in the heavy water of current reactors. Higher Z fusions are expected since cosmic rays are quite energetic. 11) The reverse process occurs as part of the detailed balance aspects of coherent fusion. For example, the abnormal reaction 4He + 23.8 Mev (lattice) -> DD occurs in coherent DD reactors. 12) If poorly thermally damped, the coherent fusion process will run away and breaking, melting, boiling, exploding, or vaporizing is a likely outcome at low temperatures. At high temperatures, and with excellent thermal decoupling, more efficient coherent fusion is possible, resulting in probable efficient energy conversion and associated catastrophic effects. This latter process will be accompanied by considerable neutron and tritium emission. 13) The efficient generation of optical phonons enables the development of new fusion driven laser sources. 14) Direct coupling of the coherent fusion energy into electrical energy with some efficiency appears likely. -- My major conclusions: 1) First, Fleischmann-Pons is just the very tip of the iceberg. All sorts of fusion reactions can be driven using this method, using appropriate lattice materials. Fleischmann and Pons discovered the nuclear equivalent of fire. 2) You can make it into a bomb (12) and into powerful SDI-type lasers (13). 3) Forget Stirling engines and thermocouples; build a fusion battery (water in->electricity out) instead (14). 4) We can now understand why many of the experiments don't work. It seems likely that the geometry of the palladium electrode and how it is attached to the rest of the reactor could strongly influence the fusion process, as well as the presence of sources of alpha particles and cosmic rays. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenwebb cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Paul Schauble / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark Originally-From: PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark Date: 26 Apr 89 09:10:34 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) > This just leaves two problems: > - Hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline. > - Hydrogen is more hazardous to store and handle than hydrocarbon liquids. Industrial experience has it that hydrogen is no more hazardous than gasoline and might well be less so. Gas fumes are heavier than air and tend to collect in low points until they reach explosive concentrations. Hydrogen is lighter and tends to rise and dissipate. ++PLS cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenPLS cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Robert Fierro / gonzo science Originally-From: raf@skep2.ATT.COM (Robert.Anthony.Fierro.[ho95b]) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: gonzo science Date: 26 Apr 89 15:34:20 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Center 4632, Holmdel NJ >Maybe the time has come for some gonzo science - a bunch of >radio-amateur type teams of people who really try to push the >state of the art. The objective would be to rapidly scout the >territory looking for major effects, not to do carefully >designed and controlled experiments. I believe this is a case >where cleverness and intelligence are important, and a detailed >knowledge of electrochemistry, fusion physics, or etc. is not >only less important but in some cases may be a hindrance. Not >knowing what cannot be done often leads to interesting results. [ other stuff deleted ] >Dave C "Gonzo Science" Wow, what a great idea! How about Gonzo Software Development ? .... or have we already seen too much of that? IMHO, "carefully designed and controlled experiments" are not the hinderance to progress that Dave C seems to think they are, rather blundering bureaucrats and anal retentive management are the culprits. "Gonzo Science" may eliminate some problems ( I'm always willing to concede that there may be at least ONE benefit to a given idea ), but uncontrolled "hacking" about with heavy water, funny metals and power supplies will surely create "interesting results". Please note that the term "interesting" DOES NOT have an implied value ( as in positive vs catastrophic ). Just let one Gonzotist ( Gonzo Scientist) cause a loss of life or ecological "happening" while observing an "interesting" result and our control happy government will probalby require licensing for Saturday Nite special containers, to say nothing about controlling the availability of heavy water. :-(. Bob F. RE-EL @ ATT-BL "Against stupidity the Gods themselves prevail in vain." Schiller cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenraf cudfnRobert cudlnFierro cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Doug Roberts / Re: Irrigating the Saharaexit Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Irrigating the Saharaexit Date: 26 Apr 89 14:50:12 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <5866@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Douglas Miller) writes: > > In article <15494@bellcore.bellcore.com>, perry@wind.bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) writes: > > I was the person who first mentioned irrigating the sahara with > > distilled water, and I haven't seen so much as one acknowledgement. > > > > :-) > > > > Perry > > Good idea, Perry, but water alone will not do the job. I'm afraid you will > also need a great deal of organic material in the form of topsoil. Of course, > it is possible to generate topsoil using organic materials and microorganisms, > but its going to take one king-sized compost pile to do it. > > Doug Miller > Actually, I don't believe this is true. I worked in the Sahara (Libya) for a couple of seasons. One year it *rained* at my desert location, a highly unusual event. The normal annual rainfall for that desert location in the Northern tip of the Sahara was ~1 inch (usually in the form of mud/grit balls), but this year it rained almost 3 inches in a two week period. In a couple of days the sand was sprouting flowers and grass; seeds had lain dormant for years. In four days the desert was green! It was such an unusual sight that people were flying 900 miles in from Tripoli just to see it. -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / pierce@lanai.c / The Consortium Originally-From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: The Consortium Date: 26 Apr 89 15:47:50 GMT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department John Moore recently posted the following alleged mole's eye view of the power companies reaction to the possibility of cold fusion. While John Moore is probably sincere, I'd have to agree that something about the style and tone sounds "fishy". That's not to say, however, that the content might not be essentially correct. I'd like to request that the poster do a little more digging and see if this memo is real, and if so try to get a few more details of this "consortium" and their meeting. Unfortunately, alt.fusion is exactly the place for such communication, beause you can bet your bottom dollar that you'll never hear a report about such matters on NPR, whether it's true or not. ================Message Text Follows================== "The degree to which cold fusion has shook [sic] up power companies across the country cannot be described in simple terms. The message went out quickly that 'national interests' are threatened and energy interests in the U.S. have already banded together to propose legislation to head off an eventual catastrophy --- ours --- should private interests and individuals be permitted to develop their own energy sources. As you will see in these [meaning the F&P] papers, cold fusion appears a very real possiblity and easy to accomplish. From what has come into our computer terminal, here are a few methods suggested [by] others to 'protect' us. a) Outlaw purchase of deuterium from any source unless licensed to do so. b) Outlaw development and construction of any means to concentrate deuterium. c) Outlaw any and all devices using deuterium for the purpose of generating heat and/or electricity. The consensus of [the] consortium is that they might fall through the cracks if they go the self-protection approach of a,b,c above, so, at present it is thought best not to mention them. Instead, another approach is being developed. Since it is evident some gamma rays and neutrons are produced, protecting public health and welfare appears to be the approach that is likely to gain attention from congress, no matter their collective mentality. If it developes that gamma rays and neutrons are so slight that no hazard exists, then the consortium will fall back on the damages they and their investors would suffer from allowing this into the private sector. I am the delegate from [deleted] and will fill you in when I return, and --- [name deleted] --- we have been friends for [many] years now. I say this because I want full confidentiality as to my identity, but feel free to discss this with others. Knowing you, I'll bet this will make you grit your teeth. Quite frankly, I'm gritting mine also, but being inside, one learns more than otherwise. Bye for now, your friend, [deleted]" =================End of message text=============================== cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenpierce cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / N Truher / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 26 Apr 89 18:32:57 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <1800@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > Since it is evident some gamma rays and neutrons are produced, protecting >public health and welfare appears to be the approach that is likely to gain >attention from congress, no matter their collective mentality. If it developes >that gamma rays and neutrons are so slight that no hazard exists, then the >consortium will fall back on the damages they and their investors would suffer >from allowing this into the private sector. "Damages"? Who exactly is supposed to owe them a living? cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenthrash cudfnNathaniel cudlnTruher cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Ronald Mayer / Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Originally-From: armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Date: 26 Apr 89 16:34:49 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <17597@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >Subject: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Has anyone been keeping track of palladium prices? How are they doing? Has the sudden price increase leveled off (I'd hope so; by now, anyway)? At what price? How would I find this info out myself? -Ron Mayer armin@portia.stanford.edu PS. [This is also kinda a test: I tried to post a follow-up to my earlier posting about milled vs. cast palladium with the info. about the Brittish company that Paul Dietz mentioned by mail to me (thanks!), and later in his posting, but I don't think my message ever got posted.] cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenarmin cudfnRonald cudlnMayer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Peter Desnoyers / Re: Eco-stupidity Originally-From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eco-stupidity Date: 26 Apr 89 19:39:11 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA On this subject, I think that everyone who believes that cold fusion will be a completely clean energy source should visit Sudbury, Ontario and look at the effect the local nickel smelter (which evidently produces palladium as a by-product) has had on the local eco-system. When I visited there about 10 years ago it looked like the surface of an asteroid. "Energy sources don't pollute - corporations pollute." :-) :-) Peter Desnoyers cudkeys: cuddy26 cudendesnoyer cudfnPeter cudlnDesnoyers cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / William Johnson / Neutron detection and why it's hard to do right Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Neutron detection and why it's hard to do right Date: 26 Apr 89 16:49:47 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <2828@pegasus.ATT.COM>, psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: > Would someone post (in a new thread, not as a follow-up to this > article) some details about why neutrons are so hard to detect? Yes, > they're unchanged particles, and so don't leave a good ionizing trail; > but I can't get over the feeling there's more to it than that. Glad to; this is basically what I do for a living. The statement that "neutrons are hard to detect" is only approximately right; it should be replaced by "energetic neutrons are hard to detect directly." The distinction is subtle, but as we shall see, extremely important. The probability of a neutron interacting with a nucleus (being uncharged, they don't interact with electrons at all, as far as we are concerned) turns out to be EXTREMELY sensitive to two things: the energy of the neutron and the exact identity of the nucleus in question. One neutron more or less in the nucleus makes an enormous difference in the ability of that nucleus to react with a neutron that happens along (helium 3 has an incredible affinity for thermal neutrons, while helium 4 adamantly refuses to react with them). The energy effects are equally pronounced. Most, though not all, nuclei react much more willingly with "thermal" neutrons -- those whose energies are only about 0.02 electron volt, corresponding to the energy of a mass-1 gas particle at room temperature -- than with the more energetic neutrons commonly produced in nuclear reactions. (The [d,d] reaction produces neutrons with energies of 2.5 *million* electron volts, or MeV -- at least it did until F&P came along.) Another important thing to remember about neutrons is that they don't travel in straight lines. When they do interact with a nucleus, sometimes they cause a reaction, but more often they simply "bounce." Plain old billiard-ball kinematics provides a good first approximation of how this works. The neutron hits the nucleus and goes bouncing off in a different direction, with the target nucleus also bouncing away in the opposite direction (in the center of mass frame, anyway). In the process the neutron transfers some of its kinetic energy to the target; the amount transferred is inversely proportional (in a rather complicated way) to the mass of the target nucleus. After many such collisions, the neutron has shed almost all of its starting energy and has reached the "thermal" state mentioned above. In this state it is in thermal equilibrium with the nuclei it keeps running into, and neither transfers any more energy to them nor picks any up. By the time this happens, the direction that the neutron is moving in bears absolutely no relation to the direction it originally was moving in. It is in this sense that they don't travel in straight lines. From this it follows that the standard means for detecting the mere presence of neutrons (as opposed to the energy spectrum of the neutrons present) is something like the following: package an element that is good at absorbing thermal neutrons in a proportional counter (a Geiger counter, more or less) so that when the reaction occurs, the resulting ionized particles cause transient changes in the counter's capacitance (again, more or less) that can be detected electronically. This package is your basic detector. Wrap it in some hydrogenous material (polyethylene is normal) to turn the energetic neutrons into thermal ones. Hook the detector up to a scaler, and simply measure the total number of times something happens. The Bonner-ball detectors that F&P (apparently) used work on this principle. Unfortunately, the practical use of such detectors is messy. First, the electronics tend to be glitch-prone, since the signals they are detecting are so tiny -- a handful of ionized particles per neutron. Second, gamma rays impinging on the detector can cause some of the same ionization, requiring some fancy electronics to distinguish between signals from neutrons and those from gamma rays. (This apparently screwed up Georgia Tech's experiment; the ability of the electronics to do this discrimination requires a stable thermal environment, which they didn't have.) Finally, not all the neutrons hitting the hydrogenous material get thermalized and captured, and the fraction that do get captured depends in a highly unpredictable way on the energy spectrum of the incident neutrons. Simply stated, it takes more polyethylene to thermalize a 10-MeV neutron than it does to thermalize a 1-MeV neutron. Unless you *know* the energy spectrum of the source neutrons, Bonner-ball measurements tend to be rather qualitative as a result. Complicating matters even further is the fact about not moving in straight lines. If you set a neutron source in the middle of a room, the number of neutrons a counter sees at a distance R from the source does NOT vary simply as 1/R**2. Neutrons "bouncing" off the room's walls produce local hot spots in the counting rate that are almost impossible to predict without extensive neutron-transport calculations. It is this that makes F&P's "background" measurements suspect as they are described: if they really did do their "background" measurements by moving a few meters away from their cells, there is a fair chance that the background rate would be different than at the cell location. Neutron spectroscopy is an even more complicated topic. A spectrometer can only measure how much energy is actually left in it by the neutron, not the neutron's full energy. Think again of simply billiard-ball kinematics: a central collision between two billiard balls changes their relative energy much more than a grazing collision does. Neutrons and nuclei can also have both grazing and central collisions, and the fraction of the neutron's energy transferred (=detected) in a given reaction can't be known _a priori_. Add the fact that neutron spectrometers are relatively inefficient, and the obvious conclusion is that spectroscopy is TOUGH. All of these things can be accounted for, but the measurements are hard and take a fair bit of specialized expertise. It is for this reason that the chemistry groups doing F&P-like experiments are well advised to latch onto a nuclear type to do the neutron detection. Trying to do it in a hack is very likely to lead to an embarrassingly misleading result. -- "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: cuddy26 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Emmett Black / Poland confirms cold fusion. Originally-From: blackje@sunspot.steinmetz (Emmett Black) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,crd.fusion Subject: Poland confirms cold fusion. Date: 26 Apr 89 17:20:57 GMT Organization: GE Research; Schenectady, NY 12345 Two Polish teams have reported positive results on attempting to duplicate the "cold fusion" experiments. They were: - Technical University of Gliwice, and - The University of Wroclaw. A third Polish team at the Institute of Plasma Physics and Laser Microfusion in Warsaw, is also working on duplicating the experiment, but without success. --Emmett J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345 blackje@crd.ge.com; ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenblackje cudfnEmmett cudlnBlack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Dave Newman / Re: idle speculation Originally-From: newman@ut-emx.UUCP (Dave Newman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: idle speculation Date: 26 Apr 89 16:28:57 GMT Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas re Oil companies "sitting on" solar. Baloney! Solar is just like fusion will be in that if it was profitable, there is no way that the oil companies could prevent others from taking advantage of it. The technology just isn't cheap enough to replace fossil fuels yet. What is more, the oil companies are trying very hard to develop alternate fuel sources and have been for years. They know better than anyone just how limited our fossil fuel supplies really are. They have been working on not going out of buisness ever since the oil shortages of the 70s, and they are not stupid. People need a scapegoat, and for a long time the oil companies were the US national scapegoat. Now it should be someone else's turn. >>Dave cudkeys: cuddy26 cudennewman cudfnDave cudlnNewman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Peter Desnoyers / Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Originally-From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Consequences of Clean Cold Fusion Date: 26 Apr 89 19:49:07 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <4334@omepd.UUCP> martinb@inteloa.UUCP (Martin L. Buchanan) writes: > > THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLEAN COLD FUSION > ... >1994 > First Boeing Puff 797F ("F" for fusion) enters > commercial service. Now this one is more than a bit premature. Take a look at the schedule that got the 767 to market. I assume it will be designed and build by nano-technology god-creatures, as well? :-) Peter Desnoyers cudkeys: cuddy26 cudendesnoyer cudfnPeter cudlnDesnoyers cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Peter Desnoyers / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 26 Apr 89 19:54:26 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <2244@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > >As to 'what right do we have to do that?', presumably the same right that the >US had to massively irrigate the central plains semi-desert and turn it into >the most productive farm-land in the world. It is hard to get up on a moral >soapbox and preach unless we are willing to let the Mississippi basin return >to its natural state. > Which may happen once the Oglalla reservior runs dry in two decades or so. The only proposal that has a hope of replacing that aquifer is to send water down from British Columbia, at a cost that could probably endow the DoD in perpetuity. Peter Desnoyers cudkeys: cuddy26 cudendesnoyer cudfnPeter cudlnDesnoyers cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / C Schanck / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: schanck@harmonica.cis.ohio-state.edu (Christopher Schanck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 26 Apr 89 19:54:00 GMT Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science In article <2602@3comvax.3Com.Com> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes: >} >}Someone else recently mentioned that there was a problem with steam powered >}cars exploding in a accident... Wouldn't hydrogen powered cars have the same >}problem? > >Don't *gasoline* powered cars have the same problem? Yeah, who can forget the Pinto? Bad design is bad design, period. Chris -=- "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something." --- "The Princess Bride" Christopher Schanck (schanck@cis.ohio-state.edu) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenschanck cudfnChristopher cudlnSchanck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Michael Brooks / Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Originally-From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Date: 26 Apr 89 20:02:10 GMT Organization: Stanford University In response to postings in alt.fusion I have dug up a few things about mass spectroscopy and it`s standardization, resolution and reliability. This info is available in many sources, mine is Mass Spectroscopy (book) by Duckworth, Barber, and Venkatasubramanian, Cabmbridge University Press, 1986. There is a lot of stuff in here! I am no expert in mass spec, but I do routinely run a Rutherford Backscatterer (RBS) and there are common aspects. Mass specs produce output that can be represented graphically in a plot like "counts vs. channel number" where channel number can be related to m/e ratios of ions, and ionized molecules. Counts are interpretable as relative intensities and can be standardized to give absolute ratios of constituents of ionized species. In the case of the Walling and Simons analysis of 4He it makes sense that they would have run a standard of 4He gas thru the system to calibrate a 4He signal first off, it`s an important first step, merely as a system check. The gas is readily available and I use as the primary beam source in my RBS (correction, My Boss`s RBS). Next the mass spec would have sample gases released from the working F&P cell and another spectrum would have been acquired, differing from the first substantially, with much structure in the signals` being visible. One would see contributions from 1H, 2H, 3H, 3He, 4He, and assorted molecular species, all ionized. A simple difference (spectral subtraction) spectra would be produced to detect 4He. Possible similarities in the signals of a 2D-2D molecule and 4He (both say +1) could be resolved by the system if the peaks overlap simply by ramping the ionizing electron beam to energies high enough to break the D-D bond and observing peak intensity (counts) levels shift. Substantial 4He contributions will not likely be affected at the D-D disassociation energy, whereas the reverse will be readily apparent. By this method of "Bond energy dissociation", the I (subH+H) dissoc. eng. of 18.0+/-0.2eV was determined in 1941 (see above, pg198)---18eV is needed to break apart the H+H molecule. Such studies are common sources of binding energies for ionized compounds, and many have been studied. In sum, if proper system calibration was done, and reasonable protocals followed, 4He should have been quantitatively detected. This technique is on far firmer ground than is calorimetry, since many heats of standard chemical reactions are still argued over. One can assume that it`s likely that Walling and Simons knew what they were doing, and were careful in performing the checks. As I have indicated running the analysis over a control electrode is not necessary (given the above), though it certainly wouldn`t be a bad idea! Any corrections to what I have posted will be welcome, especially those with numbers about Walling and Simons analysis! Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Lab (solid state)/SU MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Abscence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of abscence." cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Kathi Baganoff / Re: Irrigating the Saharaexit Originally-From: gekdb@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Kathi Baganoff) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Irrigating the Saharaexit Date: 26 Apr 89 19:53:37 GMT Organization: Stanford Data Center >> I was the person who first mentioned irrigating the sahara with >> distilled water, and I haven't seen so much as one acknowledgement. >> Perry > >Good idea, Perry, but water alone will not do the job. I'm afraid you will >also need a great deal of organic material in the form of topsoil. Of course, >it is possible to generate topsoil using organic materials and microorganisms, >but its going to take one king-sized compost pile to do it. >Doug Miller There are many plants that would grow quite well in irrigated sandy soil of the Sahara (just look at the Oasises). These plants take CO2 out of the air and turn it into "organic materials" --- that's where the _carbon_ for _organic_ materials comes from. The sand will provide most of the necessary minerals. Nitrogen is also fixed from the air, but not by most plants without assistance from bacteria. It may take a while for the process to get started, but with some carefull management, you should be able to generate modest ammounts of topsoil in a couple of decades. Chris Uhlik uhlik@sun-valley.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy26 cudengekdb cudfnKathi cudlnBaganoff cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Ernst Mulder / Could this be of any use? Originally-From: rcbaem@eutrc3.UUCP (Ernst Mulder) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Could this be of any use? Date: 26 Apr 89 11:29:27 GMT Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands First I'll have to confess I'm not a physisist. Not at all, I study Information Technology. So what I state here might be of no significance, but it's just a thought. Let's for the moment assume there is in fact some form of fusion inside the palladium lattice. When palladium 'absorbs' the Deuterium, I assume it's crystal structure gets distorted. I don't know in what way but I suppose the Van Der Waals forces will make it more dense. When a Deuterium molecule places itself between two Palladium particles get closer to each other. Correct me when I'm wrong. Let's for the moment assume it's structure changes. Doesn't matter in what way. When the Deuterium fuses in some way or another, there is a change of mass, and other particles (Helium3? Helium4?) get out of the Palladium and this way the structure of Palladium changes again. In other words the Palladium particles will suddenly move and will therefore grow 'hot'. Could this be the heat that is missing from the balance? Or could it be I'm completely missing a point and should have been better of when I had kept my mouth shut? ;) Okay, I just wondered. :) Ernst. > cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenrcbaem cudfnErnst cudlnMulder cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Dave Mack / Re: New desktop fusion magazine? Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: New desktop fusion magazine? Date: 26 Apr 89 19:31:13 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <4539@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> ericg@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Eric Geislinger) writes: > > \ / > \/ PERSONAL FUSION > *------------------------------------------> > /\ The News Magazine for Desktop Nukes > / \ > ********************************************************* > The following is a PROPOSED press release that we're thinking > of sending out in the near future. Before that actually > happens, we need to know what the interest level is out > there. We also hope to gather the bulk of our writers right > here on the net. We'll pay for articles - 8 cents/word. So > we actually have two questions: > > 1) Would you be interested in such a publication? No. Since it hasn't been shown that 1) it really is fusion, 2) that it is commercially usable, and 3) that it will ever be available to the individual, I would conclude that this magazine is intended to ripoff the gullible. If I want random speculation and pure fantasy, I can read alt.fusion. I certainly wouldn't pay for it. > 2) Would you write articles, send news items, interview > researchers, etc? (If, "yes" - please include your phone number.) No. I do have a few shreds of self-respect left. I would be willing to write articles, send news items, and interview researchers, but as a service to the net, not to help you make a fast buck. If I've misread your intentions here, my apologies. Otherwise, take a hike. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Dave Mack / Re: Four more fusion papers. Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Four more fusion papers. Date: 26 Apr 89 20:09:44 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <4812@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: > >I have scanned in 4 more papers on cold fusion: > >ws "Two Innocent Chemists Look at Cold Fusion" >h1 "A Simple Model for Coherent DD Fusion in the Presence of a Lattice" >h2 "Phonon Interactions in Coherent Fusion" >h3 "Rates for Neutron and Tritium Production in Coherent DD Fusion" If anyone will email me these four papers, I'll post ascii versions. Thanks, Dave Mack uunet!inco!mack inco!mack@uunet.uu.net cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / John Covici / repeat of fusion experiments Originally-From: covici@chinet.chi.il.us (John Covici) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: repeat of fusion experiments Date: 26 Apr 89 09:04:18 GMT Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix I wonder if there is anyone who is publishing a comprehensive list of the labs which have or have not duplicated the fusion results; the experimental details, etc. I would appreciate if someone could either e-mail it to me on chinet, or post it to alt.fusion. Thanks in advance. John cudkeys: cuddy26 cudencovici cudfnJohn cudlnCovici cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Tom Knotts / Re: L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy Originally-From: knotts@hpl-opus.HP.COM (Tom Knotts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy Date: 25 Apr 89 17:30:27 GMT Organization: HP Labs, High Speed Electronics Dept., Palo Alto, CA > . . . . Cheves Walling, a widely respected chemist who pioneered >the study of nuclear reactions, and fellow chemist John Simons put one >of Pons' heat-generating experiments in their mass spectrometer and >determined that the experiment was producing helium-4. Before I can accept this, I would like to be reassured that the researchers did not measure diatomic dueterium molecules instead of He-4. Any mass-spectrometer guru's out there? __________ [Speaking about JS Bach] Beethoven: "How can this man be dead?" Friend: "He lives in his music." cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenknotts cudfnTom cudlnKnotts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Donald Benson / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 25 Apr 89 20:08:12 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Maybe not, if the hydrogen was stored in a crystal lattice. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Donald Benson / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 26 Apr 89 00:22:24 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > Also, hydrogen can be confined within a metal (not necessarily palladium) at > about twice the density of liquid hydrogen (for the newest alloys). A test > was done at one point where a bullet was fired through a "tank" of this > stuff, and a tank of gasoline. The hydrogen burned at both entrance and > exit holes with a strong blue flame; the gas tank exploded. According to "60 Minutes"? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (for those who don't remember, "60 Minutes" did a report on "Explosafe", a brand of gasoline tank filled with aluminum mesh to dissipate heat. The producers invested in "Explosafe" before putting on their show. They fired tracer bullets through the "Explosafe" tank - nothing happened. They fired tracer bullets through the ordinary tank - nothing happened. They then used artistic lisence; they doused the car that had the ordinary tank with gasoline and lit it, producing an impressive film clip.) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Dave Mack / Re: Quotes from Walling and Simons and Hagelstein Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Quotes from Walling and Simons and Hagelstein Date: 26 Apr 89 20:38:30 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article webb@cs.cmu.edu (Jon Webb) writes: >My major conclusions: >2) You can make it into a bomb (12) and into powerful SDI-type lasers (13). Not necessarily. What he's shown is that you can have a meltdown. That doesn't necessarily translate into a thermonuclear weapon. And saying that you can build a fusion-driven laser doesn't necessarily mean you can build "powerful SDI-type lasers." We're talking about solid-state lasers here. I predict that they'll stop lasing when the lattice starts melting What I want to know is how a lattice with a binding energy of a few eV survives having a 23 MeV phonon in it. The sucker should melt in the vicinity of the fusion site. Some before and after crystallography on the palladium seems in order here. -- Dave Mack at this point, a very confused puppy cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Henry Spencer / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 26 Apr 89 17:51:46 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <11385@well.UUCP> mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: >For some unknown reason, human populations tend to match birth and >death rates with a lag time of about one generation... In industrialized nations, there is no mystery about it: the combination of city (rather than farm/village) life, child-labor laws, and compulsory education tends to make children economic liabilities rather than assets. On a farm, everyone works and every pair of hands helps. In the city, the kids can't work for the family business because there probably isn't one (the adults probably are somebody else's employees), they can't work for somebody else due to child-labor laws, and much of their time is committed to school anyway. But they still need to be fed, clothed, etc. So there are powerful practical reasons to have few of them. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Walter Bright / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 26 Apr 89 17:30:39 GMT Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA In article <203@opus.NMSU.EDU> pgaughan@dante.UUCP (Patrick Gaughan) writes: / hpfcdj:alt.fusion / andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) / 6:12 pm Apr 22, 1989 / >Given the assumedly unlimited etc. energy supply we are about to enjoy, >looks like no-one will bother with CMOS anymore - back to bipolar and ECL! >Sell your stocks NOW! >-- >Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew >National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, >Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip > 'twixt cup and lip >---------- By the time you can put 1 million ECL transistors on a die and keep it from melting, 64 million CMOS transistors will fit on a single die. And inter- chip connections will still dominate the speed equation. Why is this in alt.fusion? Brian Smokefoot cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Scot Wilcoxon / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 26 Apr 89 16:55:27 GMT Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN In article <1989Apr20.143800.14572@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >The Italian result is interesting. They seem to get fusion when there >is a net movement of deuterium through the titanium, rather than when >it is stationary in the metal. Also, Steve Koonin sent me a preprint ... If movement is important, then electrode geometry may be another factor in fusion engineering. Pons has already observed that milled and drawn electrodes seem to have reduced fusion effects. An hourglass-shaped electrode might have a hot spot in the middle due to increased deuterium movement in the area. To increase the pressure, milling the shape out of a cast rod may force deuterium to enter only through the unmilled base. Numerous other geometries and preparation methods await experimentation. (vents as well..cavities and inverted depressions may fill with He4 :-) -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudensewilco cudfnScot cudlnWilcoxon cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / N Truher / Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Originally-From: thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Date: 26 Apr 89 23:24:44 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA I think I have enough information to figure this out. If the total volume of the oceans is 1.5 billion cubic kilometers, meaning about 1.5E24 (that's "1.5 septillion," I think) grams of water (maybe? at one metric ton per cubic meter?), with one 6700th of that being "heavy," more or less, that means about 2.2E20 (220 quintillion) grams of heavy water, at (according to speculation) 2.98 grams heavy water per megawatt day, so the total energy available in the world's oceans would be 7.5E19 (75 quintillion) megawatt days, or twenty billion times the world's energy production in 1985 (3.6 billion megawatt days). Sounds good to me. So if I haven't made a mistake somewhere, at contemporary demand levels the deuterium in the oceans would be likely to last twenty billion years, which is approximately the present age of the universe (as estimated by contemporary cosmologists). 1E15 g H20 1 D 1 MW day 1 year 1.5E9 km3 H20 x ---------- x ------ x ---------- x --------------- = 2.0E10 yr km3 H20 6700 H 2.98 g D20 3.682E9 MW days cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenthrash cudfnNathaniel cudlnTruher cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Jerry Aguirre / Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Originally-From: jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion-driven steam engines Date: 27 Apr 89 02:31:02 GMT Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca In article <1772@Portia.Stanford.EDU> mdbomber@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Matt Bartley) writes: > I have been told that the danger involved with the Stanley Steamer cars >was in the event of a crash. After all, you've got a whole bunch of highly >pressurized water above 100 degrees C. Release the pressure by suddenly Modern designs do not heat "a whole bunch of" water. Instead of a large boiler they use long thin tubes coiled up in the heat source. A small amount of water is injected into the coil and converted into steam. This is to reduce the startup and response time. A car that takes several minutes to build up a head of steam or that vents excess steam after a quick stop is considered unacceptable. The real problem with steam engines, piston or turbine, is getting rid of the heat. An internal combustion engine shoots most of its heat out the exhaust pipe and so needs a smaller radiator. A steam engine that didn't vent the used steam needs either a large radiator or very hot and high pressure steam. Steam that hot corrodes the pipes. A fusion source of heat isn't going to change any of that. "Free" fuel might make it more bearable. Stationary plants arn't bothered by large radiators and usually have a lake or river to dump the heat into. Anyone working on alternate energy for "cars" should be thinking about buses and large trucks. The penalties for extra weight, special maintenance, etc. are a lot easier in a large vehical fleet situation. The benifits are also a lot easier to sell as the buyer is much more concerned about operating costs than the average car buyer. There are many technologies used in buses/trucks such as diesel, propane, oil purifiers, wind cowlings, etc. that cost more up front but pay off in reduced operating costs. They are rarely seen in "cars". So, maybe the people who made the movie "The Big Bus" (nuclear powered) wern't so far off. :-) Jerry Aguirre cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjerry cudfnJerry cudlnAguirre cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Jerry Aguirre / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 27 Apr 89 02:50:07 GMT Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca In article <1563@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> ins_anmy@jhunix.UUCP (Norman Yarvin) writes: >Also, hydrogen can be confined within a metal (not necessarily palladium) at >about twice the density of liquid hydrogen (for the newest alloys). A test >was done at one point where a bullet was fired through a "tank" of this >stuff, and a tank of gasoline. The hydrogen burned at both entrance and >exit holes with a strong blue flame; the gas tank exploded. It seems to be a popular TV myth that bullets thru gas tanks will explode them. I have read that actual research shows the chance of a bullet exploading a auto gas tank is minimal. Even with "tracer" bullets the chance of an explosion is low. A flare gun will usually do the trick though. The real danger with hydrogen is that it is oderless. A leak can be building up in a room for a long time and no one will notice it until it is too late. Natural gas also has no smell. The "onion" scent is an additive used just for that purpose. Jerry Aguirre cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjerry cudfnJerry cudlnAguirre cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Jim Olsen / Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Originally-From: olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Date: 27 Apr 89 01:52:50 GMT Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA An NPR report this evening stated that Stanley Pons has just agreed to collaborate with Los Alamos National Laboratory. Pons is to build a cold fusion setup for LANL to experiment with. Has anyone heard more details about this? cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenolsen cudfnJim cudlnOlsen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / John Logajan / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 26 Apr 89 20:04:38 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN G. Allen Sullivan writes: > Given the ultrasonic transducer, and the powerful 24? MeV phonons shaking > the lattice from D + D fusion = He(4) [did I get all that correct?], with > the speed of sound in some metals being about 4000? feet/sec, then in a > one inch cube [with cooling water channels to avoid the 1 cm^3 fate], > we should hear the cube ring with each individual or chain fusion at roughly > [without solving the differential equations] 48,000 Hertz. In a previous speculation, based upon a description by Paul Koloc, I suggested that the 2 D's might oscillate in and out of the He4 state -- with any dampening of the oscillation favoring the lower energy state -- He4! This oscillation might very well occur at incredibly high frequencies -- but how high? That kind of knowledge is what seperates us tinkerers from the experts, alas. Note that the frequency could be high but the number of photons emitted might be limited (why? why not?) Still, there should be some of this residual RF even if the photons were fairly rare. So maybe cold fusion is sending us a radio beacon. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / John Logajan / Fusion experiment at UofMinnesota Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Fusion experiment at UofMinnesota Date: 26 Apr 89 22:38:29 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN The U of Minnesota has with great fanfare (local newspaper photo-ops) announced that they are attempting to detect fusion in vitro. Their apparatus consists of a large test tube with a black rubber stopper from which three tubes stick out. Two of which are the electrode wires and the other? The whole business is supported and shielded by a couple dozen bricks of lead. Into this business is inserted a neutron detector. The experiment was supposedly put into operation on Tuesday (26th). At least two profs are working on it along with at least one grad student. The grad student is the same one I saw on a TV interview a couple of weeks ago also talking about a fusion in vitro experiment he had going. At the time he was reporting negative results. Again, he was neutron hunting, so there doesn't seem to be any caliometery going on here. No mention of electrode composition, current density or other reportage you've come to expect from our quality media :) -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Xianda Yang / Cold fusion in China Originally-From: xianda@sunybcs.uucp (Xianda Yang) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cold fusion in China Date: 27 Apr 89 03:34:34 GMT Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science The lates news from China said that the cold fusion experiment was repeated in China by several research groups. Neutron was detected. ( Details in People's Daily, April 24 ). cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenxianda cudfnXianda cudlnYang cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Jon Singer / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 27 Apr 89 04:46:38 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA John Robinson and Bernie Cosell are curious about recent NPR mention of USENET. Bernie specifically asks how NPR heard about us. If I am not mistaken, an NPR person has an account on The WELL, and has been reading the Fusion topic over there. We get quoted from time to time in the topic. I forget, alas, the NPR person's name, and I didn't get to hear the radio stuff. :-( Cheers! jon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I wept for me for us | and thick and perfect braids | swept so gently round my neck | Jon Singer is jon@Apple.COM, or I could not bear to breathe | (AppleLink) SINGER2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / David Pugh / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 27 Apr 89 01:51:57 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI In article khearn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Keith Hearn) writes: >Seriously, gasoline is very flammible, and mildly explosive (despite what > Hollywood would have us believe) in liquid form. Hydrogen, however, is > *highly* explosive. ... We can make hydrogen powered cars now, but they > just aren't safe in an accident. Actually, it is possible to make safe hydrogen power cars. NOVA had, many years ago, a special on hydrogen power. The trick to make cars safe was to store the hydrogen in a metallic hydride. The basic idea was that the metal hydride will release it hydrogen fast enough to power a car, but too slow to cause an explosion. They had an impressive demo: fire a 30.06" rifle bullet into a tank containing metal hydride. Focus on the hydrogen hissing out (but not burning). Fire another shot at a tank of gasoline. Focus on the fireball.... I'm not sure what the weight penalty for using metalic hydrides was vs. LH2 or gasoline. I think the analysis at the end was the H2 powered cars would have comperable range/speed as gasoline power cars. Unfortunately, the economic benifits didn't justify the massive cost of building an infra- structure to support H2 powered cars. Cold fusion may be different (after all, if you only have to "fill up" every 100,000 miles, who needs gas stations?). -- ... He was determined to discover the David Pugh underlying logic behind the universe. ...!seismo!cmucspt!ius!dep Which was going to be hard, because there wasn't one. _Mort_, Terry Pratchett -- cudkeys: cuddy27 cudendep cudfnDavid cudlnPugh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Originally-From: mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Date: 27 Apr 89 04:41:53 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <1364@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim Olsen) writes: >An NPR report this evening stated that Stanley Pons has just agreed to >collaborate with Los Alamos National Laboratory. Pons is to build a cold >fusion setup for LANL to experiment with. > It's about time!! This was the first thing that I thought that P+F should have done. From what it seems, only chemists seem to have any luck getting fusion to go (you have to be a "believer", you see; the bad vibes from the physicists make it stop working :-) ), but don't have the resources to do sophisticated radiation measurements. If anyone has good detectors, LANL does, and they're the closest big-time operation to Utah. With all the speculation as to what reactions are going on, it seems like people have forgotten the ultimate scientific method: instead of trying to divine it out of thin air, OBSERVE IT EXPERIMENTALLY! This really boils down to one thing: rigorous and accurate spectroscopy. Of course, it's not trivial to interpret the observations, but people have been doing it for a long time now, and have gotten pretty good at it. Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenmbkennel cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Larry Brader / Neutron detectors questions Originally-From: larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Neutron detectors questions Date: 26 Apr 89 17:04:56 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. What type of Neutron detectors are there? From the various postings I figure they aren't that simple to use, why? How do they work? There limits? How about gamma ray detectors?? My ignorance showeth, but "if you don't ask you won't know"... -- Larry Brader :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net Of course these are my views, any resemblance to reality is merely a concidance. "He's dead Jim, You grap his tricorder and I'll get his wallet" cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenlarryb cudfnLarry cudlnBrader cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / John Woods / Quality of news coverage Originally-From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Quality of news coverage Date: 25 Apr 89 14:00:00 GMT Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us I just read the 17 April Newsweek article on cold fusion. In a sidebar entitled "How It Works", they show stylized pictures of two nuclei slamming together to form a bigger nucleus. They label to two smaller nuclei "deuteriums". Right. It's not so much that the "journalist" would make a mistake like that, that's not so unexpected. What is amazing is the fact that they obviously didn't even ask a scientist to proofread the article for SPELLING mistakes, much less try to see if they got their facts straight. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnWoods cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Henry Spencer / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 26 Apr 89 23:13:53 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <10716@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> khearn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Keith Hearn) writes: >Seriously, gasoline is very flammible, and mildly explosive (despite what > Hollywood would have us believe) in liquid form. Hydrogen, however, is > *highly* explosive... According to NASA, hydrogen is not really much worse than gasoline. In some ways it's better. The scare stories are just that: stories. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / CHARLIE@IUCF.B / RE: report on a talk by Pons Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Originally-From: PERRY@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Originally-From: IN%"CHARLIE@IUCF.BITNET" 14-APR-1989 14:11 Originally-From: CHARLIE@IUCF.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Paper by Horowitz Subject: fusion article by Horowitz Subject: RE: report on a talk by Pons Date: 27 Apr 89 02:38:11 GMT Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 17:58 EDT Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 11:48 EST Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI cjh.tex "Cold Nuclear Fusion in Metallic Hydrogen and Normal Metals" By Charles J Horowitz It is in TEX format. There is a PS format paper in unh.cs.cmu.edu /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp/cjh.ps -- Vince Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 17:58 EDT Originally-From: PERRY@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Subject: fusion article by Horowitz To: vac@cs.cmu.EDU X-VMS-To: IN%"vac@cs.cmu.edu" Originally-From: IN%"CHARLIE@IUCF.BITNET" 14-APR-1989 14:11 To: PERRY@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Subj: RE: report on a talk by Pons Received: from JNET-DAEMON by OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU; Fri, 14 Apr 89 14:10 EDT Received: From IUCF(CHARLIE) by OHSTPY with Jnet id 2930 for PERRY@OHSTPY; Fri, 14 Apr 89 14:10 EDT Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 11:48 EST Originally-From: CHARLIE@IUCF.BITNET Subject: RE: report on a talk by Pons To: PERRY@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Here is a preprint of a paper on cold nuclear fusion in TeX. Please feel free to distribute it to anyone who might be interested. Charles J Horowitz Bitnet: Charlie@IUCF \magnification=1200 %\baselineskip=24pt \centerline{\bf Cold Nuclear Fusion in Metallic Hydrogen} \centerline{\bf and Normal Metals} \bigskip \centerline{Charles J. Horowitz$^*$} \medskip \centerline{Physics Department and Nuclear Theory Center} \centerline{Indiana University} \centerline{Bloomington, IN 47405} \medskip \centerline{Submitted to Physical Review C} \bigskip \centerline{\bf ABSTRACT} \medskip {\narrower\smallskip The rate of nuclear fusion from tunnelling in very dense metallic hydrogen in the core of Jupiter is calculated to be ten to the minus fifty four ($10^{-54}$) per hydrogen-deuterium pair per second. It is estimated that the width of the fusion barrier for deuterium in Palladium or a similar metal must be reduced to, of order, 0.125 Angstroms for the fusion rate to be ten to the minus twenty three ($10^{-23}$) per deuterium per second. If this scale is achieved, the ratios of various nuclear reaction rates will be very different for cold versus thermonuclear fusion. \smallskip} \bigskip \bigskip There is great interest in cold nuclear fusion induced by quantum mechanical tunnelling of the zero point motion of Deuterium in a solid. Recently, two groups have claimed to observe neutrons [1] and possibly heat [2] from such reactions. Furthermore, there could be geophysical and astrophysical implications of cold fusion. For example, cold fusion in the dense metallic hydrogen core of Jupiter could contribute to the planets heating [1]. We first consider fusion in metallic hydrogen because of its very simple structure. In addition to direct applications to Jupiter, our results may provide insight for fusion in more complicated materials. Next, we estimate the change in scale of the fusion barrier required in a normal metal such as Palladium to produce the claimed fusion rate of ten to the minus twenty three ($10^{- 23}$) fusions per deuterium per second [1]. Cold fusion, if it can be achieved, will involve a much larger tunneling exponential then in conventional thermonuclear fusion. This will strongly favor reactions with light reduced masses such as deuterium plus proton going to ${}^3$He plus $\gamma$. We will discuss the very different ratios of reaction rates expected for cold versus thermonuclear fusion. In the limit of very high density, the electrons in metallic hydrogen should become a Fermi gas. Therefore, we model metallic hydrogen as a Fermi gas of electrons and a crystal of nuclei interacting via screened coulomb potentials. [Our results are not expected to be qualitatively changed if the protons are in a liquid phase.] The effective potential between two nuclei $V(r)$\ which includes the effects of electron screening is given, in a simple Thomas Fermi model [3], by $$V(r) ={e^2\over r} {\rm exp}[-{r\over \lambda(n)}].\eqno(1)$$ The density dependent Thomas Fermi screening length $\lambda$\ is, $$\lambda(n)=\bigl({\pi a_0\over 4 k_F}\bigr)^{1/2}\, = \Bigl[\bigl({3\over \pi}\bigr)^{1/3} 4e^2 m_e\Bigr]^{-1/2} n^{- 1/6}.\eqno(2)$$ Here $a_0$\ is the Bohr radius, $m_e$\ the electron mass and $k_F$\ is the electron Fermi wave-number which is related to the electron density $n=k_F^3/(3\pi^2)$. We note that $\lambda$\ decreases only as the one sixth power of the density. More sophisticated electron screening calculations may modify eq (1) somewhat at large distances. However, eqs (1-2) are expected to be qualitatively correct at short distances and it is the short distance behavior of V(r) that will be important for fusion rate calculations. As an example, we consider a density of $n=3.15\ {\rm\AA}^{-3}$\ which corresponds to a density parameter $r_s$\ ($n^{-1}={4\over 3}\pi a_0^3 r_s^3$) of 0.8. At this density, the pressure is estimated to be 73 Mbar [4]. This compares to the roughly 60 Mbar pressure expected at the center of Jupiter [5]. The screening length is $$\lambda = 0.30 {\rm \AA},\eqno(3)$$ which is shorter then the inter-particle spacing of $\approx$0.68 \AA. Therefore electron screening reduces the width of the Coulomb barrier substantially and this should increase the fusion rate. We will need the vibrational frequency $\nu$\ of the crystal's zero point motion. This is easily estimated from the classical energy of a crystal lattice using the two body interaction in eq (1). This gives, $$h\nu \approx 1 eV,\eqno(4)$$ which agrees well with the frequency estimated from the Lindemann ratio (of the amplitude of zero point motion to the inter-particle spacing) calculated in ref [4]. The frequency is relatively low because the nuclei are weakly interacting given that the screening length is smaller then the average separation. It is now a simple matter to make a WKB estimate of the fusion rate. The ratio of the square of the wave function $\psi^*\psi$\ at some small distance $r_n\approx 5$\ Fm compared to $\psi^*\psi$\ at the classical turning point $r_0\approx 0.68$\ \AA\ is, $$P=\bigl|{k(r_n)\over k(r_e)}\bigr|{\rm exp}[- \alpha(r_n,r_0)].\eqno(5)$$ Here the local wave vector is $k(r)=[2M(V_{eff}(r)-E)]^{1/2}$, M is the reduced mass of the two nuclei and the tunneling exponential is $$\alpha(r_n,r_0)=2\int_{r_n}^{r_0} dr' [2M(V_{eff}(r)- E)]^{1/2}.\eqno(6)$$ In eq (5) we have approximated the WKB connection of the wave function across the classical turning point by simply evaluating $k(r_e)$\ at the equilibrium distance $r_e$. Thus $k(r_e)$\ is the wave number of the zero point oscillation ($\hbar^2k(r_e)^2/2m_e=h\nu$). The fusion rate R is calculated by multiplying P in eq (5) by the frequency of attacks on the Coulomb barrier (which is just the vibrational frequency $\nu$) and the probability of a nuclear reaction $P_n$\ (once the nuclei have made it to $r_n$). The probability $P_n$\ is about 0.1 to 1 for a strong interaction process such as $D+D\rightarrow {\rm {}^3He} + n$. However, $P_n$\ is about ten to the minus six ($10^{-6}$) for the electromagnetic reaction $D+p\rightarrow {\rm {}^3He} + \gamma$. (See the discussion of S factors below). $$R=\nu P_n \bigl|{k(r_n)\over k(r_e)}\bigr|{\rm exp}(- \alpha)\eqno(7)$$ This equation will serve as our ``generic" estimate of a fusion rate in the remainder of this paper. The Born Oppenheimer potential energy surface $V_{eff}$\ includes the interaction of the nuclei with all of their neighbors. However, because the screening length is short, the total potential energy surface for two nuclei as the move together in the crystal is essentially just the interaction, eq (1), between the fusing nuclei, $V_{eff}(r)\approx V(r)$. It is now a simple matter to evaluate eqs (1, 6 and 7). For the p + D$\rightarrow {}^3{\rm He} + \gamma$\ reaction using $P_n=10^{-6}$\ (ten to the minus six) we get, $$R_{pD}\approx 10^{-54}\, {\rm (ten\ to\ the\ minus\ fifty\ four)\, sec^{-1}},\eqno(8)$$ per H, deuterium pair. {\it This fusion rate is much too small to contribute to the planets heating}. The rate for the D+D$\rightarrow {\rm {}^3He} + n$\ reaction (using $P_n=1$) is, $$R_{DD}\approx 10^{-63}\, ({\rm ten\ to\ the\ minus\ sixty\ three)\, sec^{-1} },\eqno(9)$$ even smaller because of the larger reduced mass in eq (6). Increasing the density beyond n=3.15 \AA$^{-3}$\ will increase the rate. However, we note the small 1/6 exponent in eq (2). For example at n=25 \AA$^{-3}$\ we estimate $R_{pD}\approx 10^{-35}$\ and $R_{DD}\approx 10^{-39}$\ per second. At this density the pressure is about ten to the third ($10^3$) Mbar. We have used a simple Fermi gas model for metallic hydrogen. However, in the limit of very high density this model is expected to become increasingly valid. We conclude that fusion is unlikely to be important in Jupiter. In a latter paper we will present fusion rates at higher densities for other astrophysical objects such as white dwarfs. We turn now to fusion of deuterium dissolved in Palladium. The interaction $V_{eff}$\ is assumed to be the Born Oppenheimer potential energy function for this complicated system. However, we will be interested in $V_{eff}$\ primarily at short distances where it can be approximated, $$V_{eff}(r) \approx {e^2\over r} - Const.\eqno(10)$$ For example in $H_2$\ at small distances, the electronic energy is very close to that of an isolated He atom (E=-79.0eV). Hence, the constant would be just the difference between this and the 27.2 eV binding energy of two H atoms, (Const.=-51.8 eV). Replacing eq (10) with the full potential energy surface will not change our results very much at short distances. Using eq. (10) the integral in eq (6) can be easily evaluated. This gives for the fusion rate, $$R\approx \nu P_n\bigl|{k(r_n)\over k(r_e)}\bigr| {\rm exp}\bigl\{-\pi\bigl[{2M\over m_e}{r_0\over a_0}\bigr]^{1/2}\bigr\}.\eqno(11)$$ Here, $r_0$\ is the width of the fusion barrier to the classical turning point. The vibrational frequency is estimated to be about that of an isolated $H_2$\ molecule, $h\nu\approx 0.5$\ eV. Rates from eq (11) are collected in table I for different isotopes. The tunneling greatly prefers a smaller reduced mass. Indeed the weak interaction process $p+p\rightarrow D+e^++\nu$\ has a larger rate (at large $r_0$) then $D+D$\ fusion despite its very small reaction probability $P_n\approx 10^{-23}$\ (ten to the minus twenty three). If hydrogen is dissolved in a normal metal such as Palladium the width of the fusion barrier $r_0$\ can be reduced both by forcing the equilibrium position of the atoms closer together and through electron screening of the repulsive coulomb interaction. Note, the fusion rate is very sensitive to $r_0$. Using eq (11) we estimate that the scale of the fusion barrier must change by about a factor of five (compared to $r_0\approx$0.7 \AA\ in $H_2$) until, $$r_0\approx 0.125{\rm \AA,}\eqno(12)$$ in order for the fusion rate to be near the claimed ten to the minus twenty three ($10^{-23}$) per second [1]. This factor of five is much smaller then the factor of 200 in muonic fusion. Nevertheless, it is a major change. It is not at all clear how to obtain an electronic configuration with such a small length scale. Thus the fusion observations are surprising and must be carefully confirmed. If the experiments are confirmed and this length scale can be achieved (perhaps by a combination of effects including a large effective electron mass [6]) then the relative rates of various reactions will be quite different for cold compared to thermonuclear fusion. This is because the much larger tunneling exponential in cold fusion is extremely sensitive to the reduced mass. In table II we evaluate the ratio of the exponential factors, eq (5), for various reactions compared to the D+D reaction. This enhancement factor depends only on the reduced mass. [We assume the same fusion barrier for all reactions.] As an example we consider cold fusion with $r_0=0.125$\ \AA\ and thermonuclear (hot) fusion with $r_0=144$\ Fm (which corresponds to an energy of 10 keV). The relative reaction rate (per isotope pair) is the product of this enhancement factor and the ratio of the cross section factors S for the basic nuclear reactions. The cross section at an energy E, $\sigma (E)$, is commonly expressed in terms of an S factor. $$\sigma={S\over E} {\rm exp}(-e^2\pi(2M)^{1/2}/E^{1/2})\eqno(13)$$ We collect the experimental S factors in table II. For hot fusion the larger S factor suggests that the $D+T$\ reaction will dominate. However, for cold fusion the smaller reduced mass will favor the $p + D$\ reaction even though this has a small S factor. Clearly, more attention should be focused on the $p+D\rightarrow {}^3$He + $\gamma$\ reaction. It is interesting to note that the small mass favors the weak $p+p$\ reaction by twelve orders of magnitude. If a cold fusion ``reactor" could be set up with a large fusion rate then even this weak interaction might be observable at a rate only some ten to the minus twelve of the $D+D$\ reaction. It is important to emphasize that table II assumes the same solubility, chemical environment, etc. for the different hydrogen isotopes. However, these could be different. For example, hydrogen is expected to have a larger zero point motion then deuterium because of its smaller mass and Fermi statistics. Can cold fusion be qualitatively different from hot fusion? One experiment claimed to see heat corresponding to a fusion rate of ten to the thirteen per second [2]. Furthermore, the observed neutron flux was some nine orders of magnitude too small for the heat to be from the $D+D\rightarrow {}^3{\rm He} + n$\ reaction. The authors claim that the heat is from unknown nuclear reactions which are very different from those in hot fusion. Clearly, one possibility is that the heat is from the $p+D$\ reaction which can not produce neutrons. Thus one should control even trace amounts of hydrogen in the apparatus and perform experiments with different H to D ratios. It is possible that the $p+D$\ reaction rate is even higher then that estimated in table II because of a previously unmeasured pair production branch, $$p+D\rightarrow {}^3{\rm He} + e^+ + e^-.\eqno(14)$$ Pair production can compete with the ${}^3$He+$\gamma$\ reaction because the gamma emission is highly suppressed. The cross section for $D+D\rightarrow {}^4{\rm He} + \gamma$\ is very small because of the $1^+$\ spin and parity of the deuteron. Given the $0^+$\ ${}^4$He and two D in a relative s state one needs an electric quadrupole ($2^+$) photon. Therefore, the rate is lower then in an electric dipole ($1^-$) transition. Furthermore, since the photon couples most strongly to the nuclear orbital motions the reaction probably proceeds through a small d state admixture in either a D or the ${}^4$He [7]. The pair production reaction could proceed through a virtual $0^+$\ Coulomb monopole photon and will not suffer either suppression. The situation for the $p+D\rightarrow {}^3{\rm He} + \gamma$\ reaction is very similar because of the $1/2^+$\ spins and parities of the p and ${}^3$He. Thus, pair production may be important for this reaction also. Indeed muon capture (a similar process) is significant in muon induced p+D fusion. About seven percent of the time a 5.4 MeV muon is ejected [8]. In conclusion, we have examined cold fusion in metallic hydrogen and other materials. Fusion is not expected to be important in the metallic hydrogen core of Jupiter. The fusion rate is very sensitive to the width of the fusion barrier. With a conventional mechanism, there should not be a substantial fusion rate until the barrier width has been reduced to about 0.125 \AA. Because cold fusion involves a large tunneling exponential it is very sensitive to the nuclear reduced mass. This will favor the p+D and hinder the D+T reaction. Finally, we speculate that reactions involving pair production could be important. \bigskip \bigskip \centerline{\bf References} \bigskip \noindent * Bitnet Charlie@IUCF \bigskip \noindent Supported in part by Department of Energy Contract DF-FG02- 87ER40365. \bigskip \noindent 1. S. E. Jones et al, ``Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter", Brigham Young University Preprint. \medskip \noindent 2. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, ``Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium", Submitted to Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. \medskip \noindent 3. A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, ``Quantum Theory of Many- Particle Systems", (McGraw Hill 1971 N.Y.) \medskip \noindent 4. K. K. Mon et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf B21}, 2641 (1980). \medskip \noindent 5. C. DeW Van Siclen and S. E. Jones, J.Phys. G {\bf 12}, 213 (1986). \medskip \noindent 6. J. Rafelski et al., ``Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter: a Parametric Study", Univ. of Arizona preprint. \medskip \noindent 7. J. Piekarewicz and S. E. Koonin, Phys. Rev. {\bf C36}, 875 (1987). \medskip \noindent 8. L. Bracci and G. Fiorentini, Phys. Reports {\bf 86}, 169 (1982). \vfill\eject %\input tables % | | % | TABLES.TEX | % | | % | Ray F. Cowan 15-Feb-85 | % | | % | Princeton University | % | | % | Last Revision: 21-Nov-85 | % | | % | Macros I find handy for making tables. See TABLEDOC TEX for | % | a longer description. The token-counting macros are straight | % | from the TeXbook's "Dirty Tricks" appendix. | % | | % +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ % \newbox\hdbox% \newcount\hdrows% \newcount\multispancount% \newcount\ncase% \newcount\ncols% This is the number of primary text columns in the table. \newcount\nrows% \newcount\nspan% \newcount\ntemp% \newdimen\hdsize% \newdimen\newhdsize% \newdimen\parasize% \newdimen\spreadwidth% \newdimen\thicksize% \newdimen\thinsize% \newdimen\tablewidth% \newif\ifcentertables% \newif\ifendsize% \newif\iffirstrow% \newif\iftableinfo% \newtoks\dbt% \newtoks\hdtks% \newtoks\savetks% \newtoks\tableLETtokens% \newtoks\tabletokens% \newtoks\widthspec% % % Book-keeping stuff--see how often these macros are called. % \immediate\write15{% CP SMSG GJMSINK TEXTABLE --> TABLE MACROS V. 851121 JOB = \jobname% }% % % Turn on table diagnostics. % \tableinfotrue% \catcode`\@=11% Allows use of "@" in macro names, like PLAIN.TEX does. \def\out#1{\immediate\write16{#1}}% Debugging aid. Writes #1 on the % user's terminal and in the log file. % % Define the \tstrut height, depth in terms of the x_height parameter. % \def\tstrut{\vrule height3.1ex depth1.2ex width0pt}% \def\and{\char`\&}% Allows us to get an `&' in the text. This is the % same as using the PLAIN TeX macro \&. \def\tablerule{\noalign{\hrule height\thinsize depth0pt}}% \thicksize=1.5pt% Default thickness for fat rules. The user should feel % free to change this to his preference. \thinsize=0.6pt% Default thickness for thin rules. \def\thickrule{\noalign{\hrule height\thicksize depth0pt}}% \def\hrulefill{\leaders\hrule\hfill}% \def\bigrulefill{\leaders\hrule height\thicksize depth0pt \hfill}% \def\ctr#1{\hfil\ #1\hfil}% \def\altctr#1{\hfil #1\hfil}% \def\vctr#1{\hfil\vbox to0pt{\vss\hbox{#1}\vss}\hfil}% % % Here are things for controlling the width of the finished table. % \tablewidth=-\maxdimen% \spreadwidth=-\maxdimen% \def\tabskipglue{0pt plus 1fil minus 1fil}% % % Stuff for centering or not. % \centertablestrue% \def\centeredtables{% \centertablestrue% }% \def\noncenteredtables{% \centertablesfalse% }% % % \vctr vertically centers its argument in the row. % \parasize=4in% \long\def\para#1{% Used to make little paragraphs out of one entry. {% \vtop{% \hsize=\parasize% \baselineskip14pt% \lineskip1pt% \lineskiplimit1pt% \noindent #1% \vrule width0pt depth6pt% }% }% }% % \gdef\ARGS{########}% Produces the correct number of #'s in the preamble % by the time eveything is expanded and \halign sees % it. \gdef\headerARGS{####}% Same as \ARGS, but used in \header macros. \def\@mpersand{&}% Allows us to get alignment tab characters later % when we have made the character "&" an active macro. {\catcode`\|=13% Make |'s locally active. \gdef\letbarzero{\let|0}% Globally define a macro that allows us to % keep active |'s from being expanded in edef's. \gdef\letbartab{\def|{&&}}% \gdef\letvbbar{\let\vb|}% % This \def will cause active |'s read by % \ruledtable to be converted into double % alignment tabs. }% End of locally active |'s. % {\catcode`\&=4% Make these alignment tabs. \def\ampskip{&\omit\hfil&}% This local macro skips a vertical rule. \catcode`\&=13% Now make &'s into active macros. \let&0% This allows us to expand \ampskip in the next \xdef without % attempting to expand the & and getting an "undefined control % sequence" error. \xdef\letampskip{\def&{\ampskip}}% \gdef\letnovbamp{\let\novb&\let\tab&} % This will cause active &'s read by % \ruledtable to be converted into % double tabs and an \omit'ted \vrule. }% End of locally active &'s. % \def\begintable{% Here we make |'s and &'s active characters so we can % interpret them as macros. Note that this action is % true only until we encounter the matching \endgroup % token later at the end of the \ruledtable macro. \begingroup% \catcode`\|=13\letbartab\letvbbar% \catcode`\&=13\letampskip\letnovbamp% \def\multispan##1{% We must redefine \multispan to count the number % of primary columns, not physical columns. \omit \mscount##1% \multiply\mscount\tw@\advance\mscount\m@ne% \loop\ifnum\mscount>\@ne \sp@n\repeat% }% End of \multispan macro. \def\|{% &\omit\widevline&% }% \ruledtable% Now we call \ruledtable to do the real work. }% End of \begintable macro. % \long\def\ruledtable#1\endtable{% % % This macro reads in the user's data entries % and converts them into a ruled table. % % Important note: Many macros and parameters are re-defined here, and % these must be kept local to the table macros to avoid conflict with % their use outside of tables. This is done by the \begingroup token % macro \begintable and the \endgroup token at the end of % this macro. % \offinterlineskip% Needed to make rules touch each other. \tabskip 0pt% Needed for same reason as \offinterlineskip. \def\widevline{\vrule width\thicksize}% Make outer \vrule's wider. \def\endrow{\@mpersand\omit\hfil\crnorm\@mpersand}% \def\crthick{\@mpersand\crnorm\thickrule\@mpersand}% \def\crthickneg##1{\@mpersand\crnorm\thickrule \noalign{\vskip-##1}\@mpersand}% \def\crnorule{\@mpersand\crnorm\@mpersand}% \def\crnoruleneg##1{\@mpersand\crnorm\noalign{\vskip-##1}\@mpersand}% \let\nr=\crnorule% A shorter abbreviation. \def\endtable{\@mpersand\crnorm\thickrule}% % \let\crnorm=\cr% Allows us to use \cr for our own purposes. % % Cause user-typed \cr's to follow a row with a \tablerule. % \edef\cr{\@mpersand\crnorm\tablerule\@mpersand}% \def\crneg##1{\@mpersand\crnorm\tablerule \noalign{\vskip-##1}\@mpersand}% \let\ctneg=\crthickneg \let\nrneg=\crnoruleneg % \the\tableLETtokens% Get the user's extra \let's, if any. % % Put the data entries into a token register so we can scan through them % and see what the user is asking us to do. % \tabletokens={}% We add an extra alignment tab to the beginning % of the first row to allow for the first \vrule. % % Now count how many rows are in the table and return the result in % count register \nrows; do the same for columns, and return that % in register \ncols. % \countROWS\tabletokens\into\nrows% \countCOLS\tabletokens\into\ncols% % % Now do a little arithmetic to convert the number of primary columns % into the number of physical columns that the alignment preamble must % prepare for; similarly for rows. % \advance\ncols by -1% \divide\ncols by 2% \advance\nrows by 1% % % Tell the user how many rows and columns we found in his data, if he % wants to know. % \iftableinfo % \immediate\write16{[Nrows=\the\nrows, Ncols=\the\ncols]}% \fi% % % Now we actually go ahead and produce the table. % \ifcentertables \ifhmode \par\fi% Make sure we are in vertical mode. \line{% The final table comes out as an \hbox of width the \hsize. \hss% The final table will be centered left-to-right. \else % \hbox{% \fi \vbox{% \makePREAMBLE{\the\ncols}% Generate the preamble. \edef\next{\preamble}% This line and the next line force the \let\preamble=\next% expansion of all \ARGS tokens into the % appropriate number of #'s. \makeTABLE{\preamble}{\tabletokens}% Go do the \halign here. }% End of \vbox. \ifcentertables \hss}\else }\fi% Finish the centering effect. % It is important that no spaces % follow the two `}' here. % }% End of \line. \endgroup% Return all local macros and parameters to their outside % values. \tablewidth=-\maxdimen% Reset \tablewidth to normal. \spreadwidth=-\maxdimen% Same for \spreadwidth. }% End of macro \ruledtable. % \def\makeTABLE#1#2{% Does an \halign for the \ruledtable macro. {% Start of local parameter values. % \let\ifmath0% These macros would cause trouble if they were to be \let\header0% expanded in the following \xdef; we \let them be \let\multispan0% equal to a digit, because digits can't be expanded. % % Set up the width specification here. % \ncase=0% \ifdim\tablewidth>-\maxdimen \ncase=1\fi% \ifdim\spreadwidth>-\maxdimen \ncase=2\fi% \relax% This \relax is absolutely necessary, without it the following % \ifcase will always take \ncase=0. % \ifcase\ncase % \widthspec={}% \or % \widthspec=\expandafter{\expandafter t\expandafter o% \the\tablewidth}% \else % \widthspec=\expandafter{\expandafter s\expandafter p\expandafter r% \expandafter e\expandafter a\expandafter d% \the\spreadwidth}% \fi % %\out{Widthspec=[\the\widthspec]}% %\out{Preamble=[\preamble]}% \xdef\next{% We must force the preamble to be expanded BEFORE the \halign\the\widthspec{% % \halign is done; this \edef\next{...}\next construction % does the trick. #1% This is the preamble text. % \noalign{\hrule height\thicksize depth0pt}% Makes the top \hrule. % \the#2\endtable% This is the main body. % % \noalign{\hrule height0.7pt depth0pt}% Makes the last \hrule. }% End of \halign. }% End of \next. }% End of local values. \next% This \next must be outside of the local values, because now % we want those troublesome macros in the \let's above to have % their normal actions. }% End of macro \makeTABLE. % \def\makePREAMBLE#1{% This macro generates the necessary preamble for a % ruled table with #1 primary columns. % (Primary columns means the number of columns NOT % counting those used for vertical rules.) \ncols=#1% Get the number of columns desired. \begingroup% Start local parameter definitions. \let\ARGS=0% This is the key to the whole thing; it prevents \ARGS % from being expanded in the following \edef's. \edef\xtp{\widevline\ARGS\tabskip\tabskipglue% &\ctr{\ARGS}\tstrut}% A 1-column preamble. Gets the sizing right. \advance\ncols by -1% One column has been generated; decrement the % counter. \loop% Append as many further columns as needed to the preamble. \ifnum\ncols>0 % \advance\ncols by -1% \edef\xtp{\xtp&\vrule width\thinsize\ARGS&\ctr{\ARGS}}% \repeat \xdef\preamble{\xtp&\widevline\ARGS\tabskip0pt% \crnorm}% Adds the last \vrule. \endgroup% End of local parameters. }% End of macro \makePREAMBLE. % \def\countROWS#1\into#2{% This counts the number of rows in #1 by % looking for control sequences that end a row, % e.g., \cr, \crthick, etc., and puts the result % into count register #2. \let\countREGISTER=#2% \countREGISTER=0% % \out{In countROWS: tokens are [\the#1]}% \expandafter\ROWcount\the#1\endcount% }% % \def\ROWcount{% \afterassignment\subROWcount\let\next= % }% \def\subROWcount{% % \out{In subROWcount: next is [\meaning\next]}% Debugging aid. \ifx\next\endcount % \let\next=\relax% \else% \ncase=0% \ifx\next\cr % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\endrow % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\crthick % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\crnorule % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\crthickneg % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\crnoruleneg % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\crneg % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\header % % \out{In subROWcount: next=header, ncase set=1}% \ncase=1% \fi% % \out{In subROWcount: ncase is [\the\ncase]}% \relax% \ifcase\ncase % \let\next\ROWcount% % \out{subROWcount---> ncase=\the\ncase}% \or % \let\next\argROWskip% % \out{subROWcount---> ncase=\the\ncase}% \else % \fi% \fi% % \out{subROWcount---> NEXT=\meaning\next}% \next% }% End of macro \subROWcount. % \def\counthdROWS#1\into#2{% \dvr{10}% \let\countREGISTER=#2% \countREGISTER=0% \dvr{11}% % \out{In counthdROWS: tokens are [\the#1]}% \dvr{13}% \expandafter\hdROWcount\the#1\endcount% \dvr{12}% }% % \def\hdROWcount{% \afterassignment\subhdROWcount\let\next= % }% \def\subhdROWcount{% %\out{In subhdROWcount: next is [\meaning\next]}% \ifx\next\endcount % \let\next=\relax% \else% \ncase=0% \ifx\next\cr % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\endrow % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\crthick % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\crnorule % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\header % %\out{In subhdROWcount: next=header, ncase set=1}% \ncase=1% \fi% %\out{In subhdROWcount: ncase is [\the\ncase]}% \relax% \ifcase\ncase % \let\next\hdROWcount% %\out{subhdROWcount---> ncase=\the\ncase}% \or% \let\next\arghdROWskip% %\out{subhdROWcount---> ncase=\the\ncase}% \else % \fi% \fi% %\out{subhdROWcount---> NEXT=\meaning\next}% \next% }% % {\catcode`\|=13\letbartab \gdef\countCOLS#1\into#2{% % \out{In countCOLS: tokens are [\the#1]} \let\countREGISTER=#2% \global\countREGISTER=0% \global\multispancount=0% \global\firstrowtrue \expandafter\COLcount\the#1\endcount% \global\advance\countREGISTER by 3% \global\advance\countREGISTER by -\multispancount % \out{countCOLS-->[\the\countREGISTER]} }% % \gdef\COLcount{% \afterassignment\subCOLcount\let\next= % }% {\catcode`\&=13% \gdef\subCOLcount{% %\out{In subCOLcount: next is [\meaning\next]} \ifx\next\endcount % \let\next=\relax% \else% \ncase=0% \iffirstrow \ifx\next& % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 2% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next\span % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 1% \ncase=0% \fi% \ifx\next| % \global\advance\countREGISTER by 2% \ncase=0% \fi \ifx\next\| \global\advance\countREGISTER by 2% \ncase=0% \fi \ifx\next\multispan \ncase=1% \global\advance\multispancount by 1% \fi \ifx\next\header \ncase=2% \fi \ifx\next\cr \global\firstrowfalse \fi \ifx\next\endrow \global\firstrowfalse \fi \ifx\next\crthick \global\firstrowfalse \fi \ifx\next\crnorule \global\firstrowfalse \fi \ifx\next\crnoruleneg \global\firstrowfalse \fi \ifx\next\crthickneg \global\firstrowfalse \fi \ifx\next\crneg \global\firstrowfalse \fi \fi% End of \iffirstrow. \relax%\out{subCOL--> ncase=[\the\ncase]} % \out{subCOL--> next=\meaning\next} \ifcase\ncase % \let\next\COLcount% \or % \let\next\spancount% \or % \let\next\argCOLskip% \else % \fi % \fi% % \out{subCOL--> countREGISTER=[\the\countREGISTER]} \next% }% \gdef\argROWskip#1{% % Deletes the next balanced, undelimited argument from a % token list. % \out{---> Entering argROWskip <---} % \out{In argROWskip: deleted arg is [#1]}% \let\next\ROWcount \next% }% End of macro \argskip. \gdef\arghdROWskip#1{% % Deletes the next balanced, undelimited argument from a % token list. % \out{---> Entering arghdROWskip <---} % \out{In arghdROWskip: deleted arg is [#1]}% \let\next\ROWcount \next% }% End of macro \arghdROWskip. \gdef\argCOLskip#1{% % Deletes the next balanced, undelimited argument from a % token list. % \out{---> Entering argCOLskip <---} % \out{In argCOLskip: deleted arg is [#1]}% \let\next\COLcount \next% }% End of macro \argskip. }% End of active &'s. }% End of active |'s. \def\spancount#1{%\out{spancount--->\meaning#1} \nspan=#1\multiply\nspan by 2\advance\nspan by -1% \global\advance \countREGISTER by \nspan % \out{number spancount--->\the\nspan; \the\countREGISTER} \let\next\COLcount \next}% % %\def\dvr#1{\vrule width 1.0pt depth 0pt height 12pt$_{#1}$} \def\dvr#1{\relax}% % \omit\hfil% % \parindent=0pt\hsize=1.1in\valign{% % \vfil#\vfil&\vfil#\vfil\cr\hfil\hbox{\ Added to\ }\hfil&% % \hfil\hbox{\ empty events\ }\hfil\cr}\hfil% \def\header#1{% \dvr{1}{\let\cr=\@mpersand% \hdtks={#1}% %\out{In header: hdtks=[\the\hdtks]}% \counthdROWS\hdtks\into\hdrows% \advance\hdrows by 1% \ifnum\hdrows=0 \hdrows=1 \fi% %\out{In header: Nhdrows=[\the\hdrows]}% \dvr{5}\makehdPREAMBLE{\the\hdrows}% %\out{In header: headerpreamble=[\headerpreamble]}% \dvr{6}\getHDdimen{#1}% %\out{In header: hdsize=[\the\hdsize]}% %\striplastCR{#1}% {\parindent=0pt\hsize=\hdsize{\let\ifmath0% \xdef\next{\valign{\headerpreamble #1\crnorm}}}\dvr{7}\next\dvr{8}% }% }\dvr{2}}% End of macro \header. %\def\striplastCR#1\cr{\xdef\headerbody{#1}}% \def\makehdPREAMBLE#1{%This macro generates the necessary preamble for a \dvr{3}% % ruled table with \ncols primary columns. % (Primary columns means the number of columns NOT % counting those used for vertical rules. \hdrows=#1% Get the number of columns desired. {% Start local parameter definitions. \let\headerARGS=0% % This is the key to the whole thing; it prevents \ARGS \let\cr=\crnorm% % from being expanded in the followin \edef's. \edef\xtp{\vfil\hfil\hbox{\headerARGS}\hfil\vfil}% \advance\hdrows by -1% One row has been generated; decrement the % counter. \loop% Append as many further rows as needed to the preamble. \ifnum\hdrows>0% \advance\hdrows by -1% \edef\xtp{\xtp&\vfil\hfil\hbox{\headerARGS}\hfil\vfil}% \repeat% \xdef\headerpreamble{\xtp\crcr}% }% End of local parameters. \dvr{4}}% End of \makehdPREAMBLE. % \def\getHDdimen#1{% %\out{In getHDdimen: Arg 1=[#1]}% \hdsize=0pt% \getsize#1\cr\end\cr% }% End of macro getHDdimen. \def\getsize#1\cr{% %\out{In getsize: Arg 1=[#1]}% % Here we have to check arg#1 and see if the first token in #1 is an % \end; if so, we stop, else we check the width of arg#1. % We recall that each arg#1 will be terminated with a \cr token. \endsizefalse\savetks={#1}% %\out{In getsize: the savetks = [\the\savetks]}% \expandafter\lookend\the\savetks\cr% %\out{In getsize: ifendsize = [\meaning\ifendsize]}% \relax \ifendsize \let\next\relax \else% \setbox\hdbox=\hbox{#1}\newhdsize=1.0\wd\hdbox% \ifdim\newhdsize>\hdsize \hdsize=\newhdsize \fi% %\out{In getsize: hdsize=[\the\hdsize]}% %\out{In getsize: newhdsize=[\the\newhdsize]}% \let\next\getsize \fi% \next% }% \def\lookend{\afterassignment\sublookend\let\looknext= }% \def\sublookend{\relax% %\out{In sublookend: looknext = [\looknext]}% \ifx\looknext\cr % %\out{In sublooknext: looknext=cr}% \let\looknext\relax \else % %\out{In sublooknext: looknext/=cr}% \relax \ifx\looknext\end \global\endsizetrue \fi% \let\looknext=\lookend% \fi \looknext% }% % % Allow the user to make his own names for crthick, etc. % \def\tablelet#1{% \tableLETtokens=\expandafter{\the\tableLETtokens #1}% }% \catcode`\@=12% Change @'s back to their normal category code. % \begintable $r_0$\ (\AA) | $R_{DD}$\ ($P_n=1$) & $R_{pD}$\ ($P_n=10^{-6}$) & $R_{pp}$\ ($P_n=10^{-23}$) \crthick 0.5 | $10^{-64}$ & $10^{-55}$ & $10^{-63}$ \nr 0.25 | $10^{-40}$ & $10^{-36}$ & $10^{-46}$ \nr 0.125 | $10^{-23}$ & $10^{-22}$ & $10^{-35}$ \nr 0.1 | $10^{-19}$ & $10^{-19}$ & $10^{-32}$ \endtable \vskip .1in \centerline {\bf TABLE I} \vskip .04 in Fusion rates (per second) versus the width of a ``generic" fusion barrier $r_0$\ calculated from eq (11) for D+D, p+D and p+p reactions. Here $P_n$\ is the nuclear reaction probability once the nuclei have reached a separation of 5 Fm. [These are estimated from the S values in table II.] \bigskip \bigskip \begintable |\multispan{2} |\multispan{2} Kinematic Enhancement|\multispan{2} Relative Rate \nr Reaction | Mass & S | Cold & Hot | Cold & Hot \crthick $D+D\rightarrow {}^3{\rm He}+n$\ | 1 & $5.2 \times 10^{-2}$ | 1 & 1 | 1 & 1 \nr $p+D\rightarrow {}^3{\rm He} + \gamma$\ | 2/3 & 2.5 x 10$^{-7}$ | 2 x 10$^{7}$ & 6 | 100 & $10^{-5}$ \nr $D+T\rightarrow {}^4{\rm He} + n$\ | 6/5 & 11 | $10^{-4}$ & .4 | $10^{-2}$ & 100 \nr $p+p\rightarrow D + e^++\nu$\ | 1/2& 4 x $10^{-25}$ | 6 x $10^{11}$ & 18 | $10^{-12}$ & $10^{-22}$ \endtable \vskip .1in \centerline{\bf Table II} \vskip 0.04 in Relative fusion rates compared to the $D+D\rightarrow {}^3{\rm He} + n$\ reaction. The S factors are in Mev-b while the kinematic factors describe the increase in the tunneling exponential in eq (11) for systems with a lighter reduced mass. The hot fusion numbers assume an energy of 10 keV which corresponds to a barrier width of $r_0$=144 Fm. \vfill \end Alternatively, we speculate that there is a small breakdown in the Born Oppenheimer approximation for those very rare configurations which lead to fusion. A fluctuation which increases the electron density between the two nuclei will enhance the probability that they fuse. Thus a correction to the Born Oppenheimer approximation could increase the fusion rate. Furthermore, if this is correct, the effective electron density (near the two nuclei) only for those very rare configurations which lead to fusion could be very high. This high electron density may make electron capture reactions important. For example, instead of $p+D\rightarrow {}^3{\rm He}+\gamma$\ one could have internal conversion of the photon on an electron leading to, $$e+p+D\rightarrow {}^3{\rm He} + e(5.5 MeV),$$ or, $$e+D+D\rightarrow {}^4{\rm He} + e(23.8 MeV),\eqno(14)$$ with the ejection of a high energy electron of the indicated energy. -- cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenCHARLIE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszXL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Shel Kaphan / Re: idle speculation Originally-From: sjk@lucid.com (Shel Kaphan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: idle speculation Date: 27 Apr 89 05:04:11 GMT Organization: Lucid, Inc., Menlo Park, CA In article <12457@ut-emx.UUCP> newman@emx.UUCP (David Newman) writes: >re Oil companies "sitting on" solar. >Baloney! Solar is just like fusion will be in that if it was >profitable, there is no way that the oil companies could prevent >others from taking advantage of it. If they can get control of fundamental enough patent protection, or successfully lobby congress for sufficient legislative control of necessary resources (e.g. deuterium), they can sure make it hard if they want to. > The technology just isn't >cheap enough to replace fossil fuels yet. And unless someone in the energy business with sufficient financial resources puts their mind to it, it isn't gonna get cheap enough. Sure they've been working on it...slowly. What is more, the oil >companies are trying very hard to develop alternate fuel sources >and have been for years. And the tooth fairy puts quarters under my pillow. "Do people do that? People do." They know better than anyone just how >limited our fossil fuel supplies really are. They have been >working on not going out of buisness ever since the oil shortages >of the 70s, and they are not stupid. > They know the increasing value of oil in a world with no other ready viable sources to turn to, and I suspect they rather like it. >People need a scapegoat, and for a long time the oil companies were >the US national scapegoat. Now it should be someone else's turn. > >>>Dave Now that Exxon has demonstrated what responsible members of the community our oil firms are, I heartily agree they should be held up as the pillars of society they are. -- Shel Kaphan Lucid, Inc. sjk@lucid.com 707 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 sun!edsel!sjk (415) 329-8400 x 5527 cudkeys: cuddy27 cudensjk cudfnShel cudlnKaphan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.19 / koonin@SBITP.B / yet anoterh cold fusion preprint Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Originally-From: PERRY@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Originally-From: IN%"koonin@SBITP.BITNET" 19-APR-1989 20:19 Originally-From: koonin@SBITP.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Paper by S. E. Koonin Subject: second fusion article from Koonin Subject: yet anoterh cold fusion preprint Date: 27 Apr 89 02:48:01 GMT Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 18:00 EDT Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 17:06:48 PDT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI sek.tex "Enhancement of cold fusion rates by fluctuations" by S. E. Koonin This is in TEX format. You can FTP a postscript format version from: unh.cs.cmu.edu /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp/sek.ps -- Vince Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 18:00 EDT Originally-From: PERRY@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Subject: second fusion article from Koonin To: vac@cs.cmu.EDU X-VMS-To: IN%"vac@cs.cmu.edu" Originally-From: IN%"koonin@SBITP.BITNET" 19-APR-1989 20:19 To: wpress%6698.span@SBITP.BITNET, dover@BNLDAG.BITNET, perry@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU, wilets@UWAPHAST.BITNET, steinh@PENNDRLS.BITNET, tp04@DDAGSI3.BITNET, hdia%inls1.ucsd.edu@SBITP.BITNET, bobh%mitre.arpa@SBITP.BITNET Subj: yet anoterh cold fusion preprint Received: from JNET-DAEMON by OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU; Wed, 19 Apr 89 20:19 EDT Received: From SBITP(MAILER) by OHSTPY with Jnet id 7162 for PERRY@OHSTPY; Wed, 19 Apr 89 20:19 EDT Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 17:06:48 PDT Originally-From: koonin@SBITP.BITNET Subject: yet anoterh cold fusion preprint To: wpress%6698.span@SBITP.BITNET, dover@BNLDAG.BITNET, perry@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU, wilets@UWAPHAST.BITNET, steinh@PENNDRLS.BITNET, tp04@DDAGSI3.BITNET, hdia%inls1.ucsd.edu@SBITP.BITNET, bobh%mitre.arpa@SBITP.BITNET Message-Id: <890419170648.7a18@sbitp.ucsb.edu> X-ST-Vmsmail-To: ST%"wpress@6698.span", ST%"dover@bnldag.bitnet", ST%"perry@ohstpy.bitnet", ST%"wilets@uwaphast.bitnet", ST%"steinh@penndr ls.bitnet", ST%"tp04@ddagsi3.bitnet", ST%"hdia@inls1.ucsd.edu", ST%"bobh%mitre.a rpa" April 19,1989 Dear Colleague: There follows a TeX-script for a paper on cold fusion. Please feel free to distribute it as appropriate. I would, of course, appreciate any comments. Steven Koonin KOONIN@SBITP.BITNET \magnification=1200 \voffset=1 true in \vsize=8.9 true in \hoffset=2.5truecm \hsize=6.5 true in %gives greater than or approx \def\gtorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} %give less than or approx \def\ltorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} \baselineskip=24pt plus .5pt minus .5pt \overfullrule=0pt \centerline{\bf Enhancement of cold fusion rates by fluctuations} \medskip \centerline{S. E. Koonin${}^*$ } \medskip \centerline{\it Institute for Theoretical Physics} \centerline{\it University of California} \centerline{\it Santa Barbara, CA 93106} \centerline{(Submitted to {\it Physical Review Letters}, April 19, 1989)} \bigskip {\narrower\narrower\smallskip The rate at which two nuclei tunnel through the coulomb barrier inhibiting their fusion can be enhanced significantly by modest fluctuations in their environment. Such enhancements might play a role in recent experiments claiming to observe cold fusion. \smallskip} \bigskip \goodbreak Recent reports have suggested the observation of fusion of deuterium nuclei introduced by electrolysis into solid Palladium~[1] and Titanium~[2]. The fusion rates implied by these results are 40--50 orders of magnitude larger than might be expected naively~[3,4], although the temperatures involved are far too low to achieve such rates by the conventional thermonuclear mechanism of surmounting the coulomb barrier~[5]. Thus, if these experiments are indeed revealing nuclear processes, alternative explanations must be sought. In this Letter, I suggest that modest fluctuations in the environment of the fusing nuclei can lead to the required enhancements. The mechanism is closely related to an explanation of large sub-barrier enhancements of heavy-ion fusion cross sections~[6]. The rate at which two nuclei will fuse depends upon the extent to which they tunnel through the potential $V({\bf r})$ describing their interaction as a function of their separation $\bf r$. In an isolated diatomic molecule, the electronic time scale $\tau_e$ is far shorter than the fusion time scale $\tau_f$ (i.e., the ``time'' the system is in a classically forbidden region), and $V({\bf r})$ can be taken to be the usual Born-Oppenheimer potential. Indeed, a simple estimate is $\tau_f / \tau_e \approx \mu^{1/2}$, where $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the fusing nuclei. [Note that I am using atomic units where $\hbar = m_e = e = 1$, so that $\mu = M_n A_1 A_2 / (A_1 + A_2)$, where $A_{1,2}$ are the mass numbers of the fusing nuclei and $M_n =1833$ is the ratio of the nucleon and electron masses. Lengths are therefore measured in Bohr radii ($0.53 \times 10^{-8}\;{\rm cm}$), energies are measured in Hartrees (27.2 eV), and times are measured in $\tau_e = \hbar /(27.2 {\rm eV}) \approx 2.5 \times 10^{-17}\; {\rm s}$.] For two hydrogen nuclei in a solid, I must consider the effect of all other degrees of freedom beyond $\bf r$. The electronic coordinates are still safely adiabatic, but the coordinates of the other nuclear degrees of freedom are likely not. For a solid composed of nuclei of mass number $A_L$, the lattice (phonon) time scale is $\tau_L \approx A_L^{1/2} M_n$, the time scale for the center-of-mass motion of the fusing pair is $\tau_{CM} \approx (A_1 + A_2 )^{1/2}M_n$, and the time scale for motion of the other hydrogen nuclei is $\tau_H \approx A_{1,2}^{1/2} M_n$. Typically, I expect $\tau_L \gg \tau_f$ ($A_L = 106$ for Pd), and $(\tau_{CM} , \tau_H ) \gtorder \tau_f$. Although methods for treating tunneling in general multi-dimensional situations have been developed using functional-integral methods~[7], the sudden limit is one plausible and tractable approach to the present problem. The tunneling of the fusing nuclei must be calculated in an instantaneous potential $V({\bf r}; \xi )$ that depends parametrically upon the non-adiabatic coordinates, which we have denoted collectively by $ \xi$. Thus, $V({\bf r}; \xi )$ as a function of $ \xi$ embodies variations of the interaction potential between the fusing pair associated with their location within the lattice, the shape of the interstitial cavity in which they might be contained, the possible presence of a third hydrogen nucleus nearby, etc. For $r \ll 1$, I expect the inter-nuclear coulomb repulsion to dominate, so that $$ V({\bf r}; \xi ) \approx {1 \over r} + V_0 ( \xi)\;, \eqno(1) $$ while for distances smaller than the electronic screening length, $V({\bf r}; \xi)$ can be expanded in terms of the instantaneous local electric field, quadrupole field, etc. The coordinates $ \xi$ are not fixed, but rather fluctuate on time scales longer than $\tau_f$ due to zero-point and thermal motion, as well as non-equilibrium conditions. If the instantaneous fusion rate of the pair is $\Lambda (\xi)$, and if $P(\xi)$ denotes the normalized probability distribution of the non-adiabatic coordinates, then the effective fusion rate is $$ \Lambda_{\rm eff} = \int d \xi P(\xi )\Lambda ( \xi )\;. \eqno(2) $$ This expression is analogous to the usual one for thermonuclear rates in which the fusion cross section is averaged over a Maxwellian distribution of relative velocities~[6]. Here, however, the average is over the potential through which the nuclei tunnel, rather than their asymptotic kinetic energy. The coordinates $ \xi$ can be defined such that $ \xi = 0$ is the most probable configuration (e.g., as might be assumed for an interstitial pair in a fixed lattice), so that I can take $$ P(\xi) = {1 \over {(2 \pi \sigma^2)^{1/2}}} e^{-\xi^2 /2 \sigma^2}\;, \eqno(3) $$ with $\sigma$ characterizing the scale of the fluctuations. Further, if we write $$ \Lambda ( \xi) = A e^{-2S( \xi)} \eqno(4) $$ with $A$ the nuclear rate constant and $e^{-2S( \xi)} = |\Psi (r=0; \xi )|^2$ the probability to find the fusing pair at $r=0$, then the change in the fusion rate due to fluctuations is $$ E = {\Lambda_{\rm eff} \over {\Lambda ( \xi = 0)}} = \int {{d \xi} \over {(2 \pi \sigma^2)^{1/2}}} e^{- \xi^2/2\sigma^2 -2[S( \xi)-S(0)]}\;. \eqno(5) $$ It is easy to see that most typically $E>1$, so that fluctuations enhance the effective fusion rate. For example, if a Taylor expansion of $S(\xi)$ about $\xi =0$ is valid, $$ S(\xi)-S(0) \approx S' \xi + {1 \over 2} S'' \xi^2 + O(\xi^3) \eqno(6) $$ where the derivatives are evaluated at $ \xi=0$, then $$ E \approx (1 + 2 S'' \sigma^2)^{-1/2} e^{2S^{\prime 2}\sigma^2}\;. \eqno(7) $$ Apart from the prefactor, which is unimportant for small $\sigma$, $E>1$ and increases exponentially with $\sigma^2$. Moreover, as $S$ is generally large, even small fluctuations in $V({\bf r}; \xi)$ (i.e., small $\sigma$) can have a significant effect. The magnitude of the fluctuations required to produce a given enhancement is then the crucial question. A full evaluation of $E$ requires a realistic specification of $V({\bf r}; \xi)$ and a numerical integration of the Schroedinger equation to find $S( \xi)$. However, for the present illustrative discussion, it is sufficient to adopt a shifted Coulomb potential characterized by a single non-adiabatic parameter $$ V({\bf r}; \xi) = \biggl[ {1 \over r} - U (1 + \xi)\biggr] \Theta \bigl(r^{-1}-U(1+ \xi)\bigr)\;, \eqno(8) $$ ($\Theta$ is the unit step function) and the simple WKB approximation for the zero-energy penetration, $$ S( \xi) = (2\mu)^{1/2} \int_0^{[U(1+ \xi)]^-1}\, dr \biggl[{1 \over r} - U (1+ \xi) \biggr]^{1/2} = \pi \biggl[ {\mu \over {2U(1+ \xi)}} \biggr]^{1/2}\;. \eqno(9) $$ Here, the parameter $U$ describes the average of the constant term $V_0( \xi)$ appearing in Eq. (1), and the fluctuations of this term are given by $ \xi U$. A rough estimate of $U$ can be had by considering tunneling in the molecular Hydrogen potential~[4], which results in $S = 2.07 \mu^{1/2}$, so that $U = 1.15$, or about 31 eV. I adopt this value for the purposes of concreteness in the following discussion. With the assumptions above, the enhancement is given by $$ E = \int {{d \xi} \over {(2\pi\sigma^2)^{1/2}}} e^{- \xi^2/2\sigma^2 - \pi (2\mu/U)^{1/2} [(1+ \xi)^{-1/2}-1]} \;. \eqno(10) $$ A saddle-point evaluation of this integral proceeds by finding $ \xi^*$, the most effective value of $ \xi$, as a root of the equation $$ - {\xi^* \over \sigma^2} + {\pi (\mu/2U)^{1/2} \over (1+\xi^*)^{3/2}} =0 \eqno(11) $$ and then $$ E \approx [1+ {{3\pi} \over 4} (2\mu U)^{1/2} (1 + \xi^*)^{-5/2} ]^{-1/2} e^{- \xi^{*2}/2\sigma^2 - \pi (2\mu/U)^{1/2} [(1+ \xi^*)^{-1/2}-1]} \;. \eqno(12) $$ In Table~I, I show the enhancement expected for the $\rm d + d$ and $\rm p + d$ fusion rates for various values of $\sigma$. Note that even relatively small fractional fluctuations ($\sigma \ltorder 0.5$, or a fluctuation in $V_0$ of 15~eV) can produce enhancements of some 30 orders of magnitude. The most effective values of $\xi$ generally lie in the extreme wings of $P(\xi)$. Thus, even very improbable configurations can have a significant effect, as the tunneling rate is very sensitive to the potential. Also note that the precise relation between $E$ and $\sigma$ depends upon what I've assumed for $S(0)$ and the way in which fluctuations perturb the potential. Are these fluctuations reasonable? A proton at a distance of 1~Bohr radius generates a potential of 1 in atomic units, so that given the possibility of multiple occupation of the interstitial sites or large distortions of the lattice, $\sigma \sim 0.5$ is perhaps not too implausible. Further, it seems likely that the $\rm p + d$ system, with its non-vanishing electric dipole moment operator, will be influenced by fluctuations more than the $\rm d + d$ system, which couples only to the electric quadrupole field. Finally, I note that any conditions in the system that enhance fluctuations will also enhance fusion rates. These might include heating to increase the number of phonons, high hydrogen fractions to increase the multiple vacancy probability, and the flow of a current to induce gross motion of the hydrogen nuclei. In conclusion, I have shown that fluctuations in the environment of a fusing pair of nuclei within a solid can significantly enhance the rate at which they fuse. This is because of the extreme sensitivity of the fusion rate to the effective potential barrier inhibiting fusion. In a schematic calculation for a shifted coulomb potential, I showed that a fractional {\it rms} fluctuation of the potential by only 0.1 (about 3 eV) will enhance the fusion rate by some 8 orders of magnitude and that fractional rms fluctuations of 0.5 will lead to enhancements of more than 30 orders of magnitude. While these results are suggestive, a more detailed calculation of the interaction between hydrogen nuclei in a solid (and their tunneling in the presence of non-adiabatic degrees of freedom) would be required to establish the relevance of this mechanism to cold fusion. \bigskip This work was support in part by National Science Foundation grant PHY82-17853 at Santa Barbara, supplemented by NASA funds, and by National Science Foundation grants PHY86-04197 and PHY88-17296 at Caltech. \vfill\eject \centerline{\bf References} \frenchspacing \medskip \item{*} Permanent address: W. K. Kellogg Radiation Laboratory, Caltech 106-38, Pasadena, CA 91125 \item{[1]} M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem. {\bf 261} (1989) 301. \item{[2]} S. E. Jones, E. P. Palmer, J. B. Czirr, D. L. Decker, G. L. Jensen, J. M. Thorne, S. F. Taylor, and J. Rafelski, University of Arizona preprint AZPH-TH/89-18, March, 1989 (submitted to {\it Nature}). \item{[3]} C. D. Van Siclen and S. E. Jones, Journal of Physics G {\bf 12} (1986) 213. \item{[4]} S. E. Koonin and M. Nauenberg, Santa Barbara Institute for Theoretical Physics preprint NSF-ITP-89-48, April, 1989. \item{[5]} D. D. Clayton, {\it Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis}, (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968), Ch. 4. \item{[6]} H. Esbensen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A352} (1981) 147. \item{[7]} A. D. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Ann. Phys. (NY) {\bf 149} (1983) 374; R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon, Ann. Phys. (NY) {\bf 24} (1963) 118. \vfill \eject \def\mystrut{\vrule height 18pt depth 6pt width 0pt} \centerline{Table 1: Enhancement factors and most efective configurations} \centerline{for the truncated Coulomb potential, Eq. (8).} $$ \vbox{\offinterlineskip\tabskip=0pt \halign to \hsize{ \mystrut#& $\rm #$\hfil\tabskip=1em plus 2em& #\hfil& \hfil$#.$\tabskip=0pt& $#$\hfil\tabskip=1em plus 2em& \hfil$#.$\tabskip=0pt& $#$\hfil\tabskip=1em plus 2em& \hfil$#.$\tabskip=0pt& $#$\hfil\tabskip=1em plus 2em& \hfil$#.$\tabskip=0pt& $#$\hfil\tabskip=1em plus 2em& \hfil$#.$\tabskip=0pt& $#$\hfil\tabskip=1em plus 2em& \hfil$#.$\tabskip=0pt& $#$\hfil\tabskip=1em plus 2em& \hfil$#.$\tabskip=0pt& $#$\hfil\tabskip=1em plus 2em& \hfil$#.$\tabskip=0pt& $#$\hfil\tabskip=1em plus 2em& \hfil$#.$\tabskip=0pt& $#$\hfil\cr & &\omit\hfil\hidewidth$\sigma=0.1$\hidewidth\hfil&\omit\hfil 0.2\hfil& &\omit\span\hfil 0.3\hfil&\omit\span\hfil 0.4\hfil&\omit\span\hfil 0.5\hfil& \omit\span\hfil 0.6\hfil&\omit\span\hfil 0.7\hfil\cr &p+d&\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit \cr &\log_{10}\;E& 6.8&13&9 &18&9 &22&6 &25&4 &27&7 &29&6\cr % &\xi^* &0.44& 1&05& 1&62& 2&17& 2&69& 3&20& 3&69\cr\noalign{\medskip} % &d+d&\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit & \omit &\omit &\omit &\omit &\omit\cr &\log_{10}\;E& 8.6&17&1 &23&0 &27&2 &30&5 &33&1 &35&2\cr % &\xi^* &0.49& 1&13& 1&75& 2&33& 2&89& 3&24& 3&94\cr }} $$ \bye -- cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenkoonin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / David Bailey / cold fusion constraints errata Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Originally-From: PERRY@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Originally-From: OHSTPY::BCC 20-APR-1989 13:39 Originally-From: IN%"DBAILEY@UTORPHYS.BITNET" "David Bailey" 20-APR-1989 13:10 Originally-From: David Bailey Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Paper by David C. Bailey Subject: article on fusion constraints Subject: cold fusion constraints errata Date: 27 Apr 89 03:14:20 GMT Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 18:01 EDT Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 12:43 EST Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI dcb.latex "Gammas from Cold Nuclear Fusion" by David C. Bailey This is in LATEX format. A postscript version can be FTPed from: unh.cs.cmu.edu /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp/dcb.ps -- Vince Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 18:01 EDT Originally-From: PERRY@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Subject: article on fusion constraints To: vac@cs.cmu.EDU X-VMS-To: IN%"vac@cs.cmu.edu" Originally-From: OHSTPY::BCC 20-APR-1989 13:39 To: PERRY Subj: Originally-From: IN%"DBAILEY@UTORPHYS.BITNET" "David Bailey" 20-APR-1989 13:10 To: jvn@VIRGINIA.BITNET, bcc@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU, charlie@IUCF.BITNET, Johne@CERNVM.BITNET Subj: cold fusion constraints errata Received: from JNET-DAEMON by OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU; Thu, 20 Apr 89 13:09 EDT Received: From UTORPHYS(SYSTEM) by OHSTPY with Jnet id 4072 for BCC@OHSTPY; Thu, 20 Apr 89 13:09 EDT Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 12:43 EST Originally-From: David Bailey Subject: cold fusion constraints errata To: jvn@VIRGINIA.BITNET, bcc@OHSTPY.MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU, charlie@IUCF.BITNET, Johne@CERNVM.BITNET X-VMS-To: IN%"jvn@virginia",IN%"bcc@ohstpy",IN%"charlie@iucf",IN%"Johne@cernvm", DBAILEY I forgot to append the LATEX file with my previous message. Here is the complete message and file. Subj: cold fusion constraints Here is a LATEX file of a brief note discussing the rates of palladium coulomb excitation gamma rays expected from fusion processes producing fast charged particles. The observation (or lack thereof) can be used to constrain proposed cold fusion mechanisms. There is also a brief discussion of the well known radon daughter gamma ray at 2.204~MeV which is consistent with the line Pons and Fleischmann observe. Feel free to circulate this. Does anybody have any coherent written reports on any of the reported confirmations? We are now using our MARK IV version cell and haven't seen anything. David Bailey (Physics Dept., University of Toronto) ########################################################################### \documentstyle[12pt]{article} \parskip 0.5ex \textwidth 15.4cm \textheight 22.0cm \oddsidemargin 3.0cm \evensidemargin 3.0cm \topmargin 1.8cm \newdimen\quarterwidth \quarterwidth=\textwidth \divide\quarterwidth 4 \newdimen\halfwidth \halfwidth=\textwidth \divide\halfwidth 2 \newdimen\threequarterwidth \threequarterwidth=\textwidth \multiply\threequarterwidth 3 \divide\threequarterwidth 4 \newdimen\mywidth \mywidth=\textwidth \newdimen\myheight \myheight=\textheight \multiply\myheight 3 \divide\myheight 4 \newdimen\halfheight \halfheight=\myheight \divide\halfheight 2 %================================================= \renewcommand{\deg}[1]{#1$^{\circ}$} \def\r#1{\ignorespaces $^{#1}$} \vsize=23.5 true cm \hsize=15.4 true cm \predisplaypenalty=0 \abovedisplayskip=3mm plus6pt minus4pt \belowdisplayskip=3mm plus6pt minus4pt \abovedisplayshortskip=0mm plus6pt \belowdisplayshortskip=2mm plus6pt minus4pt \normalbaselineskip=12pt \normalbaselines \begin{document} \title{Gammas from Cold Nuclear Fusion} \author{David C. Bailey\thanks{BITNET address: DBAILEY@UTORPHYS} \\ Department of Physics \\ University of Toronto \\ Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A7 Canada} \date{April 20, 1989 \\ University of Toronto Physics UTPT-89-15 \\ Submitted to Phys. Rev. C} \maketitle \begin{abstract} The absence of both neutrons and gamma rays can be used to constrain possible cold fusion processes in deuterium-metal systems. In particular, milliwatt cold fusion processes producing fast protons, tritium, helium-3 or helium-4 nuclei would also usually produce easily observable numbers of Coulomb excitation palladium gamma rays. \end{abstract} \vskip 0.6cm Two groups have recently reported evidence of cold nuclear fusion of deuterons electrolytically infused into metals \cite{PONS}, \cite{JONES}. One group \cite{PONS} reports large amounts of fusion heat from a palladium-deuterium cell but with only small amounts of associated radiation. Any search for radiation from cold fusion should cover a wide range of gamma energies. In addition to gammas from capture of neutrons from $d + d \rightarrow n + He^3 + 3.27~MeV$ or $d + t \rightarrow n + He^4 + 17.6~MeV$ reactions, there are possible direct gammas from $d + d \rightarrow He^4 + \gamma + 23.8~MeV$ or $p + d \rightarrow He^3 +\gamma + 5.49~MeV$. Some exotic processes such as $p+d \rightarrow He^3+e^+e^-+4.5~MeV$\cite{HOROWITZ} would produce an intense broad spectrum of bremsstrahlung radiation and a sharp positron annihilation line at 0.511~MeV. Other processes involving only heavy charged particles would also produce indirect gamma rays and neutrons. For example, the reaction $d + d \rightarrow p + t + 4.03~MeV$ produces a proton with an energy of 3.0~MeV. Some of these protons will produce gamma radiation via interactions with palladium nuclei. Measurements of 2.9~MeV protons being absorbed in thick palladium targets show that gamma ray yields from Coulomb excitations of palladium nuclei and from proton bremsstrahlung are about $10^{-7}$ gammas per proton \cite{COULOMB}. In particular, gamma rays are expected at 0.3738, 0.4339, 0.5119 \footnote{This line is unfortunately very close to the 0.511~MeV positron line normally observed in background measurements.} and 0.5558~MeV \cite{ISOTAB} with yields of $1.32\times10^5$, $2.29\times10^5$, $1.14\times10^5$ and $0.255\times10^5$ gamma rays per microcoulomb of protons\cite{COULOMB}. These gamma lines are, respectively, the lowest $2^+ \rightarrow 0^+$ transitions in $Pd^{110}$, $Pd^{108}$, $Pd^{106}$ and $Pd^{104}$. In terms of gamma rays per proton, the yields are $2.1\times10^{-8}$, $3.7\times10^{-8}$, $1.8\times10^{-8}$ and $0.41\times10^{-8}$ gamma rays per 2.9~MeV proton being absorbed in palladium. The gamma yields increase with the proton energy\cite{COULREV}, so the yield would be slightly higher for the 3.0~Mev protons from $d+d \rightarrow t+p$ fusion - the extrapolated yields are $2.5\times10^{-8}$, $4.5\times10^{-8}$, $2.3\times10^{-8}$ and $0.52\times10^{-8}$ gamma rays per 3.0~MeV proton absorbed in palladium. These yields are extrapolated from the data in Ref.\cite{COULOMB} using the formulas of sections II~C.1, II~C.2 and III~B.2 of Ref.\cite{COULREV}. (The accuracy of the measured 2.9~MeV proton gamma yields is 10 to 20\%.) One watt of power from $d+d \rightarrow t+p$ fusion corresponds to $1.55\times10^{12}$ fusions per second. The expected gamma yields from this process for each of the above four Coulomb excitation lines are thus $3.9\times10^4$, $6.9\times10^4$, $3.5\times10^4$ and $0.8\times10^4$ gammas per second per watt of fusion power (i.e. gammas/joule). Hence typical gamma detectors are easily sensitive to milliwatts of fusion power. Coulomb excitation gammas due to protons produced by unexpected reactions such as $d+He^3 \rightarrow He^4+p+18.3~MeV$ would also be easily observed - the expected yields would be $1.6\times10^6$, $3.2\times10^6$, $2.5\times10^6$ and $0.6\times10^6$ gammas/joule. Another possible process of interest is $d + Li^6 \rightarrow He^4 + He^4 + 22.4~MeV$. This reaction does not produce any direct gammas or neutrons, but indirect neutrons are expected from $He^4 + Pd$ interactions. The yield of neutrons from interactions of 11~MeV $He^4$ nuclei being absorbed in palladium is $4\times10^{-8}$ neutrons per incident $He^{++}$ \cite{ALPHAN}. Such a flux is consistent with that reported by Fleischmann and Pons\cite{PONS}. If such processes were occurring, however, the yield of palladium Coulomb excitation gamma rays (from $He^4 + Pd$ collisions\footnote{Note that there are two $He^4$ per fusion.}) would be even larger than in the case for $d+d \rightarrow t+p$ fusion discussed above and very easily detected; the expected yields of the 0.3738, 0.4339, 0.5119 and 0.5558 palladium Coulomb excitation lines would be $3.9\times10^5$, $8.3\times10^5$, $5.6\times10^5$ and $1.5\times10^5$ gammas/joule of fusion energy. The accuracy of the extrapolation of yields from 3~MeV protons to $\sim$10~MeV alpha particles was confirmed to $\sim$15\% using $Cd^{114}$, $Te^{126}$, $Te^{128}$ and $Te^{130}$ data\cite{EXTEST}. A third, more hypothetical, fusion process could be $d + d + Pd \rightarrow He^4 + Pd + 23.8~MeV$, where the palladium nucleus balances momentum for the process. The $He^4$ nucleus would have an energy of 22.9~MeV if it recoils against a single Pd nucleus, or 23.8~MeV if it is recoiling against the entire palladium metal lattice. In either case, very large rates of Coulomb excitation gamma rays should be observed. For 23.8~MeV $He^4$ production, the four Coulomb excitation line yields would be $1.8\times10^6$, $4.3\times10^6$, $3.2\times10^6$ and $0.9\times10^6$ gammas/joule. One useful indirect fusion gamma line is produced by neutron capture on protons producing a 2.224~MeV gamma ray. Observation of a gamma line at 2.2~MeV has been used \cite{PONS} as evidence for neutron production by cold fusion. This method is, however, subject to a well known strong background from the 2.204~MeV gamma ray produced by $Bi^{214} \rightarrow Po^{214}$ decay. $Bi^{214}$ is a radon daughter produced via $Rn^{222} \rightarrow Po^{218} \rightarrow Pb^{214} \rightarrow Bi^{214}$. The 2.204~MeV gamma is produced in 5\% of all $Bi^{214}$ decays. Radon levels vary by large amounts depending on location and local ventilation \cite{NERO}. The typical resolution of NaI(Tl) counters is such that careful calibration is necessary to distinguish a $np$ capture line at 2.224~MeV from a $Bi^{214}$ background line at 2.204~MeV. Using a single crystal coaxial germanium detector the two lines can be readily distinguished. A 5.4\% germanium detector at the University of Toronto typically detects the $Bi^{214}$ line at a rate of $0.003s^{-1}$. This corresponds roughly to an expected count rate for a typical 3 by 3~inch NaI(Tl) detector of about $0.06s^{-1}$, comparable to the $0.1s^{-1}$ reported\cite{PONS} for a 2.2~MeV neutron capture line. Such a line cannot be identified as a neutron capture line without very careful consideration of the background from the ubiquitous 2.204~MeV line.\footnote{The reported line is actually observed to peak at 2.204~MeV, not 2.224~MeV, according the energy scale of Fig. 1A in Ref.\cite{PONS}.} A good test is to monitor the other gamma lines produced by $Bi^{214}$ decays\cite{ISOTAB}; for example, a line at 1.764~MeV should be observed with about 3 times the intensity of the 2.204~MeV line. It is very difficult not to produce detectable radiation for any known fusion process, even those with only charged particles in the final state. If fusion can occur without such radiations being detected, the energy is not being transferred by the normally expected processes of scattering and absorption of nuclear particles - the energy must be directly coupled to low energy excitations of the metal-deuteride system in some unknown manner. \vskip 0.2in I would like to thank Steve Errede for many useful comments and for pointing out that the reported\cite{PONS} 2.2~MeV gamma ray actually peaks at 2.204~MeV. I would like to thank Richard Bailey, Dale Pitman and Jim Prentice for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. \vfill\eject \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{PONS} M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (1989) 301, plus errata. \bibitem{JONES} S.E. Jones, {$ et \> al.,$} submitted to Nature. \bibitem{HOROWITZ} Charles J. Horowitz, submitted to Phys. Rev. C. \bibitem{COULOMB} P.H. Stelson and F.K. McGowan Phys. Rev. 99 (1955) 112. \bibitem{ISOTAB} Table of the Isotopes, 7th Edition, eds: C.M. Lederer and V.S. Shirley, John Wiley (1978). \bibitem{COULREV} K. Alder et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 28 (1956) 432. \bibitem{ALPHAN} P.H. Stelson and F.K. McGowan Phys. Rev. 133 (1964) B911. \bibitem{EXTEST} P.H. Stelson and F.K. McGowan Phys. Rev. 110 (1958) 489. \bibitem{NERO} Anthony Nero, Physics Today 42, No. 4 (April 1989) 32, and refere nces therein. \end{thebibliography} \end{document} -- cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenDBAILEY cudfnDavid cudlnBailey cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Vincent Cate / Fusion Papers Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Fusion Papers Date: 27 Apr 89 04:34:11 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Rumor has it that the CMU net connections have been slow. Also, we were off the net for a day when our IMP went belly up. So, I would like to try out a parallel high performance fault tolerant paper distribution architecture that will reduce the load on the network by using replication. :-) In other words, I would like a few people around the country to set up FTP directories on their machines and copy the papers from CMU. As I get new papers I will send these people email so they can FTP the papers right away, before most people read about them on alt.fusion. People can then FTP papers from the machine closest to them. In my posts I will also list all of these FTP sites. If you are willing to be such a site please send me mail (currently the files take up 3.6 Megabytes). There are at least two other universities (MIT and U of Michigan) that are also on the prototype nationwide filesystem called Andrew (also known as /afs for Andrew File System). From these places it should be possible to do a "cd /afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/vac/ftp". Does anyone at one of these places know of a machine that allows anonymous FTP and is on /afs? Can anyone create one? Also if there is anyone who can FTP the papers and then make them available on another net (Bitnet etc), I am sure there are people that would like this, and I will send you mail as the papers come out. Vince Cate arpanet : vac@cs.cmu.edu bitnet : s171vc09@cmccvb FAX : (412) 681-1998 smail : School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon Pittsburgh PA, 15213 If you have a cold fusion paper that I do not have listed below please send me mail! I will scan in any papers I get via FAX or smail and post anything I get via email (assuming I get any needed permission). In particular I would love to see a detailed description of an experiment where heat production was observed. Papers: cjh "Cold Nuclear Fusion in Metallic Hydrogen and Normal Metals" Charles J. Horowitz Physics Department and Nuclear Theory Center - Indiana University Submitted to Physical Review C dcb "Gammas from Cold Nuclear Fusion" David C. Bailey Department of Physics - University of Toronto April 20, 1989 sek "Enhancement of cold fusion rates by fluctuations" S. E. Koonin Institute for Theoretical Physics University of California, Santa Barbara Submitted to Physical Review Letters, April 19, 1989 kn "Cold fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules" S. E. Koonin and M. Nauenberg Institute for Theoretical Physics University of California, Santa Barbara Submitted to Nature, April 7, 1989 ws "Two Innocent Chemists Look at Cold Fusion" Cheves Walling and Jack Simons Chemistry Department, University of Utah h1 "A Simple Model for Coherent DD Fusion in the Presence of a Lattice" Peter L. Hagelstein Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT April 10, 1989 h2 "Phonon Interactions in Coherent Fusion" Peter L. Hagelstein Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT h3 "Rates for Neutron and Tritium Production in Coherent DD Fusion" Peter L. Hagelstein Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT April 10, 1989 gcm "Catalysis of Deuterium Fusion in Metal Hydrides by Cosmic Ray Muons." M. W. Guinan, G. F. Chapline, and R. W. Moir Submitted to Physical Review Letters Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory April 7 1989 rj "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 fp "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium" Martin Fleischmann - University of Southampton Stanley Pons - University of Utah March 20, 1989 jpr "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter" Jones, Palmer, Czirr, Decker, Jensen, Thorne, Taylor - Brigham Young University Rafelski - University of Arizona March 23, 1989 For information on getting copies of the above papers: ftp unh.cs.cmu.edu anonymous get /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp/README -- cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Emmett Black / F&P in Congress Originally-From: blackje@sunspot.steinmetz (Emmett Black) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,crd.fusion,misc.headlines,sci.physics Subject: F&P in Congress Date: 27 Apr 89 12:24:49 GMT Organization: GE Research; Schenectady, NY 12345 Speaking before the United States Congress yesterday, Fleischmann & Pons said that "they were as sure as they could be" that the effect they had observed was fusion. They have requested $25 million from the U.S. government in order to build a facility in Utah to explore the cold fusion effect. --Emmett J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345 blackje@crd.ge.com; ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenblackje cudfnEmmett cudlnBlack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Paul Dietz / Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Latest fusion news from L.A.Times 18 April 1989 Date: 27 Apr 89 12:43:11 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY brooks@sierra.UUCP (Michael B. Brooks) writes: > As I have indicated running the analysis >over a control electrode is not necessary (given the above), though it >certainly wouldn`t be a bad idea! Actually, I'd still like to hear that a control was done, just to make sure the He4 is coming from the experiment, not from the atmosphere or from some other source. Also, the lack of reports of observation of He3 is disturbing -- it should be easier to detect, and many of the speculative models being thrown around predict it should be a fusion product. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy27 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Bug Hunter / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: khearn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Bug Hunter) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 27 Apr 89 06:06:28 GMT Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo In article <4827@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: >In article khearn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Keith Hearn) writes: >>Seriously, gasoline is very flammible, and mildly explosive (despite what >> Hollywood would have us believe) in liquid form. Hydrogen, however, is >> *highly* explosive. ... We can make hydrogen powered cars now, but they >> just aren't safe in an accident. > >Actually, it is possible to make safe hydrogen power cars. NOVA had, many >years ago, a special on hydrogen power. The trick to make cars safe was to >store the hydrogen in a metallic hydride. The basic idea was that the metal I've heard of these "metal sponge" tanks. Why don't we use them now to transport and store hydrogen? If they are so great, why do we still store and transport the stuff in liquid form in pressure tanks? How much does a metallic hydride tank cost compared to a pressure tank? I'd guess it a whole lot cheaper to make a steel skin that can hold pressure, than it is to make a thiiner steel skin and fill it with titanium, palladium, or a related alloy that can hold hydrogen at high densities (especially, since these will be in demand for making fusion reactors due to this same property). How much cheaper? I have no idea, but we aren't doing it yet. Maybe once we have cheap electricity from fusion we'll be able to do it, but i doubt these particular metals are going to get a whole lot cheaper, and they may get more expensive. (then again, maybe not, too... I dunno) Of course, I'm just a computer science student, not a hydrogen storage expert, and I could be completely wrong (it wouldn't be the first time!). Keith Hearn -- Keith Hearn \ khearn@polyslo.calpoly.edu \ "I drank WHAT???" Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo \ -- Socrates (805) 541-2147 or (805) 756-7180 \ cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenkhearn cudfnBug cudlnHunter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Rob Tow / Re: D2O is toxic Originally-From: tow@arisia.Xerox.COM (Rob Tow) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: D2O is toxic Date: 26 Apr 89 20:08:29 GMT Organization: Xerox PARC In article <3182@cosmo.UUCP> doom@cosmo.UUCP (DOOM) writes: >> -Rich-@cup.prtal.com writes on 17.04.89: >> Does anyone know why D2O is toxic? > >Hope I can. >The solubiltity of D2O is not so good as H2O. So the elektrolytic >concentration in the cells will be disturb and much more. >But why is the solubility from H2O better? >I think from the mass difference. So the D2O molekel are not so easy >to build and rebuild the hydratcover. > >I'am right? >Hope to here from someone >DOOM > >student(FHN) in chemical analytic > >unido.cosmo.doom >mcvax.unido.cosmo.doom > From "The biology of Heavy Water", Joseph J. Katz, Scientific American (I think sometime in 1961 - my photocopy doesn't say): "[..] As its name implies, heavy water has a 10 percent higher density than water does and a 25 percent greater viscosity. Its freezing point (39.2 degrees Fahrenheit) and boiling point (214.5 degrees Fahrenheit) are both distincly higher. Many salts and some gases, including carbon dioxide and oxygen, are less soluable in heavy water, and acid solutions of D2O are distinctly more acid than corresponding solutions of H2O. In biological systems all of these factores might be expected to produce noticeable effects. Of such effects perhaps the most significant is the "kinetic isotope effect", that is, the change in the rate of a chemical reaction that results from the substitution of a heavy isotope for a light one. Chemical bonds between deuterium and other atoms are slightly but measureably more stable than the corresponding bonds involving ordinary hydrogen. Calculation indicates that a carbon-deuterium bond may undergo reaction at only a seventh the speed of a carbon-hydrogen bond. Experiments have borne this out, and have shown in general that carbon-deuterium bonds react at a rate one half to one seventh that of bonds involving the common isotope. [...] [30% deuterated mice] are normal except in one important respect - they produce no young. Even a low level of deuterium impairs the ability of the male to produce normal spermatozoa, and in females deuteration during pregnancy interferes with gestation and induces fetal abnormalities. When the concentration of D2O in the body fluid of a mouse approaches 30 percent, the picture changes drastically for the worse. the mouse shows symptoms of weakness, it is easily irritated, its coat roughens, it loses weight rapidly, and it is prone to convulsions. When the deuterium level is raised still further, its body temperture drops rapidly, all its physiological functions are greatly depressed, and within a short time it dies. Rats react in a similar fashion. At low deuterium levels they fail to gain weight. When the deuterium content of the blood plasma rises to 20 percent, they cease to groom themselves and develop skin lesions and necrosis of the tail, as if suffering froma vitamin deficiency. At still higher concentrations, they become more excitable and aggressive, as do mice. With 30 percent D2O in their blood plasma, some rats actually go into convulsions when handled, resembling in this respect animals poisoned with strychnine. At about 35 percent the rats become A lethargic, lapse into a coma and soon die. [Blue green algae may be 100% deuterated; they exhibit giantism and other abnormalities.] --- Rob Tow Member Research Staff Electronic Document Lab Xerox PARC 3333 Coyote Hill Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 (415)-494-4807 cudkeys: cuddy26 cudentow cudfnRob cudlnTow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / J Dow / Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: jdow@gryphon.COM (J. Dow) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 27 Apr 89 08:38:22 GMT Organization: Wizardess Designs, Hermosa Beach, Ca. In article <15491@bellcore.bellcore.com> perry@bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) writes: > >According to some people I have spoken to, milled metals generally >have had the crystaline structure of the metal disrupted near the >surface by the milling process, and are thus not suitable for use in >many chemical processes. > >This would appear to be something that an electrochemist trying to >reproduce the experiment would take for granted, but a nuclear physics >expert might not. > >Reportedly, Pons has stated that the experiment does not run with a >milled palladium electrode he has been using as a "blank" in setups. > >Could someone from LANL confirm or deny the rumor that the initial >work at LANL was being done with milled palladium electrodes? > >Perry Also consider that most milled rods of Pd would be milled from either drawn blanks or forged blanks. Both of those processes muck up the crystal structure as well. -- Sometimes a bird in the hand leaves a sticky deposit. Perhaps it were best it remain there in the bush with the other one. {@_@} jdow on bix (where else?) Sometimes the dragon wins. Sometimes jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM the knight. Does the fair maiden ever {backbone}!gryphon!jdow win? Surely both the knight and dragon stink. Maybe the maiden should suicide? Better yet - she should get an Amiga and quit playing with dragons and knights. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjdow cudfnJ cudlnDow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Vince Heuring / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Vince Heuring) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 27 Apr 89 15:39:40 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder In article <10799@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> khearn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Keith Hearn) writes: >... >I've heard of these "metal sponge" tanks. Why don't we use them now to > transport and store hydrogen? If they are so great, why do we still > store and transport the stuff in liquid form in pressure tanks? > The easiest answer is that the only efficient "metal sponge" found so far is made of Rhodium. Rhodium is a member of the Platinum family, and is as scarce, or scarcer. ---- Vincent Heuring Dep't of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Colorado - Boulder heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenheuring cudfnVince cudlnHeuring cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / T Reynolds / Re: Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Originally-From: ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu (Timothy K Reynolds) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Date: 27 Apr 89 15:58:24 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept In article <1364@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>, olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen) writes: > An NPR report this evening stated that Stanley Pons has just agreed to > collaborate with Los Alamos National Laboratory. Pons is to build a cold > fusion setup for LANL to experiment with. according to reports in the salt lake press, Pons will give los alamos an old cell which has been up and running in the past. this will get around the problem which los alamos has had in getting a cell which produces the effects described by Pons. cheers ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu cudkeys: cuddy27 cudentkr cudfnTimothy cudlnReynolds cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Prem Sobel / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 27 Apr 89 15:12:16 GMT Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA About a week ago, in the science page of Time magazine, there was an article about fusion. The information, especially the quoated conjectures sure sounded like they are reading alt.fusion too. Hi Time Magazine! Want to identify yourself? cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / John Nagle / Cold fusion plants - architecture and costs Originally-From: jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cold fusion plants - architecture and costs Date: 27 Apr 89 17:49:34 GMT Organization: Stanford University Assuming cold fusion is a real phenomenon, it is interesting to look at the industrial implications. 1. So far, this is a low-grade heat source, being limited to temperatures below the boiling point of water. This is undesirable in power generation, of course, and while there are systems for recovering energy from narrow temperature differences, they are inherently inefficient. This is due to basic thermodynamic considerations; it is not something that can be avoided by engine design. 2. It may be possible to run the process at higher temperatures. Assuming that the D2O has to be kept liquid, the process can be enclosed in a pressure vessel to push up the boiling point of the D2O, and then a heat exchanger can be used to extract the heat and boil ordinary water for use in a steam turbine. (Doesn't this sound familiar?) There will still be plenty of low-grade waste heat. 3. Radiation should be a very minor problem, assuming that the D + D -> He4 + heat reaction is what makes this work. But some shielding may be necessary. There should be no radioactive waste, though. 4. Plant costs will probably be comparable to those for a cogeneration plant. Cogeneration is a very likely application, what with all that waste heat, which can be used for building heat and hot water, as well as for process heat in industrial installations. Plants will probably be institutional in scale; home heating seems less likely, just as home cogeneration has never caught on, even though it is quite possible technically. But any facility large enough to have a boiler room may eventually be a candidate for a cold fusion plant. 5. It's not yet clear if palladium is essential to the process. If it is, cold fusion may well be limited by the palladium supply. If it turns out that other, more abundant materials will work, the prospects are much better. Presumably the palladium is not consumed by the process even now, but it is not clear whether the lattice of the material is damaged and whether one has to replace the electrodes frequently. It should be possible to recover the palladium almost completely by recycling, and the metal is expensive enough that this will happen. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjbn cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / sankar@iuvax.c / Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Originally-From: sankar@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Date: 27 Apr 89 18:35:00 GMT Organization: Indiana University CSCI, Bloomington Try this calculation with Pd. The total world reserves are about 3.3 billion troy oz (above and below ground). Using the numbers 67W/cm3, 12.01g/cm3, 31.1g/troy oz and the above value for the world energy use, one finds that one troy oz. can produce 1500 KWhour/year and that Pd will be the limiting factor in the amount of energy that can be produced. One can also do this calculation with 10KW/cm3, a value that Pons mentioned may some day be possible in his Nature paper. I have seen quotes in the Wall Street J. that there will be plenty of Pd because it is 'recycleable'. These statements were made by metal dealers and are obviously wrong. Steve Colby Dept. of Chemistry Indiana University cudkeys: cuddy27 cudensankar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / A Palfreyman / Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Date: 26 Apr 89 20:22:00 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Yes - it's levelled off at the $170 dollar range. The price spread gets smaller each day, like the back end of an oscillation. Lack of news is probably stifling volatility - but who REALLY knows?! -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / A Palfreyman / Re: Lotza ergs Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lotza ergs Date: 27 Apr 89 04:57:10 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <14430001@hpfcdj.HP.COM>, brian@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes: > By the time you can put 1 million ECL transistors on a die and keep it from > melting, 64 million CMOS transistors will fit on a single die. And inter- > chip connections will still dominate the speed equation. Why is this > in alt.fusion? Because we are, inter alia, investigating consequences of cheap energy. Wafers will not melt if it costs nothing to cool them - the original point. However, the packing density argument means you're probably right. Andreas Pferdemann. -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenandrew cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Dave Mack / Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D2O Requirements for energy prod. Date: 27 Apr 89 17:44:43 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <5006@cloud9.Stratus.COM> cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison) writes: >In article <29606@apple.Apple.COM>, thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) writes: >> >> So if I haven't made a mistake somewhere, at contemporary demand levels the >> deuterium in the oceans would be likely to last twenty billion years, which is >> approximately the present age of the universe (as estimated by contemporary >> cosmologists). > >Two questions, at first glance: > >1. In 20 billion years, some amount of normal hydrogen will capture > stray neutrons. How long does it take the Earth's oceans to replenish? > >2. If energy use increases exponentially at a rate consistent with that > of this century (a rate I don't know), how long with the oceans last? Over the last two years, the rate of growth in energy consumption has been 4.5% per year, about 1.5% higher than expected. At that rate of growth, it would take something under 1000 years to use up the deuterium in the world's oceans. This is irrelevant, of course, since the waste heat will have made the surface of the earth uninhabitable long before then. Extrapolations hundreds or thousands of years into the future based on current consumption levels are futile. Technology has a tendency to screw up predictions. If you can figure out what things will look like twenty years from now, you're way ahead of the game. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Dave Mack / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 27 Apr 89 18:00:13 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <41071@oliveb.olivetti.com> jerry@olivey.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes: >The real danger with hydrogen is that it is oderless. A leak can be >building up in a room for a long time and no one will notice it until it >is too late. Natural gas also has no smell. The "onion" scent is an >additive used just for that purpose. As someone who once accidentally filled a room with hydrogen, let me assure you that while you may not be able to smell it, you can definitely tell it's there. It does a very good job of displacing all other gases in the top part of the room, and when you try to breathe it, you notice a certain...absence. The presence in the same room of several lit pilot lights made for a slightly tense situation for a few minutes, but it ended without catastrophe. Which means that what you basically need are vents near the top of any structure where hydrogen is stored and used. And maybe a few platinum screens to encourage catalytic recombination. -- Dave Mack never mix Al + NaOH without balancing your reaction first. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Gregory KAAN / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark Originally-From: kaan@munnari.oz (Gregory KAAN) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark Date: 27 Apr 89 04:39:34 GMT Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia in article <17621@cup.portal.com>, PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) says: > Industrial experience has it that hydrogen is no more hazardous than gasoline > and might well be less so. Gas fumes are heavier than air and tend to collect > in low points until they reach explosive concentrations. Hydrogen is > lighter and tends to rise and dissipate. Hydrogen is also non-poisonous and only produces water as exhaust. Can you imagine the pollution problem if all our cars, trucks etc were powered by hydrogen ? It would rain more in the suburbs ! People tend to quote the Hindenburg disaster when propounding on the dangers of hydrogen. They overlook the fact that due to hygrogen's tendency to rise, the vast majority of casualties in that incident was due to people jumping out of the airship at a dangerous height. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenkaan cudfnGregory cudlnKAAN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Rabin Ezra / Explanation of cold fusion? Originally-From: rabin@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Rabin Ezra) Newsgroups: sci.research,alt.fusion Subject: Explanation of cold fusion? Date: 26 Apr 89 14:43:31 GMT Organization: CS Dept, Queen Mary College, University of London, UK. Forwarded on behalf of a friend at Imperial College, University of London. Replies by e-mail to DLC@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk who will forward communications as appropriate. I will only forward e-mail bounced by this address. My supervisor, one Prof. Streater, has just written a paper purporting to explain cold fusion. I don't understand much of it, as it uses a wierd method. Anyway, basically the theory goes like this: Deuterium, He4 and photons are all bosons, and so they are subject to stimulated emission.There is a reaction: D+D-->He4+gamma Reaction rate is very, very small compared with D+D-->p+T etc. However, once this action occurs once, it produces 23.5MeV photons, which trigger the reaction by stimulated emission. Small numbers of photons lose much energy by collisions, and since 30keV is enough to allow D+D-->p+T and D+D-->n+He3, these reactions also occur at a lower rate. Result is that a fusion reaction will go once started, producing apparently too few photons.Unfortunately, no known mechanism will start the reaction, and the 23.5 MeV (and as a by product, up to 200MeV ) neutrons have not been detected. -- Rabin Ezra UUCP: rabin@qmc-cs.UUCP PhD Student, JANET: rabin@uk.ac.qmc.cs Dept of Computer Science, ARPA: rabin@cs.qmc.ac.uk Queen Mary College, London E1 4NS. U.K. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenrabin cudfnRabin cudlnEzra cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Rabin Ezra / Re: Explanation of cold fusion? (Correction) Originally-From: rabin@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Rabin Ezra) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.research Subject: Re: Explanation of cold fusion? (Correction) Date: 26 Apr 89 15:31:09 GMT Organization: Computer Science Dept, Queen Mary College, University of London, UK. In article <948@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> rabin@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Rabin Ezra) writes: > Result is that a fusion reaction will go once >started, producing apparently too few photons.Unfortunately, >no known mechanism will start the reaction, and the 23.5 MeV >(and as a by product, up to 200MeV ) neutrons have not been >detected. > Sorry that should be Result is that a fusion reaction will go once started, producing apparently too few neutrons.Unfortunately, ^^^^^^^^ no known mechanism will start the reaction, and the 23.5 MeV (and as a by product, up to 200MeV ) protons have not been ^^^^^^^ detected. I was sent a correction and replaced the wrong word before sending. -- Rabin Ezra UUCP: rabin@qmc-cs.UUCP PhD Student, JANET: rabin@uk.ac.qmc.cs Dept of Computer Science, ARPA: rabin@cs.qmc.ac.uk Queen Mary College, London E1 4NS. U.K. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenrabin cudfnRabin cudlnEzra cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Kevin Williams / Terraforming Arizona (repost due to problems) Originally-From: williamsk@gtephx.UUCP (Kevin W. Williams) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Terraforming Arizona (repost due to problems) Date: 27 Apr 89 16:02:26 GMT Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona First, I am not a rabid environmentalist. Regardless, all of the practical sounding power-generation schemes using the cold fusion process have been steam-based. In Florida, water vapor is considered normal. Here in Arizona, it's strange and unusual stuff. So, to my question : how much steam would be required to terraform Arizona? I would define this as raising the average rainfall from its current 6 inches a year to approximately 18 inches a year. I don't believe that the answer can be calculated in simple terms, as you would have to take into account the feedback loops present in the ecology, like the spreading of ground cover after the rainfall increases to 7 inches allowing more water to be retained in the local water cycle, thus increasing the rainfall further. Unfortunately, there is not a sci.meteorology group to post this question to. If there is a more suitable group, let me know, and I'll repost. Incidentally, if it does happen, I'll move to the Sahara. I like deserts. Kevin Wayne Williams UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk Remember : More Americans have died in Teddy Kennedy's car than have died in nuclear power plant accidents. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenwilliamsk cudfnKevin cudlnWilliams cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Rodney Meter / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: rod@venera.isi.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 27 Apr 89 18:41:59 GMT Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California In article <10799@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> khearn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Keith Hearn) writes: > >I've heard of these "metal sponge" tanks. Why don't we use them now to > transport and store hydrogen? If they are so great, why do we still > store and transport the stuff in liquid form in pressure tanks? > We're really getting off the topic now. I can't resist tossing in one piece of information, though: acetyline is stored in tanks filled with a porous ceramic matrix inside. A solvent is used to increase the storage capacity. If you're using an oxy-acetyline torch, keep the tank upright, or you may gum up the torch with the solvent. Please, can we get back to fusion? I'd redirect followups, but I'm not sure where to send them, and anyway, the people who asked are here. --Rod cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenrod cudfnRodney cudlnMeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Zhenqin Li / Cold Fusion Experiments Repeated in China Originally-From: zqli@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Zhenqin Li) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics,soc.culture.china Subject: Cold Fusion Experiments Repeated in China Date: 27 Apr 89 18:35:15 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY The Utah cold fusion experiments have been "confirmed" by two groups of Chinese scientists, a recent issue of "People's Daily" claims. They are quoted as having detected production of neutrons at a rate of about 100 per second. However, despite claims of confirmations by scientists around the world, the recent issues of "Science" and "Nature" have expressed deep skeptism. Physicists at Cornell have been doubting the fusion results ever since the original discovery. Using WKB-like calculations, the tunneling rate for two deuteriums to come on top of each other would be at most 10**(-55) per second, compared with the best experimentally quoted values of 10**(-12) per second. The new theory of Bose condensation is also hard to believe, because it would imply that fusion could be achieved with liquid deuterium at a really "cold" temperature. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenzqli cudfnZhenqin cudlnLi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Westenkirchner / Congressional Hearing Originally-From: pmw@ihlpy.ATT.COM (Westenkirchner) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Congressional Hearing Date: 27 Apr 89 13:43:58 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Someone asked a while back for net readers to go out as "reporters" and see what real fusion scientists think about cold fusion. I just finished watching the end of a CSPAN telecast of a 4/26 congressional subcommittee hearing where they accepted testimony from Jones of BYU, Furth of Princeton, Ballinger of MIT, Saltmarsh (?) from Oak Ridge and someone from Illinois. I must admit that I have only been loosely following what's going on in these newsgroups, but found it interesting that the overall tone about the UU results was extremely skeptical. The congress people are trying to figure out what they should be funding. Apparently, some UU folks had asked for immediate high level funding and even made comments about buying fusion powered Japanese cars if we don't act right away. (I missed the UU part of the testimony). Furth was saying that he needs to see some kind of verification of the experiments and that he has seen nothing convincing yet. He asked that the congress people facilitate this process if they could. He mentioned that F&P's palladium rods should be scientifically analyzed for excess helium. (He made a point of "excess", pointing out that there is some amount of helium everywhere). He also suggested that the F&P experiment be transported to a national lab (Los Alamos was suggested) so that it might be measured by another group. He made a point two times about Fleischman not wanting to talk about the light water control experiment. Furth obviously feels that something is being hidden. Ballinger was asked about the interest in the community at MIT. He replied that grad students and faculty have been trying to reproduce the results "24 hours a day - 7 days a week" since the original F&P announcement. They have seen nothing yet. He said that doesn't surprise given that they are working from data in the WSJ. (This seemed to me to be a sarcastic remark against F&P not being more open.) Furth also made some comments implying that F&P are not talking due to their concerns about getting to the patent rights to what they know. Maybe someone else can fill me in on what happened in the beginning part of the hearing. Paul Westenkirchner AT&T Bell Labs cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenpmw cudlnWestenkirchner cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Zap Savage / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: tim@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 27 Apr 89 17:44:35 GMT Organization: Savage Research In article michael@xanadu.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes: %In article <109@jetprod.uucp> zap@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage) writes: %> So.Cal can't afford to throw around water like that. %Sure it can. Extracting the water from sea water would less than %double the cost in duterium and palladium-or-whatever-usage. Oops, I forgot about that. Good point. %Better yet, you can design your duterium-extraction plants to use %salt water in and produce fresh water out at only a small additional %energy cost. This makes the the water essentially free. %The steam "exhaust" from a highway full of cars would raise the humidity %selectively in the populated areas of southern CA, producing dew or %mild evening showers. Better than sprinklers. No reason to throw the exhaust away, a closed system can be more efficient as long as you can get rid of the heat easily. I'd prefer a car that could drive thousands of miles without stopping for water every few hundred (or less) if I could get it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Zap Savage | | Savage Research "Where Quality Isn't Just A Word, It's A Noun" | | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any responsibility for the contents of anyone | | else's disclaimer. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy27 cudentim cudfnZap cudlnSavage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Zap Savage / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: tim@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 27 Apr 89 17:58:18 GMT Organization: Savage Research Organization: Savage Research In article <1800@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >I received the following message indirectly from an engineer at >a midwestern power company, with a request to post it, so I will. >================Message Text Follows================== [deleted] >=================End of message text=============================== >If the power companies believe that their monopoly is threatened by >practical small scale power generation, they are also likely to >react. On the other hand, I would suspect that they would embrace this >[supposed] technology if it works in large scale power generation. They might embrace it while disallowing the public to use it, if they can. The following is as I remember it, please correct me if wrong: SDG&E, here in San Diego, has stockholders and, as such, is entitled to a profit. However, a few years ago the Navy and some other large company (Rohr, I think) were going to switch over to inhouse power production and SDG&E fought it. They were going to continue charging the Navy and Rohr for equipment rental and power, even though they weren't buying any. Anybody hear anything about this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Zap Savage | | Savage Research "Where Quality Isn't Just A Word, It's A Noun" | | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any responsibility for the contents of anyone | | else's disclaimer. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Summary: Expires: References: <1800@anasaz.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: zap@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Savage Research Keywords: In article <1800@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >I received the following message indirectly from an engineer at >a midwestern power company, with a request to post it, so I will. >================Message Text Follows================== [deleted] >=================End of message text=============================== >If the power companies believe that their monopoly is threatened by >practical small scale power generation, they are also likely to >react. On the other hand, I would suspect that they would embrace this >[supposed] technology if it works in large scale power generation. They might embrace it while disallowing the public to use it, if they can. The following is as I remember it, please correct me if wrong: SDG&E, here in San Diego, has stockholders and, as such, is entitled to a profit. However, a few years ago the Navy and some other large company (Rohr, I think) were going to switch over to inhouse power production and SDG&E fought it. They were going to continue charging the Navy and Rohr for equipment rental and power, even though they weren't buying any. Anybody hear anything about this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Zap Savage | | Savage Research "Where Quality Isn't Just A Word, It's A Noun" | | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any responsibility for the contents of anyone | | else's disclaimer. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Zap Savage | | Savage Research "Where Quality Isn't Just A Word, It's A Noun" | | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any responsibility for the contents of anyone | | else's disclaimer. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy27 cudentim cudfnZap cudlnSavage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Zap Savage / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: tim@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 27 Apr 89 18:02:00 GMT Organization: Savage Research In article masticol@paul.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: >BTW, if someone wanted to block dissemination of the FP cell, >palladium, not deuterium, would be the obvious target for restriction. Not necessarily. There is some evidence that titanium could be used in place of palladium, and titanium is MUCH cheaper than palladium. It's also very available. We buy it every day (I work in a machine shop). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Zap Savage | | Savage Research "Where Quality Isn't Just A Word, It's A Noun" | | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any responsibility for the contents of anyone | | else's disclaimer. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy27 cudentim cudfnZap cudlnSavage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Jack Campin / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 26 Apr 89 13:02:06 GMT Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie, Unthank mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) wrote: > The Sahara is the way it is (a parched wasteland) because humans chopped > down all the trees for fuel. I have heard this claimed a few times recently on the net. Would someone who really knows what they're talking about like to comment? It sounds like the sort of wild assertion that might stem from a cult book, rather than the scientific consensus. If not more recently, the Sahara *must* have existed at the time the Mediterranean dried out, surely? Are there any fossil drainage systems known to exist under the sand? Pollen from drought-susceptible plants? What about the evolutionary evidence from diversity of desert organisms? What about archaeological evidence? - the Tassili frescoes seem to portray much the same ecosystem as now. (Yes, I know the Maghreb coastal fringe used to be more fertile than it is today. That's only a tiny part of the Sahara.) [ followups are directed to sci.environment ] -- Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6045 wk 041 556 1878 ho INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnCampin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Thant Tessman / big black paladium monolith Originally-From: thant@horus.SGI.COM (Thant Tessman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: big black paladium monolith Date: 27 Apr 89 17:39:29 GMT Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA It just hit me. Those big black monoliths in 2001 and 2010 being dumped into Jupiter were big hunks of paladium! thant@sgi.com cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenthant cudfnThant cudlnTessman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Elias Israel / Re: Fusion: Panacea or Problem Originally-From: eli@haddock.ima.isc.com (Elias Israel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion: Panacea or Problem Date: 25 Apr 89 22:08:00 GMT Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston In article <15444@bellcore.bellcore.com> perry@bellcore.com (Perry E Metzger) writes: > >What annoys me about Rifkin and Company is that they don't seem to >realize that, in spite of everything, modern technology HAS made the >lives of millions far better. Anyone who wants to go back to, say, the >good old days of the early 19th century, when people died of simple >infections, thousands died in cholera epidemics, there was no indoor >plumbing or central heat, thousands died in "developed" countries from >famines, etc, is more than welcome to. Indeed. In fact, as has been said many times before, advancing the state of technology has an effect quite opposite from the one that Rifkin and company would have us believe, especially when one is talking about the three basic technologies (energy, information, and transportation). The tendancy is towards ever more efficient use of the materials of production and ever smaller effects on the environment. Contrast today's skies in the city with those of London in the 18th century. At that time, people commonly suffered from vitamin D deficiency because the coal dust was so thick in the air that insufficient sunlight fell on their skin to produce the vitamin. A species of moth that had previously used its light coloration to hide on the bark of lightly colored trees evolved to use dark coloration because the soot deposits on the trees were so heavy. The claims of increased human population growth are also bogus. Historically, the birth rate of a particular country or region falls as the per capita income reaches a particular threshold. Usually, however, the death rate falls off well before the threshold is reached, causing a near-term population increase. Unless the per capita income eventually rises, the lower death rate causes population to continue to expand. Seen in this light, a radical decrease in the price of energy could be expected to cause a decrease in human population growth, rather than an increase. (It also, by the way, tells you why hand outs in the form of IMF loans and direct grants have never worked and will never work). People interested in continuing this may write me. This discussion doesn't really belong here in the first place, but I felt that I had to add my voice in protest to the incomparable lack of sensitivity and disregard for history that Rifkin and the others in his camp express. Elias Israel | "Justice, n. A commodity which in more or Interactive Systems Corp. | less adulterated condition the State sells Boston, MA | to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, ..!ima!haddock!eli | taxes, and personal service." | -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_ cudkeys: cuddy25 cudeneli cudfnElias cudlnIsrael cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / J Townsend / Re: Quality of news coverage Originally-From: erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Quality of news coverage Date: 27 Apr 89 17:04:46 GMT Organization: Fusion-Chem-Info-Med-Data-Bio-Net-Tech-Quik, Inc. (Ltd.) In article <1311@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes: [...] >It's not so much that the "journalist" would >make a mistake like that, that's not so unexpected. What is amazing is >the fact that they obviously didn't even ask a scientist to proofread the >article for SPELLING mistakes, much less try to see if they got their >facts straight. When interviewing a science-type, I always ask if they'll look over it to make sure of the facts. However... A friend of mine (technical writer/author) got a call from a reporter who wanted to know the "atomic weight of asbestos". Go figure. -- If you're not using UNIX, you're just using an operating system... J. Eric Townsend Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu 511 Parker #2 Houston,Tx,77007 EastEnders Mailing List: eastender@flatline.UUCP cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenerict cudfnJ cudlnTownsend cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / p westenkirchne / Congressional Hearing Originally-From: pmw@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (paul.m.westenkirchner) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Congressional Hearing Date: 27 Apr 89 15:27:12 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories ( this was written Wedneday April 26 at ~10:30 CDT - I've had trouble getting it posted ) Someone asked a while back for net readers to go out as "reporters" and see what real fusion scientists think about cold fusion. I just finished watching the end of a CSPAN telecast of a 4/26 congressional subcommittee hearing where they accepted testimony from Jones of BYU, Furth of Princeton, Ballinger of MIT, Saltmarsh (?) from Oak Ridge and someone from Illinois. I must admit that I have only been loosely following what's going on in these newsgroups, but found it interesting that the overall tone about the UU results was extremely skeptical. The congress people are trying to figure out what they should be funding. Apparently, some UU folks had asked for immediate high level funding and even made comments about buying fusion powered Japanese cars if we don't act right away. (I missed the UU part of the testimony). Furth was saying that he needs to see some kind of verification of the experiments and that he has seen nothing convincing yet. He asked that the congress people facilitate this process if they could. He mentioned that F&P's palladium rods should be scientifically analyzed for excess helium. (He made a point of "excess", pointing out that there is some amount of helium everywhere). He also suggested that the F&P experiment be transported to a national lab (Los Alamos was suggested) so that it might be measured by another group. He made a point two times about Fleischman not wanting to talk about the light water control experiment. Furth obviously feels that something is being hidden. Ballinger was asked about the interest in the community at MIT. He replied that grad students and faculty have been trying to reproduce the results "24 hours a day - 7 days a week" since the original F&P announcement. They have seen nothing yet. He said that doesn't surprise given that they are working from data in the WSJ. (This seemed to me to be a sarcastic remark against F&P not being more open.) Furth also made some comments implying that F&P are not talking due to their concerns about getting to the patent rights to what they know. Maybe someone else can fill me in on what happened in the beginning part of the hearing. Paul Westenkirchner AT&T Bell Labs cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenpmw cudfnpaul cudlnwestenkirchner cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Greg Lindahl / Re: Population Explosion and Cold Fusion Originally-From: gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Population Explosion and Cold Fusion Date: 27 Apr 89 21:03:56 GMT Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, University of Virginia In article <5008@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> daveme@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Dave Mead) writes: >In article <1cDkD29Q8H10104Ml8U@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, sbf10@uts.amdahl.com (Samuel Fuller) writes: >> Are they still teaching that population explosion garbage? >> >> How can cheap energy make more babies? >If you don't believe in the population crisis you need to go where people >aren't supposed to be and take a long hard look. Mr. Fuller may have been referring to the theory of Malthus that people have more kids when times are good. This hasn't happened in the past. An increased standard of living results in a lower population growth rate. Thus, if cold fusion works, there is no indication that it will make the population explosion _worse_ -- rather, by raising standards of living, it will help reduce population growth rates. ------ Greg Lindahl | gl8f@virginia.{edu,bitnet} | Veraj Programistoj ne uzas PASCAL-on cudkeys: cuddy27 cudengl8f cudfnGreg cudlnLindahl cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / S Millington / Re: wireless electricity Originally-From: phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: wireless electricity Date: 27 Apr 89 12:24:10 GMT Organization: Oh Well! There have been recent sugestions that a satellite in a geostationary orbit could use a high power microwave transmitter to transmit power to earth, this would mean that the solar cells picked up more light than they would on earth. However the microwave beam, when it reached earth, would require something like a square mile of recievers.(The thing in orbit would be more like a massive pannel than a satellite). There is another problem, in that people flying through the beam, in planes, might - possibly get slightly cooked. This goes for birds too! There is also the problem of the beam going off aim and cooking a few housing estates. It is possible it would work, but it may not. Stuart Millington. University Of Warwick.(Don't let my ideas ALTER their reputation). cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenphupp cudfnS cudlnMillington cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Sam RCD / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: samlb@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Sam Bassett RCD) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 27 Apr 89 21:12:23 GMT Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center I know that John Markoff, presently with the New York Times (formerly with InfoWorld & other odd places) has an account on the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (WELL) in Sausalito CA -- and probably other places. He is to be trusted to know what he is talking about, unlike most other "straight" journalists (as distinct from the trade press types). Sam'l Bassett, Sterling Software @ NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field CA 94035 Work: (415) 694-4792; Home: (415) 454-7282 samlb%well@lll-crg.ARPA samlb@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov := 'Sterling doesn't _have_ opinions -- much less NASA!' cudkeys: cuddy27 cudensamlb cudfnSam cudlnRCD cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / commgrp@silver / Re: Terraforming Arizona (repost due to Originally-From: commgrp@silver.bacs.indiana.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Terraforming Arizona (repost due to Date: 27 Apr 89 22:54:00 GMT Organization: Indiana University CSCI, Bloomington >...How much steam would be required to terraform >Arizona? I would define this as raising the average rainfall from >its current 6 inches a year to approximately 18 inches a year. >-- >Kevin Wayne Williams > UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk If "cold" fusion can be used to make radiationless nuclear explosives, the easiest way to terraform Arizona might be to blow away a section of the Rocky Mountains, which block moist Pacific air. (Pacify the Californians by dumping the rubble in the ocean to make more L.A. real estate. Lex Luthor would love it! :^). It's thought that Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico predates the rise of the Rockies; there was a lot more water in that area then. -- Frank Reid NSS 9086 W9MKV @ K9IU reidgold.bacs.indiana.edu {inuxc,rutgers,uunet!uiucdcs,pur-ee}!iuvax!silver!commgrp cudkeys: cuddy27 cudencommgrp cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / David Pugh / Re: Population Explosion and Cold Fusion Originally-From: dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Population Explosion and Cold Fusion Date: 27 Apr 89 23:21:59 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI In article daveme@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Dave Mead) writes: >If you don't believe in the population crisis you need to go where people >aren't supposed to be and take a long hard look. .... Actually, cold fusion may be the best thing there is for curbing population growth. Someone once suggested that wealth makes the best contraceptive and demographics seem to indicate that it is true. One of the basic reason for this is that, in many poorer regions, it is "cost effective" to have as many children as possible: they provide cheap labor, social security and insurance. In wealthier regions, there is a penalty to having too many children because the limit on the amount of food which can be grown tends to be limited by the available machinery & land, not the number of workers. If cold fusion works and it is cheap enough to be widely used, I think we will see the population drop. -- ... He was determined to discover the David Pugh underlying logic behind the universe. ...!seismo!cmucspt!ius!dep Which was going to be hard, because there wasn't one. _Mort_, Terry Pratchett -- cudkeys: cuddy27 cudendep cudfnDavid cudlnPugh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Paul Chisholm / Re: Fusion mechanisms Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion mechanisms Date: 27 Apr 89 13:33:48 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article <1989Apr26.085803.17209@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > . . . why did they report He4 being produced at Utah, but not He3? > > Assuming the measurement was correct, one slight possibility is that > He3 quickly reacts with deuterium in Pd by the reaction He3+D-->He4+P. > If so, protons are recycled, and the net reaction D+D-->He4 actually > occurs in two steps. >... > One implication of this is that would be lots of fairly energetic > (14 MeV) protons flying around inside the palladium. These might > produce neutrons by (p,n) reactions. Yes, well, that'd explain all the He4; but what about the unexpectedly low neutron flux? The reaction chain you suggest would generate *more* neutrons than a straight H2 + H2 --> He3 + n + energy reaction, but *less* (far less) neutrons have been detected. >Paul F. Dietz, dietz@cs.rochester.edu Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Wadyko / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: jpw@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Wadyko) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 27 Apr 89 16:02:01 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois In article <10716@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> khearn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Keith Hearn) writes: >In article <10615@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes: >>I don't think it would be necessary to place a fusion reactor in every car. >>If fusion makes electricity cheap enough, use it to get hydrogen from water, >>and run cars on that. > > >I hear Detroit already has a model on the drawing boards. They're calling > it the "Hindenburg". :-) > >Seriously, gasoline is very flammible, and mildly explosive (despite what > Hollywood would have us believe) in liquid form. Hydrogen, however, is > *highly* explosive. Would you want to drive a car that had to display > an explosive gas warning sign at all times? We can make hydrogen powered > cars now, but they just aren't safe in an accident. > >Keith Hearn The safety drawbacks of hydrogen are done away with in most respects when it can be stored in hydride form. The major attraction of hydride stores in a road vehicle is that the volume required is no larger than for liquid hydrogen with a considerable improvement in safety. Other problems of weight and high price of the host metals spring up but there are prototype systems under development. The effects of high powered rifle bullets on such a prototype hydride storage system were far less dramatic than on an existing gasoline vehicle storage tank. This was shown on a PBS special program dealing with hydrogen as a future possible ultimate fuel and energy storage medium. As to the time required to refill the storage system, I think the program went in to the fact that it could be hours. However, you would go to your local hydrogen station and have your tank replaced with a full one. The station would then refill your tank for transfer to some other vehicle. -- ____ _______ _____ _______ ------- Joseph P. Wadyko / __ \ |__ __| / _ \ |__ __| -====------ Information Systems | (__) | | | \ \ \_\ | | -======------ Staff Member | __ | | | / \ __ | | --====------- ihlpf!jpw IH 4A-160 x4560 | | | | | | | (\ / / | | ----------- AT&T Network Systems |_| |_| |_| \_____/ |_| ------- Naperville, IL cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjpw cudlnWadyko cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / D Dyer-Bennet / Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Originally-From: ddb@ns.network.com (David Dyer-Bennet) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Date: 27 Apr 89 16:17:01 GMT Organization: Terrabit Software In article <17597@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: :F&P claim neutron flux a billion times smaller than expected, given :the heat. Is it reasonable to expect the discovery of RTF and a new :fusion reaction simultaneously? I couldn't let this one go by. To the extent that it's reasonable to have "beliefs" and "opinions" about the real world -- expecting that room temperature fusion proceeds by an unexpected reaction is pretty reasonable. If it proceeded by a traditional reaction, it wouldn't have come as a surprise to us. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ddb@terrabit.fidonet.org, or ddb@ns.network.com or ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb or ...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb or Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 9600hst/2400/1200/300 cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenddb cudfnDavid cudlnDyer-Bennet cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / John Logajan / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 27 Apr 89 23:00:02 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN Mitsuharu Hadeishi writes: > My coworker mentioned he had seen a technology for storing > hydrogen fuel that dramtically reduced explosion problems. They > showed someone shooting a rifle at a gasoline tank and one of > these continainers filled with hydrogen fuel. The gas tank > exploded, of course, but the hydrogen container only burned a > little bit . . . apparently this problem is solvable. If I recall, that was a NOVA show of some years back on the Hindenburg Society. These guys were proponents of H2 as an energy transmission method -- i.e. pipelines, storage, and use instead of electrical transmission lines. They used H2 in their home ovens, in their cars (stored in metal hydrides, I recall nickel being mentioned) and other uses. As far as burning/exploding, I think they showed that H2 has a smaller fuel/air combustion ratio window than gasoline or natural gas -- so it is safer in that regard, too. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / James Benz / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: jcbst3@cisunx.UUCP (James C. Benz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 27 Apr 89 20:27:14 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys In article michael@xanadu.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes: >The steam "exhaust" from a highway full of cars would raise the humidity >selectively in the populated areas of southern CA, producing dew or >mild evening showers. Better than sprinklers. Oh no. I can just hear it now. The Bathroom Effect. Global humidity rises due to increased amounts of water vapor in the air, clouds blanket the Earth. We all lose our tan. Rear view mirrors are useless. The Mojave Desert is put under the plow. Sauna bath manufacturers go out of business bringing on economic collapse throughout most of Scandinavia. Etc. -- Jim Benz jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu If a modem University of Pittsburgh answers, UCIR (412) 648-5930 hang up! cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjcbst3 cudfnJames cudlnBenz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Michael McClary / Re: Stirling engines & fusion, rev. 2 Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.space,rec.autos.tech Subject: Re: Stirling engines & fusion, rev. 2 Date: 27 Apr 89 13:36:26 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <1989Apr25.132913.1300@mntgfx.mentor.com> mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts @ APD x1302) describes stirling engines of the crankshaft kind. There is another that is interesting: This sort has a fixed cylinder, a displacer piston mounted to the power piston by a spring, a strong magnet mounted on the power piston, and coils mounted on the cylinder. The mass of the displacer piston and the spring tying it to the power piston form a simple harmonic oscilator, and at its resonant frequency the displacer lags the power piston by 90 degrees. Once you apply a temperature difference, initial small vibrations at the resonant frequency become amplified by the engine, making it self-starting. The magnet and coil form an alternator, and power is efficiently extracted as electricity. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Michael McClary / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 27 Apr 89 13:52:36 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <5419@videovax.tv.tek.com> bill@videovax.tv.tek.com.UUCP (William K. McFadden) writes: >In article <1563@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> ins_anmy@jhunix.UUCP (Norman Yarvin) writes: >>stuff, and a tank of gasoline. The hydrogen burned at both entrance and >>exit holes with a strong blue flame; the gas tank exploded. > ^^^^ >Is this right? I thought hydrogen flames were invisible to the naked eye. But not to the naked film camera, which is why you need an ultraviolet filter to make your outdoor pictures look right. (I'd assume the same is true of video cameras as well. Also: much TV starts from film, for ease of editing.) cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Michael McClary / A speculation on how D+D -> (4)He might happen. Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: A speculation on how D+D -> (4)He might happen. Date: 27 Apr 89 15:43:32 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA Consider a pair of duterium nuclei trapped in a potential well in a crystal, at a distance where tunneling is becoming possible. They could be viewed as a helium-4 nucleus in a very excited state. Suppose some of the transitions from this excited state toward the ground state are capable of stimulated emission. Now suppose there are many such "excited helium-4 nuclei" held closely together and relatively still with respect to each other by the surrounding crystal. What you have is an inverted population suitable for LASER amplification. If the crystal is sufficiently large, a single photon from a spontaneous emission or some other source could be massively amplified (a "superradiant laser", i.e. one with so much gain you don't need a mirror cavity), causing many of the nuclei to relax to a lower state. Part of the energy of each transition goes into the laser pulse, and part into the recoil of the nucleus. The recoil is translated to heat as the nucleus "rattles around" in the crystal, and the nucleus rapidly comes to rest, ready to take another step toward ground-state (4)He. Once some of the excess binding energy has been lost to a photon in this way, it must be replaced for the proto-nucleus to fission back to a pair of deuterium nuclei. This commits the nucleus to fusion (though not necessarily to (4)He). At this point the decay to ground state could be completed by many small photon- emitting steps (not necessarily all stimulated by matching photons). If this effect exists, you wouldn't see much of it in a plasma. The extreme thermal motion would doppler-shift the photons until they rarely matched the band-gap, and wouldn't stimulate emission. Thus, plasma fusion would be biased toward reactions where the excess energy is carried off by one of the nuclear particles in a single event. (D+D -> T+H, D+D -> (3)He+n) It would also predict that thin sheets of material, and perhaps material with small crystals, would have less coupling for stimulated emission. This would both reduce the fusion enhancement and bias the reaction toward T+H and (3)He+n. (Anybody out there know enough about the shell structure of (4)He to tell me if this is a plausible mechanism?) (And apologies to Hagelstein if this is what he's talking about in his "optical phonon" or "coherent fusion" papers, which I haven't seen yet, or to others who may have already posted a similar idea.) cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Michael McClary / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 27 Apr 89 13:24:34 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article masticol@paul.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: >BTW, if someone wanted to block dissemination of the FP cell, >palladium, not deuterium, would be the obvious target for restriction. We've seen reports that say the reaction also goes in titanium, with the implication that it may go in other materials. Titanium is too widely used to easily ban. On the other hand, reports so far seem to indicate that protium doesn't work. This, combined with its lack of uses outside the nuclear industry and bio research, makes concentrated duterium oxide the logical candidate for new controlled substance laws. Much of the legal and remote-sensing technology from whiskey tax enforcement would transfer, and BATF already has the necessary attitude (rabid). During the research phase, garage-mechanic fusion hacking would be greatly hindered by restrictions on availability of known-quality D2O. The hacker would have the additional problem of making his own (illegal) concentration apparatus, and the greater problem of assaying its output. (Once the technology is in place, R&D and production become separated.) (I've been wondering if the government would get this bee into its bonnet since details of the F&P announcement. Anybody want to take bets?) Would you call a D2O bootlegger a "sunshiner"? B-) cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Donald Benson / Re: gonzo science Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: gonzo science Date: 27 Apr 89 18:29:59 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino If fusion experiments were limited to people who understand how it is supposed to work, they would only be done with lasers and particle accelerators. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy27 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Dave Spain / alt.fusion vs sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: spain@Alliant.COM (Dave Spain) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics,news.groups Subject: alt.fusion vs sci.physics.fusion Date: 26 Apr 89 17:39:29 GMT Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA I just wanted to expression my opinion that there is probably a need for BOTH a moderated fusion newsgroup (for "hard" news and info about fusion) and an alt group where people are free to speculate. I would vote for a moderated sci.physics.fusion as long as we can keep alt.fusion for speculators. If we can't get a moderator then I propose we either dump the sci.physics.fusion idea or allow it to be as open as alt.fusion. I hope this posting is not considered to be raising the noise level in alt.fusion or sci.physics. I merely wanted to express my support with what others have already said, and this is all I'm going to say on the subject. If someone is collecting views on this feel free to copy this article for yourself, AND LET US KNOW SO THAT WE CAN EMAIL YOU INSTEAD OF POSTING! Dave Spain cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenspain cudfnDave cudlnSpain cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Jonathan Quist / Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 27 Apr 89 19:49:57 GMT Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, Il. In article <1989Apr26.083259.15315@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <1799@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > >>I have yet to find a place that even knows of a place that actually >>casts palladium. > >I've seen a reference to a British company called "Metal Crystals and >Oxides" that makes single crystals of palladium. I suspect these are >cast in some fashion. If they're single crystals, they are most likely grown, rather than cast. Jonathan E. Quist Lachman Associates, Inc. There. Try and take this one out of context for flamage. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjeq cudfnJonathan cudlnQuist cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Lord Snooty / Re: big black paladium monolith Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: big black paladium monolith Date: 28 Apr 89 07:30:42 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <31511@sgi.SGI.COM>, thant@horus.SGI.COM (Thant Tessman) writes: > > It just hit me. Those big black monoliths in 2001 and 2010 being dumped > into Jupiter were big hunks of paladium! and the claws of freddy kruger are pure Pd. and mickey mouses's balls. please redirect to dev/-1 cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenandrew cudfnLord cudlnSnooty cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / Jim Meritt / Re: alt.fusion in the news Originally-From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: alt.fusion in the news Date: 26 Apr 89 12:49:17 GMT Organization: JHU-Applied Physics Laboratory In article <295@eplrx7.UUCP> wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) writes: }From article <39004@bbn.COM>, by cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell): }> }> Anyone know how NPR heard about us? [do they have a feed?]. Also, anyone }> know how the *researchers* are staying in touch --- we've been told that most }> of the obvious places (LANL, etc) coupled with a BUNCH of other places are }> all madly doing one thing or another.... do they talk to one another? }> } The reporter for the NPR piece, Richard Harris, has appeared on the net. }I think he gets his feed from Columbia in NYC. } } Many researchers in the physical sciences are still not conversant with }networks and computers for other than numerical computations. They often use }the telephone and national or local conferences (e.g., the American Physical }Society Spring Meeting in Baltimore next week). >finger pons@chemistry.utah.edu [chemistry.utah.edu] [PONS] B. Stanley Pons last logged in 24-APR-1989 07:57:45.35. B. Stanley Pons has no new mail. No Plan: .................................................................. 128.110.192.61 chemistry.utah.edu .................................................................. The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenjwm cudfnJim cudlnMeritt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Robert Woodhead / Re: Cold Fusion Experiments Repeated in China Originally-From: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Experiments Repeated in China Date: 28 Apr 89 04:13:45 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. In article <7833@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> zqli@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Zhenqin Li) writes: >The Utah cold fusion experiments have been "confirmed" by >two groups of Chinese scientists, a recent issue of "People's >Daily" claims. They are quoted as having detected production >of neutrons at a rate of about 100 per second. Yeah, well you know how it is with Chinese Neutrons: An hour after you detect them, you want to go back and detect some more! ;^) -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. ...!uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The NY Times is read by the people who run the country. The Washington Post is read by the people who think they run the country. The National Enquirer is read by the people who think Elvis is alive and running the country..." cudkeys: cuddy28 cudentrebor cudfnRobert cudlnWoodhead cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Lord Head / Power/Weight Ratios, Costs, etc. Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Power/Weight Ratios, Costs, etc. Date: 28 Apr 89 09:51:20 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara A recent announcement on what may be the best power/weight ratio to date is the nickel hydride battery, which provides about 0.2 MJ/ Kg. Note that this is not inordinately disparate from F&P's (speculative) 5 MJ/cc or 400 MJ/Kg, which must be downgraded by the heat/electrical conversion efficiency (say 10%). Say 200:1 vs. the battery, excluding the weight of the conversion equipment, whatever it may be. The batteries price at about $185/ MJ. Neglecting F&P conversion equipment costs (and Pd @ $150/oz, free D) gives about $10/ MJ minimum. In reality, the figures are much more nearly equal. The battery power density is about 150W/ Kg. F&P speculate 1000W/cc or 80 KW/ Kg. This, via a conversion at 10% efficiency, and neglecting the weight of the conversion equipment, is about 50:1 better. The battery market is estimated at about $2 billion. cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenandrew cudfnLord cudlnHead cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / D Collier-Brown / Re: One month without knowing?!?! Originally-From: dave@lethe.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: One month without knowing?!?! Date: 26 Apr 89 15:31:20 GMT Organization: Interleaf Canada, News courtesy of Systems Software In article <4802@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: > >It seems we would know for sure by now whether or not fusion was the >source of the heat in the Fleischmann/Pons experiment if they had released >all of the information they had when they made the press announcement one >month ago. [...] >>So, as I see it, there is no reason to keep on withholding the details of >their experiment. Am I missing something? > > Vince Cate > vac@cs.cmu.edu Well, perhaps a small point. They probably **think** they've mentioned everything important in the paper (which I'm bogged down in...), but have not managed to indicate the implied context in which it occurred. Back in WWII, the British complained bitterly that the Americans were sending them bogus plans and information on microwave radar, as they could not reproduce the U.S. expeiments. The Americans even shipped them working klystrons, which worked **until they were taken apart** and then failed. The British were remarkably pissed off: it looked like the 'merkins were playing nasty games. It turned out that the klystrons only worked if you violently over-torqued the bolts which held them together, thus distorting the parts into the correct shape. The Americans just assumed that everyone tuned them with a 6' johnson bar (:-)). --dave c-b -- David Collier-Brown, | {toronto area...}lethe!dave 72 Abitibi Ave., | Joyce C-B: Willowdale, Ontario, | He's so smart he's dumb. CANADA. 223-8968 | cudkeys: cuddy26 cudendave cudfnDave cudlnCollier-Brown cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Gregory KAAN / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: kaan@munnari.oz (Gregory KAAN) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 27 Apr 89 04:32:03 GMT Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia in article <11420@well.UUCP>, mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) says: > > My coworker mentioned he had seen a technology for storing > hydrogen fuel that dramtically reduced explosion problems. They [stuff deleted] The mechanism described is probably the use of metallic hydrides to store the H2. The main problem with this process is that a large amount of heat is generated as the hydrogen is absorbed. This then requires internal cooling of the tank during the filling process. Conversely, cheap air-conditioning is available since the tank needs to be reheated to extract the stored hydrogen. Mercedes-Benz is probably the leading researcher in the field of hydrogen powered cars at the moment although our university was at the forefront of this field until the government cut funding several years ago :-(. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenkaan cudfnGregory cudlnKAAN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.26 / John Hayward / Re: Czirr Fermi Lab talk (was Submission for Alt.fusion) Originally-From: johnh@wheaton.UUCP (John Doc Hayward) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Czirr Fermi Lab talk (was Submission for Alt.fusion) Date: 26 Apr 89 07:03:49 GMT Organization: Wheaton College, Wheaton Il In article <8904220135.AA28662@ames.arc.nasa.gov> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: >COLLOQUIUM >Tuesday, 25 April >Fermilab Auditorium >4 PM > "Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter" > Prof. Bart Czirr > (one of Steve Jones's gang) > Brigham Young University Well this sounded like an interesting colloquium to attend so I attended. Here are some impressions which may not be accurate but may be of interest to the group. The First disappoint was the actual talk title was something like "Neutron detection in Cold Fusion". The second was at the offset of the talk the host introduced the speaker indicating that the talk would not be about cold fusion in general. Czirr indicated he had been working in neutron detection for 28 years. The bulk of the talk was describing the detector which is a low resolution spectrometer based on the coincidence calorimeter principle which requires a two signals from each neutron that is accepted. One signal was used to measure the energy the other was to verify it was a neutron as opposed to a gamma ray (based on the pulse shape of the capture in the glass). The reason its resolution is so low is that the neutron has about 6-12 collisions (to get its energy measurement) before it slows down to thermal speeds and is adsorbed by the glass (to verify it was a neutron). The signal for each collision is non-linear in terms of energy and this is the reason the energy resolution is low. The calibration was done using a Vandegraph (sp?) generator which unfortunately had a wall near the source so 'room return' tended to get in the way of the peak they were trying to measure. They have been given permission to use a cleaner set up with a false floor at Los Alamos for better calibration. The background included both neutrons and gamma rays were present. Most of the background is due to the cement environment of the lab. 800 lbs of pennies were used for shielding because lead bricks tend to be contamination. He had a slide showing the background which had been collected over 200 hours without the fusion cell. A 10 percent variation was observed. He indicated that the foreground signal was close to size of the background. The detector efficiency was determined to be 10 percent and the solid angle for the cell is also about 10 percent so the over all efficiency is 1 percent. With a background of 4 measured per hour the cell mush have generate 400 neutrons per hour in order to have a foreground to background signal ratio of 1 to 1. He indicated there there are 5 potential detectors: 1) a boron plastic containing detector made by Bicron(sp?) but does not work well in the 2.5 MEV neutrons; 2) Nuclear Interprises (sp?) Lithium liquid detector which seems good but does not use the dual signal method; 3) He3 proportional counters which are inefficiency but had higher resolution; 4) Los Alamos has a 'log cabin' plastic detector which has not yet but could possibly be adapted to low energy neutrons; 5) A liquid detector like Ne213 which may not work in a cement lined lab due to bad background conditions. He indicated that in Italy they are using this detector and indicated that it may be that because in Italy they are located in a mountain which neutrons cause by cosmic rays are not present and the lab is not constructed with low gamma background. Resolution is the area he is working on in the future by using different materials in the detector it may be possible to get a higher resolution detector. He then indicated this was the end of the talk. When asked if he would present the foreground data he said this was the first of a two part presentation and he did not want to steal the thunder from Jones who would be talking at Argonne on May 5th. Reflections: At the end of the talk many people were disappointed due to lack of any foreground data presented. I have more doubts now that I more fully understand how the BYU group detected the neutrons. It seems to me that a 1 to 1 foreground to background with a new detector would leave plenty of room for possible mistakes. I would prefer a larger signal to noise ratio. It seems that if the neutron count is as low as they think they should do some measurements away from the concrete which seems to contribute to the background or connect up larger or more cells to get a clearer indication. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= UUCP: (obdient spl1)!wheaton!johnh telephone: (312) 260-3871 (office) Mail: John Hayward Math/Computer Science Dept. Wheaton College Wheaton Il 60187 Act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8b cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenjohnh cudfnJohn cudlnHayward cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Paul Dietz / Re: Fusion mechanisms Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion mechanisms Date: 28 Apr 89 11:22:25 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <2834@pegasus.ATT.COM> psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: >> One implication of this is that would be lots of fairly energetic >> (14 MeV) protons flying around inside the palladium. These might >> produce neutrons by (p,n) reactions. > >Yes, well, that'd explain all the He4; but what about the unexpectedly >low neutron flux? The reaction chain you suggest would generate *more* ^^^^ >neutrons than a straight H2 + H2 --> He3 + n + energy reaction ... Nonsense. It would generate fewer neutrons than (d,n) reactions on deuterium, since most of the energetic protons would not undergo nuclear reactions before being stopped. However, it would probably make too many gamma rays from (p,p+gamma) reactions (see D. Bailey's preprint). Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / caulkins@cdp.U / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 27 Apr 89 19:41:00 GMT I've been talking again to my nuclear engineer friend. I asked him if he saw any mechanism for using F/P type cold fusion for producing bombs. He said he thought it unlikely, but by no means impossible. In any case where a lot of energy can be derived from a small amount of material he believes that ways can be invented to get it out quickly and produce an explosion. If cheap and/or easy cold fusion bombs with yields above a kiloton become practical, the bad results of cold fusion are all too likely to swamp the good ones. Request: Please don't speculate here or in any other public medium about thoughts you may have for doing this . Some net-connected nut might just get a few megabucks from one of the many rich fanatics in the world to try your scheme. Dave C cudkeys: cuddy27 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / 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: 27 Apr 89 16:04:00 GMT Heavy Water at Savannah River There are 3 HW plants at the DOE facility in Savannah River, each with a capacity of 200 metric tons (MT)/yr; total 600 MT/Yr. 2 were shut down in the 60's, and the 3rd in Jan of 82. Savannah River has 1600 MT of D2O in storage. Of this about 200 MT is pure D2O, and the remaining 1400 MT is tritiated. The problem with tritiated D2O is that it is radioactive and requires special handling. The US Government does not sell D2O because it is necessary for the building and maintenance of H-bombs, and because the plants are shut down and the present stocks are all they've got. Dave C cudkeys: cuddy27 cudencaulkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Paul Dietz / Walling/Simons paper; p+d fusion Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Walling/Simons paper; p+d fusion Date: 28 Apr 89 11:55:04 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY I was just looking over the Walling/Simons preprint. Aside from the problems with bremmstrahlung from internal conversion electrons, and their overestimate of the time needed for the compound nucleus to break up, note something else. In p+d fusion, the rate is so slow because the compound nucleus must quickly emit a gamma before it breaks apart again into a proton and a deuteron. This rarely happens. However, if there is some magic mechanism for quickly removing the energy (as there would have to be, if He4 is not to break up), p+d fusion should be sped up enormously, perhaps by a factor of several hundred thousand, over and above its advantage due to its lower reduced mass. Pons and Fleischmann should be seeing perhaps millions of times more He3 than He4. I find it interesting that P&F have apparently been equivocal about heat production from normal water, and have said that power levels might reach 1000 W/cc (this is about 50x what they claim from 99.5% D2O, and would be the output expected from 50% D2O, if p+d fusion is dominant). Maybe they are trying for a patent on the idea of the p+d reaction? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Chris Langford / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: langford@reed.UUCP (Chris Langford) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 27 Apr 89 17:03:41 GMT Organization: Eric & Jackie's Billiard Parlor In article <11401@bcsaic.UUCP> paula@bcsaic.UUCP (Paul Allen) writes: >Until the WPPS fiasco, the Pacific Northwest was blessed with ^^^^ That's WPPSS (pronounced Whoops!). -- Chris Langford {backbone}!tektronix!reed!langford -or- langford@reed.bitnet "Life is full of surprises when you're up th' stream of consciousness without a paddle..." -Zippy the Pinhead- cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenlangford cudfnChris cudlnLangford cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Prem Sobel / Re: big black paladium monolith Originally-From: prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: big black paladium monolith Date: 28 Apr 89 14:38:46 GMT Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA In article <31511@sgi.SGI.COM> thant@horus.SGI.COM (Thant Tessman) writes: >It just hit me. Those big black monoliths in 2001 and 2010 being dumped >into Jupiter were big hunks of paladium! Does that explain the apparent coincidence of the date of P&F's announcement, March 23, being the same as the closest approach of that recent asteroid??? Prem cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Marc Edgar / Re: I would like to see engineers... Originally-From: med@pawl.rpi.edu (Marc T Edgar) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: I would like to see engineers... Date: 28 Apr 89 16:27:17 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY In article <144@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) writes: >Because of the potentially high power/weight ratio of cold fusion - >1000 W/Kg - just unprecedentedly brain-numbingly good - I really would >like to see some postings on 3D transport here. What, for example are >current power/weight ratios for electric fans? Enquiring floaters need >to know! The following information is not to be taken as gospel but here it is.( (If you bug me enough I will be happy to start digging in my files for the exact numbers) Electric motors can have power to weight ratios in the range of 4 to 7 lbs per horsepower with 80% to 93% efficiency. Stirling Engines can be 15% to 25% percent efficient and would have high wieght to power ratios. The thrust from a fan varies a lot but you might be able to get 30 lbs per horsepower. I haven't seen any good articles on the prediction of the thrust vs. horsepower so this is partly a guestimate. If you have a really high power to weight ratio you might be able to start using the earths magnetic fields, but I doubt it. Happy flights of mind. Marc Edgar 9 Terrace Pl Troy, NY 12180 med@pawl.rpi.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenmed cudfnMarc cudlnEdgar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / FORMAN / It is real! Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Originally-From: "FORMAN, RICHARD" Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: fusion talk from Dresden Subject: It is real! Date: 28 Apr 89 15:51:45 GMT Date: 27 Apr 89 17:30:00 EDT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas I am posting this at the request of Dick Forman. I have edited the line breaks slightly to enhance readability. **************************************************** Date: 27 Apr 89 17:30:00 EDT Originally-From: "FORMAN, RICHARD" Subject: It is real! To: "ethan" Status: RO Post this if you want. I don't even know how to find, much less read the bulletin board(s). A group at the Technical University of Dresden E. Germany reported today at the Conference "50 Years with Nuclear Fission" held first at the National Academy of Sciences and now (starting today) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly NBS) that they had seen the neutrons first reported by Utah people. They used palladium thick foils of various sizes and reported all the relevant exptl. data. In the energy range between 2 and 3 MeV using an NE213 detector of 5" diameter and 1.5" thick with good shielding and something called n, gamma discrimination against cosmic rays, they found in a twenty hour expt. that with the electrochemical cell they had 634 counts, without 511 counts for a final result of 20 + or - 5 counts per hour. The error is only the statistical one. The paper was well received by an audience of world class nuclear physicists and the presenter whose name I missed because I came in too late, was clearly a careful nuclear physicist whose presentation was quite convincing. I asked whether any other product could have been expected to give the results he got and he basically said a careful no. He used BF3, geiger-Muller, Plastic Scintillators, NaI(Tl), and a stilbeen (spelling ??) scintillator. Had hourly data which he said had expected scatter. Doesn't yet know anything about kinetics of reaction as data is one hour summation samples. Does not appear to be background limited expt. and I am sure it is still continuing at Dresden. Paper listed as submitted April 1989 to J. Electroanalytical --probably because half of team of about 10 people are electrochemists. Dick Forman forman@ecf.icst.nbs.gov (I think/hope) or Dick Forman NIST A61 Technology Building Gaithersburg, MD 20899 301-975-2047 *********************************************************************** -- 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: cuddy27 cudenforman cudlnFORMAN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Paul Dietz / Re: F&P in Congress Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,misc.headlines,sci.physics Subject: Re: F&P in Congress Date: 28 Apr 89 15:42:04 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <13679@steinmetz.ge.com> blackje@sunspot.steinmetz () writes: >Speaking before the United States Congress yesterday, >Fleischmann & Pons said that "they were as sure as they could be" >that the effect they had observed was fusion. > >They have requested $25 million from the U.S. government >in order to build a facility in Utah to explore the cold fusion effect. Jeez. How can they be "as sure as they can be", when their nuclear measurements were so poorly done, when they showed a remarkable disinterest in control experiments, and when so many labs have failed to replicate their claims? Cold fusion is getting colder every day. I feel sorry for F & P. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Marc Edgar / Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Originally-From: med@pawl.rpi.edu (Marc T Edgar) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Date: 28 Apr 89 16:48:18 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY In article <17597@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >Notice these three things: > >1) Many good labs haven't been able to reproduce the result. > >2) Some labs have reported confirmation, then retracted when subtle > problems with their experimental conditions have been discovered. > One thing to remember is that the researchers who do get results are not likely to show them to the world before getting their patents filed and thier publications submitted. I think it is likely that things will become more secretive and less open. (If you think about it that is the only thing that can happen when compared to a news conference. :-)) Marc Edgar med@pawl.rpi.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenmed cudfnMarc cudlnEdgar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Kevin Delin / Fusion News Originally-From: dakad@mit-caf.MIT.EDU (Kevin Delin) Newsgroups: rec.humor,alt.fusion Subject: Fusion News Date: 28 Apr 89 16:04:06 GMT Organization: Microsystems Technology Laboratories, MIT Dateline: 27 Apr 89, Washington DC FUSION DEBATE REACHES CAPITOL HILL Fusion fever swept thru a congressional hearing yesterday as Utah researchers called for a crash effort with up to $25 mil in federal money in testimony before the Joint Senate-House Committee on SCiENCE! "The real question is can we really massively fund research when we have little actual proof of nuclear reactions taking place?" asked Rep Roe (D-NJ). "Where are the neutrons?" "I think in light of muon catalyzed fusion, fusion within dense metals is a real possibility," said Sen Nancy Kassenbaum (R-Kan). "My esteemed colleague from New Jersey still has a valid question concerning the absence of neutron emissions", said Speaker of the House Jim Wright (D-TX). "At low temperatures, the statistical probability of individual fusion reactions could be radically changed," said Rep Margaret Lloyd (D-Tenn). "It could be that reactions favoring production of tritium and protons are dominant." "That would certainly explain it," said Sen Howard Metzenbaum, "but has anyone actually measured significant tritium in these experiments?" "My wife has been trying to do that for weeks," said Vice President Dan Quayle, "but she hasn't had any results." "Tell her to pre-heat the pallidium", said Sen Albert Gore. "My son at Georgia Tech said that's the key." "If I could interject ...", said Dr. Stanley Pons. "Please don't interrupt," said Sen Daniel Inouye, "we're SENATORS. Personally I'm fascinated that metal-catalyzed fusion could be the source of geological tritium and helium." "I'd like to have Einstein's theory of relativity read into the congressional record," stated Sen Edward Kennedy. "I found a memo that the White House sold fusion technology to the Hungarians to finance the Contras," shouted Sen John Kerry running into the hearing room. Chairwoman Margaret Lloyd spoke up again, "We have to move the debate now on to coherent effects, which will require a closed door session." ------------------ Then there are the conspiracy theories ... cudkeys: cuddy28 cudendakad cudfnKevin cudlnDelin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Matt Rhodes / Survey on Cold Fusion Originally-From: rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Survey on Cold Fusion Date: 28 Apr 89 18:47:36 GMT Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA It has now been one month since the announcement of "cold fusion" by Messrs. Pons and Fleischmann and the impact on the scientific community has been, to say the least, dramatic. I would suggest that the world has never seen such quick dissemination of scientific knowledge and speculation as has occured within the last month. Information has been distributed through all media, especially electronic ones such as FAX and E-mail. And now, one month after such an "earth shattering" announcement I think it would be interesting to find out what the world, or at least the network, thinks. Do you believe the key to nuclear fusion been found, or has the world, even with such efficient information flow, been duped? Now's your chance to compare your answer to these questions to everyone else's. I am conducting the following simple (and very non-scientific) survey. I will compile the results of this survey and post them to the network. I conduct this survey out of pure curiosity and the believe that others will find the results interesting. I am not a journalist of any type and don't even know any. I hope there is some way to reply to this anonymously but I am not enough of a nethacker to know how. Anyway, if your interested, fill out the following form using your favorite editor and post the reply to rhodes@ll-vlsi.arpa or rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu For those with non-hierarchical mailers the internet address would be 10.1.0.10 I will accept replys up to May 14 at which time I will post the results. If your news reader is like mine the easiest way to do this would be to hit the 'R' key now. 1. On a scale of 1 - 5 Rate your Physics/Chemistry Background. 5 - Practicing Physicist/Chemist (PhD level, active) 4 - Practicing Physicist/Chemist (BS/MS level, active) 3 - Phys/Chem degree but do something else now 2 - Scientist or engineer with some physics/chemistry 1 - I once took a course ... hey, what _is_ a lattice? 2. On a scale of 1 - 5 Rate your interest in cold fusion. 5 - We've setup the experiment 4 - I've got friends who've setup the experiment and they showed it to me. 3 - I've read the papers from UofU and BYU and anything else I can get a hold of. 2 - I've read a good bit on it in the media and the net. 1 - I heard about it on the news and am reading the net to see what it's all about. On a scale of 1 - 10 (1=no way, 10 = absolutely true): 4 Do you believe there is fusion going on? 5. Do you believe there is significant energy production from fusion? 6. Do you believe that this will become an important energy source? 7. Because I don't believe most on the net could be satisfied with an opinion characterized by a few numbers why don't you say what you think about fusion IN FOUR LINES OR LESS (this could be torture for some of you:-). 8. And for fun give me your favorite name for the Pons/Fleischmann/Jones cell: (e.g. Mr Fusion, Puff--the Magic Dragon, The Emperor's New Clothes, etc.) -------------------- Cut Here and fill out the form below ----------------- 1. Physic Background - 2. Interest in CNF - My levels of belief: 4. fusion? - 5. energy production? - 6. energy source? - 7. Here's what I really think ... 8. My name for CNF - Thanks and stay tuned for the results. cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenrhodes cudfnMatt cudlnRhodes cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Michael McClary / Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Politics: The dim side of fusion critics (was Re: The dark side of...) Date: 28 Apr 89 13:22:53 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <131@jetprod.uucp> zap@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage) writes: >In article michael@xanadu.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes: >No reason to throw the exhaust away, a closed system can be more efficient as >long as you can get rid of the heat easily. I'd prefer a car that could drive >thousands of miles without stopping for water every few hundred (or less) if >I could get it. Yes, a good point. But a closed-cycle engine costs you weight, air friction, and capital expense. Since I have to stop for personal water management every few hundred miles anyhow, I'm willing to accept the sports model that can cruise death valley at 150 (if I remembered to fill it) and costs a grand less. The auto companies are an interesting environment. Saving a nickle per car can pay the salaries of two engineers. Therefore, I suspect open cycle engines would be the first products out, and closed-cycle would be specialty or law-mandated products, if they became available at all. On the other hand, a closed-cycle engine could use working fluids other than water, and would have less trouble with boiler contamination. This might swing an auto company's costs the other way. cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / w6cy@vax5.CIT. / Re: Cold Fusion Experiments Repeated in China Originally-From: w6cy@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Experiments Repeated in China Date: 28 Apr 89 19:05:56 GMT Organization: Cornell Information Technologies, Ithaca NY In article <7833@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> zqli@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Zhenqin Li) writes: >The Utah cold fusion experiments have been "confirmed" by >two groups of Chinese scientists, a recent issue of "People's >Daily" claims. They are quoted as having detected production >of neutrons at a rate of about 100 per second. > Not only that they said they found H3. Their result seems much better than that of Utah. For me it is too good to believe. I am sure that they want share Nobel prize with Utah guys :-) Lina cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenw6cy cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / John Gilmore / Where to buy palladium rods & wire Originally-From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Where to buy palladium rods & wire Date: 28 Apr 89 20:48:02 GMT Organization: Grasshopper Group in San Francisco john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) wrote: > This brings up a question: Where are the hundreds of labs doing this > getting their rods? A local chemical supply company referred me to: Aesar +1 800 343 1990 I called and got a few numbers... 6.35 mm palladium rods: 25mm long, $243.60 100mm long, $721 .5 mm palladium wire: 250cm long, $169 1000cm long, $507 They seem to be all out of 1mm wire, but will have more 30May. They don't take credit cards :-(. Another place to try (which I didn't call) is: Alpha +1 800 343 0660 +1 617 777 1970 You can only get the "newspaper" prices for Palladium for investment- grade stuff (i.e. not worked into rods, wire, etc) and only in large quantities (pounds). -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com "And if there's danger don't you try to overlook it, Because you knew the job was dangerous when you took it" cudkeys: cuddy28 cudengnu cudfnJohn cudlnGilmore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / William Johnson / Re: fusion talk from Dresden Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: fusion talk from Dresden Date: 28 Apr 89 20:16:48 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <12521@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: > I am posting this at the request of Dick Forman. I have > edited the line breaks slightly to enhance readability. [presumably the following stuff is Dick's rather than Ethan's.] > A group at the Technical University of Dresden E. Germany reported today > at the Conference "50 Years with Nuclear Fission" held first at the National > Academy of Sciences and now (starting today) at the National Institute of > Standards and Technology (formerly NBS) that they had seen the neutrons > first reported by Utah people. They used palladium thick foils of various > sizes and reported all the relevant exptl. data. In the energy range between > 2 and 3 MeV using an NE213 detector of 5" diameter and 1.5" thick with good > shielding and something called n, gamma discrimination against cosmic rays, > they found in a twenty hour expt. that with the electrochemical cell they had > 634 counts, without 511 counts for a final result of 20 + or - 5 counts per > hour. The error is only the statistical one. The paper was well received With one exception, it should be well received. I would like to explain why, and also what that one -- very significant -- exception is. Since I've been posting stuff about detectors, let me start with a few words about what an NE213 detector is, and why it is valuable in these experiments. NE213 is an organic scintillator that responds to both gammas and neutrons, in each case giving a scintillation the brightness of which is proportional to the amount of energy deposited in the detector. (Note that this is NOT identical to the amount of energy carried by the neutron; see my earlier posting about neutron detectors for the reason.) For reasons of chemistry, the time profile of the scintillation differs for neutrons and gamma rays: while one (gammas, I think) leads to a sudden burst of light that lasts a couple of microseconds and then is totally gone, the other leaves the scintillator "glowing" for some longer (though still just a few microseconds) time. Analog electronics, by looking at the "glow" or lack of it, can determine whether a given scintillation came from a gamma or a neutron, and throw away the gamma events. This is the pulse-shape discrimination mentioned in Dick's essay. When one has thrown away all the gammas and histogrammed the resulting events by brightness (~energy deposited), one winds up with an energy spectrum that can be "unfolded" to get the *real* energy spectrum of the incident neutrons. This "unfolding" process takes into account the known response of the detector to neutrons of a given energy, and in essence inverts the spectrum through a response-function matrix. The resulting energy spectrum is simple to interpret: if there are excess counts between 2 and 3 MeV, then there were excess neutrons of that energy hitting the detector. It's that simple. The big question, unfortunately, is whether there really are excess neutrons in the Dresden experiment. One might think that simple propagation of errors gives a signal strength of (634-511) plus or minus (sqrt (634 + 511)) divided by the length of count -- in other words, something like 6 +/- 1.5 per hour if the above numbers are correct. (Where the 20 +/- 5 comes from is a mystery to me, but it's still a 4-sigma signal, which is what counts.) Unfortunately, things aren't this simple -- or this rosy -- because the propagation of errors is NOT at all straightforward; statistical uncertainties in the number of lower-energy events observed can impact the uncertainties in the 2- to 3-MeV range as well, because of the way the unfolding works. Without having seen the raw data from Dresden and the algorithm they use for the unfolding, I can't say what their actual errors are, but they might be as large as 80 to 100 in each count -- in which case they don't realy see anything above background. Either way, this is the most promising F&P-related measurement that I have seen yet, even if it is not clearly a positive result. Thanks, Dick (and Ethan), for transmitting it. -- "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: cuddy28 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / HOWGREJ@YaleVM / New Results! Bad News! Originally-From: HOWGREJ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: New Results! Bad News! Date: 28 Apr 89 00:01:42 GMT Organization: Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA Well, guys, I have what could be some bad news here. Today the Yale Scientific Magazine held its annual Undergraduate Research Colloquium, three student speakers and a keynote speaker, Dr. Moshe Gai, Associate Professor of Physics, who is heading the Yale cold fusion experiment. (In Science Times last week). Dr. Gai started by intending to describe the idea of cold fusion, and explain the Yale experiment, without giving out the results; but, in the end, he did. The results the experimenters found showed "no deviation from the background" neutron levels, "wherever we looked." He complained about the lack of any detailed published details of the P&F experiment (no suprise there). The Yale physicists were working with a few chemists from Brookhaven National Labs, and Gai claimed that they had "covered all the possibilities", although they did *not* measure for heat given off. A brief summary of the experiment, as Dr. Gai explained it: The setup consisted of four cells, surrounded by six neutron detectors in a hex pattern. (I believe, though I'm not sure, that each neutron given off went through first the no.1 detector, then one of the other five, to make sure they counted it right - but I could be wrong here.) They also used a cosmic ray detector - he was not more specific - so that they coul "veto" external sources. Two sodium iodide gamma ray detectors measured gamma output. They tried all the different possibilities they could come up with, using both "coldworked" and electrodes "annealed" (I hope he understands this better than I do! :-) in both vaccuum and argon. The solutions were of 99.8% D2O and 97.5% D2O, the latter diluted with "salts or just lithium. To make sure that the data was not time-dependant, they ran the cells for about three weeks (I suspect that they're still going). "Our data is very clean" Dr. Gai said. "We have not seen anything which is significantly different in a statistical way from the background." He did tell a little story about a result they got from the neutron detector one 3am, which he said bothered them for days. They finally realized that it was due to residual radiation from calibrating that detector (the only one that noticed the neutrons, from 2.6 to 5 MeV) the night before. Thus, it looks as though the results are very negative from the Yale/Brookhaven team. They are currently writing a paper to be published pretty soon - no date given. Also, Dr. Gai will give a talk on their results at the American Physical Society meeting next week in Baltimore. Also, tommorrow afternoon (4/27) the team will give their report to the Physics Department here at Yale (today's talk was far from official). If I go (unless something else comes up) I'll try to post a more accurate report tommorrow night. If anyone has any special technical questions, I'm not the person to ask, but try emailing me anyway. To sum up: "As far as we are concerned, we have not seen the effect." Ah, well. Maybe they're wrong :^). The Space People will contact us when they | Greg Howard (203)436-1135 can make money by doing so. - DAVID BYRNE | HOWGREJ at YALEVM The above was *not* in anyway provided by Yale University, Dr. Moshe Gai, or anyone else. Any misquotes or bad data are *my* fault, and neither Yale, Dr. Gai, or the Yale Scientific Magazine take any responsibility for anything contained herein. cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenHOWGREJ cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / John Logajan / Re: Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Date: 28 Apr 89 19:40:58 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN Timothy K Reynolds writes: > according to reports in the salt lake press, Pons will give los alamos > an old cell which has been up and running in the past. Personally, I'd rather see them get something going independently. That way they would know the "history" of the palladium. Even if they are just looking for neutrons -- who knows, maybe the palladium is "doped" with some radioactive material. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Arnie Frisch / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 28 Apr 89 16:47:09 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article <545@gandalf.littlei.UUCP>, writes: > The following is a full reprint (without permission) from The Oregonian, > Portland, Oregon, Science Section, Thursday, April 27, 1989. > > ============== > > "Cold-fusion experiment energizes PSU scientists" > 'Researchers report brief energy burst in table-top lab test' This is, by far, the most absurd report yet. It is representative of the worst experimental technique, including an almost total lack of experimental design. What they basically said was, "we threw this thing together and we almost sort of had an explosion, so we shut it down. Then we looked at it under a scanning microscope and it sort of looked funny, so we decided to publish." cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Emmett Black / Re: Nomenclature of cold fusion cell Originally-From: blackje@sunspot.steinmetz (Emmett Black) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Nomenclature of cold fusion cell Date: 29 Apr 89 02:45:59 GMT Organization: GE Research; Schenectady, NY 12345 After reading all of the available papers, and much of the wild speculation that has appeared on the network; some of us have decided that appropriate terminology for COld Nuclear FUSION should derive directly from its description, as well as from the degree to which it is understood. Thus: COld Nuclear FUSION => CONFUSION. Simple as that. --Emmett J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345 blackje@crd.ge.com; ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenblackje cudfnEmmett cudlnBlack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Eric Geislinger / Personal Fusion zine - additional info. Originally-From: ericg@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Eric Geislinger) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Personal Fusion zine - additional info. Date: 28 Apr 89 22:02:00 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. \ / \/ PERSONAL FUSION *------------------------------------------> /\ The News Magazine for Desktop Nukes / \ ********************************************************* We've gotten a fair number of responses to our initial posting and it seems like it's probably time for a little follow-up info to answer some common questions. (Sorry we can't respond to everyone directly.) First off, we want to re-emphasize that this is just a POSSIBILITY. We know there's a lot of hype right now & we know this thing isn't confirmed. We don't want to add to the noise level. We're not going to make a move until there's been *unequivocal* confirmation. Regarding our title & subtitle; we chose this carefully. This is the particular aspect that we want to cover (& encourage). If this turns into another megaproject we're sure that there'll be trade journals and the like ("PUBLIC Fusion," etc.) - but it'll be someone else doing the publishing. We also know that some people have a negative emotional reaction to the word "nukes." That's why we chose it. Maybe not smart marketing, but if we can't make a statement, then what's the fun of doing it? Regarding who "we" are; first off, this has nothing to do with Tek (our link to the net). We're currently publishing two different periodicals (that you've probably never heard of): Transoniq Hacker (circ. approx. 4000) and Claustrophobia (circ. negligible). Both are aimed at fairly specialized interests and both are favorably regarded by their readers. (At least that's the feedback that we get.) Several people expressed concern about how this would "fit in" with the net. We don't see this as competing with the net any more than apples compete with watermelons. As far as speed, diversity, price (!), and several other factors, the net can't be beat. But there IS a nitch in the world for magazines. There's a different type of information that shows up in the world of print. There's also a lot of people out there that don't have access to the net - so it goes both ways. Thank's all for your time and bandwidth! ________________________________________________________________ To the (very few) who seem to feel downright THREATENED by the idea: calm down. Get away from your terminal more often. Go out and visit a magazine store. There are actually magazines out there RIGHT NOW that are dedicated to practically any net topic you care to name. It's ok. ________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- And to the one poster who seemed to feel that publishing a magazine would be downright immoral: In addition to the above comments we'd like to say that we like the "free" net as much as anybody, but we always try to remember that "free" usually means "paid for by somebody else." We all have different things that make us feel self-righteous - we actually feel better buying a magazine than sitting here using someone else's facilities to post news... We realize that there are people out there who feel that they're being "ripped off" whenever they have to pay for something. But then, we're not aiming for them. cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenericg cudfnEric cudlnGeislinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Larry Brader / Re: Congressional Hearing Originally-From: larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Congressional Hearing Date: 28 Apr 89 22:56:46 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Sorry I don't get C-span, but a friend who did catch it called me and filled me in .. In article <590@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> pmw@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (paul.m.westenkirchner) writes: >where they accepted testimony from Jones of BYU, >Furth of Princeton, Ballinger of MIT, Saltmarsh (?) from Oak Ridge >and someone from Illinois. I must admit that I have only been loosely >following what's going on in these newsgroups, but found it interesting >that the overall tone about the UU results was extremely skeptical. The UU group sounded very sure of their results. Pons handled himself very well and agree to go to Los Almos to help them duplicate the experment. Asked if understood what was going on Pons answered "It's not a chemical reaction. I don't understand why it's working the way it is. " The Physicsit from the group when ask said they could read his paper when published. Also they are working on there next model.. Suppose to be bigger and better. Much interested in hearing more on this one!! > >The congress people are trying to figure out what they should be funding. >Apparently, some UU folks had asked for immediate high >level funding and even made comments about buying fusion powered >Japanese cars if we don't act right away. (I missed the UU >part of the testimony). The President of UU told congress this is real and if we don't start doing some serious research on it. The US will lose it to Japan or someone else like we lost liquid Ni superconductors . One congressman asked the question "Why don't the we own this" when talking to a DOE offical. >Furth was saying that he needs to see some >kind of verification of the experiments and that he has seen nothing >convincing yet. He asked that the congress people facilitate this >process if they could. He mentioned that F&P's palladium rods should >be scientifically analyzed for excess helium. (He made a point of >"excess", pointing out that there is some amount of helium everywhere). >He also suggested that the F&P experiment be transported to a national >lab (Los Alamos was suggested) so that it might be measured by another >group. Pons agree and is taking the experiment down to Los Alamos. Although its easier getting into those places then out sometimes... Perhaps Pons should report to the net everyday to insure he's ok and what's going on.. ;-) >He made a point two times about Fleischman not wanting to talk about >the light water control experiment. Furth obviously feels that something >is being hidden. This was very true. On some questions the UU stonewalled and said we're working on that. > >(This seemed to me to be a sarcastic remark against F&P not being more open.) From what I have seen and heard via others. Furth and others were sarcastic and somewhat abusive to the UU group. And the UU group ,especially Pons, were cool and collected. >Furth also made some comments implying that F&P are not talking due to their >concerns about getting to the patent rights to what they know. >Paul Westenkirchner >AT&T Bell Labs If you knew how to produce cold fusion .. how would you act? 8-) -- Larry Brader :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net Of course these are my views, any resemblance to reality is merely a concidance. "He's dead Jim, You grap his tricorder and I'll get his wallet" cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenlarryb cudfnLarry cudlnBrader cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / B Vansteenwyk / Comparison of Experiments Originally-From: brettvs@blake.acs.washington.edu (Brett Vansteenwyk) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Comparison of Experiments Date: 27 Apr 89 05:24:01 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle I thought I heard that the Italians did an experiment and got a significantly greater number of neutrons out--and detected tritium. This seems to be different from the predominantly He4 output seen in many other experiments. Is there a connection to the fact that the Italians used Titanium, and most of the others used Palladium? While we're in the general field of He4 vs a more "normal" H3+n reaction, and though I'm no more than a rank amateur in an area such as this, it seems that there is perhaps a similarity between this process and the superconduc- tivity process. I have a feel for the delocalization phenomenon after reading some of the many excellent articles posted here, but it would seem that, so as to release the 24Mev or so in a D2 + D2 ->He4 reaction in smaller steps, the pair of D2 nuclei would have to enter into some sort of degenerative pair state, much like that of superconducting electrons in these high temperature superconductors. Would it then be possible for one to start at this state and reach, in a reasonable succession of lower energy transitions, a stable He4? Allbeit that the temperature is higher, the particles are heavier, but we don't need as many D2 pairs entering into this state to get the energy we are seeing. Just a thought. --Brett Van Steenwyk cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbrettvs cudfnBrett cudlnVansteenwyk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / The Polymath / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 28 Apr 89 19:40:13 GMT Organization: The Cat Factory In article <134@jetprod.UUCP> zap@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage) writes: }In article <1800@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: }>If the power companies believe that their monopoly is threatened by }>practical small scale power generation, they are also likely to }>react. On the other hand, I would suspect that they would embrace this }>[supposed] technology if it works in large scale power generation. } }They might embrace it while disallowing the public to use it, if they }can. } }The following is as I remember it, please correct me if wrong: } }SDG&E, here in San Diego, has stockholders and, as such, is entitled }to a profit. However, a few years ago the Navy and some other large }company (Rohr, I think) were going to switch over to inhouse power }production and SDG&E fought it. They were going to continue charging }the Navy and Rohr for equipment rental and power, even though they }weren't buying any. Anybody hear anything about this? I haven't heard of this case, but I've heard of a similar instance (a man with a water-turbine generator on his property). The utilities' attitude is you can't use them as a back-up power source for free. If you're connected to the grid, you have to pay for the equipment maintenance, even if you're not drawing any power. The only way to avoid this is to completely disconnect and go it alone. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenhollombe cudfnThe cudlnPolymath cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / The Polymath / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 29 Apr 89 00:51:09 GMT Organization: The Cat Factory In article michael@xanadu.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes: }In article masticol@paul.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: }>BTW, if someone wanted to block dissemination of the FP cell, }>palladium, not deuterium, would be the obvious target for restriction. } }We've seen reports that say the reaction also goes in titanium, with }the implication that it may go in other materials. Titanium is too }widely used to easily ban. } }On the other hand, reports so far seem to indicate that protium doesn't }work. This, combined with its lack of uses outside the nuclear industry }and bio research, makes concentrated duterium oxide the logical candidate }for new controlled substance laws. Much of the legal and remote-sensing }technology from whiskey tax enforcement would transfer, and BATF already }has the necessary attitude (rabid). There's an important difference. Moonshiners have to make whiskey continuously by the barrel to be economically worthwhile. A quart of deuterium contains enough energy to run the average household well into the next century or two. How are they going to detect a quart of D2O in my basement if I don't give them other cause to get a search warrant? }Would you call a D2O bootlegger a "sunshiner"? B-) Sounds good to me. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenhollombe cudfnThe cudlnPolymath cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Keith Ivey / Yale fusion seminar (Moshe Gai) Originally-From: IVEKEIC@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Keith Calvert Ivey) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Yale fusion seminar (Moshe Gai) Date: 29 Apr 89 03:35:40 GMT Organization: Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA have something to contribute. Today (28 April 1989) at 2 pm the physics department here at Yale had a special seminar by Moshe Gai (a nuclear physics professor here) with the title "Does Cold Fusion Exist?". My notes on the seminar fol- low. Prof. Gai gave a seminar yesterday with an almost identical title as part of an undergraduate research colloquium. Greg Howard posted notes on this yesterday. Today's seminar was, I believe, more technical. I guess yesterday's seminar drew off some of the crowds of fusion enthusi- asts. I arrived at the room only twenty minutes before the talk, and was just the third person there. By shortly after 2 there were about 200 people, only a couple of whom seemed to be with the media. Prof. Gai began by saying that his results would be written up in about two weeks. He is speaking about them at the American Physical Society conference on Monday, and this seminar was a trial run for that. He said that his results are negative and that Princeton and MIT have come out with similar results within the last week or so, and that there are rumors that the Cal Tech experiments agree with his too. He admit- ted that he might have been "out of line" in saying some of the things he did to undergrads yesterday. The work involves "seven people and at least ten opinions". The workers are nuclear physicists from Yale and chemists from Brookhaven National Laboratory (in Upton, New York). He gave the chemical equations for the process of absorption of deuterium into a metal lattice during electrolysis: - - D O + e --> D + OD 2 ads - D + D O --> D + OD ads 2 2 D --> D ads lattice where D(ads) is a deuterium atom adsorbed on the electrode surface and D(lattice) is one absorbed into the lattice. When fully saturated, the lattice contains one hydrogen molecule per titanium atom or one hydrogen atom per palladium atom. Possible nuclear reactions between two deuterons are: { 3 d + d --> { He (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) ~50% { { t (3.03 MeV) + p (1.01 MeV) ~50% { { 4 { He (0.08 MeV) + gamma (23.77 MeV) ~10^-4 The probabilities given are for "normal" conditions. There has been much theorizing about the possibility that they change when the deuter- ons are confined in a lattice. Since heavy water will always have a considerable amount of normal H2O contamination and since protium diffuses into palladium much faster than deuterium does, fusion of a deuteron and a proton must also be considered: 3 p + d --> He (0.005 MeV) + gamma (5.49 MeV) A paper by Koonin and Nauenberg to be published in _Nature_ suggests that this p+d reaction occurs about 10^8 times faster than the d+d reac- tions given above. This combined with the isotope effect on diffusion mentioned above means that the proportion of p+d to d+d reactions will be much greater than one would expect based simply on the ratio of pro- tons to deuterons in the electrolyte. Gai is "very bothered" by the neutron measurements given in the Fleischmann and Pons paper, especially the 4x10^4 neutrons/sec given as the flux, which he thinks is remarkably high. He would like to see the raw data so he can figure out how they treated the background. He also complained about the strange nonlinear scale given on their spectrum of beta emissions, which seems to indicate negative energies on the left side of the graph. The F&P paper was overall very difficult for him to figure out. He likes the Jones paper much better because they give "real numbers". The Yale-Brookhaven setup consists of four(?) electrolytic cells partially surrounded by six neutron detectors and two sodium iodide crystal detectors for gamma rays. This is enclosed in ~15 cm of borated concrete and ~15 cm of borated paraffin, and topped by two cosmic ray detectors so that possible muon-catalyzed fusion resulting from cosmic rays can be "vetoed". They had several tons of lead to use as shielding for a while, but got rid of it because the lead itself was causing a high background. A neutron coming from the experiment interacts with the first neutron detector (#0), which sits directly below the cells, and then scatters to one of the other five which are arranged in a ring. They require coincident signals from two detectors (#0 and one other) to give a neutron count. They can get some energy information about the neutrons with this setup, but the placement of the detectors requires a compromise between efficiency of detection and precision of energy in- formation. Signals from gamma rays and neutrons can be distinguished easily by the shapes of the pulses. Nitrogen gas is cycled through the cells to remove hydrogen gas, keeping it below the 4.8% required for an explosive mixture with air. The nitrogen is wetted with D2O to replace that lost by electrolysis. They used nine electrodes and nine electrolyte solutions in various combinations. They wanted to check every suggestion they had heard for getting things to work. I didn't get all the information about the electrodes and electrolytes, but here's what I have: Electrodes: 1) Pd plate - cold-worked (pounded with a sledge hammer to create dislo- cations in the lattice structure), then heated in D2 (300 degrees C, 120 psi) and anodized. 2) Pd cylinder - annealed in flowing argon at 1000 degrees C. 3) Pd cylinder - annealed in flowing argon at 1000 degrees C. (There was a difference between this and #2 that I didn't get.) 4) Pd cylinder - annealed in vacuum ("super electrode"). 5-8) Ti parallelepipeds, cold-worked. 9) TiFe Mn powder, "hydrided" at 120 psi D at 900 degrees C, 0.7 0.2 2 charged on 19 Dec 87 and recharged on 04 Apr 89. Contained in a 2x20 cm cylinder pressurized to 120 psi. (I don't understand how exactly this was used as an electrode, if it was.) Electrolytes: 1) 0.1 M LiOD, 97.5% D2O 2) 0.1 M LiOD, 99.8% D2O 3) 1 M LiOD, 97.5% D2O 6 4) 1 M LiOD, 97.5% D2O 5-8) the solution of Jones et al. (100 g D2O plus 0.125 g each of var- ious salts. Someone asked if they included "a small amount of AuCN". He said no.) 9) 0.1 M LiOD, 99.3% D2O In order to test the hypothesis that "ignition" by energetic parti- cles was necessary to start the fusion, Gai disassembled the smoke alarm from his home and spot-welded its americium source to electrode #1 for some of the experiments, thus providing 5 MeV alpha particles. The neutron detection employed "state-of-the-art" pulse-shape detec- tors not yet commercially available. The threshold for neutron detec- tion was ~0.5 MeV. Efficiency of detection, taking into account coinci- dence was ~1%. The signal was filtered by software to remove gamma ray signals in counting neutrons and to exclude neutron counts with energies greater than 3 MeV. The most thoroughly analyzed data comes from the last seven hours of the experiment. Gai displayed data showing that during this time detec- tor #1 counted a grand total of 2 neutrons, which the group named "Fleischmann" and "Pons". (I think that was a bit of a cheap shot.) The total number of neutrons counted in the 7 hours was 17 with the cells off and 13 with all cells on (some had been running for two weeks at this point). There was thus no statistically significant difference. In 31 hours on 18 April the sodium iodide crystals detected no p+d or d+d gamma rays. Background gamma rays from decay of radioisotopes in the concrete were detected at 2.1 and 2.6 MeV. Gai wonders if this may explain the 2.5 MeV signal seen by Fleischmann and Pons with their NaI crystals. Gai gave the three-standard-deviation upper limits on fusion yields as < 2x10^-25 fusions/deuteron pair/sec for d+d (based on neutron counts) and < 2x10^-22 fusions/pair/sec for p+d (based on gamma ray counts). He says the first compares favorably with the number given by Jones et al., 10^-23 (what's a factor of 50 between friends?). At one point they saw a shoulder in the gamma ray spectrum which ended at about 5.5 MeV. This shoulder "weighed on their shoulders" for quite a while, but the eventually determined that it was residual radio- activity from their calibration of the NaI crystals with a Pu-Be source. Na-23 in the detector captures a neutron to give Na-24 which decays with a half-life of ~15 hours. The shoulder remained even when shielding was interposed between the detector and the cells, so it could not have been coming from the experiment. Gai stressed several times that he was "not making any statement whatsoever about nonreproducibility of the result of Pons and Fleisch- mann". He said that they had done their best to repeat what F&P had done -- though it was somewhat difficult to figure out some of the de- tails -- and had seen no remarkable results. After this there was a question-and-answer session. The first ques- tion was from someone who claimed that palladium actually absorbs deute- rium faster than protium. Gai said that papers by Pons had shown the opposite. Then there was a question (from an inorganic chemistry professor) about the heat F&P had gotten and how their electrode had melted. Gai said his measurements were only relevant to the emission of neutrons and gamma rays, and that he was making no statement concerning heat. Howev- er, he claimed that putting lithium in palladium decreases the melting point by "about an order of magnitude". (I find this difficult to be- lieve unless he's talking about a significant percentage of lithium, essentially an alloy.) He also said that on of the Brookhaven chemists had a completely chemical explanation for the melting of the electrode, but he didn't reveal what this involved. To a question about the possibility that He-4 could lose energy gradually by a cascade of low-energy gamma rays, Gai responded that this was impossible since the first excited state of He-4 has an energy of ~20 MeV. There is no way for it to lose energy in small steps. The next question came from a physical chemistry professor who was at the University of Utah before he came to Yale, and who said he had visited there yesterday. He said that the metallurgy department at U of U has reproduced the heat production of F&P's experiment. According to what they told him, cold-working the electrodes was about the worst thing one could do. He said they prepared their electrodes in a special way. Gai asked him, "What's the secret?", but he wouldn't talk about it with the press in the room. He talked about it after the seminar broke up. It turned out the secret was using cast electrodes; this has been on the net for several days at least. The other things was that F&P ran their electrolysis with the electrodes completely submerged. Also, supposedly there is only one guy who can make electrodes that work. One wonders if they've taken out an insurance policy on him with Lloyd's of London. Gai refused to comment on Hagelstein's theory about dissipation of He-4 energy by loss to the lattice, but several in the audience said they couldn't imagine how the lattice could absorb 20 MeV without melt- ing. Gai did point out that Stanford has found a lot of He-4 in their electrode. To a question about the Mossbauer effect, Gai replied that it would not apply in the case of He in a metal lattice, since the Mossbauer effect requires that the energetic nucleus be part of the lattice and He would be in the open space. After the seminar a nucleus of chemistry and physics faculty formed about Gai and the chemistry professor recently returned from Utah. This nucleus was surrounded by a small cloud of graduate students, including me. There was much trading of rumors, most of which I had already heard on the net. The chemistry professor said that one of the main reasons that things were such a mess was the behavior of the U of U administra- tion (one of the reasons he left there). He said that U of U was trying to keep as many details secret as possible because of patents. He also said that the administration had kept F&P from putting the name of their student (Hawkins(?)) on the paper as an author, so as to decrease the number of people involved in possible patent claims, but that in the errata to the article this had been corrected, along with the strange scales in the figures and such. "We are sorry that the name of one of the main contributors to this work was inadvertently left off the list of authors"? He also said F&P believe that the Italians have the best information about the F&P setup because they sent people over very early before the administration cracked down on communication. Also, he said F&P were going to Los Alamos to help with replication there. I don't think Gai's title for the seminar was a good one, since he didn't even pretend to give an answer to this question of whether cold fusion exists. It seems that his negative results are irrelevant since he did not measure heat and did not use cast electrodes. Why can't anyone measure everything on the same experiment: neutrons, gamma rays, and heat? What were the chemists for if not to help with calorimetry. I guess to help with electrochemistry. I hope Gai brushes up on his chemistry before going to the APS meeting. He thought LiOH was lithium _hydride_ and he repeatedly used "hydriding" or, worse, "hydration" instead of "hydrogenation". (Maybe it should be "hydridation" in analo- gy with "oxidation".) I guess he doesn't need to know this stuff to do the experiments, but it makes a bad impression. Well, that's about it. I hope I didn't make too many errors. ======================================================================== Keith Calvert Ivey Yale University Department of Chemistry Box 6666, Room 1 SCL, New Haven, CT 06511 cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenIVEKEIC cudfnKeith cudlnIvey cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Michael Telford / Proverb Originally-From: a230@mindlink.UUCP (Michael Telford) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Proverb Date: 27 Apr 89 14:19:07 GMT Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada > bill writes: > > Msg-ID: <868@twwells.uucp> > Posted: 26 Apr 89 03:20:00 GMT > > Org. : None, Ft. Lauderdale > Person: T. William Wells > > This is a flame. This is only a flame. If you don't like flames, > don't read this. > > In article <2270@laidbak.UUCP> jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) writes: > : There is an old proverb (of Chinese origin, I beleive) that > : goes something like this: > : Give a man a fish, and tommorrow he will hunger. > : Teach a man to fish, and he will forever feed himself. The proverb is both Chinese and misquoted; it should be: Give a man a fish and he will have food for a meal. Teach a man to grow fish, and he will have food for a life time. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudena230 cudfnMichael cudlnTelford cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / John Moore / misc fusion activities heard Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: misc fusion activities heard Date: 29 Apr 89 03:37:54 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc., Phoenix AZ A visit to Arizona State University resulted in the following fusion news: (1) According to a metallurgist at LANL, all of their experiments had been using cold-worked Pd. That could explain the failure of those experiments to confirm F&P. (2) University of Arizona has experiments that are giving off excess heat and apparently confirm the F&P heat results. (3) ASU has at least 3 F&P experiments under way. One will count neutrons with a sensitive detector in a shielded environment. One will measure heat. I don't know about the 3rd. -- 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: cuddy29 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Henry Spencer / Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Date: 28 Apr 89 17:12:21 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <17597@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >Notice these three things: > >1) Many good labs haven't been able to reproduce the result. True. >2) Some labs have reported confirmation, then retracted when subtle > problems with their experimental conditions have been discovered. Last I heard there was one such incident, not "some". >3) F&P claim neutron flux a billion times smaller than expected, given > the heat. Is it reasonable to expect the discovery of RTF and a new > fusion reaction simultaneously? ... Fusion occurring under strange conditions might occur strangely. There is nothing grossly unreasonable about this. It certainly requires strong evidence -- like multiple independent replications -- before one would take it for granted, however. >It seems to me that F&P have merely discovered an experiment which is very >sensitive to error, not to mention belief. It seems to me that we still don't know for sure what F&P have discovered. Clearly there are unknown variables which matter a lot. That says little about what does, or does not, underly the results when the variables are just so. Unless a lot of different labs (starting with BYU and moving on to a dozen or more now) are all wrong, low levels of cold fusion do seem to be real. Whether the more vigorous F&P reaction is real... is hard to say just now. The right answer is "insufficient data for meaningful answer". -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Henry Spencer / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 28 Apr 89 17:15:14 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <5419@videovax.tv.Tek.com> bill@videovax.tv.tek.com.UUCP (William K. McFadden) writes: >>... The hydrogen burned at both entrance and >>exit holes with a strong blue flame; the gas tank exploded. > ^^^^ >Is this right? I thought hydrogen flames were invisible to the naked eye. I too have heard this, but I have also seen shuttle engines firing and can testify that it definitely is not true of that particular hydrogen flame. (The flame is, in fact, rather more noticeable than you would think from TV or photos.) Probably it depends on details. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Stephen King / Re: Fusion Cars? Originally-From: king@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Stephen King) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Cars? Date: 28 Apr 89 19:08:28 GMT Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada In article <10716@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> khearn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Keith Hearn) writes: >Seriously, gasoline is very flammible, and mildly explosive (despite what > Hollywood would have us believe) in liquid form. Hydrogen, however, is > *highly* explosive. Would you want to drive a car that had to display > an explosive gas warning sign at all times? We can make hydrogen powered > cars now, but they just aren't safe in an accident. As has been pointed out, hydrogen can be stored interstitially in metal. Mercedes Benz has an experimental bus that runs on hydrogen. If I remember the Scientific American article correctly, they used lithium to store the hydrogen. This method of storage has proven to be very safe as heat must be applied to the fuel tank in order to liberate gaseous hydrogen. Therefore, if two hydrogen powered vehicles collide there may well be no explosion at all, as hydrogen from the ruptured fuel tanks escapes quite slowly to the atmosphere. Also, recalling accounts of the Hindenburg disaster, most of the casualties were caused by burning diesel fuel, not hydrogen. The hydrogen, when released, rises very quickly and burns 'up', ie. little heat propogates down, towards potential victims. -- --= Blame and flame: !utzoo!dretor!king king@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca =-- -----= Sitting behind amiga42, DCIEM Human Factors Division =----- cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenking cudfnStephen cudlnKing cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / B Vidugiris / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: bhv@igloo.Scum.COM (Bronis Vidugiris) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 29 Apr 89 00:13:21 GMT Organization: igloo, Northbrook, IL In article <4994@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: ]In article <41071@oliveb.olivetti.com> jerry@olivey.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes: ]>The real danger with hydrogen is that it is oderless. A leak can be ]>building up in a room for a long time and no one will notice it until it ]>is too late. Natural gas also has no smell. The "onion" scent is an ]>additive used just for that purpose. ] ]As someone who once accidentally filled a room with hydrogen, let me ]assure you that while you may not be able to smell it, you can definitely ]tell it's there. It does a very good job of displacing all other gases ]in the top part of the room, and when you try to breathe it, you notice ]a certain...absence. The presence in the same room of several lit pilot ]lights made for a slightly tense situation for a few minutes, but it ]ended without catastrophe. ] ]Which means that what you basically need are vents near the top of any ]structure where hydrogen is stored and used. And maybe a few platinum ]screens to encourage catalytic recombination. I don't see why one would notice the 'absence' of the other gassses (i.e. oxygen) except when one recovers consciousness after falling to the floor (and breathing the purer air). One of the dangers of lack of oxygen, whether it be caused by carbon monoxide binding to hemoglobin or other reasons is its insidiousness. The drive to breath is (in normal people) based upon the CO2 balance, not the oxygen intake. This is my understanding from an aquaintance of mine, who is a registered respitory therapist, at any rate,. -- bhv@igloo cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Mark Thorson / Re: D2O is toxic Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: D2O is toxic Date: 28 Apr 89 23:06:41 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) > From "The biology of Heavy Water", Joseph J. Katz, Scientific American (I think > sometime in 1961 - my photocopy doesn't say): > > Rob Tow > Member Research Staff > Electronic Document Lab > Xerox PARC It's from the July 1960 issue. Mark Thorson, somewhere in California. cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: Yale fusion seminar (Moshe Gai) Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yale fusion seminar (Moshe Gai) Date: 29 Apr 89 11:21:48 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Keith Calvert Ivey quotes from M. Gai's talk: > > Since protium diffuses into palladium much faster than > deuterium does... I hope that cold fusioners who are trying to confirm the F&P claims keep this fact in mind when designing their light-water control experiments. Looking at the non-nuclear explanations for F&P's extra heat that have seen so far, it seems that they all depend somewhat on the diffusion rate of deuterium in palladium. For one thing, if electrical current in the hydrogen-saturated palladium electrodes is carried primarily by H+/D+ ions, then I suppose that the electrode's resistance will be a greater with D+ than with H+. This difference could affect not only the Ohmic heating of the electrode, but also the voltage gradient at its surface and in its interior, and the ease with which the hydrogen enters and leaves the lattice (hence its concentration in the lattice). It should also affect the size and distribution of the hypothetical H+/H- domains, the resistivity of the solution, the magnitude of any "heat pump" effect, and so on. Thus, merely observing that F&P-style cells with heavy water get hotter than identical cells with light water is not enough. For the experiment to be conclusive, one must carefully measure the electrical input and the heat output. I wonder whether the Stanford team did this... Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi) ========================================================================= DISCLAIMER: Don't bother reading this posting; the author doesn't know what he is talking about. cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / E McClanahan / Re: idle speculation Originally-From: edwardm@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: idle speculation Date: 28 Apr 89 21:59:16 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino All this paranoia about the big, bad oil giants reminds me of a comment an old friend made to me long ago: "The oil companies are sitting on lots of patents for perpetual motion machines until the oil runs out..." The oil giants are in business to make money. The more available their product is to the population, the more money they will make. Refined oil is readily available and our society has seen to it that we are all heavily dependent on this dying resource. The real fear I have is that our society will be too slow to react. The result will be an expensive and rough switch to the next energy source. In these terms, the biggest benefit of a fusion energy source is that it would be the last such transition (for all practical purposes). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Edward McClanahan UUCP: {...}!hplabs!hpda!edwardm Telnet: 447-5651 -or- edwardm@hpda HPMAIL: HPG200/18 mailstop: bldg. 47UE cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenedwardm cudfnEdward cudlnMcClanahan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / E McClanahan / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: edwardm@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 28 Apr 89 22:11:33 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > From jerry@olivey.olivetti.com Wed Apr 26 19:50:07 1989 > It seems to be a popular TV myth that bullets thru gas tanks will > explode them. I have read that actual research shows the chance of a > bullet exploading a auto gas tank is minimal. Even with "tracer" > bullets the chance of an explosion is low. A flare gun will usually do > the trick though. Just to add my own memory, I watched a similar demonstration to the one referred to above. The gun was a 30-0-6. No mention was made of the type of bullet used. Incidently, as I recall, there were three cans of fuel: Gasoline, propane, and hydrogen. Yes, the gasoline and propane cans both blew up - and yes, the hydrogen can merely "sprung a leak" from which a blue flame (angling up) could be seen. > The real danger with hydrogen is that it is oderless. A leak can be > building up in a room for a long time and no one will notice it until it > is too late. Natural gas also has no smell. The "onion" scent is an > additive used just for that purpose. > Jerry Aguirre Have you ever inhaled Helium and noticed your voice's pitch go up. The effect is much more pronounced (and long lasting) with hydrogen. Just don't light a match! > From mack@inco.UUCP Thu Apr 27 11:00:13 1989 > As someone who once accidentally filled a room with hydrogen, let me > assure you that while you may not be able to smell it, you can definitely > tell it's there. It does a very good job of displacing all other gases > in the top part of the room, and when you try to breathe it, you notice > a certain...absence. The presence in the same room of several lit pilot > lights made for a slightly tense situation for a few minutes, but it > ended without catastrophe. > Dave Mack Dave, Did you notice the "tightening vocal chords" effect I mentioned above? Ed "Gasoline goes down, Hydrogen goes up" McClanahan cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenedwardm cudfnEdward cudlnMcClanahan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Donald Benson / Madame Currie died of cancer. Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Madame Currie died of cancer. Date: 28 Apr 89 21:11:29 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino What safety precautions do people think are appropriate for cold fusion research? Concerns which come immediately to mind are tritium, neutrons, alpha particles, and your basic explosion. Approaches to consider might include removal of hazardous material, as by a ventilation hood, shielding against radiation, and detectors to warn personell when something dangerous occurs. Other suggestions? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ donb@hpda cudkeys: cuddy28 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Bob Gray / Re: Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Originally-From: bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pons to collaborate with Los Alamos Date: 28 Apr 89 14:51:21 GMT Organization: Edinburgh Concurrent Supercomputer Project In article <7980@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) writes: >If anyone has good detectors, LANL does, and they're the closest big-time >operation to Utah. Harewell Laboratory near Oxford in the UK has some of the most sensitive neutron detection equipment in the world. They were given help by Fleishmann to set up experiments over a month ago. "New Scientist" reports that they have 17 experiments running under various conditions and are set up with neutron detectors and calorimetric equipment. None of the experiments has produced any positive results. Bob. cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenbob cudfnBob cudlnGray cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Chris Rose / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: quis@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Chris Rose) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 28 Apr 89 11:37:41 GMT Organization: : RE: the great P&F cover up by the US. I think that in the long term any suppression would be doomed to failure. Assuming that it works and is safe (define safe however you want- but lets say compares favourably with fission and fossil fuels). Any country that manages to implement it will have substantial commercial and cultural advantages over those that do not. I think that it is unlikely that ALL countries' power utilities would be able to suppress cold fusion and there would be sufficient public outcry in the US to overcome the (admittedly large) influence of the utilities. We can, therefore all look forward to happiness, jollity and dancing in the streets just like the good old days. Chris R. cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenquis cudfnChris cudlnRose cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Mr Johnson / Palladium alternatives Originally-From: pj@hrc63.co.uk (Mr P Johnson "Baddow") Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Palladium alternatives Date: 28 Apr 89 14:31:05 GMT Organization: GEC Hirst Research Centre, Wembley, England. I am not a physics or chemistry person, just a humble comp sci. I see many people wondering about the effects of palladium scarcity. Surely when we learn what (if anything) is going on inside the palladium lattice, we can design materials with the same properties. We might even be able to do better. Paul. cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenpj cudfnMr cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Paul Dietz / Helium-3 from Cold Fusion Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Helium-3 from Cold Fusion Date: 29 Apr 89 15:22:55 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Perhaps some nuclear theorist can clear something up for me. I have a naive model of how p+d-->3He fusion works. The proton and deuteron tunnel come together, forming an excited 3He compound nucleus. Most of the time, the nucleus decays by emission of a proton, so no net reaction occurs. Occasionally, however, a photon is emitted instead, and fusion occurs. In thermonuclear fusion, the energy of the compound nucleus is the binding energy of the proton plus the kinetic energy of the p + d in the center of mass frame. This makes the compound nucleus considerably unbound, and a proton can quickly escape. However, in cold fusion, the compound nucleus is at most just barely unstable to proton emission, by perhaps a few tens of electron volts [the energy coming from the tighter binding of the electrons to the Z=2 compound nucleus]. Naively, I'd expect this to seriously reduce the rate of decay by proton emission, since the proton has little energy to tunnel through the coulomb barrier. So, I'd expect most of the compound nuclei to decay in some other way, perhaps by emission of photons or by internal conversion. I'd expect this to result in an increase in the rate of cold p+d fusion. Is this correct? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy29 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Paul Dietz / NPR Report Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: NPR Report Date: 29 Apr 89 16:13:02 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY NPR had an amusing story this morning. Harris and someone else (the name escapes me) played the "Quantum Mechanics", a spoof on radio auto care shows, where people having problems with their fusion experiments call in for hints. One nugget of information was that zirconium is proposed as an electrode material. Anyone want to tell us about this? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy29 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Rich Kulawiec / Re: Survey on Cold Fusion Originally-From: rsk@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Survey on Cold Fusion Date: 29 Apr 89 13:56:38 GMT Organization: PUCC Unix Staff In article <311@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> rhodes@ll-vlsi.arpa.UUCP (Matt Rhodes) writes: > 4 Do you believe there is fusion going on? > 5. Do you believe there is significant energy production from fusion? > 6. Do you believe that this will become an important energy source? These sorts of questions are far more suited to the type of science reporting done by "People" magazine and similar rags. Our *opinions* as to the answers to these questions (and others in the survey) are completely irrelevant; either Pons-Fleischmann and others have fusion or they don't; and our collected opinions won't affect that in the slightest. Science is not done by opinion polls or votes; science is done by hypothesis and experiment. ---Rsk cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenrsk cudfnRich cudlnKulawiec cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / John Nagle / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 29 Apr 89 17:54:37 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <545@gandalf.littlei.UUCP> tim@opoxsrv.i.intel.com (Timothy E. Forsyth) writes: > Two Portland researchers got a second's worth of fast energy and possibly >a career's worth of excitement this week with the state's first "cold fusion" >experiment. > > The energy apparently caused a microscopic crater in the palladium >electrode. Somehow, one suspects that this is a chemical reaction. Beyond that, though, this "gee, something funny happened, call a press conference" approach to science is getting to be a bit much. I like the "mystery electrolyte" mentioned, which might contribute to a chemical reaction. I almost suspect that this is a hoax. John Nagle cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenjbn cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / bjhawdon@vax1. / Re: He's dead Jim. Originally-From: bjhawdon@vax1.tcd.ie Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: He's dead Jim. Date: 28 Apr 89 19:33:51 GMT Organization: Computer Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin In article <4737@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: >>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 > 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: > 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: cuddy28 cudenbjhawdon cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Dave Newman / Re: idle speculation Originally-From: newman@ut-emx.UUCP (Dave Newman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: idle speculation Date: 29 Apr 89 20:41:14 GMT Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas I certainly never intended to be an apologist for the incredibly stupid ecological things that Oil Companies are doing (have done). Nevertheless, I stand by my other assertions regarding unfair media treatment and the oil comanies real efforts to discover alternate energy sources. I won't touch this issue again; it doesn't belong here other than as an attempt to show that there is no historical evidence to show that anyone can "sit on" a technology if it is better than the existing technology. >>Dave cudkeys: cuddy29 cudennewman cudfnDave cudlnNewman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Sam RCD / Re: Terraforming Arizona (repost due to Originally-From: samlb@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Sam Bassett RCD) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Terraforming Arizona (repost due to Date: 29 Apr 89 23:18:13 GMT Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center Ummmmm . . . Only one problem with this suggestion: The Rockies are _EAST_ and North of Arizona, while California is _WEST_. Seems like a few Easterners need a course in map-reading ;-) {I couldn't resist . . . .} _Even better suggestion_ Use the fusion power to desalinate seawater and pump it back _up_ the Colorado River. Sam'l Bassett, Sterling Software @ NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field CA 94035 Work: (415) 694-4792; Home: (415) 454-7282 samlb%well@lll-crg.ARPA samlb@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov := 'Sterling doesn't _have_ opinions -- much less NASA!' cudkeys: cuddy29 cudensamlb cudfnSam cudlnRCD cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Rick McGeer / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: mcgeer@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Rick McGeer) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 30 Apr 89 01:36:10 GMT All unmoderated news groups have a signal-to-noise ratio approaching 0. If I have to read one more posting on the irrigation of the Sahara, on exquisite methods for the execution of Rifkin and Ehrlich, or on the coming notoriety of alt.fusion , I think I will scream. Yes to sci.physics.fusion, but also yes to a moderator who will send 90% of the postings to /dev/null. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenmcgeer cudfnRick cudlnMcGeer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Gary Crum / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: crum@lipari.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 30 Apr 89 02:16:32 GMT IMHO an unmoderated group should remain and a moderated group should be created. Those who are irritated by garbage and can tolerate delay may ignore the unmoderated group. Given sufficient bandwidth we should keep USENET the epitome of wide-area high-tech free speech, using optional groups if necessary. Gary cudkeys: cuddy30 cudencrum cudfnGary cudlnCrum cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / N Truher / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 30 Apr 89 03:10:32 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <1375@igloo.Scum.COM> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes: >In article <4994@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >]As someone who once accidentally filled a room with hydrogen, let me >]assure you that while you may not be able to smell it, you can definitely >]tell it's there. It does a very good job of displacing all other gases >]in the top part of the room, and when you try to breathe it, you notice >]a certain...absence. The presence in the same room of several lit pilot >]lights made for a slightly tense situation for a few minutes, but it >]ended without catastrophe. > >I don't see why one would notice the 'absence' of the other gassses (i.e. >oxygen) except when one recovers consciousness after falling to the floor >(and breathing the purer air). One of the dangers of lack of oxygen, whether >it be caused by carbon monoxide binding to hemoglobin or other reasons >is its insidiousness. The drive to breath is (in normal people) based >upon the CO2 balance, not the oxygen intake. This is my understanding >from an aquaintance of mine, who is a registered respitory therapist, >at any rate,. I've never breathed the stuff, but I can imagine that breathing nearly pure hydrogen would feel different just because it's less dense than normal air. Breathing would all of a sudden be less work than you're used to, kind of as if there were nothing there. This coupled with your advancing lightheadedness might clue you in pretty quickly if you knew what to expect. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenthrash cudfnNathaniel cudlnTruher cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / John Moore / Re: Where to buy palladium rods & wire Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Where to buy palladium rods & wire Date: 29 Apr 89 14:15:57 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <7104@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: ]john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) wrote: ]> This brings up a question: Where are the hundreds of labs doing this ]> getting their rods? ] ]A local chemical supply company referred me to: ] ]Aesar +1 800 343 1990 ] ] I called and got a few numbers... ] 6.35 mm palladium rods: 25mm long, $243.60 ] 100mm long, $721 Ah ... but this brings up the question of how they make the rods. Do they cast them, or do they draw them (far more likely). Do they draw them above or below the recrystalization temperature? Do they do any cold work on them? -- 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: cuddy29 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / Robert Munck / Re: Bandwagons unneeded Originally-From: munck@linus.UUCP (Robert Munck) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Bandwagons unneeded Date: 27 Apr 89 11:47:59 GMT Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA In article <1322@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: >I know that many people would like to jump on the correct bandwagon >in this fusion free-for-all. But it really doesn't have any >scientific significance. Either P+F will be proven or disproven >in the fullness of time. The debunker/true believer dicotomy is >completely unnecessary. Thanks. Bravo! True words, though I have to admit a fair emotional investment in P&F; it's such a lovely possibility! Your note reminds me of the long- ago PBS interview, where the poor muddled interviewer asked essentially what the probability of this effect was. Of course, it's either 0% or 100%. I must also admit annoyance at those who explain that cold fusion is "impossible" because "the numbers don't work" or "it contradicts the way thing are." Remember, all of physics, every jot and tiddle, is THEORY. We don't KNOW how ANYTHING works, though we do have some good models that work for an awful lot of tests. We can't even prove that there are such things as atoms; they might be local characteristics of some other phenomenon that looks very different under other circumstances. I'd love to see statistics about how acceptance of the possibility of cold fusion correlates to age; remember Heinlein's dictum that an elder scientist declaring something impossible is always wrong. (Well, I'm 43, but programmers are the ultimate optimists at all ages.) -- Bob Munck, MITRE cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenmunck cudfnRobert cudlnMunck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.28 / Robert Munck / Niobium as a replacement for palladium; temperature & pressure issues Originally-From: munck@linus.UUCP (Robert Munck) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Niobium as a replacement for palladium Subject: Niobium as a replacement for palladium; temperature & pressure issues Date: 28 Apr 89 11:58:43 GMT Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA (Just passing it on. --rgm) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Niobium as a replacement for palladium; temperature & pressure issues (Addendum #2 to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd...", dated 20 Apr 1989) NIOBIUM AS A REPLACEMENT FOR PALLADIUM IN FAP REACTIONS Hypothesis -- Niobium can be used as a replacement for palladium in the FAP reaction, provided that air pressure within the reaction system can be reduced to low (preferably less than 0.01 mm Hg) levels. Like palladium, niobium supports supports the flow of H+ ions as current carriers. Perhaps more importantly, niobium also supports two coexistent hydrogen solution phases, although the phases are more temperature and pressure sensitive than those of palladium. The critical point for coexistence of the dual niobium phases is defined by three variables: temperature, pressure, and degree of hydrogen saturation. The critical point for the coexistence of the dual phases is at 140 degrees C, 0.01 mm Hg, and 0.3 H/Nb saturation ratio. The hypothesis that niobium could replace palladium in FAP reactions is based on the assumption that the two coexistent hydrogen phases in niobium are actually H+ and H- phases similar to those proposed in my last two letters. If the D+/D- polarization model is valid, the existence of two such phases is the single most important criteria for building a FAP-style reaction system. >From an design viewpoint, the most difficult part of building such a system with niobium instead of palladium would be the need to use aqueous solutions in or near low pressures. Assuming that the FAP reaction is in fact a form of fusion, reaction systems based on niobium would be far cheaper than those based on palladium. In the earth's crust, niobium is about one third as common as copper, as common as either cobalt or lithium, and about 2000 times as common as palladium. South America has the most niobium (about 70% of the world's supply), but North America has a substantial 14% of the world supply, most of which is in Canada. TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE ISSUES Both palladium and niobium have dual hydrogen solution phases which merge into a single phase at sufficiently high temperatures. Pressure dependence is conspicuous in the case of niobium because of the near-vacuum conditions needed for the dual phases to exist, but it is quite possible that the palladium dual phases would similarly disappear if subjected to sufficiently high pressures. These pressure and temperature dependencies fit rather nicely with the idea that H+ and H- phases are chemically reactive with each other, and can exist within the same physical structure only under mild conditions. Experimentally, the implication is that both temperature and pressure should be viewed as significant variables when trying to construct a FAP reaction system. In particular, a rapid rise in temperature could cause thermal runaway in such a system by causing overly rapid decay of the two phases. It is worth noting that this kind of thermally induced runaway decay of D+/D- phases could explain some of the FAP results in which a large palladium objects were melted or vaporized. LOOKING FOR OTHER CANDIDATE ELEMENTS AND ALLOYS If the H+/H- polarization hypothesis is correct, the approach to finding new elements or alloys that support the FAP reaction would be as follows: 1) First, determine whether the material supports the flow of H+ ions under the influence of an electrical current. 2) Second, look for the existence of dual hydrogen phases. If these phases do not exist at room temperatures and pressures, it might still be worthwhile to look for them at lower temperatures and/or pressures. Cheers, Terry Bollinger Contel Technology Center 12015 Lee Jackson Highway Fairfax, Virginia 22033-3346 Phone: 703 359-7751 Fax: 703 359-7766 Internet: terry@ctc.contel.com cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenmunck cudfnRobert cudlnMunck cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Matt / UPI News Originally-From: shafey@athena.mit.edu (Matt Shafe') Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: UPI News Date: 30 Apr 89 07:10:51 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology I found these UPI articles on another computer news source. I thought I might post them on alt.fusion in case your local newspaper did not run these stories in the past few days. (Three articles) COLD FUSION MAY BE TAKING PLACE WITHIN EARTH, OTHER PLANETS, RESEARCHER SAYS WASHINGTON (APRIL 26) UPI - A Brigham Young scientist, who claims to have created room temperature nuclear fusion at the same time as another Utah team, said Wednesday the process may be occurring naturally on Earth and other planets. In a long-awaited paper published in the journal Nature, Steven E. Jones and colleagues reported producing fusion at room temperature using a device similar to University of Utah researchers' much-publicized ''fusion-in-a-flask'' experiment. Jones emphasized that his devices, which emitted the high-speed neutrons characteristic of a nuclear reaction, did not generate the large amount of excess heat reported by the Utah team. But the Brigham Young researcher added: ''The discovery of cold nuclear fusion ... opens the possibility, at least, of a new path to fusion energy.'' Jones said he decided to explore the possibility of creating cold fusion after learning that a type of radioactive hydrogen often produced by fusion is found in volcanoes and other geological hot spots on the Earth. Other evidence pointing to naturally occurring cold fusion includes Jupiter, which radiates about twice as much heat as it receives from the sun, and metals that contain high concentrations of radioactive hydrogen, Jones said. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and his colleague, Martin Fleischmann of England's Southampton University, recently withdrew a paper outlining their controversial fusion process from the magazine. The researchers said they did not have time to make requested revisions. The Brigham Young and Utah teams were aware of each group's research and had originally planned to submit their papers together. But the scientists had a falling out after the University of Utah team announced its discovery at a March 23 news conference that rocked the scientific world. [... Deleted Irrelevant Journalistic Verbage...] Pons and Fleischmann have touted their fusion process as a possible source of cheap, safe energy, and Wednesday asked a congressional committee for $25 million to help commercialize their findings. At the same hearing, Jones warned lawmakers to be cautious about funneling large sums of money into the fledgling field in hopes of quick returns. When an electrical current is run through the jar, the deuterium atoms crowd into an electrode's lattice structure - where the researchers believe fusion occurs. The Utah team used palladium for the active electrode, while Jones used either palladium or titanium. The Brigham Young water also was laced with eight metal salts ''typical of volcanic hot springs.'' Using a neutron counting device he designed himself, Jones said he detected an average rate of two ''signal neutrons'' per hour - a rate that he said indicates nuclear fusion is taking place at room temperature. Drawing again on the natural model, Jones speculated electricity is probably not needed to trigger this type of fusion. ''We have begun to explore the use of ion implantation and elevated pressures and temperatures, mimicking geological conditions,'' he wrote. In an editorial in Nature, physicists James Cohen and John Davies said they were not that convinced atoms were actually fusing in either the Brigham Young and Utah experiments, saying the process ''could be but a distant cousin'' of fusion. =END= MATERIALS CRITICAL TO COLD FUSION SUCCESS, SCIENTISTS SAY SAN DIEGO (APRIL 27) UPI - Scientists who have replicated results from the controversial Utah ''fusion-in-a-flask'' experiment said Thursday other researchers may have failed because of mistakes in the materials they used. Stanford University and University of Arizona researchers told other leading scientists they were able to reproduce key parts of the Utah process, which supposedly created nuclear fusion at room temperature, because they used specially-treated palladium electrodes. The Stanford team, among the first researchers to replicate unpublished findings announced March 23 by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, also credited their success to the use of a dry-nitrogen atmosphere which assured the purity of ''heavy water,'' water composed of oxygen and a form of hydrogen known as deuterium. ''We have enough evidence that if the heavy water becomes contaminated by (ordinary) water, the effects decrease substantially or even go away,'' said Dr. Robert Huggins, who directed the Stanford study. Dr. Johann Rafelski of the University of Arizona, one of the authors of a fusion paper published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature, said, ''There's something in the palladium we're using that makes it work.'' Pons, a University of Utah scientist, and Fleischmann, his former professor now at the University of Southampton, England, claim they created nuclear ''fusion in a flask'' at room temperature by running a small electric current for long periods of time through a palladium electrode. The two scientists Wednesday appeared on Capitol Hill to ask for $25 million in federal funds for a center devoted to cold-fusion research. Huggins and his colleagues said that, using an apparatus similar to that in the Utah experiments, they also produced large amounts of heat that could not be explained by conventional theories. But the Stanford team stopped short of claiming they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature without releasing hazardous radiation. ''We're not telling you that we know what it is. All we know is that there are large effects and the large effects are much different than any chemical reaction we have heard of,'' said Huggins. Speaking at the annual meeting of the Materials Research Society, the researchers for the first time spoke openly about their methods and fielded questions, often hostile in tone, before an audience of 1,600 scientists. The vast majority seemed skeptical of Pons and Fleischmann's cold-fusion claims. One of these was Nobel laureate Linus Pauling, who announced he has submitted a paper to the journal Nature detailing how the heat release might have been produced by conventional atomic bonding common to all metals. Several scientists asked the Stanford team why they had not measured any helium 4, a common byproduct of nuclear fusion that should be present if the Pons-Fleischmann claim is correct. Huggins said his team only began its efforts to replicate the Utah experiment in early April and added, ''We haven't gotten to it (helium measurement). We just haven't had the time. ''This is one of the things we intend to be doing in the near future to try and sort out what's happening,'' he said. Rafelski, whose 3-year collaboration with Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University produced the first published findings of cold fusion in Wednesday's Nature, said his work recorded emission of excess neutrons, indicating that nuclear fusion did take place. ''We believe nuclear fusion occurred ... but our (energy production) results were very much more modest that Pons and Fleischmann's,'' said Rafelski. The key to the fusion experiment ''could be in the preparation of the palladium electrode, in the nature of the material itself. When that is better understood, even our process could be substantially improved, said Rafelski. Like Jones, who Wednesday urged Congress to exercise caution in funding fusion research, Rafelski disagreed with the notion that cold-fusion energy could soon provide an inexhaustible source of cheap, safe energy. ''Looking into the future, it is possible that even our small fusion rate, when properly understood, could be taken up to a level which could make some form of application possible,'' Rafelski said. ''But I wouldn't go to the extent of saying we can build a cold-fusion nuclear reactor in the next few years. What I am saying is, do not as yet sell your oil wells,'' he added. =END= OREGON RESEARCHERS MAY HAVE DUPLICATED COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT PORTLAND, OR (APRIL 28) UPI - A Portland State University researcher said Friday he may have duplicated a cold fusion experiment in which University of Utah scientists produced energy from a chemical reaction involving heavy water. Physics professor John Dash said he and graduate student Patrick Keefe got a one second burst of energy that was at least 100 times larger than the amount of energy put into the experiment. However, Dash and Keefe were cautious in their claims. Dash said they wanted to duplicate the test before concluding that they had reproduced a fusion experiment that is causing a world-wide scientific sensation. ''I don't have any proof that it is nuclear fusion. But I do have proof that there was a large burst of energy that exceeded the energy when we closed the switch,'' said Dash, a metallurgist. ''This is something new in my experience. I've been doing experiments similar to this since about 1960.'' It was the first attempt in Oregon to reproduce work done by B. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southhampton in England, whose work raised the possiblity of producing cheap energy from something as simple as sea water. The Utah experiment was announced March 23, Dash and Keefe performed their experiment last Monday. Dash said he used materials similar to the original experiment - a palladium electrode immersed in a small beaker containing heavy water. He said he mixed an electrolyte with the water to increase its conductivity. But he declined to describe the electrolyte because it might have patent possibilities. Dash said when an electrical current was applied, the needle on a temperature recorder in the liquid solution jumped from 21 degrees to 27 1/2 degrees Celsius (about 70 to 81 degrees Fehrenheit) in one second. The temperature rise in the solution was far greater than can be accounted for by the electrical current, he said. ''I conservatively said more than 100 times,'' he said. ''It could have been much more than that.'' A microscopic examination of the electrode showed evidence of melting consistent with a high energy surge, he said. ''It definitely exceeded the melting point.'' Dash said he was trying to assemble materials for another experiment. =END= cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenshafey cudlnMatt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Blair Houghton / Re: F&P in Congress Originally-From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,misc.headlines,sci.physics Subject: Re: F&P in Congress Date: 30 Apr 89 11:39:40 GMT Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng. In article <13679@steinmetz.ge.com> blackje@sunspot.steinmetz () writes: >Speaking before the United States Congress yesterday, >Fleischmann & Pons said that "they were as sure as they could be" >that the effect they had observed was fusion. > >They have requested $25 million from the U.S. government ^^^^^^^^^^^ >in order to build a facility in Utah to explore the cold fusion effect. 1. So much for "cheap" energy. 2. $25 million?? For what? A quarter-billion mason jars? 3. I should've expected this was coming... 4. They yanked the paper, practically recant the whole deal, and go sniffing for money anyway? Yep. These guys are true, modern academics. 5. Where do I apply? --Blair "...AND a quarter-billion of those big rubber washers, y'know..." P.S. I've discovered that you can observe tachyons when you chew wintergreen LifeSavers in front of a mirror in a darkened room. I need $18 million to build a big bathroom in the desert at White Sands to study the effect further. Won't you write your congressman? cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenbph cudfnBlair cudlnHoughton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Paul Chisholm / Re: wireless electricity Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.space Subject: Re: wireless electricity Date: 30 Apr 89 03:41:40 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article <269@poppy.warwick.ac.uk>, phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) writes: > There have been recent sugestions that a satellite in a > geostationary orbit could use a high power microwave transmitter to > transmit power to earth, this would mean that the solar cells picked > up more light than they would on earth. Recent? These proposals were first made in the seventies. The original proposal was made by Peter Glaser (of Arthur Little, I think). Princeton's Gerard K. O'Neill suggested that, rather than lifting all that mass from the Earth, it would be cheaper to build a lunar colony, get all the mass from the Moon, and build the solar power satellites from space habitats. I did my term paper for Engineering Economics on O'Neill's proposal back in 1977 or 1978. What effect would that kind of microwave flux have on birds, crops, people, and the environment in general? No one knows. Terrestrial fusion might well be cheaper, and looks from here to be much simpler. Please follow-up to sci.space. > Stuart Millington. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / James_J_Kowalc / Re: Walling/Simons paper; p+d fusion Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Walling/Simons paper; p+d fusion Date: 30 Apr 89 02:55:23 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: ...excerpts deleted... >In p+d fusion, the rate is so slow because the compound nucleus must >quickly emit a gamma before it breaks apart again into a proton and a >deuteron. This rarely happens. > >However, if there is some magic mechanism for quickly removing the >energy (as there would have to be, if He4 is not to break up), p+d >fusion should be sped up enormously, perhaps by a factor of several >hundred thousand, over and above its advantage due to its lower >reduced mass. Pons and Fleischmann should be seeing perhaps millions >of times more He3 than He4. ...excerpts deleted... As far as I know, Pons & Fleischmann have not announced that they have ever tried the experiment using H2O/D2O mixtures. In their typical set-up, they use pure (>99%) D2O, and in their few "control" runs, they used H2O (~0.015% D). Therefore, although H+D -> 3He might be predicted to be much much faster than D+D -> 4He, there simply has not been enough H present in their experiments for this process to be significant. At least this is the way I see it. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / John Hayward / Re: Czirr Fermi Lab talk (was Submission for alt.fusion) Originally-From: johnh@wheaton.UUCP (John Doc Hayward) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Czirr Fermi Lab talk (was Submission for alt.fusion) Date: 29 Apr 89 03:41:53 GMT Organization: Wheaton College, Wheaton Il I tried to post this earlier but I do not think it made it out. Here is a second try. (if you have seen this before hit 'n' now) In article <8904220135.AA28662@ames.arc.nasa.gov> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: >COLLOQUIUM >Tuesday, 25 April >Fermilab Auditorium >4 PM > "Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter" > Prof. Bart Czirr > (one of Steve Jones's gang) > Brigham Young University Well this sounded like an interesting colloquium to attend so I attended. Here are some impressions which may not be accurate but may be of interest to the group. The first disappoint was the actual talk title was something like "Neutron detection in Cold Fusion". The second was at the offset of the talk the host introduced the speaker indicating that the talk would not be about cold fusion in general. Czirr indicated he had been working in neutron detection for 28 years. The bulk of the talk was describing the detector which is a low resolution spectrometer based on the coincidence calorimeter principle which requires a two signals from each neutron that is accepted. One signal was used to measure the energy the other was to verify it was a neutron as opposed to a gamma ray (based on the pulse shape of the capture in the glass). The reason its resolution is so low is that the neutron has about 6-12 collisions (to get its energy measurement) before it slows down to thermal speeds and is adsorbed by the glass (to verify it was a neutron). The signal for each collision is non-linear in terms of energy and this causes peak broadening. The calibration was done using a Vandegraph (sp?) generator which unfortunately had a wall near the source so 'room return' tended to get in the way of the peak they were trying to measure. They have been given permission to use a cleaner set up with a false floor at Los Alamos for better calibration. The background included both neutrons and gamma rays. Most of the background is due to the cement environment of the lab. 800 lbs of pennies were used for shielding because lead bricks tend to be contamination. He had a slide showing the background which had been collected over 200 hours without the fusion cell. A 10 percent variation was observed. He indicated that the foreground signal was close to size of the background. The detector efficiency was determined to be 10 percent and the solid angle for the cell is also about 10 percent so the over all efficiency is 1 percent. With a background of 4 measured neutrons per hour the cell mush have generate 400 neutrons per hour in order to have a foreground to background signal ratio of 1 to 1. He indicated there there are 5 potential detectors: 1) a boron plastic containing detector made by Bicron(sp?) but does not work well in the 2.5 MEV neutrons; 2) Nuclear Interprises (sp?) Lithium liquid detector which seems good but does not use the dual signal method; 3) He3 proportional counters which are inefficiency but had higher resolution; 4) Los Alamos has a 'log cabin' plastic detector which has not yet but could possibly be adapted to low energy neutrons; 5) A liquid detector like Ne213 which may not work in a cement lined lab due to bad background conditions. He indicated that in Italy they are using this detector and that in Italy they are located in a mountain which neutrons cause by cosmic rays are not present and the lab is appently not constructed with cement. Resolution is the area he is working on in the future by using different materials in the detector it may be possible to get a higher resolution detector. He then indicated this was the end of the talk. When asked if he would present the foreground data he said this was the first of a two part presentation and he did not want to steal the thunder from Jones who would be talking at Argonne on May 5th. Reflections: At the end of the talk many people were disappointed due to lack of any foreground data presented. I have more doubts now that I more fully understand how the BYU group detected the neutrons. It seems to me that a 1 to 1 foreground to background with a new detector would leave plenty of room for possible mistakes. I would prefer a larger signal to noise ratio. It seems that if the neutron count is as low as they think they should do some measurements away from the concrete which seems to contribute to the background or connect up larger or more cells to get a clearer indication. cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenjohnh cudfnJohn cudlnHayward cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Paul Chisholm / Re: Survey on Cold Fusion Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Survey on Cold Fusion Date: 30 Apr 89 04:15:40 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article <2323@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, rsk@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes: > Our *opinions* as to the answers to these questions (and others in > the survey) are completely irrelevant; either Pons-Fleischmann and > others have fusion or they don't; and our collected opinions won't > affect that in the slightest. > ---Rsk I agree completely. Do we all remember the story (I think Heinlein used it in one of his novels) about the class who adopted a kitten, and decided by a popular election that the cat was male? This didn't stop it from having kittens. I assume Rhodes is interested in the *reactions* to the cold fusion announcements. The "history of science" isn't a science, but it is a worthwhile field of study. (I'm looking forward to the results.) Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Svante Lindahl / Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Originally-From: zap@front.se (Svante Lindahl) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yesterday) Date: 30 Apr 89 15:55:37 GMT Organization: Front Capital Systems, Stockholm, Sweden In article <130@bach.nsc.com>, andrew@berlioz (Andrew Palfreyman) writes: > Yes - it's levelled off at the $170 dollar range. The price spread gets > smaller each day, like the back end of an oscillation. Lack of news is > probably stifling volatility - but who REALLY knows?! A radical drop in price of palladium happend in New York this Friday. Price went from 168.5 on Thursday to 161.55. In London the price only dropped from 168.25 to 165.0. (All prices are US$/troy oz). Svante cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenzap cudfnSvante cudlnLindahl cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Paul Chisholm / hydrogen cars (was: Fusion Cars?) Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: hydrogen cars (was: Fusion Cars?) Date: 30 Apr 89 02:46:18 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article <11420@well.UUCP>, mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: > My coworker mentioned he had seen a technology for storing > hydrogen fuel that dramtically reduced explosion problems. What he's talking about is using solid blocks of titanium-like metals to store hydrogen. As I recall, titanium does this very effectively (storing as much hydrogen as an empty tank the same size would store if filled to hundreds [?] of atmospheres), but only at fairly high temperatures. I learned all of this stuff years ago, and via word of mouth, so I could be wrong on the particulars. This is *exactly* the effect that may let palladium smoosh deuterons together closely enough to fuse. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Paul Chisholm / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 30 Apr 89 03:27:58 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > In article <1800@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes about how the power companies might file for "damages" if backyard fusion becomes popular. In article <29591@apple.Apple.COM>, thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) writes: > "Damages"? Who exactly is supposed to owe them a living? Um, we do, sort of. I don't want to get into a debate between socialists and libertarians here, but if we're talking about putting the power companies out of business, we should talk about how they started business in the first place. *Please*, follow-ups on political and economic theories via e-mail or to another group; I just want to talk about the existing status of power companies here. Utilities (electric, gas, telephone, cable TV) need to maintain a grid that can (potentially) supply every household and business in a given area. The costs of building and maintaining such a grid are high. They're considered too high to do effectively in a traditional competitive environment, and still serve all the potential customers. The various states in the U.S. (and the regional or national governments in most other capitalist countries) decided that universal service was more important than cutthroat rates. Each region is put in the hands of a particular utility, whose rates are regulated by the state government. The utility is given a monopoly on service in that region, and guaranteed a certain percentage of their costs as profit. That answers the question, "Who exactly is supposed to owe them a living": the state regulators do. Bear in mind at this point that power companies aren't faceless monoliths, each funnelling its proceeds into a Donald Trump clone. A utility is almost always a privately held company, whose shareholders look for reliability instead of sizzle, with a large number of the stereotypical "widows and orphans" getting hurt when the utility gets afflicted. So, what happens when all the upper-middle class yuppies install Mr. Fusions in their front hall closets, and all the businesses with more than a dozen employees start co-generation, producing their own heat and power? The local power company sees a substantial dip in revenues. Their investments in new generators look like so many wheelbarrows of Confederate currency. Their fuel costs go down, but the costs of maintaining existing generators and the local grid stay level or increase. The utilities petition that local public service commission to let them increase their rates, and get turned down, because the remaining customers couldn't afford power at that cost. One declares Chapter 11 and stops paying its employees, who don't show up for work, and neighborhoods start going dark. . . . I'm painting a pretty dark (pun intended:-) picture here. It's not as bad as I showed above; instead, it'll be *complicated*. This isn't something as simple as breaking up the Bell System. *That* cataclysm orphaned the regional Bell operating companies, but kept them relatively intact. Cheap, distributed fusion power would take the profitable customers off of the grid, and local power utilities might have to be drastically restructured. In the worst case, the government would have to get into the (electrical) power business, to ensure universal service. So, if you're starting a science fiction story with fusion cars in it, don't overlook the more interesting possibilities. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I joined AT&T just before divestiture; none the less, I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenpsrc cudfnPaul cudlnChisholm cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / John R / Canadian FTP site for Cold Fusion Papers Originally-From: jrn@me.utoronto.ca ("John R. Nickerson") Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Canadian FTP site for Cold Fusion Papers Date: 30 Apr 89 22:38:33 GMT Organization: Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto In order to relieve part of the load on unh.cs.cmu.edu (128.2.254.150) people may anonymously ftp the following papers out of the machine gw.ccie.utoronto.ca or 128.100.63.2, where the following papers may be found: Papers: cjh "Cold Nuclear Fusion in Metallic Hydrogen and Normal Metals" Charles J. Horowitz Physics Department and Nuclear Theory Center - Indiana University Submitted to Physical Review C ********archived as cjh.ps.Z dcb "Gammas from Cold Nuclear Fusion" David C. Bailey Department of Physics - University of Toronto April 20, 1989 ********archived as dcb.ps.Z sek "Enhancement of cold fusion rates by fluctuations" S. E. Koonin Institute for Theoretical Physics University of California, Santa Barbara Submitted to Physical Review Letters, April 19, 1989 ********archived as sek.ps.Z kn "Cold fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules" S. E. Koonin and M. Nauenberg Institute for Theoretical Physics University of California, Santa Barbara Submitted to Nature, April 7, 1989 ********archived as kn.ps.Z ws "Two Innocent Chemists Look at Cold Fusion" Cheves Walling and Jack Simons Chemistry Department, University of Utah ********archived as ws.1.ps.Z through ws.9.ps.Z h1 "A Simple Model for Coherent DD Fusion in the Presence of a Lattice" Peter L. Hagelstein Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT April 10, 1989 ********archived as h1.1.ps.Z through h1.18.ps.Z h2 "Phonon Interactions in Coherent Fusion" Peter L. Hagelstein Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT ********archived as h2.1.ps.Z through h2.12.ps.Z h3 "Rates for Neutron and Tritium Production in Coherent DD Fusion" Peter L. Hagelstein Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT April 10, 1989 ********archived as h3.1.ps.Z through h3.11.ps.Z gcm "Catalysis of Deuterium Fusion in Metal Hydrides by Cosmic Ray Muons." M. W. Guinan, G. F. Chapline, and R. W. Moir Submitted to Physical Review Letters Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory April 7 1989 ********archived as l.0.ps.Z through l.8.ps.Z rj "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 ********archived as s.1.ps.Z through s.13.ps.Z fp "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium" Martin Fleischmann - University of Southampton Stanley Pons - University of Utah March 20, 1989 ********archived as p.1.ps.Z through p.16.ps.Z jpr "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter" Jones, Palmer, Czirr, Decker, Jensen, Thorne, Taylor - Brigham Young University Rafelski - University of Arizona March 23, 1989 ********not yet archived, undergoing conversion to postscript file, may take a couple of days yet. ftp gw.ccie.utoronto.ca anonymous anonymous cd pub/cld.fsn type binary get ( or mget as the case may be) bye ***** Note that papers which have multiple #'s like h1.1.ps to h1.18.ps are bitmaps taken from a fax. Unfortunatley the papers don't look great but are readable especially if you zerox them with an 85% reduction. Papers such as kn.ps are a single postscript file which produces a much nicer result. Note though that all of the papers are in a compressed format and thus type binary must be used in their transfer. Later paper releases should hit gw.ccie ( GateWay Computing Centre for Integrated Engineering) shortly after Vince Cate has them. Enjoy! J.R. -- Disclaimer: "I'm gonna hit the highway like a battering ram on a Silver Black Phantom Bike" ... Bat out of Hell John R. Nickerson, University of Toronto (416) 978-7020 UUNET:...uunet!utai!me!jrn USENET: jrn@me.utoronto.ca BITNET: jrn@ME.UTORONTO cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenjrn cudfnJohn cudlnR cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / Dave Bailey / San Jose Mercury article Originally-From: dbailey@orville.nas.nasa.gov (Dave Bailey) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: San Jose Mercury article Date: 30 Apr 89 23:46:18 GMT Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA The San Jose Mercury News dated 30 April 89 featured a lengthy article entitled "Fusion Leaves Me Cold", by one Geoffrey Sea, who styles himself as the director of In Vivo: Radiation Response (a radiation health consulting firm) and a graduate student in nuclear science at San Jose State University. Here are some highlights of his article, excerpted without permission, plus some editorial comments of mine in brackets. He begins his piece with the comment that cold fusion has "both dangerous possibilites for nuclear weapons prolifearation and complex problems of nuclear pollution". He first cites the reaction d + d --> He3 + n and points out the danger of high energy neutrons, but he then mentions the reaction d + d --> t + p and points out that tritium could then be produced easily if cold fusion is a reality. [Note that this analysis ignores the recent evidence that the primary reaction is d + d --> He4]. He further claims that "any commerical cold fusion system would use tritium as its primary fuel" [this claim is also out of date already]. He continues "But suppose cold fusion became a staple of our energy economy. Tritium might be all around, and easy to produce. Worse, ... you might be able to build a nuclear weapon without enriched uranium or plutonium...History and engineering principles tell us that, for any potent new fuel, it's easier to make it explode than it is to make it burn slowly, efficiently, and continuously." [Note that this claim completely ignores the fact that cold fusion dies the instant the melting point of palladium is exceeded]. At this point Sea inserts a rather ugly cheap shot at the state of Utah: "After giving us the faulty space shuttle booster rocket, does Utah really want to become known as the home of things that explode in the cold?" Sea then changes the subject to radiation, claiming that in a cold fusion power plant "The problem of adequate containment with such a system would be anything but trivial...Worker exposure to neutrons at a fusion facility would be extraordinarily high". Usage is autos "is laughable, for the driver would die quickly from neutron irradiation". [Note that this again completely ignores the overriding fact that the P-F fusion experiment generated virtually no neutrons, particularly in proportion to the energy produced]. Sea's conclusion is that "cold fusion research deserves to be zero budgeted". [Sorry, but the genie is already out of the bottle]. David H. Bailey NASA Ames Research Center cudkeys: cuddy30 cudendbailey cudfnDave cudlnBailey cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Matt Rhodes / Re: Survey on Cold Fusion Originally-From: rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Survey on Cold Fusion Date: 1 May 89 03:02:45 GMT Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA In article <2323@mace.cc.purdue.edu> (Rich Kulawiec) writes: >In article <311@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> rhodes@ll-vlsi.arpa.UUCP (Matt Rhodes) writes: >> 4 Do you believe there is fusion going on? >> 5. Do you believe there is significant energy production from fusion? >> 6. Do you believe that this will become an important energy source? > > >Science is not done by opinion polls or votes; science is done by >hypothesis and experiment. > >---Rsk I agree Rich.., and I am not conducting the poll with any thought that it may effect the science in either a positive or negative way. However, because Pons and Fleischmann decided to exchange scientific information through popular media instead of reviewed professional journals, many have quickly formed opinions about the science. I think it will be interesting to find out what these opinions are. I make no judgement as to their relationship to the scientific truth..., for that we will have to wait. Cheers. P.S. - For other interested parties, keep those cards and letters coming! :-) cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenrhodes cudfnMatt cudlnRhodes cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Michael McClary / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 1 May 89 02:21:37 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <18292@glacier.stanford.edu> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: >In article <545@gandalf.littlei.UUCP> tim@opoxsrv.i.intel.com (Timothy E. Forsyth) writes: >> Two Portland researchers got a second's worth of fast energy and possibly >>a career's worth of excitement this week with the state's first "cold fusion" >>experiment. >> >> The energy apparently caused a microscopic crater in the palladium >>electrode. > > Somehow, one suspects that this is a chemical reaction. Beyond >that, though, this "gee, something funny happened, call a press conference" >approach to science is getting to be a bit much. I like the "mystery >electrolyte" mentioned, which might contribute to a chemical reaction. Perhaps it's a pain, but I prefer this approach to "Something funny happened that I don't understand, so I'll just throw it away and never tell anybody." Nylon had to be invented twice because of that. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Theodore Hsu / The relevance of public opinion to the scientific enterprise Originally-From: 6095863@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Theodore Cheng-tao Hsu) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: The relevance of public opinion to the scientific enterprise Date: 1 May 89 01:04:18 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <2323@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, rsk@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes: >In article <311@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> rhodes@ll-vlsi.arpa.UUCP (Matt Rhodes) writes: >> 4 Do you believe there is fusion going on? > > >Science is not done by opinion polls or votes; science is done by >hypothesis and experiment. > >---Rsk On the contrary the perception of the scientific community and the general public to a lesser degree of WHAT CONSTITUTES AN INTERESTING AND WORTHWHILE RESEARCH ENDEAVOR has a large impact on the FUNDING of scientific research. Many grant proposals are subject to peer review and people proposing research in current HOT topics, or who hold "safe" or "proven" opinions on some issue are more likely to pass the peer review process. I might also mention that another tool for generating funding is to generate PUBLIC INTEREST. Catch phrases like THE ULTIMATE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, or, THE ULTIMATE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE, are, scientifically, misleading and incorrect. However they do generate excitement among the general public which ultimately affects the votes of legislators who control overall funding levels. As far as the Poll which the preceeding message addresses, I find that such a poll might be useful to those interested in the sociology and history of science as well as of causual interest to all. T.C. Hsu cudkeys: cuddy1 cuden6095863 cudfnTheodore cudlnHsu cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Roger Nelson / Re: Bandwagons unneeded Originally-From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Bandwagons unneeded Date: 1 May 89 03:52:38 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <51616@linus.UUCP> munck@linus.UUCP (Robert Munck) writes: [among other things] >I must also admit annoyance at those who explain that cold fusion is >"impossible" because "the numbers don't work" or "it contradicts the >way thing are." Remember, all of physics, every jot and tittle, is >THEORY. We don't KNOW how ANYTHING works, though we do have some good >models that work for an awful lot of tests. We can't even prove that there >are such things as atoms; they might be local characteristics of some >other phenomenon that looks very different under other circumstances. > Though I agree with those asking for a moderated group, it is wonderful to see some attention to the semi-conscious underpinnings of scientific method, especially the need for open-minded assessment of questions and results from experiments designed to yield relevant information. So while this free-spirited (and certainly annoying) .talk style discussion of almost everything but cold fusion and physics, is still on, I'll take advantage of Bob Munck's note to campaign for this one bandwagon: Science is about learning through doing; and no amount of opinion, or authority, or even logic can replace the interplay of theory and experiment that is and will be the history of science. Cold fusion, in some minds apparently "contradicts the way things are," but it's an easy case compared to something like interactions of consciousness with physical systems, for which there is evidence that appears to be relatively neat and clean. Whoa, you say, what has this got to do with anything? I just wanted to help promote alternatives to assessing how famous alt.fusion has gotten (must be 20 notes about that!). >I'd love to see statistics about how acceptance of the possibility of >cold fusion correlates to age; remember Heinlein's dictum that an elder >scientist declaring something impossible is always wrong. (Well, I'm 43, >but programmers are the ultimate optimists at all ages.) > Max Plank was perhaps not the first to suggest that new theories must wait for old theorists to die. Roger Nelson rdnelson@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenrdnelson cudfnRoger cudlnNelson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Ronald Mayer / Re: Where to buy palladium rods & wire (was cast vs drawn vs milled) Originally-From: armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Where to buy palladium rods & wire (was cast vs drawn vs milled) Date: 1 May 89 08:16:46 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1813@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > >Ah ... but this brings up the question of how they make the rods. Do >they cast them, or do they draw them (far more likely). Do they >draw them above or below the recrystalization temperature? Do they >do any cold work on them? Why can't you create whatever structure you want in your palladium rod by heating, drawing, working, re-melting, or whatever you want? Shouldn't you be able to make a piece of palladium which has a similar crystal structure to a cast rod by just heating a milled or drawn rod with a torch and slowly cooling? [probably not, but it can't be much harder than that, is it?] -Ronald Mayer armin@portia.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenarmin cudfnRonald cudlnMayer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Lord Head / An end to speculation? Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: An end to speculation? Date: 1 May 89 08:16:32 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara It would appear that considerable inertia is being introduced into the progress of analysis and experimental verification, due to the withholding of information by (mainly, but not solely) Messrs. F&P. Since this appears to be predicate on the patenting process, could anyone speculate on the likely elapsed time before F&P could be expected to divulge all the data that they presently are not? - i.e. typical patent processing times, etc. This speculation would provide a means to speculate as to when the current speculation could begin to become less speculative :-) As a bizarre footnote: if this were comic-magazine-land, Messrs. F&P would long ago have been kidnapped and held to ransom by the Forces Of Evil. -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenandrew cudfnLord cudlnHead cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Chris Phoenix / Does temperature make a difference? Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Does temperature make a difference? Date: 1 May 89 08:32:01 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. I was discussing cold fusion with my father, and he suggested that very small changes in temperature might make the difference. If there is some kind of coherence effect, the lattice might have to be at just the right spacing (or something). Is this plausible? Also, he said that F&P claim they stirred their solution to clean the electrode surfaces. What is there in their setup that would get them dirty? Might the stirring serve some other purpose? BTW, he says discussion of cold fusion on the IBM forums (their equivalent of newsgroups) is pretty much parallel to that on these groups. -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy1 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Paul Dietz / Re: Walling/Simons paper; p+d fusion Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Walling/Simons paper; p+d fusion Date: 1 May 89 11:27:06 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <17763@cup.portal.com> James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com writes: >... although >H+D -> 3He might be predicted to be much much faster than >D+D -> 4He, there simply has not been enough H present in their >experiments for this process to be significant. This depends, of course, on the rates of the two reactions. If the p+d reaction was sufficiently faster it would dominate, even if the protium fraction is < 1%. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Paul Dietz / Re: F&P in Congress Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: F&P in Congress Date: 1 May 89 11:52:28 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <2729@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >>They have requested $25 million from the U.S. government > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >>in order to build a facility in Utah to explore the cold fusion effect. > >1. So much for "cheap" energy. What a stupid cheap shot. Why should this mean we can discard "cheap energy"? $25 M is for R&D. Or are you saying that any R&D project costing more than $25 M cannot be worthwhile? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Andy Froncioni / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: froncio@caip.rutgers.edu (Andy Froncioni) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 1 May 89 11:55:52 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. In article , michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: > > Somehow, one suspects that this is a chemical reaction. Beyond > >that, though, this "gee, something funny happened, call a press conference" > >approach to science is getting to be a bit much. I like the "mystery > >electrolyte" mentioned, which might contribute to a chemical reaction. > > Perhaps it's a pain, but I prefer this approach to "Something funny > happened that I don't understand, so I'll just throw it away and never > tell anybody." Nylon had to be invented twice because of that. What about publishing BEFORE calling a press conference? ... or have people forgotten how research discoveries were handled before F&P??? --Andy -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Etes-la, etes-la, etes-la! | Andy Froncioni @ CAIP Center Les Canadiens sont la!" | Parallel Computing Lab. / Rutgers (sic) | a.k.a. froncio@caip.rutgers.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenfroncio cudfnAndy cudlnFroncioni cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Paul Dietz / Re: UPI News Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: UPI News Date: 1 May 89 12:09:39 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY The Stanford team ... credited their success to the use of a dry-nitrogen atmosphere which assured the purity of ''heavy water,'' water composed of oxygen and a form of hydrogen known as deuterium. ''We have enough evidence that if the heavy water becomes contaminated by (ordinary) water, the effects decrease substantially or even go away,'' said Dr. Robert Huggins, who directed the Stanford study. I wonder if instead the trick is to exclude carbon dioxide. CO2 should be readily absorbed into concentrated lithium deuteroxide solution. Maybe carbonate ions foul things up somehow. Dr. Johann Rafelski of the University of Arizona, one of the authors of a fusion paper published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature, said, ''There's something in the palladium we're using that makes it work.'' I wonder if the Pd is merely serving to absorb the deuterium, and some impurity element (another platinum group element?) in solid solution is catalyzing fusion. It would be interesting to do a detailed elemental analysis on F & P's electrodes. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Michael McClary / Re: Does temperature make a difference? Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Does temperature make a difference? Date: 1 May 89 15:25:45 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <8762@csli.stanford.edu> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >Also, he said that F&P claim they stirred their solution to clean the >electrode surfaces. What is there in their setup that would get them >dirty? Might the stirring serve some other purpose? Gas bubbles (which keep the electrolyte away from the rod). Perhaps local concentrations of the salts left behind when the "water" is consumed by electrolysis. Also circulates the fluid to even out the temperature (for more accurate measurement). cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Michael McClary / Re: An end to speculation? Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: An end to speculation? Date: 1 May 89 15:16:42 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <151@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) writes: >It would appear that considerable inertia is being introduced into the >progress of analysis and experimental verification, due to the withholding >of information by (mainly, but not solely) Messrs. F&P. Since this appears to >be predicate on the patenting process, could anyone speculate on the likely >elapsed time before F&P could be expected to divulge all the data that they >presently are not? - i.e. typical patent processing times, etc. I hear typical time for a patent is about 1-1/2 to two years. Fusion will likely get more immediate, but probably more (time-consumingly) careful, consideration. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Matt Rhodes / Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 1 May 89 17:29:31 GMT Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenrhodes cudfnMatt cudlnRhodes cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / russotto@wam.U / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: russotto@wam.UMD.EDU Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 1 May 89 22:12:38 GMT Organization: University of Maryland, College Park In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> rhodes@ll-vlsi.arpa.UUCP (Matt Rhodes) writes: >The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists >Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are >guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- >mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock >similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... I wonder if this has anything to do with the $$$ MIT gets for research on 'HOT' fusion.. Rupert Murdock accusing anybody (else) of "misrepresentation" is kind of inappropriat.. -- DISCLAIMER: Not only does the University not share my opinions, they don't want me sharing my opinions. "This 'Pnews', what does it do?" Matthew T. Russotto russotto@wam.umd.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenrussotto cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / N Truher / Re: Reactions to Fusion Originally-From: thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion Date: 2 May 89 00:34:42 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <1989Apr2.145310.29132@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >The four stages of reaction to a great invention: > > 1. It's impossible. > 2. It's impractical. > 3. It's immoral. > 4. I said all along it was a great idea. Remember this? It's getting quoted EVERYWHERE. I read it in an article in last Sunday's UC Santa Cruz campus newspaper, quoted from the New York Times, who attributed it to "a scientist on a computer network" or something like that. Did Mr. Dietz characterize this progression himself, or was he quoting or paraphrasing someone else? cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenthrash cudfnNathaniel cudlnTruher cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / David Cyganski / Cold fusion in today's news Originally-From: cyganski@wpi.wpi.edu (David Cyganski) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cold fusion in today's news Date: 1 May 89 23:35:23 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass. A few items from the media today (5/1/89) 1) ABC news showed a clip from a press conference at MIT. I'm sorry but I didn't catch the name of the representative. They announced that they have not been able to reproduce the neutron generating aspect of the F&P experiment and hence do not believe that F&P achieved fusion. No mention was made of calorimetry. 2) ABC news also noted that CAL TECH also announced their inability to duplicate the experiment. 3) The latest issue of PEOPLE MAGAZINE features an interview with Pons. Most interesting is the description of the length of effort involved in taking the fusion idea from conception to fruition: five years (of 18 hour days his wife said). My two cents: On the question of whether F&P are making a calorimetry error, apparently they saw a little less than five years of no fusion, so I would say they must have been doing something right at that point. I would find it much harder to believe them if that had got it to work the first time. Obviously, as others on the net have pointed out, there is a trick to getting this to work and they are enjoying it (to the loss of MIT and others) and we'll just have to wait. David Cyganski Worcester Polytechnic Institute cudkeys: cuddy1 cudencyganski cudfnDavid cudlnCyganski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Matt / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: shafey@athena.mit.edu (Matt Shafe') Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 01:01:52 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> rhodes@ll-vlsi.arpa.UUCP (Matt Rhodes) writes: >The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists >Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are >guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- >mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock >similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... Glad to see somebody beat me to posting this message! Apparently, the Herald Interview has caught the attention of many media organizations. However, I would like to see the paper by Ballinger and Parker of MIT, which is supposed to be presented at the American Physical Society in Baltimore tonight, May 1. I believe that this report should be representative of efforts unable to confirm the F&P experiment. Based upon sources here at MIT, Ballinger has expressed disatisfaction with what F&P have released as far as the expirmental details are concerned (ie - they are not clear on things.) I believe the report released tonight in Baltimore will say that as far as their preliminary report is concerned (F&P), the experiment cannot be verified or confirmed. That's not to say that F&P are full of "...scientific schlock..." and are guilty of "...misrepresentation and maybe fraud..." The Boston Herald should probably receive some sort of "Flame Award" for going after F&P, but I don't believe they (the Herald) even deserve recognition of any sort. I hope the scientists are the one's responsible for criticism in this event. --- shafey@athena.mit.edu : "Chocolate Cake without frosting? Jim, that's impossible!" : "Captain, they are cake." --- cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenshafey cudlnMatt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / David Honig / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: news@paris.ics.uci.edu (Network News) Originally-From: honig@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 1 May 89 22:59:32 GMT Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS Originally-From: honig@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig) Path: bonnie.ics.uci.edu!honig FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their Alcator-C tokamak research project. -- David A Honig -- Usenet Administrator usenet@paris.ics.uci.edu (ARPA) {ucbvax,sdcsvax}!ucivax!paris!usenet (UUCP) cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenhonig cudfnDavid cudlnHonig cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Roy Richter / Real researchers on the net Originally-From: roy@rphroy.UUCP (Roy Richter) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Real researchers on the net Date: 1 May 89 12:49:53 GMT Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI Considering the discussion of who actually reads alt.fusion and sci.physics, I wanted to point out that there are real physicists in addition to real newspeople on the net. It turns out to be a good way to get the preprints in this case (ftp sources, etc.) and news articles from local, faraway places. We don't post much because that would screw-up the noise-to-signal ratio people have come to expect. :-) Any real people may reply to me. Or how about sci.physics.researchers? -- Roy Richter UUCP: {sharkey,edsews,mcf}!rphroy!roy Physics Dept, GM Research CSNet: rrichter@gmr.com Internet: roy%rphroy.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenroy cudfnRoy cudlnRichter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Mingqiu Sun / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: sun@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Mingqiu Sun) Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 2 May 89 00:24:50 GMT Organization: Ohio State University: Physics Department i vote yes for sci.physics.fusion. -- Mingqiu Sun | Bitnet: sun@ohstpy.bitnet ---------------------------| Internet: sun@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu 4081 Smith Lab, OSU Physics | Voice-net: 614-292-2887 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudensun cudfnMingqiu cudlnSun cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Shawn / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: xtwo@athena.mit.edu (Shawn) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 01:39:46 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> rhodes@ll-vlsi.arpa.UUCP (Matt Rhodes) writes: >The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists >Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are >guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- Yes, well later on in the article it states that one of the two men is the head (or one of the heads) of the plasma fusion\ dept. at MIT. Hmmm... I guess that would leave him pretty well immune to predjedice here :) -AJS cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenxtwo cudlnShawn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / / Personal to greif at teradyne Originally-From: charles@dragon.phx.mcd.mot.com (3432) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Personal to greif at teradyne Date: 1 May 89 19:15:48 GMT Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az. Sorry to intrude, but we're trying to figure out a uucp path, and this is one of the three groups he can get (!!!). From the guys who were asking about fractals at the Dead Run in Irvine last weekend... cudkeys: cuddy1 cudencharles cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / L Hutchinson / Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Call to vote: sci.physics.fusion Date: 1 May 89 23:13:10 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <23580@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: >In article sullivan@msor.exeter.ac.uk (Rob Sullivan) writes: >>I agree with the creation of sci.physics.fusion > >I disagree. Cold fusion *may* not be a reality; in that case there >would be an empty news group. Why not wait until it is either proved >or refuted? > And I agree with your disagreement! I hereby predict that on the very day that sci.physics.fusion is created that P&F will find their calorimetry error and will retract their claim. The next day both P&F will be found in an alley beaten senseless by roving gangs of 'wilding' scientists wielding palladium rods. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) On a slightly more serious vein, I would like to point out a couple of things: 1) There are exactly two (2) choices here: either P&F have made errors in the calorimetry OR there is radically new physics going on. Actually a third possibility is fraud but I don't believe that -- anymore. Note that failure to account for chemical reactions or making bad assumptions both count as an error in calorimetry. 2) There is really no need to measure neutrons or gammas. It is clear from the fact that P&F are both still alive that the conventional fusion process is not taking place at the Watt level. If we can suspend disbelief and accept that 'new physics is going on' then we have no way of judging the significance of the presence or absence of a part per billion of the conventional pathway. This would merely confirm Jones et al's claims -- amusing but not earth shaking. 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: cuddy1 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / L Hutchinson / cancel <5035@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: cancel <5035@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> Date: 2 May 89 00:26:57 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / John Woods / Re: gonzo science Originally-From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: gonzo science Date: 30 Apr 89 20:22:00 GMT Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us In article <20420011@hpcuhb.HP.COM>, donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: > If fusion experiments were limited to people who understand how it is supposed > to work, they would only be done with lasers and particle accelerators. And yet, curiously enough, F&P were guided in large part by existing theories, plus some new ideas, when they decided to try their Mr. Fusion idea. Experiment is almost always guided by theory. There are an infinite number of possible experiments ("Gee, I've never heard of anyone banging three pound rocks together for half an hour, I wonder what happens?"), but only a few of them are interesting. Some of the greatest revolutions in science have come from performing experiments that would further demonstrate the validity of existing theory -- yet which turned out wrong (dropping balls of different weights, Michelson-Morley, etc.) (I wanted to include "black-body radiation" in the list, but I believe that was an observation that had been made before there was a classical explanation for it; perhaps it serves as a counter-example to my point :-). -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnWoods cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / John Moore / Re: An end to speculation? Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: An end to speculation? Date: 1 May 89 14:03:50 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <151@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) writes: ]It would appear that considerable inertia is being introduced into the ]progress of analysis and experimental verification, due to the withholding ]of information by (mainly, but not solely) Messrs. F&P. Since this appears to ]be predicate on the patenting process, could anyone speculate on the likely ]elapsed time before F&P could be expected to divulge all the data that they ]presently are not? - i.e. typical patent processing times, etc. They have up to one year AFTER disclosing the invention to file for a patent in the US. In some countries, they have to apply before publishing, but I believe they can then release any information they want. The process itself takes a long time. I just got a patent after 5 years! I think more typical time is 18 months. ] ] ]As a bizarre footnote: if this were comic-magazine-land, Messrs. F&P would ]long ago have been kidnapped and held to ransom by the Forces Of Evil. Actually F & P are aliens sent here to help mankind :-) -- 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: cuddy1 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Paul Dietz / Re: Reactions to Fusion Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion Date: 2 May 89 11:55:35 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <29945@apple.Apple.COM> thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) writes: >>The four stages of reaction to a great invention: (etc...) >Remember this? It's getting quoted EVERYWHERE. >Did Mr. Dietz characterize this progression himself, or was he quoting >or paraphrasing someone else? I paraphrased or quoted someone, but I cannot remember where I saw it. It's been used before by some folks refering to SDI (correctly or not). Unfortunately, it looks like cold fusion is going to get firmly stuck at stage 1. At least it makes a good cautionary tale about the dangers of publishing without reviewers to catch your bloopers. Is it my imagination, or did the critics' kid gloves come off after Pons and Fleischmann asked congress for $25 M (which would come from the hot fusion program)? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy2 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Re: L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy Subject: Re: L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy Date: 2 May 89 07:26:07 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 23:00:07 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 23:00:07 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 9 Subject: Re: L.A. Times Extracts: Stanford, 4He findings, Italy A typical double focussing mass spectrometer has a resolution of 20,000 to 40,000 dalton in the low mass range. The mass of He(4) is 4.0026 while that of D-D is 4.028. Thus a mass resolution of only 160 is required to separate the two species. This should be, as they say, a piece of cake. By the way, U of Utah has a 'state of the art' double focussing instrument. Stephen Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / uf7047@usu.bit / Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications? Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications? Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications? Date: 2 May 89 07:07:57 GMT Date: 29 APR 1989 21:45:20 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 29 APR 1989 21:45:20 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 64 Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications? Let's get our facts straight! We would do better to stick to the facts versus trying to discredit Stan Pons with 'here-say' second hand information. >I spoke earlier this evening with someone working in los alamos on >controlled thermonuclear fusion (magnetic confinement), and here are >some of his observations: >1) the university of utah was formerly famous for its development of >'the jello x-ray laser', which was a supposed method for converting an >optical laser into an x-ray laser. unfortunately, the spots on their >x-ray film were the way that x-ray film normally comes out of the box. >one of the people vouching for this fiasco was a guy named pons. Interesting. Stan Pons was not even at U of Utah when the stimulted x-ray emission experiments were reported. Being that Professor Pons was an electrochemist at either U of Alberta or Oakland U. at the time, I doubt that he would have had anything to say about these experiments. As far as the x-ray experiments are concerned, the last I heard, the x-ray emission were attributed to a stimulated scattering effect. The talk was by a scientist from DoD. >3) safe neutron doses are measured in nano watts. Half of the energy >in DD -> He + n reactions goes into 2.5 Mev neutrons, and would not >be converted to heat, unless stopped. This indicates that up to 4 watts >in neutron flux could be expected to be emitted from the experiment. >One test for whether fusion did actually occur might be to turn out the >lights and see if the experimenters glow. Cute. Did your source indicate the physical process that would explain the light emission from (presumably) the skin? In other words, what, if any reason was given for the fact that the photon emission would come from the skin layer (since the body doesn't transmit visible light that well) and what neutron capture process would result in long lived scintillation in tissue? >My own comment is that if the experimenters are on the level of >electronic sophistication indicated by using a car battery as a >power source, then they may have made serious errors in measuring >the power input to the cell if there is any alternating current >involved. Huh? Since when did batteries start delivering alternating current? I guess that since batteries are so unsophisticated, we should ask an EE to wire our flashlights up to a DC power supply. My comment to this statement is that I have never seen a DC power supply as noise free as a battery. All have ripple specs., i.e., finite. >The necessary (4 to 1) error is rather large for this >sort of problem, but is a classic trick to pull in a ee lab. (No comment as to the accountability of EE labs) >Certainly it is not impossible for electrochemical cells to >do some very odd things electronically (although separating water >is not a very odd thing to be doing). I didn't think that the F/P experiments were separating water. I think you mean electrolyzing water to H(D)2 and O2 at the catode and anode. Stephen Bialkowski BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 20:42:44 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway The Toronto Sun finally got around to printing something on cold fusion this weekend, and I was surprised to find out that a company named Electrofuels Manufacturing Co. has apparently been working on cold fusion for eight years, and has applied for patents. (This company is based in Toronto) As I was understandably curious about this, I looked them up in the phone book, and also found a company named Electrofusion. I can't think of anything other than the P&F fusion reaction that a company with that name could be working on. It is quite possible that the two are related, of course. If this figure of eight years is accurate, I would like to know why it took until now for the huge fusion reaction to hit us. It is likely that this is an example of parallel discovery, with many people working on essentially the same thing at the same time. Based on this information, I can't see anybody's patent application going through. Any Nobel prizes will probably have to be split up among a few hundred people as well. If anybody knows anything about these companies, I would be interested in hearing about them (I'm looking for a job, anyways :-) -A. Craig West westac@ecf.toronto.UUCP, mugc@ecf.toronto.UUCP westac@ecf.toronto.edu, mugc@ecf.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.13 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 13 Apr 89 21:11:31 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Marcos Montes at Stanford (marcos@fizzle.stanford.edu) came up with this thought virtually simultaneously. It's probably not that unusual an idea, but I haven't seen in mentioned in alt.fusion yet. If it turns out that energy-gain-cold-fusion phenomenon is limited strictly to occurring within a Palladium (or even Pt group) lattice, there may be enough of a supply/demand mismatch to _finally_ make space a commercially viable resource. There are bound to be significant quantities of palladium and other platinum group metals in some of those asteroids, and this might make them valuable enough to go up and down the dreaded potential well to get them. Welcome to ceres, sir! Please display your Exxon visitor's badge in a prominent location. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 20:42:44 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway The Toronto Sun finally got around to printing something on cold fusion this weekend, and I was surprised to find out that a company named Electrofuels Manufacturing Co. has apparently been working on cold fusion for eight years, and has applied for patents. (This company is based in Toronto) As I was understandably curious about this, I looked them up in the phone book, and also found a company named Electrofusion. I can't think of anything other than the P&F fusion reaction that a company with that name could be working on. It is quite possible that the two are related, of course. If this figure of eight years is accurate, I would like to know why it took until now for the huge fusion reaction to hit us. It is likely that this is an example of parallel discovery, with many people working on essentially the same thing at the same time. Based on this information, I can't see anybody's patent application going through. Any Nobel prizes will probably have to be split up among a few hundred people as well. If anybody knows anything about these companies, I would be interested in hearing about them (I'm looking for a job, anyways :-) -A. Craig West westac@ecf.toronto.UUCP, mugc@ecf.toronto.UUCP westac@ecf.toronto.edu, mugc@ecf.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.13 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 13 Apr 89 21:11:31 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Marcos Montes at Stanford (marcos@fizzle.stanford.edu) came up with this thought virtually simultaneously. It's probably not that unusual an idea, but I haven't seen in mentioned in alt.fusion yet. If it turns out that energy-gain-cold-fusion phenomenon is limited strictly to occurring within a Palladium (or even Pt group) lattice, there may be enough of a supply/demand mismatch to _finally_ make space a commercially viable resource. There are bound to be significant quantities of palladium and other platinum group metals in some of those asteroids, and this might make them valuable enough to go up and down the dreaded potential well to get them. Welcome to ceres, sir! Please display your Exxon visitor's badge in a prominent location. ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 20:42:44 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway The Toronto Sun finally got around to printing something on cold fusion this weekend, and I was surprised to find out that a company named Electrofuels Manufacturing Co. has apparently been working on cold fusion for eight years, and has applied for patents. (This company is based in Toronto) As I was understandably curious about this, I looked them up in the phone book, and also found a company named Electrofusion. I can't think of anything other than the P&F fusion reaction that a company with that name could be working on. It is quite possible that the two are related, of course. If this figure of eight years is accurate, I would like to know why it took until now for the huge fusion reaction to hit us. It is likely that this is an example of parallel discovery, with many people working on essentially the same thing at the same time. Based on this information, I can't see anybody's patent application going through. Any Nobel prizes will probably have to be split up among a few hundred people as well. If anybody knows anything about these companies, I would be interested in hearing about them (I'm looking for a job, anyways :-) -A. Craig West westac@ecf.toronto.UUCP, mugc@ecf.toronto.UUCP westac@ecf.toronto.edu, mugc@ecf.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.13 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 13 Apr 89 21:11:31 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Marcos Montes at Stanford (marcos@fizzle.stanford.edu) came up with this thought virtually simultaneously. It's probably not that unusual an idea, but I haven't seen in mentioned in alt.fusion yet. If it turns out that energy-gain-cold-fusion phenomenon is limited strictly to occurring within a Palladium (or even Pt group) lattice, there may be enough of a supply/demand mismatch to _finally_ make space a commercially viable resource. There are bound to be significant quantities of palladium and other platinum group metals in some of those asteroids, and this might make them valuable enough to go up and down the dreaded potential well to get them. Welcome to ceres, sir! Please display your Exxon visitor's badge in a prominent location. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Thomas Dowe / Re: F&P in Congress Originally-From: tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: F&P in Congress Date: 2 May 89 08:48:52 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Vancouver, WA. In article <2729@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In article <13679@steinmetz.ge.com> blackje@sunspot.steinmetz () writes: >>Speaking before the United States Congress yesterday, >>Fleischmann & Pons said that "they were as sure as they could be" >>that the effect they had observed was fusion. >>They have requested $25 million from the U.S. government ^^^^^^^^^^^ >>in order to build a facility in Utah to explore the cold fusion effect. >1. So much for "cheap" energy. >2. $25 million?? For what? A quarter-billion mason jars? >3. I should've expected this was coming... >4. They yanked the paper, practically recant the whole deal, and go > sniffing for money anyway? Yep. These guys are true, modern > academics. >5. Where do I apply? The recantations will continue but lots of money will be available for "controlled" studies under government aegis. Heavy water will, of course, have to be rigidly controlled and all access to it limited. Announcements of "impractability" will be made along with agreement on the "chemical" nature of the reaction -- Hey! It produces helium but not enought to be "practical." "It works like a battery, but who needs a $20,000.00 battery?" Oddly, paladium, platinum, titanium, etc. will remain at exhorbitant prices, or possibly even "controlled." The combined Federal research facilities involved in fusion research will still optimistically predict the year 2025 as the time span which will be needed in order to demonstrate successful fusion results. Otherwise all these universities are going to lose-their-pants when the bear market hits energy stocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Money, money, money, muuuuuuuuuuuney....... Tad tomd@pulsar.telcom.tek.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudentcmaint cudfnThomas cudlnDowe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Tom Murphy / Re: wireless electricity Originally-From: tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: wireless electricity Date: 2 May 89 15:43:54 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab In article <269@poppy.warwick.ac.uk> phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) writes: > > There have been recent sugestions that a satellite in a geostationary orbit >could use a high power microwave transmitter to transmit power to earth, this >would mean that the solar cells picked up more light than they would on earth. >However the microwave beam, when it reached earth, would require something >like a square mile of recievers.(The thing in orbit would be more like a >massive pannel than a satellite). There is another problem, in that people >flying through the beam, in planes, might - possibly get slightly cooked. This >goes for birds too! There is also the problem of the beam going off aim and >cooking a few housing estates. It is possible it would work, but it may not. > >Stuart Millington. >University Of Warwick.(Don't let my ideas ALTER their reputation). This is actually a rather old idea (at least 10 - 15 years). I've read a fair amount on it, and while the details escape me, there was little or no danger of cooking birds flying through the beam, much less people or aircraft. As far as the beam wandering off, a beacon powered by the recieved power could tell the powersat if it was off. The idea has been tried on earth over a few miles, and worked as expected, so the idea should be feasable. Tom -- Thomas C. Murphy Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab Internet: tmurphy@zaphod.wpi.edu tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu BITNET: TMURPHY@WPI CompuServe: 73766,130 "I drank what?" - Socrates cudkeys: cuddy2 cudentmurphy cudfnTom cudlnMurphy cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Donald Benson / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 1 May 89 20:28:43 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino This experiment raised the temperature of a beaker by 27 degrees in one second. It produced a 5 micron crater in the electrode. Although I have done no calculations, I don't believe convection can distribute that much heat in so little time without local temperatures exceeding 100 degrees C. That is, if sudden vaporization was not observed, then the energy was delivered to the water by radiation. Experiments immersed in heavy water don't seem to yield much neutrons, while experiments in a gas do. Heavy water is used in fission reactors to absorb neutrons and produce heat. Tritium is also generated in this process. Now, extrapolate from 5um to a 1cm cube. I believe we have the capability (danger) of producing a neutron bomb and releasing energy sufficient to boil 1 billion liters of water. What concentrated the effect in such a small area? Contaminents? Current flow? Phonons? ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Donald Benson / Re: Re: I would like to see engineers... Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Re: I would like to see engineers... Date: 1 May 89 20:50:16 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino HP/Thrust ratios vary as the square of the area swept. Helicopters use a large rotating wing to move much air slowly. Airplanes use a smaller prop to move air rapidly. For the airplane, it is OK because velocity of the craft will permit reasonable effiencies. To build a helicopter with airplane propellers would require a great deal of horsepower. Prototypes of this sort (for instance with 6 wankel engines driving ducted fans) use about 1200 HP to carry perhaps 2000 ~ 3000 lbs. F=MA energy = 1/2MV**2 To support yourself with half the air mass, you must drive it to twice the velocity, which requires 4x the energy ... Levitation with the earth's magnetic field presents some problems. Model the magnet field as so many elastic strings. Grab a bunch of them, until you have pulled your feet off the ground. The spring constant would permit you to bounce up and down wildly, and others using the field would disturb your balance too. Imagine if a 747-M (Magnetically levitated Boeing) lost power and crashed. You were hovering just above the ground, but now you are catapulted into the stratosphere. If you think fly-by-wire is bad now, just imagine the closed loop system needed to transfer input from inertial sensors to magnetic propulsion units to compensate for waves in the earth's magnetic field. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Not to mention what it will do to conventional navegation by compass! DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Matt Rhodes / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 16:37:00 GMT Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA >In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is > uninformative. The Boston Herald is a paper owned by Rupert Murdock > and similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... I posted the headline yesterday and so I feel I should post this media advisory that came through the Lab. Quoting: . CAMBRIDGE, Mass., May 1 - Prof. Ronald R. Parker, Director of MIT . Plasma Fusion Center responded today to an article published this . morning in the Boston Herald, an article he says has seriously misquoted . him and given a largely incorrect view of his discussions with the . Boston Herald's reporter, Nick Tate. . Professor Parker issued this statement: . "The article erroneously characterizes remarks that I made regarding . the cold fusion experiments done at the University of Utah. Specifically, . I did not: (1) Deride the University of Utah experiments as "scientific . schlock" or (2) Accuse Drs. Fleischmann and Pons of 'misrepresentation . and maybe fraud'." . Today, Professor Parker's colleagues will present a paper (co-authored . with him) at the meeting of the American Physical Society in Baltimore, . Maryland, in which they suggest that data that Drs. Pons and Fleischmann . claim support the observation of neutron emission in their experiments . were misinterpreted by Pons and Fleischmann. . Based on their independent analysis, the MIT researchers say that . if neutron emission occurred in the Pons and Fleischmann experiement . that they reported in the _Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry_, it . would have been at far below that reported by the University of Utah . group. End of quote The Boston Herald regularly sensationalizes news and I personally have no doubt that they greatly exaggerated what Dr. Parker had to say. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenrhodes cudfnMatt cudlnRhodes cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Dave Mack / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 2 May 89 15:42:10 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems In article <1375@igloo.Scum.COM> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes: >In article <4994@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >]As someone who once accidentally filled a room with hydrogen, let me >]assure you that while you may not be able to smell it, you can definitely >]tell it's there. It does a very good job of displacing all other gases >]in the top part of the room, and when you try to breathe it, you notice >]a certain...absence. > >I don't see why one would notice the 'absence' of the other gassses (i.e. >oxygen) except when one recovers consciousness after falling to the floor >(and breathing the purer air). One of the dangers of lack of oxygen, whether >it be caused by carbon monoxide binding to hemoglobin or other reasons >is its insidiousness. The drive to breath is (in normal people) based >upon the CO2 balance, not the oxygen intake. This is my understanding >from an aquaintance of mine, who is a registered respitory therapist, >at any rate,. 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. Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy2 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Winston Edmond / Turn about is better than guessing Originally-From: wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Turn about is better than guessing Date: 2 May 89 17:12:23 GMT Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge, MA Many people seem to be trying to figure out how F&P might have gotten their system to work. I've seen lots of different theories of reactions that people seem to think would produce enough energy to be useful. Instead of finding N different theories and trying to figure out which one F&P are using, wouldn't it be much more useful to turn the question around --- if anyone has ANY reaction that has a chance of being a cold fusion mechanism, try to figure out some method of inducing it to occur at a useful rate. Duplicating F&P's method is certainly a useful and interesting thing to do, but with all these alternate theories of mechanisms for achieving cold fusion, try taking each one and see if there's a way to implement that particular method and get results. F&P's solution may not be unique. -WBE cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenwbe cudfnWinston cudlnEdmond cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / william duncan / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: wv@cbnews.ATT.COM (william.e.duncan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 16:06:05 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> rhodes@ll-vlsi.arpa.UUCP (Matt Rhodes) writes: >The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > I'll believe it when MIT officially withdraws their patent applications :-) Bill Duncan cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenwv cudfnwilliam cudlnduncan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Paul Dietz / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 2 May 89 17:31:12 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <20420013@hpcuhb.HP.COM> donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: > This experiment raised the temperature of a beaker by 27 degrees in > one second. Wrong: the thermometer reported this. The first thing I'd do in this situation would be to double check the measurement, to see (for example) if current is shorting through the thermometer. Also, check to see if the "temperature" falls 27 degrees when the current is turned off. > It produced a 5 micron crater in the electrode. Wrong -- a 5 micron crater was observed. There is no evidence that it wasn't there all along. > Although I have done no calculations, I don't believe convection can > distribute that much heat in so little time without local temperatures > exceeding 100 degrees C. This is an excellent reason to disbelieve the report. > What concentrated the effect in such a small area? Contaminents? > Current flow? Phonons? ? Incompetence? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy2 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Jon Webb / Cold fusion R.I.P. Originally-From: webb@cs.cmu.edu (Jon Webb) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cold fusion R.I.P. Date: 2 May 89 17:49:57 GMT Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Vince Cate, Karl Kluge, Andreas Nowazyk and I drove down to the APS meeting yesterday to attend the special session on cold fusion. We found the talk by Lewis of Caltech to be devastating in its implications for the correctness of the experimental results reported by Pons and Fleischmann. (Pons and Fleischmann were invited to give a talk there, but did not). Pons and Fleischmann's claim of cold fusion rests on three pieces of evidence: 1) Heat 2) Neutrons 3) Tritium Neutrons were dealt with by a preceding talk by Koonin of MIT. He claims that Pons and Fleischmann's report of neutrons is based on the observation of a peak in the neutron detector output, which could have been caused by the decay of Bismuth-214. (Same observation as by the Germans and others). Lewis did an extremely careful examination of how hard it is to do correct calorimetry of an eletrochemical cell. It turns out if you don't stir the cell (and Pons and Fleischmann did not) then it's easy to report false excess heat. Also, tritium is naturally present in heavy water in amounts consistent with Pons and Fleischmann's reported concentration. In fact, the amount reported is too high for it all to have been generated by the heat Pons and Fleischmann reported. There was much, much more (other talks and very good analysis by Lewis), and there are more talks tonight, but the bottom line is that there's no undisputed evidence for the existence of cold fusion. The ball is very much in Pons and Fleischmann's court to prove it really works. Personally, I think that they have made a very serious mistake. After Lewis's talk, about half the people walked out. As they were leaving, the session chairman tried to get people to quiet down, saying "We have to get back to work." Someone yelled from the back of the auditorium, "We are!" -- J cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenwebb cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Tom Krajna / Re: gonzo science Originally-From: tgk@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Tom Krajna) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: gonzo science Date: 2 May 89 18:54:37 GMT Organization: UF CIS Department In article <1348@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes: >Experiment is almost always guided by theory. There are an infinite number of >possible experiments ("Gee, I've never heard of anyone banging three pound >rocks together for half an hour, I wonder what happens?"), but only a few of I just tried this. I detected small amounts (3 or 4 ounces) of tritium, a few neutrons (10^35/sec), and a temperature rise of 1000 degrees. I didn't check for production of Helium, but the Goodyear blimp did start poking its nose in the lab window. Oh well, another useless experiment :-) In all seriousness, who we need is Buckaroo Banzai. He'd have this fusion thing cracked in no time... -- Tom Krajna UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!tgk University of Florida Internet: tgk@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS: 73267,1652 What's an analogy like? cudkeys: cuddy2 cudentgk cudfnTom cudlnKrajna cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Dave Mack / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 2 May 89 18:11:34 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems In article <-287879997@hpcupt1.HP.COM> edwardm@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan >Have you ever inhaled Helium and noticed your voice's pitch go up. The >effect is much more pronounced (and long lasting) with hydrogen. Just >don't light a match! > >> From mack@inco.UUCP Thu Apr 27 11:00:13 1989 > >> As someone who once accidentally filled a room with hydrogen, let me >> assure you that while you may not be able to smell it, you can definitely >> tell it's there. It does a very good job of displacing all other gases >> in the top part of the room, and when you try to breathe it, you notice >> a certain...absence. The presence in the same room of several lit pilot >> lights made for a slightly tense situation for a few minutes, but it >> ended without catastrophe. > >> Dave Mack > >Dave, > > Did you notice the "tightening vocal chords" effect I mentioned above? No, I thought this feature was unique to helium. When I ran upstairs to tell my mother to get my sister and the animals out of the house, I think my voice was pretty much normal, aside from stress effects and the onset of puberty. If I remember correctly, the "Donald Duck Effect" with helium is due to the speed of sound in helium modifying the acoustic characteristics of the sinuses, not the vocal chords. Corrections welcome, followups to sci.physics. This has nothing to do with fusion. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy2 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Dave Skinner / Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 2 May 89 19:55:27 GMT Organization: Jet Propulsion Labs, Pasadena, CA I would like to begin by stating that cold fusion may or may not be the byproduct of Fleischmann and Pons. I am no physicist, and I am no chemist. In fact, I have absolutely no connection with either the chemical or the energy industies. So, I don't have any axes to grind (at least not on this subject). I always felt that physcists (like all scientists) were, or at least should be, careful to give their colleagues the benefit of the doubt on any scientific claim that their colleagues might make until after the verdict was in. Even then, scientists would usually let the stigma of going public and being wrong be sufficient punishment for the guilty. This is because the researchers suffer not only the embarrassment of the moment, but are undoubtedly haunted by their mistake throughout the remainder of their careers. All of this seems fitting and proper; the punishment fits the crime, so to speak. So, the response of some physicists (and I will attempt to show that this behavior appears limited to physicists) to the announcement by Fleischmann & Pons (F&P) of the discovery of a means of producing cold fusion has repeatedly tarnished this professionalism with blatant attempts to question the competence and integrity of F&P, as well as to call them outright liars. Furthermore, all of this is going on while the verdict is still out. Skepticism is one thing; publically implying that F&P are incompetent, immoral, and foolish is another. In the second week after the 23 March announcement (on 6 April to be exact), physics professor H. W. Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara wrote in the Los Angeles Times: Did the Utah team acheive cold fusion? No. Followed by: If the Utah scientists had actually produced cold fusion at any substantial level, they would have been bathed in a deadly beam of neutrons that [would have] fried them to a crisp. And: If they had produced as much as a watt of power through fusion, there would have been a trillion neutrons per second, which would be lethal in a very short time. That they lived to hold their press conference is clear and unambiguous proof that they did not produce any noticeable amount of power through cold fusion. I would say that Lewis is describing F&P as both incompetent and foolish! Worse than that, Lewis did not wait for any of the attempts to recreate the F&P experiment to be completed before writing this commentary. At appearance after appearance, F&P have been met not only with skepticism, but with only slightly muffled anger and hostility. Reports of problems of this kind were reported at the Fleischmann appearance in Italy, and at the Pons appearance at the American Chemical Society meeting in Dallas during the second week in April. In describing the congressional hearing on cold fusion that occurred last week, Larry Brader (of Tektronix) said that: Furth and others were sarcastic and somewhat abrasive to the UU group. Why? What ax does Furth, a physicist from Princeton, have to grind? (sarcasm) There appears to be both bad blood between physicists and chemists in general, as well as vested interests, like congressional funding, at stake in particular. It is totally unprofessional to air "dirty laundry" in public. Yet, that is exactly what the physicists are doing! Then there are the seminars being given by cold fusion researchers throughout academia. For example, there is the belittling of F&P at Yale: Gai displayed data showing that during this time [last seven hours of the experiment] detector #1 counted a grand total of 2 neutrons, which the group named "Fleischmann" and "Pons". The Yale seminar discussed the unsuccessful attempts by Yale and Brookhaven to replicate the F&P results. By being one of the many research efforts that probably used drawn, rather than cast palladium, Yale was unable to get the excessive heat seen by F&P at the University of Utah. By the time the seminar was held late last week (there were actually two seminars on 28 and 29 April), the Yale researchers should have been aware of this problem. Yet Gai, who is an associate professor of physics at Yale, carefully omitted this fact during his presentation, because he knew it relegated all of the Yale-Brookhaven results to merely control experiments, while at least eight other universities worldwide had not fallen into the drawn-versus-cast palladium trap, namely Texas A&M, Stanford, the University of Florida, Moscow University in the Soviet Union, Sao Paulo University in Brazil, as well as universities in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and China. Instead, Gai resorted to reporting the absence of neutrons in an experiment which had obviously failed as if the failure was a success; the absence of neutrons was reported as significant despite the fact that the experiment showed no signs of heat, and despite the presence of chemists from Brrokhaven, no heat measurements were performed. It was the reporting on the "significant" absence of neutrons which led to the ridicule of F&P mentioned above. Then yesterday, the Boston Gloge quotes Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger, two physicists from MIT as saying that F&P are guilty of: misrepresentation and maybe fraud Ron Parker is (or has been) the director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their Alcator-C tokamak research project according to David A Honig on the net. These physicists have an obvious ax to grind. Meanwhile at the American Physical Society conference in Baltimore last night, Caltech physicists claimed that they had repeated the F&P experiment, saw no neutrons, did not say they saw heat (apparently because like all of the efforts by physicists since the F&P announcement, they have not performed any calorimetry), but did say they could explain away any heat that F&P did see without resorting to fusion as an explanation. According to the Los Angeles Times, "cheers" were heard as the physicists in the room obviously took the announcement to be proof that F&P are wrong. Cheers were heard indeed! This kind of behavior is ridiculous. I have been appalled by the sporadic childish behavior of physicists since the original F&P announcement, and things seem to be getting worse instead of better. This latest barrage of jealousy appears to be linked to the appearance of F&P at congressional hearings last week, which only underscores that money, rather than common sense, is directing the mouths of these physicists. To Paul F. Dietz who asks: Is it my imagination, or did the critics' kid gloves come off after Pons and Fleischmann asked congress for $25 M (which would come from the hot fusion program)? I say YES! The repugnant behavior of physicists, and apparently physicists alone, has entered a new even more repugnant phase. These guys have a lot to lose monetarily if F&P are right, but do they have to lose their self respect as well? How many physicists will have to "eat crow" if cold fusion (with energy levels in excess of breakeven) is actually occurring like F&P claim? More important, how much damage will be done in the mean time to the reputation of all physicists in the eyes of John Q. Public, in the eyes of their funding sources (usually the U. S. Government), and in the eyes of the rest of the science community if this behavior continues? I personally think that physicists should *keep their mouths shut* when it comes to saying that F&P results are "impossible" until all the pertinent facts are known. I personally think that announcing the absence of results as either de facto proof that F&P are wrong "like we thought all along", or as attempts to belittle and ridicule F&P ahould be curtailed immediately. As for the latest tactic of calling them liars, well that doesn't even deserve a response. For the record, I was never fond of chemistry. When I was an aerospace engineering student in the 1970s, I was glad when my chemistry requirements had been met. By comparison, I have great admiration for and find great elegance, as well as utility, in the physics. In fact, the point of this entire commentary is to cause these unnecessary negative comments and actions by physicists to cease for the sake of physics. Such negative comments by physicists places physics in the same category as common politics, where the people involved show no more maturity than the average two-year-old. My comments are meant to keep physics at the proper stature in the eyes of everyone. Dave Skinner Jet Propulsion Laboratory dave@kirdu.jpl.nasa.gov 128.149.16.12 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudendave cudfnDave cudlnSkinner cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 20:42:44 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway The Toronto Sun finally got around to printing something on cold fusion this weekend, and I was surprised to find out that a company named Electrofuels Manufacturing Co. has apparently been working on cold fusion for eight years, and has applied for patents. (This company is based in Toronto) As I was understandably curious about this, I looked them up in the phone book, and also found a company named Electrofusion. I can't think of anything other than the P&F fusion reaction that a company with that name could be working on. It is quite possible that the two are related, of course. If this figure of eight years is accurate, I would like to know why it took until now for the huge fusion reaction to hit us. It is likely that this is an example of parallel discovery, with many people working on essentially the same thing at the same time. Based on this information, I can't see anybody's patent application going through. Any Nobel prizes will probably have to be split up among a few hundred people as well. If anybody knows anything about these companies, I would be interested in hearing about them (I'm looking for a job, anyways :-) -A. Craig West westac@ecf.toronto.UUCP, mugc@ecf.toronto.UUCP westac@ecf.toronto.edu, mugc@ecf.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.13 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 13 Apr 89 21:11:31 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Marcos Montes at Stanford (marcos@fizzle.stanford.edu) came up with this thought virtually simultaneously. It's probably not that unusual an idea, but I haven't seen in mentioned in alt.fusion yet. If it turns out that energy-gain-cold-fusion phenomenon is limited strictly to occurring within a Palladium (or even Pt group) lattice, there may be enough of a supply/demand mismatch to _finally_ make space a commercially viable resource. There are bound to be significant quantities of palladium and other platinum group metals in some of those asteroids, and this might make them valuable enough to go up and down the dreaded potential well to get them. Welcome to ceres, sir! Please display your Exxon visitor's badge in a prominent location. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 20:42:44 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway The Toronto Sun finally got around to printing something on cold fusion this weekend, and I was surprised to find out that a company named Electrofuels Manufacturing Co. has apparently been working on cold fusion for eight years, and has applied for patents. (This company is based in Toronto) As I was understandably curious about this, I looked them up in the phone book, and also found a company named Electrofusion. I can't think of anything other than the P&F fusion reaction that a company with that name could be working on. It is quite possible that the two are related, of course. If this figure of eight years is accurate, I would like to know why it took until now for the huge fusion reaction to hit us. It is likely that this is an example of parallel discovery, with many people working on essentially the same thing at the same time. Based on this information, I can't see anybody's patent application going through. Any Nobel prizes will probably have to be split up among a few hundred people as well. If anybody knows anything about these companies, I would be interested in hearing about them (I'm looking for a job, anyways :-) -A. Craig West westac@ecf.toronto.UUCP, mugc@ecf.toronto.UUCP westac@ecf.toronto.edu, mugc@ecf.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.13 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 13 Apr 89 21:11:31 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Marcos Montes at Stanford (marcos@fizzle.stanford.edu) came up with this thought virtually simultaneously. It's probably not that unusual an idea, but I haven't seen in mentioned in alt.fusion yet. If it turns out that energy-gain-cold-fusion phenomenon is limited strictly to occurring within a Palladium (or even Pt group) lattice, there may be enough of a supply/demand mismatch to _finally_ make space a commercially viable resource. There are bound to be significant quantities of palladium and other platinum group metals in some of those asteroids, and this might make them valuable enough to go up and down the dreaded potential well to get them. Welcome to ceres, sir! Please display your Exxon visitor's badge in a prominent location. ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.27 / uf7047@usu.bit / Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 1989 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 Date: 2 May 89 07:16:30 GMT Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Organization: The Portal System (TM) I am posting this at the request of Stephen Bialkowski (BITNET SBIALKOW@USU, UF7047@USU). Please direct responses to him, and not this account. Thanks. ----- Forwarded message follows: ----- Posting-Version: USU; site USU Date: 27 APR 1989 22:48:36 MST Message-ID: <1uf7047@usu.bitnet> Originally-From: uf7047@usu.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.physics Lines: 78 Subject: Addendum to "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd..." (20 Apr 198 This is a second posting. The first was garbled by an unknown mux glitch. In regards to the last message posted from munck@linus.UUCP I need some clarification in order to understand the note updating "Polarized D-/D+ storage in Pd as a factor in the F&P experiment," and dated 20 Apr 1989) posted April 27. >The alpha and beta phases of palladium, which are mentioned briefly in >the Fleischmann and Pons paper, are two distinct solution phases of >hydrogen (ordeuterium) in palladium. Both phases can exist at room >temperature, but the distinction between them disappears when the >palladium is heated to about 300 degrees C. If the distinction between the phases is lost, wouldn't that indicate mobile deterium? This is based on the assumption that loss of distinction occurs do to an average D energy which is greater than the activation energy for diffusion like migration between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites. Moreover, if the distiction is lost, then why even try to interpret based on the existance of one or the other phase? >The Fleischmann and Pons paper seems to suggest that the beta phase for >deuterium is D+ saturated, which would imply that beta palladium is >equivalent to what I have been calling the D+ phase. I think that the Pd is saturated with D, not D+. Presumably, charge neutrality still holds. A D+ saturated Pd lattice would have a net + positive charge. >If D+ is delocalized in beta Pd, then that phase should be *more* metallic >in its overall properties -- instead, exactly the opposite is true. >Beta Pd is *less* conductive than alpha Pd, has lower magnetic >susceptibility, and is physically more brittle. First, stoichiometric PdD a superconductor at low temperatures (Tc ~ 11K) while Pd alone is not a superconductor. The data by J. P. Burger in "Metalic Hydrides", G. Bambakidids, ed. Plenum Press(1981) pp 243-253 show that the stoichiometric beta phase (i.e. PdH) has a lower resistivity than that Pd or the alpha phase at ~ 200K temperature. This temperature is well above Tc. Does this conductivity behavior change at higher T, e.g. room temperature? >The evidence that Fleischmann and Pons quote in their paper for the D+ >interpretation ("...hydrogen is in the form of protons...as shown by the >migration in an electric field...") seems rather weak to me, at least as >it is stated in the paper, since it says nothing about the possibility >that the H+ or D+ ions may simply be minority current carriers in a >lattice that is otherwise dominated by D- ions. >I strongly suspect that D- ions with their nice, fat electron clouds around >them would not be nearly as amenable to density-oriented fusion arguments >as would be naked deuterons. Wouldn't the "fat electron clouds" also inhibit mobility of D- over D+? Speculation as to the structure of the supersaturated PdD lattice and the implication to room temperature fusion are perhaps a bit premature. Also, the real proof of the D+/D- theory should be found in the lattice structure, not in the D+/D- beam experiments suggested. X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering experiments should lay to rest any confusion as to the structure at high D loadings. Moreover, as a chemist, I find it hard to imagine D- in a site next to a D+ in a lattice that allows relatively free migration of D. Since the theory proposed is speculation, one might also speculate on the possibility of neutral D in excess stoichiometric beta PdD going into the vacant tetrahedral sites. This would maintain bulk charge neutrality and result in a less strained system. My personal 'pet' is based on the fact that superconductivity occurs in PdD. Superconductivity in PdD occurs via correlated electron pair interaction with the phonon vibration modes (i.e. the H/D) in the lattice. Does anyone know if a correlated electron pair can act as a single particle with twice the mass and charge of an electron? This simple net particle may account for fusion in accord with the current theories, i.e., those used for muon catalyzed fusion ala Steve Jones. Stephen E. Bialkowski SBIALKOW@USU or UF7047@USU cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenuf7047 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 12:37:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, by rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes): > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". The text is uninfor- > mative. The Boston Herald is a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock > similar in style to the New York Daily News and the London Star... > > And scientific debate in the late 1980's proceeds.... How does this square with the recent MIT patent applications?..... #> Extracted from the Wall Street Journal, 13apr89, page B4: #> #> One such theory apparently has been developed by Peter L. Hagelstein, a #> Massachusetts Institute of Technology fusion expert. Yesterday, MIT #> said Mr. Hagelstein has submitted four papers to a scientific journal #> that might explain the University of Utah and other cold-fusion #> studies. MIT officials said that they have filed patent applications #> based on Mr. Hagelstein's analysis. #> #> Mr. Hagelstein, known as a brilliant theoretician who helped develop #> X-ray lasers proposed for use in former President Reagan's Strategic #> Defence Initiative, or so-called Star Wars system, wasn't available for #> comment. In a brief news release on his theory, MIT disclosed only #> that it involves "quantam, collective and coherent effects". MIT #> officials declined to elaborate. #> -- #> Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science #> -- Yes, I know it says "MIGHT explain".... Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Clements / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 May 89 15:02:33 GMT In article <314@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> Matt Rhodes writes: > The lead story headline of the Boston Herald, Monday, May 1: > > "MIT BOMBSHELL KNOCKS FUSION 'BREAKTROUGH' COLD" > > The article is a Herald exclusive that claims MIT scientists > Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger state that Pons and Fleischmann are > guilty of "misrepresentation and maybe fraud". ... [and] In article <13085@paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig writes: >FYI, Ron Parker was director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project. >-- >David A Honig This Ron Parker press conference sure has gotten a lot of coverage in the last 24 hours. I decided to phone the reporter who was picked up for CBS Radio's evening newscast, Andrea Carnero (I hope that's spelled right), at WEEI in Boston. She had been the WEEI reporter at Parker's press conference yesterday. I wanted to ask her two things: 1) Was she aware of Parker's work with hot fusion, and 2) did they ask whether Parker (at MIT) had any comment/agreement/disagreement with Hagelstein (at MIT, who is reportedly explaining RTF and applying for patents). She said Yes to number one, but apparently nobody pressed on the possibility of this prejudicing his statements. She said No to number two and jotted down Hagelstein's name and sounded like she would check into it. She also claimed not to be a science reporter, but to have been assigned to cover the conference because she was available at the time. (Don't read too much into that - she is NOT a bad reporter, just not a SCIENCE reporter.) She said Parker had been careful to emphasize that he wasn't saying cold fusion was impossible, just that he had been unable to reproduce it from the scanty details so far available about P&F's work. He was clearly complaining about the lack of details. This slant was not in all the network coverage, of course. Why did he go public with this negative result? Why did his report get so much more coverage than anyone else's? Why is the sky blue? /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.14 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:16 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > No, they're not stupid questions. Modern physics answers them by using > a very counter-intuitive principle realized by Einstein. 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. > I assume that you know what you're talking about, but you are putting it rather badly. It would be easy to assume from the above that there would not be a notable effect from the velocity. When moving at a fractional light speed relative to an electromagnetic source the doppler effect shifts the frequency of the light. This is called "red shift" when measuring star's motion away from us (expanding universe stuff) and "gotcha" when measuring speed of a car with radar. Note that the velocity does not have to be very close to the speed of light ;-) I hope I have broadened the original explanation sufficiently, perhaps alt.fusion should be removed from the newsgroups list, as this is pretty basic physics. ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.24 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 24 Apr 89 20:42:44 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway The Toronto Sun finally got around to printing something on cold fusion this weekend, and I was surprised to find out that a company named Electrofuels Manufacturing Co. has apparently been working on cold fusion for eight years, and has applied for patents. (This company is based in Toronto) As I was understandably curious about this, I looked them up in the phone book, and also found a company named Electrofusion. I can't think of anything other than the P&F fusion reaction that a company with that name could be working on. It is quite possible that the two are related, of course. If this figure of eight years is accurate, I would like to know why it took until now for the huge fusion reaction to hit us. It is likely that this is an example of parallel discovery, with many people working on essentially the same thing at the same time. Based on this information, I can't see anybody's patent application going through. Any Nobel prizes will probably have to be split up among a few hundred people as well. If anybody knows anything about these companies, I would be interested in hearing about them (I'm looking for a job, anyways :-) -A. Craig West westac@ecf.toronto.UUCP, mugc@ecf.toronto.UUCP westac@ecf.toronto.edu, mugc@ecf.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.13 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 13 Apr 89 21:11:31 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Marcos Montes at Stanford (marcos@fizzle.stanford.edu) came up with this thought virtually simultaneously. It's probably not that unusual an idea, but I haven't seen in mentioned in alt.fusion yet. If it turns out that energy-gain-cold-fusion phenomenon is limited strictly to occurring within a Palladium (or even Pt group) lattice, there may be enough of a supply/demand mismatch to _finally_ make space a commercially viable resource. There are bound to be significant quantities of palladium and other platinum group metals in some of those asteroids, and this might make them valuable enough to go up and down the dreaded potential well to get them. Welcome to ceres, sir! Please display your Exxon visitor's badge in a prominent location. ------------------- ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.30 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 30 Apr 89 20:19:00 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Commercial Possibilities for Fusion In the Business Day section of Sunday's New York Times is an article entitled "Beating a Path to Fusion's Door" by Andrew Pollack The article concerns intself with the commercial possibilites for fusion. The University of Utah has received some 80 calls from corporations dispersed among 5 continents that are interested in possible commercial applications of fusion. So far the University of Utah has entered into 30 agreements allow the interested corporations to look at the Univers ity's patent filing. These firms include Westinghouse,Ontario Hydro, General Atomic. Some venture capitalists have avoided investing in fusion because they feel that results are at least ten years away. Nonetheless, some university's are interested in the commercial possibilities of fusion "Patent lawyers for MIT worked through a recent weekend to file claims after a researcher there, Peter Hagelstein, said he had developed a theory that could explain the new results" There are five key stumbling blocks that must be overcome for "commercial fusion" to be reality. 1.Does it exist? 2. What is the cost incurred to facilitate an on-going fusion reaction 3. The prohibitive costs and rarity of palladium.(Although titanium could be used instead.) 4. Radiation 5."Scale-up" from a flask to a plant. 6. Temperature:"Electric plants use high temperature steam. Finding ways to use the lower temperature heat economically will be a challenge. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / William Cox / Re: Re: Reactions to Fusion Originally-From: wdcox@hpcuhb.HP.COM (William Cox) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Re: Reactions to Fusion Date: 2 May 89 16:37:59 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino / hpcuhb:alt.fusion / thrash@Apple.COM (Nathaniel Truher) / 5:34 pm May 1, 19 In article <1989Apr2.145310.29132@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >The four stages of reaction to a great invention: > > 1. It's impossible. > 2. It's impractical. > 3. It's immoral. > 4. I said all along it was a great idea. Remember this? It's getting quoted EVERYWHERE. I read it in an article in last Sunday's UC Santa Cruz campus newspaper, quoted from the New York Times, who attributed it to "a scientist on a computer network" or something like that. Did Mr. Dietz characterize this progression himself, or was he quoting or paraphrasing someone else? ---------- cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenwdcox cudfnWilliam cudlnCox cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Lord Head / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 3 May 89 00:13:35 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Sorry about "wrong" - since you didn't see it, I should have said "actually, yes". No offence intended. Thanks for your bandwidth. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenandrew cudfnLord cudlnHead cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Arnie Frisch / Re: An end to speculation? Originally-From: arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: An end to speculation? Date: 2 May 89 15:46:17 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article <151@bach.nsc.com>, andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned > It would appear that considerable inertia is being introduced into the > progress of analysis and experimental verification, due to the withholding > of information by (mainly, but not solely) Messrs. F&P. Since this appears to > be predicate on the patenting process, could anyone speculate on the likely > elapsed time before F&P could be expected to divulge all the data that they > presently are not? - i.e. typical patent processing times, etc. > The problem may be that several foreign governments do not grant patents where the inventive features have been disclosed before the filing of a patent application IN THAT COUNTRY. If P&F's CF is real, they could have to conceal such features while the applications are in process. If that is the case, we may have a very long wait indeed. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Arnie Frisch / Re: Where to buy palladium rods & wire (was cast vs drawn vs milled) Originally-From: arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Where to buy palladium rods & wire (was cast vs drawn vs milled) Date: 2 May 89 16:15:48 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article <1961@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) > In article <1813@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > > > >Ah ... but this brings up the question of how they make the rods. Do > >they cast them, or do they draw them (far more likely). Do they > >draw them above or below the recrystalization temperature? Do they > >do any cold work on them? > Why can't you create whatever structure you want in your palladium > rod by heating, drawing, working, re-melting, or whatever you want? > Shouldn't you be able to make a piece of palladium which has a > similar crystal structure to a cast rod by just heating a milled or > drawn rod with a torch and slowly cooling? [probably not, but it > can't be much harder than that, is it?] > -Ronald Mayer > armin@portia.stanford.edu Palladium melts at 1552 C. Quite a bit harder to melt, and contain once melted, than Gold which melts at about 1050 C (I think I remember). Also, it's one of those metals that cold works very easily from a soft ductile form to a stressed form. I don't know what the P&F secret is about the Palladium (assuming there is a secret), but if it's gotta be a certain way, you better make it that way using the right methods. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Carey Briggs / 1926 Pd-catalyzed fusion Originally-From: CCB104@PSUVM.BITNET (Carey Briggs) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: 1926 Pd-catalyzed fusion Date: 2 May 89 16:10:05 GMT Organization: Penn State University Is there anyone interested in knowing where to find 7 or 8 papers published in 1926 and 1927 on the use of Pd as a catalyst for hydrogen [sic] fusion into helium? If so, please let me know, and I will post a list of bibliographical references onto binet. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenCCB104 cudfnCarey cudlnBriggs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Will Sadkin / APS meeting reported Originally-From: wills@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM (Will Sadkin) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: APS meeting reported Date: 2 May 89 15:56:10 GMT Organization: Unisys/Great Valley Labs, Paoli, PA 19301 I woke up this morning to the words "...fusion in a jar", followed by a lengthy report on NPR of the American Physical Society meeting in Baltimore last night, complete with taped excerpts from the CalTech researchers speech, in which they basically said "You've all been wasting your time; This fusion claim by F&P is just bad science, and nothing extraordinary is really going on." None of the attending members interviewed were terribly surprised, and in fact a lot of them were reported to be angry w/F&P for "forcing them to drop what they were doing, and verify this incredible claim, only to have then come up empty." Also reported was the fact that after the opening CalTech talk (which was described by one of the attendees as something like electrochemist-bashing), everyone left the hall, apparently no longer interested in further discussion of the topic. Well, those that live by the sword shall die by the sword, they say. So too, it would seem, for those who use the press as a scientific forum. I'd say Dr.s Fleischmann and Pons are now pretty much discredited, in the eyes of the brotherhood of physicists, at least (and if the CalTech guys are right, I also suspect in the eyes of all those respectable electrochemists out there). HOWEVER: never in the history of science, I believe, has so much scientific energy been devoted to an avenue of research so quickly, based on a paper *which has NEVER BEEN published.* One must ask "Why are so many people speculating about the potential mechanisms of such a reaction?" I would like to make a plea, here. Just like all of the rest of you net-potatoes out there, I have been reading all of the various scientific opinions being posted since this story broke, and I have gotten the impression that although F&P MAY have done bad science, their IDEA to create electrochemical pressure is sound. Many of the theories suggested have sounded plausible, and all sound like excellent opportunities for further research. I, as an engineering sort, would like to urge those with the expertise to continue to work out new experiments and figure out a way to REALLY produce viable, usable solid-state fusion, (and then publish a paper detailing their assumptions, their apparatus, their potential sources of error, and conclusions,.. ya know just like all of us learned to do in our Physics 101 lab.) Ie: Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, just cos' these guys misread the bath temperature; after all, it has all been rather intellectually stimulating, hasn't it? Look at it this way, folks: Now you can be the first one on your block with hard, scientifically repeatable evidence for room-temperature thermonuclear fusion! BTW, I suspect Congress WILL shell out a few $million for this research, just because the Russians claim to have ALSO reproduced "fusion in a jar", and you all know we *can't* let the Russians get ahead of us in something as potientially revolutionary as cheap inexhaustible energy supplies. (I also suspect that the money will go to LANL, and *not to F&P*.) ******************************************************************************* Will Sadkin Phone: (215) 648-2657 Internet: wills@GVL.Unisys.COM uucp: ...!burdvax!gvlv2!wills Unisys Defense Systems Paoli, PA ******************************************************************************* cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenwills cudfnWill cudlnSadkin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / John Moore / Fusion: Palladium - notes on behavior Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion: Palladium - notes on behavior Date: 2 May 89 05:21:50 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc., Phoenix AZ In order to account for some of the problems replicating the P&F effect (if it is real), I am posting a few notes about the Palladium-Hydrogen (or Deuterium) System from "Hydrogen in Metals" by Smith (1948). These show how sensitive the Pd absorption of Hydrogen is to many factors. Note: Most of these relate to absorption of H into Pd from H2 gas at relatively low pressures and temperaturs (<300C): (1) Absorption into fresh metal (pre-heated in vacuo): (a) the rate of absorbtion accelerates for a while (opening phase) then drops off as the metal becomes more saturated. The initial acceleration is interpreted as "opening" the metal - the hydrogen increasing the size of rifts through which the initial diffusion takes place (before finally diffusing into the crystal lattice). (b) Repeated absorption, desorption cycles cause the acceleration to decrease, and also result in significantly reduced rates of absorption and total amount of absorption. (2) If the metal is preheated and then cooled in hydrogen, the acceleration effect is not seen. This is interpreted as the metal being already "opened" as a result of the hydrogen presence. (3) Preheating decreases both the rate and total amount of absorption in relation to the temperature of the pre-heat: preheating at higher temperature results in metal that will absorb less hydrogen at a lower rate than preheating at a lower temperature. (4) The rate of absorption is greater at higher temperatures. (5) Plastic deformation and recovery by annealing effect the rate of absorption. Strained metal has a higher rate of absorption that does annealed metal. However, cold-working may, in certain cases, reduce the rate of absorption. The effect of annealing after foregoing strain, in diminishing both absorption rate and capacity, is greater, the higher the temperature of the anneal. (6) The phases referred to in the P&F paper: Alpha phase is a hydrogen concentration of less than about 30 relative volumes - during this phase the lattice gradually expands from 3.883 AU at 0 concentration to 3.894 AU at 30 vols (at 20 degrees C). Beta phase occurs as the lattice suddenly expands to 4.018 AU shortly after 30 vols. (7) The alpha and beta phases of the metal merge around 300C, when the alpha lattice has grown to the beta size. Above this temperature there is only one phase. As you can see, this is pretty complex stuff (and I'm only scratching the surface :-) ). It should be no surprise that the reproduction of the P&F results is hard - they have been working for many years, possibly with the same palladium. The state of that palladium is not known - but it may have to be closely duplicated in order to get the PF effect. -- 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: cuddy2 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / edward iv / Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: mveh2@cbnews.ATT.COM (edward.holdgate.iv) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Media Coverage of Fusion Date: 3 May 89 02:02:05 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > The Boston Herald regularly sensationalizes news and I personally > have no doubt that they greatly exaggerated what Dr. Parker had to say. F&P made the cover of TIME this week. The article gives an account of the situation to date, including FOUR previous cold fusion.... "disappointments" (1926, 1951, 1956 and 1958). All in all, I find that it is a well balanced article (for us laymen). Ed Holdgate att!mvgpd!mveh2 cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenmveh2 cudfnedward cudlniv cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Randell Jesup / Re: Turn about is better than guessing Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Turn about is better than guessing Date: 3 May 89 01:19:39 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <39373@bbn.COM> wbe@BBN.COM (Winston Edmond) writes: >rate. Duplicating F&P's method is certainly a useful and interesting thing >to do, but with all these alternate theories of mechanisms for achieving cold >fusion, try taking each one and see if there's a way to implement that >particular method and get results. F&P's solution may not be unique. > -WBE Exactly what the Italians (and I believe Indians) did. They both used titanium, a metal with similar (though not identical) properties. -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Jan Genemans / Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Originally-From: genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan Genemans) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Date: 3 May 89 03:38:26 GMT Organization: U.S.M.M.A., Kings Point, NY In article <5043@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) >The problem may be that several foreign governments do not grant patents >where the inventive features have been disclosed before the filing of a >patent application IN THAT COUNTRY. If P&F's CF is real, they could >have to conceal such features while the applications are in process. >If that is the case, we may have a very long wait indeed. IF the cold fusion phenomena is real and P & F are applying for patents -- One must assume that they are doing this for monetary gain, thus hindering the advancement of science by keeping it a secret. The question of scientific morality to the hinderance of the advancement of the human race toward a energy abundant and pollution free global society must be asked??? Is it morally correct for a scientist to retain scientific knowlege for personal gain??? (apparantly what P & F are doing...) I think it can be summed up in one simple statement: "Absolute power breeds absolute corruption" Any comments reply via e-mail or post it. / Jan Genemans, Consultant USENET: Jan.Genemans@Dartmouth.edu \ / Engineering Deptartment UUCP: dartvax!mac.dartmouth.edu!Jan.Genemans \ \ U.S. Merchant Marine Academy / \ Kings Point, NY 11024-1699 "Live long and prosper" -Spock / cudkeys: cuddy3 cudengenemans cudfnJan cudlnGenemans cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Michael Zehr / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 2 May 89 21:21:01 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology In article <440@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) writes: > [complaints about attacks agains F & P ...] >Then yesterday, the Boston Gloge quotes Ron Parker and Ron Ballinger, two >physicists from MIT OCas saying that F&P are guilty of: > > > misrepresentation and maybe fraud > > >Ron Parker is (or has been) the director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab and their >Alcator-C tokamak research project according to David A Honig on the net. >These physicists have an obvious ax to grind. It was the Boston Herald (not the Globe), which is generally considered as a sensationalist newspaper. Furthermore, as reported in the Boston Globe today (May 2) (quoted without permission): Ronald R. Parker, director of MIT's Plasma Fusion center, said at a news conference, "Our conclusion is that the claim of neutron detection is without foundation." [mention and quote of herald article] Parker and the MIT news office issued a statement yesterday saying the article had "seriously misquoted" Perker and had given a "largely incorrect view" of his statements. Certainly some of the blame lies with the media. -michael j zehr (i'm not associated in any way with the plasma fusion center at MIT, or with Parker, the Globe, or the Herald) cudkeys: cuddy2 cudentada cudfnMichael cudlnZehr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Lord Head / Re: wireless electricity Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: wireless electricity Date: 2 May 89 22:47:17 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <2164@wpi.wpi.edu>, tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) writes: >In article <269@poppy.warwick.ac.uk> phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) writes: > > There have been recent sugestions that a satellite in a geostationary orbit > >could use a high power microwave transmitter to transmit power to earth.. > > This is actually a rather old idea (at least 10 - 15 years).... > ...and worked as expected, so the idea should be feasable. A posting by Henry Spencer in sci.space some weeks ago (sorry, can't ref. it more exactly) analysed the economic paucity of this concept. Sorry - I thought it was a good idea too! cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenandrew cudfnLord cudlnHead cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / A Nowatzyk / APS Cold Fusion Session notes Originally-From: agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu (Andreas Nowatzyk) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: APS Cold Fusion Session notes Date: 2 May 89 21:43:17 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Jon Webb already stated the bottom line of our trip to the APS meeting. Here are a few more details: The first sign that things may not look too great was the absence of long lines at the registration counter. We planned to be there very early in order to secure a good seat. It turns out that the session was very well organized in a large auditorium and they had a closed circuit TV setup to an other room (just in case, but wasn't needed). P&F were invited but did have time to attend. The 18 of the 40 papers (Vince will scan the abstracts) were presented on Monday from 7:30pm to 0:28am: *1*: Jones (BYU) presented his result in a low-key, professional manner. [I really liked him for staying through the entire session, heroically taking the heat] He started with an unequivocal 'NO' (in writing) to possibility of significant heat generation via cold fusion. He proceeded to present his neutron data and a copy of his lab-book from May 22, 1986 describing the electrolytic cell. Some questions were quite hostile, and several experts in the neutron detection business (one from CERN) were clearly unimpressed. *2*: Rafelski (BUY) presents the theoretical part to the BUY experiments. An other 'NO' to the heat question on theoretical grounds. This theory stresses the dynamics of D in the metal crystal to enhance fusion and makes several favorable assumptions for DD-fusion to explain the BUY results. *3*: Koonin (UCSB) start by tearing Rafelski's theory apart (sort of an introductory act). Once accelerated to full speed, he destroys P&F's gamma-spectrogram (their evidence for neutrons). To wit: the graph underwent strange shape and data-point changes between different versions of the same paper, lacks anything but the 'neutron' peak and peaks at the wrong place. It perfectly matches the peak from a 214Bi-decay which is part of the Radon decay chain. Radon is frequently present in concrete buildings and the Rn level of typical basements are more than sufficient to account for the data. (Many other made the same point later). He is the first to call P&F incompetent. *4*: Lewis (Caltech) delivers the decisive kill with a very good presentation of a long list of data. Lewis is chemist ant the list of collaborators list many physics, chemist, electro-Chemists and material scientists. plenty of data from various Pd rods (cast, annealed, etc). In particular, he collaborated with Texas A&M and got one of their 'working' rods. He shreds P&F's evidence one by one: - no radiation. - no tritium (show how easy it is to fool yourself: an fresh electrolyte shows high T-levels if chemical reactions are not properly neutralized) - too much He (uses the same mass-spectrometer as F&P, implies sloppy operation because the unit has a higher resolution than claimed by UU) and shows how much He is present in typical labs. The UU He measures too much He to be produced by fusion. - Deals in depth with calorimetry and how not to do it in electrolytes (needs stirring and a careful balance of the produced gases). He reconstructs P&F's data (down to cell geometry) and shows how to get there if you are careless. - Shows gross thermodynamics error in F&P efficiency calculation. - much more... This talks was rapid machine-gun fire of facts, an in-depth analysis of F&P and leaves little room for hope. All arguments seen on usenet to date were addressed very convincingly. After much applause, 1/2 of the audience left. The remaining talks were merely reduced to a dozen nails for the coffin. *5*: Whaley (UCB) had to fight the noise of the leaving audience. She gave an theoretical talk on how boson (such as D) may be helped by the Pd lattice to get closer. Some questioner was not impressed by her math and the results did seem directly applicable to the cold fusion problem. She did not comment on fusion rates. *6*: Brooks (OSU) presented F&P replication attempts. Again (as in most cases, a long list of chemist and physicist worked on this). no heat, no n, no gamma, no He. "future work - *IF* warranted - ..." *7*: Rocester team: same as *6*, but less impressive set up. *8*: more of the same: over 300 runs, various Pd shapes, treatments (annealed, preloaded, cold-worked, ...), negative results. *9*: Stanford/SRI team: in-depth analysis on calorimetry. Destroys the Stanford 'confirmation' in passing. Computer model of F&P cell with respect to heat transfer characteristics. Almost replicates the F&P data (the volume-effect of Pd) analytically. Then throws in residual D/Pd reactions (known to occur slowly in volume) and the last points for thick rods fall in line. Very convincing and in line with Lewis. *10*: Bailey (Toronto) looks for gammas from D+D->He, doesn't find any and has fun with F&P's gamma-spectrum. Old news by now. *11*: I has to take a break, so I only got the gloom conclusion. *12*: Berkely team reports negative results with better equipment. *13*: withdrew. *14*: This is the GDR work that was reported on the net earlier. No heat. ONE experiment produced some neutrons (these numbers were posted). All the other didn't work. *15*: Florida team reports theoretical limits on fusion rates in metals. Notes that P-D should work better here (that was echoed in several other presentations). Rates a bit to low to explain the BYU results. F&P is out of the question. *16*: U.Washington team: like *15*, but more pessimistic. *17*: no show *18*: Cantrell (Miami U) showed lots of slides of funny looking ZrPd electrodes. He run his set-up several time and got different results: 100% heat, no heat and wrong temp. coefficient, 50% heat. He indicates that the heat is due to a reaction with the glass that he placed between the electrodes. The electrodes show a contamination of Cu,Si,Zn,Fe,... It look like a rather uncontrolled environment. "We used a ZrPd electrode with unknown history because that's what we had on hand". *19*: Florida State U. team looks for X-rays of exited Pd atoms that should be present if fusion occurs (even for D+D->4He+lattice). None seen. *20*: Gai (Yale team): long list of negative results (as mentioned on the net). Is trying cast electrodes now. The abstracts to talks 21-40 on Tue. promise more of the same. The organizers seemed to anticipate that: they scheduled the session in a smaller room. I think that there is no need for sci.physic.fusion any more. -- -- Andreas Nowatzyk (DC5ZV) Carnegie-Mellon University agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu Computer Science Department (412) 268-3617 -- cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenagn cudfnAndreas cudlnNowatzyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Lord Head / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 2 May 89 23:18:49 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <8904210613.AA16996@halibut.nosc.mil>, fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: > Marcos Montes at Stanford (marcos@fizzle.stanford.edu) came up with this > thought virtually simultaneously. It's probably not that unusual an idea, > but I haven't seen in mentioned in alt.fusion yet. Wrong - the thread is "Asteroids and Pd fusion". Incidentally - simultaneously with WHAT?! cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenandrew cudfnLord cudlnHead cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 2 May 89 21:04:00 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway The following article was found in our campus newspaper (A&M University). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- (reprinted w/permission) by Holly Becka ( Battalion staff writer) Researchers at the Texas A&M Cyclotron Institute reported they successfully repeated another part of a controversial experiment that Utah scientists claim is an indicator of a fusion reaction. The A&M reseachers reported finding a low level of neutrons being produced by an electrochemical cell in two experiments conducted last week, said Office of Public Information science writer Gene Charleton. "The reaction produces neutrons, but as far as what that means, no one is willing to say," Charleton said. "One thing they're not willing to say is 'yes this is fusion.' They cannot say that based on what they have found so far." He said last week's set of experiments differed from the original experiments, which tested for excess heat. The finding of excess heat energy is significant to researchers because it cannot be explained by normal chemistry. Charleton said the neutrons present in the reaction are important because they break scientific theory. He said whether fusion results from the experiment cannot yet be determined. "It is just too early to say," he said. "If it is fusion, neutrons ought to be produced and some other things ought to be happening. They've found some neutrons, but the results don't make a whole lot of sense or act the way they would be expected to act." Charleton said Dr. Kevin L. Wolf, an A&M chemistry professor, reported findings that confirmed the observations of Brigham Young University's researcher D. Steven Jones. Charleton said Jones collaborated with researchers B. Stanley Pons, chairman of the University of Utah's chemistry department, and Martin Fleischmann, the University of Southampton, the original nuclear fusion scientists. Pons and Fleischmann believe their results indicate a fusion reaction. A&M researchers only will confirm that their experiments resulted in the production of neutrons by electrochemical cells. Charleton said these neutron counts were several times higher than the background count, a certain number of neutrons that are always present. He said last week's experiment were "shielded" from the background neutrons and those neutrons were accounted for statistically. "By the time you shield the experiment from those background neutrons and account for them, the numbers they were getting were more than that," he said. "They're really not talking about many neutrons - it's only several a minute (that are being produced by the reaction) - which in terms of those processes, isn't that many. "But it is a low level of neutrons and they reproduced it. In other words, They got it in one experiment, did the experiment again and got neutrons. "The tough thing with the whole story is dealing with the fact that it still early. These guys are working at this very hard and so far all that they can say is they are seeing some strange things." Charleton said three groups of A&M researchers are working on the fusion experiment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Perkins KDP9565@TAMVENUS or KDP9565@VENUS.TAMU.EDU cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenfusion cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Steve Smith / Fusion: Something to Keep in Mind Originally-From: smith@cos.com (Steve Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Fusion: Something to Keep in Mind Date: 2 May 89 23:49:34 GMT Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA OK. Most people are seeing no results. Some people are seeing small results. F+P are seeing big results. After bashing on it for 5 (?) years. IF this thing is real, it just about has to be a solid state lattice effect of some kind. These effects are usually critically dependant on both impurities and crystal structure. Reasoning by analogy with semiconductor effects (risky!), the surprise is that *anybody* can replicate the results to any degree. I would suggest that F+P donate one of their "working" rods to some lab that could analyze it to death, both physically and chemically. This would also detect any lattice damage from gamma-energy phonons. Perhaps fusion is only happening in a very few crystal domains? This should be detectable by thermal distortion of the rod. The quote in my .signature gets more appropriate every day. -- -- Steve (smith@cos.com) ({uunet sundc decuac hqda-ai hadron}!cos!smith) "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." cudkeys: cuddy2 cudensmith cudfnSteve cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Marc deGroot / Re: D2O enrichment Originally-From: marc@mas.UUCP (Marc deGroot) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: D2O enrichment Date: 3 May 89 04:05:45 GMT Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino CA How can anyone restrict the use of deuterium enrichment apparatus? All you need is a big pot on the stove, simmering. When it simmers down, add tap water. Wait many moons. Liquid in pot is enriched. Wasn't it in alt.fusion that I read that the first supplies of heavy water came from the steam tanks at clothes cleaning/pressing shops? Disclaimer: These are the starry-eyed ravings of a software engineer. They may contain errors. -- Marc de Groot (KG6KF) "The two most common things ..!uunet!apple!mas1!marc in the universe are hydrogen ..!uunet!hoptoad!noe!marc and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison mdg@postgres.berkeley.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenmarc cudfnMarc cudlndeGroot cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Marc deGroot / Re: Gonzo Science Originally-From: marc@mas.UUCP (Marc deGroot) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Gonzo Science Date: 3 May 89 03:39:46 GMT Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino CA Oh right. I can see it now... "Hey guys, it's raining out and we can't go to the beach to play volleyball. What say we try some cold fusion?" "Sure, dude. I got some palladium." "And I got some heavy water." "OK, where are we gonna build it?" "Let's put it in your basement." "No, let's put it in YOUR basement." "Aw, my mom never lets me do high-energy experiments. Let's put it in YOUR basement." "MY mom is pregnant. We better do it at YOUR house..." ------------------------------ Actually, all kidding aside, I know a guy in S. F. who really wants to try this (and he's willing to do it at HIS house :-). Can someone tell me whether packed dirt is a good neutron shield? How many inches (or feet) do I need? -- Marc de Groot (KG6KF) "The two most common things ..!uunet!apple!mas1!marc in the universe are hydrogen ..!uunet!hoptoad!noe!marc and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison mdg@postgres.berkeley.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenmarc cudfnMarc cudlndeGroot cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Joseph Hall / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 03:24:39 GMT Organization: North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC In article <440@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) writes: >... >I say YES! The repugnant behavior of physicists, and apparently physicists >alone, has entered a new even more repugnant phase. These guys have a lot >to lose monetarily if F&P are right, but do they have to lose their self >respect as well? 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. I was particularly disgusted by the comment from a fusion physicist who appeared on CNN's science segment today, who asserted in his most authoritative and condescending tone that this is what comes from doing "science in a box." Science in a box may come back and bite him in the ass one fine day. -- v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court v v s s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511 v sss || joseph@ece007.ncsu.edu (Try this one first) -----------|| Standard disclaimers and all that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjnh cudfnJoseph cudlnHall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / L Chiaraviglio / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 3 May 89 05:58:44 GMT Organization: Department of Biology at Indiana University, Bloomington In article <20420013@hpcuhb.HP.COM> donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: >This experiment raised the temperature of a beaker by 27 degrees in one second. >It produced a 5 micron crater in the electrode. [. . .] I am quoting this article because I have long since lost the original, and back when it was still around I would have thought someone would have caught this, but -- As far as I have been able to determine from the various postings to this newsgroup (I don't get the Portland Oregonian), the experimenters ONLY looked at the electrode in the electron microscope AFTER doing their experiment. Therefore, they really have no idea of whether the electrode had that 5 micron crater BEFORE they did their experiment -- maybe it was a defect introduced during its manufacture or handling between manufacturing and the experiment. For all we know, their temperature-measuring equipment had an electrical glitch (I've seen other electronic lab equipment do things like this, so it doesn't seem too unlikely), which got them excited and caused them to look for craters, and when they found one they (and everyone else, it seems) were so excited that they never considered the possibility that the crater was always there. Feel free to correct me if they actually did check the surface of the electrode with an electron microscope before doing the experiment. -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | ARPA: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu BITNET: chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR) ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenchiaravi cudfnLucius cudlnChiaraviglio cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Vincent Cate / APS Abstracts Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: APS Abstracts Date: 3 May 89 04:17:35 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI I have scanned in the abstracts from the APS talks on cold fusion (aps-scanned). Also, I scanned in a paper that shows how to work back from the data in the F/P paper and figure out what their raw data was (cam-scanned). cam-scanned (4 pages) "Cold Nuclear Fusion: Where's the Heat? - Just a Simple Minded (JASM) Theory not using Muons Bosons, or DD reactions" C. A. Melendres Argonne National Laboratory aps-scanned (41 pages) Abstracts from the American Physical Society's Special Session on Cold Fusion. May 1-2, 1989 aps.a, aps.b -- Two pages listing first 20 papers aps.1.ps.Z, to aps.40.ps.Z - Abstracts of papers Note that 13 was withdrawn. For the aps-scanned versions: ftp unh.cs.cmu.edu anonymous cd /afs/user/cs/vac/ftp/aps-scanned binary mget * quit And then from a unix shell: source print.aps Note that /afs starts with a /, that user is not usr, and you need the binary. To get the cam paper replace "aps" above with "cam". -- Vince PS. It looks to me like its all over for Pons and Fleischmann. The radiation is from radon gas and the fact that their background reading came from far away from the experiment. The apparent heat is from not stirring the solution. They also assumed a 0.5 volt drop in the cell where there was much more. Their calculation of 10**27 atmospheres uses a formula that assumes ideal gas even though deuterium is not even close to behaving like an ideal gas when in palladium. -- cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / john@prism.TMC / Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yes Originally-From: john@prism.TMC.COM Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Sell Your Palladium Now (if not yes Date: 1 May 89 20:21:00 GMT The price drop is interesting. I'm more interested in what the prices were before F&P held their press conference. Sorry if this has already been discussed here. We just started getting alt.fusion. Thanks. ---- JOHN DOWD john@mirror.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, ihnp4, harvard!wjh12, cca, cbosgd, seismo}!mirror!john Mirror Systems Cambridge, MA 02140 cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjohn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Doug Roberts / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 19:58:24 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <1989May3.074953.9258@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > > 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 > And who said physicists had a lock on arrogance? -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Don Alvarez / Re: MIT: all theory, no results Originally-From: boomer@athena.mit.edu (Don Alvarez) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: MIT: all theory, no results Date: 3 May 89 20:34:56 GMT Organization: MIT Center for Space Research In article <12699@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >A number of people have commented on the peculiar nature >of activities at MIT over the last few weeks. A large >interdisciplinary experimental group there has failed to find >evidence for cold fusion and is pushing an explanation for >F&P's results as being due to a mixture of incompetence and >chemical effects. Meanwhile a theorist, Dr. Hagelstein, has >sent 4 papers to the Physical Review suggesting a basis for >understanding cold fusion and rumors abound that MIT will be >filing patent claims based on this work. (1) The experimental group would probably tell you that there is a big difference between not finding anything and finding that there is nothing. Their paper does a mighty fine job (imho) of completely trashing the published P&F data... the neutron energies P&F quote are clearly not consistent with the spectrum from their lab shown on Utah television, the neutron peak they show in their paper has a width which is equally clearly too sharp to be produced with the detector they were using (and no amount of skill as an electrochemist can account for that), among other points. (2) I don't have Hagelstein's papers here in front of me, but I am quite certain that if you read them you will be struck by the fact that nowhere does he actually say "Here is my theory which supports P&F." What he says, over and over, is "Here is my theory. _IF_ P&F is real, this _MIGHT_ be what is going on." Again, big difference. (3) You might point out to "A number of people" that anyone who assumes that Universities have a special crack squad of "thought police" forcing everyone in the to school agree on _anything_, let alone a topic as controversial as this, is missing the point of the University environment. (4) I happen to be an experimentalist, but I still take issue with the original Subject: line. A good, definitive, predictive, and verifiable theory is indeed a 'result.' (and so is a good, definitive, precise, and well presented 'null experiment,' for that matter). cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenboomer cudfnDon cudlnAlvarez cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / gengmc@latvax8 / cold fusion, history Originally-From: gengmc@latvax8.lat.oz Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: cold fusion, history Date: 2 May 89 21:04:31 GMT Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University Anyone else remember the N-ray affair? cudkeys: cuddy2 cudengengmc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Brian Rauchfuss / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: brian@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 1 May 89 15:17:20 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard -- Fort Collins, CO >I don't see why one would notice the 'absence' of the other gassses (i.e. >oxygen) except when one recovers consciousness after falling to the floor >(and breathing the purer air). One of the dangers of lack of oxygen, whether >it be caused by carbon monoxide binding to hemoglobin or other reasons >is its insidiousness. The drive to breath is (in normal people) based >upon the CO2 balance, not the oxygen intake. This is my understanding >from an aquaintance of mine, who is a registered respitory therapist, >at any rate,. >-- >bhv@igloo >---------- Only carbon monoxide poisoning is insidious. Breathing gas with a low oxygen content is *very* noticable. Your therapist friend is right, but without oxygen, the CO2 level in the blood rapidly falls and you feel like your holding your breath even as you breath. It isn't fun. Brian Smokefoot "I never knew I could shape my life brian@hpfcbdr.HP.COM like the artist paints his dreams on a canvas." - Minor Detail cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Ethan Vishniac / MIT: all theory, no results Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: MIT: all theory, no results Date: 3 May 89 15:47:05 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas A number of people have commented on the peculiar nature of activities at MIT over the last few weeks. A large interdisciplinary experimental group there has failed to find evidence for cold fusion and is pushing an explanation for F&P's results as being due to a mixture of incompetence and chemical effects. Meanwhile a theorist, Dr. Hagelstein, has sent 4 papers to the Physical Review suggesting a basis for understanding cold fusion and rumors abound that MIT will be filing patent claims based on this work. In astronomy there is a saying: "If a theorist is right 10% of the time, he's a hero. If an observer is wrong 10% of the time, he's a bum." I suspect that other disciplines have their own versions. -- 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: cuddy3 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Vincent Cate / APS Abstracts Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: APS Abstracts Date: 3 May 89 17:57:31 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI I typed in the wrong path on my last post. The two anonymous FTP sites are ftp unh.cs.cmu.edu cd /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp and ftp gw.ccie.utoronto.ca cd pub/cld.fsn From there to get to the abstracts: cd aps-scanned or the other new paper: cd cam-scanned Once you are in the right place binary mget * quit and then source print.aps (or print.cam) -- Vince -- cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Mike Pelt / Anoxia (was Re: Safety of hydrogen) Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Anoxia (was Re: Safety of hydrogen) Date: 3 May 89 20:08:45 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <14430003@hpfcdj.HP.COM> brian@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes: > Only carbon monoxide poisoning is insidious. Breathing gas with a low >oxygen content is *very* noticable. Your therapist friend is right, but >without oxygen, the CO2 level in the blood rapidly falls and you feel like >your holding your breath even as you breath. It isn't fun. This isn't true. The mechanism that tells you that you need to breathe is increased CO2 in the blood. If you are breathing a mixture of air with no CO2 and no oxygen, you will feel lightheaded and drunk until you pass out, but no particularly serious discomfort. There was an excellent demonstration of this in the PBS series "The Body in Question". The host of the series put on a facemask connected to a small tank, which caused him to continuously re-breathe the same air. As CO2 built up, he started breathing faster and faster, and ultimately, in some apparant distress, yanked the mask off gasping for breath. For the second experiment, he put a lithium hydroxide cannister in the line to absorb CO2. He put on the mask again, and continuously wrote the alphabet on a note pad. His breathing rate did not change, but his writing became progressively more erratic until he fell over and a couple of people came rushing on stage with an oxygen tank. He seemed at most semi-consious until he'd been on the pure O2 for a minute. -- Mike Van Pelt "Something is happening here, Video Seven What it is ain't exactly clear..." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Pons & Fleischmann cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / S Strassmann / Ballinger's testimony 1st of 2 messages Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Originally-From: Steve Strassmann Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Ballinger's House Testimony Subject: Ballinger's testimony 1st of 2 messages Date: 3 May 89 18:48:57 GMT Date: Wed, 3 May 89 04:12 EDT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Date: Wed, 3 May 89 04:12 EDT Originally-From: Steve Strassmann Subject: Ballinger's testimony 1st of 2 messages To: vac@cs.cmu.edu Hi there! I've downloaded so many fusion papers off of your repository, I figured I owed you one in return. I asked Ronald Ballinger for a copy of his testimony before congress on April 26, and his secretary gave me a Mac disk with the document as a Microsoft Word file. I'm sending it to you in two forms, one as plain ascii, the other as a binhex'd MSWord document. If you need any help translating this into any other format, just let me know. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 g-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 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / KQUWEDA at DH / Fusion with H2O Originally-From: KQUWEDA%DHVRRZN1.bitnet@munnari.oz Originally-From: Ken Downs Originally-From: space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Originally-From: sgi!arisia!cdp!jordankatz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Originally-From: Originally-From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com (MacLeod) Originally-From: biar!trebor@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Robert J Woodhead) Originally-From: nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.Gov (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru) Originally-From: hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@hplabs.hp.com Originally-From: nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.Gov (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru) Originally-From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!powi@rutgers.edu (Peter Owings) Originally-From: Electronic Pinboard Originally-From: KQUWEDA at DHVRRZN1 Originally-From: KQUWEDA at DHVRRZN1 Originally-From: KQUWEDA at DHVRRZN1 Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Graduate Students report Cold Fusion Subject: Simultaneity Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #377 Subject: NSS Hotline Update for 4/14/89 Subject: Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact) Subject: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties Subject: Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope Subject: SETI: When and where to look Subject: Re: Information Needed (on plume from antimatter H2 rocket) Subject: Re: Bored public Subject: Simultaneous? Subject: FUSION list Subject: FUSION Subject: Fusion with H2O Date: 17 Apr 89 17:14:56 GMT Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 20:53:00 EST Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 07:46:33 EDT Date: 15 Apr 89 05:02:00 GMT Date: 13 Apr 89 01:33:25 GMT Date: 15 Apr 89 22:59:02 GMT Date: 15 Apr 89 02:57:27 GMT Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 08:04:32 PDT Date: 14 Apr 89 05:07:23 GMT Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 08:18:58 PDT Date: 15 Apr 89 19:20:57 GMT Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 10:25:00 CET Date: 19 April 1989, 12:23:35 MEZ Date: 19 April 1989, 12:31:53 MEZ Date: 20 April 1989, 11:59:40 MEZ 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 ------------------- Received: by DEARN (Mailer R2.01) id 4758; Tue, 18 Apr 89 03:19:41 EST Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 20:53:00 EST Reply-To: Physics Student Discussion List Sender: Physics Student Discussion List Originally-From: Ken Downs Subject: Simultaneity To: Uwe Daniel Folks, Getting back to the question of simultaneity, I had a small discussion off-net with someone who saw a few flaws with my explanation. I think I have a reply now. In an earlier posting, I presented the definition of simul- taneity postulated by Einstein: Two events are simultaneous to an observer if that observer sees them at the same time (with the example of two explosions, news of which would travel to the observer at the conveniently constant speed of c.) To really understand why there is simply no "absolute" reference frame (the GOD frame) where events are rightly categorized as simultaneous or not, without the confusion of the relativistic definition, we need actually consider *two* observers. Consider again the observer who is stationary between two points A and B. Explosions occur at each point, sending light signals to the observer. The observer sees the light signals at the same time, and concludes that the events are simultaneous. To throw off any trickery, assume that the light is a continuous spectrum, and/or the observer has no spectrometer to measure Doppler-Fizeau shifts. Now consider a second observer moving at constant velocity v relative to the stationary one. We will say that as they pass each other, they calibrate their clocks to zero. Assume the second observer is moving to the right. Now, the first observer sees two flashes simultaneously. He also sees that the moving observer has moved a little to the right at the time he sees the flashes, and deduces that the moving observer must have seen the flash from the right first, and that the moving observer has not yet seen the flash from the left. After some small time interval, the light from the left will "catch up" to the moving observer. What the stationary observer has done is to *transform* his data into the moving reference frame, with the result being that simultaneity is lost in the process. The fact is that neither of these observers is "right" about whether or not the events are simultaneous. There is no GOD frame wherein sits a judge to whom they can take their dispute and who will say, "You were right, and you were confused because you were moving", or "You were right and you were confused because you were sitting still." Each observer has only the data to judge by, and data are what we use to draw conclusions. Ken "Loves to rap on relativity" Downs Fordham University PAPERCUT@FORDMURH ========================================================================= Received: by DEARN (Mailer R2.01) id 0018; Tue, 18 Apr 89 15:00:20 EST Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 07:46:33 EDT Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Sender: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was SPACE@UGA Originally-From: space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #377 Comments: To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu To: Uwe Daniel SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 377 Today's Topics: NSS Hotline Update for 4/14/89 Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact) US citizen - ET contact legal penalties Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets Re: Hubble Space Telescope SETI: When and where to look Re: Information Needed (on plume from antimatter H2 rocket) Re: Bored public --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Apr 89 05:02:00 GMT Originally-From: sgi!arisia!cdp!jordankatz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: NSS Hotline Update for 4/14/89 This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending April 14, 1989. The STS-30 mission of the space shuttle Atlantis and its Magellan payload have been approved for launch April 28th at 2:24 pm EST. Office of space flight director Richard Truly made the announcement, saying that there was "much work to do and little contingency time." During a key main engine test, a valve failed to work in engine no. 1. To make up for lost time technicians have been repairing the valve with parts from Discovery's main engine. The space shuttle Atlantis will be deploying the Magellan Venus Radar Mapper, to map the surface of Mars through it dense layer of sulfuric acid laden clouds. President Bush has nominated Rear Adm. Richard Truly to the post of NASA Administrator. Truly will be the first astronaut to head the agency and also the first military officer as well. In order for Truly to become administrator, the White House had to ask Congress for a waiver to the Space Act of 1958, essentially letting Truly retire from the Navy, but being able to defer his pension during his years as administrator. President Bush also nominated the current Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center J.R. Thompson to the post of NASA Deputy Administrator. Acting NASA Administrator Dale Myers turned in his resignation to be effective May 13, 1989. Myers took over for James Fletcher after he retired April 8, 1989. This is Myers' second tour of duty at NASA, first as associate administrator for manned space flight from 1970 to 1974, and when President Regean called him back to NASA after the Challenger Disaster till now. The Soviet Union has decided to temporarily vacate the Mir space station; a move that was prompted by delays in the preparation of two new modules for the soon-to-be vacant platform. Flight Director Viktor Blagov stated that the station will only be unmanned for several months until the two research modules are completed and ready for launch. Glavcosmos Chairman Alexander Sunayev confirmed that there would be no missions this year involving the new Soviet Space Shuttle Buran. In the international community, there has been mixed reaction to the announcement that the Soviets would be leaving the Mir space station "untended". The development may provide the U.S. with an opporunity to gain the high ground regarding the civilian space program in general and international cooperation specifically. While the Soviets had taken advantage of the Challenger accident to attract international partners, arguments can now be made that it is the U.S. and not the Soviets that can be counted on in the long run to stand by their commitments to human expansion into the solar system. The action also points out the importance of building a fully capable space station such as the International Space Station Freedom. The Mir space station had greatly reduced capabilities allowing for limited research in life sciences and materials processing. It appears the Soviets will now wait until additional capability is added to the station in order to commit further ressources to permanent humaned presence. PAUSE The pro-space lobby Spacecause continues to urge space advocates to write or call members of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations regarding an effort to scuttle the space station program. An amendment to the fiscal year 1989 supplemental appropriations bill has been introduced by the committee's minority leader, Massachusetts Rep. Silvio Conte. Conte's amendment would transfer nearly $600 of station funding to other domestic programs. Rumour has it that if the House approves this measure, the Senate is sure to go along. Space advocates have a chance to send a clear signal of support for the space station program. In other news from inside the beltway, the special budget negotiating group which has been working for the past month on its recommendations for a budget framework for fiscal year 1990 has reached an agreement. The group, consisting of executive branch members and congressional leaders, will suggest that next year's spending be frozen at current services + 4%. This agreement will set overall limits, which means that individual accounts could grow but that the bottom line must remain at the agreed upon level. Despite White House rhetoric to the contrary, the space station program was not protected. It follows that congressional democrats will not want to go it alone in station support; therefore, space advocates will be called upon soon to flex their muscle. When the targets and time frame have been selected, it will reported on the HOTLINE, the space bulletin boards, and through the SPACE PHONE TREE. The National Research Council published a report stating that there is no need for the Commercially Developed Space Laboratory that the Regean Administration called for last year as a stepping stone to the larger Space Station Freedom. The report confirmed that the majority of experiments for which the commercially developed space facility is designed can be handled aboard existing facilities on the Space Shuttle until the Space Station is built. To Joe Allen, president of Space Industries, designers of the Commercially Developed Space Laboratory, the report was encouraging because it is stated that there would eventually be a need for one. NASA has selected the first Small Explorer missions. The Small Explorers are small satellites weighing approximately 800 lbs. and can be lunched by Scout-class expendable launch vehicle. This program will provide frequent flight opportunities for specialized inexpensive space science missions. All four of the selected missions out of the 51 submitted are Astronomy related missions. Marshall Space Flight Center has started a new program to share scientific and engineering data from flight experiments with American Universities and Colleges. The program will make available data generated during space missions in exchange for the analysis and interpretations from faculty members and students. In addition Universities will be encouraged to create outreach programs that would take the excitement of the space program to the secondary and elementary schools in their area. This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space Soceity's Space Hotline! ----------------------------- Date: 13 Apr 89 01:33:25 GMT Originally-From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@tut.cis.oh io-state.edu (Matthew Francey) Subject: Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact) In article <8904051901.AA12276@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: > And then you can fly missions that are outside the envelope of human > comfort/survivability, e.g. duration (no running out of air), acceleration > (high g forces), radiation (flying during solar flares),... anyone got any more ideas? 1) the 3g acceleration limit for a shuttle is a structural limitation, not a human one. At least, this is the impression I get from my readings. That it also fits nicely with human limits is either a fluke (I hope), or NASA designed with the comfort-limit in mind, shaving weight/strength for payload capacity (eeek!). I am beyond myself here, though, wondering if "stronger == heavier" is really true... 2) if payload weight is a problem, why not split it into two shuttle launches? They are, after all, supposed to be cheap... Remember that the shuttle was designed as a thing to get stuff into orbit and then come back for some more. Flying a thing like that into really weird orbits or under "anomalous" conditions is probably not a good idea. Why not use a nice expendable? Of all the ideas you have, is a reflyable reentry vehicle truly needed? Will not a simple capsule Apollo-style suffice if you want to get something back? -- Name: Matthew Francey Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m mdf@ziebmef.UUCP uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf ----------------------------- Date: 15 Apr 89 22:59:02 GMT Originally-From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com (MacLeod) Subject: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties I have received requests for the citation which covers the illegal aspects of man-ET encounters. I am quoting here from the enigmatic KRILL document previously posted here. "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing). The Code specifies up to a year in jail and a 5000 dollar fine. The NASA authorities can examine you to determine if you have been "ET exposed", and can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be broken, even by court order." Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ----------------------------- Date: 15 Apr 89 02:57:27 GMT Originally-From: biar!trebor@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets In article <1019@esatst.yc.estec.nl> neil@esatst.UUCP (Neil Dixon) writes: >1991, Thatcher's next election year. A cheap publicity stunt is ... If it is a publicity stunt, I can assure you, cheap it will not be. Very expensive is more like it. ;^) -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. ...!uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The NY Times is read by the people who run the country. The Washington Post is read by the people who think they run the country. The National Enquirer is read by the people who think Elvis is alive and running the country..." ----------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 08:04:32 PDT Originally-From: nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.Gov (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru) Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope X-St-Vmsmail-To: SPACE_DIGEST >Does the space telescope have cryostats? By "burn out" do you mean >boil away? (i.e. does do IR?) Or are CCD's damaged permanently from >high fluxes? What happens if a 10 GeV proton decides to deposit >its energy in the CCD chip? Nope, no cryostats on the HST. Also, at 10 Gev, a proton is a minimum ionizing particle and will pass right through the CCD chip (here I'm assuming the chip is rather thin) since it takes a bit of material to stop a 10 Gev proton. According to my Range-energy tables, I'm guessing it would talk about 2000 cm (within a factor or 2) of silicon to stop a 10 Gev proton. What is likely to happen is that the energy deposition by the passage of the proton will knock lose more than enough electrons to glitch several pixels for the current picture. I doubt that there will be any permanent damage by such high energy protons (low energy, 10s MeV, solar protons are likely to be an entirely different story). = Dr. Frank J. Nagy "VAX Guru & Wizard" = Fermilab Research Division/Electrical and Electronics Dept/Controls Group = HEPNET: WARNER::NAGY (43198::NAGY) or FNAL::NAGY (43009::NAGY) = BitNet: NAGY@FNAL = USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/220 Batavia, IL 60510 ----------------------------- Date: 14 Apr 89 05:07:23 GMT Originally-From: hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@hplabs.hp.com Subject: SETI: When and where to look A few days ago, "Nova" dealt with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. After watching the program, I got an idea. The major problems in attempting radio contact are the questions of "where" and "when". There are many billions of stars to examine, and even if by chance a radiotelescope were aimed at a star system that was home to intelligent life, the E.T.'s at the other end might not be broadcasting or listening in our direction. Suppose that two planets in solar systems many light years apart harbor advanced civilizations. Both planets suspect that there are other intelligent beings in the galaxy, but don't know when and where to point their radio antennae. Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other. Let's look at a rather bizarre analogy. Suppose two people are in a huge deserted city. Neither person is sure the other exists, but suspects it. Suppose there is a clocktower in the city. Every day at noon, the clocktower rings its bells. If I were one of the two people, I would reason as follows; "Although I don't know the space-time coordinates of the other person, I know that there is a very distinct event in space-time in this city; at the clock tower at noon each day. The other person must be aware of this special coordinate also. If she wants to meet me, maybe she'll be there. I'll go there tomorrow at noon." If the other person also uses this reasoning, there will be a meeting. Is there a similar space-time marker in the galaxy? I think a supernova explosion might qualify. The light from the explosion travels outward as a spherical front. Thus, the "event surface" is a spherical shell traveling outward from the supernova. An intelligent creature might reason as follows; "If I see a supernova go off, I'll calculate it's exact coordinates. Then I'll start broadcasting to every other star on my event surface (i.e., at the same distance as I am from the supernova). If other intelligent creatures get the same idea, and they lie on my event surface, they'll start broadcasting to me also. I'll be sure to meet a girl that way!" For this method to work there must be a planet with intelligent life on the same event surface as we. Does anyone out there know how many stars lie on our event surface of supernova 1987a? Does this idea make any sense, or am I just blathering? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 186,000 miles per second: | Tom O'Reilly at HP Lab Data Systems It's not just a good idea... | it's the Law! - A. Einstein | oreilly@hpldslq.HP.COM --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 08:18:58 PDT Originally-From: nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.Gov (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru) Subject: Re: Information Needed (on plume from antimatter H2 rocket) X-St-Vmsmail-To: SPACE_DIGEST >What would be the appearance of the plume from an antimatter rocket >using Hydrogen? I would presume the Hydrogen comes out the nozzle as a >plasma of protons and electrons that gradually recombine and give off EM. From this description, I assume you are talking about a rocket whose working fluid and reaction mass is liquid hydrogen into which a small amount of antimatter is introduced. The resulting annihilation of a small amount of the hydrogen and the antimatter heat the working fluid to a plasma and thus powers the rocket. The resulting exhaust is a proton-electron plasma and a storm of photons. My guess for what you might see: 1. A bright gamma ray source from astern due to the annihilation reactions (primarily pi-zero production and subsequent decay) 2. lots of radio emission from electron synchrontron radiation (assuming magnetic fields are present in the rocket nozzle and/or the interplanetary/interstellar medium) and from bremstrahlung (braking radiation) possibly from the exhaust interacting with the surrounding medium. 3. Astern of the ship, where the plasma begins to neutralize (protons and electrons recombine) should be a bright UV source since many of the most prominent hydrogen lines are in the UV. In this same region should be a smaller visible glow, probably skewed toward the blue end of the spectrum, as protons and electrons form highly excited hydrogen atoms (the UV then comes from the de-excitation of these atoms - Lyman alpha and Lyman beta lines). These statements apply to an observer whose velocity is non-relativistic with respect to the antimatter rocket although interaction with the surrounding medium might slow the plasma before recombination occurrs. These guesses from: = Dr. Frank J. Nagy "VAX Guru & Wizard" = Fermilab Research Division/Electrical and Electronics Dept/Controls Group = HEPNET: WARNER::NAGY (43198::NAGY) or FNAL::NAGY (43009::NAGY) = BitNet: NAGY@FNAL = USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/220 Batavia, IL 60510 ----------------------------- Date: 15 Apr 89 19:20:57 GMT Originally-From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!powi@rutgers.edu (Peter Owings) Subject: Re: Bored public In article <2404@viscous.sco.COM> joed@sco.COM (Joe Di Lellio) writes: > >I'm afraid I agree completely. There is quickly developing a huge majority >of people who not only know little about technical related subjects, but are >downright proud of it. I'm still a student at UCSC (well, sort of;>), and I I just want to know how many of these technology haters are running home to their CD players and microwaves and have 150 clear channels beamed to them from the netherworld... Peter... powi@uhura.cc.rochester.edu University of Rochester ----------------------------- End of SPACE Digest V9 #377 ******************* ========================================================================= Received: by DEARN (Mailer R2.01) id 0792; Tue, 18 Apr 89 19:40:02 EST Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 10:25:00 CET Reply-To: Physics Student Discussion List Sender: Physics Student Discussion List Originally-From: Electronic Pinboard Subject: Simultaneous? To: Uwe Daniel > The fact is that neither of these observers is "right" about >whether or not the events are simultaneous. There is no GOD frame wherein >sits a judge to whom they can take their dispute and who will say, "You were >right, and you were confused because you were moving", or "You were right >and you were confused because you were sitting still." Each observer has >only the data to judge by, and data are what we use to draw conclusions. I would rather say instead that there is given a certain priority to the certain reference frame which does belong neither to observer A or B but to the explosions itself. THEY have to decide whether they are simulta- neous or not, an assumption totally independent of the viewers. In re- gard to the witch paradoxon neither the witch nor the door guardians have to decide whether the broom will crash but only, so to say, the doors themselves. > To really understand why there is simply no "absolute" >reference frame (the GOD frame) where events are rightly categorized as >simultaneous or not, without the confusion of the relativistic definition, >we need actually consider *two* observers. Regardless of local problems such as closing doors or explosions there is a reference frame which you may consider as absolute by any means. This frame is defined by the cosmic background radiation. You know, according to the laws of cosmology the background radiation has to be isotropic throughout all the universe, thus if you manage to measure a Doppler-Fizeau shift of the background in a certain direction you will your exact vector of movement relative to THE COSMOS ITSELF. But, as in Big Bang Theory an "outside" of the Cosmos is not defined, this frame is pretty well an absolute one to which all others are mere offsprings. With this in mind you can define simultaneity of events to occur once they are simultaneous relative to the frame of the very Cosmos. (Postscript: There have been attempts to measure the Doppler-Fizeau shift of the background radiation as the Earth is moving but it failed due to the lack of instrumental sensitivity, i.e. till now the relative error always has been greater then the actually possible shift). Galileo >>> For every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D. <<< E-Mail: P187 ========================================================================= Date: 19 April 1989, 12:23:35 MEZ Originally-From: KQUWEDA at DHVRRZN1 Subject: FUSION list To: PHYS-STU at UWF The list FUSION-L indeed has been established on BITNET. All people on the zorch distribution list were automatically added to FUSION. You may subscribe to that list following the usual procedure "tell listserv at sub FUSION-L ". ---- dan . ========================================================================= Date: 19 April 1989, 12:31:53 MEZ Originally-From: KQUWEDA at DHVRRZN1 Subject: FUSION To: PHYS-STU at UWF I just read the message from Duane concerning the list. That's true, it's FUSION without the -L. You'll get an info how to contribute to the list when your subscription was accepted. But that again will be the standard procedure (sending to FUSION@LISTSERV). Sorry that you all got it twice. Dan. ========================================================================= Date: 20 April 1989, 11:59:40 MEZ Originally-From: KQUWEDA at DHVRRZN1 Subject: Fusion with H2O To: PHYS-STU at UWF Fleischmann and Pons made an experiment with H2O. They got nearly no heat and no neutrons out of it. The small amount of heat might be due to D2O fusion occuring in the pd rod - ordinary water contains a small fraction of D2O. This result does prove that fusion of D2O is going on, it would be a proof against it if the experiment would work with H2O. That's all I read on fusion@zorch about H2O, but there are some people which claim that some H2O must be in the D2O, cause they think that the extra heat may come from some hydrogen reactions. Nothing has been proofed yet, only that there must be fusion (neutrons|) and there is a net gain of heat. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Uwe Daniel ! "Why stop now, when I'm just hating it?" KQUWEDA@DHVRRZN1.BITNET ! Marvin, the paranoid android. University of Hannover ! "Physics and more..." ! Ask Ford, he knows where his towel is!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy20 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / T Wells / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 3 May 89 21:42:11 GMT Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale In article froncio@caip.rutgers.edu (Andy Froncioni) writes: : What about publishing BEFORE calling a press conference? : : ... or have people forgotten how research discoveries were : handled before F&P??? Like Maiman's announcement of the laser? Or Chu's announcement of high temperature superconductivity? (Courtesy of _The Economist_.) --- Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenbill cudfnT cudlnWells cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Randell Jesup / Re: Fusion: Palladium - notes on behavior Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion: Palladium - notes on behavior Date: 3 May 89 17:49:31 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <1823@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > (b) Repeated absorption, desorption cycles cause the acceleration > to decrease, and also result in significantly reduced rates > of absorption and total amount of absorption. Means fresh electrodes are better >(3) Preheating decreases both the rate and total amount of absorption > in relation to the temperature of the pre-heat: preheating at > higher temperature results in metal that will absorb less > hydrogen at a lower rate than preheating at a lower temperature. That caught a bunch of people, I'll bet. >(5) Plastic deformation and recovery by annealing effect the > rate of absorption. Strained metal has a higher rate of > absorption that does annealed metal. However, cold-working may, in > certain cases, reduce the rate of absorption. The effect of > annealing after foregoing strain, in diminishing both absorption > rate and capacity, is greater, the higher the temperature of the > anneal. The Gai results are called into question by this (he annealed most of his samples, except the one he cold worked, if I remember correctly.) >The state of that palladium is >not known - but it may have to be closely duplicated in order to >get the PF effect. Yup. Which is why the LANL experiment will be so interesting (and hopefully conclusive) when it's finished. BTW, how does Lewis (CalTech) explain the Italian results? No electrochemistry there, and 100x background is hard to mis-measure. Also someone noted that a speaker from Stanford "demolished in passing" the Stanford confirmation. Any details? Have the people who made the confirmation retracted? -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Joe / Re: Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Originally-From: joe@cbmvax.UUCP (Joe O'Hara) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Date: 3 May 89 20:17:52 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <13328@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan Genemans) writes: >In article <5043@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) writes: >>The problem may be that several foreign governments do not grant patents >>where the inventive features have been disclosed before the filing of a >>patent application IN THAT COUNTRY. If P&F's CF is real, they could >>have to conceal such features while the applications are in process. >>If that is the case, we may have a very long wait indeed. > >IF the cold fusion phenomena is real and P & F are applying for patents -- One ^^^ >must assume that they are doing this for monetary gain, thus hindering the ^^^^^^^^^^^ >advancement of science by keeping it a secret. Applications for patents are standard procedure to ensure that those with the R&D investment reap the monetary rewards rather than others. The fact that they must temporarily withhold their information while the patenting process continues is hardly hindering the advancement of science. It can be easily argued that the prospect for monetary gain through patents is precisely what drives governments, businesses, and universities to fund research projects. -- ======================================================================== Joe O'Hara || Comments represent my own opinions, Commodore Electronics Ltd || not my employers. Any similarity to Software QA || to any other opinions, living or dead, || is purely coincidental. ======================================================================== cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjoe cudlnJoe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Brian Yamauchi / Re: MIT: all theory, no results Originally-From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: MIT: all theory, no results Date: 3 May 89 23:24:04 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <11080@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> boomer@space.mit.edu (Don Alvarez) writes: >(1) The experimental group would probably tell you that there is a big >difference between not finding anything and finding that there is nothing. >Their paper does a mighty fine job (imho) of completely trashing the >published P&F data... the neutron energies P&F quote are clearly not >consistent with the spectrum from their lab shown on Utah television, >the neutron peak they show in their paper has a width which is equally >clearly too sharp to be produced with the detector they were using >(and no amount of skill as an electrochemist can account for that), >among other points. Are the MIT people (either officially or unofficially) accusing P & F of incompetence -- or fraud? _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenyamauchi cudfnBrian cudlnYamauchi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Donald Benson / Re: gonzo science Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: gonzo science Date: 3 May 89 16:25:06 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Should anyone need machining or welding to fabricate part of their experiment, I have the equipment to do it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Donald Benson (415) 969-8535 cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Donald Benson / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 3 May 89 16:31:23 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino I quoted the original article wrong. The jump appears to be from a starting temperature of 21C to an ending temperature of 27.5C, no a jump of somewhere in the range of 21 or 27.5C change. The explanations offered by other posters are reasonable, too. While we are contemplating the $billion market which may appear, we also have to avoid leveling a city. Sure, the reaction stops when the lattice melts. But, if a simultaneous reaction can be triggered, it will be too late. Caveat Experimentor! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Donald Benson / Re: Re: wireless electricity Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Re: wireless electricity Date: 3 May 89 16:32:58 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > aircraft. As far as the beam wandering off, a beacon powered by the recieved > power could tell the powersat if it was off. The idea has been tried on When plans are made to implement this, I'll post it to COMP.RISKS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Donald Benson / Re: Cold fusion R.I.P. Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion R.I.P. Date: 3 May 89 17:19:26 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino I though F&P *did* stir the mixture, using "sparging" with D2 gas generated by electrolisis of D2O in another cell. If you begin with D2O, containing a certain amount of tritium, then generate more tritium, you would expect higher levels of tritium than could be attributed to the reaction alone. Did they measure the tritium present in a control cell, or before the experiment? It appears they measured the heat produced in a way similar to how an EE would measure current flow: measure voltage across a known resistance. In their case, immerse the cell in a water bath at a constant temperature, and measure the temperature of the cell. Did they produce a sustained hot spot or a sustained energy flow? For an EE, was the resistor higher than he thought? The EE wasn't measuring the work done by the current, rather the difference in potential produced by its flow. Energy out > energy in? If you drop a resistive element in a beaker of water, energy out = energy in. If you use a peltier device (or other heat-pump) in place of the resistor, energy out > energy in (apparent). To do the measurement right, you must look for thermal effects remote from the cell, or measure the electrical situation more carefully. I'll bet they didn't measure optical energy in. What if the solution they used was a good absorber of light, or radio waves? 8^) As has been said before, measurement of heat is something they probably know how to do right. Still, we can speculate on possible sources for error. I'd be willing to bet its real because the stakes are so high. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Robert Brooks / Re: Cold fusion R.I.P. Originally-From: rb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion R.I.P. Date: 3 May 89 17:29:57 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > Lewis did an extremely careful examination of how hard it is to do > correct > calorimetry of an eletrochemical cell. It turns out if you don't stir > the > cell (and Pons and Fleischmann did not) then it's easy to report false > excess heat. From page 3 of P&F's preprint dated March 20: "Stirring in these experiments ... was achieved, where necessary, by gas sparging using electrolytically generated D2." > Also, tritium is naturally present in heavy water in amounts consistent > with > Pons and Fleischmann's reported concentration. In fact, the amount > reported > is too high for it all to have been generated by the heat Pons and > Fleischmann reported. This is contradicted by P&F's claim that the tritium level was consistent with the neutron count, which was 10^-9 of that necessary to explain the heat produced. In summary, the criticisms don't make sense, represent nothing new, and are to be expected from a bunch of physicists who are frustrated by not being able to duplicate the results and want to preserve their hot fusion grant money for as long as possible. I wouldn't give up on cold fusion just yet. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenrb cudfnRobert cudlnBrooks cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Dan Ehrlich / Re: 1926 Pd-catalyzed fusion Originally-From: ehrlich@shire.cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 1926 Pd-catalyzed fusion Date: 3 May 89 15:39:10 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania State University, Computer Science In article <84208CCB104@PSUVM>, CCB104@PSUVM (Carey Briggs) writes: >Is there anyone interested in knowing where to find 7 or 8 papers published >in 1926 and 1927 on the use of Pd as a catalyst for hydrogen [sic] fusion into >helium? > >If so, please let me know, and I will post a list of bibliographical references >onto binet. Yes please do. I would be interested in at least looking at some of them. -- Dan Ehrlich | Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are The Pennsylvania State University | my own, and should not be attributed Department of Computer Science | to anyone else, living or dead. University Park, PA 16802 | cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenehrlich cudfnDan cudlnEhrlich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 3 May 89 16:18:53 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) writes: > > I would like to begin by stating that cold fusion may or may not be the > byproduct of Fleischmann and Pons. I am no physicist, and I am no chemist. > In fact, I have absolutely no connection with either the chemical or the > energy industies. So, I don't have any axes to grind (at least not on > this subject). [much of interesting article deleted] > I say YES! The repugnant behavior of physicists, and apparently physicists > alone, has entered a new even more repugnant phase. These guys have a lot > to lose monetarily if F&P are right, but do they have to lose their self > respect as well? [much more of interesting article deleted] > In fact, the point of this entire commentary is to cause these unnecessary > negative comments and actions by physicists to cease for the sake of physics. > Such negative comments by physicists places physics in the same category as > common politics, where the people involved show no more maturity than the > average two-year-old. My comments are meant to keep physics at the proper > stature in the eyes of everyone. > > Dave Skinner Extract from my e-mail to Dave: I think your posting is pretty much on the mark. It's a shame that these "respected scientists" are quibling in public. I have a satellite TVRO system at home, and have noted that a number of respected physicists comments, which have been fed to local and network stations, never see air time. Those comments that don't get reported to the public are more in line with the type of reaction I'd expect from a professional, "We don't have sufficent data to comment on the matter at this time", and "Although current thinking indicates we should see 2.5MeV particles, the 2.2MeV particles reported are interesting." (quotes paraphrased from memory) Although I don't have the expertise to comment directly on the reported results of P&F, indications seem to be that they are also professionals who were forced by the media into pre-release of their results. I don't think it speaks well of the media or of the physicists who have jumped on the "it's impossable" bandwagon. Those would seem to the unknowlegeable to be very insecure types who want to see their name in the press. --- _____ Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." / \ / COMPUTERVISION Division gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / Prime Computer, Inc. {sun|linus}!cvbnet!cvman!gdelong \____\/ Manchester, New Hampshire (603) 622-1260 x 261 cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenfusion cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / John McCauley / ACS conference wanted Originally-From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,alt.fusion Subject: ACS conference wanted Date: 4 May 89 00:00:13 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ Could someone post a copy of the call for papers and details about registration for the ACS cold fusion session next week? Also there is a rumor that for a while they were only accepting positive results, but changed their policy so that both postitive and negative results are now accepted. Is this true? Thanks, Scott -- Scott McCauley, jsm@phoenix.princeton.edu (INTERNET) Home: (609) 683-9065 Office: (609) 243-3312 (FTS 340-3312) Fax: (609) 243-2160 (FTS 340-2160) cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Brandon Allbery / Re: idle speculation Originally-From: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: idle speculation Date: 3 May 89 22:46:12 GMT Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh As quoted from <2013@edsel> by sjk@lucid.com (Shel Kaphan): +--------------- | In article <12457@ut-emx.UUCP> newman@emx.UUCP (David Newman) writes: | >re Oil companies "sitting on" solar. | >Baloney! Solar is just like fusion will be in that if it was | >profitable, there is no way that the oil companies could prevent | >others from taking advantage of it. | | If they can get control of fundamental enough patent protection, or | successfully lobby congress for sufficient legislative control of necessary | resources (e.g. deuterium), they can sure make it hard if they want to. +--------------- In which case the technogy would be developed somewhere where their patents don't have any force -- someone check me, is South Africa one of those countries? I haven't seen any solar power installalations there... or anywhere else, for that matter. The paranoid response doesn't wash. Solar power simply doesn't do the job unless you do things that cause as much panic as the Dread Beast Nuclear, such as beaming microwaves (GASP!!!). (I don't have a lot of respect for *that* paranoid response, either, in case that isn't obvious.) If cold fusion works, it'll be developed commercially somewhere where it's not going to be affected by U.S. or other patents. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@ NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenallbery cudfnBrandon cudlnAllbery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Arnie Frisch / Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Originally-From: arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 3 May 89 15:41:36 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article <1989May2.133112.9744@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > In article <20420013@hpcuhb.HP.COM> donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: > > > This experiment raised the temperature of a beaker by 27 degrees in > > one second. > > Wrong: the thermometer reported this. The first thing I'd do in this > > > It produced a 5 micron crater in the electrode. > > Wrong -- a 5 micron crater was observed. There is no evidence that it > wasn't there all along. > We must all be so used to dealing with microscopic things that we have lost sight of the real world. 5 microns is 0.2 mils - sounds like a big deal over a flyspeck - or 1/20th of a flyspeck. The heat required to vaporize the material in that .2mil flyspec, say at 5000 C, wouldn't have raised the temperature of a few cc of water by a significant amount. That assumes, of course, that the flyspeck was caused by what they did. Has anyone looked at the surface of metals for 5 micron flyspecks. I'll bet they're pretty common. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Arnie Frisch / Re: Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Originally-From: arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Morality (was: An end to speculation?) Date: 3 May 89 20:36:29 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article <13328@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan Genemans) writes: > In article <5043@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) writes: > >The problem may be that several foreign governments do not grant patents > > IF the cold fusion phenomena is real and P & F are applying for patents -- One > must assume that they are doing this for monetary gain, thus hindering the > advancement of science by keeping it a secret. The question of scientific > morality to the hinderance of the advancement of the human race toward a energy > abundant and pollution free global society must be asked??? Is it morally > correct for a scientist to retain scientific knowlege for personal gain??? > (apparantly what P & F are doing...) I think it can be summed up in one simple > statement: "Absolute power breeds absolute corruption" > Awrgh c'mon. I think I read an appropriate comment in a real old book. It goes something like..... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / D Brusowankin / real magic ?? Originally-From: david@prayf.UUCP (David Brusowankin) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: real magic ?? Date: 3 May 89 22:59:25 GMT Organization: The Feldblum's at Home, Highland Park, N.J As long as this is a speculative group, I'd like to throw out a thought as to why those with the most short term vested interests against cold fusion (F & P version) are not reporting successful verification efforts. To my knowledge, no one has yet explained the apparent superluminal velocities necessary for probability function collapse. (Do the following gedanken experiment -- Take a photon emitter, a half-silvered mirror, and two detectors. Orient the mirror at a 45 degree angle to emitter, and place the two detectors so that one is directly in line with the direction of the photon emission and the other is at right angles to it - both detectors being, say a light minute away from the mirror. The 2 detectors would therefore be approximately 1.414 light minutes away from each other. The setup looks like this: (mirror at 45 degree angle) ________ / | Emitter| .... /............detector #1 -------- / . . . . . . detector #2 Now, according to QM, for each photon emitted you get two probability waves, one for each detector (actually read 'observer'). When one encounters a detector, the entire wave collapses there and you see a photon. The problem is that information has to arrive at the other detector at what would seem to be superliminal velocities in order for the second detector not to see a photon. End of experiment). Now Josephson (of junction fame) has discussed the possibilities of awareness or conciousness being a factor in the foundation of QM. This seems to imply very subtle effects. Cold fusion seems to be a subtle and small scale process. Could it be that we are seeing for the first time a phenomenon where belief actually influences results ? Let us term this Quantum Skepticism ! Another more ancient term for something like this is MAGIC. The real kind. No flames please. If they haven't flamed P + F, they oughtn't do it here! At least some in the Physics community have described cold fusion as exactly that - MAGIC. David Brusowankin Email: david%prayf.uucp@rutgers.edu rutgers!prayf!david cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnBrusowankin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / bass randale / Re: Fusion: Palladium - notes on behavior Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion: Palladium - notes on behavior Date: 4 May 89 01:07:37 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <6753@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: > > Also someone noted that a speaker from Stanford "demolished in >passing" the Stanford confirmation. Any details? Have the people who >made the confirmation retracted? > No, Mr. Huggins from Stanford has not retracted. In fact, from the New York Times of May 3 (today), Huggins states that he is "more confident than ever" in his results. One must keep in mind that the "demolition" was performed by a physicist (Dr. Walter Meyerhopf of Stanford) who presumably is not very familiar with calorimetry (or materials since Prof. Huggins is a mat. sci. professor). The gist of Meyerhopf's commentary is that the "thermometer was in the wrong place". That still begs the question of why results for D2O and no results for H2O. I guess Mr. Huggins purchased some of that special convectionless Deuterium. The reported derision is certainly unbecoming to the physicists and does not help us settle the questions that exist. In order to make most experiments work, you have to at least believe that they might work. It is too easy to settle for mistakes otherwise. I think Profs. Gai, Meyerhopf, Lewis, and Koonin had better go back into the lab with calorometry equipment and cast electrodes. It might also help if they explored the literature on the electrochemistry of palladium, preparation of electrodes is extensively discussed. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Marc deGroot / Re: Nomenclature of cold fusion cell Originally-From: marc@mas.UUCP (Marc deGroot) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Nomenclature of cold fusion cell Date: 4 May 89 03:14:43 GMT Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino CA In article <13701@steinmetz.ge.com>, blackje@sunspot.steinmetz (Emmett Black) writes: > Thus: COld Nuclear FUSION => CONFUSION. > Simple as that. And, by a simple transposition of characters: NUCLEAR ENERGY => UNCLEAR ENERGY -- Marc de Groot (KG6KF) "The two most common things ..!uunet!apple!mas1!marc in the universe are hydrogen ..!uunet!hoptoad!noe!marc and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison mdg@postgres.berkeley.edu cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenmarc cudfnMarc cudlndeGroot cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / David Gudeman / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 22:05:36 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson In article <1989May3.074953.9258@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: ]In article <4052@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: ] ]>... I have found the public comments of ]>"heavyweights" at Priceton, Harvard, MIT and elsewhere repulsive. Scorn ]>and belittlement have no place in academic society. ] ]... 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? This is a perfect example of the non-professionalism described above, and I'm embarassed that it came from another computer scientist. What errors are you refering to pray tell? There has been a lot of speculation about things they _might_ have done wrong, but it is only speculation, and any open-minded person would wait a little longer before making a decision about it. And considerably longer before taking the serious step of calling someone incompetent. All of this has confirmed an opinion that I have held for a long time, that there is no such thing as an objective scientist. Science is just as political as any other field, it's just that the political wrangling is usually carried out at conferences instead of in the newspapers. The only unusual constraint on physics over other political endeavors is that there are real, verifiable events that any political party (read "proponents of a theory") have to account for. But as long as there is any possibility of constructing doubts about a particular event, loyalists of parties who don't approve of the event will do all they can to sabotage the party that uses the event as part of its political platform. The whole thing is a little embarrassing. -- David Gudeman Department of Computer Science The University of Arizona gudeman@arizona.edu Tucson, AZ 85721 {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,noao}!arizona!gudeman cudkeys: cuddy3 cudengudeman cudfnDavid cudlnGudeman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / HOWGREJ@YaleVM / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: HOWGREJ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 4 May 89 05:07:39 GMT Organization: Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA on alt.fusion, hit NEXT now. Sorry, but I had to reply to this. In article <440@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) writes: >Then there are the seminars being given by cold fusion researchers throughout >academia. For example, there is the belittling of F&P at Yale: > > Gai displayed data showing that during this time [last seven > hours of the experiment] detector #1 counted a grand total of > 2 neutrons, which the group named "Fleischmann" and "Pons". > >The Yale seminar discussed the unsuccessful attempts by Yale and Brookhaven to >replicate the F&P results. By being one of the many research efforts that >probably used drawn, rather than cast palladium, Yale was unable to get the >excessive heat seen by F&P at the University of Utah. By the time the seminar >was held late last week (there were actually two seminars on 28 and 29 April), >the Yale researchers should have been aware of this problem. Yet Gai, who is >an associate professor of physics at Yale, carefully omitted this fact during >his presentation, because he knew it relegated all of the Yale-Brookhaven >results to merely control experiments, while at least eight other universities >worldwide had not fallen into the drawn-versus-cast palladium trap, namely >Texas A&M, Stanford, the University of Florida, Moscow University in the Soviet >Union, Sao Paulo University in Brazil, as well as universities in Poland, >Czechoslovakia, and China. Instead, Gai resorted to reporting the absence of >neutrons in an experiment which had obviously failed as if the failure was a >success; the absence of neutrons was reported as significant despite the fact >that the experiment showed no signs of heat, and despite the presence of >chemists from Brrokhaven, no heat measurements were performed. It was the >reporting on the "significant" absence of neutrons which led to the ridicule >of F&P mentioned above. Oh, c'mon, this is ridiculous. Look, I was at *both* of the seminars you mention, and Gai is nothing like the F&P-basher you make him out to be. The bit about the neutrons was *funny*! A joke! Get it? Geez, if you can't see any humor in that, I'm sorry. Gai did not at any time act at all maliciously towards F&P; rather, he was, I think, respectful of their results. He made a *big point* of saying, over and over, that "we cannot make any claim about the F&P experiment, and we cannot say that we proved them wrong; all we say is that we did not achieve the same results that they did." (I rather thought he went overboard in trying not to comment on F&P, but apparently not...) As for the cast Palladium bit, I think that Gai genuinely did not know that that could make a difference, and when someone hinted at it during the Q&A period, he did not seem to understand what they meant until it was explained after the seminar. I do not think that Gai was actually trying to hide the "fact" that his results were worthless (I certainly don't think they were - they did get valid results for drawn Pd, at least). I think that you are trying to interpret a general mood from a few statements taken in the wrong context, and I think that you are wrong. Please keep the humor detector on and be careful with your interpretations and consequent accusations. Sorry for the interruption; now back to the discussion. The Space People will contact us when they | Greg Howard can make money by doing so. - DAVID BYRNE | HOWGREJ at YALEVM cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenHOWGREJ cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Carey Briggs / Re: 1926 Pd-catalyzed fusion Originally-From: CCB104@PSUVM.BITNET (Carey Briggs) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 1926 Pd-catalyzed fusion Date: 3 May 89 21:37:54 GMT Organization: Penn State University Many thanks for all replies! By request, the list of bibliographical references follows; it is hoped that they are, in fact, of some use: (1) "Ueber die Verwandlung von Wasserstoff in Helium," by Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters, in "Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft," 15 September 1926, vol. 59, no.8, pp. 1239-1248. (2) An independently written abstract by Behrle of Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters, "Ueber die Verwandlung von Wasserstoff in Helium," in "Chemisches Zentralblatt," 29 September 1926, vol. II, no. 13, pp. 1728-1729. (3) Under "News and Views," in "Nature," 25 September 1926, vol. 118, no. 2969, pp. 455-456. (4) "The Reported Conversion of Hydrogen into Helium," in "Nature," 9 October 1926, vol. 118, no. 2971, pp. 526-527. (5) (no title), correction to (4) above, in "Nature," 11 December 1926, vol. 118, no. 2980, pp. 852-853. (6) "The Transmutation of Hydrogen into Helium," by Fritz Paneth, in "Nature," 14 May 1927, vol. 119, no. 3002, pp. 706-707. THE LAST TWO PAPERS SEEM TO BE ONLY INDIRECTLY RELATED TO THE FORGOING: (7) "The Occurrence of Helium and Neon in Vacuum Tubes," by E. C. C. Baly and R.W. Riding, in "Nature," 30 October 1926, vol. 118, no. 2974, pp. 625-626. (8) "The Occurrence of Helium and Neon in Vacuum Tubes," by Robert W. Lawson, in "Nature," 11 December 1926, vol. 118, no. 2980, pp. 838- 839. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenCCB104 cudfnCarey cudlnBriggs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Mark Muhlestein / Some local news and a rhetorical question Originally-From: mmm@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Muhlestein) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Some local news and a rhetorical question Date: 4 May 89 03:00:37 GMT Organization: ICON International, Inc., Orem, UT One of this evening's local papers reported that another group of electrochemists working independently at Texas A&M have reproduced the excess heat seen in the F&P experiment. Also, the head of the new solid state fusion research project at the University of Utah said that at a meeting of chemists on May 8th there would be "five or six" papers which corroborate the U of U work. The university's FM station reported that Fleishman and Pons were taking the criticism from the physicists "in stride." Last Saturday (April 29) I was having lunch at a restaurant near the University of Utah campus and was pleasantly surprised to see Fleishman and Pons come in, accompanied by two or three other people, one of whom appeared to be from India. Unfortunately I wasn't close enough to catch much of their conversation :-( but they seemed to be in good spirits and appeared to be discussing something related to a fax Pons had received from the man from India. While I am reserving judgement on the validity of F&P's work, I have been a little surprised at the charge of fraud I have heard from some quarters. Assume for a moment that this whole thing is a case of fraud. What do the perpetrators have to gain from it? If they know that their work is not what they are saying it is, what is the possible benefit to them of proclaiming it to everyone and asking them to attempt to confirm it, expecting confirmation will not occur? A month or two of notoriety? At what cost to them and their families? Research money? Not likely. Fraud just doesn't make sense, even apart from the issue that now researchers from other institutions must be considered. Let's say they are both insane. Simultaneously? Other possibilities assume they are sincerely reporting the truth as they see it, especially concerning the heat generation, which is in their area of expertise and is the most interesting result. At this point, possible scenarios seem to be: 1. They are essentially correct. 2. The experiment is flawed in some subtle way but they (and the other people claiming to reproduce it) have not discovered the mistake. 3. They (and the other people claiming to reproduce the experiment) are incompetent and are missing something obvious to someone who is actually competent to do the experiment. I think number 3 is fairly unlikely due to the fact that many of the people who claim to have seen the excess heat are in fact among the leading scientists in their field. This includes not only Fleishman and Pons themselves, but also John Appleby (the new confirmation from Texas A&M), who is reputed to be a "world renowned" chemist in this evening's paper. Number 2 is more likely, but at the very least it seems something strange is going on. As the Stanford group said, "The effect is not subtle." In any case, I think it is still fair at this point to give F&P the benefit of the doubt in the area of sincerity. I expect we will hear something from Los Alamos within a week or two that should help clear things up considerably. -- Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc. uunet!iconsys!mmm cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / James_J_Kowalc / APS meeting reported Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: APS meeting reported Date: 4 May 89 08:28:50 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) wills@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM (Will Sadkin) writes: ... >HOWEVER: never in the history of science, I believe, has so much scientific >energy been devoted to an avenue of research so quickly, based on a paper >*which has NEVER BEEN published.* One must ask "Why are so many people >speculating about the potential mechanisms of such a reaction?" ... What do you mean "has never been published"? I suggest you look at Fleischmann, M.; Pons, S. _J. Electroanal. Chem._ 1989, 261, 301-308. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Chris Phoenix / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 4 May 89 09:38:44 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. In article <8904270304.AA05440@ames.arc.nasa.gov> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: >Now for some speculation: > Im not a biologist... Many ocean animals (mollusks mainly) extract >minerals from seawater, having a shell creature extract palladium is not >stretching things too far. > Also, many animals are known to generate small amounts of electricity... >OK, so what if these two animals could be combined? Say, >genetically made? Would make a pretty decent arctic sea-going creature. Only >problem is that it had better have a way to turn off the fusion, so it >doesn't cook itself in its shell :-) No, that's NOT the only problem. There is a much bigger one. What happens if you release a very competitive animal into an ecosystem? I'm not a biologist either, but I am pretty sure it would be VERY bad news. It's definitely a cute idea, and it might be worth trying to build such a creature just to show off what science can do. But NEVER gratutiously release it just to see whether it's "pretty decent" or not, ESPECIALLY if you suspect that it might be! Please, no Luddite flames. I am not a Luddite, I'm all for scientific progress, and I'm even in favor of genetic engineering, even for open-air applications in a few cases. But ONLY if you're sure that it won't spread! Things like the suggestion above are neat to think about, but what got to me was the implication that such a thing would be released in an environment where it was specifically designed to "get away". That would be incredibly stupid. Sorry for the flame... -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy4 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Donald Benson / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 4 May 89 00:34:11 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino If F&P's experiment really is fusion, and if it really can be scaled up to practical energy levels, it probably would have been "classified". Now, if a few labs can replicate it, there is no way to keep it hidden. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Lord Head / Scandalous behaviour in Congress? Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Scandalous behaviour in Congress? Date: 4 May 89 03:43:40 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara I read Paul Dietz, most notably, as deriding P&F for asking Congress for $25 million. If I were frustrated by the lengthy legalities of international patents, and if I were worried that equal, or even vastly superior results were soon to be forthcoming from quite literally a world of qualified scientists, I would feel somewhat "up against the wall". I would want to ensure that the pie slices - at least some of them - got to me. This is a type of calculated panic - fusion poker, sort of; an amplified version of the original event which led to media release. If these assumptions are correct, I can quite understand P&F's request, despite the lack of explanations. Don't forget that P&F were careful, quasi-hermetic, self-financed, unassuming guys with a dream until a local wag got wind of their stuff, and they were forced to react. I find this very human, rather unfortunate, but totally understandable on their part. I can find no blame in the way they have behaved, *if* the "secret" scenario is valid. If not, then I'll change my mind. In any case, they must feel rather like hunted animals right now, all because of outside pressure of one sort or the other. This evinces sympathy from me. Technical note: I am told that the Bay Area media reported from the CalTech conference that although gas bubbles did occur in the lab simulations, there were insufficient to prevent hotspots developing, and that such "sparging" is definitively not equivalent to complete stirring. Final thought: where were, and where will be all those groups who, last week, were putting smiles on my face (and all optimists like me, doubtless) with those super "definitely-above-background-neutron-counts". When is *their* Press Conference? -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenandrew cudfnLord cudlnHead cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / John McCauley / two more war stories from APS meeting Originally-From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: two more war stories from APS meeting Date: 4 May 89 04:28:16 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ I am not sure if these two minor things have been posted already (apologies if they have been): 1) One researcher put up a cartoon from the Chicago Tribune which had an oil-soaked Seal asking an oil-soaked bird if there was any new news about Cold Fusion. 2) Someone asked Lewis (I think) about Haggelstein's theory. In a phone call with Lewis, Haggelstein said he no longer thought his (Hagglestein's) theory about MeV phonons was correct. So Haggelstein apparantly is retracting some or all of his cold fusion theories. (I did see a bumper sticker that said "Be Merciful to Electrochemists as They Know Not What They Do.") Let's see what happens at the ACS meeting! Scott -- Scott McCauley, jsm@phoenix.princeton.edu (INTERNET) Home: (609) 683-9065 Office: (609) 243-3312 (FTS 340-3312) Fax: (609) 243-2160 (FTS 340-2160) cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / Robert Shull / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 3 May 89 21:11:33 GMT Organization: University of Oklahoma, ECN In article <1989May3.074953.9258@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <4052@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: > >>"heavyweights" at Priceton, Harvard, MIT and elsewhere repulsive. Scorn >>and belittlement have no place in academic society. > >F & P have caused many man-years of effort to be wasted. Scorn is >an appropriate response. So is pity. Scorn and derision (especially in a public interview) are not appropriate (or professional) responses. Unfortunately, I have noticed this kind of attitude toward other disciplines (especially non-science disciplines) from professional physicists. What about other fields? Is there the same kind of "clannish" attitude? Anyway, a lot of the interviews sounded more like hysteria than scorn. Robert -- Robert K. Shull sun!texsun!uokmax!rob cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenrob cudfnRobert cudlnShull cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Sho Kuwamoto / Re: big black paladium monolith Originally-From: sho@pur-phy (Sho Kuwamoto) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: big black paladium monolith Date: 1 May 89 08:12:15 GMT Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., W. Lafayette, IN In article <25443@amdcad.AMD.COM> prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) writes: >Does that explain the apparent coincidence of the date of P&F's >announcement, March 23, being the same as the closest approach >of that recent asteroid??? Neither event caused or otherwise influenced the other. What happened was that both events were drawn together by the power of the number 23. And lessee. There were two authors, the month was 3: another 23... Uh, what else.... -Sho cudkeys: cuddy1 cudensho cudfnSho cudlnKuwamoto cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Wendy Thrash / Re: gonzo science Originally-From: wendyt@pyrps5 (Wendy Thrash) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: gonzo science Date: 4 May 89 07:11:59 GMT Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA In article <20420016@hpcuhb.HP.COM> donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: >Should anyone need machining or welding to fabricate part of their experiment, >I have the equipment to do it. On the other hand, if someone should wish to fabricate results directly, check out the earlier dry-labbing discussion in sci.edu (?) for possible sources of assistance. ;-) (Please note that this is not to be taken as a comment on the quality of anyone's science; I'm just grabbing an irresitable straight line.) cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenwendyt cudfnWendy cudlnThrash cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Donn Seeley / news from the epicenter Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: news from the epicenter Date: 4 May 89 09:11:11 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept I've been away for a week -- I was visiting a good friend who was hit by a drunk on the wrong side of a freeway and survived. Some things are more important than fusion (hi, Cynthia! :-). When I got back, I discovered that fusion was still in the papers; here are some more excerpts from local reporting which the country at large seems to have been spared. A bit over a week ago, just before I left, Pons gave a news conference in which he presented a few more details about the new work going on at the U. Here are some of Pons's remarks, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune on April 25th: U of U chemist B Stanley Pons said Monday [4/24] that his research team is perfecting a new design for his nuclear fusion experiment that may be much better suited for an eventual use as a [sic] energy source. Dr Pons declined to give specifics on his new experimental design, other than to say it was 'a clearly different configuration.' He gave dimensions of a cylinder about a foot long and 6 inches in diameter. 'If we can charge a very large piece of palladium, then the power will be considerable,' he said. 'But, again, we would like to build something we can charge up in a shorter time period.' ... He also said that the design would lend itself to better transfer of energy. 'There are much better designs for getting the heat out of the cell.' Asked how long before such a new design could be up and working, he replied, 'I would hope this year.' But he said making the process work on a commercial scale may still be decades away. 'The engineers will be the best people to scale up to that sort of level.' Dr Pons said he currently has four cells running, including one that produces no heat. Ten more are within two or three days of running and he guessed that nine more will be up within a week or so. The largest one will be about five times the original [sic], which used a palladium rod about 4 inches long and less than a quarter of an inch in diameter. Platinum and possibly other metals will be substituted for palladium in some of the new experiments, he said. ... He said one possible reason that other labs have not confirmed the results is that the palladium rod must be used as it is cast. Rods that have been machined or extruded do not seem to work. 'I think it's clear now that the processing of the palladium may be a factor.' Given what he has learned about that, Dr Pons said he can reproduce the results better than 90 percent of the time. ... The [Walling-Simons] theory was strengthened by Dr Pons' statement a week ago [4/18?] that he had measured a trillion helium atoms per second coming off the device. He acknowledged Monday that some helium may be present in the palladium before the reaction begins, but those trace amounts are 'probably a million times less' than the amounts he has observed. ... 'You could consume the palladium, the platinum, the glass, all the water, everything' and not generate the observed heat, he said. He cited the experiments at Texas A&M University and Stanford University as the most important confirmations. Those two are believed to be the only ones to support the controversial heat-producing aspects. Dr Pons said he knows of no confirmation of the helium generation. Another article in the same edition of the Tribune contained some testy remarks by Pons about control experiments: Dr Pons and Dr Fleischmann have been criticized for not maintaining a control experiment with light, or ordinary, water, but Dr Pons said Monday such an experiment was not a good control. 'We've always run a control experiment,' he said. 'The problem is that the world is trying to tell us what a control experiment is. I might not agree that plain water is a control experiment. I'll argue that.' The APS meeting was reported on the front pages of the Tribune and the Deseret News. On Monday Pons seemed to be in hiding; the Tuesday morning (5/2) Tribune was only able to say: Dr Pons declined to comment [on the APS meeting] Monday, referring all inquiries to university officials. By Tuesday afternoon Pons was back to form, accor cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Dave Mack / Cold Fusion - Perspective Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion - Perspective Date: 4 May 89 03:54:20 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems The debate over cold fusion, both on the net and off, is getting excessively emotional. Let's try to get a little perspective. F&P have claimed to have seen energy production beyond anything that can be accounted for by electrochemical reactions. They also claim to have seen neutron and tritium production. The Jones group at BYU saw neutron production five standard deviations above background. Since then, several groups claim to have seen excess heat generation in F&P-type cells or other metal-deuterium systems, while several other groups claim to have seen excess neutron emission and/or tritium production. Still other groups have performed similar experiments and seen none of these. A number of theorists have dismissed cold fusion as impossible based on various grounds. These dismissals are irrelevant. Theory is based on observation, not the other way around. Michaelson and Morley may well have been the Fleischmann and Pons of the nineteenth century; physicists spent years trying to explain away their results. Theory must yield to experimental observation. Many have pointed out ways that F&P could have made errors in their calorimetry setup or calculations. This is irrelevant unless F&P actually did make these mistakes. People point out that neutrons can be produced by radon and gammas by bismuth-214. Irrelevant: they form part of the background. It is the production of neutrons and gammas *above* the background level that is significant, as Jones et al knew quite well. The presence of excess heat, neutrons, gammas, and fusion byproducts would constitute proof of a fusion process. The absence of neutrons and gamma does not constitute disproof; there are imaginable fusion pathways which produce neither. The absence of excess heat and fusion byproducts *does* constitute disproof, *provided* the attempt to duplicate the F&P experiment actually is a duplication, and not a mere approximation. The single damning piece of evidence against the F&P experiment so far is the CalTech result which failed to find any fusion byproducts in one of the Texas A&M palladium rods, and even this result cannot be taken as gospel. How was the rod treated after removal from Texas A&M? How was it prepared for extraction of tritium, He-3 and He-4? How sensitive were the instruments used at CalTech? What fusion byproducts were they looking for? How long was that particular rod in use? How much excess heat was generated by the cell containing that particular rod? In fact, the most that can be determined from the CalTech result is an upper limit on the fusion rate. Fleischmann and Pons were negligent in the way they released information. The scientific community as a whole has been negligent in the way that it has used the information they released. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy4 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Walter Peterson / History (of science) repeats itself. Originally-From: wlp@calmasd.Prime.COM (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: History (of science) repeats itself. Date: 4 May 89 06:35:38 GMT Organization: Prime-Calma, San Diego R&D, Object and Data Management Group Picture, if you will, the following hypothetical succession of newspaper headlines: "Professor claims radical new discovery - Scientific community skeptical" "Nation's top experts disagree on 'discovery'" "Chief of nation's leading lab can't reproduce experiments" "Leading European scientists debunk Prof's. claims" "Prof. repeats claim of new discovery - will disclose more details of experiments" "Scientists still not convinced - say discovery is only 'speculation'" "Prof. offers to help reproduce experiments" These made-up 'headlines' are not talking about the P&F "cold fusion" experiment, rather they are based on the events following the publication in the "Philosophical Transactions" for February 19, 1671 of "A Letter of Mr. Isacc Newton containing his new Theory of Light and Colours". I have obviously cast these headlines in the jargon of today's news media; however, they fit the events of 300 some odd years ago. The 'Chief of nation's top lab' was none other than Robert Hooke, who was Curator of Experiments for the Royal Society. The experiment that is questioned in the 'headlines' is the now famous separation of sunlight into the colors of the spectrum by a simple prism; an experiment that is easily understood by modern school children. Not only was Hooke unable to reproduce Newton's simple experiments, he and other members of the Royal Society, including Sir Robert Moray and Ignance Gaston Pardies, began to doubt that Newton had even done the experiments! They claimed, in letters to Newton at Cambridge, that his 'discovery' was only an hypothesis; a guess. The European opposition came from virtuosi as famous as Christiaan Huygens and as obscure as a monk named Linus, but all agreed: Newton's experiment did not work and his new theory of colors was just an hypothesis. Newton sent numerous letters with further details of the experiment to the Royal Society and his critics through the Society's secretary, Henry Oldenburg, The controversy raged for years, and at one point in March of 1673, Newton was so fed-up that he even sent Oldenburg a letter of resignation from the Royal Society. There were still doubts when Newton came to London in February, 1675 on other business and attempted to perform the experiment for the Society, but was unable to due to bad weather, which only prolonged the debate. Newton was so disgusted at this point that he put off the publication of his "Opticks" until 1706. This story could go on for several more pages, even in this abbreviated narrative, but I hope that this gets the point across. The reproduction of an experiment that we consider child's play today eluded some of the best minds of the seventeenth century for years. I don't know if "cold fusion" is real or not, but I do know that some of the contradictions of the P&F experiment have contradicted each other, that others have omitted one or more critical measurement, and others have had various other problems. The book is still open on "cold fusion" and will probably remain open until Pons and Fleischmann can agree to assist some "name" lab, like Los Alamos to reproduce their "experimentum crucis". This kind of controversy is not new to science. It existed at the beginings of modern science in Newton's day, it exist now and probably always will. This current debate over "cold fusion" has a very large component of deja vu. ----------------------------------------------------------- P.S. for more information on Newton's discoveries and the controversy that surrounded almost every one of them see: "In the Presence of the Creator: Isaac Newton & His Times", by Gale E. Christianson, Free Press, NY, 1984 -- Walt Peterson. Prime - Calma San Diego R&D (Object and Data Management Group) "The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those Prime, Calma nor anyone else. ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!wlp cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenwlp cudfnWalter cudlnPeterson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / 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: 4 May 89 13:50:52 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <10599@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >This is a perfect example of the non-professionalism described above, >and I'm embarassed that it came from another computer scientist. What >errors are you refering to pray tell? First: (1) their nuclear technique, AS DESCRIBED IN THE PAPER, is awful. You do not take background measurements by moving your detector 5, 10 or 50 meters away from the apparatus. (2) their helium measurements are greatly suspect; I mentioned my concern about the over-production of helium and the lack of checks for atmospheric contamination, (3) the lack of control experiments. At Baltimore, Koonin, Lewis, etc. presented many other serious problems. >There has been a lot of >speculation about things they _might_ have done wrong, but it is only >speculation, and any open-minded person would wait a little longer >before making a decision about it. I waited a long time. It exceeds my capacity for wishful thinking to wait any longer. Every one of their purported positive results has been effectively destroyed. The lack of a theory -- despite trying -- is also damning. > And considerably longer before > taking the serious step of calling someone incompetent. I said they were either incompetent (for not recognizing the poor quality of their claims) or unprofessional (for deliberately misrepresenting the quality of their claims). If you still wish to excuse P & F, consider this: at ANY TIME in the last month they could have submitted a "used" cathode for analysis for trapped helium. That they did not says something about their confidence that it would pass the test. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / B Vidugiris / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: bhv@igloo.Scum.COM (Bronis Vidugiris) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 3 May 89 01:14:53 GMT Organization: igloo, Northbrook, IL In article <14430003@hpfcdj.HP.COM] brian@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes: ] ]>I don't see why one would notice the 'absence' of the other gassses (i.e. ]>oxygen) except when one recovers consciousness after falling to the floor ]>(and breathing the purer air). One of the dangers of lack of oxygen, whether ]>it be caused by carbon monoxide binding to hemoglobin or other reasons ]>is its insidiousness. The drive to breath is (in normal people) based ]>upon the CO2 balance, not the oxygen intake. This is my understanding ]>from an aquaintance of mine, who is a registered respitory therapist, ]>at any rate,. ]>---------- ] ] Only carbon monoxide poisoning is insidious. Breathing gas with a low ]oxygen content is *very* noticable. Your therapist friend is right, but ]without oxygen, the CO2 level in the blood rapidly falls and you feel like ]your holding your breath even as you breath. It isn't fun. ] ]Brian Smokefoot "I never knew I could shape my life I don't understand why one would feel like holding one's breath if the CO2 level is too low. It seems to me that this would be akin to hyperventalation and that one would pass out and _stop_ breathing. -- bhv@igloo cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: MIT: all theory, no results Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: MIT: all theory, no results Date: 4 May 89 14:08:49 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <11080@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, boomer@athena.mit.edu (Don Alvarez) writes: > (1) The experimental group would probably tell you that there is a big > difference between not finding anything and finding that there is nothing. Yes, but the second is lot harder than the first. In spite of their criticisms I think they fall short (though not by much) of establishing that there is nothing. > > (2) I don't have Hagelstein's papers here in front of me, but I am quite > certain that if you read them you will be struck by the fact that nowhere > does he actually say "Here is my theory which supports P&F." What he says, > over and over, is "Here is my theory. _IF_ P&F is real, this _MIGHT_ be > what is going on." Quite true. I appeared to suggest otherwise it was a mistake on my part. > > (3) You might point out to "A number of people" that anyone who > assumes that Universities have a special crack squad of "thought > police" forcing everyone in the to school agree on _anything_, let > alone a topic as controversial as this, is missing the point of the > University environment. I think you are missing the point that people were raising (not to mention wrongly supposing that *I* saw anything peculiar in the present situation). My reading of these comments is that people were wondering why they should take the experimental work from MIT as gospel given that theoretical support for P&F seemed to be coming from an equally prestigious source. The point of my comments was that any theoretical papers (pro or con) should be taken with a grain of salt. > > (4) I happen to be an experimentalist, but I still take issue with the > original Subject: line. A good, definitive, predictive, and > verifiable theory is indeed a 'result.' (and so is a good, > definitive, precise, and well presented 'null experiment,' for that > matter). I am a theorist and I am sorry to tell you that a good definitive predictive verifiable theory is damn rare. Certainly Hagelstein's work does not fall into that category. -- 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: cuddy4 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Ethan Vishniac / posting from Forman, with a comment Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: posting from Forman, with a comment Date: 4 May 89 14:14:52 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas The following is a message from Dick Forman that he asked me to post. A brief comment of my own follows. ******************************************************************** As I said on National Public Radio what we saw was chemist bashing. What was edited out was my suggestion that the world expert physicists who know all about neutrons take their system and put it next to the Pons-Fleischmann apparatus appropriately covered with a black cloth. If they can turn the effect on and off with a switch and we don't hear the massive blocks of cadmium moving in and out to shield out the neutrons, then we will have some hope of scientific knowledge and the first real attempt at collaboration. If there is some easy way to shield these neutrons do not put it on the net because that would defeat the upcoming fiasco with neutron detection of nitrogen in explosives in airline baggage. Isn't high tech science great when applied to real world problems. Dick Forman ********************************************************************* And now a word from our sponsor: Since Pons is shipping one of his working cells to LANL I am sure that sensitive monitoring of neutron emissions will be one of the first things that will be checked. Of course, it may or may not be done "blind", but it will be done. -- 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: cuddy4 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.01 / Bob Pendleton / Re: NPR Report Originally-From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NPR Report Date: 1 May 89 20:58:40 GMT Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah From article <1989Apr29.121302.23005@cs.rochester.edu>, by dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz): > One nugget of information was that zirconium is proposed as an > electrode material. Anyone want to tell us about this? > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu There was a blurb in the Salt Lake Tribune to the effect that titanium, cesium, and zirconium, especially zirconium, were possible alternatives to palladium. It seems zirconium can store 4 or more dueterium atoms in each lattice site. As opposed to the 1 dueterium at each lattice site in palladium. Anyone have some good info an the availability of zirconium? Bob P. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Jim Horne / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: jhh@pupthy.PRINCETON.EDU (Jim Horne) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 4 May 89 13:56:23 GMT Organization: Physics Dept, Princeton Univ In article <3125@uokmax.UUCP> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: > >Scorn and derision (especially in a public interview) are not appropriate >(or professional) responses. >-- >Robert K. Shull What's wrong with scorn and derision? If a reporter asked you about someone's claimed to have been abducted by a UFO manned by deformed Elvis clones on strawberry sundae diets, would you call the abductee a crackpot, or would you pretend you were from the government, and say you can't make a decision until all the facts are in. Scorn and derision are very appropriate responses. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Horne A quote? I'm supposed to have a quote? jhh@pupthy.Princeton.EDU cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjhh cudfnJim cudlnHorne cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Paul Dietz / Stanford Results Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Stanford Results Date: 4 May 89 15:27:22 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <1447@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> crb7q@hudson.acc.Virginia.EDU (bass cameron randale) writes: >No, Mr. Huggins from Stanford has not retracted. In fact, from >the New York Times of May 3 (today), Huggins states that he is >"more confident than ever" in his results. > >One must keep in mind that the "demolition" was performed by >a physicist (Dr. Walter Meyerhopf of Stanford) who presumably is >not very familiar with calorimetry (or materials since Prof. Huggins >is a mat. sci. professor). The gist of Meyerhopf's commentary is that >the "thermometer was in the wrong place". That still begs the question >of why results for D2O and no results for H2O. I guess Mr. Huggins >purchased some of that special convectionless Deuterium. I am told that the Stanford experiment consists of two cells, side by side, one with H2O and one with D2O. *No stirring*. It was assumed that the cells have identical geometry. However, I am told that normal and heavy water have different heat transfer characteristics, and that these differences explain the reported numbers from Stanford. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.02 / Bob Pendleton / Soviet Cold fusion Originally-From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Soviet Cold fusion Date: 2 May 89 14:45:00 GMT Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah This is from the "New Scientist" 22 April 1989. Russians `confident' about fusion experiment Scientist at Moscow University have replicated the fusion experiment of Fleischmann and Pons, and say that they can "assert with confidence that the nuclear fusion reaction actually takes place." The article goes on to say that Runar Kuzmin of the solid matter physics lab published a paper in 1981 showing that cold fusion was possible. Does anyone know where a translation of this paper can be found? They claim to have detected neutrons at 3 to 5 times background from both palladium and titanium electrodes using currents of up to 300,000 amps. Later in the article the rector of Moscow University, Anatoly Iogunov, is reported as saying that he has no doubt of the correctness of the experiments conducted there and that the university is about to embark on a huge program of fundamental research in the area. Bob P. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Jim Horne / Re: Cold Fusion - Perspective Originally-From: jhh@pupthy.PRINCETON.EDU (Jim Horne) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion - Perspective Date: 4 May 89 13:35:55 GMT Organization: Physics Dept, Princeton Univ In article <3471@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > >The debate over cold fusion, both on the net and off, is getting >excessively emotional. Let's try to get a little perspective. > At the risk of adding more excess emotion, let's try to base the perspective on the complete facts, not a subset of them. >F&P have claimed to have seen energy production beyond anything >that can be accounted for by electrochemical reactions. They also >claim to have seen neutron and tritium production. The Jones group >at BYU saw neutron production five standard deviations above background. > >Since then, several groups claim to have seen excess heat generation in >F&P-type cells or other metal-deuterium systems, while several other >groups claim to have seen excess neutron emission and/or tritium >production. Still other groups have performed similar experiments >and seen none of these. > Except for the Stanford group, all of the groups announcing heat generation are from Eastern Europe or India. Though the Soviet Union has some of the greatest theorists in the world, the condition of experimental science in the communist world is extremely poor. It's hard to do competitive experiments with 60's technology. Another way to put this in perspective is that in 1904 after the discovery of N-rays, over 100 papers confirming their existence came out within a year. If 100 groups in the U.S. were trying to reproduce the experiment, the chance that one group goofed is pretty high. > >Many have pointed out ways that F&P could have made errors in their >calorimetry setup or calculations. This is irrelevant unless F&P >actually did make these mistakes. Lewis and collaborators showed that F&P did indeed make mistakes in both the calorimetry and the calculations. F&P specifically state that they did not stir the system, instead they relied on hydrogen sparging. Lewis showed that if you do not stir, you get a very steep thermal gradient. Thus, F&P did make a major, basic calorimetry error. Furthermore, according to the data presented in their paper, F&P never actually saw any heat production. They only claim heat production based on what would happen if they increased the current in one of the runs, but they neglected to account for increased resistive heating. > People point out that neutrons >can be produced by radon and gammas by bismuth-214. Irrelevant: >they form part of the background. It is the production of neutrons >and gammas *above* the background level that is significant, as Jones >et al knew quite well. Wrong, this is completely relevent. F&P moved their detector to get the background reading, which is well known as a completely incorrect way to determine background levels. Read the previous postings by William Johnson from LANL about neutron detectors. The peak shown by F&P is located at the bismuth-214 decay, *not* at the position expect from He3 production. > >In fact, the most that can be determined from the CalTech result is an >upper limit on the fusion rate. > This is true, and the upper limit is about 10 orders of magnitude below that claimed by F&P. And it's a carefully obtained, concientiously done, publicly detailed upper limit. >Fleischmann and Pons were negligent in the way they released information. >The scientific community as a whole has been negligent in the way that >it has used the information they released. > Let's not forget the Utah Legislature too! >-- >Dave Mack ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Horne A quote? I'm supposed to have a quote? jhh@pupthy.Princeton.EDU cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjhh cudfnJim cudlnHorne cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Joseph Poutre / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Joseph Poutre) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 4 May 89 17:55:18 GMT Organization: University of Rochester In article <8133@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> jhh@pupthy.PRINCETON.EDU (Jim Horne) writes: >In article <3125@uokmax.UUCP> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: >> >>Scorn and derision (especially in a public interview) are not appropriate >>(or professional) responses. > >What's wrong with scorn and derision? If a reporter asked you about >someone's claimed to have been abducted by a UFO manned by deformed >Elvis clones on strawberry sundae diets, would you call the abductee a >crackpot, or would you pretend you were from the government, and say >you can't make a decision until all the facts are in. Scorn and derision >are very appropriate responses. > First of all, your example declares F and P to be crackpots, which is the worst thing you could possibly do. They are respected chemists who have been running similar experiments for years. You are declaring without basis that they are oppportunistic and incompetent. Read their paper and you will see how wrong you are. Scorn and derision should be restricted to those who are incompetent or ignorant, but believe themselves otherwise. It is not science. The Mad Mathematician jap2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjap2_ss cudfnJoseph cudlnPoutre cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / kim hwan / Re: Safety of hydrogen THIS BELONGS SOMEWHERE ELSE Originally-From: laba-4hg@e260-4d.berkeley.edu (kim dong hwan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen THIS BELONGS SOMEWHERE ELSE Date: 4 May 89 17:46:52 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <1397@igloo.Scum.COM> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes: >In article <14430003@hpfcdj.HP.COM] brian@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes: >] >]> [artilce on breathing remove for reasons of space] >] [artilce on breathing remove for reasons of space] > [artilce on breathing remove for reasons of space] come on this group is alt.FUSION NOT alt.breathable.gases.and.other.such.trivia and as long as i'm posting: whether or not Pons and Fleischman's results are indeed cold fusion may not be the right question the question may be: are the results correct? and what is the *mechanism* of their results? and may be not how does one prove/disprove that is cold fusion? peter kim laba-4hg@web.berkeley.edu cudkeys: cuddy4 cuden4hg cudfnkim cudlnhwan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Steve Garnier / Re: Anoxia (was Re: Safety of hydrogen) Originally-From: steve@ece-csc.UUCP (Steve Garnier) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Anoxia (was Re: Safety of hydrogen) Date: 4 May 89 17:42:38 GMT Organization: North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC In article <351@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <14430003@hpfcdj.HP.COM> brian@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes: >> Only carbon monoxide poisoning is insidious. Breathing gas with a low >>oxygen content is *very* noticable. Your therapist friend is right, but >>without oxygen, the CO2 level in the blood rapidly falls and you feel like >>your holding your breath even as you breath. It isn't fun. > >This isn't true. The mechanism that tells you that you need to breathe >is increased CO2 in the blood. If you are breathing a mixture of air >with no CO2 and no oxygen, you will feel lightheaded and drunk until >you pass out, but no particularly serious discomfort. > >Mike Van Pelt Mike is definitely correct here. There are industrial environments (exotic welding and nuclear power, among others) that require "purged environments", where no oxygen is allowed. Workers are educated on the symptoms corresponding to exposure (without closed, bottled oxygen) in purged environments. Your body won't recognize a lack of oxygen since any CO2 in your bloodstream diffuses out of your lungs into the surrounding non-oxygen atmosphere, and since the surrounding atmosphere is without O2, your body won't produce enough CO2 to suffer (in the sense of classical suffocation, gasping for air). I've read about one welder who died inside a steam generator due to the purged (100% nitrogen) environment inside. He died more rapidly than expected by the paramedics until they learned that he had been pulled from an inerted environment. Apparently, all the unused oxygen in his bloodstream had also diffused into the surrounding nitrogen environment...causing very rapid suffocation. Steve Garnier cudkeys: cuddy4 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnGarnier cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / A Nowatzyk / Re: Cold fusion R.I.P. Originally-From: agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu (Andreas Nowatzyk) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion R.I.P. Date: 4 May 89 16:41:23 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI In article <20420021@hpcuhb.HP.COM>, rb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Brooks) writes: > In summary, the criticisms don't make sense, represent nothing new, and > are to be expected from a bunch of physicists who are frustrated by > not being able to duplicate the results and want to preserve their > hot fusion grant money for as long as possible. Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. How can you expect 6h worth of densely packed presentations full of hard data to be summarized completely in a short usenet article??? AND then pass such a sweeping judgment! Over 200 scientist (many chemists, electro-chemists and material scientists) in some 30 independent experimental groups ran over 1000 versions of the F&P&H cell with plenty of top notch equipment. Result: negative. Then they proceeded to analyze F&P&H's set up in depth (including building replicas of the cell) and found a lot problems that can easily explain the reported results. For example: Lewis reconstructed the F&P&H (Hawkins was usually mentioned) cell, ran it to see if the bubbles could possibly produce enough convection to overcome the heat gradient: no way. He also digged out a 1958 paper on "Electrochemical Calorimetry" by an NBS researcher (J.M.Sh????) that describes the problems with an open system such as P&F&H used. An other example: Meyerhof analysed the cells used by Huggins. Given equal geometry and equal input power, there ought to be a temperature difference of the reported amount because D2O and H2O conduct heat differently. Before you comment on this, get some real information! The APS session was video-taped and the tape will become available from the New York office of the American Physical Society for $100. It probably contains more information than will end up in the papers because of the Q&A sessions. -- -- Andreas Nowatzyk (DC5ZV) Carnegie-Mellon University agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu Computer Science Department (412) 268-3617 -- cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenagn cudfnAndreas cudlnNowatzyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / daniel offutt / Question on the first F&P experiments Originally-From: offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Question on the first F&P experiments Date: 3 May 89 04:00:00 GMT Organization: University of Michigan EECS Have Fleischmann and Pons stated anywhere how many different experiments they did (4 to 5 years ago?) before they obtained their first "success"? The answer to this question might shed some light upon how precisely experimental variables must be set in order to obtain their observed results. It would be very puzzling if they observed fusion in their first few experiments, given the failure of so many other researchers to announce replication of their results. Dan Offutt offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenoffutt cudfndaniel cudlnoffutt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.03 / daniel offutt / Cost-free energy Originally-From: offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cost-free energy Date: 3 May 89 04:00:00 GMT Organization: University of Michigan In article <10005@sri-arpa.ARPA> huntzing@ARDEC.ARPA writes: >Accepting [cold nuclear fusion as a fact], what impact will [cost free] energy have >upon technology? If CNF is a fact, it is not going to be free. D2O is just one of the ingredients in the energy production process. If D2O were as free as air, the other ingredients (engineering expertise, and special metals, Stirling engines, wires, pipes, etc., and the rates at which they would wear out in a CNF reactor) become the important ingredients determining the price per KWH. None of those things are free, and today's prices for these ingredients do not reflect the demand for them that will materialize if and when CNF establishes itself as a fact. Also, if it turns out that CNF can be used to produce electricity at 10 times what it costs today, then CNF will not replace electrical power plants, but it might be used where it has some special advantage that offsets the higher price. For example, if light reactors could be built, three-D transport and some rejected ideas about space-based weapons might become feasible. CNF may turn out to be useful only in certain restricted applications, not an equally-good substitute for every energy source. Dan Offutt offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenoffutt cudfndaniel cudlnoffutt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / thomas roberts / Re: real magic ?? Originally-From: tjr@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (thomas.j.roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: real magic ?? Date: 4 May 89 18:00:50 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <26@prayf.UUCP>, by david@prayf.UUCP (David Brusowankin): > > To my knowledge, no one has yet explained the apparent > superluminal velocities necessary for probability function collapse. > > (Do the following gedanken experiment -- Take a photon emitter, a > half-silvered mirror, and two detectors. Orient the mirror at a 45 > degree angle to emitter, and place the two detectors so that one is > directly in line with the direction of the photon emission and the > other is at right angles to it - both detectors being, say a light > minute away from the mirror. The 2 detectors would therefore be > approximately 1.414 light minutes away from each other. The setup > looks like this: > > > (mirror at 45 degree angle) > ________ / > | Emitter| .... /............detector #1 > -------- / . > . > . > . > . > . > detector #2 [I assume that the angle of the mirror is really meant to be \] > Now, according to QM, for each photon emitted you get two > probability waves, one for each detector (actually read 'observer'). > When one encounters a detector, the entire wave collapses there and > you see a photon. The problem is that information has to arrive at the > other detector at what would seem to be superliminal velocities in > order for the second detector not to see a photon. > End of experiment). This is a (somewhat simplistic) re-statement of the famous "EPR Paradox" (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) which has been important in the development of Quantum Mechanics. There are two major flaws in the argument above. The first is that to analyze a system in Quantum Mechanics, you ascribe a SINGLE wave-function to the ENTIRE SYSTEM. In general, this wave-function CANNOT be separated into wave-functions describing the (supposedly independent) parts. In this case, you DO NOT "get two probability waves, one for each detector", but rather you get a single probability distribution describing the actions of the emitter and the observations of both detectors. [Physicists often do separate wavefunctions into putatively independent ("separable") components. This is only valid to an approximation (often extremely accurate); Physicists would rather not do this, but the complexity of physical systems often requires such separation in order to make any analysis possible.] [It is often difficult to determine exactly what is contained in the ENTIRE SYSTEM (e.g. need we include the mirror in the description of the above system?).] The "Paradox" disappears when you realize that, unlike macroscopic particles, YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN A PHOTON HAS BEEN EMITTED. You only have a probability per time for the rate of photon emission. There is no necessity for "information" to be "propagated" between the two detectors; each one sees a rate of photon detection, and their sum equals the rate of photon generation (ignoring experimental difficulties). [You cannot "fix" this by attempting to detect photons near the emitter to determine their time of emission; detecting photons destroys them, and while you could use a detector that re-emits them very quickly, you cannot then fix their direction well enough to ensure that such re-emitted photons enter the apparatus (another Phyrric Victory for Heisenburg's Principle).] There are no shortcuts in physics. You have to carefully describe and justify every step in an analysis, as in a mathematical proof. Physicists do a lot of "hand waving", but it is just that, hand waving. Many APROACHES to interesting problems have first been discovered by waving hands; no interesting problem has ever been solved that way - you HAVE to do the mathematics in order to understand modern physics (which is often counter-intuitive). Tom Roberts att!ihnet!tjr cudkeys: cuddy4 cudentjr cudfnthomas cudlnroberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Ric Werme / "Natural" Tritium Originally-From: werme@Alliant.COM (Ric Werme) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: "Natural" Tritium Date: 4 May 89 04:27:26 GMT Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA I've seen several postings that claim that people trying room temperature fusion are misleading themselves when they see tritium coming from their cells. The problem is that "heavy water has naturally occurring tritium." Since tritium's half life is 12.5 years, any natural tritium had to have been created pretty recently, so where's it coming from? We get C14 from ionospheric reactions with cosmic rays (or was it solar wind?) (What's the reaction, anyway?) With a half life of 5700 years, at least that has a chance of hanging around. If tritium is formed high in the atmosphere, I'd think it would stand a good chance of escaping the Earth's gravitational field. For that matter, J&P cite a possible correlation of atmospheric tritium with volcanic activity. Cosmic rays wouldn't be much good for that. You Hawaii types: anyone trying to confirm *that* work? -- | A pride of lions | Eric J Werme | | A gaggle of geese | uucp: decvax!linus!alliant | | An odd lot of programmers | Phone: 603-673-3993 | cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenwerme cudfnRic cudlnWerme cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / wyant / Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 4 May 89 21:19:09 GMT Allow me to offer another perspective on the cold fusion session. This is intended to amplify on some of the comments made by Jon Webb and Andreas Nowatzyk in prior summaries in this newgroup. I hope to also answer some of the questions seeking more details and a perspec- tive of where to look next. So far, the best popular account of the session that I have seen is in the May 3 issue of the Wall Street Jour- nal. Four of us from DuPont Engineering Physics attended the APS spe- cial session on cold fusion Monday evening, May 1. While we all hold degrees in physics (nuclear, atomic, solid state, thermodynamics), we were all in the process of becoming "instant experts" in cold fusion. One problem with the P&F claim is that their method spanned many dis- ciplines so that no one person could easily make an assessment (science has become quite specialized). So many papers were contributed that a second cold fusion session was scheduled for Tuesday, though Tuesday's session appeared anticlimatic. Both special sessions ran from 7:30 pm until midnight. Abstracts should be available and the sessions were videotaped for possible distribution. The talks by theorists were attempts to discover a mechanism by which cold fusion could occur. Many of the domestic experimental talks (Caltech, Harvard, MIT, Stan- ford, Yale - Brookhaven National Lab, Oak Ridge, AT&T) were negative on cold fusion. Most of the excitement came from the four invited talks given at the opening of the Monday night session. Originally, Fleischmann was invited to appear, then suggested that either he or Pons would likely appear. Last week, Fleischmann said that he and Pons were too busy with their appearance before Congress and preparation for the Electrochemi- cal Society meeting to accept the APS invitation. The four invited speakers were S.E. Jones of BYU (an experimental physicist), J. Rafelski of Arizona (a theorist and collaborator with Jones), S.E. Koonin of Caltech (a nuclear theorist and collaborator with Lewis), and N. Lewis of Caltech (a chemist). Three kinds of cold fusion were under consideration: muon catalyzed fusion, fusion without muons but with reaction rates typical of muon catalysis, and excess heat production fusion (P&F, or PFH [Pons-Fleischmann-Hawkins] from their electrochemical journal paper). All of the invited talks were presented at a breakneck pace. Jones presented his evidence for cold fusion without muons, which relied on an unusual method for separating his measured neutron flux from the natural background neutron count. Jones had worked in the area of muon catalyzed fusion and was familiar with low fusion rate events. To answer some critics, he had simplified his electrochemical "soup", tried both Pd and Ti electrodes, and tried to improve his back- ground measurements. Jones also distanced himself from the excess energy claims of P&F. The questions after his talk challenged him on the statistical significance of his neutron measurements. Rafelski talked about possible mechanisms for cold fusion without muons. For fusion to occur, two deuterons (or light nuclei) must get close enough for their nuclear wavefunctions to overlap significantly. He discussed possible methods for achieving this, but said that an unusual cooperation of events (non-equilibrium cooperative phenomena) would have to occur in order to see a detectable fusion rate. Many details of the conditions inside a metal were unknown or very complex. He saw no way to get a fusion rate high enough to get more energy out than what had been put in, but his studies will continue. Koonin was more hostile about the prospects for fusion. He exam- ined the fusion mechanisms, listed their possible signatures, and noted that none of these had been reliably seen outside of Utah. He stressed that favorable conditions for fusion in a metal were very sensitive (exponentially) to the separation between nuclei. Koonin discussed how to get those favorable conditions, but was not sure if a metal could generate these conditions. He discussed possible enhancements, but said that he saw no way to get a high enough fusion rate to obtain the P&F result. He could not rule out the Jones result, but would not pur- sue this study any further unless there was more experimental evidence. Koonin complained that "we have suffered enough from the delusions and incompetence of Pons and Fleischmann". Discussions with Hagelstein at MIT had convinced Hagelstein that his "optical phonon" mechanism is wrong. The major report was made by Lewis, who headed a large team of chemists, physicists, and material scientists from Caltech. They had set up seven different trials of the P&F experiments, with differing electrochemical solutions, Pd rods (both cast and drawn), sensitive neutron and gamma-ray detectors (e.g., "second most sensitive neutron detector in the world" with a detection limit of 100 neutrons per hour; P&F reported 1.2E4 neutrons per hour), tritium analysis, and mass spec- trometry. One of the Pd rods was the same electrode from which Texas A&M claimed to have realized fusion neutrons. None of these trials showed any evidence above background of any fusion or excess heat (calorimetry precision to 6%). With these null results, Lewis began a closer examination of the P&F method. As best he could, without the cooperation of Pons, Lewis told of his efforts to recreate the method used by P&F to arrive at their fusion claim. The P&F claim rests on three observations: excess neu- trons at 2.2 MeV, (4)He production, and excess heat. Each observation was dealt with in order and shown to be a result of poor attention to detail. The neutron spectra as presented by P&F shows a peak at 2.2 MeV (Lewis et al looked from a few keV to 30+ Mev). The neutron detector used by P&F was not very efficient and may not have the resolution implied by the plots in the preprints. Taking the plots at face value, however, the resolution of the detector should be sufficient to distin- guish between the (n,g) gamma-ray energy of 2.226 MeV fusion neutrons and other possible sources more precisely. The spectra, as shown, has a peak at 2.20 MeV, which is very near the 2.204 MeV decay of a (214)Bi isotope that is part of the (222)Rn decay sequence. Utah has slightly higher background radiation than many places in the U.S and has active uranium mining. Also, P&F showed only this single peak rather than a larger spectrum which might permit a better assessment of background activity and associated radiation peaks. Two later talks also pointed out the very good agreement between the P&F neutron peak and the 2.204 MeV radon product. The (4)He production, as reported by P&F, is a factor of 10 too high for the heat being produced. Lewis did speak with Walling at Utah about his mass spectroscopy technique. Apparently, Walling looked only for (4)He and not for any other associated masses which could be used to help identify the source of the He (i.e., distinguish between air from the electrochemical cell versus ambient air in the room). An enhanced concentration of He is common in many chemical labs using He as a calibration gas or from other sources. Finally, the heat production issue was addressed. The recognized expert on calorimetry was a guy from the National Bureau of Standards who retired in 1970(?). He wrote a paper carefully detailing many of the difficulties of accurate calorimetry and how to avoid them. For example, electrolysis involves the local generation of heat, through ohmic loss and dissociation-recombination, which must be equalized, usually through stirring. Pons said (in response to a question from someone at Los Alamos who was relaying the question from Lewis) that since the cell was generating so many bubbles, he did not think that stirring was necessary. Measurements made by the Lewis team showed a temperature gradient in the operating cell. The thermocouple used by P&F to measure the temperature was placed close to the anode, and in a relatively warm region of the cell. Pons also said that he assumed that all of the dissociated gas need not be counted because it left. But his cell was almost closed, and recombinations were likely to be occurring. The biggest problem was in the heat or power budget. Pons assumed that the effective voltage delivered to the cell for ohmic heating was 0.5 V. Thus, by measuring the current, the heat delivered to the cell due to electrical power as ohmic heating can be calculated. By measur- ing the temperature of the cell, the total heat generated can be calcu- lated. Technically, such an electrochemical cell will cool off from room temperature (a fusion refrigerator?); it is the difference between the measured cooling and the expected cooling which leads to the excess heat production. However, the assumed 0.5 V is not sufficient for Pd. Lewis measured between 3 and 8 V total for the seven experiments they had tried, or a minimum of 0.8 V for ohmic heating which depended on the conditions of the electrode (surface and size). And, since the tem- perature measurement is taken near a relatively warm anode, those meas- urements are high. Thus, the excess heat budget is due to poor calorimetry. Lewis' talk was given a long applause, and a few questions asking about details (e.g., hood explosion, condition of the Pd rods). Lewis made a strong contrast between the lack of cooperation of Pons and the very good cooperation by everyone else. He provided a list of ques- tions to the visiting members of the press, since this claim has ini- tiated a new era of peer review through press releases. When Lewis, the last of the four invited speakers, left, about 40% of the room left. He seemed to have provided a "tour de force" refutation of the P&F claim for cold fusion. P&F are expected to make their next public appearance at the Electrochemical Society meeting next week (Monday, May 8 in Los Angeles). The spring APS meeting draws about 1500 registrants, mostly physi- cists and graduate students from academia. The cold fusion session had seating for 2500 (I counted), slightly less than 1800 were in atten- dance (an estimate), and 40% of those left after the invited talks. During the remaining contributed talks, people were continuously eva- porating. We left at 11:00 pm, with an hour of talks yet to go, because we did not want to get locked out of the parking garage. Yesterday evening on the radio, I heard part of a short interview with Huggins, the material scientist at Stanford Univ, who also claimed to have obtained excess heat production. Huggins pointed out that P&F had never said in their publications that the electrical power into the cell was assumed. In fact, the P&F preprints do not specify how the power was measured. Lewis pointed that out as well by noting that Pons first told the congressional committee that the fraction of electrical power which showed up as heat was assumed. Lewis said that through his investigations, he knew that Pons had estimated the ohmic heating of the cell, and that Pons knew that Lewis knew. In the opinion of our little group, the errors in calorimetry by P&F was the crucial factor which determined the judgments about their cold fusion claims. I recall talking with a friend with the physics department from Yale at the meeting, who told me about the results from the Yale - Brookhaven experiment. He said that whatever is generating the heat, based on their experience in New Haven, it wasn't nuclear. There was no suggestion that the heat measurements by P&F might be wrong. In this forum, and from the company chemists, everyone insisted that P&F were too good and respected to have made mistakes in calorimetry. Lewis was the first to make a serious case that the unique claim of excess heat production by P&F came from poor calorimetry. That was the new piece of the puzzle and seems to be the decisive factor. This chapter on cold fusion is far from over, though alot of the excitement is gone. While it appears that the P&F result is going to be difficult to explain, the Jones result still has a possibility. Jones has been involved in refining his experiment, in response to cri- ticism, and is try to identify the crucial components of his electro- chemical "soup". While the theorists could not fully support Jones' claim, they could not conclusively exclude it either (the P&F claim required many orders of magnitude more fusion events than the Jones claim). The experiments as reported were formulated according to the P&F prescription, so I hope that a few of these will be converted to a trial of Jones. There was a minor attempt to examine the Italian result which claimed neutron production from a Ti electrode and deuterium gas, but there are not enough details to do a careful analysis (I am told more details will be discussed soon at an upcoming scientific society meet- ing in Italy). One of the theorists at the session noted a report of fusion neutrons from a deuterium saturated metal rod fired (e.g., shot) at a concrete wall by some Russian group about 10 years ago. Another way to enhance the closeness of deuterium in a metal hydride is through ultrasound (high frequency sound can make shock waves in a material). The possibility of fusion by means other than a high temperature plasma remains an interesting area for scientific pursuit. It will be equally interesting to see the response of P&F at the Electrochemical Society meeting to these charges of poor calorimetry. We also still have the working model which Pons has promised to send to Los Alamos for analysis. And, I still don't know much about the European claims. What will definitely hurt us all is "chemist-bashing" or "arrogant phy- sicist" jokes (and not just because I am a physicist working for a chemical company). While the competition for grants or the prospect of significant financial gain can distort the usual conservative style of science where honesty is paramount, the majority of chemists remain hardworking and careful. Perhaps we should consider firing certain university presidents or public relations officers. Patrick Wyant Engineering Physics Lab E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Wilmington, DE 19880-0357 *!uunet!eplrx7!wyant cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenwyant cudlnwyant cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / bass randale / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 4 May 89 20:46:53 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <1989May4.112722.7633@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > >I am told that the Stanford experiment consists of two cells, side by >side, one with H2O and one with D2O. *No stirring*. It was assumed >that the cells have identical geometry. However, I am told that >normal and heavy water have different heat transfer characteristics, >and that these differences explain the reported numbers from Stanford. > Agreed, if we are to assume Mr. Huggins is also incompetent as some of our physicist friends would have us believe. But also notice that another group at A&M has found evidence of the same excess heat. Bad thermometer placement is running rampant. Also, this heat transfer problem is one of the reasons that Mr. Pons asserts that the H2O-D2O comparison is an inadequate control for this experiment. But for the critics, it has been done. These arguments also do not explain why Pons is getting no results with his "blank" rod. I guess he adjusts the thermometer placement only for that rod. Back to Dr. Meyerhopf's "demolition". It is my understanding that his assertions are based on a solution of a heat equation in a cylindrical domain with "weak stirring" of the fluid. Now I am not sure if this includes convective transfer. If he did not, his results are clearly incorrect, so we will assume that he did. In the absence of quantification of this convective term (since conference presentations in this rough form often are not followed by publications), it is clear that for the electrolytic cells that were demonstrated on TV, there was substantial convection driven by the escaping gasses. This convection would be expected to increase with increasing current density (and hence increased outgassing). I would be very surprised if substantial temperature gradients could exist in steady state. Many of the reported failures to confirm leave much to be desired. Even the dissection of A&M's rod by Caltech is not very helpful. There are many questions. What were the fusion products that they didn't find? He3 ? He4 ? He5 ? radioactive thorium ? How was the rod handled between Texas and California? (Keep in mind that helium diffuses through just about everything) What was the elapsed time before processing the rod. Was the helium found consistent with the usual levels in 1) Air 2) Pd of 3) a mylar balloon ? Did they examine every possible isotopic product in the lower half of the periodic table? (We still do not know what is happening) I think that it is also important once again to point out that the physicists involved in the "debunking" are not electrochemists, nor fluid-dynamicists. They have probably never performed calorimetry. The results of such investigations must therefore be taken with a grain of salt (as should Pons/Fleischmann's neutron/gamma studies). They have not yet been published and will most likely not stand up under the type of scrutiny that P/F have had to undergo. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / bass randale / Re: Pity Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pity Date: 4 May 89 21:14:43 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <1989May3.074953.9258@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > >F & P have caused many man-years of effort to be wasted. Scorn is >an appropriate response. So is pity. > Save your pity. The electrochemists do not need it. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Donald Benson / Re: news from the epicenter Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: news from the epicenter Date: 4 May 89 17:14:22 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Would it be a low blow if the laws of physics granted F&P the cold fusion they seek, but at temperatures so low the Carnot effiency wouldn't let them extract enough electrical/mechanical energy to sustain the reaction? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Dave Mack / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 4 May 89 21:57:48 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <1989May4.095052.3260@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <10599@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: > >>This is a perfect example of the non-professionalism described above, >>and I'm embarassed that it came from another computer scientist. What >>errors are you refering to pray tell? > >First: (1) their nuclear technique, AS DESCRIBED IN THE PAPER, is >awful. You do not take background measurements by moving your detector >5, 10 or 50 meters away from the apparatus. True. > (2) their helium >measurements are greatly suspect; I mentioned my concern about >the over-production of helium and the lack of checks for atmospheric >contamination, I see no mention whatsoever of attempts to measure helium in the F&P paper submitted to J. Electroanalyt. Chem. 3/20/89. What are you talking about? > (3) the lack of control experiments. They didn't do the control experiments *you* wanted - they did do control experiments using Pt cathodes to determine how they should do their calorimetry calculations. But yes, they should have done the test with H2O to ensure that it wasn't chemical. Of course, in the course of five years of messing with this, they may have eliminated that possibility early on, but I agree they should have presented results. >At Baltimore, Koonin, Lewis, etc. presented many other serious >problems. But failed to explain the heat production mechanism in the F&P, Texas A&M and Stanford results, to mention only a few of the sites that have observed excess heat production. >>There has been a lot of >>speculation about things they _might_ have done wrong, but it is only >>speculation, and any open-minded person would wait a little longer >>before making a decision about it. > >I waited a long time. It exceeds my capacity for wishful thinking to >wait any longer. Every one of their purported positive results has >been effectively destroyed. Indeed? Including their calorimetry? Please cite the error in their calorimetry measurements. Please include a reference. > The lack of a theory -- despite trying -- >is also damning. Please be serious. Compare the time between the Michaelson-Morley experiment and the Special Theory of Relativity to the time since F&P let their paper loose. And of course, those four papers Hagelstein submitted are irrelevant. >> And considerably longer before >> taking the serious step of calling someone incompetent. > >I said they were either incompetent (for not recognizing the poor >quality of their claims) or unprofessional (for deliberately >misrepresenting the quality of their claims). Bullshit. Are you claiming that every scientist who ever made a mistake is incompetent? F&P's nuclear measurements are lousy by the standards of those who do nuclear measurements for a living, but they were quite probably the best they could afford to do and knew how to do. Agreed, they should have brought in someone who did know the field better. >If you still wish to excuse P & F, consider this: at ANY TIME in the >last month they could have submitted a "used" cathode for analysis >for trapped helium. That they did not says something about their >confidence that it would pass the test. Really? Are you aware that researchers rarely own the equipment they use in experiments? That the U of U may have had some say in this matter? Did anyone offer to assay one of their rods, to your knowledge? Seems to me that damn near everyone rushed out to set up their own apparatus using their own palladium. And I suppose the same criticism should be directed at Jones et al at BYU since they didn't rush out to have someone else assay their metals either? And finally, the fact that they *did* give one of their rods to a U of U group for mass spec analysis and that group *did* find He-4 can be ignored, right? Cold fusion won't be ruled out until someone can come up with a full explanation of the excess enthalpy generation (which has been observed at at least a dozen sites to date) in D2O but not H2O (Huggins at Stanford) which does not depend on a fusion reaction. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Dave Mack / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 4 May 89 22:15:22 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <8133@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> jhh@pupthy.PRINCETON.EDU (Jim Horne) writes: >In article <3125@uokmax.UUCP> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: >> >>Scorn and derision (especially in a public interview) are not appropriate >>(or professional) responses. >>-- >>Robert K. Shull > >What's wrong with scorn and derision? If a reporter asked you about >someone's claimed to have been abducted by a UFO manned by deformed >Elvis clones on strawberry sundae diets, would you call the abductee a >crackpot, or would you pretend you were from the government, and say >you can't make a decision until all the facts are in. Scorn and derision >are very appropriate responses. This analogy can only be looked down on with scorn and derision, not to mention pity, disgust and loathing. -- Dave Mack and that's my professional opinion ------------------- Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion News: Portland Oregonian (4/27/89) (Long) Date: 4 May 89 17:25:16 GMT Organization: Intel Corp., OEM Platforms Operation, Hillsboro, OR Donald Benson (donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM) seems to have caused some confusion by mis-reading the original article I posted on the Portland State University "Cold Fusion" Experiment. In article <20420013@hpcuhb.HP.COM> donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: > This experiment raised the temperature of a beaker by 27 degrees in one > second. > It produced a 5 micron crater in the electrode. Although I have done no > calculations, I don't believe convection can distribute that much heat in so > little time without local temperatures exceeding 100 degrees C. That is, if This then caused Paul Dietz to make wrong judgements: Writes: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) > Wrong: the thermometer reported this. The first thing I'd do in this > situation would be to double check the measurement, to see (for > example) if current is shorting through the thermometer. Also, check > to see if the "temperature" falls 27 degrees when the current is > turned off. > ... > Incompetence? This may show a little imcompetence (lack of research) on your part Paul, you didn't even check the original article to be sure what you were reading from Donald was correct (which it was not). Here are the sections from my posting on the Oregonian article, and from Matt Shafe' posting on a UPI article of the same experiment: FROM MY ORIGINAL POSTING OF THE ARTICLE: Origional Reference: <545@gandalf.littlei.UUCP> > When an electrical current was applied, the needle on a temperature > recorder showed an increase from 21 degrees to 27 1/2 degrees Celsius (about > 70 to 81 degrees Fahrenheit) in one second. "Nothing much dramatic happened > after that," said Dash, with the temperature remaining close to the higher > temperature for the remainder of the 12-minute experiment. From an article by Matt Shafe' (3 UPI Articles): > PORTLAND, OR (APRIL 28) UPI - ... > Dash said when an electrical current was applied, the needle on a temperature > recorder in the liquid solution jumped from 21 degrees to 27 1/2 degrees > Celsius (about 70 to 81 degrees Fehrenheit) in one second. As you will all clearly see, the temperature went from 21 Celsius TO 27.5 Celsius, it increased only by 6.5 degrees Celsius, NOT by 27. (It even had Fehrenheit for those who don't like Metric :-). I may only have been the courier of the Article, but I couldn't stand by and watch obvious ERRORS being made in quoting the article. Read carefully before you Post a reply. I would be happy to email anyone a copy of the origional article if they would like it. Tim Forsyth tim@opoxsrv.i.intel.com (uunet!littlei!opoxsrv.i.intel.com!tim) or forsytim@ccm.hf.intel.com (uunet!littlei!intelhf!ccm!forsytim) Intel Corp., OEM Platforms Operations, Hillsboro, OR cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / J Hall / Re: Cold Fusion - Perspective Originally-From: josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion - Perspective Date: 5 May 89 05:08:37 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Steve Emmerson writes: F&P (and others) made some observations. In their view, the observations are only consistent with the hypothesis that fusion was occuring. Caltech, MIT and others made similar observations. In their view, the observations are consistent with a hypothesis of invalid experimental design and methodology. presumeably referring to (from Andreas Nowatzyk): "*4*: Lewis (Caltech) delivers the decisive kill with a very good presentation of a long list of data. Lewis is chemist ant the list of collaborators list many physics, chemist, electro-Chemists and material scientists. plenty of data from various Pd rods (cast, annealed, etc). In particular, he collaborated with Texas A&M and got one of their 'working' rods. He shreds P&F's evidence one by one: - no radiation. - no tritium (show how easy it is to fool yourself: an fresh electrolyte shows high T-levels if chemical reactions are not properly neutralized) - too much He (uses the same mass-spectrometer as F&P, implies sloppy operation because the unit has a higher resolution than claimed by UU) and shows how much He is present in typical labs. The UU He measures too much He to be produced by fusion. - Deals in depth with calorimetry and how not to do it in electrolytes (needs stirring and a careful balance of the produced gases). He reconstructs P&F's data (down to cell geometry) and shows how to get there if you are careless. - Shows gross thermodynamics error in F&P efficiency calculation. ... *9*: Stanford/SRI team: in-depth analysis on calorimetry. Destroys the Stanford 'confirmation' in passing. Computer model of F&P cell with respect to heat transfer characteristics. Almost replicates the F&P data (the volume-effect of Pd) analytically. Then throws in residual D/Pd reactions (known to occur slowly in volume) and the last points for thick rods fall in line. Very convincing and in line with Lewis. ..." If the "F&P effect" were purely due to cell geometry and heat transfer characteristics, one would expect that all cells of a given configuration would act the same, and the "effect" would show up immediately every time. However, as I understand it, some cells "catch" and others don't (90/10% Utah, 50/50% Texas). Fusion or not, I feel certain the effect is more subtle than these people indicate. --JoSH cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenjosh cudfnJ cudlnHall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Dave Mack / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 5 May 89 03:53:14 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems In article <1989May4.112722.7633@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <1447@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> crb7q@hudson.acc.Virginia.EDU (bass cameron randale) writes: > >>No, Mr. Huggins from Stanford has not retracted. In fact, from >>the New York Times of May 3 (today), Huggins states that he is >>"more confident than ever" in his results. >> >>One must keep in mind that the "demolition" was performed by >>a physicist (Dr. Walter Meyerhopf of Stanford) who presumably is >>not very familiar with calorimetry (or materials since Prof. Huggins >>is a mat. sci. professor). The gist of Meyerhopf's commentary is that >>the "thermometer was in the wrong place". That still begs the question >>of why results for D2O and no results for H2O. I guess Mr. Huggins >>purchased some of that special convectionless Deuterium. > >I am told that the Stanford experiment consists of two cells, side by >side, one with H2O and one with D2O. *No stirring*. It was assumed >that the cells have identical geometry. However, I am told that >normal and heavy water have different heat transfer characteristics, >and that these differences explain the reported numbers from Stanford. This is somewhat unlikely. The thermal conductivity of heavy water is within 3-4 % of that of normal water in the relevant temperature range (20 - 40 C), so the heat transfer through conduction should be similar. I don't have any figures on the viscosity of heavy water, but I'd be surprised if it's very different from that of H2O. The density of D2O is about 10% greater. Even so, I would expect that the convection characteristics would be similar. And it seems likely that the addition of LiO{H,D} would tend to mask rather than enhance the differences between the two solutions. Still, I wish they would stir the damned things. It would lay this objection to rest. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy5 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Tim Priddy / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: tpriddy@homrun.intel.com (Tim Priddy) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 4 May 89 02:25:05 GMT Organization: INTeL Santa Clara Microcomputer Division Paul Dietz (a computer scientist) writes: >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. Tim Priddy (a computer scientist) responds: Wasted man-years? F&P has not been proven wrong. You are merely speculating (possibly just influenced by others' speculation). Fact: Neutrons from "fusion in a jar" has been verified by more than one team. What are F&P's errors? That there're too few neutrons coming out for the measured heat output to be explained by your understanding of fusion? Do you maintain that it's just a chemical reaction? Hey, I've got news for ya. A chemical reaction that liberates energy from nuclear bonds, transmuting one element into another is fusion (period). I know that there is no hard evidence of elemental transmutation, but the neutrons imply a nuclear reaction. There's energy output that chemistry doesn't explain. If it's not physics, and it's not chemistry, I guess we need another discipline. Bring on the alchemists! Tim Priddy (Oakland Coliseum, Sec: 123, row: 3, seat: 13) internet: tpriddy@homrun.intel.com uucp: ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!tpriddy cudkeys: cuddy4 cudentpriddy cudfnTim cudlnPriddy cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Michael Brooks / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: brooks@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 5 May 89 06:43:00 GMT Organization: Stanford University Organization: Stanford University Distribution: Organization: Stanford University Keywords: cold fusion, APS, session, Jones, Pons, neutrons First off, my Thanks to both of you and your cohorts in providing some badly needed data to our discussion on the net. In one of my most recent postings (article 5142, Message ID-113@sierra.stanford.EDU) I discussed my interest in Mass spectroscopy and some salient details, while in a later post I pleaded for some of Walling and Simons data. Could either of you provide such data, here or in another fashion, since apparently the numbers and description of controls are available (that is, judging by the info you have posted)? I assure you that many of us would be very grateful! From what I have read it seems that the investigators may have omitted an elementary control, that of analyzing ambient He levels, for the open air ambient of the cell. The quantity of 4He in atmosphere is known and background levels should have been checked as a routine step in calibrating the system with a known 4He test source (two very basic steps, obviously you don`t want atmospheric He leaking into you experimental source of gas). I am disturbed by a possible lack of controls from two scientists who have experience in this technique---and I find this difficult to accept. In addition, quantitative comparison between background levels and levels observed during experiment are of considerable interest to me, as they will tell the story (especially levels vs time). Was the amount claimed significant relative to background, and how did this change with time? And what of the "excess 4He", that level which is inconsistent with the heat evolved? In terms of numbers, what was that level---forgetting about calorimetric aspects for now? I would prefer to deal with something I could understand, rather than slog through calorimetric contortions. I`m working on obtaining some data on the Italian results and will try to get this available ASAP. Is the Lewis neutron detector limit of "100 neutrons/hr" an upper or lower bound? The preliminary data I have (hearsay actually so far) has the Italians counting at max. 200cnts/hour, or averaging ~70/hr for something like 10 or 15 hrs. If Bill Johnson at LANL is reading this, could you please comment on whether these numbers are reasonable. I should point out that the alleged background cnts/hr = 2-3 (neutrons/hr). I am trusting a poor memory on this, so these numbers may be wrong. I would like to encourage others to get data and put it out here so the rest of us can have a look at it. And once again my thanks to all who have already tried to do this. Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Labs (solid state)/SU MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Abscence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of abscence." cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / E McClanahan / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: edwardm@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 4 May 89 17:31:23 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > ]... 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? > This is a perfect example of the non-professionalism described above, > and I'm embarassed that it came from another computer scientist. > ... > All of this has confirmed an opinion that I have held for a long time, > that there is no such thing as an objective scientist. Science is > just as political as any other field, it's just that the political > wrangling is usually carried out at conferences instead of in the > newspapers. Hear - hear !!! I must admit that I was dismayed by the accounts from the CalTech presentation which were followed by resounding applause. Why is the implied failure of a new discovery (so valuable to society) something to cheer about? Maybe the applause was for the style and/or thoroughness of the presentation. I hope that is all it was. For me, if F & P have somehow failed to discover such a potentially beneficial effect (whether Fusion or not), I will be VERY DISAPPOINTED - certainly not inclined to applaud. Ed "are F & P glowing yet" McClanahan cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenedwardm cudfnEdward cudlnMcClanahan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / David Gudeman / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 5 May 89 09:02:26 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson About these people who claim that F&P made errors in their experiments; have they tried to reproduce the errors? Until they do they are basically trying to explain results they have not produced in a lab. To an interested observer this sounds somewhat less reliable than F&P's method of first getting results, _then_ explaining them. This comment, of course, only replies to reproducible errors such as not stirring the electrolyte. -- David Gudeman Department of Computer Science The University of Arizona gudeman@arizona.edu Tucson, AZ 85721 {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,noao}!arizona!gudeman cudkeys: cuddy5 cudengudeman cudfnDavid cudlnGudeman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / James_J_Kowalc / Libel anyone? Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Libel anyone? Date: 5 May 89 05:30:24 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >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? Ummm, did I miss something? I know of no errors, grotesque or otherwise, by Pons and Fleischmann. All I have heard is a lot of pontificating by biased Physicists. I find it amazing that speakers at the APS held an entire session best characterized as "Pons and Fleischmann bashing" with nothing more to back up their claims than their own inability to reproduce the results. Time will tell whether Pons and Fleischmann are correct, and if and when it does, there are going to be a lot of "scientists" eating crow. Meanwhile, Pons' research group continues to merrily conduct experiments, and the U. of U. continues to file for patents. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@Chemistry.utah.edu James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / David Bell / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: dbell@cup.portal.com (David J Bell) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 4 May 89 20:05:59 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) > As someone who once accidentally filled a room with hydrogen, let me > > Dave Mack > >................................................ When I ran upstairs to >tell my mother to get my sister and the animals out of the house, I >think my voice was pretty much normal, aside from stress effects and >the onset of puberty. > Dave, if it's not too embarassing, could you tell just *how* you accidently produced or released so much H2? Dave dbell@cup.portal.com cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendbell cudfnDavid cudlnBell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / The Polymath / Re: real magic ?? Originally-From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: real magic ?? Date: 5 May 89 00:04:31 GMT Organization: The Cat Factory In article <26@prayf.UUCP> david@prayf.UUCP (David Brusowankin) writes: } To my knowledge, no one has yet explained the apparent }superluminal velocities necessary for probability function collapse. } }(Do the following gedanken experiment -- Take a photon emitter, a }half-silvered mirror, and two detectors. Orient the mirror at a 45 }degree angle to emitter, and place the two detectors so that one is }directly in line with the direction of the photon emission and the }other is at right angles to it - both detectors being, say a light }minute away from the mirror. The 2 detectors would therefore be }approximately 1.414 light minutes away from each other. The setup }looks like this: } } } (mirror at 45 degree angle) } ________ / } | Emitter| .... /............detector #1 } -------- / . } . } . } . } . } . } detector #2 } } Now, according to QM, for each photon emitted you get two }probability waves, one for each detector (actually read 'observer'). }When one encounters a detector, the entire wave collapses there and }you see a photon. The problem is that information has to arrive at the }other detector at what would seem to be superliminal velocities in }order for the second detector not to see a photon. }End of experiment). I'm no QM guru, but it would seem to me that Occam's Razor says to drop all the "probability wave" rubbish. If the emitter sends out one photon it either hits the silvering in the mirror, and is deflected, or it doesn't. One observer sees it, the other doesn't. Why complicate a simple explanation for the observed phenomenon? Especially one that doesn't violate relativity and/or speed of light limitations. The only chance involved is in whether the photon is deflected or not. Once past the mirror, its path is certain (assuming hard vacuum and all the usual caveats). If there is any "probability wave collapse", it should happen at the mirror's surface. Sorry if this is a really stupid misunderstanding on my part. I'm aware that common sense doesn't always apply to quantum effects. Still ... BTW, in the above experiment both probability waves arrive at their respective observers simultaneously (I know. Bad word.) What decides which collapses? The whole thing sounds pretty shakey to me. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenhollombe cudfnThe cudlnPolymath cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Bob Clements / Excess heat or cold Originally-From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Excess heat or cold Date: 5 May 89 14:37:54 GMT OK, so the nay-sayers claim that the "excess heat" isn't excess at all, it's just what they should have expected. The obvious conclusion is to look at the cells that DON'T make "excess heat" and file some patents for the neat new form of electrochemical refrigeration! :-) /Rcc clements@bbn.com cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenclements cudfnBob cudlnClements cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / M Ginsberg / Re: Libel anyone? Originally-From: ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Libel anyone? Date: 5 May 89 15:10:23 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <17972@cup.portal.com> James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com writes: ... >Time will tell whether Pons and Fleischmann are correct ... There is indeed an article on cold fusion in Time this week. I wasn't aware of it's making any such definitive statements, though ... Matt Ginsberg cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenginsberg cudfnMatthew cudlnGinsberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Mary Holstege / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 5 May 89 15:44:13 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1989May4.112722.7633@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > >I am told that the Stanford experiment consists of two cells, side by >side, one with H2O and one with D2O. *No stirring*. It was assumed >that the cells have identical geometry. However, I am told that >normal and heavy water have different heat transfer characteristics, >and that these differences explain the reported numbers from Stanford. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu An article in the SJ Mercury News, I think, said that Huggins had redone the experiment with the thermometers in many different places -- same result. I'm pretty ignorant of physics and chemistry, but doesn't that pretty much lay this objection to rest? -- Mary Holstege@polya.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenholstege cudfnMary cudlnHolstege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Dave Mack / Re: Anoxia (was Re: Safety of hydrogen) Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Anoxia (was Re: Safety of hydrogen) Date: 5 May 89 15:33:17 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <351@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <14430003@hpfcdj.HP.COM> brian@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes: >> Only carbon monoxide poisoning is insidious. Breathing gas with a low >>oxygen content is *very* noticable. Your therapist friend is right, but >>without oxygen, the CO2 level in the blood rapidly falls and you feel like >>your holding your breath even as you breath. It isn't fun. > >This isn't true. The mechanism that tells you that you need to breathe >is increased CO2 in the blood. If you are breathing a mixture of air >with no CO2 and no oxygen, you will feel lightheaded and drunk until >you pass out, but no particularly serious discomfort. > >There was an excellent demonstration of this in the PBS series "The >Body in Question". The host of the series put on a facemask connected >to a small tank, which caused him to continuously re-breathe the same >air. As CO2 built up, he started breathing faster and faster, and >ultimately, in some apparant distress, yanked the mask off gasping for >breath. > >For the second experiment, he put a lithium hydroxide cannister in the >line to absorb CO2. He put on the mask again, and continuously wrote >the alphabet on a note pad. His breathing rate did not change, but his >writing became progressively more erratic until he fell over and a >couple of people came rushing on stage with an oxygen tank. He seemed >at most semi-consious until he'd been on the pure O2 for a minute. You're talking about the gradual onset of anoxia, which is indeed insidious. Imagine the following experiment: a person is given two unlabelled tanks of gas with facemasks. One tank contains air, the other pure nitrogen. Ask the person to breathe normally for a couple of breaths, then take a deep breath from one tank or the other, then guess whether the gas in that tank is air or not. Repeat this procedure twenty or thirty times. My guess is that they'll guess correctly well above the random level. In the case of hydrogen, it may be the physical differences in density and so forth that are detectable. But as one who has had the experience, let me assure you that the fact that I was not breathing air was instantly obvious; I did not get dizzy or pass out, I took one deep breath and *knew* that I had walked into a room full of hydrogen. (Amazing, how fast you can balance a chemical reaction in your head under those circumstances :-)). Incidentally, several people have compared this to hyperventilation. I thought that dizziness and blackout after hyperventilation were due to hyperoxia, not hypoxia. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Dick King / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 5 May 89 18:01:27 GMT Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA In article <3477@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: [> . . . ] >Still, I wish they would stir the damned things. It would lay this >objection to rest. > >-- >Dave Mack One problem with stirring the cells is that it provides another energy input that must be accounted for. I suppose you could stir 1/hr for ten seconds, or something like that, but then heat could "hide" in the core of solid parts of the equipment. -dk-- -dk king@kestrel.arpa | no cute saying ...!sun!bridge2!kestrel!king | cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenking cudfnDick cudlnKing cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Dave Mack / Re: Safety of hydrogen Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Safety of hydrogen Date: 5 May 89 17:06:26 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <17938@cup.portal.com> dbell@cup.portal.com (David J Bell) writes: >> As someone who once accidentally filled a room with hydrogen, let me >> >> Dave Mack > >Dave, if it's not too embarassing, could you tell just *how* you >accidently produced or released so much H2? For reasons which are much too embarassing to mention, I added aluminum powder to a concentrated NaOH solution. The reaction produces H2 and NaAlO3 (sodium aluminate). Don't try this at home, as they say. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Byron Rakitzis / Re: real magic ?? Originally-From: tbrakitz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Byron Rakitzis) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: real magic ?? Date: 5 May 89 16:49:41 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ John Wheeler proposed an interesting variation to this experiment: 1/2 path 1 1/2 Source----------mirror-----------------detector---mirror----photographic plate \ / \ / \ / \ path 2 / mirror_______________mirror Ok, check this out: the "detector" is a plate of some sort which traps photons. This detector can be put either in the path of the photons, or it can be left out. Now assume you slow the rate of photons so that only one at a time is transmitted. We have: No detector present: this is the usual story; you get an interference pattern on the photographic plate. Detector present: there is NO pattern on the plate, because the detector detects a photon going down EITHER one OR the other path; a positive result shows the photon went down path 1, a negative result shows the photon went down path 2. This "spoils" the interference pattern. Now something really weird is going on here! This is called Wheeler's "delayed choice" experiment (verified experimentally?) because I can choose to slip in the detector AFTER the photon has been "split" by the first mirror. That way, it seems that I can make the photon travel down both paths (remember, that's the only way to get an interference pattern) or I can suddenly limit the photon's position to being on one of the paths, by slipping my detector in. This is a demonstration of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Weird, weird, weird. -- "I've found it much easier on my ulcer to stop trying to clean out the Augean stables of the net." Chuq Von Rospach Byron Rakitzis. (tbrakitz@phoenix.princeton.edu ---- tbrakitz@pucc.bitnet) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudentbrakitz cudfnByron cudlnRakitzis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / wyant / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 5 May 89 17:30:23 GMT From article <10629@megaron.arizona.edu>, by gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman): > About these people who claim that F&P made errors in their > experiments; have they tried to reproduce the errors? Until they do > they are basically trying to explain results they have not produced in > a lab. To an interested observer this sounds somewhat less reliable > than F&P's method of first getting results, _then_ explaining them. > One of the invited talks, by Meyerhof of Stanford as I recall, went into gory detail about modeling an electrochemical cell having local heat sources which produce temperature gradients. He claimed that his model and measurements on such a cell were in very good agreement. Using this model, Meyerhof produced a plot of "heat production" as a function of where in the cell the temperature measurement is made. According to photographs, the P&F temperature measurements were made in a "hot" spot. One of the difficulties in reproducing the entire P&F experiment is the lack of cooperation by Pons (a point made by Lewis repeatedly). It is unsettling that Harwell in England was unable to repeat the P&F results even though Fleischmann is affiliated with Harwell and was helping them. Sometimes, it may not be necessary to repeat an experimental error as long as it is recognized by other "experts in the field" to be an error. Note that Lewis was able to discuss the (4)He measurement problem with the guy at Utah who made the measurements for P&F. It seemed to be the intention of most of the teams reporting results at the APS session to verify cold fusion, not to verify the possible errors which could be made in trying to verify cold fusion. It wasn't obvious that any group had tried to repeat all of the alleged P&F errors, and such a demonstration would have little to say about the possibility for cold fusion. In my humble opinion... Patrick Wyant *!uunet!eplrx7!wyant cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenwyant cudlnwyant cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: "Natural" Tritium Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: "Natural" Tritium Date: 5 May 89 13:47:55 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <3125@alliant.Alliant.COM>, werme@Alliant.COM (Ric Werme) writes: > I've seen several postings that claim that people trying room > temperature fusion are misleading themselves when they see tritium > coming from their cells. The problem is that "heavy water has > naturally occurring tritium." I haven't seen that claim. A number of people have pointed out that a lot of heavy water available has been used (as a moderator, I'm a little vague on this one) in fission reactors and so is contaminated with tritium due to neutron bombardment. I believe Bill Johnson made this point first with the comment that it is possible to purchase deuterium without tritium, it just takes some care. > > For that matter, J&P cite a possible correlation of atmospheric > tritium with volcanic activity. Cosmic rays wouldn't be much good for > that. You Hawaii types: anyone trying to confirm *that* work? I've been wondering about this one too. It seemed the most striking part of the BYU paper to me. -- 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: cuddy5 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Sean Casey / Idiotic Refutations Originally-From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Idiotic Refutations Date: 5 May 89 19:35:54 GMT Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY I see science in the refuations that is just as bad as F&P. I see scientists quoted at the talks as saying "They made this error and this error and that's where the excess heat came from". This is a statement just as erronous, because they haven't proved a thing. If anything, it's worse, because they are the ones accusing others of incompetence. Before one can claim something as true, one has to reasonably prove that it is true, and the proof has to be reproducable. All I am seeing from the refutations is theory. A bunch or arrogant scientists are throwing claims of incompetence around, and proving nothing. It really makes me sick to see important scientists with their attitude. When I was growing up, I had a dream of scientists being benign seekers of truth. I didn't see them as a bunch of arrogant assholes calling each other incompetent. Welcome to reality. Until F&P hand over a working call to LANL, and cooperate in the experiment, I'd like to see all the hot winded scientists save our tax dollars and shut up and let the burden of proof rest on F&P. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet *** Quid, me vexari? {backbone|rutgers|uunet}!ukma!sean *** ``A computer network should be considerably faster than a calendar.'' -me cudkeys: cuddy5 cudensean cudfnSean cudlnCasey cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / bass randale / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 5 May 89 18:10:45 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <8972@polya.Stanford.EDU> holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege) writes: > >An article in the SJ Mercury News, I think, said that Huggins had redone the >experiment with the thermometers in many different places -- same result. >I'm pretty ignorant of physics and chemistry, but doesn't that pretty much >lay this objection to rest? > Yes. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / wyant / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 5 May 89 18:28:10 GMT > In one of my most recent > postings (article 5142, Message ID-113@sierra.stanford.EDU) I discussed > my interest in Mass spectroscopy and some salient details, while in a > later post I pleaded for some of Walling and Simons data. Could either > of you provide such data, here or in another fashion, since apparently > the numbers and description of controls are available (that is, judging > by the info you have posted)? Alas, mass spectroscopy is not my area of expertise and I do not have access to Walling's raw data. Perhaps there is a preprint available somewhere with the appropriate data. It was not clear to me that even Lewis had obtained the Walling data, though Lewis had discussed this measurement with Walling over the telephone. > From what I have read it seems that the investigators > may have omitted an elementary control, that of analyzing ambient He > levels, for the open air ambient of the cell. > I am disturbed by a possible lack of > controls from two scientists who have experience in this technique---and > I find this difficult to accept. > Was the amount claimed significant relative to > background, and how did this change with time? And what of the > "excess 4He", that level which is inconsistent with the heat evolved? Lewis, the spokesperson for the Caltech team, showed many tables which I could not hope to copy at the pace he was going. I do not recall seeing any numbers associated with the discussion of the (4)He measurements. However, the levels of (4)He were reported to be significantly above ambient background levels in the atmosphere, which may be obtained from a handbook. The "excess (4)He" was 10 times that necessary to explain the excess heat as reported by P&F, assuming all of the energy of fusion went into heat via some mechanism similar to that postulated by Hagelstein of MIT. Since so little nuclear energy was released as neutrons, this first "order of magnitude" estimate provides a easy check on the fusion claims. > I`m working on obtaining some data on the Italian results and will try > to get this available ASAP. Is the Lewis neutron detector limit of > "100 neutrons/hr" an upper or lower bound? The preliminary data I > have (hearsay actually so far) has the Italians counting at max. > 200cnts/hour, or averaging ~70/hr for something like 10 or 15 hrs. If > Bill Johnson at LANL is reading this, could you please comment on > whether these numbers are reasonable. I should point out that the > alleged background cnts/hr = 2-3 (neutrons/hr). I am trusting a poor > memory on this, so these numbers may be wrong. Neutron counts were reported in two different units - as neutron rates (neutrons per hour) and neutron densities (neutrons per hour per cubic cm of electrode). The density units provide a better comparison with the fusion events that are supposed to be happening within the electrodes. Lewis said that the Caltech neutron detector has a detection limit of 100 neutrons per hour, which corresponds to about 10 n/hr/cc of Pd (if I can read my hastily taken notes correctly). The confusion over the neutron counts may originate with the two different units which are being used to report them. I have been told that the neutron background is typically 100 - 200 n/hr. Anyone else want to vote on this? The critique of the Italian experiment was hampered by a lack of detail about the experiments. A mention was made (by other than Lewis) about fluctuations in the background neutron levels as an explanation for this report, but more information is necessary before more can be said. The Italian experiment remains an important "data point" in this cold fusion controversy, and any information which you can obtain will be most appreciated. Patrick Wyant *!uunet!eplrx7!wyant cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenwyant cudlnwyant cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Tony Luck / Why haven't the big physics labs seen cold fusion Originally-From: aegl@root.co.uk (Tony Luck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Why haven't the big physics labs seen cold fusion Date: 5 May 89 07:54:17 GMT Organization: UniSoft Ltd, London, England A while ago there was a report in a U.K. paper about the experiments being set up at Harwell to try and reproduce cold fusion. The article said that the staff called the lab where the neutron detection equipment is housed "the counting house" and said that it was very heavily shielded against external radiaton which would affect measurements. It has been suggested in this news group that if fusion is occuring the energy to start short chain reactions might be provided by cosmic rays. If this is the case, is it possible that the physicists in their underground lead-shielded bunkers don't see any fusion because none is happening - while the chemists who just stick the apparatus in a fume cupboard in the corner of the lab without any significant shielding get enough high energy particles to trigger a measureable reaction. Just a random thought (I'm a mathematician, so I don't know anything about the real world ... best just to ignore me) Tony Luck cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenaegl cudfnTony cudlnLuck cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Vincent Cate / 3 APS Abstracts in ascii Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: 3 APS Abstracts in ascii Date: 5 May 89 21:06:47 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI ********************************************************************** aps.4 ********************************************************************** Calorimetry, Neutron Flux, Gamma Flux, and Tritium Yield from Electrochemically Charged Palladium in D2O. Nathan Lewis, charles Barnes, and Steve Koonin California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125 We report the results of our work on cold fusion using palladium. We have used extremely sensitive neutron, gamma ray, and photon counters, and can place strict upper limits on the flux of expected nuclear products emitted from charged Pd cathodes. Liquid scintillation counting has been used to measure tritium production, which was found at background levels for extended periods of time. However, a subtle chemical interference that generates chemiluminescence has been shown to yield tritium signals and lead to overestimates of the fusion yield based on tritium production. We have also performed accurate, calibrated calorimetry, and have identified several serious errors that can make the measurements appear to show excess power production. When these common errors are eliminated, a correct energy balance is obtained. We will also discuss the calorimetric experiments performed by the Utah researchers, will explain their calculations to the physics community, and will clearly state the assumptions and corrections implicit in the Utah calculations. ********************************************************************* aps.9 ********************************************************************* Abstract submitted for the Baltimore meeting of the American Physical Society. May 1-4, 1989 Special session on Cold Fusion Analysis of "Excess Power in Cold Fusion". W. E. MEYERHOF, Stanford University,* D. L. HUESTIS and D. C. LORENTS, SRI International. The apparent excess energy release of 4 MH in heavy-water electrolysis with Pd electrodes (1) is impossible to explain with known chemical or physical processes. Solution of the heat equation for cylindrical calorimeters with the geometries of Ref. 1 or 2 show that in steady-state calorimetry temperature gradients exist even with weak stirring. Hence, fictitious excess power can be found, depending on the placement of the thermometer. This is particularly severe in Pd+D electrochemical reactions because the dissipative part of the 0.8 to 2 V overvoltage releases heat at the surface of the Pd electrode. The observed differences between ordinary and heavy water can also be explained because for Pd+H the overvoltage is much smaller than for Pd+D. 1. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanaly. Chem. 261, 301 (1989). 2. A. Belzner, U. Bischler, C. Crouch-Baker, T. Gur, G. Lucier, M. Schreiber, R. A. Huggins, to be published. Supported in part by NSF grant PHY 86-14650 W. E. Meyerhof Department of Physics Stanford University California 94305 ******************************************************************** aps.10 ******************************************************************** Abstract Submitted for the Special Cold Nuclear Fusion Session of the 1989 May Meeting of the American Physical Society. May 1, 1989 Gammas from Cold Fusion. D. Bailey*, University of Toronto ** The absence of both neutrons and gamma rays can be used to constrain possible cold fusion processes in deuterium-metal systems. In particular, milliwatt cold fusion processes in palladium producing fast protons, tritium, 3He or 4He nuclei would also usually produce easily observable numbers of Coulomb excitation palladium gamma rays. Typical expected yields are ~10**4 - 10**6 gammas per joule of fusion energy in lines at 0.374, 0.434, 0.512 and 0.556 MeV. Reported (1) 2.2 MeV np capture gamma rays are consistent with the ubiquitous radon daughter 214Bi 2.204 MeV background line. * BITNET address: DBAILEY@UTORPHYS ** Supported in part by NSERC (Canada). (1) M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, and H. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (1989) 301, and errata. -- cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Emmett Black / Another report from Baltimore Originally-From: blackje@sunspot.steinmetz (Emmett Black) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Another report from Baltimore Date: 5 May 89 22:32:05 GMT Organization: GE Research; Schenectady, NY 12345 A REPORT FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY SPRING MEETING - 1-2 MAY 1989 BALTIMORE, MD SPECIAL SESSION ON COLD FUSION ABSTRACT Beginning on the evening of 1 May 1989, a Special Session on Cold Fusion was held at the American Physical Society Spring Meeting in Baltimore. Representatives from GE Research attended. This report represents the combination of several reports by GE Researchers; at least one of which was written written between 2 and 3 am, immediately following the session. The session was scheduled for 7:30pm to 12:24am (yes, 12:24am exactly) with four invited talks and seventeen contributed talks. One contributed talk was withdrawn prior to the meeting. A full agenda is provided as Appendix I. About 1800 people were in attendance during the four invited talks. This number dropped sharply after the invited talks, and then dwindled to about 100 by the end of the meeting. The meeting ended at 12:28am. Neither Fleischmann nor Pons attended. Fleischmann was invited as soon as this special session was organized, and said that either he or Pons would try to attend. A few days ago, the conference was notified than both Fleischmann and Pons were too busy to attend. In summary, the session was characterized by major research groups announcing that they had been unable to confirm the results of F&P. Many also refuted the results of Jones. Not one single group presented data to confirm the F&P cold fusion claims. 1. Invited Speakers 1.1. Jones Steve Jones, BYU, opened the session with a discussion of his own work, which he emphatically said would NOT lead to a new power source, but does present interesting new physics. After discussing briefly muon catalyzed fusion and piezo-driven fusion, Jones showed a laboratory notebook from his research group dated 22 May 1986, showing something which looked very much like the electrolytic set-up for a F&P cold fusion cell. They specifically set out to design a neutron detector using a liquid scintillator to slow down the neutrons and Li(6) doped glass in front of 2 PMT's to capture the (thermalized?) neutrons. They somehow got from this an energy spectrum of the neutrons. Fusion neutrons have a characteristic energy at 2.45 MeV. What they ended up seeing was a signal at ~2.5 MeV at about 5.7 standard deviations above the background.(Someone later questioned this and said it may really be more like 2 standard deviations.) Their actual observation rate was 6E-4 sec-1, the efficiency of detection was 1%, so their measured neutron production rate was 0.06 sec-1. He said they checked many controls like using light water and trying the whole thing with zero current on the cell. This appears to be very important. In those controls he only saw the usual background. They also tried some new experiments where they simplified the electrolyte (to an acid of some sort) and saw essentially the same excess neutrons when the thing was on. He said something (we couldn't hear very well) about the palladium plating out on the titanium, which is important. Jones also said that they are collaborating with researchers in Bolognia, Italy, on their pressurized cold fusion experiments; and with Los Alamos in an effort to confirm the BYU work.(The Los Alamos collaboration just began on 28 April 1989.) In some experiments, Jones used Ti crystals fused together, yielding many rough, sharp points, which he said may be significant. He also roughened the surface of his electrodes with sandpaper, which he also thought was significant. Jones reports small increases in neutron flux above background, and ran three types of controls: 1. No current; 2. Light Water; and 3. No ``Salts.'' His main conclusions were that they DO see cold fusion, yielding ~0.4 fusions/sec (equivalent to 10e-13 Watts). He said this scales to the FP claims as 1 dollar is to the national debt. Useful energy production is a LONG way off, but there IS NEW PHYSICS there to be studied. During the questions and answers, Jones said that with all the salts present, there could be some plating out on the electrode thus decreasing the absorption of deutirium. Perhaps, he said, people are waiting too long to look for the neutrons.(does this mean no one looks continuously for neutrons?) Jones' data were challenged by Morrison of CERN, who said Jones had overstated the statistical significance of his data. This summarizes the most optimistic outcome of the entire session. Whether it's 2 or 5.7 standard deviations, if it is reproducible then it does seem to indicate SOMETHING, perhaps cold fusion, is possible in metals, though at an extremely low rate. One other speaker mentioned the possibility of looking for the K-alpha x-ray emission from Pd as a signal of fusion. Most of the other papers represent essentially gloomy forecasts on the whole predicament. It may be time for most people to sit back and let Los Alamos (with Pons' collaboration) either reproduce or repudiate the F&P results. On the other hand it's possible, even if F&P are wrong (and it sure looks that way), that some good will have come out of all this: people may be inspired now to look in completely new directions. After all, some of the possible ideas (boson condensation, screening, etc.) that have been touted to explain this cold fusion in a metal do not sound so terribly off base. And there still are the Jones' results to contend with. Perhaps now research will proceed via the responsible scientific approach. 1.2. Rafelski The second speaker was Rafelski, Univ. of Arizona, who said that if you are going to get heat without radiation, you MUST get helium, which he called ``the ashes of nuclear fusion.'' 1.3. Koonin The next speaker, Steve Koonin, UC Santa Barbara, stated that Hagelstein from MIT now believes his theory of D+D --> He(4) is incorrect. He said that the BYU data is not convincing, and that Harwell Labs have not been able to confirm, even with Fleischmann's help. He went on to say that the UU data has not been proven by conventional standards, there is no reliably confirmation, and ``we are suffering from the incompetence or delusions of F&P.'' 1.4. Lewis The next speaker, Nathan Lewis, presented excellent data from a large, joint effort between CalTech and UC Santa Barbara. The team included both chemists and physicists. They measured: 1. neutrons; 2. gamma rays; 3. tritium; 4. helium; and heat. They reported some of the best experiments we have seen to date. They made use of cosmic ray (veto) shielding. They saw no extra neutrons or gamma rays above background. They mentioned the need to be careful about false chemical equivalents of tritium, and saw no excess tritium. They saw no excess helium, and suspect that F&P measured helium in lab air, since their levels were much too high. They showed extensive calorimetry calculations showing F&P made certain, possibly unjustifiable assumptions, to get their 4-to-1 energy gain. They noted how stirring the cell is critically important in making temperature measurements. Lewis completely dismisses the F&P results. Lewis claims he was the one who told Georgia Tech to check their neutron detector for temperature sensitivity, and also claims to have contacted Univ. of Fla. concerning problems with their experiments. He stated that he had obtained an electrode from Texas A&M, and could not reproduce their results in his laboratory. He gave strong indication that Texas A&M would retract their confirmation at next week's ECS meeting. He said he had tried, but failed, to get electrode samples from Huggins at Stanford, and had tried in vain to contact Pons. 2. Contributing Speakers Brooks of Ohio State University tried to repeat the F&P experiments (with different electrolytes) and saw no neutrons above background. Hirosky of the Univ. of Rochester also tried an F&P repeat and saw no neutron signal above background. Dickens, Oak Ridge, said they had made over 300 runs with cells of various shapes and sizes, and had been unable to see neutrons above background. They also failed to reproduce the BYU data. The paper from Stanford & SRI suggested a source of error in Huggins work, due to temperature gradients in the cell caused by insufficient stirring. Sur, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, also reported no positive results. Seeliger, Dresden Tech. University reported 20 extra counts per hour, well below the F&P results. They reported no heat. Cantrell, Miami University, reported possible 2-for-1 excess heat, but then said he thought it was a chemical reaction involving a glass ``mat'' used in his cell. Moshe Gai, Yale, reported on a large joint effort involving chemists and physicists from Yale and Brookhaven. This talk had been previously reported on usenet. He saw two excess neutrons, which they called Pons and Fleischmann. 3. Tuesday Session A second Cold Fusion seminar was scheduled for the APS meeting on Tuesday 2 May 1989, at 7:30pm. The Tuesday session was to begin with ``a general review with emphasis on European work by D.Q.O. Morrison, CERN.'' Unfortunately none of our representatives were able to attend; also, due to the rapid decrease in interest in last night's seminar after the Cal Tech talk, we did not believe the second seminar would generate much interest. 4. Conclusion We have read the reports of the seminar in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and USA Today. All accurately reflect the seminar. There is also story in the Baltimore SUN, which is somewhat more complete. The results released by the 16-member MIT team, which were mentioned in all the newspapers on Tuesday, were neither presented nor discussed at the Special Session. I. Full Agenda Introduction. E.F. Redish, Univ of Maryland. Comments. J.A. Krumhansi, APS President Invited Talks 1. [Jones 89] (Same Paper as J1 3 on Thursday Morning.) 20 Min. 2. [Rafelski 89] 20 Min. 3. [Koonin 89] 20 Min. 4. [Lewis 89] 25 Min. Contributed Talks (All 8 minutes) 1. [Whaley 89]. 10. [McCracken 89] 2. [Brooks 89]. (Withdrawn.) 3. [Hirosky 89]. 11. [Seeliger 89]. 4. [Hutchinson 89]. 12. [Salewicz 89]. 5. [Meyerhof 89]. 13. [Wilets 89]. 6. [Furth 89]. 14. [Leggett 89] (Not presented.) 7. [Bailey 89]. 15. [Cantrell 89]. 8. [Cranberg 89] (Not presented.) 16. [Deakin 89]. 9. [Norman 89]. 17. [Gai 89]. II. References [Bailey 89] Bailey, D. (University of Toronto). Presentation: Gammas from Cold Fusion. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Brooks 89] Brooks, W.K.; Marchelski, D.G.; Kalen, J.D.; c Islam, M.S.; Kaitchuck, M.; M Creery, R.; Boyd, R.N.; Holbrooke, P.; Dyke, H. (Ohio State University). Presentation: An Investigation of Cold Fusion Using a Sensitive Neutron Detector. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Cantrell 89] Cantrell, Joseph; Wells, William E. (Miami University). Presentation: Electrochemically Induced Excess Heat in a 'Cold Fusion' Cell with a Zr2Pd Electrode. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Cranberg 89] Cranberg, Lawrence (TDN, Inc.). Presentation: Sources of Neutrons and Tritium from D-Li-6 Mixtures. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. Not Presented. [Deakin 89] Deakin, M.R.; Fox, J.D.; Kemper, K.W.; Myers, E.G.; Shelton, W.N.; Skofronick, J.G. (Florida State University). Presentation: Search for Cold Fusion Products Using X-Ray Detection. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Furth 89] Furth, H.; Bernabei, S.; Cowley, S.; Kulsrud. R. (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University). Presentation: Generation of D-D Fusion Reaction Bursts in Metal Deuterides. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Gai 89] Gai, M.; Ruggari, S.L.; France, R.H.; Lund, B.J.; Zhao, Z. (Yale University); Davenport, A.J.; Issacs, H.S.; Lynn, K.G. (Brookhaven National Laboratory). Presentation: Search for Neutrons and Gamma- Rays From 'Cold Fusion' in Deuterided Metals. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Hirosky 89] Hirosky, R.; Buchanan, E.; Jorne, J.; Melissions, A.C.;Toke, J. (University of Rochester). Presentation: Search for Neutron Production in a Palladium-Heavy Water Electrolytic Cell. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Hutchinson 89] Hutchinson, D.P.; Richards, R.K.; Bennett, C.A.; Havener, C.C.; Ma, C.H.; Perey, F.G.; Spencer, R.R.; Dickens, J.K.; Poony, B.D. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory); Bullock IV, J.; Powell, G.L. (Y-12 Development). Presentation: A search for Cold Fusion Neutrons at ORELA. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Jones 89] Jones, S.E. (Brigham Young University). Presentation: Cold Nuclear Fusion: recent Results and Open Questions.. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. Same Paper as J1 3 on Thursday Morning. [Koonin 89] Koonin, S.E. (University of California-Santa Barbara). Presentation: Theoretical Issues and Problems Raised By Cold Fusion Experiments. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Leggett 89] Leggett, A.J.; Baym, G. (University of Illinois). Presentation: 'Solid State' Effects cannot Enhance the Cold Fusion Rate Enough.. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. Not Presented. [Lewis 89] Lewis, Nathan; Barnes, Charles; Koonin, Steven (California Institute of Technology). Presentation: Calorimetry, Neutron Flux, Gamma Flux, and Tritium Yield from Electrochemi- cally Charged Palladium in D2O. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. c [McCracken 89] M Cracken, D.R.; Paquette, J.; Johnson, R.E.; Briden, N.A.; Cross, W.G.; Arneja, A.; Tennant, D.C.; Lone, M.A.; Buyers, W.J.L. (Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories). Presentation: Search for Cold Fusion in Electrolytic Cells. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, Withdrawn. MD; 01 May 1989. [Meyerhof 89] Meyerhof, W.E. (Stanford University); Huestis, D.L.; Lorents, D.C. (SRI International). Presentation: Analysis of 'Excess Power in Cold Fusion'. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Norman 89] Norman, E.B.; Sur, B.; Lesko, K.T.; Czer- winski, K.R.; Hall, H.L.; Anderson, R.A.; Hoffman, D.C. (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory). Presentation: Searches for Cold Fusion. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Rafelski 89] Rafelski, J. (University of Arizona-Tucson). Presentation: Cold Fusion: Can It Be True? A Theoretical Point of View.. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Salewicz 89] Salewicz, K.; Morgan III, J.D. (University of Delaware); Monkhorst, H.J. (University of Florida). Presentation: Fusion Rates for Hydrogen Isotopic Molecules of Relevance for Cold Fusion. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Seeliger 89] Seeliger, D.; Weisener, K.W.; Meister, A.; Ohms, D.; Rahner, D.; Schwierz, R.; Wustner, P. (Tech. University Dresden). Presentation: Search for D-D Fusion Neutrons. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Whaley 89] Whaley, K.B. (University of California- Berkeley). Presentation: Boson Screening of Deuterium in Metals. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Wilets 89] Wilets, L.; Alberg, M.; Rehr, J.J.; Mustre de Leon, J. (University of Washington). Presentation: Upper Limits to Fusion Rates of Isotopic Hydrogen Molecules at High Electron Density Interstitial Pd Sites. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Emmett J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345 blackje@crd.ge.com cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenblackje cudfnEmmett cudlnBlack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Emmett Black / Another report from Baltimore Originally-From: blackje@sunspot.steinmetz (Emmett Black) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Another report from Baltimore Date: 5 May 89 22:32:05 GMT Organization: GE Research; Schenectady, NY 12345 A REPORT FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY SPRING MEETING - 1-2 MAY 1989 BALTIMORE, MD SPECIAL SESSION ON COLD FUSION ABSTRACT Beginning on the evening of 1 May 1989, a Special Session on Cold Fusion was held at the American Physical Society Spring Meeting in Baltimore. Representatives from GE Research attended. This report represents the combination of several reports by GE Researchers; at least one of which was written written between 2 and 3 am, immediately following the session. The session was scheduled for 7:30pm to 12:24am (yes, 12:24am exactly) with four invited talks and seventeen contributed talks. One contributed talk was withdrawn prior to the meeting. A full agenda is provided as Appendix I. About 1800 people were in attendance during the four invited talks. This number dropped sharply after the invited talks, and then dwindled to about 100 by the end of the meeting. The meeting ended at 12:28am. Neither Fleischmann nor Pons attended. Fleischmann was invited as soon as this special session was organized, and said that either he or Pons would try to attend. A few days ago, the conference was notified than both Fleischmann and Pons were too busy to attend. In summary, the session was characterized by major research groups announcing that they had been unable to confirm the results of F&P. Many also refuted the results of Jones. Not one single group presented data to confirm the F&P cold fusion claims. 1. Invited Speakers 1.1. Jones Steve Jones, BYU, opened the session with a discussion of his own work, which he emphatically said would NOT lead to a new power source, but does present interesting new physics. After discussing briefly muon catalyzed fusion and piezo-driven fusion, Jones showed a laboratory notebook from his research group dated 22 May 1986, showing something which looked very much like the electrolytic set-up for a F&P cold fusion cell. They specifically set out to design a neutron detector using a liquid scintillator to slow down the neutrons and Li(6) doped glass in front of 2 PMT's to capture the (thermalized?) neutrons. They somehow got from this an energy spectrum of the neutrons. Fusion neutrons have a characteristic energy at 2.45 MeV. What they ended up seeing was a signal at ~2.5 MeV at about 5.7 standard deviations above the background.(Someone later questioned this and said it may really be more like 2 standard deviations.) Their actual observation rate was 6E-4 sec-1, the efficiency of detection was 1%, so their measured neutron production rate was 0.06 sec-1. He said they checked many controls like using light water and trying the whole thing with zero current on the cell. This appears to be very important. In those controls he only saw the usual background. They also tried some new experiments where they simplified the electrolyte (to an acid of some sort) and saw essentially the same excess neutrons when the thing was on. He said something (we couldn't hear very well) about the palladium plating out on the titanium, which is important. Jones also said that they are collaborating with researchers in Bolognia, Italy, on their pressurized cold fusion experiments; and with Los Alamos in an effort to confirm the BYU work.(The Los Alamos collaboration just began on 28 April 1989.) In some experiments, Jones used Ti crystals fused together, yielding many rough, sharp points, which he said may be significant. He also roughened the surface of his electrodes with sandpaper, which he also thought was significant. Jones reports small increases in neutron flux above background, and ran three types of controls: 1. No current; 2. Light Water; and 3. No ``Salts.'' His main conclusions were that they DO see cold fusion, yielding ~0.4 fusions/sec (equivalent to 10e-13 Watts). He said this scales to the FP claims as 1 dollar is to the national debt. Useful energy production is a LONG way off, but there IS NEW PHYSICS there to be studied. During the questions and answers, Jones said that with all the salts present, there could be some plating out on the electrode thus decreasing the absorption of deutirium. Perhaps, he said, people are waiting too long to look for the neutrons.(does this mean no one looks continuously for neutrons?) Jones' data were challenged by Morrison of CERN, who said Jones had overstated the statistical significance of his data. This summarizes the most optimistic outcome of the entire session. Whether it's 2 or 5.7 standard deviations, if it is reproducible then it does seem to indicate SOMETHING, perhaps cold fusion, is possible in metals, though at an extremely low rate. One other speaker mentioned the possibility of looking for the K-alpha x-ray emission from Pd as a signal of fusion. Most of the other papers represent essentially gloomy forecasts on the whole predicament. It may be time for most people to sit back and let Los Alamos (with Pons' collaboration) either reproduce or repudiate the F&P results. On the other hand it's possible, even if F&P are wrong (and it sure looks that way), that some good will have come out of all this: people may be inspired now to look in completely new directions. After all, some of the possible ideas (boson condensation, screening, etc.) that have been touted to explain this cold fusion in a metal do not sound so terribly off base. And there still are the Jones' results to contend with. Perhaps now research will proceed via the responsible scientific approach. 1.2. Rafelski The second speaker was Rafelski, Univ. of Arizona, who said that if you are going to get heat without radiation, you MUST get helium, which he called ``the ashes of nuclear fusion.'' 1.3. Koonin The next speaker, Steve Koonin, UC Santa Barbara, stated that Hagelstein from MIT now believes his theory of D+D --> He(4) is incorrect. He said that the BYU data is not convincing, and that Harwell Labs have not been able to confirm, even with Fleischmann's help. He went on to say that the UU data has not been proven by conventional standards, there is no reliably confirmation, and ``we are suffering from the incompetence or delusions of F&P.'' 1.4. Lewis The next speaker, Nathan Lewis, presented excellent data from a large, joint effort between CalTech and UC Santa Barbara. The team included both chemists and physicists. They measured: 1. neutrons; 2. gamma rays; 3. tritium; 4. helium; and heat. They reported some of the best experiments we have seen to date. They made use of cosmic ray (veto) shielding. They saw no extra neutrons or gamma rays above background. They mentioned the need to be careful about false chemical equivalents of tritium, and saw no excess tritium. They saw no excess helium, and suspect that F&P measured helium in lab air, since their levels were much too high. They showed extensive calorimetry calculations showing F&P made certain, possibly unjustifiable assumptions, to get their 4-to-1 energy gain. They noted how stirring the cell is critically important in making temperature measurements. Lewis completely dismisses the F&P results. Lewis claims he was the one who told Georgia Tech to check their neutron detector for temperature sensitivity, and also claims to have contacted Univ. of Fla. concerning problems with their experiments. He stated that he had obtained an electrode from Texas A&M, and could not reproduce their results in his laboratory. He gave strong indication that Texas A&M would retract their confirmation at next week's ECS meeting. He said he had tried, but failed, to get electrode samples from Huggins at Stanford, and had tried in vain to contact Pons. 2. Contributing Speakers Brooks of Ohio State University tried to repeat the F&P experiments (with different electrolytes) and saw no neutrons above background. Hirosky of the Univ. of Rochester also tried an F&P repeat and saw no neutron signal above background. Dickens, Oak Ridge, said they had made over 300 runs with cells of various shapes and sizes, and had been unable to see neutrons above background. They also failed to reproduce the BYU data. The paper from Stanford & SRI suggested a source of error in Huggins work, due to temperature gradients in the cell caused by insufficient stirring. Sur, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, also reported no positive results. Seeliger, Dresden Tech. University reported 20 extra counts per hour, well below the F&P results. They reported no heat. Cantrell, Miami University, reported possible 2-for-1 excess heat, but then said he thought it was a chemical reaction involving a glass ``mat'' used in his cell. Moshe Gai, Yale, reported on a large joint effort involving chemists and physicists from Yale and Brookhaven. This talk had been previously reported on usenet. He saw two excess neutrons, which they called Pons and Fleischmann. 3. Tuesday Session A second Cold Fusion seminar was scheduled for the APS meeting on Tuesday 2 May 1989, at 7:30pm. The Tuesday session was to begin with ``a general review with emphasis on European work by D.Q.O. Morrison, CERN.'' Unfortunately none of our representatives were able to attend; also, due to the rapid decrease in interest in last night's seminar after the Cal Tech talk, we did not believe the second seminar would generate much interest. 4. Conclusion We have read the reports of the seminar in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and USA Today. All accurately reflect the seminar. There is also story in the Baltimore SUN, which is somewhat more complete. The results released by the 16-member MIT team, which were mentioned in all the newspapers on Tuesday, were neither presented nor discussed at the Special Session. I. Full Agenda Introduction. E.F. Redish, Univ of Maryland. Comments. J.A. Krumhansi, APS President Invited Talks 1. [Jones 89] (Same Paper as J1 3 on Thursday Morning.) 20 Min. 2. [Rafelski 89] 20 Min. 3. [Koonin 89] 20 Min. 4. [Lewis 89] 25 Min. Contributed Talks (All 8 minutes) 1. [Whaley 89]. 10. [McCracken 89] 2. [Brooks 89]. (Withdrawn.) 3. [Hirosky 89]. 11. [Seeliger 89]. 4. [Hutchinson 89]. 12. [Salewicz 89]. 5. [Meyerhof 89]. 13. [Wilets 89]. 6. [Furth 89]. 14. [Leggett 89] (Not presented.) 7. [Bailey 89]. 15. [Cantrell 89]. 8. [Cranberg 89] (Not presented.) 16. [Deakin 89]. 9. [Norman 89]. 17. [Gai 89]. II. References [Bailey 89] Bailey, D. (University of Toronto). Presentation: Gammas from Cold Fusion. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Brooks 89] Brooks, W.K.; Marchelski, D.G.; Kalen, J.D.; c Islam, M.S.; Kaitchuck, M.; M Creery, R.; Boyd, R.N.; Holbrooke, P.; Dyke, H. (Ohio State University). Presentation: An Investigation of Cold Fusion Using a Sensitive Neutron Detector. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Cantrell 89] Cantrell, Joseph; Wells, William E. (Miami University). Presentation: Electrochemically Induced Excess Heat in a 'Cold Fusion' Cell with a Zr2Pd Electrode. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Cranberg 89] Cranberg, Lawrence (TDN, Inc.). Presentation: Sources of Neutrons and Tritium from D-Li-6 Mixtures. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. Not Presented. [Deakin 89] Deakin, M.R.; Fox, J.D.; Kemper, K.W.; Myers, E.G.; Shelton, W.N.; Skofronick, J.G. (Florida State University). Presentation: Search for Cold Fusion Products Using X-Ray Detection. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Furth 89] Furth, H.; Bernabei, S.; Cowley, S.; Kulsrud. R. (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University). Presentation: Generation of D-D Fusion Reaction Bursts in Metal Deuterides. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Gai 89] Gai, M.; Ruggari, S.L.; France, R.H.; Lund, B.J.; Zhao, Z. (Yale University); Davenport, A.J.; Issacs, H.S.; Lynn, K.G. (Brookhaven National Laboratory). Presentation: Search for Neutrons and Gamma- Rays From 'Cold Fusion' in Deuterided Metals. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Hirosky 89] Hirosky, R.; Buchanan, E.; Jorne, J.; Melissions, A.C.;Toke, J. (University of Rochester). Presentation: Search for Neutron Production in a Palladium-Heavy Water Electrolytic Cell. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Hutchinson 89] Hutchinson, D.P.; Richards, R.K.; Bennett, C.A.; Havener, C.C.; Ma, C.H.; Perey, F.G.; Spencer, R.R.; Dickens, J.K.; Poony, B.D. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory); Bullock IV, J.; Powell, G.L. (Y-12 Development). Presentation: A search for Cold Fusion Neutrons at ORELA. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Jones 89] Jones, S.E. (Brigham Young University). Presentation: Cold Nuclear Fusion: recent Results and Open Questions.. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. Same Paper as J1 3 on Thursday Morning. [Koonin 89] Koonin, S.E. (University of California-Santa Barbara). Presentation: Theoretical Issues and Problems Raised By Cold Fusion Experiments. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Leggett 89] Leggett, A.J.; Baym, G. (University of Illinois). Presentation: 'Solid State' Effects cannot Enhance the Cold Fusion Rate Enough.. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. Not Presented. [Lewis 89] Lewis, Nathan; Barnes, Charles; Koonin, Steven (California Institute of Technology). Presentation: Calorimetry, Neutron Flux, Gamma Flux, and Tritium Yield from Electrochemi- cally Charged Palladium in D2O. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. c [McCracken 89] M Cracken, D.R.; Paquette, J.; Johnson, R.E.; Briden, N.A.; Cross, W.G.; Arneja, A.; Tennant, D.C.; Lone, M.A.; Buyers, W.J.L. (Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories). Presentation: Search for Cold Fusion in Electrolytic Cells. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, Withdrawn. MD; 01 May 1989. [Meyerhof 89] Meyerhof, W.E. (Stanford University); Huestis, D.L.; Lorents, D.C. (SRI International). Presentation: Analysis of 'Excess Power in Cold Fusion'. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Norman 89] Norman, E.B.; Sur, B.; Lesko, K.T.; Czer- winski, K.R.; Hall, H.L.; Anderson, R.A.; Hoffman, D.C. (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory). Presentation: Searches for Cold Fusion. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Rafelski 89] Rafelski, J. (University of Arizona-Tucson). Presentation: Cold Fusion: Can It Be True? A Theoretical Point of View.. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Salewicz 89] Salewicz, K.; Morgan III, J.D. (University of Delaware); Monkhorst, H.J. (University of Florida). Presentation: Fusion Rates for Hydrogen Isotopic Molecules of Relevance for Cold Fusion. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Seeliger 89] Seeliger, D.; Weisener, K.W.; Meister, A.; Ohms, D.; Rahner, D.; Schwierz, R.; Wustner, P. (Tech. University Dresden). Presentation: Search for D-D Fusion Neutrons. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Whaley 89] Whaley, K.B. (University of California- Berkeley). Presentation: Boson Screening of Deuterium in Metals. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. [Wilets 89] Wilets, L.; Alberg, M.; Rehr, J.J.; Mustre de Leon, J. (University of Washington). Presentation: Upper Limits to Fusion Rates of Isotopic Hydrogen Molecules at High Electron Density Interstitial Pd Sites. Special Session on Cold Fusion; Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society; Bal- timore, MD; 01 May 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Emmett J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345 blackje@crd.ge.com ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenblackje cudfnEmmett cudlnBlack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / William Johnson / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 5 May 89 23:31:03 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <2063@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, brooks@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Brooks) writes: > I`m working on obtaining some data on the Italian results and will try > to get this available ASAP. Is the Lewis neutron detector limit of > "100 neutrons/hr" an upper or lower bound? The preliminary data I > have (hearsay actually so far) has the Italians counting at max. > 200cnts/hour, or averaging ~70/hr for something like 10 or 15 hrs. If > Bill Johnson at LANL is reading this, could you please comment on > whether these numbers are reasonable. I should point out that the > alleged background cnts/hr = 2-3 (neutrons/hr). I am trusting a poor > memory on this, so these numbers may be wrong. What's this ... a fan!? :-) Lacking any kind of detailed information about the Italian neutron detectors, it is quite impossible to say whether these numbers are "reasonable" because there are so many different kinds of neutron detectors around. However, the "alleged background cnts/hr" looks a little fishy to me -- not VERY fishy, just a little bit. The neutron flux from cosmic rays, spontaneous fission of U-238 found in trace quantities in the environment, etc., is quite variable from one location to the next. The things that cause the variation are: first and foremost, elevation (the higher one is, the more neutrons produced by cosmic rays); second and less important, details of the local geology; and third, specific details of the environment of the counter, in some very non-obvious ways. The first two are easy to understand; the counter environment is not. Some of the things that come into play there are whether the counter is near a big, massive hunk of stuff (large chunks of matter create their own neutron field due to their being bombarded with cosmic rays), how close it is to walls (for neutrons to bounce off of and be reflected into the counter), and whether the hunk/walls are made largely of hydrogen (in which case any neutrons that happen along will not only bounce but be moderated, thus being easier to detect). All of these considerations, taken together, mean that background neutron flux -- which is not the same thing as counting rate -- is hard to estimate at a given location from first principles. Here in Los Alamos, which is both high (7,000') and in a uranium-rich neighborhood (naturally!) with lots of things for neutrons to reflect off of (mesas), the fluxes are typically about 0.01-0.1 neut/sec/cm**2. In most places the rate is less, maybe by an order of magnitude. Order-of-magnitude numbers are about the best that can be done. With this kind of background, even the simplest Bonner-ball-like detectors will typically see a neutron or two per minute; I have a rather similar detector (albeit with a larger active area) that sees a neutron every three seconds or so when it's sitting in my office. This detector would probably count a few neutrons per minute at sea level. More efficient detectors are not at all hard to come by, and I would be surprised if the Italian group was really relying on something as klunky and inefficient as a Bonner ball. If they were, however, their background rates would probably still be a bit higher than the number you report. A final technical note: the cosmic-ray neutrons can be reduced markedly by putting the experiment well underground. ("Markedly" = "by an order of magnitude or more.") I have no information on whether the Italians did this. As for whether the Italian finding is "reasonable": remember that to a nuclear physicist, *nothing* about cold fusion is "reasonable." I can only say that 200 counts/hour don't mean much to me unless it is CLEAR that the background rates are quite a bit lower than that (which, again, seems unlikely on the bases I mention above) ... but if they are, then the result is potentially pretty exciting. It would sure be nice to see somebody else achieve this result! -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Donald Benson / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 5 May 89 17:20:06 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino F&P claim the energy release by their cell was greater than the energy put in. Do they really mean that energy in ( I*V across the whole cell) is less than the chemical energy (measured, released hydrogen) + the thermal energy released? Or, as was alleged in the base note, do they mean that the temperature gradient indicates an heat flow into the surrounding bath greater then the electrical energy thought to be applied across the Pd electrode (not the whole cell!), and all hydrogen cracked from the water is assumed to be vented without re-combining and generating heat? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy5 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Rod McGuire / Power from the Antarctic Originally-From: mcguire@aerospace.aero.org (Rod McGuire) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Power from the Antarctic Date: 6 May 89 02:23:03 GMT Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA In article <20420023@hpcuhb.HP.COM> donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: >Would it be a low blow if the laws of physics granted F&P the cold >fusion they seek, but at temperatures so low the Carnot effiency wouldn't >let them extract enough electrical/mechanical energy to sustain the reaction? Since the efficiency of a sterling engine depends upon the temperature difference between its hot and cold ends, would it be a big a win to construct power stations in the Antarctic? How cold does it get there anyway? cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenmcguire cudfnRod cudlnMcGuire cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Ric Werme / Re: "Natural" Tritium Originally-From: werme@Alliant.COM (Ric Werme) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: "Natural" Tritium Date: 5 May 89 01:11:13 GMT Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA In article <3125@alliant.Alliant.COM> I wrote: >Since tritium's half life is 12.5 years, any natural tritium had to >have been created pretty recently, so where's it coming from? Well, if I had the sense and decency to have just gone home, I would have read in my encyclopedia: "Tritium occurs in very small concentration (one part per 10^18 parts of hydrogen) in atmospheric moisture, where it is formed by the disintegration of nitrogen by reaction with fast neutrons, protons, or mesons generated by cosmic rays. It has been estimated that the total amount of tritium present on earth is about two pounds." Natural tritium should be about one atom per 10^13 deuterium atoms. Even if deuterium extraction preferentially concetrates tritium, is this enough to be detected in a UU basement? -- | A pride of lions | Eric J Werme | | A gaggle of geese | uucp: decvax!linus!alliant | | An odd lot of programmers | Phone: 603-673-3993 | cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenwerme cudfnRic cudlnWerme cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Vincent Cate / Re: Idiotic Refutations Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Idiotic Refutations Date: 6 May 89 06:10:15 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Sean Casey, sean@ms.uky.edu writes: >I see science in the refuations that is just as bad as F&P. I see >scientists quoted at the talks as saying "They made this error and this >error and that's where the excess heat came from". This is a statement >just as erronous, because they haven't proved a thing. If anything, >it's worse, because they are the ones accusing others of incompetence. > ... >It really makes me sick to see important scientists with their attitude. >When I was growing up, I had a dream of scientists being benign seekers >of truth. I didn't see them as a bunch of arrogant assholes calling each >other incompetent. Welcome to reality. ******** > ... > > ... , I'd like to see all the hot winded scientists save our tax >dollars and shut up and let the burden of proof rest on F&P. First of all lets keep this kind of stuff off of sci.physics. Next, you seem to be doing a little hot winded name calling yourself. This is not helping things at all. Now, it does not seem like you (and many others) understand the real nature of what went on at APS. It was not just some physicists that could not reproduce the F/P experiment (although the press sees it this way). Several of the people at APS have been using various means to find out what exactly Pons did in his experiments. Then they figured out the mistakes in the way he did his measurements and calculations. This is what was so devastating. Lewis would ask people at Los Alamos questions and they would ask Pons. This is how they found out that Pons was not stirring the electrolyte. Lewis talked with the guy at U of Utah that did the He measurements. I forget how Lewis found out about Pons assuming the 0.5V but I remember Lewis saying something like, "Pons knows that I know that he assumed the 0.5V." They pointed out that the 2.2 MeV in Pons's paper matches exactly what you would get due to from Radon sources and is not what you would get from fusion. They also point out that a new cement building in Utah is going to have lots of Radon. They note that the levels of Radon differ from floor to ceiling and room to room and that measuring a background radiation 50 meters away from where the experiments are can easily explain the observed increase over background. What went on at APS was NOT bad science even though what you hear in the press or on the net may make it sound like that. -- Vince -- cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Chris Langford / A possible way to measure background neutrons? Originally-From: langford@reed.UUCP (Chris Langford) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: A possible way to measure background neutrons? Date: 5 May 89 16:17:35 GMT Organization: Eric & Jackie's Billiard Parlor In article <3471@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > >The debate over cold fusion, both on the net and off, is getting >excessively emotional. Let's try to get a little perspective. > > [some stuff deleted] > >People point out that neutrons >can be produced by radon and gammas by bismuth-214. Irrelevant: >they form part of the background. It is the production of neutrons >and gammas *above* the background level that is significant, as Jones >et al knew quite well. However, it has been noted that F & P measured their background 50 meters away from their experimental setup. The background there might be very different from the background at the test site. IMHO, the proper way to do the neutron experiment: 1) Pick a site that has not had a lot of experimentation done there. 2) Get a really good neutron detector, and take background for a while (several months, to check for fluctuations) 3) F & P took their background readings by moving the detector. I have heard that they didn't do the obvious experiment (turn the setup on... turn it off; Is there a difference?) because of the amount of time it takes to charge the sucker up. Here is a possible workaround. Bring in the experimental apparatus (on a wheeled cart, power supply and all). Take more background readings. 4) Start the sucker up, counting the whole time. 5) At some point in the experiment, (when you think there's something going on) roll the setup away from the neutron detector. Still counting, I hope. 6) Roll the experiment *back* to where it was before. Any change? There are obvious flaws to this design, but I have not been able to figure them out yet (e.g. does moving the experiment away cause a change in the neutron count just because it was somewhere else for a while? -or- D2O is known to emit neutrons due to cosmic ray interactions, is it possible that turning the apparatus on could cause the D2O to be more suceptible to this?) Maybe 2 neutron detectors; 1 next to the apparatus, and one next to the experimental site... These thoughts are the ramblings of a neurobiologist (from conversations with a very sharp physicist). I would like to hear any comments on this from anyone more qualified in nuclear physics than I. -- Chris Langford {backbone}!tektronix!reed!langford -or- langford@reed.bitnet "Life is full of surprises when you're up th' stream of consciousness without a paddle..." -Zippy the Pinhead- cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenlangford cudfnChris cudlnLangford cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / S BIALKOWSKI / On-line Information about fusion Originally-From: UF7047@CC.USU.EDU (STEPHEN BIALKOWSKI) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: On-line Information about fusion Subject: On-line Information about fusion Date: 5 May 89 21:58:00 GMT Posting-Version: USU; site USU Subject: On-line Information about fusion I have seen people go from praising the F/P experiment to personal remarks regarding scientific integrity over the past weeks. All of this has occurred because of some scientists who have not been able to reproduce the F/P results. There have been many requests for more accurate information. Certain people on the network seem to be getting upset over the lack of real information. Others have made themselves instant experts in the area and are passing judgement on those who have been expert for several year. I think that we should keep something in mind. The normal course of disclosing scientific information, one typically waits between six months to over a year between the time when a manuscript is submitted and it shows up in press. The computer network has clearly changed this somewhat. However, we do not have all of the information required to pass judgement. I'm sure that many scientists do not even know about this network. So when do we get to know about their data? After a second hand account transcribed from a technical session at a conference? Remember, a lot of these transcriptions have been by persons that could best be classified as reporters; not experts. In my opinion, the chatter on the net is good. It has not ceased to cause me to think about fusion in a different fashion. But let's not poke fun at the scientists who are really doing the work. Stephen Bialkowski Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Utah State University (No fusion here) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenUF7047 cudfnSTEPHEN cudlnBIALKOWSKI cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.20 / Herbert Kanner / Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Originally-From: kanner@Apple.COM (Herbert Kanner) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: local papers report on Pons news conference on 4/17/89 Date: 20 Apr 89 20:51:54 GMT Organization: Development Systems Group, Apple Computer In article <19819@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes: >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: >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 Stuff and nonsense. You are thinking of alpha particles. I remember irradiating red phosphorus in a chain reactor and chemically converting the elemental phosphorus to phosphoric acid. In order to get something like a quantitative transfer of the phosphoric acid from one vessel to another, I was monitoring the operation with a geiger counter. The beta particles, I discovered, would in noticeable quantity go right through the wall of a glass beaker. -- Herb Kanner Apple Computer, Inc. {idi,nsc}!apple!kanner kanner@apple.com cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenkanner cudfnHerbert cudlnKanner cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Jon Singer / Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Is Deuterium Movement Important? Date: 22 Apr 89 09:00:53 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In his recent message (1989Apr20.143800.14572@cs.rochester.edu), Paul Dietz inquires whether fusion from the motion of the deuterium might account for one report here that a piece of Palladium got red hot upon being removed from the (heavy?) water. (At least, that's how I read his posting.) I would guess that this is not necesary to explain the effect. The Pt-group elements are known for dissociating H2 on their surfaces. In fact, I believe that there are some commercial "flameless" heaters that have a thin coating of Pt on an element, and merely pass natural gas or propane across the element, whereupon the stuff burns in the air, and the element gets red hot. If that works, I doubt that we need to invoke anything special to make a Deuterium-saturated hunk of Pd get red hot. Cheers! jon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Under the spreading Basil bush | My loving sweetheart lies | mea culpa. Soon I will change Pesto vapor on her breath | _this_ message, as well. These And Parsley in her eyes. | things get old very quickly. | - jon singer | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Jon Singer / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 22 Apr 89 09:09:09 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In his recent posting, 8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU, Chris Phoenix says/asks, >Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit >massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. >1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. > What right do we have to do that? Chris seems not to realize something very important: Inasmuch as we built the bloody thing in the first place, which we didn't have 'the right' to do, I doubt we need to worry about whether we have the right to unbuild it. (It was people and their goats that built the Sahara, as far as I am aware. Somebody please tell me, if I'm wrong!) -jon PS: Some people with a nice radar (on a satellite?) claimed, about 3 years back, to have detected some interestingly rectangular things about a mile down, somewhere in the middle of the Sahara. It is not unreasonable to expect that underneath the sand are the remains of whatever stone dwellings were there before it became a desert. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.22 / Jon Singer / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 22 Apr 89 09:13:23 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In my previous posting, I committed a calumny upon Chris Phoenix, who appears to have been pointing out possible objections from others, rather than objecting himself. My apologies. Cheers! jon cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Mike Smith / Re: idle speculation Originally-From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: idle speculation Date: 25 Apr 89 23:06:56 GMT Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific Ca In article <2001@edsel> sjk@lucid.com (Shel Kaphan) writes: ... >. So will we end up pigging out on >energy to the point of depleting the oceans of deuterium? (Yes, I >know it might take a while, but if we all use 1000 or 1000000 times as >much energy as we do now, and we stay on the planet for a few hundreds >or thousands of years...) Take H2O, add neutrons (like from, say, fission or fusion reactions) and stir (stiring optional). Yield, among other things, D and T ... In short, you won't run out of D2O because you can make more from the waste neutrons and light water. -- E. Michael Smith ems@apple.COM 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war) cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenems cudfnMike cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Mike Smith / Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Originally-From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Milled vs. Cast Palladium Date: 29 Apr 89 01:47:47 GMT Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific Ca >>I have yet to find a place that even knows of a place that actually >>casts palladium. I would expect that any custom jewler who works platinum would be able to cast palladium ... -- E. Michael Smith ems@apple.COM 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war) cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenems cudfnMike cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.29 / Mike Smith / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 29 Apr 89 02:02:38 GMT Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific Ca In article <705400012@cdp> caulkins@cdp.UUCP writes: > >I've been talking again to my nuclear engineer friend. I asked >him if he saw any mechanism for using F/P type cold fusion for >producing bombs. ... >If cheap and/or easy cold fusion bombs with yields above a >kiloton become practical, the bad results of cold fusion are >all too likely to swamp the good ones. Why the kiloton limit? The big advantage that this type of energy source would have is small size an NO NUCLEAR RADIATION prior to activation. It would be ideal (assuming some mechanism actualy were found to make one go BOOM...) for equiping a small special forces team. One guy could carry several "100 lb bombs" worth of mini-nukes without leaving a nuclear signature all over the place... Gee ... Nuclear handgrenades ... 1/2 :-) -- E. Michael Smith ems@apple.COM 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war) cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenems cudfnMike cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Mike Pelt / Folklore, Urban Legends, and Koonin Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Folklore, Urban Legends, and Koonin Date: 7 May 89 00:51:39 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <23693@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pierce@cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes: >In article <355@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > << material omitted >> >>more fitting vengeance on Koonin -- Koonin may become enshrined >>in folklore along with the legendary patent office head who >>recommended closing the patent office in 1890 because everything >>that could be invented had already been invented, and the head >>of the Royal Society who said, 3 months before Sputnik, that >>space travel was "utter bilge". > >Unfortunately, I've lost the great posting, but earlier in alt.fusion >someone debunked the story about the patent office head. It would be >great if the original poster would try it again and see if we can't >make this the last time the story gets retold in this newsgroup. Someone else made the same point in Email, so maybe I should post my reply to him -- Quite true -- that's why I used the word "legendary". There's a similar problem with the guy who said that space travel was "bilge" -- the context was, a bunch of tabloid reporters were asking him his opinion about astrolgy, UFO's, and other assorted, well, bilge, and he was just responding "Rubbish", "Bilge", "Nonsense" to them all. I was thinking about addressing this, and saying "At least Koonin will richly deserve going down in history as an idiot, where the others didn't." but decided that was more than I wanted to get into, and those details weren't that important. There's a similar problem with another of my favorite statements, "That's (where "that" is some example of outstanding chutzpah) like Lizzie Bordon demanding the court's mercy because she is an orphan." "Everyone Knows" that "Lizzie Borden took an axe / gave her mother 40 whacks", but the fact is she was innocent. Not only found innocent by a jury, but she was under medication at the time that rendered her unable to get out of bed, much less hack two people to death with an axe. Ain't folklore wonderful? -- Mike Van Pelt "Hey, hey, ho ho, Video 7 Western culture's got to go." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp Stanford students and faculty. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Michael McClary / Re: posting from Forman, with a comment Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: posting from Forman, with a comment Date: 7 May 89 00:17:11 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <12763@ut-emx.uucp> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: > >Since Pons is shipping one of his working cells to LANL >I am sure that sensitive monitoring of neutron emissions will be >one of the first things that will be checked. Of course, it may or >may not be done "blind", but it will be done. But if Los Almos gets positive results, will they tell anyone with less than a Q clearance? cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Chris Phoenix / Heat produced vs. crater size Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Heat produced vs. crater size Date: 7 May 89 00:28:33 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. I was just thinking about the experiment that reported a 6.5 (?) degree rise in 1 second, and an X micron crater in the palladium. Someone posted, I think it was here, that the heat required to vaporize that much Pd wouldn't be enough to raise the temperature of the water that much. A crater that small would have a very high surface/volume ratio. So calculating the amount of heat required to vaporize that much palladium by itself is useless. Try this instead: The temperature rise was measured in one second, so it probably took a lot less time than that. Assume it happened almost instantly, say through some kind of coherence effect. Now, calculate how much deuterium would have to be fused to produce that much. Assume 1% of the D in the volume would fuse, and calculate the volume of the site the fusion took place (?). Now, assume that much energy was dumped into that much volume all at once, and calculate the size of the resulting crater. Now try changing the assumptions. It should be pretty easy to find a way to make the numbers come out right. This does *not* mean that fusion actually happened--what it does mean is that you can't refute this instance of it by just saying, "Well, the numbers don't work." Two thoughts: 1) A better objection, IMHO, is that the crater might have been there all along. Anyone volunteer to get hold of some palladium rods from the same source these guys did, and look for craters? 2) If this actually happened, it seems to contradict the assumption that you can't make a cold fusion bomb because the fusion would stop as soon as the Pd melted. A coherence effect could cause a significant part of the D to fuse before the lattice lost its structure. And then, if you got a hot enough plasma, just confine it and let hot fusion take over... -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy7 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Scot Wilcoxon / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 7 May 89 02:55:27 GMT Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN If an F&P type of watt-level reaction is possible in titanium, some "new" engineering problems may exist. A heavy-water leak in a titanium-hulled naval vessel (such as the Soviet sub which recently sank :-) could make the hull heat up. Hmm, I wonder how much titanium is used in heavy-water engineering... Maybe the liquid hydrogen-cooled titanium hypersonic plane should use light hydrogen only :-) Weapon? Connect a wire to a titanium-hulled sub and it might collect hydrogen, but not much deuterium. Of course, cycling the power might cause obnoxious outgassing of hydrogen within the null..but if one can connect a wire then a few hundred pounds of explosive are a more efficient weapon. {assuming F&P works...} -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudensewilco cudfnScot cudlnWilcoxon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Keith Lofstrom / fusion-related flames: please say so in title (flame) Originally-From: keithl@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: fusion-related flames: please say so in title (flame) Date: 7 May 89 03:28:52 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. Okay, physicists are nasty, chemists are inept, and net users like to argue. *Professional* net users put the word "flame" in the title when they are saying bad things about others, so those of us who don't like to watch pissing contests at 1200 baud can hit the "n" key. In a year we are going to know who's right about cold fusion. In the meantime, more light and less heat, please! For example, some physicist could tell us in English what determines the energy levels of an excited helium nucleus, and what corrections we could expect if it was in various parts of a metal lattice (right next to a Pd nucleus, for example). Talk *real slow*, like Feynman did in "Q.E.D.", (plug!) and we might learn something. Or, somebody could sneak into one of the labs where the P&F effect has been claimed, and tell us what they saw ("They were cheating! There was a perpetual motion generator hidden under the bench!"). I don't like the uncertainty and the waiting either. It would be nice if "the bad guys" did things differently, but nothing we do or say on the net is going to change that. Let's use all this expensive bandwidth for something educational, and not lots of "> > > ". -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenkeithl cudfnKeith cudlnLofstrom cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / ANDQC@CUNYVM.C / Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Originally-From: ANDQC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Date: 7 May 89 00:41:07 GMT Organization: The City University of New York - New York, NY As a sociologist I have found the discussion in ALT.Fusion fascinating from a number of perspectives: 1) It plainly shows that science operates on the basis of gossip, misinfor- mation, invective and ad hominum attacks like many other social insti- tutions. Especially when a pattern may be broken and many vested int- erests are at stake. 2) Whole professional societies, hearings, etc. have become the venue for statements when plainly no one really knows or understands what is going on. 3) Some phenomenon has occurred that is not well understood. Indeed, appa- ently it was reported upon previously (in the 1920s and the 1950s) and dismissed. 4) Many theories have been advanced to explain the phenomon. Some attrib- ute it to errors in experimental design or instrumentation. Others at- tribute it to various types of fusion. Others to some sort of chemical phenomenon. Unless some sort of critical experiments begin to get performed and publish- ed, I would guess that this confusion will continue for some time. So will the vehemence. This sounds just like debates that go on in the social sciences: e.g nature versus nurture; genetic nature of intelligence; material versus ideal causes of social action. It does seem to me that a slight amount of tolerance for the possibility that the massive investment in hot fusion (as well as in other "big science" projects) may not necessarily be leading science down the most efficient path to accomplish this or that goal is in order. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenANDQC cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Michael Frank / Re: Pons address on the net (was Re: COld Nuclear FUSSION ) Originally-From: bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pons address on the net (was Re: COld Nuclear FUSSION ) Date: 6 May 89 00:23:48 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1744@wasatch.utah.edu> ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu (Timothy K Reynolds) writes: > ... Last time I checked (ca. 2 weeks ago) Pons' address was: > pons@chemistry.utah.edu I'm been fingering him regularly. He hasn't logged on since April 28, and he has "no new mail" - probably it's being forwarded somewhere else. Maybe we netters should mail a kind request to him to reassure our APS-engendered doubts about fusion with a post or two. -- Michael Frank "The Ear-God" AI:Amiga:Fencing:Swimming:Star Trek:Pink Floyd: bugboy@portia.stanford.edu Nanotechnology:Juggling:Belching from 1 to ten: Box 6536, Stanford CA 94309 Saving the Universe on odd Thursdays:Breathing: (415) EAR-0-GOD "I listen." Contemplating Reality:Extremely Single:Sunrises cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenbugboy cudfnMichael cudlnFrank cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Dave Spain / Re: Cold fusion R.I.P. Originally-From: spain@Alliant.COM (Dave Spain) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion R.I.P. Date: 6 May 89 03:07:10 GMT Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA In article <4902@pt.cs.cmu.edu> agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu (Andreas Nowatzyk) writes: > [...] >For example: Lewis reconstructed the F&P&H (Hawkins was usually mentioned) >cell, ran it to see if the bubbles could possibly produce enough convection >to overcome the heat gradient: no way. He also digged out a 1958 paper on >"Electrochemical Calorimetry" by an NBS researcher (J.M.Sh????) that describes >the problems with an open system such as P&F&H used. > [...] I'm a little confused on this point. When Lewis referrs to "bubbles" does he mean those that naturally occur in an electrolytic cell or does that also include the D2 gas sparging that was mentioned in the F&P paper? [This point has been raised in a previous response and as of this posting has not been answered at my site, but is important enough to deserve an answer] >Before you comment on this, get some real information! The APS session >was video-taped and the tape will become available from the New York >office of the American Physical Society for $100. It probably contains >more information than will end up in the papers because of the Q&A sessions. > For me Usenet is a work freebee, and if I can get this question answered without having to shell out $100 so much the better ;-> Dave Spain cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenspain cudfnDave cudlnSpain cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Robert Shull / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 5 May 89 18:38:30 GMT Organization: University of Oklahoma, ECN In article <8133@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> jhh@pupthy.PRINCETON.EDU (Jim Horne) writes: >In article <3125@uokmax.UUCP> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: >>Scorn and derision (especially in a public interview) are not appropriate >>(or professional) responses. >What's wrong with scorn and derision? If a reporter asked you about >someone's claimed to have been abducted by a UFO manned by deformed >Elvis clones on strawberry sundae diets, would you call the abductee a >crackpot, or would you pretend you were from the government, and say >you can't make a decision until all the facts are in. Scorn and derision >are very appropriate responses. > Nope, I disagree, even in that extreme of a case. If I couldn't come up with a rational non-foaming-at-the-mouth comment (and I don't know where I'd start with the above situation) I'd probably just shut up. I certainly don't see that it's necessary for a scientist to consent to every interview that's requested or answer every question that's asked. If it were another scientist making the claim, there are better places than the public media. All these interviews have accomplished is to add to the public's perception that "scientists can't even agree among themselves, how could they possibly be right." By the way, I'm not talking about the conference proceedings, which I haven't seen. I'm talking about the rather ludicrous interviews shown on TV or published in the paper. Reminds me a lot of alt.flame. It all boiled down to "it isn't so, because I say it isn't." By the way, I'm sure there are any number of situations which are self-evidently false or contradictory. Was it really necessary to come up with such a stupid example? Or are you trying to say that the whole concept of "cold fusion" was so obviously ludicrous that any scientist could make up their mind instantly? If so, why did ANYONE bother to try and repeat the experiment? What makes such attempts any less ridiculous than the P&F attempt? Why not just a straight-out comment of "such a thing could not possibly exist, therefore there's no reason to waste our time?" >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Jim Horne A quote? I'm supposed to have a quote? >jhh@pupthy.Princeton.EDU > -- Robert K. Shull sun!texsun!uokmax!rob cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenrob cudfnRobert cudlnShull cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 6 May 89 10:50:00 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Dave Mack wrote: > > The thermal conductivity of heavy water is within 3-4 % of that of > normal water in the relevant temperature range (20 - 40 C), so the > heat transfer through conduction should be similar. I don't have > any figures on the viscosity of heavy water, but I'd be surprised if > it's very different from that of H2O. The density of D2O is about 10% > greater. Even so, I would expect that the convection characteristics > would be similar. Convection would happen only if the liquid were heated from below. I suppose that in an F&P cell the current flow, and hence the resitive heating, will be somewhat higher at the top than at the bottom. The resulting temperature distribution will not cause convection, and in fact will make the liquid a lot harder to stir. > And it seems likely that the addition of LiO{H,D} would tend to > mask rather than enhance the differences between the two > solutions. Since theories are cheap... ...I would guess that a heavy water electrolyte has higher resistivity than a light water one with same concentration. Also, if the current in the saturated palladium electrode is indeed carried by hydrogen ions, I would guess that a D-saturated electrode has a much higher resistance (2x?) than an H-saturated one. If these guesses are true, and the voltages are adjusted to get the same current through both cells (or the cells are connected in series), then the D2O cell should indeed dissipate more electrical power than the H2O control. Jorge Stolfi Department of Cold Confusion DEC Systems Research Center stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / James_J_Kowalc / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 6 May 89 09:27:17 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >If you still wish to excuse P & F, consider this: at ANY TIME in the >last month they could have submitted a "used" cathode for analysis >for trapped helium. That they did not says something about their >confidence that it would pass the test. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu Yes, this is a very good idea. I understand they will do just this next week with Los Alamos. The delay is due to the patent lawyers (unfortunately). The word I have is that Pons has been told by the patent people to give out even fewer details unless cleared by them. This is not how science is normally done in Universities, but it is not uncommon in industry, and since Pons & Fleischmann are not getting funding through the normal academic channels, they can afford to do it. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / James_J_Kowalc / Re: Question on the first F&P experiments Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Question on the first F&P experiments Date: 6 May 89 09:44:41 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) writes: >Have Fleischmann and Pons stated anywhere how many different experiments >they did (4 to 5 years ago?) before they obtained their first "success"? Pons was quoted recently in the Deseret News (local newspaper in SLC) as saying that until all the recent failures around the country had led him to deduce the connection between cast Pd and success, and milled Pd and failure, many of their attempts would also mysteriously fail to generate excess heat. Now, he says, they can get working cells about "90% of the time". From what I heard, most of their early attempts were unsuccessful, yet promising enough for them to continue. I heard that they did not get a truly working cell until late in 1988. In other words, it took them approximately 4 years to succeed. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Dave Mack / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 6 May 89 00:39:42 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems In article <314@eplrx7.UUCP> wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) writes: [Jones:] > ground measurements. Jones also distanced himself from the excess > energy claims of P&F. The questions after his talk challenged him on > the statistical significance of his neutron measurements. With what outcome? Did he defend his methodology? Successfully? The Jones, Palmer et al paper represents the most important piece of evidence for cold fusion that I've seen so far. They report neutron signals which correlate with activity in their cells: D2O electrolyte, current on, eight cells: 5 sigma signal D2O electrolyte, current on, four cells: reduced count rate D2O electrolyte, current off: no signal H2O electrolyte, current on: no signal [Koonin:] [Koonin defends current theory] Koonin has shown that he does not have a theoretical explanation of for cold fusion. Big deal. > Koonin complained that "we have suffered enough from the delusions and > incompetence of Pons and Fleischmann". Hell hath no fury like a theorist whose theory is threatened. I wonder if F&P are considering a slander suit? This statement certainly sounds like grounds. And they have it on videotape. Marvelously professional behavior. > Discussions with Hagelstein at > MIT had convinced Hagelstein that his "optical phonon" mechanism is > wrong. Does this mean that Hagelstein is joining the electrochemist bashers, or just that he has to revise his theory? Can anyone at MIT confirm this? [Lewis:] [2.204 MeV neutrons from Bi-214] [He-4 a factor of 10 too high - might be from the lab] [Sparging may not have produced enough mixing] [Recombination of D2 and O2 may have been occurring in the cell.] [F&P may have made an invalid assumption about the effective voltage.] What the CalTech group did was make a number of assumptions about the U of U environment, the materials used, and the cell geometry. Based on these guesses, they attempted to reconstruct the F&P experiment. It didn't work. Of course, there is no possibility that any of their assumptions were wrong. Therefore, F&P and Walling must have made not one or two, but *all*, of these systematic errors. I wonder how they'll explain the Jones results? Weak interaction fairies turning off the Bi-214 decay while the researchers had regular water in the cells? I am not trying to defend the way F&P have hoarded information, but this is too important to dump on the basis of a few attempts to duplicate the experiment with incomplete information. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy6 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Victor Roberts / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: roberts@luxor.steinmetz (Victor D Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 6 May 89 14:19:05 GMT Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY In article <440@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) writes: >I always felt that physcists (like all scientists) were, or at least should >be, careful to give their colleagues the benefit of the doubt on any >scientific claim that their colleagues might make until after the verdict >was in. I agree with this. > >Meanwhile at the American Physical Society conference in Baltimore last night, >Caltech physicists claimed that they had repeated the F&P experiment, saw no >neutrons, did not say they saw heat (apparently because like all of the efforts >by physicists since the F&P announcement, they have not performed any >calorimetry), but did say they could explain away any heat that F&P did see >without resorting to fusion as an explanation. According to the Los Angeles >Times, "cheers" were heard as the physicists in the room obviously took the >announcement to be proof that F&P are wrong. > >Cheers were heard indeed! This kind of behavior is ridiculous. I have been >appalled by the sporadic childish behavior of physicists since the original >F&P announcement, and things seem to be getting worse instead of better. >I personally think that physicists should *keep their mouths shut* when it >comes to saying that F&P results are "impossible" until all the pertinent >facts are known. I personally think that announcing the absence of results >as either de facto proof that F&P are wrong "like we thought all along", or as >attempts to belittle and ridicule F&P ahould be curtailed immediately. As for >the latest tactic of calling them liars, well that doesn't even deserve a >response. > I was at the APS meeting Monday night. What I heard most of the speakers say was that USING THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEM THEY HAD REPLICATED THE THE FLEISCHMANN AND PONS EXPERIMENTS AND HAD BEEN UNABLE TO REPRODUCE THEIR RESULTS. Most of the physicists are ANGRY that F&P have HIDDEN CRITICAL DETAILS of the experiments from the scientific community, while claiming in their press coferences that this is SO EASY that it can be done with equipment found in any chemistry lab. If the trick is cast palladium, this fact was certainly NOT revealed in any of the early F&P press conferences, nor in their one paper. Also, I doubt that the "typical" chemistry lab would have just the right type of cast palladium. I heard VERY FEW physicists say it COULD NOT BE DONE -EVER. I did hear many say it could not be done according to the information provided to date by F&P. Vic Roberts GE Research and Development Center, Schenectady, NY roberts@crd.ge.com cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenroberts cudfnVictor cudlnRoberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Paul Dietz / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 6 May 89 15:08:44 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <3483@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >The Jones, Palmer et al paper represents the most important piece >of evidence for cold fusion that I've seen so far. They report >neutron signals which correlate with activity in their cells: > > D2O electrolyte, current on, eight cells: 5 sigma signal > D2O electrolyte, current on, four cells: reduced count rate > D2O electrolyte, current off: no signal > H2O electrolyte, current on: no signal Jones et. al. saw orders of magnitude fewer neutrons than F&P claim to have seen. Jones et. al. do not claim to have seen excess heat production. The most unbelievable part of the Utah Fusion Circus is some magical means to get fusion without lots of radiation. Jones publically derides the F&P claims. >[Koonin:] >[Koonin defends current theory] >Koonin has shown that he does not have a theoretical explanation of >for cold fusion. Big deal. Lots of physicists have looked at this. No one has an idea of how radiation output from d+d fusion can be suppressed by >= 9 orders of magnitude, and there are excellent reasons to believe that no such theory is possible, as others have outlined in this group. P&F, on the other hand, have demonstrated in their experimental technique their ignorance of nuclear physics. I'd believe Koonin. >> Koonin complained that "we have suffered enough from the delusions and >> incompetence of Pons and Fleischmann". > >Hell hath no fury like a theorist whose theory is threatened. I wonder >if F&P are considering a slander suit? This statement certainly sounds like >grounds. And they have it on videotape. Ah, science by lawsuit. The free exchange of ideas in the late 1980's. >Marvelously professional behavior. Unlike F&P? But, I forgot, F&P are the "good guys". I also deny that Koonin's behavior is unprofessional. Criticism is central to science. We rarely see this level of public criticism, but then, it is rarely as warranted. >[Lewis:] >[2.204 MeV neutrons from Bi-214] Actually, 2.204 gammas from Bi-214, being confused for 2.224 MeV gammas from neutron capture on hydrogen. >[He-4 a factor of 10 too high - might be from the lab] This is an internal inconsistency in the Utah results, so it is independent of CalTech's attempts at reproduction. Note also, that one cannot assume that the air in the chemistry lab has the same helium level as average air, since there may be present in the building an NMR machine that uses helium-cooled superconducting magnets. The helium continuously boils off, contaminating the air. >[Sparging may not have produced enough mixing] >[Recombination of D2 and O2 may have been occurring in the cell.] >[F&P may have made an invalid assumption about the effective voltage.] > >What the CalTech group did was make a number of assumptions about >the U of U environment, the materials used, and the cell geometry. >Based on these guesses, they attempted to reconstruct the F&P >experiment. It didn't work. Of course, there is no possibility >that any of their assumptions were wrong. Therefore, F&P and Walling >must have made not one or two, but *all*, of these systematic errors. It is so *convenient* that any negative results can be explained away. In the future, scientific results should be announced without sufficient detail so that failures to replicate them can be dismissed, allowing the scientists to not waste time satisfying their colleagues and instead get on with the important job of lobbying congress. >I wonder how they'll explain the Jones results? Weak interaction >fairies turning off the Bi-214 decay while the researchers had >regular water in the cells? Jones' detector is different from P&F's (novel suggestion: read the paper). Jones might be right even if F&P are wrong. Jones does not claim that some fantasy-land fusion mechanism that makes almost no detectable radiation is occuring. >I am not trying to defend the way F&P have hoarded information, but >this is too important to dump on the basis of a few attempts to >duplicate the experiment with incomplete information. Ah, the will to believe. Taken as a whole, the F&P claim stinks to high heaven. It is literally unsupported by the evidence. It requires multiple extraordinary things to be happening -- watt-level fusion (coincidently, the purported fusion output is of the same order as the input power; there is no reason a priori why fusion should not produce (say) 1000x less or more power), some novel fusion mechanism that (how conveniently!) makes the fusion undetectable to people competent to measure radiation, and some mysterious skill that F&P, but few others, have. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which F&P have not provided. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy6 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / TOM BETZ / Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Originally-From: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Date: 6 May 89 13:08:53 GMT Organization: Greyston Business Services, Inc. Now that alt.fusion has found its way to dasys1 (Denks Gott!) I can ask this question: Can someone here (or several someones) assemble a fairly authoritative scorecard of who where has announced or is working on what regarding catalyzed fusion in a terse (3 or 4 lines) format? With (preferably) references for further reading about each... I have running around my brain about twenty or so sites around the world who have publicly stated that they have/haven't produced fusion/not_fusion/not_sure_what_it_is in a can. Can someone more in touch with the scene provide the rest of us with a scorecard? Thanks. -- "Tell me, is this Heaven?" | Tom Betz, 114 Woodworth "No, it's Iowa." | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 | (914) 375-1510 "Iowa... I could have >sworn< it was Heaven." | cmcl2!hombre!dasys1!tbetz cudkeys: cuddy6 cudentbetz cudfnTOM cudlnBETZ cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / bass randale / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 6 May 89 14:02:06 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <13723@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: > >Convection would happen only if the liquid were heated from below. >I suppose that in an F&P cell the current flow, and hence the resitive >heating, will be somewhat higher at the top than at the bottom. >The resulting temperature distribution will not cause >convection, and in fact will make the liquid a lot harder to stir. > Not true. There is a significant amount of gas generated in the cell (especially at high current density). Convection is driven by stokes drag on the bubbles and by displacement effects. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Mike Pelt / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 6 May 89 18:33:29 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <3483@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >In article <314@eplrx7.UUCP> wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) writes: >> Koonin complained that "we have suffered enough from the delusions and >> incompetence of Pons and Fleischmann". > >Hell hath no fury like a theorist whose theory is threatened. I wonder >if F&P are considering a slander suit? This statement certainly sounds like >grounds. And they have it on videotape. Assuming that cold fusion is real, then P&F may wreak a far more fitting vengeance on Koonin -- Koonin may become enshrined in folklore along with the legendary patent office head who recommended closing the patent office in 1890 because everything that could be invented had already been invented, and the head of the Royal Society who said, 3 months before Sputnik, that space travel was "utter bilge". If so, Koonin will richly deserve having his name become a synonym for narrow-minded bureacratic fool. Whether cold fusion is real or not, Koonin has no grounds for such a statement, and I really hope it comes back to haunt him. -- "Ain't nothin' in the middle Mike Van Pelt o' the road, 'cept a yellow Video 7 line and dead 'possums." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.04.25 / Dave Coughran / South Pole Weekly News Originally-From: drc@CSUStan.EDU (Dave Coughran) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Power from the Antarctic Subject: South Pole Weekly News Date: 6 May 89 16:51:09 GMT Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 13:32:56 GMT Organization: Calif. State Univ., Stanislaus, Turlock, Ca In article <50823@aerospace.AERO.ORG> mcguire@aerospace.aero.org (Rod McGuire) writes: > [in part] >Since the efficiency of a sterling engine depends upon the temperature >difference between its hot and cold ends, would it be a big a win to >construct power stations in the Antarctic? How cold does it get there >anyway? This is a recent weather report from the South Pole. Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 13:32:56 GMT Subject: South Pole Weekly News SUBJ: WEEKLY STATION SITREP NR 25 (16 - 22 APR 89) 2A. METEOROLOGY REPORT FOR PERIOD APRIL 15TH THRU APRIL 21ST. CLEAR SKIES AND BELOW NORMAL TEMPERATURES CONTINUE AT SOUTH POLE. NUMERICAL DATA. TEMPERATURES...MAXIMUM MINUS 57.0 DEG C. MINIMUM MINUS 72.0 DEG C. AVERAGE MINUS 67.3 DEG C. AVERAGE NOONTIME TEMP: MINUS 68.5 DEG C. (-91 DEG F) WIND... MAXIMUM 23 KTS ON 15TH AND 20TH. AVERAGE 10.3 KTS..AVERAGE VECTORED WIND FROM 100.6 DEG AT 10.1 KTS. PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION (GRID) EAST. AVERAGE CLOUD COVER 1.4 TENTHS. PRESSURES...MAXIMUM 684.5 MB..MINIMUM 670.9 MB.. AVERAGE 677.4 MB. ONE SOUNDINGS MISSED DUE TO FLIGHT EQUIPTMENT FAILURE. AVERAGE HEIGHT OF SOUNDINGS: 120 MB OR 52,046 FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL. HIGHEST FLIGHT ON THE 18TH.. 29 MB OR 74,359 FT. I hope you find this interesting. David Coughran {ames|uunet}!lll-winken!koko!drc cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendrc cudfnDave cudlnCoughran cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Brad Pierce / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 6 May 89 20:26:58 GMT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <355@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: << material omitted >> >Assuming that cold fusion is real, then P&F may wreak a far >more fitting vengeance on Koonin -- Koonin may become enshrined >in folklore along with the legendary patent office head who >recommended closing the patent office in 1890 because everything >that could be invented had already been invented, and the head >of the Royal Society who said, 3 months before Sputnik, that >space travel was "utter bilge". Unfortunately, I've lost the great posting, but earlier in alt.fusion someone debunked the story about the patent office head. It would be great if the original poster would try it again and see if we can't make this the last time the story gets retold in this newsgroup. -- Brad cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenpierce cudfnBrad cudlnPierce cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Woody Kellum / Cast-Pd "secret" Originally-From: offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (Woody Kellum) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cast-Pd "secret" Date: 6 May 89 04:00:00 GMT Organization: University of Michigan EECS The cast-Pd/success relation was not known to F&P at the time of their early press conferences. Pons hypothesized this relation from the results of the experiments that followed those press conferences. My source for this information is messsage <18027@cup.portal.com> from Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu (Jim Kowalczyk) who writes: >Pons was quoted recently in the Deseret News (local newspaper in SLC) >as saying that until all the recent failures around the country had >led him to deduce the connection between cast Pd and success, and milled >Pd and failure, many of their attempts would also mysteriously fail >to generate excess heat. Now, he says, they can get working cells >about "90% of the time". ... Dan Offutt offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenoffutt cudfnWoody cudlnKellum cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.06 / Woody Kellum / Cast-Pd "secret" Originally-From: offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (Woody Kellum) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cast-Pd "secret" Date: 6 May 89 04:00:00 GMT Organization: University of Michigan EECS The cast-Pd/success relation was not known to F&P at the time of their early press conferences. Pons hypothesized this relation from the results of the experiments that followed those press conferences. My source for this information is messsage <18027@cup.portal.com> from Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu (Jim Kowalczyk) who writes: >Pons was quoted recently in the Deseret News (local newspaper in SLC) >as saying that until all the recent failures around the country had >led him to deduce the connection between cast Pd and success, and milled >Pd and failure, many of their attempts would also mysteriously fail >to generate excess heat. Now, he says, they can get working cells >about "90% of the time". ... Dan Offutt offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenoffutt cudfnWoody cudlnKellum cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / James_J_Kowalc / Latest Quotes of Pons in SLC Press Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Latest Quotes of Pons in SLC Press Date: 7 May 89 23:12:36 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) The following are excerpts from the Deseret News, Sunday, May 7, 1989. The Article is entitled "U. Scientists await their 'day in court'" and was written by JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells. I am posting these portions of the article without permission. ...[introductory paragraphs skipped] Before an audience of their peers -- at the Electrochemical Society's biannual meeting in Los Angeles on Monday -- Pons and Fleischmann will have their turn in "court." And both men seem confident their evidence will vindicate their astounding claims: solid-state fusion in a test tube at room temperature. "We are going to present new results that exhibit very large amounts of excess heat," Pons told the Deseret News Saturday. In short the chemists will give a thorough, clean analysis of the thermal portion of the experiment that continues to cause a worldwide scientific sensation. ...[portions about the nature of fusion skipped] "We can't make people believe it, but we can tell them how we are analyzing the data. We can tell them what our measurements are." Pons said he and Fleischmann will give electrochemists the recipe for their energy source -- hopefully eliminating the fusion confusion that has plagued scientists burning the midnight oil in hopes of duplicating the experiment. "We are going to supply all the possible information that we can," he said. "People evidently are misunderstanding a lot about calorimetry (heat measurement). A lot of people are making calorimetric measurements that may not suitable for these experiments." [sic] Pons has repeatedly cautioned that some labs have been in too big a hurry to get confirmations. "Some of the experiments we show have been accumulated over very long periods of time," he explained. "I still think that a lot of the calorimetry problems have occured because people simply haven't taken long enough to do them -- or they have not considered all of the factors involved in a calorimetric experiment of this kind. People who carefully consider all of the various paths of heat transport in their devices do indeed observe excess energy liberation." The thermodynamic duo Monday will give scientists more evidence, more theory, more experimental procedures. Other witnesses will also give their proof of the validity of the Utah research. Teams from Texas A & M, Stanford University, and Case Western University, who have publicly announced confirmation of the Pons/Fleischmann experiment, will testify. Others, too, are expected to announce successful replication. There will also likely be critics, who have become Pons' and Fleischmann's constant companions. "We have had abundant criticism, as you might know," said the U. chemist, who can still joke in the face of hypercriticism -- primarily from physicists who've been having a good laugh in recent weeks at the expense of the researchers, the U. and the state of Utah. "Fantastic, no problem," Pons quipped. "Criticism doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that these people are not doing the science. They are philosophizing, using a physical theory, parts of which may be totally wrong." Asks Pons: "Pray, where are their data? We are presenting ours. Why don't they publish their experimental procedures so we can see what they are doing to disprove our work. It is very easy to pontificate and to say someone's data is wrong; proving it is another matter." Pons said he and Fleischmann haven't seen anyone disprove their data. "If they do, we will certainly admit it; if they don't, they will have to stand corrected," he said. "Science will choose. Votes taken by the American Physical Society (where a panel of physicists last week voted that the U. experiment was not valid) are meaningless. How do votes change science?" ...[end of excerpts] I am posting this mainly because of the quotes by Pons, for the benefit of net readers not in the Salt Lake City area who might not be seeing quotes by him in the press on a regular basis. Any typos not indicated are likely mine. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Daniel Wilson / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: danw@tekchips.LABS.TEK.COM (Daniel E. Wilson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 8 May 89 04:18:29 GMT In article <1598@internal.Apple.COM>, ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes: > In article <705400012@cdp> caulkins@cdp.UUCP writes: > > > >I've been talking again to my nuclear engineer friend. I asked > >him if he saw any mechanism for using F/P type cold fusion for > >producing bombs. Now for your amusement someone would like to make yet another type of bomb. Just what the world needs, another way to get nuked. Dan Wilson cudkeys: cuddy8 cudendanw cudfnDaniel cudlnWilson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Paul Dietz / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 8 May 89 12:29:30 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <3495@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >>Lots of physicists have looked at this. No one has an idea of how >>radiation output from d+d fusion can be suppressed by >= 9 orders of >>magnitude, and there are excellent reasons to believe that no such >>theory is possible, as others have outlined in this group. >Take a look at the papers by Horowitz and by Koonin and Nauenberg. >Both come to the conclusion that the dominant reaction should be >D + p --> He-3 + gamma + 5.49 MeV or He-3 + e-e+ + 4.5 MeV. I've read those papers. The p+d reaction can also be ruled out as explaining the F&P results. One watt of 5.5 MeV photons is over a trillion photons per second. Not only would this have been detected, it would have been a serious health hazard. >To the best of my knowledge, none of the groups >trying to reproduce the F&P experiment have looked for either X-rays >or 0.511 MeV gammas. Many labs have used gamma spectrometers that have no problem detecting .511 MeV photons. F&P's NaI detetor could also see .511 MeV photons; too bad they didn't publish the full spectrum. U. of Florida looked for X-rays -- nothing. That's not totally convincing, since they are only one lab, but I'm not losing sleep. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy8 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Dave Mack / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 7 May 89 20:44:09 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems In article <1989May6.110844.23592@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <3483@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > >>The Jones, Palmer et al paper represents the most important piece >>of evidence for cold fusion that I've seen so far. They report >>neutron signals which correlate with activity in their cells: >> >> D2O electrolyte, current on, eight cells: 5 sigma signal >> D2O electrolyte, current on, four cells: reduced count rate >> D2O electrolyte, current off: no signal >> H2O electrolyte, current on: no signal > >Jones et. al. saw orders of magnitude fewer neutrons than F&P >claim to have seen. The neutron measurements by F&P are by far the weakest part of their work. This is however not relevant. If you accept the Jones et al work, then cold fusion is indeed occurring. >Jones et. al. do not claim to have seen excess heat production. The >most unbelievable part of the Utah Fusion Circus is some magical means >to get fusion without lots of radiation. Jones et al did not do calorimetric measurements, so this means nothing. Consider also that Jones was using much smaller and differently prepared cathode materials, as well as a different electrolyte. F&P claim that energy production from cold fusion is a volume, not a surface effect. Their cathodes ( 4 mm by 10 cm ) have about six times the volume of the largest palladium cathode Jones used. >Jones publically derides the F&P claims. "Derides"? He doesn't believe that they're getting the energy output they claim. "Derides" is an emotionally charged word. Jones has been one of the calmest of the people in this whole debate. He is being cautious, which is quite appropriate at this point. >>[Koonin:] >>[Koonin defends current theory] >>Koonin has shown that he does not have a theoretical explanation of >>for cold fusion. Big deal. > >Lots of physicists have looked at this. No one has an idea of how >radiation output from d+d fusion can be suppressed by >= 9 orders of >magnitude, and there are excellent reasons to believe that no such >theory is possible, as others have outlined in this group. P&F, on >the other hand, have demonstrated in their experimental technique >their ignorance of nuclear physics. I'd believe Koonin. Take a look at the papers by Horowitz and by Koonin and Nauenberg. Both come to the conclusion that the dominant reaction should be D + p --> He-3 + gamma + 5.49 MeV or He-3 + e-e+ + 4.5 MeV. No neutrons. The neutron producing path may be a very minor part of energy production in this process. So the question is, what should we expect to see? If Horowitz is right, the electron-positron emission branch should be favored, and there should be a sharp peak in gamma emission at 0.511 MeV due to electron-positron annihilation. There should also be some X-ray emission from "thermalized" electrons leaving the lattice. To the best of my knowledge, none of the groups trying to reproduce the F&P experiment have looked for either X-rays or 0.511 MeV gammas. What we *should* see is He-3. If nobody finds any, then we have a big problem. >>> Koonin complained that "we have suffered enough from the delusions and >>> incompetence of Pons and Fleischmann". >> >>Hell hath no fury like a theorist whose theory is threatened. I wonder >>if F&P are considering a slander suit? This statement certainly sounds like >>grounds. And they have it on videotape. > >Ah, science by lawsuit. The free exchange of ideas in the late 1980's. Somewhat unlikely, as F&P would then have to prove that Koonin is incorrect, which would probably mean revealing everything they've done to court-appointed experts. >>Marvelously professional behavior. > >Unlike F&P? But, I forgot, F&P are the "good guys". No, sadly, F&P's behavior has been far from professional. This appears to be only partly their fault - they are constrained by U of U's policies. Patent fever. Remember, they spoke quite freely about this to Scaramuzzi before the University told them to shut up. >I also deny that Koonin's behavior is unprofessional. Criticism >is central to science. We rarely see this level of public criticism, >but then, it is rarely as warranted. Criticism consists of pointing out errors in assumptions, methods and calculations. It does not consist of character assassination. Calling someone "deluded" and "incompetent" is not criticism, it is insult and slander. Koonin's behavior is beneath contempt. >>[Lewis:] >>[2.204 MeV neutrons from Bi-214] > >Actually, 2.204 gammas from Bi-214, being confused for 2.224 MeV >gammas from neutron capture on hydrogen. Right, thank you. >>[He-4 a factor of 10 too high - might be from the lab] > >This is an internal inconsistency in the Utah results, so it is >independent of CalTech's attempts at reproduction. Note also, that >one cannot assume that the air in the chemistry lab has the same >helium level as average air, since there may be present in the >building an NMR machine that uses helium-cooled superconducting >magnets. The helium continuously boils off, contaminating the air. A possible source of systematic error. This will be meaningful when somebody actually measures the He level in the relevant labs. Of course, if Horowitz is correct, it isn't the He-4 but the He-3 level which is important. >>[Sparging may not have produced enough mixing] >>[Recombination of D2 and O2 may have been occurring in the cell.] >>[F&P may have made an invalid assumption about the effective voltage.] >> >>What the CalTech group did was make a number of assumptions about >>the U of U environment, the materials used, and the cell geometry. >>Based on these guesses, they attempted to reconstruct the F&P >>experiment. It didn't work. Of course, there is no possibility >>that any of their assumptions were wrong. Therefore, F&P and Walling >>must have made not one or two, but *all*, of these systematic errors. > >It is so *convenient* that any negative results can be explained away. >In the future, scientific results should be announced without >sufficient detail so that failures to replicate them can be dismissed, >allowing the scientists to not waste time satisfying their colleagues >and instead get on with the important job of lobbying congress. Paul, could you please try to distinguish between the physical processes being investigated and the behavior of the investigators? No one except F&P knows exactly what they did. Until they give us the whole story, all attempts at replication of their process will be suspect. What the CalTech group proved was that it is nontrivial to reproduce the F&P results. It is possible that the CalTech group is correct in every respect, that F&P *did* make all these mistakes, and that their excess heat is indeed an illusion. But it will be impossible to be sure of this until F&P open up and give all the details of what they did. >>I wonder how they'll explain the Jones results? Weak interaction >>fairies turning off the Bi-214 decay while the researchers had >>regular water in the cells? > >Jones' detector is different from P&F's (novel suggestion: read the >paper). I have. Several times. And if you'd bothered to read what I wrote earlier, you might have understood this comment. I said that I thought the Jones results were the strongest evidence seen so far for cold fusion. What bothers me is that we have all these groups at the APS slamming F&P, and presenting results which indicate very strongly that cold fusion is not occurring *at all*, but no one is going after Jones with hammer and tongs, even though his results directly contradict the CalTech results. Why? Because Jones has been a good boy, he has played by the rules. To be consistent, they should be claiming that Jones made some sort of systematic errors which somehow explain the results he got. They aren't. > Jones might be right even if F&P are wrong. Jones does not >claim that some fantasy-land fusion mechanism that makes almost no >detectable radiation is occuring. And both Jones and F&P might be right. Jones didn't do the same experiment F&P did. To quote both Jones and Rafelski, "we are seeing new physics here." The CalTech group is basically saying that you can't get the kind of energy output F&P are claiming based on our current understanding of the physics involved. Of course, you can't explain Jones' results with our current understanding either. It is inconsistent to discard the F&P results and not the Jones results until a clearer picture of the physical mechanisms involved is available. >>I am not trying to defend the way F&P have hoarded information, but >>this is too important to dump on the basis of a few attempts to >>duplicate the experiment with incomplete information. > >Ah, the will to believe. Taken as a whole, the F&P claim stinks to >high heaven. It is literally unsupported by the evidence. It >requires multiple extraordinary things to be happening -- watt-level >fusion (coincidently, the purported fusion output is of the same order >as the input power; there is no reason a priori why fusion should not >produce (say) 1000x less or more power), some novel fusion mechanism >that (how conveniently!) makes the fusion undetectable to people >competent to measure radiation, and some mysterious skill that F&P, >but few others, have. The will to believe has nothing to do with it. F&P have been accused of crimes against science. In my book, they are innocent until proven guilty and that won't happen until they've had their day in court. If they have botched it (which appears increasingly possible but has by no means been proven), then they deserve the censure that they will receive from the scientific community. And if their recent claims to special, almost magical, knowledge which no one else has that makes it work is a lie to hide their incompetence, then they deserve to be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. But not until they've had their say. >Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which F&P have >not provided. Extraordinary claims that, if true, would yield such extraordinary benefits deserve to be investigated thoroughly. This will not be possible until F&P publish the full details of the work they've done. I share your frustration at the way this thing is going, as most of the scientific community does, but we just have to wait until F&P open the box and show us what's inside. Only then will we be able to objectively decide whether they deserve gold medals or a swift kick in the ass. And what if it turns out that F&P are completely wrong, but Jones is right? It's still fusion, and it doesn't require millions of dollars worth of equipment to experiment with. Once we understand the physics involved, it may still be possible to turn it into a commercially viable energy source. A new avenue for fusion research has been opened up; this is the real value of the "Utah Fusion Circus". -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy7 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / R Kennaway / Re: Idiotic Refutations Originally-From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Idiotic Refutations Date: 7 May 89 23:25:28 GMT Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich In article <4921@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: > [...much deleted...] >Lewis would ask people at Los Alamos questions and they would ask Pons. Should we call this "Hear-hear say evidence"? 8-) > -- Vince -- Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. uucp: ...mcvax!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Janet: kennaway@uk.ac.uea.sys cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenjrk cudfnRichard cudlnKennaway cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Paul Schauble / Re: Power from the Antarctic Originally-From: PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Power from the Antarctic Date: 7 May 89 22:36:06 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Re: South Pole weather report. I'm very curious about the reported pressure. Readings about 677 mbar seem very low. Is this actual pressure uncorrected for station altitude? If so, what is the altitude of the South Pole station?? ++PLS cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenPLS cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / T Kunselman / Article on Claim of Fusion Originally-From: tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Article on Claim of Fusion Date: 8 May 89 18:26:02 GMT Organization: U of Ky, Math. Sciences, Lexington KY Here is another article: PHYSICISTS SAY CLAIM OF ROOM-TEMPERATURE FUSION BY 2 CHEMISTS IS A WIDELY PUBLICIZED MISTAKE Re-typed without permission from Page A4, May 10, 1989 The Chronicle of Higher Education -Written by Kim A. McDonald Room-temperature nuclear fusion, a widely publicized concept promoted as a potentially limitless source of future energy, appears to have eluded the detection of hundreds of researchers, many of whom reported here last week that they had been unsuccessful in duplicating the feat in their own laboratories. The negative reports, coupled with evidence suggesting that the original experiments that claimed to have produced room-temperature fusion had been plagued by serious laboratory errors, persuaded most of the scientists attending the spring meeting of the American Physical Society that the purported breakthrough was actually a widely publicized mistake. "Any reasonable scientist would have to conclude, after hearing the talks, that it doesn't exist," said Robert L. Park, a physicist who heads the Washington office of the physical society. LATE-NIGHT SESSIONS The society had to hold two sessions that ran past midnight on room-temperature fusion to accommodate the dozens of scientific presentations from groups reporting negative results. It was the largest body of scientific evidence that had yet been presented to refute the claim that nuclear fusion, the energy-producing process of the sun and stars, could be generated in a laboratory flask. One of the most devastating reports came from researchers at the California Institute of Technology, whose experiments suggested that significant errors in measuring heat and calculating power generation were responsible for the impressive energy gains initially reported in March by B. Stanley Pons, chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Utah, and Martin Fleischmann, a professor of electrochemistry at the University of Southampton in England. "My conclusion, based on my experience and my knowledge of nuclear fusion, is that the Utah experiments are wrong," said Steven E. Koonin, a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech, "and that we're suffering from the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann." Nathan Lewis, an associate professor of chemistry at Caltech who headed the experiments there, said he was convinced the heat generated in the Utah experiment had not been produced by any fusion process. "At this time," he said, "we can find no evidence for anything other than conventional chemistry." Officials at the University of Utah, which two weeks ago asked Congress for $25-million for a room-temperature-fusion institute, said Mr. Pons and Mr. Fleischmann planned to respond to the criticism at a Los Angeles meeting of the Society of Electrochemistry this week. "I think the reports on the untimely death of cold fusion are premature," said James J. Brophy, vice-president for research at Utah. "I think the jury is still out." Mr. Brophy, a solid-state physicist who maintains that he is convinced that room-temperature fusion exists, said it was "awfully difficult for me to believe that experimental electrochemists who have been working on their experiment for 5.5 years" could have their results dismissed by researchers who had worked on the problem for only five weeks. But Mr. Koonin of Caltech said the investment of time was irrelevant, and that many of the experiments that reported negative results at the physical-society meeting had been more carefully designed to avoid laboratory errors and used much more sensitive detectors than the experiments conducted by Mr. Pons and Mr. Fleischmann. "He's gotten it all wrong," Mr. Koonin said of Mr. Brophy's comment. "The level of sophistication of the current experiments is far greater than the level of the original experiment." EQUIPMENT DESCRIBED AS INADEQUATE In the Caltech experiments, Mr. Koonin said, the instruments used to detect neutrons, a by-product of nuclear fusion, were 100,000 times more sensitive than those used in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment. Other groups with similar detectors conducted the experiment hundreds of times with similarly negative results. Said Moshe Gai, a physicist at Yale University, who reported that a collaborative effort with researchers at the Brookhaven National Laboratory also yielded negative results: "It was very clear to me that inadequate equipment was used by Pons and Fleischmann. It was very clear to me that the nuclear-physics part of their program was not done in a very careful way." Mr. Pons and Mr. Fleischmann have repeatedly stated at scientific meetings that they were convinced their experiment -- a simple electrochemical cell filled with deuterium water in which a small electrical current is run through a palladium electrode -- had produced nuclear fusion, because it generated three by-products, of fusion -- neutrons, gamma rays, and tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Skeptics have maintained that the process could not have been nuclear fusion because the level of neutrons in their experiment was one billion times as low as it should have been, when compared to the amount of heat generated by their cell. But the two chemists have argued that their reaction, which produced 4 to 10 times as much heat energy as it consumed, may be a "hitherto unknown nuclear process." Frustration over the argument and over the continued reluctance of the two chemists to provide other scientists with all of the details needed to reproduce their experiment, was clearly evident in last week's presentations, some of which were spiced with disparaging remarks and sarcastic doggerel. REPLICAS OF THE FLASK Some scientists said they had been forced to build replicas of the flask used in the Pons and Fleischmann experiment based on newspaper photographs, because the scientists had not provided details in their publications and would not return other researchers' telephone calls. "Pons refuses to answer any of our inquiries," charged Mr. Lewis of Caltech. Walter E. Meyerhof a professor of physics at Stanford University who calculated that the two chemists had overestimated the amount of energy produced by their cell simply because their thermometer had been placed too close to the hot center electrode, wrote this verse for the occasion: "Tens of millions of dollars are at stake, dear sister and brother, because scientists put a thermometer at on place instead of another." Mr. Lewis of Caltech said the placement of the thermometer was critical, because the flask, as designed, creates thermal gradients where water can be hot or cold. Because Mr. Pons and Mr. Fleischmann failed to stir the solution, he added, they measured a higher temperature than the overall temperature in the flask. "If you're in a lake in the springtime and it's colder at the top than at the bottom, you have no idea what the temperature on the bottom is. You're just cold," Mr. Lewis said. "If you go to the bottom, you have no idea what the temperature at the top is." NEGATIVE RESULTS REPORTED Mr. Lewis also noted that his team had found no statistically significant amounts of neutrons, gamma rays, or tritium above background levels to indicate the presence of nuclear fusion. He also suggested that the helium detected by Mr. Pons and Mr. Fleischmann appeared to have come from contamination of their experiment from the helium normally found in chemistry laboratories. Similarly negative results were reported by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of California's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of Rochester, Ohio State University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, A.T.&T. Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, N.J., and other institutions. Douglas R. O. Morrison, a physicist at CERN, the European Laboratory for Nuclear Physics in Geneva, said that most of the experiments in Western Europe had also failed to confirm room-temperature fusion. Mr. Morrison said the reports of the phenomenon seemed to fit the model of "pathological science," in which an erroneous experiment initially gains support from scientists who rush to announce confirmation, but is eventually denounced after an accumulation of negative results. Asked at a press conference whether he and other speakers were 95 per cent confident that the Pons-Fleischmann experiment did not produce nuclear fusion, Mr. Morrison and 7 of the other 8 scientists present indicated that they were. The scientist who abstained, Johann Rafelski of the University of Arizona, said he did so because Mr. Pons and Mr. Fleischmann were not present to defend themselves at the meeting and because an experiment under the direction of Robert A. Huggins, a professor of materials science at Stanford University, had produced excess heat. 2 CHEMISTS WERE INVITED Organizers of the meeting said that both scientists had been invited, but had declined to attend because they were too busy making preparations for a visit by members of Congress. Sen. Jake Garn, Republican of Utah, and Rep. Wayne Owens, a Utah Democrat, have asked members of Congress to accompany them on a May 12 trip to the University of Utah to observe the experiment, but they had not had any takers as of last week, according to Congressional aides. The two lawmakers plan to introduce legislation in a few weeks to provide $25-million for a room-temperature-fusion institute at Utah, the aides said. PROMOTIONAL EFFORTS CRITICIZED Many of the scientists at the physical-society meeting said they were disturbed by the University of Utah's continued promotion of room-temperature fusion, noting that they believed the prospect of financial gains from commercial arrangements with the university over the potential technology -- which had also interfered with open scientific communication -- was to blame for the widespread publicity. "There is that pressure" for institutions to promote a researcher's findings before they are confirmed, acknowledged Steven E. Jones, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at Brigham Young University, " and sometimes it can be quite strong." But, he added, "I am a very strong advocate for the scientific filter, this procedure whereby scientific ideas have to pass the scrutiny of other scientists." Said Mr. Morrison of CERN: "It very often happens that someone makes a mistake and gets very enthusiastic. It is not abnormal. It is human nature, and one should be prepared to accept it. "What we have to do," he continued, "is to try to devise a system where the scientific community can examine these problems reasonably quickly before it gets out of hand and people start going to Congress." Mr. Park of the physical society said he thought one of the most significant outcomes of last week's meeting was that, in spite of the scanty details revealed about the experiment, scientists were resourceful enough to obtain additional information through informal networks and to conduct experiments that could put the fusion claim through a rigorous scientific review. "Despite the efforts to thwart the system," he said, "the system worked." -- Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek Office of Institutional Research bitnet: tek@ukma.bitnet Kentucky State University internet: tek@ms.uky.edu Frankfort, KY 40601 c/o: University of Kentucky cudkeys: cuddy8 cudentek cudfnThomas cudlnKunselman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Dave Skinner / Two thoughts and a Thank You Originally-From: dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Two thoughts and a Thank You Date: 8 May 89 19:09:01 GMT Organization: Jet Propulsion Labs, Pasadena, CA First a thought about P&F&H, and then a thought about J&P&friends. I believe someone on the net suggested that the physicists with their neutron detectors may not be seeing excess-energy because they are performing their experiments under heavy sheilding. If cosmic rays are the catalyst, then they may have isolated themselves so effectively that they *only* get null experiments. Likewise, Utah is in the Intermountain West. I didn't take the time to look up the altitude of Salt Lake City, but with Denver at about a mile above sea level, and Los Alamos at over 7000 feet, Salt Lake City must get a significantly larger dose of cosmic rays than say Princeton, which must be near sea level. Second, my brother-in-law Eric Graat, a physicist turned engineer, who is basically unfamiliar with the net, and who just happens to be extremely busy on the Magellan Navigation Team at the moment (physicists are not the only ones doing all-nighters these days) asked me to post the following research suggestion. If P&F&H are wrong, but J&P&friends are right, then why not attempt to get hot fusion to breakeven with the assistance of muons? Lastly, I want to thank those who sent me E-mail in response to my last posting, because my last posting was also my first posting on the net, let alone to alt.fusion. I knew my comments on the unprofessional treatment of Fleischmann & Pons especially by physicists would draw flames from some of you. I was grateful for the time people took to write and sincerely express both points of view, and I will try to send individual responses to each of you. Thanks again for making me feel welcome. Dave Skinner Jet Propulsion Laboratory dave@kirdu.jpl.nasa.gov 128.149.16.12 cudkeys: cuddy8 cudendave cudfnDave cudlnSkinner cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Alan Curtis / Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Originally-From: apc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Alan P. Curtis) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Date: 8 May 89 13:32:42 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2192ANDQC@CUNYVM> ANDQC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: } 3) Some phenomenon has occurred that is not well understood. Indeed, appa- } ently it was reported upon previously (in the 1920s and the 1950s) and } dismissed. Now that we have had it again in the 1980's, I can hardly wait for 2010! (the year, not the movie) apc -- Alan P. Curtis | AT&T Bell Labs | apc@cblpe.ATT.COM cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenapc cudfnAlan cudlnCurtis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Dave Mack / Re: Idiotic Refutations Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Idiotic Refutations Date: 7 May 89 18:17:06 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems In article <4921@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: >Now, it does not seem like you (and many others) understand the real >nature of what went on at APS. It was not just some physicists that >could not reproduce the F/P experiment (although the press sees it this >way). > >Several of the people at APS have been using various means to find out >what exactly Pons did in his experiments. Then they figured out the >mistakes in the way he did his measurements and calculations. This is >what was so devastating. Saying that "they figured out the mistakes in the way he did his measurements and calculations" assumes that they found out "what exactly Pons did in his experiment." This is an assumption on their part, and yours, and a rather big one. The APS presentations are only devastating if you are willing to make that assumption. What they *do* clearly indicate is that this effect, if it exists at all, is not trivial to reproduce and that accurate measurement of the signatures of a fusion process is full pitfalls. They have not proven that cold fusion is not occurring or that F&P did not see excess heat. They have merely proven that the way they [CalTech] did it does not work. Until we have full disclosure from F&P, this will be an open question. Let me offer you this for consideration: the groups that had direct contact with Pons (Jones at BYU and Scaramuzzi at Frascati) have reported successful versions of the experiment. Jones saw neutrons but no excess heat, but then Jones didn't do any calorimetric measurements. Scaramuzzi reports neutron production 100 times background in gaseous D2 and Ti. >Lewis would ask people at Los Alamos questions and they would ask Pons. >This is how they found out that Pons was not stirring the electrolyte. Anyone who has seen the tapes of the Pons cell in operation knows this. There is no mechanism in the cells for stirring. Pons states in his preprint that stirring is accomplished by sparging with electrolytically- generated D2. The question of whether or not this provides adequate mixing depends on whether or not convection is occurring in the cell, which depends in turn on the amount of heat being produced, which depends on whether or not a fusion process is producing excess heat. WHAT OTHER ASSUMPTIONS DID LEWIS MAKE? >Lewis talked with the guy at U of Utah that did the He measurements. Lewis dismisses these results on the grounds that it isn't unusual to have high He concentrations in the air in laboratories. F&P state that the experiment was done in a new building. How many other labs in the area were in use and how long had they been in use? What was the *actual* He concentration in the area? Lewis has pointed out a *possible* source of systematic error, he has not pointed out an error which definitely was made. >I forget how Lewis found out about Pons assuming the 0.5V but I remember >Lewis saying something like, "Pons knows that I know that he assumed >the 0.5V." What voltage did the Texas A&M groups assume? And why? >They pointed out that the 2.2 MeV in Pons's paper matches exactly what you >would get due to from Radon sources and is not what you would get from >fusion. They also point out that a new cement building in Utah is >going to have lots of Radon. They note that the levels of Radon differ >from floor to ceiling and room to room and that measuring a background >radiation 50 meters away from where the experiments are can easily >explain the observed increase over background. Another *possible* source of systematic error. Has anyone measured the actual radon level is Pons' lab? I tend to agree that the neutron measurements in F&P are probably meaningless, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they were due to Bi-214 decay, but Lewis and the others hardly proved that this was the case. >What went on at APS was NOT bad science even though what you hear in >the press or on the net may make it sound like that. Probably not, but the conclusions being drawn from the material presented are not justified, and the behavior displayed by many of those present was highly unprofessional. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy7 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Dave Mack / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 7 May 89 18:40:19 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems In article <13723@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >Dave Mack wrote: >> >> The thermal conductivity of heavy water is within 3-4 % of that of >> normal water in the relevant temperature range (20 - 40 C), so the >> heat transfer through conduction should be similar. I don't have >> any figures on the viscosity of heavy water, but I'd be surprised if >> it's very different from that of H2O. The density of D2O is about 10% >> greater. Even so, I would expect that the convection characteristics >> would be similar. > >Convection would happen only if the liquid were heated from below. >I suppose that in an F&P cell the current flow, and hence the resitive >heating, will be somewhat higher at the top than at the bottom. >The resulting temperature distribution will not cause >convection, and in fact will make the liquid a lot harder to stir. One of the elementary problems in fluid dynamics is that of convection induced by a heated vertical slab. Both of the electrodes in the F&P cell will be nearly isothermal due to the much higher thermal conductivity of the metals. The electrodes are heated by Joule heating (and perhaps the fusion process in the cathode). This warms the electrolyte adjacent to the electrodes. The release of electrolytically generated gases on the electrodes accelerates the convective flow. Based on the amount of gases being generated in the tape of the F&P cell in operation, I would say that the amount of stirring going on is significant. >> And it seems likely that the addition of LiO{H,D} would tend to >> mask rather than enhance the differences between the two >> solutions. > >Since theories are cheap... > >...I would guess that a heavy water electrolyte has higher resistivity >than a light water one with same concentration. Possibly. The density and viscosity of heavy water are slightly higher than that of normal water. This would be relatively simple to measure. > Also, if the current >in the saturated palladium electrode is indeed carried by hydrogen >ions, I would guess that a D-saturated electrode has a much higher >resistance (2x?) than an H-saturated one. If these guesses are true, >and the voltages are adjusted to get the same current through both cells >(or the cells are connected in series), then the D2O cell should >indeed dissipate more electrical power than the H2O control. Presumably, there will be some D+/H+ movement in the cathode, but this should be negligible since the electron mobility is vastly higher than the mobility of the "hole" current carriers. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy7 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: Cast-Pd "secret" Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem Subject: Re: Cast-Pd "secret" Date: 7 May 89 15:25:00 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Dan Offutt writes: > > The cast-Pd/success relation was not known to F&P at the time of their > early press conferences. ... Ok, so here is *yet another* theory. Assumptions: 1. Hydrogen-saturated palladium is a poorer electrical conductor than pure Pd. 2. Deuterium-saturated Pd is a bit less conducting than H-saturated Pd. 3. Drawn/milled Pd absorbs far less hydrogen/deuterium than cast Pd. 4. F&P measured temperatures near the top of the cell. In a fresh F&P cell, current flow, and hence ohmic heating, is evenly distributed along the whole length of the cell. This continues to be the case during the charging phase, as long as there is a core of metallic Pd in the middle of the electrode. Once the Pd electrode gets completely charged, its resistance suddenly increases, and the current flow suddenly becomes concentrated towards the top part of the cell. Bubble production in both electrodes also shifts to the top of the cell, which reduces stirring. Substituting H for D gives a similar but less pronounced effect. Drawn/milled Pd doesn't work because it cannot absorb enough gas to lose its conductivity. In addition, it is barely conceivable that F&P increased the voltage in the "production" phase, in order to keep the current constant in spite of increased resistance, and somehow failed to account properly for the increased heating. (could this be what they mean by the "establishment of negative overpotentials" attributed to huge internal pressure of the absorbed hydrogen?) Re chemists-know-best: 1. Some postings have characterized the APS meeting as a "physicists vs chemists." To me the reports sound more like "physiscists and chemists vs Fleischmann and Pons." 2. Surely many chemists know everything about calorimetry, and many chemists know everything about electrolysis. Yet I wonder how many chemists have ever attempted calorimetry on a live electrolysis cell? Especially one with poorly characterized electrodes that change with time? Given the obvious difficulties of distinguishing ohmic heating from chemical heating in these circumstances, I bet that few if any chemists ever considered carrying out such an experiment---unless they were expecting something really dramatic, such as energy out >> energy in. If so, physicists may indeed be at least as competent to discuss this matter as chemists are. Jorge Stolfi Department of Cold Confusion DEC Systems Research Center stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Victor Roberts / Re: Cast-Pd "secret" Originally-From: roberts@luxor.steinmetz (Victor D Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cast-Pd "secret" Date: 7 May 89 20:22:47 GMT Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY In article <13724@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >Re chemists-know-best: 1. Some postings have characterized the APS >meeting as a "physicists vs chemists." To me the reports sound more >like "physiscists and chemists vs Fleischmann and Pons." I agree. Most people seem to be forgetting that Nathan Lewis, of Cal Tech, the person who presented the most convincing evidence against the Fleischmann and Pons results at the APS meeting is himself a _chemist_. Vic Roberts, GE Research and Development Center roberts@crd.ge.com cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenroberts cudfnVictor cudlnRoberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Russ Nelson / Re: History (of science) repeats itself. Originally-From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: History (of science) repeats itself. Date: 7 May 89 22:05:03 GMT Organization: Clarkson University, Postdam NY In article <308@calmasd.Prime.COM> wlp@calmasd.Prime.COM (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.) writes: This kind of controversy is not new to science. It existed at the beginings of modern science in Newton's day, it exist now and probably always will. This current debate over "cold fusion" has a very large component of deja vu. Yes, as Richard Harris pointed out, this is one of the few times that the controversy has spilled over into the popular media. It is a *very* good chance to educate people on how science *really* works. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) I'm a right-to-lifer -- everyone has a right to earn a living sufficient to feed himself and his family. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudennelson cudfnRuss cudlnNelson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.07 / Jim Frost / Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Originally-From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lack of Professionalism in Dealing with Fleischmann & Pons Date: 7 May 89 23:55:56 GMT Organization: Software Tool & Die In article <13714@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: |(Obviously, if cold fusion is real, no amount of disbelief will make it |go away.) True, but rampant disbelief can destroy the scientist's life even if he's correct, and delay scientific progress in addition. Recall Copernicus. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenmadd cudfnJim cudlnFrost cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 8 May 89 00:46:27 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <4199@datapg.MN.ORG) sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) writes: ) )Weapon? Connect a wire to a titanium-hulled sub and it might collect )hydrogen, but not much deuterium. Of course, cycling the power might )cause obnoxious outgassing of hydrogen within the null..but if one )can connect a wire then a few hundred pounds of explosive are a )more efficient weapon. ) ){assuming F&P works...} Indeed! I think that we should totally hype the notion that this cold fusion business can be made into a bomb. Perhaps then all the terrorists might waste all their time trying to make one instead of making things that might actually kill people, which unfortunately, they seem rather adept at. )-- )Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco )Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco ) I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch. Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenmbkennel cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Originally-From: mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Date: 8 May 89 00:57:00 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <2192ANDQC@CUNYVM> ANDQC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: )As a sociologist I have found the discussion in ALT.Fusion fascinating from )a number of perspectives: ) ) 1) It plainly shows that science operates on the basis of gossip, misinfor- ^^^^^^^ ) mation, invective and ad hominum attacks like many other social insti- ) tutions. Especially when a pattern may be broken and many vested int- ) erests are at stake. Sorry, there's no science going on in this newsgroup as far as I can tell. The actual science is taking place in laboratories and journals (in this case the Journal of Unreproducable Results, FAX and E-mail edition :) ), combined with a whole lot of speculation, kibbutzing and bad-mouthing. But that's not science. ) ) 2) Whole professional societies, hearings, etc. have become the venue for ) statements when plainly no one really knows or understands what is going ) on. That's not true. I belive that Lewis et. al at Caltech think they know exactly what's going on in their own experiments. ) ) 3) Some phenomenon has occurred that is not well understood. Indeed, appa- ) ently it was reported upon previously (in the 1920s and the 1950s) and ) dismissed. ) ) 4) Many theories have been advanced to explain the phenomon. Some attrib- ) ute it to errors in experimental design or instrumentation. Others at- ) tribute it to various types of fusion. Others to some sort of chemical ) phenomenon. ) ) Unless some sort of critical experiments begin to get performed and publish- )ed, I would guess that this confusion will continue for some time. So will the )vehemence. ) ) This sounds just like debates that go on in the social sciences: e.g nature )versus nurture; genetic nature of intelligence; material versus ideal causes of )social action. This is true, but in physics the answers are pretty much settled one way or another after a few years. Even right now, though, the theory of high-Tc superconductors is totally up in the air and the various theories have their own bands of supporters. ) ) It does seem to me that a slight amount of tolerance for the possibility )that the massive investment in hot fusion (as well as in other "big science" )projects) may not necessarily be leading science down the most efficient path )to accomplish this or that goal is in order. If you want "hot fusion", there's no other way as far as people can see. Whether or not controlled thermonuclear fusion is a worthwhile goal is another question, but there hasn't been much good evidence to the contrary. Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenmbkennel cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Jon Singer / I b'lieve I have suffered a cranio-rectal insertion. Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: I b'lieve I have suffered a cranio-rectal insertion. Date: 8 May 89 09:12:29 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Some weeks ago, I suggested that we would have clear confirmation or denial of the PFH results within a few weeks, if I didn't miss my bet. I missed my bet. Worse, it looks to me like a number of Bad Things have happened. I would like to take a few lines to discuss some of these, and to put forth a few ideas. DISCLAIMER: The following idea was suggested to me by a recent posting to this (alt.fusion) newsgroup. I have looked for that particular article, and I have failed to locate it. This means I cannot give proper attribution to the idea. :-( My apologies to the original author. I am not even 100% certain how much of the idea is due to that author, and how much is mine, alas. IDEA: Let us presume that the Brigham Young results are reasonable, which does not seem too terribly far out of line. This being the case, we have some reason to believe that fusion can occur at rates on the order of 10^(-23)/dd/sec in various metals. Let us further presume that those metals (if you want examples, Palladium, Titanium, and Zirconium) can indeed sop up large quantities of Deuterium. I don't think we will have any argument about that, Let us finally presume that the muon-catalyzed fusion results are in fact reasonable. (See the various articles on the subject.) These thing being given, WHY ON EARTH has NOBODY filled some metal with Deuterium and stuck it into a muon beam??? Even granting the fact that there is no _a_priori_ reason to think that this will be spectacular, surely there is reason to believe that it will be of more than passing interest!! Consider: If nothing at all happens, we have a data point. If the rate increases measurably over the J&P rate of e-23, we have something of real interest. If (heaven forfend) the rate increases by even two orders of magnitude over the regular _muon-catalysis_ rate (e+11), we could have breakeven, entirely aside from the PFH work! (My understanding is that if you put muons into liquid D2, you are about an order of magnitude shy of breakeven - that you get about 150 fusions per muon, and you need 2000 or 3000. I could, of course, be misremembering. Even if I am, however, an advance beyond the regular rate observed in muon-catalysis is definitely of interest!) I realize that the experiment proposed here is something of a `mixed metaphor' on a couple counts, but I think it is a neat notion nonetheless. Remember, you didn't see it here first, you saw it here second! ==================================================================== Small Unhappinesses with the Current Situation: o I can understand various people finding errors in the PFH paper. It is not my idea of a model lab-report! o I can understand various people finding it impossible to replicate the PFH experiment with the information furnished in that paper. (Please remember that, as has been mentioned here several times recently, Dr. Pons seems to have realized that cast Pd was important only fairly recently. Thanks to James Kowalczyk at Utah for this piece of info. <18027@cup.portal.com>?) That is, while I am not exactly `blaming' PFH, the paper seems to be inadequate to part of its task as a scientific document, and that is an unhappy thing. o I can understand many people becoming exasperated with the paucity of information contained in the paper and early press releases. One would, think, after all, that if it took them 5.5 years to get the thing going with some regularity, they'd have some lab notebooks to show for it! I guess some of it has to do with patent application problems, maybe. In any case, it seems that lots of people feel that they have wasted time, effort, and bucks trying to duplicate the work from insufficient information. One would hope this sort of problem would not occur very often... o It seems that there are some very real problems with the PFH work. While I have seen at least one posting that cited Pons & Co. as having done some of the definitive calorimetry on Pd Hydride and Deuteride formation, there appears to be more than a little grossitude or bogosity about the data in the fusion paper. I don't know how to reconcile these things. o For some reason, any Federal money that is likely to go into furthering this research seems to have to come out of money already earmarked for `traditional' fusion research. This, in my book, sux rox. Fusion is poor enough as it is, without people cutting holes in it. Why don't they roundfile 1/100 of 1% of the defense budget instead? That's more than 10 million right there! Should get 'em started decently well. ===================================================================== What I have difficulty understanding is this: There is at least one lab _other than the UU lab_ reporting that they have several cells, of which some number demonstrate the effect, and the rest fail. Now, I will grant that it is possible that they have some thermometers in funny places, and others in colder funny places. I would hope that they read this newsgroup, and are stirring better or moving their thermometers around. I do seem to recall hearing that the people in one group (Huggins@Stanford) have tried moving their thermometers, and don't see any particular difference. (I think that info came from Mary Holstege, in <8972@polya.Stanford.EDU>.) At the same time, the UU group reports about 90% success rate in building `working' cells, again arguing for a bimodal distribution - let me state this as "some cells give very different data from others". Think about this: If these groups are at least consistent in their errors, it would seem that unless _something_ strange is occurring, all the cells would give similar data, no? If I may repeat myself, there are two groups (at least!) that have some `working' cells and some `nonworking' cells. If we discount thermometer placement and thorough incompetence, then something must be going on, or I have missed some key parameter, in which case I b'lieve I have suffered TWO cranio-rectal insertions, and am in desperate need of assistance!! -- That is, if (say) the PFH group has a crock in their calculation or measurement that gives them 800% more heat out than they put in, how come it only works 90% of the time? That's NUTS! Please note that the conclusion I have reached is quite independent of the process that is generating the heat. I don't care if it's Martians with pea-shooters. Some cells give off more heat per joule input energy during the `run' part of the experiment than others, under controlled conditions, and that is very peculiar. I would be happy to entertain alternate explanations for the observed condition (that is, the fact that the same people, using the same calorimetric techniques, have some cells that `work' and some that don't). Will anyone out there oblige me? Please note, I am NOT looking for "some of the cells may have milled electrodes instead of cast" - we already know that. What I'm asking is, IF there is nothing unusual going on here, what factors could cause a group to come up with data that show heat being emitted from cell A, but not from cell B? = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Now: I've heard that H2O has different conductivity than D2O, and that the same current may generate more heat in one cell than it does in another. That is, what appears to be a `control' may not quite work the way people expect. More seriously, I hear claims that Dr. Pons was merely guessing that the voltage across some part of his cell was 0.5, and that his calculation of ohmic heating is suspect for that reason. Is there any good way to measure the voltage at the electrolyte-Pd interface, a number that seems to be important to this work? Does anyone here care to speak to the issue of exactly how you calculate the energy that is put into the cell by the power supply? I gather that it's not quite as simple as measuring the current coming out of the supply and the voltage across the cell and multiplying together, else there wouldn't be any discussion of this issue, right? ====================================================================== My friend Alan Bostick notes with some distress that the news media were entirely happy to jump on the bandwagon when the original results were mentioned, and have lately been equally gleeful at jumping into the opposing camp, now that MIT and CalTech have announced pejorative statements. (I am paraphrasing him very heavily here.) It is regrettable, but in fact the best info I've seen suggests that the current furor, with its hype, accusations, recriminations and generally adolescent behavior (that includes us, friends - we ain't immune; I've seen a few too many flames in this very newsgroup), is not at all unusual, and is the regular way that the course of scientific endeavor has proceeded since there was any such animal. As I say, regrettable. I suppose there isn't any chance that we can set a good example for the rest of the world, is there? Huh? Maybe? ...Oh, well... it was a good idea. [You may be able to guess how I feel about the appropriateness of scorn and derision. If you have any trouble guessing how I feel on this issue, I suggest that you spend some minutes going back to some times when you were treated with scorn and derision, perhaps in your childhood, perhaps more recently. Really get into it, if you have to. Then notice how you feel. Remember that recent medical research indicates deleterious effects on people's immune systems from that kind of stuff. Finally, read Alice Miller's book, "For Your Own Good". If you still think that scorn and derision are appropriate ways to deal with living breathing human beings, you may want to hire someone to shower you or your kids (if you have any) with scorn and derision for a period of 3 weeks or so, after which you may detect changes in the quality of your life. Oh, yeah, if you _do_ think it's appropriate to deal with people using scorn, derision, blame, humiliation, etc., please do me the small favor of staying as far away from me as you possibly can, ok? Thanks!] ====================================================================== One last item: a friend (I'm not yet sure he wants to be identified) has sent me a "Mr. Fusion" kit. It consists of a Pd-plated Ti electrode about 3/16" diameter and perhaps 1/2" long, with a Pd wire arc-welded to it, a short length of Pt wire for the other electrode, and a little vial containing some cc of roughly 97 or 98% D2O with some Li dissolved in it. Came with a note that said, roughly, "Yew know whut ta do with this. Ah red yer 'structions!" I think I c'n rassle up a truck batt'ry an' a Rubbermaid "crock". Anybody got a thermometer and a gamma spectrometer? :-) :-) -- If you are wondering why I said a gamma spectrometer rather than a neutron counter, I have been informed by Dick Lynch that if you let a nice waterbath thermalize and then capture the neutrons, you get a lovely 4.5732MeV (or is it 4.3752MeV? I forget, but it's in the literature) prompt gamma, which is quite easy to detect. The peak, he says, is quite recognizable. Sounds pretty straightforward to me. One more nicety is that it removes the majority of the neutrons. If I may quote myself, "'Member, neutrons ain't yer fren's!" (No, I don't really think I'm gonna try it in my `basemit'. Hell, I don't even HAVE a basemit! The kit is pretty cute, though.) ...and that's the way it looks from here, 8 May, 1989, 0100PDT. - jon singer =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= And when I gazed back | over my shoulder, there I | was, in hot pursuit! | Jon Singer is jon@Apple.COM, or | (AppleLink) SINGER2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Vincent Cate / Frascati Paper is scanned Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Frascati Paper is scanned Date: 8 May 89 17:29:30 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Thanks Andreas Wirzba!! He sent me a copy of the Frascati paper, which I scanned in: "Evidence of Emission of Neutrons From a Titanium-Deuterium System" A. De Ninno, A. Frattolillo, G. Lollobattista, L. Martinis, M. Martone, L. Mori, S. Podda, F. Scaramuzzi ENA, Dip. TIB, U.S. Fisica Applicata, Centro Ricerche Energia Frascati, C. P. 65-00044 Frascati, Rome, Italy To get a copy of the paper: ftp unh.cs.cmu.edu anonymous anonymous cd /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp/nfl-scanned binary mget * quit To print it: source print.nfl If you can not FTP from your location please do not send mail asking me to type in the file or email you all of the files. -- Vince PS The NFL just came out that way. :-) -- cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Vincent Cate / A few quotes from the Frascati paper Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: A few quotes from the Frascati paper Date: 8 May 89 18:29:36 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Note also the almost "quantized" structure of the counts, as if they were coming in bunches of 20 (+-4). A possible explanation for this behavior is the saturation of the counter, because of the arrival of a large number of neutrons in a very short time interval. ... An accurate measurement of the background neutron emission was made before and after the run (the latter is visible on the figure), yielding an average value of 2.3 counts/h, while the average counting rate during the "active" periods was about 70 counts/h, i.e. 35 times above background. ... The characteristics of the experiment did not allow for an accurate energy balance that could provide evidence of heat production. What can be said is that we can exclude heat production of the order of that seen by (FP). Such a heat flow would have produced an anomalous liquid nitrogen evaporation, and this we did not observe. ... Summing up all our experience during these measurements, we are in agreement with a suggestion made by (J), that a necessary condition for emission of neutrons is that the system be in a condition of non-equilibrium. In our case the dynamics of the absorption and desorption processes could contain the mechanism that creates this non-equilibrium condition. -- Vince -- cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Chris Phoenix / Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Date: 8 May 89 20:35:55 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. I doubt it would be possible. As I understand it, the plasma must be heated very hot--probably too hot for muons to stick to the atoms. And even if they would stick to an atom, I doubt very much that you could get any kind of D+D+muon molecule formed, which is the way muons catalyze fusion. -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy8 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Dennis Lou / Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Originally-From: ec172ahi@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU (Dennis Lou) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Date: 8 May 89 22:18:17 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego In article <444@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) writes: cyganski@wpi.wpi.edu (David Cyganski) writes: >.........Obviously, as others on the net have pointed out, there >is a trick to getting this to work and they are enjoying it (to the ^^^^^ >loss of MIT and others) and we'll just have to wait. > Do you remember how in E.E 'Doc' Smith's "Skyklark" series, the hero discovers that a copper rod can be converted into a spaceship drive if you dip it in some chemical and pass an electric current through it? As soon as he tried to demonstrate the effect, it failed to work because (as he later discovered) it relied on some radiation from a piece of equipment down the corridor, and of course that equipment happened to be switched off during the demo! I am probably misquoting Smith's book here, I read it about 15 years ago and thought it was rubbish! However, I wonder if cold fusion will turn out to be reliant on the fact that the magnetic field of a tomograph machine needs to be present or something like that? Steve cudkeys: cuddy7 cudensh cudfnSteve cudlnHosgood cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Ramsey Haddad / Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Date: 9 May 89 00:26:03 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <1281@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU> ec172ahi@sdcc7.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Dennis Lou) writes: > >Stanford is near sea level (mostly because its relatively near the >sea). Why do they get "success"? An alternate explanation to all this sea-level, muons, radiation... (assuming that all this really works) is that the Stanford people had already acquired a lot of experience with Palladium (according to one of the newspaper accounts --- this is not first-hand knowledge). Huggins had just finished up a grants' worth of exploring the absorption of hydrogen (the light stuff) into Palladium for purposes of hydrogen storage. It was thus easy enough to switch from H20 to D20. And he thus didn't waste time with milled Palladium like all our competent and undelusionary physicists out there. -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / John Moore / Re: Cast-Pd "secret" Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cast-Pd "secret" Date: 8 May 89 07:37:25 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <13724@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: ]Ok, so here is *yet another* theory. Assumptions: ] ]1. Hydrogen-saturated palladium is a poorer electrical conductor than pure Pd. ]2. Deuterium-saturated Pd is a bit less conducting than H-saturated Pd. ]3. Drawn/milled Pd absorbs far less hydrogen/deuterium than cast Pd. ]4. F&P measured temperatures near the top of the cell. ] ]In a fresh F&P cell, current flow, and hence ohmic heating, is evenly ]distributed along the whole length of the cell. This continues to be ]the case during the charging phase, as long as there is a core of ]metallic Pd in the middle of the electrode. Once the Pd electrode gets ]completely charged, its resistance suddenly increases, and the current ]flow suddenly becomes concentrated towards the top part of the cell. ]Bubble production in both electrodes also shifts to the top of the ]cell, which reduces stirring. Substituting H for D gives a similar but ]less pronounced effect. Drawn/milled Pd doesn't work because it cannot ]absorb enough gas to lose its conductivity. Sorry, but a few FACTS disprove this theory rather thoroughly: (1) Resistance of D-Pd system is only slightly higher than that of H-Pd at high concentrations: 1.75x10^-5 ohm-cm vs 1.42x10^-5 ohm-cm. Notice that both of these are extremely low: resistance of the rod end-to-end (the worst case) at 4mmx10cm is: 1.3x10^-4 ohm. To get 26 watts from that requires a current of 454 Amperes. To get a 26 watt difference from light water requires 1046 Amperes. They were actually running (after scaling) 6.43 Amperes. (2) Drawn/Milled Pd has a HIGHER permeability to D2 and H2. It has at least the occlusive capacity (capacity to absorb gas) as cast Pd. -- 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: cuddy8 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Originally-From: mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Date: 9 May 89 05:12:31 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <444@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov) dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) writes: ) )Second, my brother-in-law Eric Graat, a physicist turned engineer, who )is basically unfamiliar with the net, and who just happens to be )extremely busy on the Magellan Navigation Team at the moment )(physicists are not the only ones doing all-nighters these days) asked )me to post the following research suggestion. If P&F&H are wrong, but )J&P&friends are right, then why not attempt to get hot fusion to )breakeven with the assistance of muons? I thought of this late one night too, going to sleep believing that I had found "the answer". The next morning, rationality prevailed, however. The problem is that the muons must be in a bound state (in a tight orbit around the nucleus) in order to catalyze fusion. It works because, outside the orbit of the muon, the hydrogen atom appears electrically neutral to the rest of the world, and so other atoms can get close without feeling Coulomb repulsion. In hot fusion, however, everything is fully ionized. "Oh yeah, that's why they call it _plasma physics_..." :) I guess you'd want to have the temperature just below the ionization energy of the muonic atom...but most work had proceeded on liquid or solid D2 because, of course, you also want to keep the density as high as possible. Maybe insertion into a metal lattice will permit higher kinetic energies at substantial densities for muonic fusion...but now, what's to prevent the muon from disappearing into the fermi sea and being lost among the much greater number of electrons from the palladium or whatever metal substrate you're using? ) Dave Skinner ) Jet Propulsion Laboratory ) dave@kirdu.jpl.nasa.gov ) 128.149.16.12 Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenmbkennel cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Jeff Hunter / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 9 May 89 04:58:15 GMT Organization: Bell Canada, Business Development, Toronto In article <3495@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > Take a look at the papers by Horowitz and by Koonin and Nauenberg. > Both come to the conclusion that the dominant reaction should be > D + p --> He-3 + gamma + 5.49 MeV or He-3 + e-e+ + 4.5 MeV. No neutrons. > The neutron producing path may be a very minor part of energy production > in this process. So the question is, what should we expect to see? > A nice blue glow. > If Horowitz is right, the electron-positron emission branch should be > favored, and there should be a sharp peak in gamma emission at 0.511 MeV > due to electron-positron annihilation. > That's 10% of your energy coming out as Beta radiation. No need for fancy instruments. Just turn out the lights and look. > And what if it turns out that F&P are completely wrong, but Jones is > right? It's still fusion, and it doesn't require millions of dollars > worth of equipment to experiment with. Once we understand the physics > involved, it may still be possible to turn it into a commercially > viable energy source. A new avenue for fusion research has been > opened up; this is the real value of the "Utah Fusion Circus". Well if you read the paper carefully you'll see that Jones calibrated his neutron spectrometer with neutrons produced from fusion of deuterons accellerated by a Van-de-Graaf generator. In other words he used a classic "hot fusion" technique that didn't require millions of dollars, and probably gave him more than 4e-3 counts/sec he was getting from his cells. Granted, Jones cold fusion may scale up better, but I haven't bought palladium futures. The real value would be the bulk effects of Jones fusion in heating the Earth and other celestial bodies. This could produce measurable effects. -- ___ __ __ {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff (416-595-2705) / / /) / ) -- my opinions -- -/ _ -/- /- No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent. (__/ (/_/ _/_ Greg Bear cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenjeff cudfnJeff cudlnHunter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Jon Singer / Corrections to my send of last night. (Geez!) Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Corrections to my send of last night. (Geez!) Date: 9 May 89 09:29:02 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Well, I made a few interesting mistakes last night. Lemme hit 'em one at a time, if I may. 1) Muons/Palladium combination - Bob Walker of LANL has emailed me with information to the effect that muons tend to grab onto the nucleus with the largest Z in the immediate vicinity, which means that precious few of the precious little beasties are gonna get involved with Deuterium when there's Palladium to hang out with. Sigh. Well, we tried, right? One of the coolest things about this net is that information flows swiftly and efficiently, compared with many previous methods. Sure, the bandwidth is lousy, and it's easy to misinterpret & get into dumb flamewars, but I think that with a little respect and kindness we can get beyond most of that. Thanks, Bob, for rapid response and information! 2) I goofed on the energy of the prompt gamma from neutron capture by Protium. This is, of course, the 2.2 MeV gamma that is so easily mistaken for the one from Bi decay. Dick Lynch sent me a snailmail letter in which he gives the correct figure for this (2223.3 KeV), and a number of other interesting things which I will mention a few of. o Chlorine seems to have a large thermal neutron capture cross- section, and emits a prompt gamma of about 5600KeV. If you put a lot of salt in the waterbath around your cell, the calorimetry is still as easy (or difficult) as it was before, but you can now look for the Chlorine gammas instead of Hydrogen gammas. Dick thinks that there are several other energies of gamma from neutron capture by Chlorine as well, but doesn't give numbers for them. o Iron emits prompt gamma at both 7631.6 and 7638 KeV. You can, apparently, resolve this doublet with a Germanium detector. o Sulfur might work as well. (Sulfuric acid in the water bath. Perhaps not quite as nice, but workable.) Dick mentions that there are vendors for calibrated gamma detectors, which seem to be fairly common items. (They were, he says, researched heavily in the late '70s and early '80s for real-time, on-line analysis of coal by neutron-activation.) If anyone really wants such an item as a calibrated gamma detector, please email me, and I will give you a list of possible vendors. The list is probably not complete, but will at least get you started. I will quote one sentence of the letter: "I guess I'm both entertained by all the cold fusion activity going on, and a bit alarmed by the trashing the physicists at the Baltimore conference heaped on it." Hmmm. 3) Remember, friends, there may be some sort of reaction going on that happens not to produce neutrons. Having a good prompt-gamma system will ONLY tell you if you have neutrons, not if you have a Mr. Fusion powerstation in your lab. IF you can demonstrate some correlation between the number of neutrons you get, and whether your apparatus is 'running', then you have something. (I believe that the Frascati group claims a correlation of some sort. See "A few quotes from the Frascati paper", posting <4947@pt.cs.cmu.edu> from Vince Cate.) Still, if you happen to have a reaction that is your main one and does not release neutrons, you presumably won't detect too many of them. In closing, let me apologize for the gross length of my typical postings. I think perhaps I try to make them too comprehensive. I may take steps to change this, but so far I haven't had any complaints from anyone except myself, so I may not. Feedback is welcomed... Cheers! jon Oh, yeah: I fixed the Haiku in my .signature, or at least decided on a slightly different version. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I looked back, and there | I was, following myself. | Wait! Let me catch up! | Jon Singer is jon@Apple.COM, or | (AppleLink) SINGER2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.08 / Mark Wilkins / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 8 May 89 14:23:42 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA In article <3495@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >> >>This is an internal inconsistency in the Utah results, so it is >>independent of CalTech's attempts at reproduction. Note also, that >>one cannot assume that the air in the chemistry lab has the same >>helium level as average air, since there may be present in the >>building an NMR machine that uses helium-cooled superconducting >>magnets. The helium continuously boils off, contaminating the air. > >A possible source of systematic error. This will be meaningful when >somebody actually measures the He level in the relevant labs. I've spoken to the individuals at UC Riverside who did the mass spec work for Caltech about this matter. They asked Lewis' group for several samples of room air, the samples from the instrument, and a sample of the helium used to cool equipment. The idea that the helium comes from boil-off of magnets came from them; Lewis commented at the time that he hadn't thought of that... but after the runs there was no indication that there were ANY appreciable levels of He3 or He4 in the apparatus. Both would have shown up clearly in quantities as low as several parts-per-trillion, because care was taken to use a technique called Fourier transform mass spectrometry which is thousands of times more sensitive than conventional mass spectrometric techniques. As for F&P, I am not familiar with the methods they used. However, having worked in the UCR lab on both types of spectrometers it is clear to me that if there had been anything unusual going on with helium, Lewis would have been much more likely to see it than F&P. If there is fusion going on it is not producing helium, at least not in the Caltech setup. -- Mark Wilkins cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenwilkins cudfnMark cudlnWilkins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Paul Dietz / What do gamma measurements tell us? Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: What do gamma measurements tell us? Date: 9 May 89 13:38:24 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <30338@apple.Apple.COM> jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) writes: There are lots of hungrier elements than chlorine. For example, some rare earth elements (gadolinium, for example) have enormous thermal neutron absorption cross sections, in the tens of thousands of barns. >Dick mentions that there are vendors for calibrated gamma detectors, >which seem to be fairly common items. (They were, he says, researched >heavily in the late '70s and early '80s for real-time, on-line >analysis of coal by neutron-activation.) It's been standard practice for a long time in the oil well logging industry to run gamma spectrometers downhole to characterize formations by measuring natural and induced radiation. This is very big business. >3) Remember, friends, there may be some sort of reaction going on that >happens not to produce neutrons. Having a good prompt-gamma system >will ONLY tell you if you have neutrons ... Not at all. Reactions with neutrons make gamma rays, but so do many other things. Let's consider some other possibilities: (1) Radiative capture reactions, like p+d --> He3 + gamma. (2) Bremmstrahlung, from relativistic electrons passing through matter. (3) Coulomb excitation of nuclei by fast nuclei. D. Bailey's paper shows that if putative fusion reactions are releasing their energy as fast hydrogen or helium isotope nuclei, the lines from excited Pd should be quite detectable. (4) Annihilation radiation from positrons. Since it's hard to imagine a fusion reaction that does not release its energy in the form of gamma rays, neutrons, fast electrons or fast nuclei, it's hard to see how fusion could occur without detectable gamma radiation. You might be thinking: what about Hagelstein's theory? George Chapline (Livermore) pointed out that Hagelstein's theory is not a theory at all in the usual sense of the word, since it proposes no physical mechanism for how an excited helium nucleus can transfer its energy to the lattice. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy9 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / C Gould / Urban Legends (was: summary of APS cold fusion session) Originally-From: gould@physics.usc.edu (Christopher Gould) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Urban Legends (was: summary of APS cold fusion session) Date: 9 May 89 14:45:28 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article <355@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <3483@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >>In article <314@eplrx7.UUCP> wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) writes: >>> Koonin complained that "we have suffered enough ...." >> >>Hell hath no fury like a theorist whose theory is threatened. > > Koonin may become enshrined >in folklore along with the legendary patent office head who >recommended closing the patent office in 1890 because everything >that could be invented had already been invented.... OK, I've waited two days for someone else to comment on this. This claim about some unnamed patent official is an urban legend. It never happened. In fact, in annual reports of this period there is concern about the rate of human invention becoming too great for the patent office as it was then constructed. Now someone will undoubtedly reply that such-and-such a book says it happened. This is the nature of urban legends. Before you make such a claim, GO TO THE SOURCE. Cite the annual report, or the congressional testimony, or whatever you can find that is ORIGINAL material, and not unreferenced third hand accounts. By the way, this is not intended as criticism of Mike Van Pelt. I used to believe this claim as well. _________________ Christopher M. Gould Internet: gould@physics.usc.edu (128.125.1.194) Dept. of Physics - USC Arpanet: gould@usc-physics.arpa Los Angeles, CA 90089-0484 Bitnet: gould%physics.usc.edu@uscvm Phone: (213)743-8521 UUCP: ...{uunet,sdcrdcf}!usc!physics!gould cudkeys: cuddy9 cudengould cudfnChristopher cudlnGould cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / James Larson / Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Originally-From: larsonjs@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (James S. Larson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Two thoughts and a Thank You Date: 9 May 89 14:19:52 GMT Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN Does anyone know how much energy it takes to create a muon beam? As I recall, when muon-catalyzed fusion was discovered, it was quickly realized that the energy needed to create a muon beam was far greater than the energy produced by the reaction. Would the reaction be more energetic if the target deuterium was stored in a dense palladium matrix? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Jim Larson | "What? You mean behind the rabbit?" | | larsonjs@thor.acc.stolaf.edu | -Monty Python and the Holy Grail | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenlarsonjs cudfnJames cudlnLarson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 9 May 89 16:19:37 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto [Gotta hurry; this may be my last chance to make a fool of myself, before the ECS meeting reports come in and F&P are thoroughly vindicated.] I wrote: > > Convection [in an F&P cell] would happen only if the liquid > were heated from below. Dave Mack replied: > > Both of the electrodes in the F&P cell will be nearly > isothermal due to the much higher thermal conductivity of the > metals. I sincerely doubt that a 4 mm x 100 mm metal bar immersed in water will be isothermal, unless the water itself is. More likely the bar will have the same thermal profile as the water, only a bit smoother. > The electrodes are heated by Joule heating (and perhaps > the fusion process in the cathode). This warms the electrolyte adjacent > to the electrodes. If the electrolyte has higher resistance than the electrodes, then most of the Joule heating will happen in the former, not in the latter. > The release of electrolytically generated gases on the > electrodes accelerates the convective flow. Based on the > amount of gases being generated in the tape of the F&P cell in > operation, I would say that the amount of stirring going on is > significant. I expect the current, hence the heating, to be concentrated towards the top of the cell because the electrical path there is shorter. If the current is concentrated at the top, so is gas generation. If there is also a hot water layer at the top, bubble-driven mixing may well be largely confined to that layer. I confess I haven't seen the tape you mention. However, judging from the F&P paper and the pictures I have seen, the interior of a typical F&P cell is rather narrow and tall ( < 5cm x > 10 cm ) and crowded with electrodes, thermometers, and supporting glass rods. Not the best place to get convection going... > [Me] Also, if the current in the saturated palladium electrode > is indeed carried by hydrogen ions, ... > [Dave Mack] Presumably, there will be some D+/H+ movement in > the cathode, but this should be negligible since the electron > mobility is vastly higher than the mobility of the "hole" > current carriers. Well, I got that idea from the net. Are you insinuating that net posters are incompetent? :-) Jorge Stolfi Department of Cold Confusion Division of Intuitive Electrochemistry DEC Systems Research Center stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Norm Strong / Replication of P&F experiment Originally-From: strong@tc.fluke.COM (Norm Strong) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Replication of P&F experiment Date: 9 May 89 15:19:29 GMT Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Just to satisfy my curiosity, have Pons & Fleishmann replicated their own experiment with an entirely new set of equipment? -- Norm (strong@tc.fluke.com) cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenstrong cudfnNorm cudlnStrong cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Ramsey Haddad / Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Date: 9 May 89 17:58:30 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department EXCERPT from the AP report: In their latest experiment, they say they produced up to 50 times more energy with their device than what they put into it. The energy was emitted as a burst of heat that lasted two days, they said. ... Fleischmann ... said there were no hot spots in his fusion device and that the excess heat measurements were accurate. He even showed a short movie of gas bubbling through the fusion device to support his claim that heat was distributed evenly throughout the apparatus. "This argument of ineffective (heat) mixing really doesn't hold water," Fleischmann said. Pons said that scientists who have been unable to reproduce the Pons-Fleischmann team's findings failed to use adequately large electrodes. Using technical language, he lashed out at critics who contend that neutrons allegedly generated by fusion in the experiment may really come from naturally occurring radon gas and radiation in the Utah laboratory. --------- EXCERPT from San Francisco Chronicle report: Caltech chemist Nathan Lewis ... said his cell may therefore have been different from that in Utah, at which Fleischmann glowered back, "it *is* an incorrect cell." Pons and Fleischmann, appearing alternately glum and combative, said complete descriptions of their devices will be published but not before this summer. -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / J Hall / idle observation Originally-From: josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: idle observation Date: 9 May 89 18:11:34 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Q: How do you distinguish a chemist and a physicist attempting an F&P fusion experiment? A: The chemist believes fusion is occurring, and shields the apparatus with a plastic dishpan. The physicist does not believe fusion is occurring, and shields the apparatus with tons of lead bricks. --JoSH cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenjosh cudfnJ cudlnHall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Paul Dietz / Re: A few quotes from the Frascati paper Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A few quotes from the Frascati paper Date: 9 May 89 16:59:51 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <4947@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: >Note also the almost "quantized" structure of the counts, as if they >were coming in bunches of 20 (+-4). A possible explanation for this >behavior is the saturation of the counter, because of the arrival of >a large number of neutrons in a very short time interval. Probably not cosmic rays, since they would continue even after the titanium was charged. Speculation: propagating microcracks in stressed titanium create intense local electric fields that can accelerate deuterons to several KeV, causing bursts of neutron emission. They should try DT mix to see if they get more neutrons, and try mechanically crushing gas-charged titanium. If this speculation is correct then it's hot fusion, and also useless for power generation. Also, they should monitor the Ti with a microphone to see if sounds from cracks coincide with neutron detection. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy9 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / John Logajan / Re: A few quotes from the Frascati paper Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A few quotes from the Frascati paper Date: 9 May 89 19:39:55 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > If this speculation is correct then it's hot > fusion, and also useless for power generation. Hot fusion useless for power generation? This will come as a real blow to the tokomak boys! :) -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Robert Firth / Re: real magic ?? Originally-From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: real magic ?? Date: 9 May 89 16:42:01 GMT Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA In article <8158@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> tbrakitz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >John Wheeler proposed an interesting variation to this experiment: [J A Wheeler: The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Academic Press, New York, 1978.] I believe Alain Aspect has conducted a slightly different experiment that implicitly verifies Wheeler's conjecture. The basis of the thought experiment is that the observing apparatus is not set up until after the quantum particle interacts with the beam splitter. If you believe in linear causality, then you probably have to accept that the supposed superluminal collapse of the wave function is a physical reality. If you don't, then [JG Cramer: the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Rev Mod Phys v 58 p 647 (1986)] might provide some spiritual comfort. cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenfirth cudfnRobert cudlnFirth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Ramsey Haddad / Linus Pauling's explanation for "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Linus Pauling's explanation for "Cold Fusion" Date: 9 May 89 18:07:34 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department EXCERPT from 5/9 Stanford Daily: In a letter to be printed this week in the journal Nature, the Nobel laureate adds his insight to the growing controversy over fusion ... Linus Pauling ... suggests that deuterium atoms from the heavy water solution are forced into the palladium cathode and form palladium dideuteride --- a molecule of palladium with two deuterium atoms attached. This molecule then decomposes, which leads to the generation of heat which can even be explosive. --------- I don't understand. How can D + D + Pd => D2Pd => D + D + Pd create net heat? Looks like zero energy gain to me? -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Ernst Mulder / Fusion? ;) Originally-From: rcbaem@eutrc3.UUCP (Ernst Mulder) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion? ;) Date: 9 May 89 13:02:32 GMT Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands If I throw a match into a box of gunpowder I get more energy out than I put in too. Could this mean something? :) Sorry just a *flame* but the point I'm trying to make is this: How does one measure the exact energy balance in a system? How does one take any chemical reactions into account? Ernst. > cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenrcbaem cudfnErnst cudlnMulder cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / B Maruti / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu (B Maruti) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 9 May 89 22:07:13 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass. In article <13734@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: > [Gotta hurry; this may be my last chance to make a fool of myself, before > the ECS meeting reports come in and F&P are thoroughly vindicated.] > > I wrote: > > > > Convection [in an F&P cell] would happen only if the liquid > > were heated from below. > > Dave Mack replied: > > > > Both of the electrodes in the F&P cell will be nearly > > isothermal due to the much higher thermal conductivity of the > > metals. > > I sincerely doubt that a 4 mm x 100 mm metal bar immersed in water will > be isothermal, unless the water itself is. More likely the bar will have > the same thermal profile as the water, only a bit smoother. > > stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi > F&P apparently stood by their claim of excess of heat production at the meeting. From what I heard on the radio, they took care of the objection about their system not being isothermal, or about the measuremnts being made at the 'hot' spots etc. The claim still is that there is more energy output than what was put in. F&P RETRACTED two other claims: (1) they agreed their radiation (neutrons?) measurements were plain WRONG and (2) they said their He measurements were UNCERTAIN. So whether there is fusion or not, there seems to be something that Chemical engineers need to check out. They know this input/output, heat generation, isothermality, scale-up and similar business in and out :-) If F&P claim is upheld, and if there is no FUSION, it is the best of all possible situations. We get very clean energy. - Maruti bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenbmaruti cudfnB cudlnMaruti cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Rahul Dhesi / Re: real magic ?? Originally-From: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: real magic ?? Date: 9 May 89 21:59:48 GMT Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana In article <3335@bd.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >If you believe in linear >causality, then you probably have to accept that the >supposed superluminal collapse of the wave function is a >physical reality. Chronologically, we have: 1. Any speed is possible, so long as you provide enough force for a long enough time. 2. No! The speed of light cannot be exceeded. 3. No, wait! The speed of light can be exceeded, but only under certain circumstances. For example, the point of intersection of the blades of a pair of scissors could travel faster than light. 4. Ok, no material object can travel faster than light. 5. Depends on the frame of reference, doesn't it? 6. No, the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference... 7. Ah! So nothing *material* can travel faster than light, but abstract entities, like the point of intersection of two lines, can. 8. No, wait! Not quite. No *information* can travel faster than light. Else we have strange inconsistencies. 9. Does that mean a wave function cannot transfer information faster than light? 10. Well...er...gee, I dunno. I supposed it could, if the transfer of information could not result in *causality*. 11. We are splitting hairs, aren't we? Well, are we? (Note follow-up header. This has little to do with fusion.) -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: ...!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi cudkeys: cuddy9 cudendhesi cudfnRahul cudlnDhesi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Dave Mack / On the Validity of the FPH Experiment Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: On the Validity of the FPH Experiment Date: 9 May 89 22:24:51 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA How do we determine whether or not an experimental result is valid? We attempt to independently reproduce the result, we check the calculations, we examine the underlying assumptions. In order to do these things, we must have adequate information about the original experiment - the equipment and materials used, the configuration of the apparatus, and the methods used to reduce the data. In the case of cold fusion, the situation is complicated because there are not one but two experiments to deal with (FPH and Jones) and we have very poor information on one of those (FPH). The scientific community has interested itself primarily in the results of the FPH experiment because their results are by far the more striking, with staggering implications for the future of mankind if they're correct. This interest has occurred in two branches: the theoreticians have tried to find mechanisms within the scope of current theory to explain the results, and the experimentalists have tried to reproduce the results FPH claim to have seen. Both groups have largely failed. Hagelstein came up with an explanation for the absence of radiation based on coherent optical phonon coupling with the lattice, but appears to have abandoned this theory. In the absence of such a theory, it appears that FPH should have died of radiation poisoning if they had seen the kind of energy production they reported. However, the absence of a working theory does not alter reality, so let's look at the experimental side. A handful of groups have reported excess heat production (Texas A&M, Case, and labs overseas). Other groups have reported seeing neutron production (BYU, Frascati, Germany(?)). Most experimenters, however, have seen neither. What do these null results mean? There are three possibilities: 1) Cold fusion is not possible - all the groups showing positive results have made errors of some sort, including Jones at BYU and the Italians at Frascati. 2) Cold fusion is possible, but only at very low rates consistent with the neutron flux results of Jones and Scaramuzzi. Anyone seeing excess heat has screwed up their calorimetry. 3) The groups reporting null results failed to perform the experiment correctly. Cold fusion did not occur in their apparatus because they did something wrong or did occur but went unnoticed because of the way they made their measurements. No comment about the validity of the FPH experiment can be made based on these results. At the May 1 APS meeting in Baltimore, virtually every group reporting experimental results presented data consistent with case 1 or case 3, but virtually every group claimed that case 2 was the answer. There seemed to be a fairly high level of belief that Jones' results represented an actual phenomenon, although there was some concern over his method of dealing with the background radiation. It should be noted that none of the groups presenting talks in Baltimore claimed that it was due to their inability to perform the FPH experiment. I hope the inconsistency here is clear. The groups from Yale and CalTech are stating that their results show that FPH did not see the results they claim. They did extremely sensitive neutron detection work - Yale saw two neutrons, CalTech none. Yet they fail to dismiss Jones' results. Even Koonin has stated that he finds Jones' results interesting and thinks it is real. But if the Jones/Frascati results *are* real, why didn't Yale and CalTech observe neutron production consistent with the levels seen by Jones? (Note that Yale did try the Jones electrolyte soup in an FPH cell with a null result.) The Yale and CalTech results correspond to case 1 or case 3. I find the control experiments that Jones did (particularly Runs 10 and 11) to be compelling evidence for cold fusion at a reaction rate of about 10**-23 fusions/D-pair/second. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that the Yale and CalTech results fall into case 3 - they didn't do the experiment correctly and no judgement, positive or negative, can be made about the FPH results on this basis. No doubt others will disagree on this. How is it possible that the groups reporting null results failed to perform the experiment correctly? It seems very simple - drop a chunk of palladium or titanium into an electrolyte made with heavy water, throw the thing into your neutron detector, put in an anode, hook up the leads and off we go. This seems to be literally what Jones did. The answer, in my opinion, is that everyone has ignored some of the things Pons said back when this first hit. In order to get it to work, they had to "charge" their electrodes with deuterium for *weeks*. They are still talking about finding ways to reduce this charging time. As far as I know, none of the groups trying to replicate FPH have done this. I think that they were mislead by some of the early reports of rapid confirmation and have simply ignored this requirement. I expect someone to object that Jones doesn't talk about having to charge his Pd and Ti samples. He doesn't talk about it, but he does say that he re-used his samples, sometimes after abrading or cleaning them. It would be interesting to take a look at his notebooks and see how long he used each cathode specimen before he began to get results. How did he store the specimens between runs? It would be rather interesting if the Yale and CalTech groups tried to duplicate Jones' results. They're already set up for it. All they need to do is throw away their FPH cells, get some baby food jars and nuggets of mossy Pd, and brew up a batch of that amazing electrolyte blend. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Paul Dietz / Re: Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Date: 9 May 89 22:15:01 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <9060@polya.Stanford.EDU> ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) writes: >In their latest experiment, they say they produced up to 50 times more >energy with their device than what they put into it. The energy was >emitted as a burst of heat that lasted two days, they said. It's kind of hard to believe the calorimetry could be screwed up by nearly two orders of magnitude. You'd think that 50x more heat could be observed just by watching the water boil. So, let's assume they are hiding the key detail until they've refined it enough to apply for a patent. Reports say... Cast rather than drawn Pd Little gamma or neutron radiation Helium-4 production *** Begin unsupported speculation -- believe at own risk. *** Cast palladium works not because the crystal lattice is different, but because an impurity is introduced (deliberately or not) during the casting process. The impurity is involved in a nuclear reaction that liberates little energy and produces only charged products (small energy output ==> little coulomb excitation of Pd). The nuclear reaction must make He4. The impurity is beryllium. The palladium electrode is cast in a mold or melted in a crucible made of beryllium oxide (MP 2530 C vs. 1554 C for Pd). Some Be dissolves during casting. Alternately, metallic Be is added during melting. The reaction is Be9 + p --> 2 He4 + d + 0.651 MeV. This would be acceptable only if the deuteron does not have a large chance of making neutrons by d+d fusion before stopping. Perhaps protium is preferentially concentrated in the electrode? A glaring flaw here is that tunneling into Be9 must be difficult, since the coulomb barrier is so high. Still, Be9 is unusual in that it has a loosely bound neutron (the loosest of any stable isotope). Maybe this helps in some way? If these speculations make any sense, the obvious steps would be to try an alloy cathode and to try using ordinary water (perhaps that's why no ordinary water control was described -- it wouldn't be a control!). *** End speculation *** I do hope they make us critics look like fools. Where, oh where, are the details? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy9 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Paul Dietz / Re: A few quotes from the Frascati paper Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A few quotes from the Frascati paper Date: 9 May 89 22:08:07 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY >> If this speculation is correct then it's hot >> fusion, and also useless for power generation. > >Hot fusion useless for power generation? This will come as a real >blow to the tokomak boys! :-) I said "and", not "therefore". It would be useless because it could never approach breakeven, for the same reason that firing a beam of deuterons at a solid target from a cyclotron can never achieve breakeven. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs. cudkeys: cuddy9 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / M Russotto / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: res12@snoopy.UMD.EDU (Matthew T. Russotto) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 10 May 89 00:37:27 GMT Organization: University of Maryland, College Park In article <8205@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) writes: >Indeed! I think that we should totally hype the notion that this >cold fusion business can be made into a bomb. Perhaps then all the >terrorists might waste all their time trying to make one instead of making >things that might actually kill people, which unfortunately, they seem >rather adept at. > >)-- >)Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco >)Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco >) I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch. > >Matt Kennel >mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu But what if they succeed????/ :-) -- DISCLAIMER: Not only does the University not share my opinions, they don't want me sharing my opinions. "This 'Pnews', what does it do?" Matthew T. Russotto res12@snoopy.umd.edu (this semester only) cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenres12 cudfnMatthew cudlnRussotto cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Alien Wells / Re: An end to speculation? Originally-From: alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: An end to speculation? Date: 9 May 89 18:56:06 GMT Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass. In article <151@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) writes: >It would appear that considerable inertia is being introduced into the >progress of analysis and experimental verification, due to the withholding >of information by (mainly, but not solely) Messrs. F&P. Since this appears to >be predicate on the patenting process, could anyone speculate on the likely >elapsed time before F&P could be expected to divulge all the data that they There are two reasons to withold information pursuant to applying for a patent: - Desire to keep people in the dark about the basic invention while you research related inventions. - The invalidating of foreign patent claims upon publication before patent application. I suspect the latter is more of the issue here (welcome to the world community). The US will let you publish before you apply. Most other nations do not. -- ============================================================================= A path is a terrible thing to waste ... decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien ============================================================================= cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenalien cudfnAlien cudlnWells cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Jon Binkley / Quote from Lewis Originally-From: binkley@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jon Binkley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Quote from Lewis Date: 10 May 89 00:23:21 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lewis on NBC news, 9 May: "So far, [fusion] hasn't been reproduced at any place without a good football team." -Jon Binkley cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenbinkley cudfnJon cudlnBinkley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Vincent Cate / Any news from L.A.? Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Any news from L.A.? Date: 9 May 89 19:11:07 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI If anyone at the Cold Fusion conference was able to get a new paper or abstracts of talks please send me a copies! My FAX number is (412) 681-1998 I have not heard any news about what happened last night in L.A., can anyone summarize? -- Vince -- cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / L Hutchinson / A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Date: 9 May 89 20:59:40 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. As I have stated before, this whole P&F thing comes down to calorimetry - the radiation measurements are amusing but not really relevant. In this paper I would like to discuss the proper way to do the experiment while still using the basic P&F cell. It requires NO assumptions about cell voltage and does NOT assume that thermal conductivity measurements made before the experiment are still valid during the experiment. (1) The system MUST be in equilibrium. If necessary, replacement D2O should be added using a motorized syringe in order to maintain an absolutely constant liquid level. (2) The entire heat producing and temperature measuring region MUST be at the same (constant) temperature. This requires active and very constant stirring. The power input to the active region as a result of the stirring must be accurately measured. (The most foolproof way of doing this is to use a submerged stirring motor and measure the electrical drive power.) (3) Analyze the evolved gas mixture and verify that it is a precisely stoichiometric mixture of D2 and O2 with some D2O vapor. If it is not then you are not at equilibrium. Accurately measure the rate of gas production and the rate of D2O evaporation. From the thermodynamic constants, calculate the power that is leaving the cell via these two pathways. Note that this measurement is the most difficult part of my experiment design. You ABSOLUTELY MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE calculated values based on assumed reaction pathways. (4) The entire apparatus must be completely submerged in a constant temperature constant flow water bath. One must be careful with regard to nearby sources of infrared radiation such as the water bath heater and incandescent lamps. (5) The Dewar should NOT be evacuated. It should be filled with dry nitrogen to a pressure such that the thermal conductivity is much less than that of the glass walls but high enough such that the vast majority of the heat leaving the cell takes this path rather than going out thru the top portion of the apparatus. (6) Measure the temperature inside the cell and in the water bath using arrays of very accurately calibrated temperature sensors. Verify the lack of temperature gradients both inside and outside the cell. Use the average of the inside and outside sensors to get a more accurate reading of delta T. (7) Continuously measure the thermal conductivity of the cell. This is the most important part. I suggest driving a carefully placed immersion heater with a very low frequency square wave. The period of the square wave must be many times longer than the longest thermal time constant in the system and the induced temperature rise must be as low as possible while still providing accurate data. I would guess 30 min for the period and 1 deg C for delta T. (8) Continuously measure all power into the cell (electrolysis V*I + stirring power). All data should be time stamped and logged to disk. (9) Calculate the power output from the cell as the sum of the effluent power(D2+O2+D2O) and T_cell/R_cell where R_cell is the thermal resistance measured in step 7. (10) Perform reality checks such as using a second immersion heater or using H2O in place of D2O. (11) If it still looks promising, build a small power plant and use to power Salt Lake City for a few years. Then I'll be convinced! Keep the above in mind just in case someday you get invited to P&F's lab to check out their experiment :-) Note that depending on the magnitude of the effect some of the above steps may be omitted. Stirring is absolutely not optional unless you prove, using an array of temperature sensors, that there are no temperature gradients in the cell, especially in the thermally 'unclean' top portion of the cell. 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: cuddy9 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Arnie Frisch / Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Originally-From: arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Date: 9 May 89 22:23:23 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article <5105@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) writes: > > As I have stated before, this whole P&F thing comes down to calorimetry - > the radiation measurements are amusing but not really relevant. In this > paper I would like to discuss the proper way to do the experiment while > still using the basic P&F cell. > < 13 lines deleted> > (3) Analyze the evolved gas mixture and verify that it is a > precisely stoichiometric mixture of D2 and O2 with some D2O > vapor. If it is not then you are not at equilibrium. If one were to accurately measure this, one would find the mixture approaching the correct stoichiometry only long after very long periods of isothermal operation. This is because the Palladium initially absorbs most of the D2 and leaves an O2 rich result. It is only when the Palladium is saturated, that the stoichiometry of the evolved gases approaches the ideal for D20. Furthermore, P&F claim is that the onset of the heat producing reaction approximately coincides with the saturation of the Palladium. If this is so, then the temperature of the Palladium changes, and changes the amount of D2 that it can hold - and this enriches the evolved gas mixture with D2. Nothing is ever simple. Arnold Frisch Tek Labs cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / David Knight / What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: dk1d+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Robert Knight) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 9 May 89 23:59:48 GMT Organization: Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Doesn't anybody out there have information on the chemist's meeting in L.A. yesterday? I thought the net was supposed to provide instant answers. :-) Thanks, David Knight cudkeys: cuddy9 cudfnDavid cudlnKnight cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Joseph Poutre / Shot down again Originally-From: jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Joseph Poutre) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Shot down again Date: 10 May 89 00:41:42 GMT Organization: University of Rochester A physics professor here gae a short talk on the University's effort to reproduce FPH. They again reported a negative, after measuring neutrons, gammas, and calorimetry. He did not give complete information, but the cell used was similar, but not identical. They used a platinum mesh at a distance of about two centimeters. He showed us the rod used, but not knowing much about such things I cannot tell if it was cast or milled. The surface was pitted, like a golf ball, and the rod was hollow. I was unable to get tot him after the lecture to ask pointed questions, but he pretty musch brushed off all the pro experiments while detailing the anti ones. he also stated the misconception that PFH did not stir the liquid. If you want the details I can respond to questions much better than I can summarize. Thank you, and have a surrealistic day. The Mad Mathematician jap2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenjap2_ss cudfnJoseph cudlnPoutre cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Torkil Hammer / Re: Power companies conspiracy? Originally-From: torkil@psivax.UUCP (Torkil Hammer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.environment,sci.misc Subject: Re: Power companies conspiracy? Date: 9 May 89 23:25:56 GMT Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA [cold fusion] This whole thing was just a great First of April celebration, wasn't it? In the midst of all the paranoia, don't forget that in the event a large scale cold fusion becomes feasible, the very first ones to become the filthiest richest are the power companies. Not that I object to that. What I want to state is that the power companies have no economic reason to block the invention and a lot of reasons to promote it. They don't like the prospect of running out of fossil fuel, either. Fission is not all that palatable, yet they tried all what they could. have fun, torkil cudkeys: cuddy9 cudentorkil cudfnTorkil cudlnHammer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Donn Seeley / Re: Quote from Lewis Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Quote from Lewis Date: 10 May 89 07:21:49 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept Lewis on NBC news, 9 May: "So far, [fusion] hasn't been reproduced at any place without a good football team." So why has Utah been successful? :-) Experimental error? :-) This does explain BYU's results, Donn PS -- So that readers don't feel cheated, here's some actual information from this afternoon's Deseret News on the Electrochemical Society meeting, which they conveniently put in a nice compact summary: Pons and Fleischmann reported: -- Experiments continue to show large releases of heat. -- Total watts put into the cell are less than total energy output (without considering the electrochemical reaction). -- Energy coming out of system is fairly constant, but in some situations there are large bursts of energy. -- The bursts are enormous and, if persistent, are capable of literally boiling the cell out at a very low voltage. -- One cell, running at 32 degrees [C. ?] for 5 1/2 million seconds [about 2 months], suddenly burst up to 60 degrees and remained at that temperature for several hours. -- Bursts of neutrons and other radioactive particles, usually ignored by physicists [?], have been seen. (Pons and Fleischmann are not yet correlating bursts of neutrons to heat.) -- Some bursts have lasted long enough to enable scientists to go into the machine to check instruments. -- The heat output from the sustained bursts over a two-day period have [sic] been between 1,000 and 5,000 percent more than the input. The accompanying article was not very detailed; I hope tomorrow morning's Tribune will be more interesting. The tone was generally downbeat, however (the headline was 'LA meeting fails to quiet fusion skeptics'). cudkeys: cuddy10 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Jon Singer / Re: What do gamma measurements tell us? Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What do gamma measurements tell us? Date: 10 May 89 08:30:27 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <1989May9.093824.806@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <30338@apple.Apple.COM> jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) writes: <> > >>3) Remember, friends, there may be some sort of reaction going on that >>happens not to produce neutrons. Having a good prompt-gamma system >>will ONLY tell you if you have neutrons ... > >Not at all. Reactions with neutrons make gamma rays, but so do many >other things. Let's consider some other possibilities: > >(1) Radiative capture reactions, like p+d --> He3 + gamma. >(2) Bremmstrahlung, from relativistic electrons passing through > matter. >(3) Coulomb excitation of nuclei by fast nuclei. D. Bailey's > paper shows that if putative fusion reactions are releasing their > energy as fast hydrogen or helium isotope nuclei, the lines > from excited Pd should be quite detectable. >(4) Annihilation radiation from positrons. > >Since it's hard to imagine a fusion reaction that does not release its >energy in the form of gamma rays, neutrons, fast electrons or fast >nuclei, it's hard to see how fusion could occur without detectable >gamma radiation. > Well, hmmm! 1) I said "prompt-gamma detector", and I was thinking specifically of something that looks for the neutron-capture radiation, and for that only. When I think about it, that does seem kinda dumb. 1a) Gadolinium...ah, Gadolinium. (sigh) For several reasons, a favorite element of mine, and yes, it does have a whopping neutron capture cross-section. Also, in its +3 oxidation state, if I recall correctly, no fewer than 7 electrons with their spins parallel. Oh, joy! My kingdom for a bottle of GdCl3 or Gd(NO3)3! (Fortunate that I don't have a kingdom - such a bottle can be had for about forty bucks.) 2) Isn't that "bremsstrahlung", and not "bremmstrahlung"? I think most people have been misspelling that one here. ...or am I missstakenn? :-) 3) That's pretty neat. I hadn't read about that one. What are the energies like? 4) I would think that 511KeV would still be called an X-ray, but I guess the air gets pretty thin up there, and the difference is sorta moot. 5) In sum, Paul's point is well taken: I conclude that good clean gamma detection is very important to figuring out what is going on in your experiment. Fortunately, it seems like something you could easily set up. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu Cheers! jon (Thanks, Paul!)=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-= I looked back, and there | I was, following myself. | Wait! Let me catch up! | Jon Singer is jon@Apple.COM, or | (AppleLink) SINGER2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenjon cudfnJon cudlnSinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Michael Frank / Re: Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Originally-From: bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Date: 10 May 89 08:36:19 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <9060@polya.Stanford.EDU> ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) writes: >EXCERPT from the AP report: >In their latest experiment, they say they produced up to 50 times more >energy with their device than what they put into it. The energy was >emitted as a burst of heat that lasted two days, they said. What I want to know is, why only two days? Did they mean two days so far? Or did heat production suddenly stop? If it's the latter, then that's foreboding... maybe it means the heat is from some chemical source that gets used up, like something in the palladium. If this is the case then we've done nothing but find a more expensive thing to burn. Hoping they meant "two days so far," I think the rest of the AP report and Chronicle article bodes well for cold fusion. I'm back on the optimistic side. (3rd switch & counting :-) >Caltech chemist Nathan Lewis ... said his cell may therefore have been >different from that in Utah, at which Fleischmann glowered back, "it >*is* an incorrect cell." :-D Great quote. I can just imagine the egg on Lewis' face... >Pons and Fleischmann, appearing alternately glum and combative, said >complete descriptions of their devices will be published but not >before this summer. But I want my Westinghouse "Mr. Fusion" home Sterling-engine electrical plant and hot water heater NOW!!! :-) >Ramsey W Haddad Michael P frank -- Michael Frank "The Ear-God" Undergrad, Symbolic Systems. I speak for no one. bugboy@portia.stanford.edu Attempting AI, fencing, juggling. Enjoy swimming, Box 6536, Stanford CA 94309 Pink Floyd, Nanotech, Star Trek, some philosophy. (415) EAR-0-GOD "I listen." Foozball wizard. Own Amiga. Would like a Sun-4. cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenbugboy cudfnMichael cudlnFrank cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Gary Crum / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: crum@lipari.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 10 May 89 08:55:01 GMT On Monday I stumbled upon the ECS (Electrochemical Society?) conference at the Bonaventure Hotel while I was showing a friend around downtown LA. TV crews were filming attendees entering an auditorium, but only a few science reporters where allowed in during the talks according to a news report on LA Channel 2 later that evening. Needless to say I did not hear P&F speak. Both TV and newpaper (LA Times) reported that there was skepticism expressed at the meeting, and both reported that Pons announced measuring higher energy out:in ratios, but I think the LA Times article gave that ratio as being 50:1 while the TV news gave the value of 5,000:1 (! -- either that's Hollywood for you, or I misunderstood the news anchor). According to the LA Times article, Pons said he would describe his experimental apparatus in detail "but not before summer". Today I am driving back home to Salt Lake to have my car inspected, then I'm either returning to USC or on to LANL to work this summer. I'm at least geographically in touch with fusion, wouldn't you say? Gary cudkeys: cuddy10 cudencrum cudfnGary cudlnCrum cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / James_J_Kowalc / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 10 May 89 03:59:06 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes: }In article <3495@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: }>> }>>This is an internal inconsistency in the Utah results, so it is }>>independent of CalTech's attempts at reproduction. Note also, that }>>one cannot assume that the air in the chemistry lab has the same }>>helium level as average air, since there may be present in the }>>building an NMR machine that uses helium-cooled superconducting }>>magnets. The helium continuously boils off, contaminating the air. }> }>A possible source of systematic error. This will be meaningful when }>somebody actually measures the He level in the relevant labs. } } I've spoken to the individuals at UC Riverside who did the mass spec work }for Caltech about this matter. They asked Lewis' group for several samples }of room air, the samples from the instrument, and a sample of the helium used }to cool equipment. The idea that the helium comes from boil-off of magnets }came from them; Lewis commented at the time that he hadn't thought of that... }but after the runs there was no indication that there were ANY appreciable }levels of He3 or He4 in the apparatus. Both would have shown up clearly in }quantities as low as several parts-per-trillion, because care was taken to }use a technique called Fourier transform mass spectrometry which is }thousands of times more sensitive than conventional mass spectrometric }techniques. } As for F&P, I am not familiar with the methods they used. However, }having worked in the UCR lab on both types of spectrometers it is clear to }me that if there had been anything unusual going on with helium, Lewis would }have been much more likely to see it than F&P. I talked to the guy who did the Mass Spec. measurements for Pons, and he said that they tested air samples from Pons' labs as well as air samples from the room in which the Mass Spectrometer is located. He is convinced that the 4He that he measured in the gas sample from Pons' cells is real and not a background artifact. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / caulkins@cdp.U / Fusion on TV, yet again Originally-From: caulkins@cdp.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion on TV, yet again Date: 10 May 89 03:58:00 GMT The MacNeil Lehrer news hour had extensive coverage of cold fusion and the Electrochemical Society session on it. News cameras were barred from the session, but Fleischmann and Pons attended a news conference afterward. P&F were NOT forthcoming; several questioners asked why they would not release their electrodes for analysis by other laboratories. Here are some quotes which I believe are reasonably accurate: Pons: "Previous commitments prevent us from releasing our electrodes. We made an agreement not to do so." Fleischmann: "We are not free agents to answer certain questions." Unfortunately there were no follow-up questions about what the commitments are or what constraints prevent them from being free agents. Timothy Ferris (a science writer who attended the session) was interviewed. He was negative about F&P, but seemed puzzled rather than angry. He said F&P's failure to release their raw data or allow visits to their laboratory was not the way scientists generally behave. He has no idea why they won't release their electrodes (or even pieces of them) for outside analysis. Ferris thinks there is no commercial/patent reason for secrecy, since much information about the F&P experiments has been public for 6 weeks. He said that *only* F&P have claimed both fusion and heat production. The fact that P&F's energy output came in bursts suggests some form of energy absorbtion followed by release of this previously stored energy. He thinks P&F are close to being proven wrong in their claim of producing fusion. The evidence is mounting that their other claims are false. On the subsequent ABC national news Huggins was interviewed. I was distracted during his segment, but believe he said something like: "Too much effort is going into disproving fusion, and not enough attention is being paid to the large heat effect in these experiments." Huggins said that F&P will publish a definitive paper in a few weeks [it's going to be fun to referee that one : -) ]. cudkeys: cuddy10 cudencaulkins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Norm Strong / Re: More possible environmental objections Originally-From: strong@tc.fluke.COM (Norm Strong) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: More possible environmental objections Date: 9 May 89 20:31:08 GMT Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA In article <1502@internal.Apple.COM> jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) writes: }In his recent posting, 8608@csli.STANFORD.EDU, Chris Phoenix says/asks, } }>Lots of people claim that cheap energy provided by fusion will permit }>massive desalinization and irrigation of the Sahara, among other things. }>1) This will change the climate and biosphere of the Sahara dramatically. }> What right do we have to do that? } }Chris seems not to realize something very important: } }Inasmuch as we built the bloody thing in the first place, which we didn't }have 'the right' to do, I doubt we need to worry about whether we have the }right to unbuild it. The entire earth is already irrigated with desalinated seawater. And yes, it does change the climate and biosphere of the entire earth. The evaporation of seawater causes localized cloud formation which leads to precipitation here and there. Moisture not absorbed by the surface of the earth collects and flows in streams causing soil erosion as it goes. Mankind, noticing that some areas don't get enough water and others are stuck with streams, has found it possible to divert the streams to dryer areas. And the energy source for all this is--you guessed it--FUSION! -- Norm (strong@tc.fluke.com) cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenstrong cudfnNorm cudlnStrong cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Charles Harris / Re: History (of science) repeats itself. Originally-From: xchar@mtunb.ATT.COM (Charles S. Harris) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: History (of science) repeats itself. Date: 10 May 89 06:04:55 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Lincroft, NJ In article nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >In article <308@calmasd.Prime.COM> wlp@calmasd.Prime.COM (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.) writes: > > This kind of controversy is not new to science. It existed at the > beginings of modern science in Newton's day, it exist now and > probably always will. This current debate over "cold fusion" has a > very large component of deja vu. > > ...It is a *very* > good chance to educate people on how science *really* works. [ excerpted from the Princeton Alumni Weekly, Feb. 22, 1989 ] To Err Is Human Sam B. Treiman [ Professor of Physics, Princeton University ] ...Take error. It is in itself hardly a good thing. The whole ethos of science is aimed at rooting it out. Still, it is hard to imagine a vibrant, flourishing science that doesn't have some tolerance, occasionally even admiration, for soaring mistakes. The great physicist Enrico Fermi was awarded a Nobel Prize for what later proved to be an error. Well, that's putting the matter somewhat fraudulently. The award--among the most richly deserved in the annals of the prize--was in fact bestowed on Fermi for a whole string of well-confirmed, path-breaking contributions to physics. Nevertheless, at the time of the selection committee deliberations, much of the excited attention to his work undoubtedly centered on the apparent transmutation of uranium to new, transuranic elements. The ancient dream of transmutation of the elements had been achieved by others somewhat earlier. However, what Fermi had discovered in the mid-1930s is that slow neutron projectiles are singularly effective in transmuting target elements. He and his colleagues worked their way systematically through much of the Periodic Table, converting elements wholesale, each into its nearby neighbors in the Table. The work was carried out with great gusto and brilliance, and with much racing up and down the corridors (to get to the counters before the reaction products decayed away radioactively). When Fermi bombarded uranium with his neutrons and carried out his analysis of the reaction products, he could convince himself that he had again effected transmutation to nearby elements beyond uranium in the Table. However, uranium is as the end of the "natural" Periodic Table! He had therefore not just produced transmutation among the known elements, he had created new ones never before seen. As time went on, Fermi's usual self-assurance gave way to unusual cautiousness. Difficulties had begun to develop. However, they were better recognized by him than by his admirers. Then, within only a matter of weeks after the Nobel Prize ceremony in 1938, it suddenly became clear through the work of others that what Fermi had seen was not transuranics but nuclear fission. Some mistake! We now know that there were transuranics in the reaction mix; but there was fission too, and it was the signal of the latter process that Fermi was detecting and misinterpreting. His preconceptions hadn't prepared him for fission.... cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenxchar cudfnCharles cudlnHarris cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Paul Dietz / Re: Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Date: 10 May 89 15:08:45 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Continuing to speculate, another possibility for impurities is boron. There are lots of nuclear reactions between boron isotopes and hydrogen isotopes, many of which liberate modest amounts of energy. Z=5 seems awfully high for tunneling, though. I note that Huggins says you can't cast Pd electrodes in graphite molds, because carbon screws up the absorption of deuterium (makes methane) [5/10/89 WSJ, page B4]. A good substitute for graphite is: boron nitride (sublimates at about 3000 C). So, Utah (and Stanford) people, tell us: in what are you casting your palladium? The sensitive searches for coulomb excitation radiation are not evidence against fast charged particles from reactions with impurities, since maybe those experiments didn't have the impurities. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy10 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / John Logajan / Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Date: 10 May 89 15:49:04 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) writes: > I would like to discuss the proper way to do the experiment while > still using the basic P&F cell. [Steps 1-11 on keeping track of all energy I/O deleted] Don't forget to calculate the energy input due to stirring! -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 10 May 89 14:01:34 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <2262@wpi.wpi.edu>, bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu (B Maruti) writes: > If F&P claim is upheld, and if there is no FUSION, it is the > best of all possible situations. We get very clean energy. Huh? The way I see it is that if there is no fusion that what we have is, at best, a way to burn palladium. Considering the price of palladium this is not going to affect the world's energy picture. :-) -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,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: cuddy10 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Michael Zehr / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 10 May 89 17:59:52 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology In article <12915@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >In article <2262@wpi.wpi.edu>, bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu (B Maruti) writes: >> If F&P claim is upheld, and if there is no FUSION, it is the >> best of all possible situations. We get very clean energy. > >Huh? The way I see it is that if there is no fusion that what we have >is, at best, a way to burn palladium. Considering the price of palladium >this is not going to affect the world's energy picture. :-) F&P claim -> more energy out than in. no FUSION implies: a) fission (what the ?? is fissioning, though???) b) E = mc2 equation does not always hold, i.e. another way of getting energy c) matter converted directly into energy given that there isn't a lot of radiation, and doesn't seem to be radioactive waste, either of those three alternatives is good news. if they're burning palladium, then that means that F&P claim is not upheld... -michael j zehr cudkeys: cuddy10 cudentada cudfnMichael cudlnZehr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / John Logajan / Re: Fusion on TV, yet again Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion on TV, yet again Date: 10 May 89 18:04:19 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN caulkins@cdp.UUCP writes: > The MacNeil Lehrer news hour had extensive coverage of cold > fusion and the Electrochemical Society session on it. > > Pons: "Previous commitments prevent us from releasing our > electrodes. We made an agreement not to do so." Does this include the electrodes that were supposedly going to go to Los Alamos (LANL)?????? > Fleischmann: "We are not free agents to answer certain > questions." Hmmm, this could be viewed as an attempt to stall for time, but why? I just can't imagine any "authority" being able to silence F+P if F+P weren't in the mood to be silent. I wish I knew what their motives are. > Huggins said that F&P will publish a definitive paper in a few weeks. Let's hope so! -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Blake Wood / From the LA Times, May 10, 1988 Originally-From: bwood@janus.uucp (Blake Philip Wood) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: From the LA Times, May 10, 1988 Date: 10 May 89 18:33:57 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley The following is from today's LA Times: The pair spent 5.5 years and $100,000 of their own money researching the phenomenon. Earlier this year, they discovered that physicist Steven Jones of BYU in Provo and his colleagues were working on the same technique. Jones was also seeing radioactive debris, but he did not observe significant heat production and did not believe that the process could be used for large-scale energy production. The two groups met early in March and ultimately agreed to publish their findings simultaneously. P&F said it would take them another 18 months before they were ready to publish, but Jones objected that an abstract of his work was already being circulated among scientists and that he planned to present the results soon. It was agreed that the two groups would each submit a paper to the British journal Nature on March 24. But without warning Jones, P&F announced their finding on March 23, simultaneously filing patent applications. ...and we all know the rest... What I find most interesting about this is the statement that they wouldn't be ready to publish for 18 months, and only went public because Jones was already ready to. I think this (rather than patent constraints) explains why they've been so vague--they didn't complete their work before going public. Is there anyone out there who knows more than what's in the papers and can comment on this chronology. BTW, I also think it's interesting that with all the stories from the history of science that I've seen in this newsgroup, the one comparison I haven't seen is with the discovery of the high Tc superconductors (maybe I missed it). Within a week after Paul Chu made his announcement (if not sooner), people on campus here were manufacturing their own superconductors, and about a month later I was able to see a demonstration at the department colloquim. The physics (or is it chemistry) of this does not seem THAT much more complicated that we haven't seen some reasonable confirmation after 7 weeks. Flames (er, comments)? Bear with me, this is my first posting, and I have a .sig file, but just in case: this is not my account, Blake lent it to me for this--I'm Chris Goedde dynamics@janus.berkeley.edu I'm not the owner of this account. These opinions are mine and not Blake's, who is kind enough to let me borrow his account. Chris Goedde dynamics@janus.berkeley.edu cgg@theorygroup.berkeley.edu cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenbwood cudfnBlake cudlnWood cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / wyant / Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Originally-From: wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Date: 10 May 89 17:19:08 GMT From article <5105@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, by larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson): > > (1) The system MUST be in equilibrium. If necessary, replacement > D2O should be added using a motorized syringe in order to > maintain an absolutely constant liquid level. > One disturbing aspect from many of the "confirmations" is the absence of equilibrium. Those in the U.S. which claim partial confirmation have not been very careful about the proper conditions for calorimetry. The trusted techniques for heat measurement require uniform temperatures within the system, as mentioned in this article. On the other hand, it may be the non-equilibrium conditions which promote fusion, according to Jones and the Italian group. Perhaps in being careful about the calorimetry, the conditions for cold fusion are destroyed. Maybe it is the concentration and temperature gradients which are necessary for cold fusion, though the heat budget measurements are more ambiguous with these non-equilibrium conditions. Just wonderin'. Patrick Wyant *!uunet!eplrx7!wyant cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenwyant cudlnwyant cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Mike Smith / Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Originally-From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Date: 10 May 89 19:56:01 GMT Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific Ca In article <5105@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) writes: > >As I have stated before, this whole P&F thing comes down to calorimetry - ... > (3) Analyze the evolved gas mixture and verify that it is a > precisely stoichiometric mixture of D2 and O2 with some D2O > vapor. If it is not then you are not at equilibrium. > Accurately measure the rate of gas production and the rate > of D2O evaporation. From the thermodynamic constants, > calculate the power that is leaving the cell via these > two pathways. Note that this measurement is the most > difficult part of my experiment design. Why not just recombine the D2 and O2 with a catalyst. As long as it is part of a sealed system, then the heat should be returned to the system. The D2O vapor, being also in a sealed system, should be at equilibrium. It is too hard to build a totally sealed system like this? (hey, I'm not a chemist so don't nuke me if I've missed something simple...;-) -- E. Michael Smith ems@apple.COM 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war) cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenems cudfnMike cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Mike Waters / Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Originally-From: waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Date: 10 May 89 18:25:58 GMT Organization: Motorola Semiconductor CAD -- Mesa, AZ In article <5105@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) writes: >As I have stated before, this whole P&F thing comes down to calorimetry - >the radiation measurements are amusing but not really relevant. To me this is THE key point, F&P observed SOMETHING that produces a lot of heat for an extended time. While fusion seems like one logical explanation, as a "dumb engineer" (injiner? :-) I really don't care a whole lot just WHAT the mechanism is so long as it produces lots of heat with virtually no fuel. Obviously the theoretical basis must be developed, but the discovery is still important even if some totally different mechanisim is responsible. Matter-antimatter collisions, some super energetic chemistry, or eye of newt and wing of bat - it really doesn't matter that much! I for one would like to see Larry's experiment tried just because it concentrates on that aspect of the whole process. And that is the part that will be important in application. -- *Mike Waters AA4MW/7 waters@dover.sps.mot.com OR waters@cad.Berkley.EDU* Somewhere in DOWNTOWN BURBANK a prostitute is OVERCOOKING a LAMB CHOP!! cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenwaters cudfnMike cudlnWaters cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / J Hall / I'd like to propose a test... Originally-From: josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: I'd like to propose a test... Date: 10 May 89 20:13:34 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. If F&P can get 10 times the energy out of their cell than they put in, it should be possible to do build a closed cycle cell-heat engine- generator system and remove the outside power source altogether. A factor of ten should be able to handle thermodynamic inefficiencies, mechanical and electrical losses, and whatnot. In a closed cycle, one could burn the evolved D2 and O2 without invalidating the process, thus recovering that heat. This happens at such a high temperature that thermodynamic losses should be low. The cells are, if I understand, being run at temperatures between 30 and 60 degrees C. To get any efficiency out of this it would have to be run in a freezer. This would remain a valid test, though useless for overall power generation. --JoSH cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenjosh cudfnJ cudlnHall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / wyant / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 10 May 89 18:10:19 GMT > > Doesn't anybody out there have information on the chemist's meeting in > L.A. yesterday? I thought the net was supposed to provide instant > answers. :-) > Since this information is third hand, I felt embarrassed to post it. One of the company chemists is currently attending the ECS meeting and telephoned his comments back here. The person whom he reported to relayed the comments to the rest of us. Thus, this information is third hand with me. I expect to be brief. There were nine talks presented at the special cold fusion session of the Electrochemical Society. As a summary, six talks provided support for and three were negative on fusion. Jones of BYU and Lewis of Caltech essentially repeated their APS talks, but in 10 minutes (they were allowed 20-30 minutes at the APS). One of the supporting talks was somewhat confusing. Pons spoke but gave no new details of setting up their cell. To defend his calorimetry, Pons showed how an indicator spread throughout the cell to indicate adequate mixing. He also said that they were working to improve their neutron detection equipment, and that they were now seeing even more excess energy. There was no comment on the source of the Pd. Huggins from Stanford reported on excess heat generated from coin shaped Pd electrodes which were totally submerged. He assumed that there was no recombination of gases, and noted that reducing the concentration of deuterium (D2O) by adding water (H2O) stopped the heat generation. Several labs (Sandia, Livermore, MIT) claimed to have the capability to detect He to very low levels. They offered to test anybody's electrodes for the gas. Pons responded (later) that his electrodes were already committed to an (unnamed) destination, and Texas A&M simply refused. Landau from Case Western claimed to have not found any recombination of H2 and O2, to within 3% error. He also claimed to have observed 40% more excess heat than P&F had reported with D2O. There was no heat generated above error with H2O. The speaker from Washington was not connected with their cold fusion experiment at all. Evidently, a group of enthusiastic graduate students tried the experiment while their thesis advisor was out of town. When he returned, he did not want anything to do with their claims. Jorne from Rochester did not see any fusion events, and they had the most sensitive neutron detector in the world (Lewis at Caltech had the second most sensitive detector in the world). They were also checking for heat, gammas, and mass spectroscopy (measured only D2 and HD). Two groups from Texas A&M both reported excess heat observed. One group, Appleby et al, stressed their calorimetry while the other, Bockris, talked about bursts of neutrons and their tritium measurements. ---------------- As a postscript, allow me to pass on two rumors. On a recent trip to Los Alamos, Pons was supposed to bring one of his working Pd electrodes for analysis. When he arrived, he told LANL that he had "forgotten" the electrode. (This is cooperation??) There is also a claim being made that the public relations department at Texas A&M rivals Utah's for creating sensationalism. There has been a few interesting claims in the past from them. Any comments from the Aggies? It is not clear to me that the diffusion of an indicator has any relation to heat transfer or mixing to eliminate thermal gradients. Pons appears to be evading effective tests of his calorimetry. The best report of the special session which I have seen so far is in the Wall Street Journal of today (5/10). Lewis of Caltech appeared on the national networks' news yesterday. I did not see it but he was said not to look very good (agitated, five o'clock shadow). Fleischmann was impeccable. Patrick Wyant Engineering Physics Lab E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Wilmington, DE 19880-0357 *!uunet!eplrx7!wyant cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenwyant cudlnwyant cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / john@prism.TMC / Re: Cold fusion in today's news Originally-From: john@prism.TMC.COM Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion in today's news Date: 9 May 89 18:14:00 GMT I believe one consideration in getting a patent granted is that the thing be "not obvious". I wonder if F&P are putting us all through this, while witholding the non-obvious thing, to give them a better case. They could say: "Well all the best labs tried, and nobody thought to add XXX, so the method is definitely not obvious." Wasn't there somebody back in the 30's who proposed something quite similar with palladium? Maybe they want to make it clear that theirs is not just trivially different from that. cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenjohn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 10 May 89 19:12:04 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <11298@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) writes: > > F&P claim -> more energy out than in. > > no FUSION implies: > a) fission (what the ?? is fissioning, though???) > b) E = mc2 equation does not always hold, i.e. another way of getting > energy > c) matter converted directly into energy > > given that there isn't a lot of radiation, and doesn't seem to be > radioactive waste, either of those three alternatives is good news. Given the materials they are working with the only fission process that would theoretically give an energy gain would be converting palladium to an element near iron. I don't believe this for a number of reasons, but even if I did this would be a less efficient, and more expensive, version of uranium fission. Of course, based on the evidence to date it would not involve emission of neutrons (and so would be relatively clean), but this is yet another reason to doubt that this process is taking place. I'm not willing to give up E=mc^2 just yet. Sorry, but it seems much harder to believe than room temperature fusion that leaves no traces except heat. Matter is constantly being converted directly into energy in any chemical reaction. I assume you mean baryon non-conservation, something along the lines of hydrogen into energy. This would be a remarkable discovery (most speculations about baryon non-conservation start with processes above 10^3 Gev or so, in fact, most involve energies of 10^15 Gev before allowing the process). However, one would still expect gamma ray emission and other more exotic stuff to come out of such a process. In other words, much as theoretical physics would have to be stretched to allow cold fusion, the alternatives you've listed seem much much harder to accept. For myself, I will believe in cold fusion when examination of electrodes used in excess heat experiments consistently show fusion products and tracks from fast moving charged particles. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,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: cuddy10 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / jlk / Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: jlk@siesoft (jlk) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 9 May 89 07:37:24 GMT Organization: Siemens SDG, woodley, England The Sunday Times (England) lead with the following article on May 7, 1989 "Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion" Sicentists at Harwell, the world;s leading nuclear laboratory, have finally buried hopes that 'cold fusion' is the key to solving mankind's engery problems. Dr. David Williams, head of the Oxfordshire team which has carried out painstaking checks on the method, said yeaterday: 'We have spotted neither head nor radiation.' The verdict is regarded as decisive because the checks were carried out with the help of Prof. martin Fleischmann, who, together with his former student Stanley Pons, make the orginal claims six weeks ago. The two scientists had told a press conference in Utah that using their 'test- tube' method, a gallon of sea water could produce as much energy as 300,000 gallons of petrol withot contributing to the greenhouse effect, acid rain or producing radioactive waste. It now appears that no more energy is given out from the table-top apparatus - based on electrochemical cells - than is put into it. One possibility is that the orginal experiment was distorted by background levels of gases and radioactivity. Another is that the two scientists were misled by faulty instruments. Williams, who expressed reservations from the start, said: 'We believe we have duplicated the experiments of Fleischmann and Pons, but using much more sensitive equipment. Given the numbers we had been told to expect, we should have seen something leap out at us by now. This has not happened.' By his onw admission, the findings could leave Fleischmann a Harwell consultant, with 'egg on my face'. They are likely also to embarrass researchers who claimed to have replicated the results. The Harwell scientists cast doubts last week on experiements carried out by Brigham Young University, Utah, where a second group, led by Prof. Stephen Hones, claimed to have preformed cold fusion albiet with only a fraction of the head output. 'Our machines are well able to pick up emissions at the level soptted by Birgham Young University, but so far we have failed to find anything.' said Williams. Fleischmann, of Southampton University, and Pons stunned the world with the announcement that they ha d found a way to tap nuclear fusion - the process that powers the sun and hydrogen bombs. They claimed that nuclie of deuterium, which is present in sea water, could be fused by passing an electric current through a test-tube of 'heavy water'. The process seemed to give out head equal to four times the amount put in. It seemed too good to be true, but experts at the UK Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell decided the claims merited serious investigation. Three weeks ago, sitll with no positive results, Harwell doubled its team working full-time on the project and increased the number of electro-chemical cells in the test. Doubts grew as it switched from looking for the head output claimed by Fleischmann and Pons, in favour of measurements a billionth of the size which had been reproted by Brigham Young University. The laboratory plans to spen a final month of research looking for evidence of a trace material which could have accounted for the results. cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenjlk cudlnjlk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / P Thompson / Re: Survey on Cold Fusion Originally-From: P.J.Thompson@newcastle.ac.uk (P.J. Thompson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Survey on Cold Fusion Date: 10 May 89 15:10:21 GMT Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE17RU If this gets out I shall eat my hat!!!!!!!!!!!!!! cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenThompson cudfnP cudlnThompson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Thomas Hacker / Re: Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Originally-From: hackertj@egrunix.UUCP (Thomas J Hacker) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Electrochemical Society meeting (from newpaper accounts) Date: 10 May 89 20:37:11 GMT Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI Hello! Just FYI, I happened to see a program on CBC (Candadian Broadcasting) that had a 15 minute story on the Cold Fusion debtate. They showed a tape of the news conference of the Electrochemical Soc meeting. One thing that was obvious was that Dr's P & F were very sure of their work, and had done very thorough science to reply to the objections of their detractors. But Dr Lewis (the Caltech electrochemist) seemed to be just throwing out objections to their work willy-nilly and seemed to be saying that if MIT and Caltech can't get it, it just can't be right....a very dangerous and snobby viewpoint. Dr's P & F were constrained and composed, whereas Dr Lewis was very emotional and 'flamey'. -- Thomas Hacker ...Weave a circle round him thrice, Physics/CS Undergraduate And close your eyes with holy dread, Oakland University For he on honeydew hath fed, --"Kubla Khan" hackertj@unix.secs.oakland.edu And drunk the milk of Paradise. -- ST Coleridge cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenhackertj cudfnThomas cudlnHacker cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Dave Skinner / When are the Appearances by by the Other Excess Heat Producers? Originally-From: dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: When are the Appearances by by the Other Excess Heat Producers? Date: 10 May 89 22:37:55 GMT Organization: Jet Propulsion Labs, Pasadena, CA Does anybody know when/if Huggins (Stanford), the Case Western team, and the two Texas A&M teams are going to speak at the Electrochemical Society meeting in Los Angeles this week? cudkeys: cuddy10 cudendave cudfnDave cudlnSkinner cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Robert Munck / Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Originally-From: munck@linus.UUCP (Robert Munck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Date: 9 May 89 13:18:44 GMT Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA In article <2192ANDQC@CUNYVM> ANDQC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: >As a sociologist I have found the discussion in ALT.Fusion fascinating... > > 1) It plainly shows that science operates on the basis of gossip, misinfor- > mation, invective and ad hominum attacks like many other social insti- > tutions. Especially when a pattern may be broken and many vested int- > erests are at stake. Another thing to keep in mind is that most science is done by grad students and post-grads, slaving away in window-less concrete block. Most of the "big names" that we see quoted in the media and on the podium at meetings are years away from their last practice of science, unless you count the Science of Bureaucracy. The practitioners are at the meetings too, but they've come in crowded old cars, are staying at the cheap motel down the block, and spend their time in the coffee shop talking real science. On the other hand, a great deal of net traffic is generated by sophomores who really should be studying. They're recognizable by their passing acquaintence with grammer, syntax, and spelling, and a general, undirected anger. Finally, this controversy has given us a chance to see some real science on the net from real, practicing scientists. I, for one, am grateful for the chance to eavesdrop. -- Bob Munck cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenmunck cudfnRobert cudlnMunck cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Jay Freeman / Possible mechanism to make reproducibility difficult Originally-From: freeman@armada.UUCP (Jay R. Freeman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Possible mechanism to make reproducibility difficult Date: 10 May 89 19:40:12 GMT Organization: MasPar Computer Corporation, Santa Clara I was thinking about some calculations I've seen for expected distances between hydrogen atoms trapped in the palladium lattice, and the consequent fusion rates, when it occurred to me to wonder whether or not anyone has considered the presence of (a) lattice-distorting impurities or (b) crystal defects in the palladium. Either of these could cause the presence of lattice sites that are an especially tight squeeze for wandering deuterium. The fusion rate goes up enormously as the inter-deuteron distance drops. Thus if fusion is present, a large proportion of it might conceivably be due to the presence of a small number of particularly favorable sites in the lattice, caused by some such mechanism. The proportion of such sites would naturally vary considerably from electrode to electrode, depending on its metallurgical history, resulting in widely varying observed fusion rates. This hypothesis has the peculiar consequence that the more carefully you make your palladium electrodes, the less likely you are to achieve fusion: Great metallurgical care presumably means higher-purity palladium to begin with, fussing about contaminants, and controlling the casting/forming process to produce more regular crystalline structure within the metal. -- Jay Freeman cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenfreeman cudfnJay cudlnFreeman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Michael McClary / Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a weapon? Date: 10 May 89 21:59:44 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <8205@phoenix.princeton.edu> mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) writes: > >[] I think that we should totally hype the notion that this >cold fusion business can be made into a bomb. Perhaps then all the >terrorists might waste all their time trying to make one instead of making >things that might actually kill people, which unfortunately, they seem >rather adept at. I'd prefer you didn't. If there's one thing that will get governments clamping down on private fusion experiments and component avialibility, it's the rumor of private H-bombs. cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Michael McClary / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 10 May 89 22:52:55 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <1989May8.082931.21850@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <3495@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > >>>Lots of physicists have looked at this. No one has an idea of how >>>radiation output from d+d fusion can be suppressed by >= 9 orders of >>>magnitude, and there are excellent reasons to believe that no such >>>theory is possible, as others have outlined in this group. > >>Take a look at the papers by Horowitz and by Koonin and Nauenberg. >>Both come to the conclusion that the dominant reaction should be >>D + p --> He-3 + gamma + 5.49 MeV or He-3 + e-e+ + 4.5 MeV. > >I've read those papers. The p+d reaction can also be ruled out as >explaining the F&P results. One watt of 5.5 MeV photons is over a >trillion photons per second. Not only would this have been detected, >it would have been a serious health hazard. >Many labs have used gamma spectrometers that have no problem >detecting .511 MeV photons. F&P's NaI detetor could also see >.511 MeV photons; too bad they didn't publish the full spectrum. > >U. of Florida looked for X-rays -- nothing. That's not totally >convincing, since they are only one lab, but I'm not losing sleep. Lately the newsgroup has been concentrating on Duterium and Protium. The speculations of other reactions seem to have fallen behind the file-cleanout horizon. Remember them? Remember "D + (6)Li -> (4)He + (4)He + momentum" ? No gammas (?), no protons, no neutrons. Just alphas, which stop in a VERY short distance, yeilding heat. You MIGHT detect some alphas near the surface of the crystal, but they wouldn't make it out of the test-tube, let alone the water bath. (That's one of the reasons I suggested doing the experiment in a scintilation bath. Three others: - To see if particles were emitted in coherent bursts. - To see if particles were emitted in characteristic directions from an experiment with a single-crystal. - It's hard to claim nothing nuclear is happening if there's a glowing cloud or intermittent glowing lines coming from the palladium . Remember my previous post on experiments I'd like to see? I haven't seen ANY of them reported yet.) You'd also get the general low-level havoc from decellerating charged particles in a crowded neighborhood, but this would have a fuzzier signature than fusion processes which directly emit gammas of characteristic energies. cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Luis Arean / Re: Quote from Lewis Originally-From: arean@polya.Stanford.EDU (Luis F. Arean) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Quote from Lewis Date: 11 May 89 00:12:42 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article <1772@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: > > Lewis on NBC news, 9 May: > > "So far, [fusion] hasn't been reproduced at any place > without a good football team." > Thanks on behalf of the Stanford Cardinal! Wonder why we never make the bowls... Luis cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenarean cudfnLuis cudlnArean cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / bass randale / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 10 May 89 23:24:20 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <329@eplrx7.UUCP> wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) writes: > > It is not clear to me that the diffusion of an indicator has any >relation to heat transfer or mixing to eliminate thermal gradients. >Pons appears to be evading effective tests of his calorimetry. > It is not diffusion that he showed, but convection. His assertion is that substantial convection is occuring as a result of the gas generation. He also believes that mixing is not required since the convection effectively mixes the fluid. Apparently, Fleischmann showed a tape of a drop of indicator being well mixed into the cell by convection in a time less than about 20 seconds. With these convective effects, the demonstration should put questions of thermal gradients to rest for good. We can now get on to answering the important question, "Is this fusion?" dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Donn Seeley / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 11 May 89 00:10:03 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept ... On a recent trip to Los Alamos, Pons was supposed to bring one of his working Pd electrodes for analysis. When he arrived, he told LANL that he had "forgotten" the electrode. (This is cooperation??) This sounds like it might be garbled, based on what I saw in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune: Legal problems have prevented the Uniersity of Utah from wrapping up an agreement with Los Alamos National Laboratory to collaborate on fusion research. U of U and Los Alamos officials confirmed Tuesday that collaborative research ... has been put on hold while a Salt Lake City law firm closely examines the agreement. 'We were ready yesterday,' said Los Alamos spokesman Jeff Schwartz, adding only, 'Talk to Dr Brophy' about the delay. ... 'We're ready, too,' Dr Brophy said. 'But the lawyers say don't go ahead. You'll have to ask them why.' ... [T]he Salt Lake [law] firm retained by the U of U ... did not return Tribune calls Tuesday. Dr Brophy said that, as far as he knows, the attorneys 'are concerned about protecting the university's intellectual property rights while working with a national laboratory. 'They're properly doing their job,' he added. 'But we can't go ahead until they give us the green light.' Dr Brophy said he thought the agreement would be completed by now. 'For the last week I've been saying tomorrow... It looks like several days to a week' before the contract is finalized. It's beginning to look like lawyers are a convenient excuse, Donn cudkeys: cuddy11 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Tom Krajna / Fleischmann ECS comment Originally-From: tgk@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Tom Krajna) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fleischmann ECS comment Date: 11 May 89 00:29:29 GMT Organization: UF CIS Department In today's Gainesville Sun (5/10), from The Washington Post, regarding the Electrochemical Society meeting: [Pons and Fleischmann] ...remained confident that they had achieved cold fusion and said the pair were staking their claim on a new experiment designed to overcome the shortcomings of the earlier one. If the new experiment fails, Fleischmann was asked, would all hope for cold fusion be gone? "Yes," he replied, "the most substantial part would be gone." [Looks like it's the bottom of the ninth, with two men out...] ...Fleischmann said a graph in their published paper indicating that neutrons were created was wrong because his neutron detector was faulty. "We are well aware that peak (in the graph) is wrong...It disturbs me greatly," Fleischmann told the audience of hundreds. Pons said that a new detector will be used and the tests run again. [Any guess on what the results will be?] -- Tom Krajna UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!tgk University of Florida Internet: tgk@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS: 73267,1652 What's an analogy like? cudkeys: cuddy11 cudentgk cudfnTom cudlnKrajna cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / L Hutchinson / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 10 May 89 16:13:18 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <1197@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.UUCP (Mark Wilkins) writes: ]quantities as low as several parts-per-trillion, because care was taken to ]use a technique called Fourier transform mass spectrometry which is ]thousands of times more sensitive than conventional mass spectrometric ]techniques. I know about Fourier transform IR and NMR but have never heard of FTMS. Can anyone give a concise description? 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: cuddy10 cudenlarryh cudfnLarry cudlnHutchinson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Lord Head / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 11 May 89 01:28:59 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <1269@argon.siesoft>, jlk@siesoft (jlk) writes: > ... The verdict is regarded as decisive because the checks > were carried out with the help of Prof. martin Fleischmann.... > should have seen something leap out at us by now. This has not happened.' > ...By his own admission, the findings could leave Fleischmann, a Harwell > consultant, with 'egg on my face'... I'm getting impatient about "Agent X" which Messrs. F&P clutch to so tightly (a popular, if not unique interpretation). Surely Fleischmann, faced with this HIGHLY embarrassing situation, feels BEHOLDEN to let the cat out of the bag. The poker game has limits - so does my patience! Of course, the cat may have been that famous feline well-known to Schroedinger... :-@ Fed up and irritated, -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenandrew cudfnLord cudlnHead cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Jeff Hunter / Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Originally-From: jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: A suggestion for P&F. Calorimetry. Date: 10 May 89 23:22:53 GMT Organization: Bell Canada, Business Development, Toronto In article <5105@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) writes: > As I have stated before, this whole P&F thing comes down to calorimetry - > the radiation measurements are amusing but not really relevant. In this > paper I would like to discuss the proper way to do the experiment while > still using the basic P&F cell. It requires NO assumptions about cell voltage > and does NOT assume that thermal conductivity measurements made before > the experiment are still valid during the experiment. > > (1) The system MUST be in equilibrium. If necessary, replacement [many good points deleted] > Accurately measure the rate of gas production and the rate > of D2O evaporation. From the thermodynamic constants, > calculate the power that is leaving the cell via these > two pathways. Note that this measurement is the most > difficult part of my experiment design. Someone on the net (the message has expired) suggested burning the D2 & O2 right in the F&P cell. Of course you need better cooling, but you no longer have to estimate the energy lost in the gas. [followed by more good points] Of course when you've done all this the effect may well go away. Then you're faced with the question of whether or not any of the conditions you've imposed killed the fusion. Proving negatives is both thankless and impossible (but still worth trying). -- ___ __ __ {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff (416-595-2705) / / /) / ) -- my opinions -- -/ _ -/- /- No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent. (__/ (/_/ _/_ Greg Bear cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenjeff cudfnJeff cudlnHunter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Larry Brader / Re: An end to speculation? Originally-From: larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: An end to speculation? Date: 10 May 89 20:43:08 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <2277@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: >There are two reasons to withold information pursuant to applying for a >patent: > - Desire to keep people in the dark about the basic invention while > you research related inventions. > - The invalidating of foreign patent claims upon publication before > patent application. > >I suspect the latter is more of the issue here (welcome to the world >community). The US will let you publish before you apply. Most other >nations do not. The basic problem in reproducing the F&P experiment seems to be inadequate amount of information. And UU sures seems to be piecemeal out the information about their setup (ie at the Chemical confernce someone posted that there's Beryllium contain in the electordes). Before running off and retrying the experiment how about someone signing a non-disclosure with the UU. They definately have enought laywers to produce an ironclad document. ;-). -- Larry Brader :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net timesurfing the new temporal sport cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenlarryb cudfnLarry cudlnBrader cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Laurence Leff / Patent Right Issues Originally-From: leff@smu.edu (Laurence Leff) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Patent Right Issues Date: 10 May 89 22:49:55 GMT Organization: Southern Methodist University, CSE Dept. Dallas, TX Re: Pons and Fleischmann holding back discussions of their invention to secure patent rights. From the U. S. Patent law, Section 102 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-- (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreighn country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States. Thus, as long as Pons/Fleischmann get their patent application to the Patent Office by March of 1990, there is no difficulty with other people taking advantage of the situation to produce or market power from the system. As far as foreign countries are concerned, if the foreign country is a "convention country," they have one year from the date of the U. S. filing date to get the application to the other countries. See page 238 of Patent Law: A Practitioner's Guide by Hildredth and section 119 of the U. S. Patent Code which gives the reciprocal rights for inventors from other countries. (The former is an excellent introduction to patent law which is targetted, as per its preface, to both lawyers and appropriate laymen. It is published by the Practising Law Institute, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 88-61771) From page 59 of Hildredth, ".. publication ... can be anything that is printed and available to the public in country without any injunction of secrecy. This can include, for example,... material in a public library, a catalog for promoting sales, or papers distributed at a meeting of a technical society." I would suspect that the press releases, papers in Journal of Electrochemical Society, etc. from Pons/Fleischman would constitute publication, except perhaps they were incomplete. The fact that some may have succeeded in reproduction should be sufficient to constitute sufficient publication even if others failed. Laurence Leff A job is like sex, when you do it for money Complete Address: 75275-0122, You take away all the fun. Phone: 214-692-2859 Moderator comp.doc.techreports/TRLIST, Symbolic Math List convex!smu!leff leff%smu.uucp@uunet E1AR0002 at SMUVM1 (BITNET) cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenleff cudfnLaurence cudlnLeff cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Sean Casey / U of U palladium Originally-From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: U of U palladium Date: 11 May 89 05:08:51 GMT Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY I wonder how hard it would be to find out where U of U got their palladium... -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet *** Quid, me vexari? {backbone|rutgers|uunet}!ukma!sean *** ``BITNET: slower than a speeding mountain...'' cudkeys: cuddy11 cudensean cudfnSean cudlnCasey cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 11 May 89 09:50:26 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Dale Bass writes: > > Apparently, Fleischmann showed a tape of a drop of indicator > being well mixed into the cell by convection in a time less > than about 20 seconds. With these convective effects, the > demonstration should put questions of thermal gradients to rest > for good. We can now get on to answering the important > question, "Is this fusion?" Well, maybe. Let's have a look at F&P's original data. I computed the following numbers from table 1 of their article for the Journal of Electroanalytic chemistry (the 20/Mar/89 draft that was circumfaxed through the net): Electrode Current Total Excess rate of dimensions density current heating claimed (cm) (amp/cm^2) (amperes) (watts) (deg.C/min) +---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. | 0.1 x 10 0.008 0.025 0.0075 0.00086 2. | 0.1 x 10 0.064 0.202 0.079 0.0091 3. | 0.1 x 1.25 0.512 0.205 0.082 0.0094 | 4. | 0.2 x 10 0.008 0.051 0.036 0.0041 5. | 0.2 x 10 0.064 0.404 0.493 0.057 6. | 0.2 x 1.25 0.512 0.418 0.377 0.043 | 7. | 0.4 x 10 0.008 0.102 0.153 0.018 8. | 0.4 x 10 0.064 0.812 1.751 0.201 <<< 9. | 0.4 x 1.25 0.512 0.879 3.350 0.384 <<< | 10. | 0.2 x 8 x 8 0.0008 0.010 0.000** 0.000 11. | 0.2 x 8 x 8 0.0012 0.015 0.027 0.003 12. | 0.2 x 8 x 8 0.0016 0.020 0.079 0.009 | I hope I haven't misread the paper or bungled in the arithmetic. (The entry marked ** was 0.153 in the paper, but that looks like a typo, since the corresponding heat/cc is given as 0.) Note that the numbers in the last column are *not* F&P data; I computed them from the preceding column only to help visualize the magnitude of the claimed effects. I guessed the cell's internal volume as 125ml (4 cm diameter by 10cm length), and assumed a specific heat of 4.18 joules/deg.C/gram and a totally insulated cell. Now, given all the things that are or could be happening in the F&P cell (convection, bubbling, evaporation, D+O recombination, PdH phase changes, non-uniform electric currents, poorly-characterized electrodes that change with time, etc.), the majority of those numbers look rather unimpressive. For comparison, the the six 34-watt fluorescent lamps in my office dump some 0.015 watts into my coffe mug. A 60-watt desk lamp 70 cm away would dump some 0.040 watts into the same mug. For direct sunlight the figure would be more than 0.500 watts. (Hmm... I wonder whether F&P's lab has windows... :-). I would say that the only "dramatic" numbers are those in rows 8 and 9. Still, the effect of that much extra heat in a perfectly insulated cell would be to warm it up only 1/5 to 2/5 degree Celsius per minute faster than its "normal" rate of warming, whatever that is. (Of course, that is not what F&P measured. I understand that their cell is not totally insulated, so the "excess" heat production manifests itself as a higher equilibrium temperature, rather then a higher rate of temperature increase. Unfortunately the paper does not give a single temperature measurement. It also doesn't give the voltages applied to the electrodes, so I can't compute how much power was actually going into the cell in each case. Note that in experiments 3, 6, and 9 the increase in current density was obtained by using an electrode only 1/8 as long (or, more likely, by pulling 7/8 of the electrode out of the water), while keeping the total current constant. In that case, I suspect that heating and bubbling were pretty much confined to the top half inch of the cell. I find it hard to believe that the cell would still be be adequately stirred in such circumstances. So, since F&P pretty much admitted that their neutron/gamma measurements were meaningless, their claims seem to be based essentially on *one* significant published number: the 1.751 watts of experiment 8, which was computed by them indirectly from measurements of voltage, temperature, and thermal conductivity that, as far as I know, are yet to be made public or satisfactorily reproduced. While F&P may still be right, I think that skepticism about the reality of their claims is still quite warranted. Jorge Stolfi Department of Cold Confusion Division of Experimental Presumption DEC Systems Research Center -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Truth is tranger than fusion." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: My employer is not in the cold fusion business (yet). cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Paul Dietz / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 11 May 89 13:52:11 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article michael@xanadu.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes: >Remember "D + (6)Li -> (4)He + (4)He + momentum" ? No gammas (?), >no protons, no neutrons. Just alphas, which stop in a VERY short >distance, yeilding heat. It would produce gammas. See D. Bailey's preprint. The alpha particles would have about 11 MeV of energy, and would cause coulomb excitation of the Pd nuclei. Bailey computes 1 watt of fusion by this mechanism would make about 2 million gamma photons per second. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy11 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Paul Dietz / Rumor-mongering Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Rumor-mongering Date: 11 May 89 14:01:58 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <3968@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) writes: >The basic problem in reproducing the F&P experiment seems to be inadequate >amount of information. And UU sures seems to be piecemeal out the information >about their setup (ie at the Chemical confernce someone posted that there's >Beryllium contain in the electordes). Excuse me? I posted a clearly labeled unsupported speculation that there might be Be in the electrodes. Is this an echo of that rather unlikely proposal, or did I (wonders!) guess correctly? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy11 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Paul Dietz / Re: U of U palladium Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: U of U palladium Date: 11 May 89 14:52:16 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <11677@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >I wonder how hard it would be to find out where U of U got their palladium... Not hard at all, I think. In their paper, Pons and Fleischmann say: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We thank Johnson Matthey PLC for the loan of precious metals for this project. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy11 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Vic Riley / Free Enterprise System at Work Originally-From: riley@m1.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Vic Riley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Free Enterprise System at Work Date: 11 May 89 16:08:51 GMT Received from Anticipatory Sciences Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota: "Capitalize Now on Cold Fusion New Venture Workshop and _Demo_ by Anticipatory Sciences Incorporated and American Thin Film Laboratories, Incorporated." The flier goes on to give an agenda for a workshop on May 18, at which several people will discuss the science, business potential, and social implications of cold fusion. A demonstration is scheduled for the afternoon, after a catered lunch. The workshop wraps up with a description of venture opportunities. Some gems from the accompanying letter: "Colf Fusion: Is It Real? by Earl Joseph, President, Anticipatory Sciences Incorporated "Well yes, cold fusion is possible. But are the Pons-Fleischmann 'fusion in a jar' claims real? How much does it really matter at this stage?" Then some stuff about what if it really works. Then: "Patent and New Venture Possibilities - The multitude of new venture and patent possibilities triggerable from a true cold fusion breakthrough fall into a wide range of arenas. Some spheres to look for application patents include: Power industry: * On-site or distributed site power generation * Elimination of long transmission paths (wires on poles) * Huge reduction in acid rain * Co-generation power generation equipment * Direct electrical generation from cold fusion process * A cold fusion process for generating electrical power from heat * Portable power generation equipment Building construction: * Heating and cooling * Power generation * Deuterium piping to buildings Transportation: * New cold fusion energy driven engines * Vehicle - autos, busses, trains, boats, aerospace... * Elimination of smog via the use of pollution-free cold fusion powered engines" ... and the list goes on for a while. And, a personalized letter (Macintosh-generated) with My Name on it and everything, promising that, "The cold fusion energy breakthrough offers an unprecedented opportunity for creating new ventures and/or to revitalize your region's economic vitality." And later: "The opportunity window for entry into this rapidly developing new venture business area is relatively short. This workshop is designed to show how you can profit from this breakthrough. For example, we anticipate that in the next few months and years there will be 1000's (sic) of cold fusion patents applied for to 'lock-in' opportunities. New venture support businesses for this multi-million dollar market (and in the early 1990's (sic) a billion dollar market) is also a way you can capitalize now on this breakthrough. There are many other opportunities that will be aired and strategized at this workshop." Yes, indeed. And all for the low, low price of $1000 per attendee. - Victor Riley - Honeywell Systems and Research Center - Minneapolis, MN - The preceeding doesn't reflect the views of my company, or me either, for that matter. cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenriley cudfnVic cudlnRiley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.09 / Dave Mack / Re: Cast-Pd "secret" Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cast-Pd "secret" Date: 9 May 89 13:45:43 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems In article <1850@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >Sorry, but a few FACTS disprove this theory rather thoroughly: > > (1) Resistance of D-Pd system is only slightly higher than that > of H-Pd at high concentrations: 1.75x10^-5 ohm-cm vs > 1.42x10^-5 ohm-cm. Notice that both of these are extremely > low: resistance of the rod end-to-end (the worst case) at > 4mmx10cm is: 1.3x10^-4 ohm. To get 26 watts from that > requires a current of 454 Amperes. To get a 26 watt difference > from light water requires 1046 Amperes. They were actually > running (after scaling) 6.43 Amperes. Oh my God, FACTS! Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted. :-) Of course, you need to take the resistance of the entire system into account in the energy balance, not just the cathode, not to mention the energy used in hydrolyzing the D2O, the energy absorbed during the alpha-beta transition of the Pd, and the heat balance relating to D+ occlusion into the cathode. > (2) Drawn/Milled Pd has a HIGHER permeability to D2 and H2. It has > at least the occlusive capacity (capacity to absorb gas) as > cast Pd. Are you sure about this, John? If so, could you please cite a reference? An earlier posting mentioned that D accumulates at crystalline boundaries. Since either drawn or milled palladium should have massive amounts of dislocation at the rod surface, it would seem that it should take a much longer time for D+ to diffuse into such a rod. Indeed, I assumed that this was the reason for the long chargeup time F&P say is necessary to make the experiment work, even with cast rods, and why most of the attempts to replicate the experiment have failed. The crystalline structure of a cast palladium rod should depend strongly on how quickly it cooled and how it was treated after removal from the mold, etc. If bulk palladium (not foil) is actually *more* permeable when it has dislocations, that shoots this idea straight to hell, doesn't it? -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy9 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Ethan Vishniac / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 11 May 89 13:49:27 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <329@eplrx7.UUCP>, wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) writes: > .... They offered to test anybody's electrodes > for the gas. Pons responded (later) that his electrodes were already > committed to an (unnamed) destination, and Texas A&M simply refused. Now I'm confused. I thought that Lewis had already tested an electrode from A&M and found no fusion products. > As a postscript, allow me to pass on two rumors. On a recent trip to > Los Alamos, Pons was supposed to bring one of his working Pd electrodes > for analysis. When he arrived, he told LANL that he had "forgotten" the > electrode. (This is cooperation??) No. > Lewis of Caltech appeared > on the national networks' news yesterday. I did not see it but he was > said not to look very good (agitated, five o'clock shadow). Fleischmann > was impeccable. I saw it. It was not very informative. Lewis commented that the UU results had "not been confirmed at any national lab or any university without a good football team". One of the irritating things about TV news is their constant attempt to reduce all arguments to personal attacks. In this case Lewis seems to have assisted them. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,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: cuddy11 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Ted Dunning / Re: U of U palladium Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: U of U palladium Date: 11 May 89 15:16:00 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <11677@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: I wonder how hard it would be to find out where U of U got their palladium... in his seminar at the uu, pons said that the pd was obtained on loan of ohc johnson. cudkeys: cuddy11 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / M Ginsberg / Re: U of U palladium Originally-From: ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: U of U palladium Date: 11 May 89 18:48:47 GMT Organization: Stanford University In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > >in his seminar at the uu, pons said that the pd was obtained on loan >of ohc johnson. I guess Pons is betting that the reaction (if there is one) is not chemical. Johnson apparently is expecting the palladium back! Matt Ginsberg cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenginsberg cudfnMatthew cudlnGinsberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Dave Mack / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 11 May 89 16:21:24 GMT Organization: Alembic Systems In article <1269@argon.siesoft> jlk@siesoft.uucp () writes: > >The Sunday Times (England) > >lead with the following article on May 7, 1989 > > >"Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion" > >Sicentists at Harwell, the world;s leading nuclear laboratory, have finally >buried hopes that 'cold fusion' is the key to solving mankind's engery >problems. Dr. David Williams, head of the Oxfordshire team which has carried >out painstaking checks on the method, said yeaterday: 'We have spotted neither >head nor radiation.' The verdict is regarded as decisive because the checks >were carried out with the help of Prof. martin Fleischmann, who, together with >his former student Stanley Pons, make the orginal claims six weeks ago. Ouch! OK, Harwell, even with Fleischmann's assistance, can't reproduce it. Yet they continue to report it as a real (and given the ECS meeting comments, a quite impressive) effect. Conclusions? Either Fleischmann intentionally withheld information from Harwell, or FPH themselves have no idea what the key is. I'm beginning to suspect that the latter possibility is the truth. They aren't letting the Pd rods out to *anyone* - not even LANL, apparently - so they know that the key is there. My guess is that they are desperately trying to figure out why some rods work and others don't, before someone else tumbles to it and patents it ahead of them. Paul Dietz's speculations about beryllium or boron impurities are interesting, but don't fit the facts as reported by FPH. They were led into this area of research when they independently noticed that sometimes Pd-D systems ended up with the deuterium levels noticeably depleted. This suggests that Be-9 + p isn't the answer, since it would work better with water than heavy water. The deuterium is an essential component in the reaction. A reaction with boron seems unlikely due to the high Coulomb barrier, as Paul pointed out. The problem with any reaction involving impurities which are consumed by the reaction is that they should be used up gradually, and the amount of heat produced should taper off. (Unless they are being replenished - could it be something in the lithium they're using to make the LiOD? Or [horrors!] could the heavy water they're using be contaminated with something?) Several weeks ago, someone on the net reported that (according to Pons) there was only one guy who knew how to make rods that worked. If this is true, it should eliminate any possibility that the contaminant (if there is one) is in the electrolyte. Both Jones and Scaramuzzi insist that non-equilibrium conditions are essential to the process they've observed. If the key is an impurity in the rods, it may be the result of an uneven distribution of the impurity within the rod - say, a higher concentration at the surface than in the interior or vice versa. (Note that this condition might be achieved in Jones' experiments through deposition of materials on the cathode, in which case he may only be seeing a surface effect, which could explain the tremendous difference in energy released. I know next to nothing about the Scaramuzzi set up - can someone who has read the preprint comment?) I have this sickening feeling that we aren't going to find out the truth until FPH release their materials for independent analysis, which may be a long way off. It's damned frustrating. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy11 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / bass randale / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 11 May 89 16:05:50 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <13739@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: > >Let's have a look at F&P's original data. I computed the following [many things deleted concerning the validity of calorimetry] >While F&P may still be right, I think that skepticism about the reality >of their claims is still quite warranted. Taking the Pons/Fleischmann claims at face value (as well as Huggins at Stanford and A&M's two groups and Case Western's group), there is a measurable effect here. And the effect claimed is much, much larger than that usually measured by calorimetry methods. It is clearly invalid now to postulate that significant thermal gradients exist in equilibrium in an operating cell. Having seen one in operation at apparently the maximum current density reported in P/F's experiments, I can state unequivocally that the gas generation is not confined to the upper part of the electrode. Even if it were, the magnitude of the generated gas, would produce substantial convection even in a postulated nongas producing region below the region of gas production. With this observation, Huggins' movement of the thermometers and P/F dispersion of the indicator, we can therefore lay the thermal gradient question to rest. Stirrers would not be more effective and would just add another source of energy for which to account. Apparently, this thermal gradient question was the major complaint about the calorimetry at the APS meeting in Baltimore. The only other complaint about the calorimetry is to conclude that not only are Pons/Fleischmann incompetent, but Huggins, the two A&Mers and the Case Westerners are incompetent simultaneously, and in the same manner. I believe that even Nathan Lewis in LA conceded that Huggins' experiments were "impressive". (I could be wrong about this. I cannot find the reference. But someone said this.) So we are forced to believe that either 4 groups of electrochemists and 1 group of mat. sci. people familiar with the Pd-H system are imcompetent, or there is a real heat effect. I suspect that Occam's razor does apply here. Before one complains that the experiments do not work, one should have a talk with one of the four groups that are still talking about about this (unless they have acquired lawyers as well). The surface chemistry of Pd is notoriously tricky and apparently the large scale lattice structure is important for this effect to occur (and from Hagelstein's hypothesis as to the mediation, thermal isolation and cosmic ray ignition may be necessary as well (this could explain the two-day "bursts" of energy), so throw away the lead bricks). For the patient (possibly none of us), we will know soon enough if there are any fusion byproducts in the electrode or electrolyte (unless the reaction is p + p -> d + ~0.5 MeV lattice). Science usually grinds slowly, it has been quicker than usual in this "cold fusion" case. Oh and by the way, Bednorz and Muller were ignored for several months when they published their paper. Contemporary interpretations of BCS theory did not allow (though they have been extended to interpret Bednorz and Muller' findings) high temperature superconductivity so their findings were preposterous. Maybe they should have held a press conference like Paul Chu did. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Dan Williams / Re: Fusion on TV, yet again Originally-From: dan@china.uu.net (Dan Williams) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion on TV, yet again Date: 11 May 89 19:20:19 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas Informations Systems, Englewood, CO In article <705400014@cdp>, caulkins@cdp.UUCP writes: > Pons: "Previous commitments prevent us from releasing our > electrodes. We made an agreement not to do so." > > Timothy Ferris (a science writer who attended the session) was > interviewed. He was negative about F&P, but seemed puzzled > rather than angry. He said F&P's failure to release their raw > data or allow visits to their laboratory was not the way > scientists generally behave. He has no idea why they won't > release their electrodes (or even pieces of them) for outside > analysis. Ferris thinks there is no commercial/patent reason > for secrecy, since much information about the F&P experiments > has been public for 6 weeks. Think about it this way. What could be a secret about the electrodes? P&F have claimed higher energy releases than others doing the experiments, and claim that others are doing things incorrectly. Perhaps there are some patents forthcoming on electrode composition and preparation. Perhaps they have entered into some contract with an organization that requires them to treat this experiment as proprietary information. To me it sounds like lawyers are involved, or bureaucrats | Dan Williams (uunet!china!dan) | FRP: It's not just a game, | | MCDONNELL DOUGLAS | it's an adventure! | | Denver CO | "Of course thats just my opinion" | -- | Dan Williams (uunet!china!dan) | FRP: It's not just a game, | | MCDONNELL DOUGLAS | it's an adventure! | | Denver CO | "Of course thats just my opinion" | cudkeys: cuddy11 cudendan cudfnDan cudlnWilliams cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Gregory Shippen / Repost: The jury is definately still out ... Originally-From: gshippen@pollux.usc.edu (Gregory Shippen) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Repost: The jury is definately still out ... Date: 11 May 89 19:02:40 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Sorry folks, seems the gremlins stole my article :-) It seems to me that the jury on whether P&F have fusion is very much out. As the emotion of the APS and ACS meetings begin to subside, the whole picture can be seen a bit more clearly. Perusing both sci.physics and alt.fusion, I have heard some appartently well founded reasoning that casts some question upon the utility of the detractors work (e.g. Lewis et al). Indeed it seems likely that aside from their lack of accurate information about the original experiment, their work may be just as hurried as P&F may have been. Nobody has yet scrutinized Lewis' work yet. Which brings me to another point... It seems clear now that P&F's work, while 5 years in the making, really only started recently. It seems likely that as soon as things started heating up (pun intended) the administration started butting in and things happened much faster that either of the two had intended. I do not intend to take away from the purported results, just that we had better realize that the work was probably not as mature as we have been led to believe. I believe (there's that useless word again) that they have *something*. The question is what. In the end then, we just don't know yet. Elements of both the supporters and the detractors experiments have either been refuted or called into question. While my emotional want for this to be true has tapered off as a result of the past roller coaster ride, my mind says that we probably don't know much more today about the truth of their claims than on March 23rd. Since this wouldn't be abnormally long for a less emotional and published claim, why should we be surprising if conclusions can't be made yet? In retrospect and in an attempt to put things in some perspective, I think some points in support of the administrations actions may in some small way be in order. *IF* fusion is real, clearly the legal gyrations that the UU is going through will seem very wise. All legal hell is likely to break loose if this is true -- by everybody and their dogs err lawyers :-) -- in an attempt to wrest control of the process from the university. Every legal detail would be scrutinized in an attempt at invalidating the patents. What has really bothered me about the comments regarding secrecy has been that many would likely behave in a similar manner if put in their shoes -- would CalTech have behaved any differently? If P&F are right -- as they believe -- they will eventually be vindicated and their reputations as scientists (aside from polititions) will be in some measure restored. They know that -- so they'll take a little heat for a while. When LANL says yea or nay after examining real live working cells, then the matter will be substantially resolved. Until then we wait... Gregory B. Shippen gshippen@pollux.usc.edu University of Southern California ***************************************************************************** cudkeys: cuddy11 cudengshippen cudfnGregory cudlnShippen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Ganesh Nathan / cold fusion - who cares? Originally-From: ganesh@otc.otca.oz (Ganesh Nathan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: cold fusion - who cares? Date: 11 May 89 05:16:47 GMT Organization: OTC Development Unit, Australia The well known but skeptical experiment by F&P claims to be a cold fusion. The most skepticism from other physicists regarding cold fusion is due to the absence of neutrons emission during the duplicated experiments. Well, it may not be the cold fusion which produced some considerable heat energy more than than the source energy. In my opinion as long as there is a break through to produce alternative cheap and clean energy, why one should worry about cold fusion which anyway is expected to produce neutrons which is a harmful radiation. Why can't there be some explanations other than cold fusion for the F&P experiment? cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenganesh cudfnGanesh cudlnNathan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / wyant / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 11 May 89 16:26:03 GMT > > Doesn't anybody out there have information on the chemist's meeting in > L.A. yesterday? I thought the net was supposed to provide instant > answers. :-) > Since this information is third hand, I felt embarrassed to post it. One of the company chemists is currently attending the ECS meeting and telephoned his comments back here. The person whom he reported to relayed the comments to the rest of us. Thus, this information is third hand with me. I expect to be brief. There were nine talks presented at the special cold fusion session of the Electrochemical Society. As a summary, six talks provided support for and three were negative on fusion. Jones of BYU and Lewis of Caltech essentially repeated their APS talks, but in 10 minutes (they were allowed 20-30 minutes at the APS). One of the supporting talks was somewhat confusing. Pons spoke but gave no new details of setting up their cell. To defend his calorimetry, Pons showed how an indicator spread throughout the cell to indicate adequate mixing. He also said that they were working to improve their neutron detection equipment, and that they were now seeing even more excess energy. There was no comment on the source of the Pd. Huggins from Stanford reported on excess heat generated from coin shaped Pd electrodes which were totally submerged. He assumed that there was no recombination of gases, and noted that reducing the concentration of deuterium (D2O) by adding water (H2O) stopped the heat generation. Several labs (Sandia, Livermore, MIT) claimed to have the capability to detect He to very low levels. They offered to test anybody's electrodes for the gas. Pons responded (later) that his electrodes were already committed to an (unnamed) destination, and Texas A&M simply refused. Landau from Case Western claimed to have not found any recombination of H2 and O2, to within 3% error. He also claimed to have observed 40% more excess heat than P&F had reported with D2O. There was no heat generated above error with H2O. The speaker from Washington was not connected with their cold fusion experiment at all. Evidently, a group of enthusiastic graduate students tried the experiment while their thesis advisor was out of town. When he returned, he did not want anything to do with their claims. Jorne from Rochester did not see any fusion events, and they had the most sensitive neutron detector in the world (Lewis at Caltech had the second most sensitive detector in the world). They were also checking for heat, gammas, and mass spectroscopy (measured only D2 and HD). Two groups from Texas A&M both reported excess heat observed. One group, Appleby et al, stressed their calorimetry while the other, Bockris, talked about bursts of neutrons and their tritium measurements. ---------------- As a postscript, allow me to pass on two rumors. On a recent trip to Los Alamos, Pons was supposed to bring one of his working Pd electrodes for analysis. When he arrived, he told LANL that he had "forgotten" the electrode. (This is cooperation??) There is also a claim being made that the public relations department at Texas A&M rivals Utah's for creating sensationalism. There has been a few interesting claims in the past from them. Any comments from the Aggies? It is not clear to me that the diffusion of an indicator has any relation to heat transfer or mixing to eliminate thermal gradients. Pons appears to be evading effective tests of his calorimetry. The best report of the special session which I have seen so far is in the Wall Street Journal of today (5/10). Lewis of Caltech appeared on the national networks' news yesterday. I did not see it but he was said not to look very good (agitated, five o'clock shadow). Fleischmann was impeccable. Patrick Wyant Engineering Physics Lab E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Wilmington, DE 19880-0357 *!uunet!eplrx7!wyant cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenwyant cudlnwyant cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Howard Hall / feedback from Lawrence Berkeley Lab on gamma vs xray definition Originally-From: jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) Originally-From: gamma@Csa1.LBL.Gov (Howard Hall) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: feedback from Lawrence Berkeley Lab on gamma vs xray definition Date: 11 May 89 21:45:34 GMT Date: Thu, 11 May 89 12:05:38 PDT Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA ] I have just received some very good feedback from Howard Hall about ] the difference between X-rays and Gamma rays. He gives me permission ] to forward it, so I think I will. It is very straightforward, and ] clarifies things extremely nicely. Here we go: Date: Thu, 11 May 89 12:05:38 PDT Originally-From: gamma@Csa1.LBL.Gov (Howard Hall) In reply to your recent posting re: Paul Dietz's posting, specifically about your point 4: >4) I would think that 511KeV would still be called an X-ray, but I >guess the air gets pretty thin up there, and the difference is sorta >moot. To those of us in the nuclear chemistry field, the difference between a 511 keV gamma ray and an x-ray is quite significant. X-rays arise from electronic transitions in the orbital structure of the atom and are hence limited by the electron binding energies of the orbital states. As an example, the K-shell x-ray energies of plutonium (the last naturally-occurring element) are on the order of 99, 103, 117, and 120 keV. For 511 keV to be an x-ray would require superheavy elements unattainable in our wildest fantasies. On the other hand, gamma rays arise from transitions in the nuclear level structure and are not so strictly contrained in energy, potentially varying from near 0 keV to well in excess of 100 MeV. 511 keV by itself is a weird case, since it usually arises from the annihilation of a positron (anti-electron), and is generally considered to be neither a gamma ray nor an x-ray in the strictest sense of the terms, but rather a type of "annihilation radiation." Howard L. Hall HLHall @ LBL.gov Nuclear Science Division Lawrence Berkeley Lab Berkeley, CA 94720 P.S.: You can forward this to FUSION if you feel like it. ===================================================================== Interestingly, it is clear from your description that the terms 'gamma', 'x', and 'annihilation radiation' refer to the origin of the photon, rather than to any particular energy range. My education was somewhat debased. Thanks for the clarification! I am left with a question: As you mention, there is no particular lower limit to the energy of a gamma. Is there any particular way, then, to distinguish between a low-energy gamma and an X-ray? That is, given a source of radiation at roughly 100KeV, for example, are there typically clues or cues that let you know whether it arises from electronic transitions or nuclear ones? Oh - one more question - as I understand it, the x-rays you mention in your discussion of Plutonium arise when an innermost-shell electron gets knocked out of the atom, and a next-shell electron falls in to replace it. (I would guess that there would be an entire cascade of these things, as an electron from each shell falls in to replace the missing one below it, yes?) What happens if you have a fully ionized Pu, and one electron falls from "outside" the "atom" all the way down to the 1s level? (I do, yes, remember 1s as the lowest? It has been a while.) What is the energy of the resulting photon? I would guess that it would be in excess of 200KeV, but not in excess of 500. On the other hand, that's _not_ an educated guess. Cheers! jon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I looked back, and there | I was, following myself. | Wait! Let me catch up! | Jon Singer is jon@Apple.COM, or | (AppleLink) SINGER2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= cudkeys: cuddy11 cudengamma cudfnHoward cudlnHall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / wyant / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 11 May 89 16:35:13 GMT From article <17142@usc.edu>, by crum@lipari.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum): > On Monday I stumbled upon the ECS (Electrochemical Society?) > conference at the Bonaventure Hotel while I was showing a friend > around downtown LA. TV crews were filming attendees entering an > auditorium, but only a few science reporters where allowed in during > the talks according to a news report on LA Channel 2 later that > evening. > My wife watched a Baltimore television station for information about the APS special session on cold fusion while I was attending. This station said that their reporters were not allowed into the technical session, similar to what is reported here for the ECS session. From my observations, there was a generous section set aside for reporters convering the cold fusion controversy. While reporters were allowed, their cameras were not allowed during the technical talks. It appears that the electronic media identify themselves with their tools. Is there news without pictures?? Patrick Wyant *!uunet!eplrx7!wyant cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenwyant cudlnwyant cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Paul Dietz / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 11 May 89 21:01:52 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <3510@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >My guess is that >they are desperately trying to figure out why some rods work and others >don't, before someone else tumbles to it and patents it ahead of them. Agreed. It is unfortunate, though, that they are not involving the rest of the scientific community. N minds are better than three. >They were >led into this area of research when they independently noticed that >sometimes Pd-D systems ended up with the deuterium levels noticeably >depleted. No, I don't think so. This would take far too long at the rates they describe. I think they were led to it by some experiments that indicated to them that protons and deuterons in Pd behave as nearly free particles. You might also be confused by the separation of D/H at the Pd electrode. I still don't understand how this works; could an electrochemist explain it to us? >This suggests that Be-9 + p isn't the answer, since it would >work better with water than heavy water. The deuterium is an essential >component in the reaction. A reaction with boron seems unlikely due >to the high Coulomb barrier, as Paul pointed out. Well, Be is also unlikely. Protium would tunnel better than deuterium in either case. Huggins' claims contradict the idea, though. I note that 10B has a nice resonance near (~25 keV away) the energy of p+9Be. The probable reaction would be p+9Be --> 6Li+4He+2.126 MeV. Another possibility is that FPH melted and recast their Pd many times, each time contaminating it with a bit more lithium. Experiments with "virgin" electrodes would have lithium only at the surface, I imagine. >The problem with any reaction involving impurities which are consumed >by the reaction is that they should be used up gradually, and the amount >of heat produced should taper off. At a reaction rate of 10^12/cc/s, if the impurity is present as one atom to every thousand Pd atoms it will take two years to be fully consumed. >I have this sickening feeling that we aren't going to find out the >truth until FPH release their materials for independent analysis, >which may be a long way off. It's damned frustrating. This information would tell us a lot about the putative reaction, so I'm not surprised they aren't releasing it. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy11 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / John Logajan / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 11 May 89 20:56:10 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (dale bass) writes: > thermal isolation and cosmic ray ignition may be necessary as > well (this could explain the two-day "bursts" of energy), so throw > away the lead bricks). Hmmm, maybe all those bricks the physics guys pile around the system to screen out background neutrons (or to protect against foreground neutrons) blocks the cosmic rays and inhibits the fusion? -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Les Earnest / Cold Fusion? It Was First Tried in 1927 Originally-From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion? It Was First Tried in 1927 Date: 11 May 89 21:54:25 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University [From Associated Press] PM-Fusion Forefather,0488 Cold Fusion? It Was First Tried in 1927 By HELENE MURDOCH Associated Press Writer STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - A scientist claims to produce nuclear fusion in a jar at room temperature. But few believe him, and his application for a patent is rejected. The story may sound familiar, but it happened in Sweden in 1927, more than a half-century before two researchers stunned the scientific world with a similar experiment in the United States. John Tandberg's experiments ''seemingly were very similiar to the ones performed in Utah,'' said Bertil Wilner of the fusion research department at the Royal Institute of Technology. ''It's amazing that his findings have been completely forgotten for 60 years,'' said Wilner, whose father worked on the project and kept notes. Tandberg began looking into cold fusion in 1927 when the 33-year-old chief scientist for the Electrolux Co. became intrigued with fusion experiments being conducted in Germany, Wilner said. Two Berlin researchers who were trying to produce helium for airships said they fused hydrogen into helium using a palladium catalyst. But later they discovered errors that forced them to retract their claim of fusion. ''The German scientists weren't interested in producing energy, since the world's energy sources seemed inexhaustable at the time,'' Wilner said. ''But Tandberg immediately realized the energy aspect of the experiment and its potential importance,'' Wilner said in an interview. The National Patent and Registration Office refused to accept Tandberg's application to record his experiment. ''Their experts claimed it was impossible to release nuclear energy through cold fusion,'' Wilner said. Soon afterward, Tandberg ended his fusion research and dedicated himself to other fields. He later left Electrolux, still one of the world's largest makers of home appliances, and became a professor at Stockholm University. In March, B. Stanley Pons, chairman of the University of Utah's chemistry department, and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton, England, announced they achieved cold fusion that produced up to 50 times the amount of energy they put into their experiment. Their findings were met with incredulity. The latest scientist seeking to explain away their claims, Nobel laureate Dr. Linus Pauling, suggested chemical reactions, not fusion, could have produced the heat. Pauling, 88, of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine at Palo Alto, Calif., said in a letter published today in the British science magazine Nature that the palladium would have combined with deuterium heavy water to form palladium deuteride, which is unstable. ''After the beginning of electrolysis, this unstable deuteride may begin to decompose either slowly, resulting in an increased liberation of heat, or explosively, as Fleischmann and Pons observed,'' wrote Pauling, who won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1954. But, if they are right, it could open the way to a cheap, inexhaustible way to create energy in the same way that the sun and stars produce heat and light. Fusion derives its energy from forcing atoms of deuterium or hydrogen together. The reaction produces an atom of helium, a burst of energy and a neutron. The work of Pons and Fleischmann ''bears a strong resemblance to the way Tandberg carried out his experiments, according to my father's notes,'' Wilner said. Wilner's father wrote a book on Tandberg describing the experiment. ''The book was never translated and was forgotten a long time ago,'' he said, which helped explain why the work stirred so little interest among contemporary scientists. Tandberg, who died in 1968, apparently never withdrew his claim of having produced cold fusion. Les Earnest Phone: 415 723-9729 Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Stanford, CA 94305 cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Matthew Kennel / Re: cold fusion - who cares? Originally-From: mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: cold fusion - who cares? Date: 11 May 89 22:31:44 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <711@otc.otca.oz> ganesh@otc.otca.oz (Ganesh Nathan) writes: > >The well known but skeptical experiment by F&P claims to be a cold fusion. >The most skepticism from other physicists regarding cold fusion is due to the >absence of neutrons emission during the duplicated experiments. >Well, it may not be the cold fusion which produced some considerable heat >energy more than than the source energy. >In my opinion as long as there is a break through to produce alternative >cheap and clean energy, why one should worry about cold fusion which anyway is >expected to produce neutrons which is a harmful radiation. Why can't there >be some explanations other than cold fusion for the F&P experiment? There are certainly lots of proposed explanations for the F&P experiment, however, in our current understanding of physics, none could provide an alternative form of "cheap and clean energy" for economically useful lengths of time. Most people would consider the chance of some totally unknown phenomenon occuring that produces more energy out than in over long amounts of time to be far less than the unlikely prospect of cold fusion. Thus, if there's no fusion, the physicists will leave it to the chemists & materials people to sort out the mess. ============= YAFS: (yet another fusion speculation) P&F apparently claim that the electrode needs to prepared in some special way. Presumably this means cast, vs. milled. Perhaps in the process of manufacturing the electrode, it's made in some thermodynamically high energy state (quick annealing???) and when hydrogen is forced in to the metal electrochemically, the resulting forces (which must be horribly complicated) enable the lattice to relax into a lower energy state, thus resulting in an observed "energy gain". Question: is this reasonable? Does cast palladium have a higher structural energy than whatever else doesn't work? How much energy could possibly be released this way? How do the numbers work out? It all comes down to how long P&F can get energy out. They claim to see heat production in bursts...hmm, could this be domain regions changing state in some sort of phase transition? Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenmbkennel cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Guangliang He / Re: cold fusion - who cares? Originally-From: ghe@nucthy.physics.orst.edu (Guangliang He) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: cold fusion - who cares? Date: 11 May 89 22:37:28 GMT Organization: Dept. of Physics, Oregon State University In article <711@otc.otca.oz> ganesh@otc.otca.oz (Ganesh Nathan) writes: = [deleted text] =expected to produce neutrons which is a harmful radiation. Why can't there =be some explanations other than cold fusion for the F&P experiment? Because, because the cold fusion may not be true! :-) :-) please direct flame to /dev/null ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | USMAIL: Guangliang He | INTERNET: ghe@PHYSICS.ORST.EDU Department of Physics | ghe@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU Oregon State University | BITNET: hegl@orstvm.bitnet Corvallis, OR 97331 | PHONE: (503) 754-4631 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenghe cudfnGuangliang cudlnHe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Steve Smith / It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: smith@cos.com (Steve Smith) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 11 May 89 22:39:22 GMT Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA I saw in the paper the other day that Pons, at the LA meeting, said that he would retract his "cold fusion" claim if nobody found helium. This is a *VERY* dangerous comment. Whatever this thing is, it's not fusion (beyond, perhaps, the tiny ammount seen by Jones, et al). What they're seeing is *heat*. Fusion is just their explination of it. For the extra heat to be produced by D-D fusion, the reaction would have to be a currently unknown one, with many orders of magnitude higher probability than any known reaction. Not likely. *IF* the heat is real, then we have an apparent violation of conservation of energy. The only thing I can say about it is that it would produce some *VERY* interesting science! A good analogy would be the discovery of radioactivity. So don't bet the farm on finding helium. Concentrate on the heat. My own opinion is that they're screwing up the calorimitry. Most obvious problems: 1. Stirring. Discussed to death. 2. How are they measuring the input power? I got the impression that they're not actually measuring it. 3. The gas given off should be almost pure oxygen. Both Pd and Pt are excellent catalysts for $ 2 H sub 2 + O sub 2 --> 2 H sub 2 O $. This could be a big source of error if they're assuming a mixture. Note that the gruesome properties of the $ D sub 2 + Pd $ system are not especially relevant, as long as the apparatus doesn't melt (:-). All we're interested is $ {energy out} over {energy in} $. -- -- Steve (smith@cos.com) ({uunet sundc decuac hqda-ai hadron}!cos!smith) "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." cudkeys: cuddy11 cudensmith cudfnSteve cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Dave Bailey / Re: cold fusion - who cares? Originally-From: dbailey@orville.nas.nasa.gov (Dave H. Bailey) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: cold fusion - who cares? Date: 12 May 89 00:30:28 GMT Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA I had expected someone one the net to post this, but since no one has, here goes. The May 7 edition of the San Jose Mercury News carried an article by Donald Kaul, a commentator for National Public Radio. I personally find it incredible that someone would write such an irresponsibly uninformed and derisive piece, but it appears typical of press commentary lately. I hope someone is filing all of these statements somewhere. If P&F are eventually even partially vindicated, which seems entirely plausible in light of the BYU, Stanford, Texas A&M, and Case Western results, someone will need to confront such people with their past statements and demand retractions and apologies. Judge for yourself (quoted without permission from the SJMN): Two months ago, most people didn't know cold fusion from ice fishing; now they're doing it on their kitchen tables -- more or less. The fusion craze was started by two University of Utah chemists on March 23 when they produced energy through the inexpensive, easy-to-assemble cold fusion method rather than the older, more popular way -- exploding a bomb. They then did what all scientists do when they make a major scientific breakthrough; they called a press conference to announce it to the supermarket tabloids and asked Congress for $25 million. This immediately set up a "race for fusion", in which other laboratories and universities attempted to duplicate the work, which could mean virtually free energy for all of mankind, to say nothing of a lot of $25 million grants for scientists. This is where the fusion confusion began. It seemed that every other day word would come from a laboratory somewhere that the Utah experiment had been successfully repeated, at least in part. Just as regularly, on the odd days, word would come from a respected research facility that the Utah experiment was garbage. At last report, the experiment had been partially validated by laboratories in the Soviet Union, Italy, India, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Brazil and by the Remedial Footbal class at the University of Miami. It has been refuted by Cal Tech, MIT, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the Brookhaven national Laboratory, Yale and the entire world of nuclear physics. I suppose a good many of you out there don't understand the principles of cold fusion. It's not your fault; the teaching of science in our schools is a scandal. Let me explain the phenomenon in terms you can understand. It's a simple experiment, really. You can try it at home if you'd like. First you take a bucket of heavy water. (If you don't have a bucket big enough to be heavy, use a small bucket and throw in a handful of nickels before filling it.) Then you tie a string to the bucket and run the other end through a paper cup. Pull the string taut and yell, "FUSION!" into the cup. If the water in the pail starts to boil, you've created energy. As long as I've got you in a scientific mood, let me tell you about the latest thing in defense technology -- "Brilliant Pebbles." That is the informal name given to the most recent scheme to make the Strategic Defense Initiative work. Vice President Dan Quayle thought up "Brilliant Pebbles." The idea here is to send thousands of little rockets into space and keep them on hold up there until we're under attack, then turn them loose to find the enemy rockets and destroy them before they land on us. We may not be able to manufacture a decent toaster in this country anymore, we've given up on TV sets and our cars are inferior, but we still lead the world in one important sector: producing hare-brained ideas. And we're so far ahead, there's nobody second. Is this a great country or what? cudkeys: cuddy12 cudendbailey cudfnDave cudlnBailey cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Bob Lewandowski / Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Who's done/doing what with Cold Fusion? Date: 12 May 89 02:36:11 GMT Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA In article <53030@linus.UUCP> munck@linus.UUCP (Robert Munck) writes: >On the other hand, a great deal of net traffic is generated by sophomores who >really should be studying. They're recognizable by their passing acquaintence ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >with grammer, syntax, and spelling, and a general, undirected anger. ^^^^^^^ > -- Bob Munck Why don't you buy a cheap dictionary and keep it next to your terminal. Add a couple of smiley's just for the fun of it. B-) b-) B-) -- Bob Lewandowski Domain: blew@tc.fluke.COM Voice: (206) 347-6100, Ext. 5368 UUCP: {microsof,sun}!fluke!blew U S nail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box C9090 / MS 273G / Everett WA 98206 cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenblew cudfnBob cudlnLewandowski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / Bob Givan / calorimetry correctness Originally-From: rlg@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Bob Givan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: calorimetry correctness Date: 11 May 89 20:21:26 GMT Organization: The MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA accounts of the LA conference, both on the net and in newspapers, seem to indicate that P&F have at least addressed (if not eliminated) the central claims against their calorimetry. however, there is no mention of a claim made 9 days ago in the Boston Globe (a claim I've seen nowhere else). Because of this, I quote this claim here, and ask if anyone is familiar with it, knows if it was indeed claimed by Lewis, knows if it is legitimate, or knows if P&F have answered it. quoting from The Boston Globe, Tuesday May 2, 1989, Page 12, (the article reporting Lewis' claims from the APS conference): "The Utah researchers had said their simple device produced more energy than it used, but Lewis said that P&F, in their testimony before Congress last week, conceded that they had never actually observed such energy production. They said it was a 'hypothetical' extrapolation from their experiments." "Lewis said that extrapolation was based on assumptions that violate known laws of physics." "The assertion that their device put out four times as much energy as they put in was based on experiments that produced less energy than they consumed, Lewis said." "P&F calculated how much energy the device would have produced if they reduced the voltage but kept the current the same, but Lewis said that was impossible because of known characteristics of the palladium electrodes used in the experiment. 'The cell they proposed could not be built', Lewis said." this claim, if it was really made and was accurate, seems damning as long as it is unanswered. will someone restore my optimism? Bob Givan rlg@wheaties.ai.mit.edu cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenrlg cudfnBob cudlnGivan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Michael McClary / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 12 May 89 12:15:44 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <329@eplrx7.uucp> wyant@eplrx7.UUCP (wyant) writes: > > It is not clear to me that the diffusion of an indicator has any >relation to heat transfer or mixing to eliminate thermal gradients. >Pons appears to be evading effective tests of his calorimetry. It is clear to me. Liquid diffusion is glacially slow. (The University of Michigan has some dust-covered glass tubes in a display case, full of water, the lower portion colored by a disolved compound. Every few years they add another tube to the display. I seem to recall diffusion rates well under an inch per decade.) If the dye spread rapidly through the whole cell, the heat did the same. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Michael McClary / Re: U of U palladium Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: U of U palladium Date: 12 May 89 12:38:54 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <11677@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > >I wonder how hard it would be to find out where U of U got their palladium... In _Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Duterium_, Fleischmann and Pons write: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We thank Johnson Matthey PLC for the loan of precious metals for this project. (Of course, this doesn't tell you who cast the investment-grade metal wafers into rods...) cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / London May / Eminent chemist (Linus Pauling) dismisses clain over 'cold fusion' Originally-From: jlk@siesoft (jlk) Originally-From: "The Independent" (London Thrusday 11, May) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Eminent chemist (Linus Pauling) dismisses clain over 'cold fusion' Date: 11 May 89 13:46:13 GMT Organization: Siemens SDG, woodley, England Originally-From: "The Independent" (London Thrusday 11, May) By Tom Wilkie Science editor A leading chemist has stepped into the furore over "nuclear fusion in a test- tupe". Linus Pauling dismisses the claims and says that chemical reactions can account for the energy produced in experiments. His intervention, in a letter published in today's issue of the scientific journal NATURE, will be a blow to the credibility of claims by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons that they had obtianed a new route to nuclear fusion capable of yielding useful amounts of energy. Aged 88, Professor Pauling has dominated chemistry for nearly 60 years. He virtually re-created the subject in the 1930s, by applying the then obscure thelry of quantum mechanics to calculate the structure and shape of molecules and the strengths of the chemical bonds between atoms within molecules. He has since been at the forefront of every improtant question in chemistry. He holds two Nobel prizes: for chemistry and the peace prize. The intervention by a chemist of Professor Pauling's stature is significant. The debate over cold nuclear fusion had become factionalised between physicists and chemists. When Professor Pons adressed a meeting of the American Chemical Society last month, there was uncritical acclaim that two chemists had provided a cheap and easy route to nuclear fusion which physicists had been struggling to attain for 40 years by buiilding huge machines costing hundreds of millions of dollars. When the Americal Physical Society met at the beginning of this month, there was almost universal condemnation of the experiment, some of which could be attributed to professional pique by physicists at the idea of chemists muscling in on their territory. Martain Fleischmann, professor of chemistry at Southampton University, and Stanley Pons, professor of chemistry at the University of Utah in the United States, claimed in March that they had succeeded in getting nuclear fusion - the power source of the sun - by passing an electric current through two electordes dipping into a jar of heavy water and lithium hydroxide solution. They claim that one of the electrodes, made from palladium metal, soaked up so much deuterium (heavy hydrogen) that the atoms crowed so closely together to fuse. Professor Pauling dismisses the nuclear fusion claims. The key to the problem, he says, lies in a paper he published in the Physical Review in 1938. There he showed that the electrons that circle the nucleus of a palladium atom do not make use of all the outermost orbits that are available to them. These unused orbitals are actually what gives palladium the properties of a metal, and they limit the amount of hydrogen (or deuterium) that the palladium can soak up. Professor Pauling says: "I judge that under the conditions of the electrolysis experiment of M Fleischmann and s Pons, deuterons (sic) beyond this limit are forced into the palladium" ultimately forming a chemical unstable compond, called palladium deuteride. this unstable deuteride may begin to decompose either slowly, producing heat, or explosively. The result, according to Professor Pauling, of all the effort expended on cold nuclear fusion may be no more that "palladium powder and hydrogen gas" cudkeys: cuddy11 cudfnLondon cudlnMay cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / S Perelgut / Looney Theory of the Week. Originally-From: perelgut@turing.toronto.edu (Stephen Perelgut) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Looney Theory of the Week. Date: 12 May 89 13:29:34 GMT Organization: /usr/local/lib/organization I haven't seen anyone post this to the network in defence of FPH so... Somewhere "out there" is an intergalactic empire of alien races that watches over developing planets. They let Earth have fission since it is naturally occurring and they wanted to see how we handled it. They weren't impressed. In 1927, the late 1950's and now, they detected early fusion experiments that would lead to controlled fusion. Either they don't think we can handle it without blowing ourselves up or they are worried we'll develop the intergalactic spacewarping drive and leave the planet before we're mature enough to join the "gang". In any event, they carefully aim their anti-fusion ray at the Earth and make FPH (and their predecessors) look like fools. Just check the electromagnetic spectrum for strange peaks at either the extremely long or short ends. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenperelgut cudfnStephen cudlnPerelgut cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Paul Dietz / Yet Another Chemical Explanation Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Yet Another Chemical Explanation Date: 12 May 89 14:30:02 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY One reason the chemical battery explanation has been ruled out because there is not enough volume in the Pd cathode to store the reported excess energy. However, this ignores the possibility of storing energy in the solution. For example, could the reaction be making hydrogen (deuterium) peroxide? Or perhaps some energetic compound from dissolved carbon dioxide? This might explain the "bursts" of heat -- the energy-rich electrolyte is periodically decomposing. Also, if energetic molecules in the solution are reacting at the thermometer, the heat measurements would be wrong, even with good stirring. Differences between D2O and H2O would stem from the different behavior of these molecules at the surface of the electrodes, leading to different rates of production of the hypothetical energetic molecule. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy12 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Steven Jacobs / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: jacobs%cmos.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 12 May 89 14:29:40 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept In article <17865@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: >For the extra heat to be produced by D-D fusion, the reaction would have >to be a currently unknown one, with many orders of magnitude higher >probability than any known reaction. Not likely. Currently unknown yes, but it doesn't necessarily need to have a higher probability than known reaction mechanisms. It merely has to be more probable _in the Pd lattice_ than the known reactions. The temperature required for the hot fusion mechanism is not exactly compatible with the exisitence of solids. Steve Jacobs ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu) cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenedu cudfnSteven cudlnJacobs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / John Logajan / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 12 May 89 15:38:28 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) writes: > Liquid diffusion is glacially slow. (The University of Michigan > has some dust-covered glass tubes in a display case, full of water, > the lower portion colored by a disolved compound. Every few years > they add another tube to the display. I seem to recall diffusion > rates well under an inch per decade.) Hmmm, I recall putting drops of water color in water just to see how fast the dye dispersed -- it did disperse, and it took less than a decade! -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Andrew Daniel / Re: Cold fusion in today's news Originally-From: add@v7fs1.UUCP (Andrew D. Daniel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion in today's news Date: 12 May 89 20:03:01 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <393@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes: > [...]I wonder if cold fusion will turn out to be reliant on the fact that > the magnetic field of a tomograph machine needs to be present or > something like that? I'm still waiting for the study that shows that white lab coats cause cancer in laboratory rats. -- Andrew D Daniel, Video Seven, Inc. Angels fear to tread ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!add where fools login: cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenadd cudfnAndrew cudlnDaniel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / JAMES SMITH / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: jws3@hcx.uucp (JAMES WILLIAM SMITH) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 12 May 89 17:58:35 GMT Organization: College of Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville In article <1269@argon.siesoft>, jlk@siesoft (jlk) writes: > The Sunday Times (England) > lead with the following article on May 7, 1989 > ... > said yeaterday: 'We have spotted neither > head nor radiation.' > ... > where a second group, led by Prof. Stephen Hones, claimed to have > preformed cold fusion albiet with only a fraction of the head output. > ... > Doubts grew as it switched from looking for the head output claimed by > Fleischmann and Pons, in favour of measurements a billionth of the size > ... Boy! P&F can't be blamed for getting excited about this. If I got a billion times as much head as everybody else, I'd be happy too... :-) something to lighten this heavy discussion... /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | James W. Smith, University of Arkansas | | | ...uunet!harris.cis.ksu.edu!jws3@hcx | We must love one another | | harry!hcx!jws3@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu | or die. | | Telenet: jws3@130.184.7.209 | --A. Clarke | | 515 Skyline Dr., Fayetteville, AR 72701 | | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/ cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenjws3 cudfnJAMES cudlnSMITH cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ Fri May 12 / ot@uunet.UU.NET / Fusion in TIFR Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Originally-From: shakti!tifr!root@uunet.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Paper from TIFR - India Subject: Fusion in TIFR Date: 12 May 89 15:42:32 GMT Date: Fri May 12 17:56:31 1989 Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Many of the lines in this paper have been cut short. I have sent mail asking them to resend the paper. -- Vince PS This is called kkr.ascii in unh.cs.cmu.edu /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp Originally-From: shakti!tifr!root@uunet.UU.NET To: vac@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Fusion in TIFR Date: Fri May 12 17:56:31 1989 Apparently-From: somewhere!root ..NET13 CALORIMETRIC STUDIES OF ELECTROLYSIS OF D2O AND H2O USING A PALLADIUM CATHODE E.KRISHNAKUMAR, V.KRISHNAMURTHY, U.T.RAHEJA, C.BADRINATHAN, F.A.RAJGARA AND D.MATHUR Laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Homi Bhabha Road Bombay 400 005 India _____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH REPORT: TFR/AMP-1-89 10 May 1989 INTRODUCTION Following the recent experiments of Fleishmann and Pons [1] there has been considerable interest in experimental investigations aimed at exploring initiating fusion reactions between deuterium atoms by cold, electrochem` experiments on electrolysis of D2O using a palladium cathode and a platinum Fleishmann and Pons observed the generation of excess heat (over and above ` normal electrochemical heating) which was attributed to the occurance of ` D + D ________> 3He + n (1) ________> 3T + H (2) which occur via electrochemical reactions at the cathode: e + D+ ________> Dads (3) D2O <_________> D+ + OD- (4) In (4), Dads represents deuterium atoms adsorbed into the Pd lattice in an hit fashion which results in the effective equilibrium internuclear D-D separa considerably smaller than the corresponding value of 7.4 nm for isolated D2 ` of the significance and profound implications of these findings, further ` clearly warranted. We report here results of calorimetric experiments on electrolysis of D2 Pd cathodes and Pt anodes which have been carried out continuously for a pe` 200 hours from 19 April - 7 May 1989. We present the fullest possible details of th` and techniques used in our experiments as well as the raw data obtained. EXPERIMENTAL METHOD Two electrolysis experiments were conducted simultaneously using 20 ml ` molar solution of NaCl in doubly-distilled H2O and D2O. D2O purity was determine` 99.0% by means of Fourier-Transform NMR (using a proton probe in a 500 MHz Bruker AM-500 spectrometer). High purity (99%) platinum was used as the anode material. T cathode material was palladium wire of 1 mm diameter; the total surface are in each electrolytic cell. The purity of the cathode material used in our e` determined to be 99.9% by measuring the characteristic X-rays emitted upon bo 25 keV electrons. The X-ray spectrum obtained in our measurements (see Fig.1) sh typical Lymana1,b1,b2 lines of Pd. The two electrolytic cells were thermally insulated (with cotton) and pl Pyrex beaker. The two electrodes and a mercury thermometer were inserted th thermally-shielded lid which not only ensured that heat loss due to evapor minimised but also that the inter-electrode distance was maintained const experiments. Two highly stabilised d.c. power supplies (Kepco Models ATE15-6M an` ATE75-0.7M), used in the constant-current mode, were used to supply constant pow` cell. The constant-power condition could be achieved with currents to the t only 4%. In addition to monitoring the electrolyte temperature in the two ce temperature was also monitored with a mercury thermometer immersed in a b` RESULTS The measurements of electrolyte temperature as a function of time were ` distinct stages. In the first stage low current densities ( ca. 31.2 mA cm-2) wer of 80 hours. In order to keep the power input equal for the two cells, the cur` was 25 mA whereas that through H2O was 24 mA. The current readings were accurate 1%. The power input to each cell was 0.06 W.The power input values in our experim an error of less than 2%. The temperature variation obtained in this stage o` shown in Fig.2. Both the D2O and H2O temperature essentially follow the variati` ambient temperature over the 80 hour measurement period. In the second stage of the measurements, the current density was enhance mA cm-2. The D2 and H2O currents were 50 mA and 52 mA, respectively, and the power in` in the two cells was 0.170 W (D2O) and 0.172 W (H2O). The temperature variation from 90-117 hours is shown in Fig.3. The temperature of both electrolytes is higher than temperature, with the D2O cell temperature being consistently higher than t by ca.2oC. The temperature variation in both cells appears to mimic the ambi` fluctuations well. In the next stage of the measurements, which lasted for nearly 30 hours, t` density used was ca. 125 mA cm-2. The D2O and H2O currents were 100 mA and 110 mA, respectively, yielding corresponding input powers of 0.43 W (D2O) and 0.42 W (H2O). Th temperature variation in the two cells is depicted in Fig.4. The electrolyte equilibrium temperature within a period of about 2 hours. A somewhat higher average of 2.5oC) is seen to persist in the case of the D2O cell throughout the shown in Fig.4. The final stage of the experiment, lasting 50 hours, was carried out with ` of ca. 250 mA cm-2. The D2O and H2O currents were 200 mA and 210 mA, respectively. In addition to the initial, comparatively rapid temperature rise observed in the two curves display a slowly diverging behaviour. A temperature differe D2O and H2O at 155-165 hours is seen to become a temperature difference of 15oC at 19 hours. Such behaviour tends to indicate a degree of conformity with result` calorimetric experiments [1-3]. However, the observed behaviour (Fig.5) in our ` be explained without recourse to hypotheses of electrochemically-induced allowing the volumes in the electrolytic cells to drop by approximately 50% time period between ca. 160 hours and 190 hours, the effective voltage drop ac` electrodes changes; the corresponding difference in the input power to th` to be {Input power(D2O)}/{Input power(H2O)} = 1.8 (5) at 190 hours (where the temperature difference is maximum). When the volumes ` are restored to their original values of 20 ml each by the addition of D2O and temperature initially falls sharply and then again reach an equilibrium a also of interest to note that during the period over which the input power changing (160-190 hours), the input power to the H2O cell was observed to actuall 4%. Despite this, the temperature in this cell was measured to increase by 2oC It is intruiging that under conditions of highest current density and h` even the temperature of the H2O cell rises by 2oC over a period of ca. 30 hours. temperature is of the same magnitude as the observed difference in the D2O a temperatures at lower input powers and current densities (Fig.3,4). To summarise, the results of simultaneous experiments on electrolysis o conducted over an extended period of 200 hours, provide some evidence that u constant input power, the temperature in the cell containing D2O is observe` higher (by ca. 2oC) than that in the H2O cell. We are unable to pinpoint any sour error to account for such a temperature difference. On the other hand, our m fail to provide support for other experimental findings [2,3] in which the D2O in much more dramatic fashion. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to many colleagues for helpful discussions and useful s` particular, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the help afforded to us by P.B.Th` A.K.Rajarajan, S.Modi, S.Mazumdar and A.S.Medhi. REFERENCES 1. M.Fleishmann and S.Pons, J.Electroanal.Chem.261 (1989) 301 2. K.S.V.Santhanam, J.Rangarajan, O.Brazanga, S.K.Haram, N.M.Limaye and K.C.Mandal, Indian J.Tech. 27 (1989) 175 3. Sundry press reports (April -May 1989) FIGURE CAPTIONS 1. X-ray spectrum of cathode material showing characteristic lines of Pd. 2. Temporal variation of temperature in cells containing D2O, H2O and non-elect water. The input power was 0.06 W. 3. Temporal variation of temperature in cells containing D2O, H2O and non-elect water. The input power in the D2O cell was 0.170 W, and that in the H2O cell was 0.17 4. Temporal variation of temperature in cells containing D2O, H2O and non-elect water. Input power (D2O) = 0.43 W, input power (H2O) = 0.42 W. 5. Temporal variation of temperature in cells containing D2O, H2O and non-elect water. For a description of input power variation over the measurement ti *** PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS MESSAGE>>>>[D[C NETUU -- cudkeys: cudenroot cudszL ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / bass randale / Re: Eminent chemist (Linus Pauling) dismisses clain over 'cold fusion' Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eminent chemist (Linus Pauling) dismisses clain over 'cold fusion' Date: 12 May 89 17:51:09 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <1272@argon.siesoft> jlk@siesoft.uucp () writes: > >From: "The Independent" (London Thrusday 11, May) > >A leading chemist has stepped into the furore over "nuclear fusion in a test- >tupe". Linus Pauling dismisses the claims and says that chemical reactions >can account for the energy produced in experiments. > >His intervention, in a letter published in today's issue of the scientific >journal NATURE, will be a blow to the credibility of claims by Martin >Fleischmann and Stanley Pons that they had obtianed a new route to nuclear >fusion capable of yielding useful amounts of energy. > [much more on Pauling deleted] I doubt it. Dr. Pauling has been dismissing results that differ from his view of the world for years now (whether right or wrong). Vitamin C and the quasicrystal mess immediately come to mind. As some one recently said, "Being too smart can impede the progress of science." Chemical reactions cannot procede forever. I wonder for how long some of P/F's or Huggins' experiments have been running? dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / bass randale / Re: Yet Another Chemical Explanation Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet Another Chemical Explanation Date: 12 May 89 18:04:21 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <1989May12.103003.14925@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >One reason the chemical battery explanation has been ruled out because >there is not enough volume in the Pd cathode to store the reported >excess energy. However, this ignores the possibility of storing >energy in the solution. For example, could the reaction be making >hydrogen (deuterium) peroxide? Or perhaps some energetic compound >from dissolved carbon dioxide? This might explain the "bursts" of >heat -- the energy-rich electrolyte is periodically decomposing. > This is a possibility. But one has to come up with a reaction product that is in a lower energy state than the reactants. It seems to me that this is going to be very difficult. >Also, if energetic molecules in the solution are reacting at the >thermometer, the heat measurements would be wrong, even with good >stirring. I'm not entirely sure, but from the closeups that I have seen of P/F's and A&M's setups, it appears that the temperature measuring gear is behind glass (i.e. isolated from the solution). The only postulate of this type would be that some of the D is diffusing across the glass and creating difficulties. This is a possibility, though it would be hard to explain bursts as well as constant phenomena with this. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Dave Mack / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 12 May 89 17:53:25 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <1989May11.170153.20806@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <3510@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >>My guess is that >>they are desperately trying to figure out why some rods work and others >>don't, before someone else tumbles to it and patents it ahead of them. > >Agreed. It is unfortunate, though, that they are not involving >the rest of the scientific community. N minds are better than three. For scientific research, yes. Not if you want to patent something. >>They were >>led into this area of research when they independently noticed that >>sometimes Pd-D systems ended up with the deuterium levels noticeably >>depleted. > >No, I don't think so. This would take far too long at the rates they >describe. I think they were led to it by some experiments that indicated >to them that protons and deuterons in Pd behave as nearly free particles. From Business Week, May 8, 1989, p. 102: "Pons learned that Fleischmann, who was conducting experiments on deuterium, had discovered unexpectedly low levels of the substance in the electrodes he was using. Years later, after moving to the University of Utah's chemistry department, Pons found similar anomalies while using electrodes to separate hydrogen from deuterium..." OK, so it's not the best source in the world. >>The problem with any reaction involving impurities which are consumed >>by the reaction is that they should be used up gradually, and the amount >>of heat produced should taper off. > >At a reaction rate of 10^12/cc/s, if the impurity is present as one >atom to every thousand Pd atoms it will take two years to be >fully consumed. If the impurity is not replenished, I would expect the reaction rate to drop off exponentially as the fuel is consumed. This isn't the sort of reaction profile FPH are seeing. My assumptions here may be naive - I need to check this more carefully. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 11 May 89 21:27:13 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway ..NET11 CALORIMETRIC STUDIES OF ELECTROLYSIS OF D2O AND H2O USING A PALLADIUM CATHODE E.KRISHNAKUMAR, V.KRISHNAMURTHY, U.T.RAHEJA, C.BADRINATHAN, F.A.RAJGARA AND D.MATHUR Laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Homi Bhabha Road Bombay 400 005 India _____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH REPORT: TFR/AMP-1-89 10 May 1989 INTRODUCTION Following the recent experiments of Fleishmann and Pons [1] there has been considerable interest in experimental investigations aimed at exploring initiating fusion reactions between deuterium atoms by cold, electrochem` experiments on electrolysis of D2O using a palladium cathode and a platinum Fleishmann and Pons observed the generation of excess heat (over and above ` normal electrochemical heating) which was attributed to the occurance of ` D + D ________> 3He + n (1) ________> 3T + H (2) which occur via electrochemical reactions at the cathode: e + D+ ________> Dads (3) D2O <_________> D+ + OD- (4) In (4), Dads represents deuterium atoms adsorbed into the Pd lattice in an hit fashion which results in the effective equilibrium internuclear D-D separa considerably smaller than the corresponding value of 7.4 nm for isolated D2 ` of the significance and profound implications of these findings, further ` clearly warranted. We report here results of calorimetric experiments on electrolysis of D2 Pd cathodes and Pt anodes which have been carried out continuously for a pe` 200 hours from 19 April - 7 May 1989. We present the fullest possible details of th` and techniques used in our experiments as well as the raw data obtained. EXPERIMENTAL METHOD Two electrolysis experiments were conducted simultaneously using 20 ml ` molar solution of NaCl in doubly-distilled H2O and D2O. D2O purity was determine` 99.0% by means of Fourier-Transform NMR (using a proton probe in a 500 MHz Bruker AM-500 spectrometer). High purity (99%) platinum was used as the anode material. T cathode material was palladium wire of 1 mm diameter; the total surface are in each electrolytic cell. The purity of the cathode material used in our e` determined to be 99.9% by measuring the characteristic X-rays emitted upon bo 25 keV electrons. The X-ray spectrum obtained in our measurements (see Fig.1) sh typical Lymana1,b1,b2 lines of Pd. The two electrolytic cells were thermally insulated (with cotton) and pl Pyrex beaker. The two electrodes and a mercury thermometer were inserted th thermally-shielded lid which not only ensured that heat loss due to evapor minimised but also that the inter-electrode distance was maintained const experiments. Two highly stabilised d.c. power supplies (Kepco Models ATE15-6M an` ATE75-0.7M), used in the constant-current mode, were used to supply constant pow` cell. The constant-power condition could be achieved with currents to the t only 4%. In addition to monitoring the electrolyte temperature in the two ce temperature was also monitored with a mercury thermometer immersed in a b` RESULTS The measurements of electrolyte temperature as a function of time were ` distinct stages. In the first stage low current densities ( ca. 31.2 mA cm-2) wer of 80 hours. In order to keep the power input equal for the two cells, the cur` was 25 mA whereas that through H2O was 24 mA. The current readings were accurate 1%. The power input to each cell was 0.06 W.The power input values in our experim an error of less than 2%. The temperature variation obtained in this stage o` shown in Fig.2. Both the D2O and H2O temperature essentially follow the variati` ambient temperature over the 80 hour measurement period. In the second stage of the measurements, the current density was enhance mA cm-2. The D2 and H2O currents were 50 mA and 52 mA, respectively, and the power in` in the two cells was 0.170 W (D2O) and 0.172 W (H2O). The temperature variation from 90-117 hours is shown in Fig.3. The temperature of both electrolytes is higher than temperature, with the D2O cell temperature being consistently higher than t by ca.2oC. The temperature variation in both cells appears to mimic the ambi` fluctuations well. In the next stage of the measurements, which lasted for nearly 30 hours, t` density used was ca. 125 mA cm-2. The D2O and H2O currents were 100 mA and 110 mA, respectively, yielding corresponding input powers of 0.43 W (D2O) and 0.42 W (H2O). Th temperature variation in the two cells is depicted in Fig.4. The electrolyte equilibrium temperature within a period of about 2 hours. A somewhat higher average of 2.5oC) is seen to persist in the case of the D2O cell throughout the shown in Fig.4. The final stage of the experiment, lasting 50 hours, was carried out with ` of ca. 250 mA cm-2. The D2O and H2O currents were 200 mA and 210 mA, respectively. In addition to the initial, comparatively rapid temperature rise observed in the two curves display a slowly diverging behaviour. A temperature differe D2O and H2O at 155-165 hours is seen to become a temperature difference of 15oC at 19 hours. Such behaviour tends to indicate a degree of conformity with result` calorimetric experiments [1-3]. However, the observed behaviour (Fig.5) in our ` be explained without recourse to hypotheses of electrochemically-induced allowing the volumes in the electrolytic cells to drop by approximately 50% time period between ca. 160 hours and 190 hours, the effective voltage drop ac` electrodes changes; the corresponding difference in the input power to th` to be {Input power(D2O)}/{Input power(H2O)} = 1.8 (5) at 190 hours (where the temperature difference is maximum). When the volumes ` are restored to their original values of 20 ml each by the addition of D2O and temperature initially falls sharply and then again reach an equilibrium a also of interest to note that during the period over which the input power changing (160-190 hours), the input power to the H2O cell was observed to actuall 4%. Despite this, the temperature in this cell was measured to increase by 2oC It is intruiging that under conditions of highest current density and h` even the temperature of the H2O cell rises by 2oC over a period of ca. 30 hours. temperature is of the same magnitude as the observed difference in the D2O a temperatures at lower input powers and current densities (Fig.3,4). To summarise, the results of simultaneous experiments on electrolysis o conducted over an extended period of 200 hours, provide some evidence that u constant input power, the temperature in the cell containing D2O is observe` higher (by ca. 2oC) than that in the H2O cell. We are unable to pinpoint any sour error to account for such a temperature difference. On the other hand, our m fail to provide support for other experimental findings [2,3] in which the D2O in much more dramatic fashion. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to many colleagues for helpful discussions and useful s` particular, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the help afforded to us by P.B.Th` A.K.Rajarajan, S.Modi, S.Mazumdar and A.S.Medhi. REFERENCES 1. M.Fleishmann and S.Pons, J.Electroanal.Chem.261 (1989) 301 2. K.S.V.Santhanam, J.Rangarajan, O.Brazanga, S.K.Haram, N.M.Limaye and K.C.Mandal, Indian J.Tech. 27 (1989) 175 3. Sundry press reports (April -May 1989) FIGURE CAPTIONS 1. X-ray spectrum of cathode material showing characteristic lines of Pd. 2. Temporal variation of temperature in cells containing D2O, H2O and non-elect water. The input power was 0.06 W. 3. Temporal variation of temperature in cells containing D2O, H2O and non-elect water. The input power in the D2O cell was 0.170 W, and that in the H2O cell was 0.17 4. Temporal variation of temperature in cells containing D2O, H2O and non-elect water. Input power (D2O) = 0.43 W, input power (H2O) = 0.42 W. 5. Temporal variation of temperature in cells containing D2O, H2O and non-elect water. For a description of input power variation over the measurement ti NETUU cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenfusion cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Dave Mack / Re: Linus Pauling's explanation for "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Linus Pauling's explanation for "Cold Fusion" Date: 12 May 89 20:59:35 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <9061@polya.Stanford.EDU> ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) writes: > >EXCERPT from 5/9 Stanford Daily: > >In a letter to be printed this week in the journal Nature, the Nobel >laureate adds his insight to the growing controversy over fusion ... > >Linus Pauling ... suggests that deuterium atoms from the heavy water >solution are forced into the palladium cathode and form palladium >dideuteride --- a molecule of palladium with two deuterium atoms >attached. This molecule then decomposes, which leads to the >generation of heat which can even be explosive. > Oh God, the chemical battery theory rears its ugly head again. 1) We are now expected to believe that MIT, CalTech, Argonne, Brookhaven, etc., etc., are unable to produce palladium dideuteride - a molecule whose existence is questionable - while UU, Stanford, Texas A&M, and Case Western can. 2) We are now expected to believe that the physical chemistry of palladium dihydride (if it exists) is significantly different than the physical chemistry of palladium dideuteride (if it exists.) Well, I suppose we have to look at it anyway. Can anyone provide references or data on the characteristics of PdD2/PdH2? -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Ramsey Haddad / Stirring/ Overvoltage Originally-From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Stirring/ Overvoltage Date: 12 May 89 22:27:06 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department In article <1487@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> crb7q@hudson.acc.Virginia.EDU (bass cameron randale) writes: > Even if it were, the magnitude of the > generated gas, would produce substantial convection even in > a postulated nongas producing region below the region of > gas production. With this observation, Huggins' movement of the > thermometers and P/F dispersion of the indicator, we > can therefore lay the thermal gradient question > to rest. Stirrers would not be more effective and would just > add another source of energy for which to account. Apparently, > this thermal gradient question was the major complaint > about the calorimetry at the APS meeting in Baltimore. From the Stanford Daily, Wednesday, May 10: And now, Huggins says he has performed experiments in which he stirred the water at different rates, demonstrating that the effect continues. Meyerhof argues, though, that an even more significant source of error might be present with the calorimetry. "In principle, errors can be made in calibration," Meyerhof says. [Boy, that sure makes it sound like Meyerhof is grasping for straws. Anyway, it does seems like the "inadequate stirring" claim is dying.] ... Although Huggins is the only one to have publicized his findings, at least one other team found a difference in the heat generated by hydrogen and deuterium. In similar experiments, Digby MacDonald, an electrochemist at SRI International in Menlo Park [California], measured more heat in the deuterium experiment than in then hydrogen experiment. However, the SRI scientists ignored their data because they felt too many uncertainties and errors could have crept into the measurements. ... "The heat argument doesn't impress me much," said MacDonald. [Hmm.... Is this another excess heat confirmation or not?] [Meyerhof tries again:] Over the past few weeks, [Meyerhof] has preformed calculations that he thinks can easily explain the differences in the measurements between the hydrogen and deuterium reactions. The differences are due to what is called the "overvoltage effect," he says. When a current is passed through an electrode, some energy splits the heavy water and ideally the rest produces heat directly related to the current. Overvoltage effects depend on a number of factors, including the current passed through the electrode and the surface conditions of the electrode. "(Overvoltage effects) are all those processes you don't understand," Meyerhof explains. The higher the overvoltage, the greater the observed heat should be. Using values for the overvoltage for the hydrogen and the deuterium published by Pons & Fleischmann, Meyerhof says he calculated that this effect could easily account for the heat difference Huggins was seeing. But Huggins discounts the overvoltage effect too. "This is a red herring," Huggins says. -- Ramsey W Haddad cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenramsey cudfnRamsey cudlnHaddad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Randell Jesup / Re: cold fusion - who cares? Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: cold fusion - who cares? Date: 12 May 89 17:53:48 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <8383@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) writes: >YAFS: (yet another fusion speculation) > P&F apparently claim that the electrode needs to prepared >in some special way. Presumably this means cast, vs. milled. >Perhaps in the process of manufacturing the electrode, it's made >in some thermodynamically high energy state (quick annealing???) >and when hydrogen is forced in to the metal electrochemically, the >resulting forces (which must be horribly complicated) enable the >lattice to relax into a lower energy state, thus resulting >in an observed "energy gain". Highly unlikely. Forcing H2/D2 into palladium should move the lattice to a higher energy state, not a lower one (increases the seperation between lattice points). Also, the amount of total energy/cc produced is higher than any chemical reaction I've ever seen described (the "G" required would be enormous). We're talking in the neighborhood of 1000's of watt-hours per cc, at the minimum 500-800. Check your CRC (I don't have one). -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Victor Roberts / Re: Fusion? ;) Originally-From: roberts@luxor.steinmetz (Victor D Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion? ;) Date: 10 May 89 03:57:33 GMT Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY In article <647@eutrc3.UUCP> rcbaem@eutrc3.UUCP (Ernst Mulder) writes: >If I throw a match into a box of gunpowder I get more energy out than >I put in too. Could this mean something? :) > >........ >How does one measure the exact energy balance in a system? How does one >take any chemical reactions into account? Actually not that hard. You measure everything put into the experiment, like tne gunpowder or palladium, along with all the other materials, and measure what is left after the experiment is completed. If the energy created can be accounted for by chemical reactions which convert the original materials to the final materials (your gunpowder will disappear), you have a "normal" chemical reaction. The question is, then, was anything consumed, other than D2 in the experiments that F&P claim produced "excess" energy? We don't really know at this time because they have not released enough details. Vic Roberts GE Research and Development Center roberts@crd.ge.com cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenroberts cudfnVictor cudlnRoberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Tim Stoehr / Re: cold fusion - who cares? Originally-From: tims@teklds.CAE.TEK.COM (Tim Stoehr) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: cold fusion - who cares? Date: 12 May 89 16:51:46 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article <10561@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, ghe@nucthy.physics.orst.edu (Guangliang He) writes: > Because, because the cold fusion may not be true! :-) :-) I think the point of the original question is that who cares if the heat is generated by fusion or not? Heat is heat, energy production is energy production. Why all the disappointment if it is found not to be fusion? If the P&F heat yields have been shown to be a promising energy source, would that not be true simply because fusion was not the source? cudkeys: cuddy12 cudentims cudfnTim cudlnStoehr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Arnie Frisch / Re: cold fusion - who cares? Originally-From: arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: cold fusion - who cares? Date: 12 May 89 20:23:54 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article <4744@teklds.CAE.TEK.COM>, tims@teklds.CAE.TEK.COM (Tim Stoehr) writes: > In article <10561@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, ghe@nucthy.physics.orst.edu (Guangliang He) writes: > > Because, because the cold fusion may not be true! :-) :-) > > I think the point of the original question is that who cares if the heat > is generated by fusion or not? Heat is heat, energy production is energy > production. Why all the disappointment if it is found not to be > fusion? If the P&F heat yields have been shown to be a promising > energy source, would that not be true simply because fusion was not > the source? What I don't understand is how so many of us are able to put the cart before the horse, and not even notice it. Last time I looked, the argument was whether or not there was more coming out than what went in. There are grave doubts about the calorimetry. There seems to be a lack of supporting (believable) gamma or neutron measurements - even P&F now admit their measurements in these areas were flawed. No Helium confirmed in the electrodes - doubts that anyone is even looking at the electrodes for Helium - that P&F are willing to let anyone look at electrodes. Yet, here we are trying to invent "new physics" to explain a set of measurements that everyone agrees are flawed in some way. Let's get the measurements right, then see if "old physics" is good enough. "I wanted to be a believer, but I guess I'm an agnostic at heart." Arnold Frisch Tektronix Laboratories cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / Siobahn Morgan / Fusion articles from 1926 in "Nature" Originally-From: thebang@blake.acs.washington.edu (Siobahn Morgan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion articles from 1926 in "Nature" Date: 13 May 89 00:08:46 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle I have copies of the 1926 Nature articles that describe the "Fusion" experiment of Paneth and Peters. I will e-mail copies on request Siobahn Morgan thebang@blake.acs.washington.edu smorgan@phast.bitnet --- this is a better e-mail address cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenthebang cudfnSiobahn cudlnMorgan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / L Chiaraviglio / Re: Eminent chemist (Linus Pauling) dismisses clain over 'cold fusion' Originally-From: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eminent chemist (Linus Pauling) dismisses clain over 'cold fusion' Date: 13 May 89 02:35:43 GMT Organization: Department of Biology at Indiana University, Bloomington In article <1272@argon.siesoft> jlk@siesoft.uucp () writes: >They claim that one of the electrodes, made from palladium metal, soaked up >so much deuterium (heavy hydrogen) that the atoms crowed so closely together >to fuse. Well, I guess all we have to do to test this hypothesis is to put a very sensitive microphone against the electrode and listen carefully. Still, I must say I have never before heard the sounds made by atoms to those made by birds. . . . 8-) 8-) -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | Internet: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu BITNET: chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR) Internet-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu Alt Internet-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenchiaravi cudfnLucius cudlnChiaraviglio cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / bass randale / Re: Stirring/ Overvoltage Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stirring/ Overvoltage Date: 13 May 89 01:57:17 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <9154@polya.Stanford.EDU> ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad) writes: > >[Meyerhof tries again:] > > Over the past few weeks, [Meyerhof] has preformed calculations > that he thinks can easily explain the differences in the > measurements between the hydrogen and deuterium reactions. [more stuff about the venerable Dr. Meyerhopf] > > But Huggins discounts the overvoltage effect too. "This is a > red herring," Huggins says. From one who knows about what he speaks (Huggins) to one who has no idea (Meyerhopf). Meyerhopf would be well advised not to speak until he is sure of something (maybe one of his graduate students can check his calculations for him). Calculating overvoltage effects (as opposed to calibrating them out) is orders of magnitudes more difficult than simple convective heat transfer. And we have already seen his success at that. Transport phenomena do not seem to be his cup of tea, nor, I suspect, is electrochemistry. Maybe Dr. Meyerhopf should just speculate using his simple calculations in private like the rest of us and not allow himself to be quoted in the newspapers. Just the opinion of one humble PdD candidate. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu or crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Doug Roberts / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 12 May 89 19:37:25 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory >The Sunday Times (England) > >lead with the following article on May 7, 1989 > > >"Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion" > >Sicentists at Harwell, the world;s leading nuclear laboratory, ... Now why do I immediately feel the need to question whatever is going to follow this statement? --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.14 / John McKernan / Re: This forum Originally-From: jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: This forum Date: 14 May 89 08:45:01 GMT Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo In article pshen@atrp.media.mit.edu (Paul Shen) writes: >I guess it is time to close down this forum :-) >Any objections? It's a little bit early yet, although fusion does seems a lot less likely than it did a few weeks ago. I still haven't seen a detailed summary of the fusion presentations made at the ECS meeting, such as was posted after the APS meeting. Maybe there are fewer chemists on the net than physicists, or there were fewer students at the ECS meeting. If anybody can get a technical summary of the fusion presentations at the ECS meeting please post it. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems before it butts in with tomorrow's. cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenjmckerna cudfnJohn cudlnMcKernan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.14 / Donn Seeley / why Lewis won't get any Utah electrodes Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: why Lewis won't get any Utah electrodes Date: 14 May 89 08:05:34 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept It's interesting that people on the net have recently brought up the fact that the Fleischmann, Pons and Hawkins paper credits a certain company for the loan of precious metals. It seems that the metals really were on loan, and apparently the company gets first crack at analyzing any used electrodes, according to Saturday's Salt Lake Tribune: A representative of Johnson Matthey, the supplier of the palladium rods Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann used for their nuclear fusion experiment, has taken some of the rods back to analyze them for the presence of helium or other fusion byproducts. University of Utah Vice President James Brophy said Friday the representative came to Utah last week and picked up the rods. Johnson Matthey has facilities all over the world, and Dr Brophy was not sure where the rods had gone or how long it would be until the results are known. Johnson Matthey is a 170-year-old precious-metals company headquartered in London. Dr Brophy said Dr Pons and Dr Fleischmann had signed an agreement with Johnson Matthey a few months ago 'after they started getting positive results' under which the company would provide the rods 'basically for nothing' on the condition that they are returned to Johnson Matthey for analysis. 'They agreed to share information about the cathode ...,' he said. 'It's almost like the agreement with Los Alamos.' ... Speaking of the Los Alamos agreement, I heard on the local TV news that this will be finally finalized on Monday... About time. Anyway, it's interesting that Johnson Matthey will apparently be a disinterested party in the electrode analysis, since, according to the Trib article: ... Johnson Matthey has not received a stake in any profits the experiment might generate. ... The electrode analysis sounds about like what I'd expect, going by the Trib article: [Brophy] ... said the autopsy would likely take some time. 'It won't be done in two days.' Essentially, the process consists of melting the rods down and examining the gases that escape. 'But it's not quite that simple,' Dr Brophy said. 'Gases can dissolve in liquids as well as solids,' meaning the molten metal will still have to be analyzed. A somewhat baser motivation for withholding the electrodes, at least from certain parties, was also mentioned in the article: Scientists at [MIT and Caltech] have been among the most skeptical of the U experiment, and they said an 'autopsy' on the rods would confirm or deny their suspicions in a couple of days. 'I can't imagine any reasonable person turning them over to a competitor like MIT,' Dr Brophy said. 'That would drive our lawyers up the wall.' Sigh. More paranoia could be found in a speech by U President Chase Peterson that was reported in the U student newspaper, the Daily Utah Chronicle, on Friday: ... The U scientists who discovered the controversial fusion technique 'are not very far ahead of the rest of the world,' Peterson said. 'They're ahead of the world by days, not by years.' Peterson, speaking at the Hinckley Institute of Politics, acknowledged that the possibility exists some researchers are even days ahead of the U. As a result, it is crucial the U moves ahead with its research in order to stay 'ahead of the game,' he argued. If we don't invest in fusion right now, Peterson implies, we might be beaten by (oh no!) the Japanese: He said a recent experience with a Japanese company taught him how important it is for the U to keep moving ahead. Because there is 'precious little talk (about fusion) coming out of Japan,' Peterson said the U's administration recently asked a consultant to get in touch with a contact in Tokyo. The consultant placed a call to this contact at 11:00 PM Tokyo time, Peterson reported. The Japanese man was still in his office and when asked, said he would call three or four laboratories that he knew were working on fusion experiments. At 11:00 PM, the man made the calls. The phone was answered at every lab by scientists who were there working on the fusion technique, Peterson recounted. And, he said, 'we have pretty good evidence they are working 24 hours a day.' ... This in turn is apparently supposed to demonstrate that archaic traditions of pure science, such as 'confirmation', must be overridden by economic pragmatism: ... [T]he pure science surrounding the fusion technique has 'collided with an agglutinated social phenomenon of science and patents, and finance and world geopolitics,' [Peterson] explained. The pure processes of science are 'incompatible with rapid, effective, successful state and national economic development,' he said. I find this frightening, but perhaps not in quite the same way that Peterson expects us to... In another article in the Saturday edition of the Trib, there was some more information about patents and licensing: ... Some 50 companies ... have signed 'confidential disclosure agreements' allowing them to examine the university's patent applications to see if they want to pursue joint development with the school. 'It's not something companies enter into lightly,' Dr Brophy said. Brophy was uncharacteristically modest when asked how the companies might benefit from examining the patent applications: ... [H]e cautioned that it is still too early to predict the experiment's economic value. The longest the device has been documented to produce energy is about 800 hours, he said, and it hasn't got much hotter than what it takes to boil water, which may not make it a practical energy source 'unless you're just interested in making coffee.' I may still get a Mr Fusion for my kitchen, 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: cuddy14 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / Paul Shen / This forum Originally-From: pshen@atrp.media.mit.edu (Paul Shen) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: This forum Date: 13 May 89 18:45:46 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology I guess it is time to close down this forum :-) Any objections? Regards, Paul -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Email: pshen@atrp.media.mit.edu | Paul Shen | | Address: MIT, E15-384C, Cambridge, Ma 02139 | Tel. (617) 864-3210 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenpshen cudfnPaul cudlnShen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / John Logajan / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 12 May 89 21:54:34 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes: > >Scientists at Harwell, the world's leading nuclear laboratory, > ... > Now why do I immediately feel the need to question whatever is going to > follow this statement? > Douglas Roberts > Los Alamos National Laboratory It all depends on which direction Harwell is leading us :-) -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.14 / kim hwan / Re: Eminent chemist (Linus Pauling) dismisses clain over 'cold fusion' Originally-From: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (USENET News Administration) Originally-From: laba-4hg@e260-1e.berkeley.edu (kim dong hwan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Eminent chemist (Linus Pauling) dismisses clain over 'cold fusion' Date: 14 May 89 00:36:45 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Originally-From: laba-4hg@e260-1e.berkeley.edu (kim dong hwan) Path: e260-1e.berkeley.edu!laba-4hg >Professor Pauling says: "I judge that under the conditions of the electrolysis >experiment of M Fleischmann and s Pons, deuterons (sic) beyond this limit are >forced into the palladium" ultimately forming a chemical unstable compond, >called palladium deuteride. this unstable deuteride may begin to decompose >either slowly, producing heat, or explosively. > >The result, according to Professor Pauling, of all the effort expended on >cold nuclear fusion may be no more that "palladium powder and hydrogen gas" to paraphrase someelse's post Pd + D => PdD => Pd + D the is no energy gained peter kim laba-4hg@web.berkeley.edu cudkeys: cuddy14 cuden4hg cudfnkim cudlnhwan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / Mark Wilkins / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 13 May 89 14:00:56 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA In article <17865@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: > >I saw in the paper the other day that Pons, at the LA meeting, said that >he would retract his "cold fusion" claim if nobody found helium. This >is a *VERY* dangerous comment. Whatever this thing is, it's not fusion ... >For the extra heat to be produced by D-D fusion, the reaction would have >to be a currently unknown one, with many orders of magnitude higher >probability than any known reaction. Not likely. > >*IF* the heat is real, then we have an apparent violation of >conservation of energy. The only thing I can say about it is that it >would produce some *VERY* interesting science! A good analogy would be >the discovery of radioactivity. Well, OK, assume it isn't fusion. Lattices do odd things sometimes. The diffusion pressure of the deuterium is potentially quite high if the palladium lattice is capable of admitting it. Why shouldn't this cause the energy state of the palladium lattice to increase? I mean, the deuterium is going from a high to low energy state by diffusing in, it is probable that this energy is going somewhere into the lattice. Many would say "Why wouldn't it just produce heat?" but the mechanics of such diffusion processes are not very well-studied. Who knows what the effect of adding potential to the thing is. Possibly the Pd - D reaction (chemical, of course. Remember, assume it isn't fusion.) causes the lattice to return to a lower energy state again, but FAST. This is a concept which relies only on solid state physics and elementary chemistry, and produces lots and lots of energy when you apply the potential. Am I right? Who knows, but all this talk about energy out of nowhere is nonsense. -- Mark Wilkins cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenwilkins cudfnMark cudlnWilkins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / Mark Wilkins / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 13 May 89 14:04:51 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA In article <3510@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >In article <1269@argon.siesoft> jlk@siesoft.uucp () writes: >> >>"Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion" >> >>Sicentists at Harwell, the world's leading nuclear laboratory, have finally ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ >>buried hopes that 'cold fusion' is the key to solving mankind's engery Hmm. CERN, Fermilab, (Nasty classified and semiclassified American facilities), will all be dismayed to hear this. Glad that English spirit is alive and well there. :-) -- Mark Wilkins cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenwilkins cudfnMark cudlnWilkins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.14 / Mark Muhlestein / Finally...the lawyers say OK! Originally-From: mmm@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Muhlestein) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Finally...the lawyers say OK! Date: 14 May 89 05:29:13 GMT Organization: ICON International, Inc., Orem, UT Tonight's Salt Lake paper reported that the lawyers for the University of Utah have agreed on the language for the document to allow testing by LANL scientists. The actual protocol for testing is not specified in the agreement, just measures to protect the "intellectual property" of the U. However, I believe the testing will involve scientists from Los Alamos coming to the University of Utah as well as taking a working cell to Los Alamos for further evaluation. According to the paper, the documents will be ready to be signed on Monday (May 15). I sure hope they can get this show on the road and settle once and for all whether there is anything to get excited about! Also, the paper mentioned that over 50 companies have already signed non-disclosure agreements which have allowed them to see the patent applications. -- Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc. uunet!iconsys!mmm cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / Chris Phoenix / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 13 May 89 06:20:23 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. In article <5075@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >[deleted] >"Pons learned that Fleischmann, who was conducting experiments on >deuterium, had discovered unexpectedly low levels of the substance >in the electrodes he was using. Years later, after moving to the University >of Utah's chemistry department, Pons found similar anomalies while using >electrodes to separate hydrogen from deuterium..." I just realized a problem with this. How much D2 would need to be fused before the level became noticable? How much heat would that produce? How easy would it be to do the thought experiment and see that this couldn't possibly be an indication of fusion? If this is really the thing that made them start looking, doesn't this cast doubt on their understanding of fusion? Or am I missing something? -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy13 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Mark Thorson / Who gets the jars after it's all over? Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Who gets the jars after it's all over? Date: 12 May 89 16:16:33 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Assuming that cold fusion goes the way of polywater and N-rays, who gets the jars? I hope a good museum like the Smithsonian would collect them, but I expect the experimenters would want to smash them. Of course, somebody would expect to be reimbursed for the palladium. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.11 / millikan@sbphy / Palladium-deuterium cell phenomena Originally-From: millikan@sbphy.ucsb.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Palladium-deuterium cell phenomena Date: 11 May 89 16:00:24 GMT Organization: UC, Santa Barbara Chemistry Dept. These are not simple systems; they show many fascinating aspects. Among them: 1) On taking up deuterium, the cathodes expand, contort, and distort. We have seen them span the 1/4 inch spacing to short out to the anode. This causes the cell current to go up 10 fold (pwr supply limited), the electrolyte to boil away, and other wonderful things. If it happens in the middle of the night, you think wonderful energy releases have occurred. 2) The D2 and O2 gases evolved at the electrodes sometimes recombust in the cell to give D2O and heat right where you are measuring temp. This happens on particles of Pt, Pd, or PdO2, or whatever in the head space of the cell. Once in a while such a particle will heat itself to incandescence, providing an ignition source for the rest of the D2 + O2. Again, when viewed the next morning, one thinks there has been a wonderful energy release. 3) After the Pd electrode has been charged with D2 by running the cell for a long time, disconnecting the cell power supply is instructive. The bubbling at the O2 electrode stops at once. The D2 electrode bubbles even more vigor- ously than before, and continues to do so for ten minutes or so. 4) Little has been said of surface preparation or contamination, but it is of crucial importance. It is possible to block sites where D atom recombina- tion occurs. This reduces bubble formation, permits jacking the voltage up, and driving D2 into the lattice more strongly. This effect is likely far more important than whether your Pd rod was cast, drawn, or milled. Thought I would inject some observations into the discussion. Sorry if you prefer speculations. cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenmillikan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Rick Strickert / Calculations regarding P&F results Originally-From: ricks@cutter.UUCP (Rick Strickert) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Calculations regarding P&F results Date: 12 May 89 21:34:17 GMT ****************************************************************************** P&F EXCESS HEAT DATA STRONGLY CORRELATED TO POWER-DISSIPATIVE FUNCTION Summary The "excess energy" reported by P&F in their original preprint are strongly correlated to the square of the total applied current, suggesting that the "excess" heat is uncompensated resistance heating. Discussion Early in April, we did some statistical "experimenting" with the P&F data then available from the preprint of their paper. The data are tabulated below, with "R" in the electrode description indicating a rod. Note that datum for the lowest current density test of the plate electrode is omitted because there was an obvious typographical error in this entry. Applied Total "Net" "Net" Current Area Input Output Output Electrode mA/cm2 cm2 (mA) (watts) W/cm3 ------------------------------------------------------- 0.1x10 R 8 3.2 25 7.5E-03 9.5E-02 0.2x10 R 8 6.3 51 3.6E-02 1.1E-01 0.4x10 R 8 12.8 103 1.5E-01 1.2E-01 plate 1.2 134.4 161 2.7E-02 2.1E-03 0.1x10 R 64 3.2 202 7.9E-02 1.0E+00 0.1x1.25 R 512 0.4 209 8.2E-02 8.3E+00 plate 1.6 134.4 215 7.9E-02 6.2E-03 0.2x10 R 64 6.3 406 4.9E-01 1.6E+00 0.2x1.25 R 512 0.8 434 3.8E-01 9.6E+00 0.4x10 R 64 12.8 820 1.8E+00 1.4E+00 0.4x1.25 R 512 1.8 933 3.4E+00 2.1E+01 Regression analysis showed a (r^2 = 0.85) exponential correlation between the total input current and the reported net power output, supposedly after correction for resistance heating. This exponential power output as a function of input current was one of the unresolved questions. Pons and Fleishman did present an equation for the abundance of tritium as a function of the D2O hydrolysis rate (which should be proportional to total current), and the relationship was exponential. However, the power curve correlation was almost as good (r^2 = O.83), with a slope of 1.5, suggesting a power dissipative (I^2*R; I = current, R = resistance) relationship. Subsequently, we regressed the reported net power output (total Watts) as a function of the square of the total current input (I^2) (with I in units of amps), with the following results: Reported Net Output (Watts) = R(I^2) + intercept Computed Floating Zero Intercept Intercept ----------- ----------- Intercept -0.0583 watts 0 watts r Squared 0.953 0.951 No. of Observations 11 11 Degrees of Freedom 9 10 Slope (R) 3.42 ohms 3.33 ohms Std Err of Coef. 0.253 ohms 0.206 ohms The power input (I^2) and net power output (Watts) data are very well correlated (r^2 = 0.95+), with a slope of 3.3-3.4 ohms. My simple understanding of statistics suggests that the random occurrence of this level of correlation with this number of data is very low (P less than 0.01). This clearly raises the possibility that the reported "excess" power results from some form of uncompensated resistance heating with a net resistance of about 3 ohms. We discounted this possibility at the beginning, but as more and more information emerges on just how tricky the calorimetry is, the more plausible this explanation appears. However, the same effect would also be observed if both parameters are strongly correlated to some third (and unknown) factor. Peter F. Ellis II cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenricks cudfnRick cudlnStrickert cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / E McClanahan / Re: Rumor-mongering Originally-From: edwardm@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Rumor-mongering Date: 12 May 89 21:28:02 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Larry Brader writes: >The basic problem in reproducing the F&P experiment seems to be inadequate >amount of information. And UU sures seems to be piecemeal out the information >about their setup (ie at the Chemical confernce someone posted that there's >Beryllium contain in the electordes). This has to be the worst English I have ever read on the net! cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenedwardm cudfnEdward cudlnMcClanahan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Dave Decot / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 12 May 89 21:45:11 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Are we really supposed to run these postings through neqn? Dave cudkeys: cuddy12 cudendecot cudfnDave cudlnDecot cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / Jim Howard / Re: Looney Theory of the Week. Originally-From: silver@cup.portal.com (Jim B Howard) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Looney Theory of the Week. Date: 13 May 89 16:18:54 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) "In any event, they carefully aim their anti-fusion ray at the earth and make FPH look life fools" Or even better, if I remember correctly, that huge asteroid passed nearest to the earth on March 23rd. Maybe they opted for the slingshot method? cudkeys: cuddy13 cudensilver cudfnJim cudlnHoward cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / Byron Rakitzis / Re: real magic ?? Originally-From: KQUWEDA%DHVRRZN1.bitnet@munnari.oz Originally-From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) Originally-From: tbrakitz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Byron Rakitzis) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Newsgroups: alt.fusion Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Ballinger's testimony 1st of 2 messages Subject: Ballinger's testimony 1st of 2 messages Subject: Re: real magic ?? Subject: Re: real magic ?? Subject: APS Cold Fusion Session notes Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Subject: 3 APS Abstracts in ascii Subject: Re: real magic ?? Date: 3 May 89 08:12:00 GMT Date: Wed, 3 May 89 04:12 EDT Date: 5 May 89 00:04:31 GMT Date: 5 May 89 16:49:41 GMT Date: 2 May 89 21:43:17 GMT Date: 5 May 89 06:43:00 GMT Date: 5 May 89 21:06:47 GMT Date: 4 May 89 18:00:50 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Organization: Stanford University Organization: Stanford University Organization: Stanford University Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 3 May 89 04:12 EDT Originally-From: Steve Strassmann Subject: Ballinger's testimony 1st of 2 messages To: vac@cs.cmu.edu Hi there! I've downloaded so many fusion papers off of your repository, I figured I owed you one in return. I asked Ronald Ballinger for a copy of his testimony before congress on April 26, and his secretary gave me a Mac disk with the document as a Microsoft Word file. I'm sending it to you in two forms, one as plain ascii, the other as a binhex'd MSWord document. If you need any help translating this into any other format, just let me know. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 g-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. -- ------------------- Date: 5 May 89 00:04:31 GMT Originally-From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) Subject: Re: real magic ?? Article-I.D.: <4369@ttidca.TTI.COM> In-Reply-To: Article(s) <26@prayf.UUCP> In article <26@prayf.UUCP> david@prayf.UUCP (David Brusowankin) writes: } To my knowledge, no one has yet explained the apparent }superluminal velocities necessary for probability function collapse. } }(Do the following gedanken experiment -- Take a photon emitter, a }half-silvered mirror, and two detectors. Orient the mirror at a 45 }degree angle to emitter, and place the two detectors so that one is }directly in line with the direction of the photon emission and the }other is at right angles to it - both detectors being, say a light }minute away from the mirror. The 2 detectors would therefore be }approximately 1.414 light minutes away from each other. The setup }looks like this: } } } (mirror at 45 degree angle) } ________ / } | Emitter| .... /............detector #1 } -------- / . } . } . } . } . } . } detector #2 } } Now, according to QM, for each photon emitted you get two }probability waves, one for each detector (actually read 'observer'). }When one encounters a detector, the entire wave collapses there and }you see a photon. The problem is that information has to arrive at the }other detector at what would seem to be superliminal velocities in }order for the second detector not to see a photon. }End of experiment). I'm no QM guru, but it would seem to me that Occam's Razor says to drop all the "probability wave" rubbish. If the emitter sends out one photon it either hits the silvering in the mirror, and is deflected, or it doesn't. One observer sees it, the other doesn't. Why complicate a simple explanation for the observed phenomenon? Especially one that doesn't violate relativity and/or speed of light limitations. The only chance involved is in whether the photon is deflected or not. Once past the mirror, its path is certain (assuming hard vacuum and all the usual caveats). If there is any "probability wave collapse", it should happen at the mirror's surface. Sorry if this is a really stupid misunderstanding on my part. I'm aware that common sense doesn't always apply to quantum effects. Still ... BTW, in the above experiment both probability waves arrive at their respective observers simultaneously (I know. Bad word.) What decides which collapses? The whole thing sounds pretty shakey to me. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe ------------------------------- Date: 5 May 89 16:49:41 GMT Originally-From: tbrakitz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Byron Rakitzis) Subject: Re: real magic ?? Article-I.D.: <8158@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> In-Reply-To: Article(s) <26@prayf.UUCP> <4369@ttidca.TTI.COM> John Wheeler proposed an interesting variation to this experiment: 1/2 path 1 1/2 Source----------mirror-----------------detector---mirror----photographic plate \ / \ / \ / \ path 2 / mirror_______________mirror Ok, check this out: the "detector" is a plate of some sort which traps photons. This detector can be put either in the path of the photons, or it can be left out. Now assume you slow the rate of photons so that only one at a time is transmitted. We have: No detector present: this is the usual story; you get an interference pattern on the photographic plate. Detector present: there is NO pattern on the plate, because the detector detects a photon going down EITHER one OR the other path; a positive result shows the photon went down path 1, a negative result shows the photon went down path 2. This "spoils" the interference pattern. Now something really weird is going on here! This is called Wheeler's "delayed choice" experiment (verified experimentally?) because I can choose to slip in the detector AFTER the photon has been "split" by the first mirror. That way, it seems that I can make the photon travel down both paths (remember, that's the only way to get an interference pattern) or I can suddenly limit the photon's position to being on one of the paths, by slipping my detector in. This is a demonstration of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Weird, weird, weird. -- "I've found it much easier on my ulcer to stop trying to clean out the Augean stables of the net." Chuq Von Rospach Byron Rakitzis. (tbrakitz@phoenix.princeton.edu ---- tbrakitz@pucc.bitnet) ------------------------------- Subject: APS Cold Fusion Session notes Date: 2 May 89 21:43:17 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Jon Webb already stated the bottom line of our trip to the APS meeting. Here are a few more details: The first sign that things may not look too great was the absence of long lines at the registration counter. We planned to be there very early in order to secure a good seat. It turns out that the session was very well organized in a large auditorium and they had a closed circuit TV setup to an other room (just in case, but wasn't needed). P&F were invited but did have time to attend. The 18 of the 40 papers (Vince will scan the abstracts) were presented on Monday from 7:30pm to 0:28am: *1*: Jones (BYU) presented his result in a low-key, professional manner. [I really liked him for staying through the entire session, heroically taking the heat] He started with an unequivocal 'NO' (in writing) to possibility of significant heat generation via cold fusion. He proceeded to present his neutron data and a copy of his lab-book from May 22, 1986 describing the electrolytic cell. Some questions were quite hostile, and several experts in the neutron detection business (one from CERN) were clearly unimpressed. *2*: Rafelski (BUY) presents the theoretical part to the BUY experiments. An other 'NO' to the heat question on theoretical grounds. This theory stresses the dynamics of D in the metal crystal to enhance fusion and makes several favorable assumptions for DD-fusion to explain the BUY results. *3*: Koonin (UCSB) start by tearing Rafelski's theory apart (sort of an introductory act). Once accelerated to full speed, he destroys P&F's gamma-spectrogram (their evidence for neutrons). To wit: the graph underwent strange shape and data-point changes between different versions of the same paper, lacks anything but the 'neutron' peak and peaks at the wrong place. It perfectly matches the peak from a 214Bi-decay which is part of the Radon decay chain. Radon is frequently present in concrete buildings and the Rn level of typical basements are more than sufficient to account for the data. (Many other made the same point later). He is the first to call P&F incompetent. *4*: Lewis (Caltech) delivers the decisive kill with a very good presentation of a long list of data. Lewis is chemist ant the list of collaborators list many physics, chemist, electro-Chemists and material scientists. plenty of data from various Pd rods (cast, annealed, etc). In particular, he collaborated with Texas A&M and got one of their 'working' rods. He shreds P&F's evidence one by one: - no radiation. - no tritium (show how easy it is to fool yourself: an fresh electrolyte shows high T-levels if chemical reactions are not properly neutralized) - too much He (uses the same mass-spectrometer as F&P, implies sloppy operation because the unit has a higher resolution than claimed by UU) and shows how much He is present in typical labs. The UU He measures too much He to be produced by fusion. - Deals in depth with calorimetry and how not to do it in electrolytes (needs stirring and a careful balance of the produced gases). He reconstructs P&F's data (down to cell geometry) and shows how to get there if you are careless. - Shows gross thermodynamics error in F&P efficiency calculation. - much more... This talks was rapid machine-gun fire of facts, an in-depth analysis of F&P and leaves little room for hope. All arguments seen on usenet to date were addressed very convincingly. After much applause, 1/2 of the audience left. The remaining talks were merely reduced to a dozen nails for the coffin. *5*: Whaley (UCB) had to fight the noise of the leaving audience. She gave an theoretical talk on how boson (such as D) may be helped by the Pd lattice to get closer. Some questioner was not impressed by her math and the results did seem directly applicable to the cold fusion problem. She did not comment on fusion rates. *6*: Brooks (OSU) presented F&P replication attempts. Again (as in most cases, a long list of chemist and physicist worked on this). no heat, no n, no gamma, no He. "future work - *IF* warranted - ..." *7*: Rocester team: same as *6*, but less impressive set up. *8*: more of the same: over 300 runs, various Pd shapes, treatments (annealed, preloaded, cold-worked, ...), negative results. *9*: Stanford/SRI team: in-depth analysis on calorimetry. Destroys the Stanford 'confirmation' in passing. Computer model of F&P cell with respect to heat transfer characteristics. Almost replicates the F&P data (the volume-effect of Pd) analytically. Then throws in residual D/Pd reactions (known to occur slowly in volume) and the last points for thick rods fall in line. Very convincing and in line with Lewis. *10*: Bailey (Toronto) looks for gammas from D+D->He, doesn't find any and has fun with F&P's gamma-spectrum. Old news by now. *11*: I has to take a break, so I only got the gloom conclusion. *12*: Berkely team reports negative results with better equipment. *13*: withdrew. *14*: This is the GDR work that was reported on the net earlier. No heat. ONE experiment produced some neutrons (these numbers were posted). All the other didn't work. *15*: Florida team reports theoretical limits on fusion rates in metals. Notes that P-D should work better here (that was echoed in several other presentations). Rates a bit to low to explain the BYU results. F&P is out of the question. *16*: U.Washington team: like *15*, but more pessimistic. *17*: no show *18*: Cantrell (Miami U) showed lots of slides of funny looking ZrPd electrodes. He run his set-up several time and got different results: 100% heat, no heat and wrong temp. coefficient, 50% heat. He indicates that the heat is due to a reaction with the glass that he placed between the electrodes. The electrodes show a contamination of Cu,Si,Zn,Fe,... It look like a rather uncontrolled environment. "We used a ZrPd electrode with unknown history because that's what we had on hand". *19*: Florida State U. team looks for X-rays of exited Pd atoms that should be present if fusion occurs (even for D+D->4He+lattice). None seen. *20*: Gai (Yale team): long list of negative results (as mentioned on the net). Is trying cast electrodes now. The abstracts to talks 21-40 on Tue. promise more of the same. The organizers seemed to anticipate that: they scheduled the session in a smaller room. I think that there is no need for sci.physic.fusion any more. -- -- Andreas Nowatzyk (DC5ZV) Carnegie-Mellon University agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu Computer Science Department (412) 268-3617 -- cudkeys: cuddy4 cudentbrakitz cudfnByron cudlnRakitzis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Michael Brooks / Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Originally-From: brooks@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session Date: 5 May 89 06:43:00 GMT Organization: Stanford University Organization: Stanford University Distribution: Organization: Stanford University Keywords: cold fusion, APS, session, Jones, Pons, neutrons First off, my Thanks to both of you and your cohorts in providing some badly needed data to our discussion on the net. In one of my most recent postings (article 5142, Message ID-113@sierra.stanford.EDU) I discussed my interest in Mass spectroscopy and some salient details, while in a later post I pleaded for some of Walling and Simons data. Could either of you provide such data, here or in another fashion, since apparently the numbers and description of controls are available (that is, judging by the info you have posted)? I assure you that many of us would be very grateful! From what I have read it seems that the investigators may have omitted an elementary control, that of analyzing ambient He levels, for the open air ambient of the cell. The quantity of 4He in atmosphere is known and background levels should have been checked as a routine step in calibrating the system with a known 4He test source (two very basic steps, obviously you don`t want atmospheric He leaking into you experimental source of gas). I am disturbed by a possible lack of controls from two scientists who have experience in this technique---and I find this difficult to accept. In addition, quantitative comparison between background levels and levels observed during experiment are of considerable interest to me, as they will tell the story (especially levels vs time). Was the amount claimed significant relative to background, and how did this change with time? And what of the "excess 4He", that level which is inconsistent with the heat evolved? In terms of numbers, what was that level---forgetting about calorimetric aspects for now? I would prefer to deal with something I could understand, rather than slog through calorimetric contortions. I`m working on obtaining some data on the Italian results and will try to get this available ASAP. Is the Lewis neutron detector limit of "100 neutrons/hr" an upper or lower bound? The preliminary data I have (hearsay actually so far) has the Italians counting at max. 200cnts/hour, or averaging ~70/hr for something like 10 or 15 hrs. If Bill Johnson at LANL is reading this, could you please comment on whether these numbers are reasonable. I should point out that the alleged background cnts/hr = 2-3 (neutrons/hr). I am trusting a poor memory on this, so these numbers may be wrong. I would like to encourage others to get data and put it out here so the rest of us can have a look at it. And once again my thanks to all who have already tried to do this. Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Labs (solid state)/SU MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Abscence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of abscence." cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.05 / Vincent Cate / 3 APS Abstracts in ascii Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: 3 APS Abstracts in ascii Date: 5 May 89 21:06:47 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI ********************************************************************** aps.4 ********************************************************************** Calorimetry, Neutron Flux, Gamma Flux, and Tritium Yield from Electrochemically Charged Palladium in D2O. Nathan Lewis, charles Barnes, and Steve Koonin California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125 We report the results of our work on cold fusion using palladium. We have used extremely sensitive neutron, gamma ray, and photon counters, and can place strict upper limits on the flux of expected nuclear products emitted from charged Pd cathodes. Liquid scintillation counting has been used to measure tritium production, which was found at background levels for extended periods of time. However, a subtle chemical interference that generates chemiluminescence has been shown to yield tritium signals and lead to overestimates of the fusion yield based on tritium production. We have also performed accurate, calibrated calorimetry, and have identified several serious errors that can make the measurements appear to show excess power production. When these common errors are eliminated, a correct energy balance is obtained. We will also discuss the calorimetric experiments performed by the Utah researchers, will explain their calculations to the physics community, and will clearly state the assumptions and corrections implicit in the Utah calculations. ********************************************************************* aps.9 ********************************************************************* Abstract submitted for the Baltimore meeting of the American Physical Society. May 1-4, 1989 Special session on Cold Fusion Analysis of "Excess Power in Cold Fusion". W. E. MEYERHOF, Stanford University,* D. L. HUESTIS and D. C. LORENTS, SRI International. The apparent excess energy release of 4 MH in heavy-water electrolysis with Pd electrodes (1) is impossible to explain with known chemical or physical processes. Solution of the heat equation for cylindrical calorimeters with the geometries of Ref. 1 or 2 show that in steady-state calorimetry temperature gradients exist even with weak stirring. Hence, fictitious excess power can be found, depending on the placement of the thermometer. This is particularly severe in Pd+D electrochemical reactions because the dissipative part of the 0.8 to 2 V overvoltage releases heat at the surface of the Pd electrode. The observed differences between ordinary and heavy water can also be explained because for Pd+H the overvoltage is much smaller than for Pd+D. 1. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanaly. Chem. 261, 301 (1989). 2. A. Belzner, U. Bischler, C. Crouch-Baker, T. Gur, G. Lucier, M. Schreiber, R. A. Huggins, to be published. Supported in part by NSF grant PHY 86-14650 W. E. Meyerhof Department of Physics Stanford University California 94305 ******************************************************************** aps.10 ******************************************************************** Abstract Submitted for the Special Cold Nuclear Fusion Session of the 1989 May Meeting of the American Physical Society. May 1, 1989 Gammas from Cold Fusion. D. Bailey*, University of Toronto ** The absence of both neutrons and gamma rays can be used to constrain possible cold fusion processes in deuterium-metal systems. In particular, milliwatt cold fusion processes in palladium producing fast protons, tritium, 3He or 4He nuclei would also usually produce easily observable numbers of Coulomb excitation palladium gamma rays. Typical expected yields are ~10**4 - 10**6 gammas per joule of fusion energy in lines at 0.374, 0.434, 0.512 and 0.556 MeV. Reported (1) 2.2 MeV np capture gamma rays are consistent with the ubiquitous radon daughter 214Bi 2.204 MeV background line. * BITNET address: DBAILEY@UTORPHYS ** Supported in part by NSERC (Canada). (1) M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, and H. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (1989) 301, and errata. -- cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.04 / thomas roberts / Re: real magic ?? Originally-From: tjr@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (thomas.j.roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: real magic ?? Date: 4 May 89 18:00:50 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <26@prayf.UUCP>, by david@prayf.UUCP (David Brusowankin): > > To my knowledge, no one has yet explained the apparent > superluminal velocities necessary for probability function collapse. > > (Do the following gedanken experiment -- Take a photon emitter, a > half-silvered mirror, and two detectors. Orient the mirror at a 45 > degree angle to emitter, and place the two detectors so that one is > directly in line with the direction of the photon emission and the > other is at right angles to it - both detectors being, say a light > minute away from the mirror. The 2 detectors would therefore be > approximately 1.414 light minutes away from each other. The setup > looks like this: > > > (mirror at 45 degree angle) > ________ / > | Emitter| .... /............detector #1 > -------- / . > . > . > . > . > . > detector #2 [I assume that the angle of the mirror is really meant to be \] > Now, according to QM, for each photon emitted you get two > probability waves, one for each detector (actually read 'observer'). > When one encounters a detector, the entire wave collapses there and > you see a photon. The problem is that information has to arrive at the > other detector at what would seem to be superliminal velocities in > order for the second detector not to see a photon. > End of experiment). This is a (somewhat simplistic) re-statement of the famous "EPR Paradox" (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) which has been important in the development of Quantum Mechanics. There are two major flaws in the argument above. The first is that to analyze a system in Quantum Mechanics, you ascribe a SINGLE wave-function to the ENTIRE SYSTEM. In general, this wave-function CANNOT be separated into wave-functions describing the (supposedly independent) parts. In this case, you DO NOT "get two probability waves, one for each detector", but rather you get a single probability distribution describing the actions of the emitter and the observations of both detectors. [Physicists often do separate wavefunctions into putatively independent ("separable") components. This is only valid to an approximation (often extremely accurate); Physicists would rather not do this, but the complexity of physical systems often requires such separation in order to make any analysis possible.] [It is often difficult to determine exactly what is contained in the ENTIRE SYSTEM (e.g. need we include the mirror in the description of the above system?).] The "Paradox" disappears when you realize that, unlike macroscopic particles, YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN A PHOTON HAS BEEN EMITTED. You only have a probability per time for the rate of photon emission. There is no necessity for "information" to be "propagated" between the two detectors; each one sees a rate of photon detection, and their sum equals the rate of photon generation (ignoring experimental difficulties). [You cannot "fix" this by attempting to detect photons near the emitter to determine their time of emission; detecting photons destroys them, and while you could use a detector that re-emits them very quickly, you cannot then fix their direction well enough to ensure that such re-emitted photons enter the apparatus (another Phyrric Victory for Heisenburg's Principle).] There are no shortcuts in physics. You have to carefully describe and justify every step in an analysis, as in a mathematical proof. Physicists do a lot of "hand waving", but it is just that, hand waving. Many APROACHES to interesting problems have first been discovered by waving hands; no interesting problem has ever been solved that way - you HAVE to do the mathematics in order to understand modern physics (which is often counter-intuitive). Tom Roberts att!ihnet!tjr ------------------- cudkeys: cuddy4 cudentjr cudfnthomas cudlnroberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.14 / Chuck Sites / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 14 May 89 09:43:29 GMT Organization: Copper Electronics, Louisville, Ky. In article <3510@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > In article <1269@argon.siesoft> jlk@siesoft.uucp () writes: > > > > OK, Harwell, even with Fleischmann's assistance, can't reproduce it. > Yet they continue to report it as a real (and given the ECS meeting > comments, a quite impressive) effect. > Conclusions? > Either Fleischmann intentionally withheld information from Harwell, > or FPH themselves have no idea what the key is. > > I'm beginning to suspect that the latter possibility is the truth. > They aren't letting the Pd rods out to *anyone* - not even LANL, > apparently - so they know that the key is there. My guess is that > they are desperately trying to figure out why some rods work and others > don't, before someone else tumbles to it and patents it ahead of them. I agree... > Paul Dietz's speculations about beryllium or boron impurities are > interesting, but don't fit the facts as reported by FPH. They were Latter.. > component in the reaction. A reaction with boron seems unlikely due > to the high Coulomb barrier, as Paul pointed out. The idea from Paul that Boron (or Be), plays an active role in the fusion process may be the wrong approach. I would like to think that if a boron contaminate exists in the F&P rods, it may play a different role. Here are some ideas I've had about this. If BORON is a contaminate in the F&P rods, I would like to sugjest one possible method by which it maybe involved in the fusion process. First, cold fusion is a process which brings two nuclei (A<8) close enough to tunnel through the repulsive coulomb barrier via an interaction with some third body. In the case of muon catylized fusion, the muon acts as the third party. In F&P's case, they believe that Pd is acting as the third party. F&P results have been hard to verify, and it is believed that a contaminate could be involed. If boron is the contaminate, I would sugjest there maybe a process which would cause a B2H-- molecule, where boron would act as the third body, and Pd as an attractor site to bring the hydrogen together. If this is the case, it should be possible to see cold fusion as a surface effect with boron based electrolytes and certain metals. Boron is a pretty interesting element. The electron shells are filled for the s & p levels, and has one lone d electron resulting in a +3 oxidation state. With hydrogen it forms B3H, but what I'm sugjesting here is that under the influence of an electolyzed system, B2H-- could be formed where the Boron is attracted to the anode (+), and the 2H attracted to the cathode (-). Under the influence the applied electric field, latic constrains, and via a quantum mechanical tunneling mechanism, it would it would seem that cold fusion is possible, if not simple. A quick diagram of this molecule in palladium would look like: (Pd+) (Pd-) (Pd+) \ | / \ (B) / \ / \ / (H+) (H+) \ / (Pd-) For cold fusion as a surface effect under electrolysis I would suspect the following B2H-- in this formation: ---- (- negative potential -) ---- ( - ion ) (+h) (+h) \ / / ( B ) \ / \ | ++++ (+ Positive potential +) ++++ Because of the need for a negativly charged ion at the negative electrode, I would sugjest using a metal with a gernerally electro- negative oxidation state. Using these ideas, here is a basement physics experiment, I've tried (It's only sugjested as possible way to see cold fusion if B2H-- is doing as I described. I'm not responsible you die of radiation poisoning, or anykind of other laboratory mishaps :-) This very simple experiment which generates a fair amount of heat. I leave the neutron, and gamma tests to the experts, or a good chemist to explain where the heat comes from. Electrolyze a nickle (Ni) anode (+) and a Copper (Cu) cathode (-) in a bath of H2O and Borax. (2Na4B7O*10H2O) at 10V @ 0.150amp. Replace with D2O at your own risk. Thanks Paul, Thanks Dave, I hope this pans out as a useful idea for Cold Fusion. n ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . Chuck Sites | mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck . . . o o o o chuck@coplex | ATT: (502)-968-8495 o o o o O O O O O Philosophy: He who has toe jam (fill in the blank) O O O O O ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.14 / Vincent Cate / Fusion Papers Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Fusion Papers Date: 14 May 89 21:58:43 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Thanks to Siobahn Morgan, an ascii versions of the 1926 Nature articles on "The Transmutation of Hydrogen into Helium" by Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters are in pp.ascii. There are now 3 anonymous FTP Fusion Archive sites: Host Machine Directory ____________________________________________________ 1) | swan.ulowell.edu fusion | 2) | gw.ccie.utoronto.ca pub/cld.fsn | 3) | unh.cs.cmu.edu /afs/cs/user/vac/ftp 1) Located near Boston, maintained by ross@dino.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller) 2) Located in Toronto, Internet number is (128.100.63.2) Maintained by jrn@gw.ccie.utoronto.ca (John Nickerson) 3) Located in Pittsburgh, Internet number is (128.2.254.150) Maintained by vac@cs.cmu.edu (Vince Cate) To get a list of the papers FTP the file README If you have any papers that we do not have FAX me a copy and I will scan it in (assuming I get any needed permission) and put it online. My FAX number is (412) 681-1998. If you have an ascii version just post it and I will get a copy. -- Vince -- cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenvac cudfnVincent cudlnCate cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / ejw20661@uxa.c / An interloper Originally-From: ejw20661@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: An interloper Date: 13 May 89 22:07:00 GMT I just wanted to say that for someone like me who has no idea about this cold fusion stuff, this net is a lot of fun to read. Gary Floyd @UIUC cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenejw20661 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.12 / Eric Woudenberg / Your sense of humor. Originally-From: eaw@Alliant.COM (Eric Woudenberg) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Your sense of humor. Date: 12 May 89 17:50:50 GMT Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA In article <1971@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> dbailey@orville.nas.nasa.gov (Dave H. Bailey) writes: > ... I >personally find it incredible that someone would write such an >irresponsibly uninformed and derisive piece, but it appears typical of >press commentary lately. ... [quoting the article]: >We may not be able to manufacture a decent toaster in this country >anymore, we've given up on TV sets and our cars are inferior, but we >still lead the world in one important sector: producing hare-brained >ideas. And we're so far ahead, there's nobody second. Is this a >great country or what? Come on fella, it's a humorous piece, I think everyone (including F&P) would appreciate it. I'm curious and frustrated that I have to wait too, but let's try not to lose our (very precious) sense of humor. Eric Woudenberg cudkeys: cuddy12 cudeneaw cudfnEric cudlnWoudenberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.15 / Ronald Mayer / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: armin@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ronald Mayer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 15 May 89 12:56:16 GMT Organization: Stanford University In [someone's] article (sorry, I forgot who) >> >>Sicentists at Harwell, the world;s leading nuclear laboratory, >> Actually, don't these cold fusion experiments suggest perhaps UofU, Texas A&M, Stanford, Case-Western(sp?), and anyone else who is seeing any results [ positive or negative ], are the "world's leading nuclear labs". (1/2 :-) Ronald Mayer armin@portia.stanford.edu cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenarmin cudfnRonald cudlnMayer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.15 / Bob Lewandowski / Re: What Happened in L.A.? Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What Happened in L.A.? Date: 15 May 89 06:37:20 GMT Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA In article <1787@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: Stuff deleted about Pons 'forgotten electrode'. >This sounds like it might be garbled, based on what I saw in this >morning's Salt Lake Tribune: > > Legal problems have prevented the Uniersity of Utah from > wrapping up an agreement with Los Alamos National Laboratory to > collaborate on fusion research. More stuff deleted....finger pointing by LANL and UU. > Dr Brophy said that, as far as he knows, the attorneys 'are > concerned about protecting the university's intellectual > property rights while working with a national laboratory. ..... >It's beginning to look like lawyers are a convenient excuse, ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ > >Donn Having recently been involved in some patent applications and also being on the fringes of a patent suit, I can see why the Univ. of Utah is being super cautious. Patent rights are like virginty, once lost, never regained. At least not in this life! Since the stakes here are potentially larger than one can imagine, they have to cross every 't' and dot every 'i'. Having a government agency involved in the investigation could very easily make the F&P 'discovery' public domain, with patent rights belonging to the federal government. While there have been several postings to the net decrying the crassness of F&P for not giving their marvelous discovery to mankind, that usually isn't the way it works under capitalism. F&P's reluctance to give out details of their experimental set-up are probably due to the fact that they have no real clue as to what makes one set-up work and another not. If they apply for a patent and don't know at least the key ingredients then someone else who comes along later, finds out why it works, and changes the set-up based on better understanding can apply for a patent on the new knowledge and would leave F&P out in the cold. Sure, they would have a patent on their obsolete method, but what would it be worth in the face of better understanding? However, if F&P find the key elements that make 'cold fusion' *work*, not necessarily a definitive theory, they could write a patent disclosure broad enough to protect themselves from simple 'improvements' to the process obviating their patent. Once 'legalities' enter the picture, the rate of progress will slow to a crawl. -- Bob Lewandowski Domain: blew@tc.fluke.COM Voice: (206) 347-6100, Ext. 5368 UUCP: {microsof,sun}!fluke!blew U S nail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box C9090 / MS 273G / Everett WA 98206 cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenblew cudfnBob cudlnLewandowski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.15 / TOM BETZ / Biological Cold Fusion? Originally-From: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Biological Cold Fusion? Date: 15 May 89 00:13:33 GMT Organization: Greyston Business Services, Inc. I came across this file on a local BBS, and it looks interesting... is anyone familiar with this? ------------------------ cut here ----------------------------- DECARBOXYLATION METAL DEGRADATION THROUGH CO-FUSION FRYENZYME INDUCED CO-FUSION OF DEUTERIUM H2O + OX = D+ == E + C = Si * OX Fryenzyme Catalyst BY: John C. Wagner CO-FUSION REACTION The deuterium/hydrogen mass is produced in the reaction by the injection in parts per billion of a catalyst (fryenzyme). The fryenzyme produces the deuterium which is high in hydrogen and is quite alkaline, non reactive consisting of one electron and contributes no energy to the mass. The deuterium in the presence of hydrocarbon and heavy metal atoms robs the electrons from the heavy metal atoms creating a resonant transfer of electrons in ambient temperature resulting in a co-fusion reaction of producing the electron fry (decarboxylation) of the hydrocarbons thus depleting the energy of the electron from the metal atom. With no return of the electron to the metal atoms and with it's proton exposed causes the atom, through decay, to spin down and collapse. In time the mass loses all energy through the co-fusion reaction. The Wagner co-fusion reaction now makes it possible to effect changes in the nuclear and sub nuclear structure of the atom, at ordinary temperatures and without the accompaniment of dangerous radioactivity. Like photosynthesis and mammallan respiration, that in the same natural processes such low temperature modifications of the nucleus are routine. Enzymatic reactions of every kind have to be based on a energy flow from the nuclear and sub nuclear portion of the metals, outward to the carbon based proteins which these metals activate (all biological catalyst or enzymes require the presence of a heavy metal in order to function). ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an exerpt from John Wagner's book "DECARBOXYLATION METAL DEGRADATION THROUGH CO-FUSION". Dr. Wagner wrote this book in 1977, so he "put the cart in front of the horse." This book, 104 pp. ills., is available for $14.95. To order a copy of the book, please send a check or money order to: Tyrone Carlson 80 First Street Gretna, La 70056 Please allow 2 to 4 weeks for delivery. If you have any questions or comments about this article or a question for Dr. Wagner, please send them to: Tyrone Carlson Fax # (504) 368-7900 Easylink # 62910318 Telex # 584184 Or leave a message on Pc-Rockland BBS (914) 353-2176 ----------------------- cut here -------------------------------- Disclaimer: This is not an offer to sell, nor an assertion of fact. Offered for informational and inquiry purposes only. Your mileage may vary. Offer not available in all states. -- "Tell me, is this Heaven?" | Tom Betz, 114 Woodworth "No, it's Iowa." | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 | (914) 375-1510 "Iowa... I could have >sworn< it was Heaven." | cmcl2!hombre!dasys1!tbetz cudkeys: cuddy15 cudentbetz cudfnTOM cudlnBETZ cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.15 / emanuel / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: emanuel@cernvax.UUCP (emanuel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 15 May 89 10:51:57 GMT Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland In article <1269@argon.siesoft> jlk@siesoft.uucp () writes: > >"Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion" > >Scientists at Harwell, the world's leading nuclear laboratory, have finally ... and what about, er, uh, Fermilab? :-) -- Emanuel T.M. Machado, CERN | "Science is true. | UUCP: _ _ | Don't be misled | emanuel@cernvax.UUCP /_ ____ __ __ _ "Hey, I thought I fixed that! All right, let me find my terminal." "There, that ought to patch it." .... Another eon, another bug fix. --Z cudkeys: cuddy15 cudfnAndrew cudlnPlotkin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.15 / Tom Lane / Why does it work only some of the time? Originally-From: tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Why does it work only some of the time? Date: 15 May 89 21:48:49 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI We seem to be down to two possibilities: (i) F&P have been fooled by an experimental error; or (ii) They are seeing some real effect (nuclear or not), but it's devilishly hard to duplicate. What I find interesting is that F&P themselves have only recently achieved as much as a 90% reproducibility rate (according to reports on the net). It seems to me that any theory to explain F&P's results has to explain *why the cells only work some of the time*. All of the experimental-error theories I've heard rely on some sort of systematic error, which one would think would show up for every cell. Likewise, the chemical-battery theories have not relied on hard-to-reproduce details (such as small impurities or lattice structure defects) as crucial parts of the mechanism. To me, the main attraction of a nuclear explanation is that such details could plausibly make the difference between measurable and not-measurable reaction rates. Moreover, it might well need a lucky hit from a cosmic ray to get things started. The nuclear theory of course has its own problems---mainly that F&P are still alive, which seems to exclude any reaction that makes neutrons or gammas (:-). So: would any of the nay-sayers care to step up to bat? Can you create an experimental-error or chemical-effect explanation that depends on something F&P wouldn't know how to control for? Bear in mind that they do have (or had) reputations as good electrochemists. I'm not really comfortable with assuming that they are incompetent at calorimetry, for instance. (Neutron measurements are a different story.) -- tom lane Internet: tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu UUCP: !zog.cs.cmu.edu!tgl BITNET: tgl%zog.cs.cmu.edu@cmuccvma -- cudkeys: cuddy15 cudentgl cudfnTom cudlnLane cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.16 / Donn Seeley / U of U agreement with LANL fell through again Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: U of U agreement with LANL fell through again Date: 16 May 89 00:12:03 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept I just heard on the evening news that the University and its lawyers decided that they want more time to review the proposed agreement with LANL for collaboration on fusion experiments. Last week they were saying that they would sign the papers today. Now they're saying maybe next week. This is getting pretty silly, Donn cudkeys: cuddy16 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.15 / Larry Brader / Re: Rumor-mongering Originally-From: larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Rumor-mongering Date: 15 May 89 20:23:29 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <1989May11.100158.1897@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <3968@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) writes: > >>The basic problem in reproducing the F&P experiment seems to be inadequate >>amount of information. And UU sures seems to be piecemeal out the information >>about their setup (ie at the Chemical confernce someone posted that there's >>Beryllium contain in the electordes). > >Excuse me? I posted a clearly labeled unsupported speculation that >unlikely proposal, or did I (wonders!) guess correctly? > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu True Paul... Sorry about that netters. Although Be is a good choice of elements to be added. According to the CRC Be produces about 30 neutrons/1million alpha particles. At this level I'm sure they could have detected it. Since we're off into speculation : How about P&F added Uranium or some other heavy element to their electrodes? I'm thinking of some heavy elements in their mixture that have affinity for D and would release the excessive heat. Perhaps the question is given the results that P&F have, what containments exist that could react with D to give those results. From various reading about people who been trying for reproduction they have brief radiation readings 20x background. Is Pd mined with any radioactive istopes? Does this even matter? As I see speculation. Nice thing about the net is it self correcting qualites -- Larry Brader :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenlarryb cudfnLarry cudlnBrader cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.16 / Rob Warnock / Re: why Lewis won't get any Utah electrodes Originally-From: rpw3@amdcad.AMD.COM (Rob Warnock) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: why Lewis won't get any Utah electrodes Date: 16 May 89 06:07:29 GMT Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA In article <1819@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: +--------------- | Johnson Matthey is a 170-year-old precious-metals company | headquartered in London.... | Dr Brophy said Dr Pons and Dr Fleischmann had signed an | agreement with Johnson Matthey a few months ago 'after they | started getting positive results' under which the company would | provide the rods 'basically for nothing' on the condition that | they are returned to Johnson Matthey for analysis. | ... Johnson Matthey has not received a stake in any profits | the experiment might generate. ... +--------------- The experiment need not generate gammas or neutrons to generate profits. It would be interesting to know if Johnson Matthey did any trading in Palladium futures during the recent run-up... Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403 cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenrpw3 cudfnRob cudlnWarnock cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.16 / Jorge Stolfi / Scientific American's photo of the F&P cell Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Scientific American's photo of the F&P cell Date: 16 May 89 09:36:09 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto The latest issue of Scientific American (June 1989, p.24) has a nice close-up picture of an F&P cell. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to match the cells discussed in F&P's original paper ("Electrochemically Induced Fusion of Deuterium"). There is no scale to the figure, but if the palladium electrode is 10cm long, then its diameter is about 2cm, far more than the 4mm maximum listed in the paper. However, the paper does mention that "Experiments with rods up to 2cm in diameter will be reported elsewhere." Could this be it? The anode matches the description given in the paper ("a Pt wire anode wound on a cage of glass rods"), except that from its color it looks more like copper than platinum. Probably a made-for-TV cell... If the picture is to be believed, the anode is about 150 cm long (unrolled) and very thin (about 0.5--0.7mm diameter). The distance between the two electrodes seems to be about 2--3mm. The cell is clean and dry, with a never-used look. Its interior is about 11cm high by 5cm diameter. The opening at the top is also 5cm wide and closed with a thick white stopper. Only the electrodes and the supporting glass rods are shown; the thermometers are missing, but their X-Y position can be guessed at from the vacant holes in the stopper and the off-center placement of the electrodes. Let's see how much speculation we can build on top of this picture... (As for me, I still find it hard to believe that the electrical current is evenly distributed throughout the cell; I would expect it to flow mostly across the top part. Does anyone know the conductivity of a 0.1 molar solution of LiOH?) Jorge Stolfi Department of Cold Dark and Damp Fusion Division of Zero-Knowledge Elucubrations DEC Systems Research Center stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi -------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.16 / Dave Skinner / Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: dave@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Skinner) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 16 May 89 20:37:57 GMT Organization: Jet Propulsion Labs, Pasadena, CA I also want to add my vote for keep alt.fusion around at least a little while longer, if for no other reason than it provides news about the on-going saga of the FPH experiment that I can not easily get anywhere else. In particular I want to encourage people like Donn Seeley to continue providing the net with excerpts from the Salt Lake City press, as I personally think that those newspapers are the only ones continuing to cover the story. I would at least like to find out what FPH, Huggins (Stanford), Texas A&M, and Case Western are seeing before alt.fusion is discontinued. Dave Skinner Jet Propulsion Laboratory dave@kirdu.jpl.nasa.gov 128.149.16.12 cudkeys: cuddy16 cudendave cudfnDave cudlnSkinner cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.16 / Arnie Frisch / Re: Biological Cold Fusion? Originally-From: arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Biological Cold Fusion? Date: 16 May 89 15:24:17 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article <9654@dasys1.UUCP>, tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) writes: > I came across this file on a local BBS, and it looks > interesting... is anyone familiar with this? > > ------------------------- cut here ----------------------------- > > > DECARBOXYLATION METAL DEGRADATION > THROUGH > CO-FUSION > > FRYENZYME INDUCED CO-FUSION OF DEUTERIUM > > H2O + OX = D+ == E + C = Si > * OX Fryenzyme Catalyst > > > > BY: John C. Wagner > > > > > > CO-FUSION REACTION > > The deuterium/hydrogen mass is produced in the reaction by > the injection in parts per billion of a catalyst (fryenzyme). > (text deleted) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is an exerpt from John Wagner's book "DECARBOXYLATION > METAL DEGRADATION THROUGH CO-FUSION". Dr. Wagner wrote this book > in 1977, so he "put the cart in front of the horse." This book, > 104 pp. ills., is available for $14.95. To order a copy of the > book, please send a check or money order to: > Tyrone Carlson > 80 First Street > Gretna, La 70056 > > Please allow 2 to 4 weeks for delivery. > (More text deleted) deleted) On the other hand, you could just send me the $14.95, and I'll tell you everything you need to know about CO-FUSION. Or you could enquire about Dr. Wagner and/or Mr. Carlson at the Postmaster of the ZIP code listed. Have a good day! Arnold Frisch Tektronix Laboratories arnief@tekgvs 503-627-7544 cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.20 / Steven Beste / Re: Agenda for Santa Fe cold-fusion workshop (LONG) Originally-From: denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Agenda for Santa Fe cold-fusion workshop (LONG) Date: 20 May 89 14:25:09 GMT I'd like to thank you for posting this. I suspect that this session will answer all our questions on the issue. (By the way, whoever organized this did a hell of a job!) I've been trying, with fading success, to maintain an open mind on this issue, but one glaring thing has just killed it: Fleischman and Pons refused to come to the LANL session. That's it. I'm no longer a believer. You can line me up firmly in the "skeptic" side. (DAMN it. I really wanted it to be true.) cudkeys: cuddy20 cudendenbeste cudfnSteven cudlnBeste cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / Dell Ellison / Re: alt.fusion vs sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: ellisond@gtephx.UUCP (Dell Ellison) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics,news.groups Subject: Re: alt.fusion vs sci.physics.fusion Date: 19 May 89 23:28:32 GMT Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona In article <310a@alliant.Alliant.COM>, spain@Alliant.COM (Dave Spain) writes: > > I just wanted to expression my opinion that there is probably a need for > BOTH a moderated fusion newsgroup (for "hard" news and info about fusion) > and an alt group where people are free to speculate. I totally agree. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenellisond cudfnDell cudlnEllison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.20 / Michael Brooks / Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 20 May 89 18:29:07 GMT Organization: Stanford University >The plots had horizontal axis of 0 to 6keV vs. vertical... That should be 0 to 6MeV, quite a difference! Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Lab (solid state)/SU MIT Astronomer Walter Lewin: "Absence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of absence." cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.20 / Wietse Venema / Moderation and sci.physics.fusion results & guidelines critique Originally-From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Originally-From: crum%lipari.usc.edu@oberon.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) Originally-From: Joseph Poutre Originally-From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: mwj%beta@LANL.GOV (William Johnson) Originally-From: roberts%studguppy@LANL.GOV (Doug Roberts @ Los Alamos National Laboratory) Originally-From: bverreau@mipos2.intel.com Originally-From: arisco%cadillac.cad.mcc.com@mcc.com (John Arisco) Originally-From: vixie!decwrl!decvax!ucf-cs!twwells!bill@hoptoad.UUCP (T. William Wells) Originally-From: portal!cup.portal.com!Infinite@Sun.COM Originally-From: paul@att.att.com@oucsace.att.com Originally-From: !paul@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU Originally-From: Kok Chen Originally-From: ficc!karl@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: f@tds.kth.se (Fredrik Lundevall) Originally-From: neal@att.att.com@druhi.att.com Originally-From: dmccart@cadape.intel.com Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu Originally-From: davids@iscuva.ISCS.COM (David Schmidt) Originally-From: "Matt Crawford" Originally-From: goofy!apple.com!ggarb@apple.com (Gordon Garb) Originally-From: Mark_Thompson Originally-From: "Louis J Bookbinder" Originally-From: "Marc Courtemanche" Originally-From: "Mark H. Anbinder" Originally-From: "Michael S. Schiffer" Originally-From: "Priscilla Frisch" Originally-From: "Tim J Ihde" Originally-From: "christina elizabeth richards" Originally-From: @cgl.ucsf.EDU:att!ihlpe!jho@ucbvax.UUCP Originally-From: @cgl.ucsf.EDU:decwrl!altera!frank@ucbvax.UUCP (Frank Heile) Originally-From: @cgl.ucsf.EDU:mhuxu!skeeve@ucbvax.UUCP (Christopher R Riley +1 201 564 2516) Originally-From: Ben Yalow Originally-From: Bert Hutchings Originally-From: Bob Campbell Originally-From: Boris Bartlog Originally-From: Brian Glendenning Originally-From: Brian Marley Originally-From: Dale C. Cook <@cgl.ucsf.EDU:decwrl!decvax!encore!pinocchio!cook@vixie.UUCP> Originally-From: Daniel Hinojosa Originally-From: Dave Mack Originally-From: David Buck Originally-From: David Chalmers Originally-From: Edward M. Rynes Esq. Originally-From: Elizabeth Doucette Originally-From: Gunnar Ekolin Originally-From: HEIMDAL Root Originally-From: Horace Dediu Originally-From: Jack Jansen Originally-From: James Tuller Originally-From: James da Silva Originally-From: Jay Smith Originally-From: Jo. Originally-From: John Mauzey Originally-From: Jon Singer (Digital Scribe) Originally-From: Jon Webb Originally-From: Keith Lofstrom Originally-From: Kenneth Chiu Originally-From: LARRY P. PRICE Originally-From: Larry Mellon Originally-From: Lucius Chiaraviglio Originally-From: Malcolm Mladenovic Originally-From: Marcus Engdahl Originally-From: Mark Brader Originally-From: Michael Frank Originally-From: Miles Johnson Originally-From: ModemUserGroupChairman Originally-From: Per Danielsson Originally-From: Phil Stubblefield Originally-From: RHALLER@oregon.uoregon.edu Originally-From: Richard Maine Originally-From: Rob Jellinghaus Originally-From: Robert Merithew Originally-From: SYG Originally-From: Sanjoy Mahajan Originally-From: Seth D. Hollub Originally-From: Seth Robertson Originally-From: Stuart Lynne Originally-From: Tim McDaniel Originally-From: Vince Heuring Originally-From: Wayne Davison <@mis.ucsf.EDU:drivax!davison@amdahl.UUCP> Originally-From: Wilson H.Heydt@hoptoad.UUCP, Jr. Originally-From: alan%essex.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK Originally-From: alan@pdn.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) Originally-From: ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!Orion@pasteur.berkeley.edu Originally-From: ames!rutgers!lgnp1.ls.com!mdi386!bruce@kccs.com (Bruce A. McIntyre) Originally-From: andre@noah.mun.ca Originally-From: andrew%bach@hoptoad.UUCP (Andrew Palfreyman) Originally-From: apexepa!peter@hoptoad.UUCP (Peter Palij) Originally-From: ara@cbnews.ATT.COM (a.r.adolt) Originally-From: arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee (600.429)) Originally-From: aupperle@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Larry John Aupperle) Originally-From: barts@EBay.Sun.COM (Bart Smaalders) Originally-From: blackje@sungod.crd.ge.com (Emmett Black) Originally-From: bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw.cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) Originally-From: cals@cals01.Newport.RI.US (Charles A. Sefranek) Originally-From: celerity!whoops!dave@ucsd.edu Originally-From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) Originally-From: cleon@emx.utexas.edu (Doug McNaught) Originally-From: cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison) Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Originally-From: dasys1!tbetz@uunet.uu.net (TOM BETZ) Originally-From: dataio!pilchuck!ssc!markz@entropy.ms.washington.edu Originally-From: decwrl!decvax!sunybcs!boulder!cadnetix!cadnetix.COM!rusty@vixie.sf.ca.us Originally-From: dfl@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Originally-From: dg%lakart.UUCP@XAIT.Xerox.COM (David Goodenough) Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu Originally-From: dtrindle@JARTHUR.CLAREMONT.EDU Originally-From: eachus@mbunix.mitre.org (Eachus) Originally-From: elwin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Originally-From: execu!sequoia!dewey@cs.utexas.edu (Dewey Henize) Originally-From: fah@lznv.att.com (F.A.HICINBOTHEM) Originally-From: farris@marlin.nosc.mil (Russell H. Farris) Originally-From: ficc!jeffd@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: ficc!sms@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: filbo@ssyx.UCSC.EDU (Bela Lubkin) Originally-From: frobozz%pyr@gatech.edu (geoff george) Originally-From: goofy!apple.com!teener@apple.com (Michael Teener) Originally-From: hamilton@caf.MIT.EDU (David P. Hamilton) Originally-From: hdccorp@nwnexus.WA.COM (hDC Computer Corp. (Brian Conte)) Originally-From: henkel%nepjt@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Chuck Henkel) Originally-From: hoptoad!pegasus.att.com!psrc@att.att.com Originally-From: htsa!fransvo@nluug.nl Originally-From: hugh@toad.com (Hugh Daniel) Originally-From: hughes@bosco.Berkeley.EDU Originally-From: jbeck%bliss@hub.ucsb.edu (John Beck ) Originally-From: john@prism.TMC.COM (John Dowd) Originally-From: jr@CHIPS.BBN.COM Originally-From: jsp@penguin.key.com (James Preston) Originally-From: kevin@gtisqr.ucsf.EDU (Kevin Bagley) Originally-From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Originally-From: landauer@Sun.COM (Doug Landauer) Originally-From: lewis%cadillac.cad.mcc.com@mcc.com (Dave Lewis) Originally-From: lim@iris.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) Originally-From: markw@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM (Mark H. Weber) Originally-From: mbmizen@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Originally-From: mcvax!dde!peb@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: mfryba@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Martin Francis Ryba) Originally-From: mjm@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Mark McCready) Originally-From: mrk@wuphys.wustl.edu (Mark R. Kaufmann) Originally-From: msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) Originally-From: muir@postgres.Berkeley.EDU (David Muir Sharnoff) Originally-From: musocs!mcgill-vision!watmath!sce!alzabo!kebera@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Krishna Bera) Originally-From: nanovx!matt@gatech.edu (Matt Brandt) Originally-From: netcom!lang@hoptoad.UUCP (Chris Lang) Originally-From: offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) Originally-From: olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen) Originally-From: osterman@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (lisa ostrerman) Originally-From: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) Originally-From: portal!cup.portal.com!dbell@Sun.COM Originally-From: prem@andante.att.com Originally-From: prs@oliven.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Philip Stephens) Originally-From: pugh@panache.cs.umd.edu (Bill Pugh) Originally-From: rac@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ricardo A. Cisternas) Originally-From: rafferty@desdemona.crd.ge.com (Colin Owen Rafferty) Originally-From: rfm@Sun.COM (Rich McAllister) Originally-From: rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes) Originally-From: rick@rose3.rosemount.com (Richard R. Sharpe) Originally-From: riley%cs@ucsd.edu (Chris Riley) Originally-From: rlcarr@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Originally-From: roberts%studguppy@LANL.GOV (Doug Roberts @ Los Alamos National Laboratory) Originally-From: root@rush.howp.com (Bob Ames) Originally-From: sbf10@uts.amdahl.com (Samuel Fuller) Originally-From: scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) Originally-From: sean@watcsc.UUCP (Sean Goggin) Originally-From: sequent!jjb@Sun.COM (Jeff Berkowitz) Originally-From: slabovit@afit-ab.arpa (Stuart L. Labovitz) Originally-From: spain@Alliant.COM (Dave Spain) Originally-From: ss6349@leah.Albany.EDU (Steven H Schimmrich) Originally-From: ssc-vax!gregp@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Gregory Paddock) Originally-From: steinmetz!davidsen@uunet.UU.NET (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) Originally-From: steve@umigw.Miami.EDU (steve emmerson) Originally-From: stramm%cs@ucsd.edu (Bernd Stramm) Originally-From: streeter@sungod.crd.ge.com (ken streeter) Originally-From: suzy mercer Originally-From: ted@NMSU.Edu Originally-From: tla@europa.ucsf.EDU (Terry L Anderson) Originally-From: ttwang@polyslo.calpoly.edu (Thomas Wang) Originally-From: unisoft!uunet!moore!paul@hoptoad.UUCP (Paul Maclauchlan) Originally-From: win@gatech.edu (Win Strickland Jr) Originally-From: wolfgang@sunspot.ucsf.EDU (Lewis E. Wolfgang) Originally-From: woolstar@csvax.caltech.edu (John D Woolverton) Originally-From: wzv!wietse@uunet.UU.NET (Wietse Z. Venema) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics,news.groups Subject: Moderation and sci.physics.fusion results & guidelines critique Date: 20 May 89 19:02:36 GMT Organization: Computer Center, UCSF In article <310a@alliant.Alliant.COM>, spain@Alliant.COM (Dave Spain) writes: > I just wanted to expression my opinion that there is probably a need for > BOTH a moderated fusion newsgroup (for "hard" news and info about fusion) > and an alt group where people are free to speculate. Wading through all the articles makes me wish we had a moderated group too, but who will put the bell around the cat? We are talking a serious time commitment. sci.physics.fusion has reached the end of its official voting period, the group has been inewsed previously for those of us who had independent thinking sysops, but it had too limited distribution and only would serve to split the conversation into three groups. So now after a wait of I believe five days to challenge votes, the group will hopefully make wide distribution and make the conversation a little less hard to follow. The results: cca ks7256 322% fgrep 'From:' no > no.results & cca ks7256 323% fgrep 'From:' yes > yes.results & cca ks7256 327% wc no.results yes.results 21 72 943 no.results 161 644 7592 yes.results 182 716 8535 total 161 for, 21 against If one counts the votes, or even just the no votes, received before the official call to vote, it makes no difference in the outcome. The cats of these files are available at the end of this posting. It seems a shame that this has taken so long. While it is not too little too late (the fusion confusion is not over yet) it should have been more sooner. I myself (I'm sure you are eager to learn my opinion :-)) now lean slightly towards disbelief, although I know the jury is still out and I am no more certain after the APS meeting that F&P are wrong than I was that F&P were correct when they first came out. The latest posting of the guidelines for creation of newsgroups came out May 15, note that the guidelines are deliberately vague. Even if one accepts the premise that there are no exceptional circumstances that can be anticipated it is still reasonable to have an outline of how the situation would be handled (The guidelines manager makes a gut decision? S/He polls His/er colleagues? An impromptu poll is taken by mail of all those who have posted to misc.misc in the last month?). If one really wishes to work by these guidelines, the guidelines should not have fuzzy spots. I have seen some discussion of the guidelines, but no vote before the May 15th posting. Or is "generally accepted" another fuzzy spot? We should tighten these up (this is the royal we, I am not prepared to make the time commitment of another vote :-)). This is not be interpreted as an attack upon any individual(s), merely a criticism of the guidelines. And now, the aforementioned vote results :r no.results Originally-From: crum%lipari.usc.edu@oberon.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) Originally-From: Joseph Poutre Originally-From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: mwj%beta@LANL.GOV (William Johnson) Originally-From: roberts%studguppy@LANL.GOV (Doug Roberts @ Los Alamos National Laboratory) Originally-From: bverreau@mipos2.intel.com Originally-From: arisco%cadillac.cad.mcc.com@mcc.com (John Arisco) Originally-From: vixie!decwrl!decvax!ucf-cs!twwells!bill@hoptoad.UUCP (T. William Wells) Originally-From: portal!cup.portal.com!Infinite@Sun.COM Originally-From: paul@att.att.com@oucsace.att.com Originally-From: !paul@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU Originally-From: Kok Chen Originally-From: ficc!karl@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: f@tds.kth.se (Fredrik Lundevall) Originally-From: neal@att.att.com@druhi.att.com Originally-From: dmccart@cadape.intel.com Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu Originally-From: davids@iscuva.ISCS.COM (David Schmidt) Originally-From: "Matt Crawford" Originally-From: goofy!apple.com!ggarb@apple.com (Gordon Garb) Originally-From: Mark_Thompson :r yes results Originally-From: "Louis J Bookbinder" Originally-From: "Marc Courtemanche" Originally-From: "Mark H. Anbinder" Originally-From: "Michael S. Schiffer" Originally-From: "Priscilla Frisch" Originally-From: "Tim J Ihde" Originally-From: "christina elizabeth richards" Originally-From: @cgl.ucsf.EDU:att!ihlpe!jho@ucbvax.UUCP Originally-From: @cgl.ucsf.EDU:decwrl!altera!frank@ucbvax.UUCP (Frank Heile) Originally-From: @cgl.ucsf.EDU:mhuxu!skeeve@ucbvax.UUCP (Christopher R Riley +1 201 564 2516) Originally-From: Ben Yalow Originally-From: Bert Hutchings Originally-From: Bob Campbell Originally-From: Boris Bartlog Originally-From: Brian Glendenning Originally-From: Brian Marley Originally-From: Dale C. Cook <@cgl.ucsf.EDU:decwrl!decvax!encore!pinocchio!cook@vixie.UUCP> Originally-From: Daniel Hinojosa Originally-From: Dave Mack Originally-From: David Buck Originally-From: David Chalmers Originally-From: Edward M. Rynes Esq. Originally-From: Elizabeth Doucette Originally-From: Gunnar Ekolin Originally-From: HEIMDAL Root Originally-From: Horace Dediu Originally-From: Jack Jansen Originally-From: James Tuller Originally-From: James da Silva Originally-From: Jay Smith Originally-From: Jo. Originally-From: John Mauzey Originally-From: Jon Singer (Digital Scribe) Originally-From: Jon Webb Originally-From: Keith Lofstrom Originally-From: Kenneth Chiu Originally-From: LARRY P. PRICE Originally-From: Larry Mellon Originally-From: Lucius Chiaraviglio Originally-From: Malcolm Mladenovic Originally-From: Marcus Engdahl Originally-From: Mark Brader Originally-From: Michael Frank Originally-From: Miles Johnson Originally-From: ModemUserGroupChairman Originally-From: Per Danielsson Originally-From: Phil Stubblefield Originally-From: RHALLER@oregon.uoregon.edu Originally-From: Richard Maine Originally-From: Rob Jellinghaus Originally-From: Robert Merithew Originally-From: SYG Originally-From: Sanjoy Mahajan Originally-From: Seth D. Hollub Originally-From: Seth Robertson Originally-From: Stuart Lynne Originally-From: Tim McDaniel Originally-From: Vince Heuring Originally-From: Wayne Davison <@mis.ucsf.EDU:drivax!davison@amdahl.UUCP> Originally-From: Wilson H.Heydt@hoptoad.UUCP, Jr. Originally-From: alan%essex.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK Originally-From: alan@pdn.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) Originally-From: ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!Orion@pasteur.berkeley.edu Originally-From: ames!rutgers!lgnp1.ls.com!mdi386!bruce@kccs.com (Bruce A. McIntyre) Originally-From: andre@noah.mun.ca Originally-From: andrew%bach@hoptoad.UUCP (Andrew Palfreyman) Originally-From: apexepa!peter@hoptoad.UUCP (Peter Palij) Originally-From: ara@cbnews.ATT.COM (a.r.adolt) Originally-From: arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee (600.429)) Originally-From: aupperle@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Larry John Aupperle) Originally-From: barts@EBay.Sun.COM (Bart Smaalders) Originally-From: blackje@sungod.crd.ge.com (Emmett Black) Originally-From: bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw.cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) Originally-From: cals@cals01.Newport.RI.US (Charles A. Sefranek) Originally-From: celerity!whoops!dave@ucsd.edu Originally-From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) Originally-From: cleon@emx.utexas.edu (Doug McNaught) Originally-From: cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison) Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Originally-From: dasys1!tbetz@uunet.uu.net (TOM BETZ) Originally-From: dataio!pilchuck!ssc!markz@entropy.ms.washington.edu Originally-From: decwrl!decvax!sunybcs!boulder!cadnetix!cadnetix.COM!rusty@vixie.sf.ca.us Originally-From: dfl@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Originally-From: dg%lakart.UUCP@XAIT.Xerox.COM (David Goodenough) Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu Originally-From: dtrindle@JARTHUR.CLAREMONT.EDU Originally-From: eachus@mbunix.mitre.org (Eachus) Originally-From: elwin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Originally-From: execu!sequoia!dewey@cs.utexas.edu (Dewey Henize) Originally-From: fah@lznv.att.com (F.A.HICINBOTHEM) Originally-From: farris@marlin.nosc.mil (Russell H. Farris) Originally-From: ficc!jeffd@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: ficc!sms@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: filbo@ssyx.UCSC.EDU (Bela Lubkin) Originally-From: frobozz%pyr@gatech.edu (geoff george) Originally-From: goofy!apple.com!teener@apple.com (Michael Teener) Originally-From: hamilton@caf.MIT.EDU (David P. Hamilton) Originally-From: hdccorp@nwnexus.WA.COM (hDC Computer Corp. (Brian Conte)) Originally-From: henkel%nepjt@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Chuck Henkel) Originally-From: hoptoad!pegasus.att.com!psrc@att.att.com Originally-From: htsa!fransvo@nluug.nl Originally-From: hugh@toad.com (Hugh Daniel) Originally-From: hughes@bosco.Berkeley.EDU Originally-From: jbeck%bliss@hub.ucsb.edu (John Beck ) Originally-From: john@prism.TMC.COM (John Dowd) Originally-From: jr@CHIPS.BBN.COM Originally-From: jsp@penguin.key.com (James Preston) Originally-From: kevin@gtisqr.ucsf.EDU (Kevin Bagley) Originally-From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Originally-From: landauer@Sun.COM (Doug Landauer) Originally-From: lewis%cadillac.cad.mcc.com@mcc.com (Dave Lewis) Originally-From: lim@iris.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) Originally-From: markw@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM (Mark H. Weber) Originally-From: mbmizen@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Originally-From: mcvax!dde!peb@uunet.uu.net Originally-From: mfryba@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Martin Francis Ryba) Originally-From: mjm@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Mark McCready) Originally-From: mrk@wuphys.wustl.edu (Mark R. Kaufmann) Originally-From: msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) Originally-From: muir@postgres.Berkeley.EDU (David Muir Sharnoff) Originally-From: musocs!mcgill-vision!watmath!sce!alzabo!kebera@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Krishna Bera) Originally-From: nanovx!matt@gatech.edu (Matt Brandt) Originally-From: netcom!lang@hoptoad.UUCP (Chris Lang) Originally-From: offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) Originally-From: olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen) Originally-From: osterman@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (lisa ostrerman) Originally-From: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) Originally-From: portal!cup.portal.com!dbell@Sun.COM Originally-From: prem@andante.att.com Originally-From: prs@oliven.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Philip Stephens) Originally-From: pugh@panache.cs.umd.edu (Bill Pugh) Originally-From: rac@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ricardo A. Cisternas) Originally-From: rafferty@desdemona.crd.ge.com (Colin Owen Rafferty) Originally-From: rfm@Sun.COM (Rich McAllister) Originally-From: rhodes@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Matt Rhodes) Originally-From: rick@rose3.rosemount.com (Richard R. Sharpe) Originally-From: riley%cs@ucsd.edu (Chris Riley) Originally-From: rlcarr@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Originally-From: roberts%studguppy@LANL.GOV (Doug Roberts @ Los Alamos National Laboratory) Originally-From: root@rush.howp.com (Bob Ames) Originally-From: sbf10@uts.amdahl.com (Samuel Fuller) Originally-From: scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) Originally-From: sean@watcsc.UUCP (Sean Goggin) Originally-From: sequent!jjb@Sun.COM (Jeff Berkowitz) Originally-From: slabovit@afit-ab.arpa (Stuart L. Labovitz) Originally-From: spain@Alliant.COM (Dave Spain) Originally-From: ss6349@leah.Albany.EDU (Steven H Schimmrich) Originally-From: ssc-vax!gregp@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Gregory Paddock) Originally-From: steinmetz!davidsen@uunet.UU.NET (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) Originally-From: steve@umigw.Miami.EDU (steve emmerson) Originally-From: stramm%cs@ucsd.edu (Bernd Stramm) Originally-From: streeter@sungod.crd.ge.com (ken streeter) Originally-From: suzy mercer Originally-From: ted@NMSU.Edu Originally-From: tla@europa.ucsf.EDU (Terry L Anderson) Originally-From: ttwang@polyslo.calpoly.edu (Thomas Wang) Originally-From: unisoft!uunet!moore!paul@hoptoad.UUCP (Paul Maclauchlan) Originally-From: win@gatech.edu (Win Strickland Jr) Originally-From: wolfgang@sunspot.ucsf.EDU (Lewis E. Wolfgang) Originally-From: woolstar@csvax.caltech.edu (John D Woolverton) Originally-From: wzv!wietse@uunet.UU.NET (Wietse Z. Venema) What? Someone is still reading this far? If you haven't found your vote mentioned, please email me and I'll look for it in the files I used to save the emailed votes. If you did not vote for the group as stated (some people voted for a moderated group or a strictly science group which I felt was not what they would get so their votes were discounted) I did not count your vote. If you voted against the group in any way shape or form, I counted the vote just to be generous. Feel free to email me about any foulups, I will reply that I have recieved your letter so if you don't get a reply from me I guess you'll have to post. ___ kscott@cca.ucsf.edu Self appointed net.pope cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenwietse cudfnWietse cudlnVenema cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / Ted Dunning / Re: Recombining electrilyzed gasses Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Recombining electrilyzed gasses Date: 18 May 89 18:17:23 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <13819@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@sungod.steinmetz (William Davidsen) writes: B) The residue gasses could be analyzed for O2 as well as He4. The have been lots of attempts to explain He4 as contaminant in D2O, but leftover O2 would indicate that the D2 with which it originally was combined was missing (obviously the Pd would have to have absorbed D2 driven off and burned to make this measurement). absorption of d2 could be determined, but the amount fused would be much to small to deduce this way (of course). cudkeys: cuddy18 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / Ted Dunning / Re: Recombining electrilyzed gasses Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Recombining electrilyzed gasses Date: 18 May 89 18:20:56 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <13819@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@sungod.steinmetz (William Davidsen) writes: B) The residue gasses could be analyzed for O2 as well as He4. The have been lots of attempts to explain He4 as contaminant in D2O, but leftover O2 would indicate that the D2 with which it originally was combined was missing (obviously the Pd would have to have absorbed D2 driven off and burned to make this measurement). the absorption of d2 into the pd could be determined, but the amount fused to produce head would be much too small to deduce this way (of course). the catalytic recombination of d2 and o2 can not only simplify the calorimetry by removing the assumptions about the energy balance, it provides virtually the only hope of economic break even of a pons cell. the trick is to catalytically recombine the gases in a fuel cell in order to generate electricity with high efficiency. since the generation of electricity from low grade heat sources is very inefficient, this provides a very important low loss feedback loop for the process. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / Paul Dietz / Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 18 May 89 20:26:18 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY > Many years ago I was taught in a physics class that "absence of >evidence is not evidence of absence." I think that applies here (can >anyone remember the author of the quote?). Probably the same person who said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Science requires that extraordinary claims be proved. It is not necessary for critics to disprove a claim for it to be rejected, they must merely show the evidence is not convincing. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy18 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / J Hall / Re: Crystal question (was Re: The Chemistry of Muon-induced Fusion) Originally-From: josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Crystal question (was Re: The Chemistry of Muon-induced Fusion) Date: 18 May 89 22:30:44 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Steve Masticola writes: Supercooled liquids exist; why not superheated crystals? (If anyone has a real reason why not, please follow up.) Have a look at the recent work in solid and liquid phase plasmas (if I remember correctly, done at Bell Labs and reported in Science News). A solid-phase plasma could reasonably be described as a "superheated crystal". --JoSH cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjosh cudfnJ cudlnHall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / John Logajan / Facts is facts Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Facts is facts Date: 18 May 89 23:11:29 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > It is not necessary for critics to disprove a claim for it > to be rejected, they must merely show the evidence is not convincing. This is more of a personal choice than a scientific one. In fact the choice to believe or disbelieve anything is ultimately subjective -- we all have to draw our lines of "certainty." It would be nice it science was as objective as scientists would have us believe, but there is just too much that is a matter of faith. My own personal "line" is based upon reproducibility. If it can be replicated then I believe in it. If it can't be replicated -- I don't necessarily reject it, I just admit that it is useless until it can be replicated (if ever.) -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.16 / Bob Miller / Re: Biological Cold Fusion? Originally-From: rhm@hpfinote.HP.COM (Bob Miller) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Biological Cold Fusion? Date: 16 May 89 17:08:51 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard CICD > The Wagner co-fusion reaction now makes it possible to >effect changes in the nuclear and sub nuclear structure of the >atom, at ordinary temperatures and without the accompaniment of >dangerous radioactivity. Like photosynthesis and mammallan >respiration, that in the same natural processes such low >temperature modifications of the nucleus are routine. Enzymatic >reactions of every kind have to be based on a energy flow from >the nuclear and sub nuclear portion of the metals, outward to the >carbon based proteins which these metals activate (all biological >catalyst or enzymes require the presence of a heavy metal in >order to function). Like wowwww, you know, do you mean that whales and poppies do cold fusion? Totally cosmic!!! This is as exciting as an all-day blast at the Galleria ... WITH Dad's MasterCard!!! Bob (time to pull the plug!) Miller Hewlett-Packard Ft Collins, CO cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenrhm cudfnBob cudlnMiller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.17 / Donald Benson / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 17 May 89 00:32:03 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino If I converted diamonds into graphite, or vice versa, how much energy would be released? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As a grammar school student, after producing an electric arc with pencil carbons, I tried to do it with a diamond. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy17 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / B Ellsworth / Re: Science via networks Originally-From: ben@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Benjamin Ellsworth) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Science via networks Date: 18 May 89 17:43:50 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA >The way the cold fusion thing has gone underscores several >important problems with the way science is done in the late >80s. > >1) The requirements of precedence and protection of commercial >rights have seriously damaged traditional information sharing >among scientists. Preservation of secrecy about significant >facts that may assure the lead of one experimental team over >others seem to have become the order of the day. Wake up and smell the coffee. This has been the order of the day for several generations. Everybody wants to go down in history as the first to do/discover/invent something. Read Watson and Crick's account of their research into the nature of DNA. Their "preservation of secrecy" was going on in the 60's. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com | INTERNET Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP 1000 N.E. Circle | (USA) (503) 750-4980 | FAX Corvallis, OR 97330 | (USA) (503) 757-2000 | VOICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All relevant disclaimers apply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenben cudfnBenjamin cudlnEllsworth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / Terry Bollinger / Re: Fusion heats up: Texas A&M's meltdown Originally-From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Originally-From: Vincent.Cate@SAM.CS.CMU.EDU Originally-From: terry@ctc.contel.com (Terry Bollinger) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Texas A&M's plastic "meltdown" (was The Chemistry of Muon-...) Subject: Fusion heats up: Texas A&M's meltdown Subject: Re: Fusion heats up: Texas A&M's meltdown Date: 19 May 89 04:55:37 GMT Date: Thu, 18 May 1989 02:51-EDT Date: Thu, 18 May 89 11:48:42 EDT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI It looks like Terry Bollinger's comment about Texas A&M having a meltdown is just due to a picture of a melted platic syringe in Newsweek. Granted the caption is, "Fusion heats up: Texas A&M's meltdown", but really now, melted plastic does not mean a meltdown. There is nothing in the text of the article about this picture. My vote would be to try to cut down on the spreading of rumours. -- Vince PS I would still love to see a detailed description of the experiments at Texas A&M and/or Stanford. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 May 1989 02:51-EDT Originally-From: Vincent.Cate@SAM.CS.CMU.EDU To: terry@ctc.contel.com Subject: Fusion heats up: Texas A&M's meltdown All I could find in the Newsweek article is a picture of a partially melted object. The object looks like a plastic sering. Is there any information about melting metal in the article? Has there every been anything more about the F/P experiment that blew up? The way I understand it the thing blew up and when they came back they could not find all of the palladium, so they decided that it must have vapourized. Do we have any reliable reports of melting metal? -- Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 May 89 11:48:42 EDT Originally-From: terry@ctc.contel.com (Terry Bollinger) To: Vincent.Cate@SAM.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: Fusion heats up: Texas A&M's meltdown Good questions, but I don't think I'm the right person to answer them -- someone needs to ask the A&M folk who provided that picture as to whether it is made out of plastic (a lost cause if it is), lime glass (moderately interesting), or Pyrex (quite interesting!) You DO have the right picture -- the reason that I emphasized it is that if one assumes that the A&M setup was anything at all like the F&P setup (again, an assumption that only the Aggies can answer), then the central Pd rod would have to have been no greater in mass (and probably significantly less) than the amount of material that was melted on the side of the tube. Assuming (what is that saying about the word "assume"?) that the apparatus is in fact made out of glass, I would hold to my assertion that it is a very interesting (and hard to explain) result. In summary, it would be nice if someone on the net could get the scoop directly from the Texas A&M people who provided that photo. I will repent heartily and publicly for my sins of assumption if it turns out to be a meltdown of plastic, but at least I will sleep better knowing that something novel was not just swept under the rug. [some more stuff deleted] -- cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / Yosi Hoshen / What is needed to get the F&P experiment to work Originally-From: jho@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Yosi Hoshen) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: What is needed to get the F&P experiment to work Date: 18 May 89 13:06:05 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois I have learned from reliable sources that the reason people get neither heat nor neutrons when they try to replicate the the Fleischmann Pons experiment is that they forget to include a very essential ingredient in the reaction mixture. This ingredient happens to be polywater. It is especially recommended to use deuterized polywater. If you use polywater you are guaranteed to get as much energy and neutrons you expect to get. Yosi Hoshen cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjho cudfnYosi cudlnHoshen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / Mark Thorson / Re: Science via networks Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Science via networks Date: 18 May 89 22:05:37 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) I see two possibilities here: 1) Convince the Patent Office to go on-line, accepting patent applications by e-mail and publishing them on the network. The possibility is not so remote as it might seem; some of our civil servants are remarkably forward-thinking. Of course, it would have to be operated in parallel with the existing paper system. The carrot to offer the PTO would be the possibility of obtaining large numbers of highly-qualified part-time patent examiners from the network. 2) Develop a networked think-tank. If the discussion is public, the clock starts ticking for each idea which is disclosed (you have 1 year after public disclosure in which to file a U.S. patent application; in some foreign countries, your intellectual property rights disappear immediately upon public disclosure). If the discussion is private (everybody signs non- disclosure agreements), the discussion will be limited to a fairly small club. Not many companies will like having members of their research staff bound by non-disclosure agreements to other organizations. I like the idea of rapid turnaround for evaluation of new ideas, but I just don't see how it could work, unless you succeed in networking the PTO itself. How would you divvy up the intellectual property rights of people contributing toward an invention? Separate patent applications would be needed to describe each person's contribution, unless there were an agreement in advance on the way to share rights. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / David Wright / Re: Biological Cold Fusion? Originally-From: dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Biological Cold Fusion? Date: 19 May 89 07:26:19 GMT Organization: STC Technology Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK In article <9654@dasys1.UUCP> tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) writes: # FRYENZYME INDUCED CO-FUSION OF DEUTERIUM # # H2O + OX = D+ == E + C = Si # * OX Fryenzyme Catalyst # BY: John C. Wagner Quite an amusing spoof article - I particularly liked the bit about the nucleus 'spinning down'. I hope we won't find too many of the other papers we've been reading are less-obvious spoofs! Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww PSI%234237100122::DWW cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendww cudfnDavid cudlnWright cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / Lee Hollaar / Re: Science via networks Originally-From: hollaar%cs.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Science via networks Date: 19 May 89 14:01:51 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept In article <18522@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >I see two possibilities here: 1) Convince the Patent Office to go on-line, >accepting patent applications by e-mail and publishing them on the network. >The possibility is not so remote as it might seem It's considerably more remote, unless Congress decides to amend the Patent Act, whose section 122 states: "Confidential Status of Applications. Applications for patents shall be kept in confidence by the Patent and Trademark Office and no information concerning the same given without authority of the applicant or owner unless necessary to carry out the provisions on any Act of Congress or in such special circumstances as my be determined by the Commissioner." The purpose for such a provision is to allow an inventor to retain trade secret protection in the event that a patent is not granted. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenedu cudfnLee cudlnHollaar cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / Dave Mack / Re: What is needed to get the F&P experiment to work Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What is needed to get the F&P experiment to work Date: 19 May 89 13:47:28 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <4787@ihlpe.ATT.COM> jho@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Yosi Hoshen) writes: >I have learned from reliable sources that the reason people >get neither heat nor neutrons when they try to replicate the >the Fleischmann Pons experiment is that they forget to include >a very essential ingredient in the reaction mixture. This >ingredient happens to be polywater. It is especially recommended >to use deuterized polywater. If you use polywater you are >guaranteed to get as much energy and neutrons you expect to >get. > >Yosi Hoshen Your source is incorrect regarding the particle output from cold fusion when using heavy polywater. The energy is carried away by N-rays in this case. Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / Bernie Roehl / Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: broehl@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 19 May 89 13:52:30 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <13820@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > Given the number of people who *have* replicated part of the results, >or who think they have, I don't see that the use for this group is about >to go away any time soon. Agreed. For one thing, I'd like to hear what Los Alamos has to say once they get the legalities sorted out and get access to F&P's hardware. > The nay-sayers have two arguments: >1. I can't do it, and I'm the best, so it can't be. Or, worse yet, "I tried it once, it didn't work, so here are all these theories as to why it *has* to be impossible". It should be remembered that a hundred years ago, the world's leading scientists were all claiming that electric light bulbs were impossible, and that Edison didn't understand basic physics. Fifty years ago, the world's leading physicists were offering various proofs as to why artificial satellites were impossible. The skepticism of the APS members is irrelevant; either F&P are right or they're wrong, and the jury is very much still out. -- Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@watdcsu.UWaterloo{.edu,.csnet,.cdn} BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watdcsu!broehl Voice: (519) 745-4419 [home] (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work] cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbroehl cudfnBernie cudlnRoehl cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / B Vidugiris / Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Originally-From: bhv@igloo.Scum.COM (Bronis Vidugiris) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion Date: 19 May 89 02:25:24 GMT Organization: igloo, Northbrook, IL In article <15888@gryphon.COM> jdow@gryphon.COM (J. Dow) writes: >In article <199@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) writes: >>In article <1269@argon.siesoft>, jlk@siesoft (jlk) writes: ]>> ... The verdict is regarded as decisive because the checks ]>> were carried out with the help of Prof. martin Fleischmann.... ]>> should have seen something leap out at us by now. This has not happened.' ]>> ...By his own admission, the findings could leave Fleischmann, a Harwell ]>> consultant, with 'egg on my face'... ]> ]>I'm getting impatient about "Agent X" which Messrs. F&P clutch to so tightly ]>(a popular, if not unique interpretation). Surely Fleischmann, faced with ]>this HIGHLY embarrassing situation, feels BEHOLDEN to let the cat out of ]>the bag. The poker game has limits - so does my patience! ] ]I too am impatient. But, Andrew, do you really think P&F give a flying ]about our impatience? IMHO they have their own problems that have a bit more ]priority than massaging our overblown egos, nie? Personally, I am starting to have serious doubts about F&P's integrety at this point. I'm begining to seriously consider that their results could be out-and-out fraud. This is more or less a gut feel at this point - I am curious if anyone out there in netland has any facts which would tend to refute or support this hypothesis. -- bhv@igloo cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / Dave Mack / Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 19 May 89 14:34:42 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <1989May18.162618.1246@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >> Many years ago I was taught in a physics class that "absence of >>evidence is not evidence of absence." I think that applies here (can >>anyone remember the author of the quote?). > >Probably the same person who said "extraordinary claims require >extraordinary evidence." Science requires that extraordinary claims >be proved. It is not necessary for critics to disprove a claim for it >to be rejected, they must merely show the evidence is not convincing. The French Academy of Sciences in the late 1700's declared that there were no such things as meteorites because rocks could not fall from the sky. Evidence for extraordinary claims hinges on reproducibility. To reproduce an experiment, one must understand the parameters required to induce the phenomenon. F&P claim to have considerable evidence. They have not released the detailed information required to reproduce the phenomenon. Until they do, it would be best not to make sweeping pronouncements, lest we be remembered in history along with the unfortunate gentlemen of the French Academy of Science. Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / S BIALKOWSKI / Fusion and the state of utah Originally-From: UF7047@CC.USU.EDU (STEPHEN BIALKOWSKI) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion and the state of utah Subject: Fusion and the state of utah Date: 19 May 89 17:36:00 GMT Posting-Version: USU; site USU Subject: Fusion and the state of utah Those who think that cold fusion is some secret that is private to the state of utah should be aware that we here at Utah State University have no more knowledge than the rest of the world. In fact, we probably have less. The 'preprints' of fusion reporting papers were FAXed in from the east coast. Our first real first hand information came last Tuesday when G.L.Jensen, one of the authors of the BYU Nature report, came up to present a seminar in our Physics Department. But, with the exception of some experimental details, e.g. how the neutron spectrometer operates, there was no information other than that published in the Nature report. An interesting point was that the BYU experiments were centered around the geological evidence given in the Nature report. Thus, the strange electrolyte mixture that was used was, in part, an attempt to duplicate the electrolytes in natural waters. Today, there was to be a presentation by S. F. Taylor from the same group. Taylor is the graduate student that worked on the project and would probably have plenty of interesting insights. This paper was to be presented at the Utah Academy of Science annual meeting, which is held here this year. Unfortunately, Mr. Taylor has withdrawn the paper. So I guess even the Utah Academy doesn't rank. The lack of information coming from BYU and UofU is quite interesting in historical context. Collaborative research has been status quo. But cold nuclear fusion has apparently, and hopefully temporarily, stopped some of this feeling of open information exchange. To be sure, according to Jensen, the information exchange between BYU and U of U has stopped. There never was any information made known to researchers or administrators by U of U. And clearly, the Utah Academy of Science is not to be informed either. When science is reported to University Vice Presidents and State Governers, a different set of rules must apply. Well, that's the story from up in the north-lands of utah. By the way, the water up here is fresh, the trees are green and the mountains go on forever. Stephen Bialkowski cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenUF7047 cudfnSTEPHEN cudlnBIALKOWSKI cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / millikan@sbphy / Re: Recombining electrolysed gases Originally-From: millikan@sbphy.ucsb.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Recombining electrolysed gases Date: 19 May 89 16:35:18 GMT Organization: UC, Santa Barbara Chemistry Department > William Davidsen asks: Why don't people recombine the D2 and O2 evolved > from the cold fusion cells? Excellent idea! We do just that. In the head space above the electrolyte, we have a separately heated Pt coiled filament that runs at a dull red heat. It recombines the evolved gases, puts the D2O back in the cell, removes the explosion hazard, and makes possible running a sealed system, even at sub atmospheric pressure. Better yet, for the deuterium that goes into the electrode, the oxygen reaction partner has no partner, so a partial pressure of O2 builds up in the cell. This is quantitative. By measuring the pressure build-up, and using PV=nRT, one can tell just how much D has gone into the electrode. Of course, any He is extra, but we have not seen any yet (except for air leakage). Roger C. Millikan UCSB Chem Dept. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenmillikan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / Michael Brooks / Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: brooks@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 19 May 89 19:06:04 GMT Organization: Stanford University I have stolen this quote from another net-poster and used it as a part of my signature---since I felt it appropriate to the discussion on cold fusion. It is one of the more astute observations about experimental science that I have yet seen, and has probably helped many a young scientist (and old ones too) proceed with caution when discussing new phenomena. MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Abscence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of abscence." Actual date/time/and context/ is unknown to me, perhaps some one else knows. Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Lab (solid state/SU MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Abscence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of abscence." cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / William Johnson / cold fusion workshop announcement Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: cold fusion workshop announcement Date: 19 May 89 19:58:09 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Pat Fasel, our electronic postmistress, has asked me to post the following: ----- Begin Included Message ----- WORKSHOP ON COLD FUSION PHENOMENA [Uplink Information] MAY 23-25, 1989 SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO Sponsored by Los Alamos National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy May 23rd, 9:00am - 5:00pm and 7:30pm - 9:30pm MDT May 24th, 8:00am - 5:00pm and 7:30pm - 9:30pm MDT May 25th, 8:00am - 12:00pm MDT By SATELLITE: Ku-Band: SpaceNet 1, SP1 120 W, TR# 24, Audio 6.2 & 6.8MHz C-Band: WESTAR 5, W5 122.5 W, CH# 4 (2X), Audio 6.2 & 6.8MHz C-Band (evening sessions): TELSTAR 301, 96 W, CH#21 (11V), Audio 6.2 & 6.8MHz Speakers: M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, S.E. Jones, and other researchers from Max Planck Institute, AT&T Labs, Cal Tech, BYU, Yale, Princeton, and elsewhere. Abstracts, presentations and poster sessions. Complete agenda will be posted on: alt.fusion,sci.physics ----- End Included Message ----- Probably the main interest in this to net.people is the satellite information. Pat says she'll forward the agenda as soon as it's in ascii form. BTW, a rumor is circulating that Fleischmann and Pons (scheduled for an early talk) are *not* coming, the above announcement notwithstanding. Anyone with more concrete information on this is invited to mail to me, or post. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / Clay Booker / Cold Fusion Workshop Originally-From: cxb@beta.lanl.gov (Clay P Booker) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Cold Fusion Workshop Date: 19 May 89 20:07:54 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory The Workshop on Cold Fusion Phenomena that will be held in Santa Fe, NM on May 23-25 at Sweeney Center is scheduled to be carried via satelite to the rest of North America. It will be available on: KU-band: SpaceNet 1 (SP1) 120-deg. W, transponder 24 C-band: Westar 5 (W5) 122.5-deg. W, transponder 4 C-Band (evening sessions): TELSTAR 301, 96 W, CH#21 (11V), Audio 6.2 & 6.8MHz In both cases the audio will be at 6.2 and 6.8 MHz. The announcement claims that it is to be carried from 9 am to 5 pm MDT on May 23 and 24 and from 9 am to noon MDT on May 25; however, the workshop begins at 8 am MDT all three days so this is apparently a misprint. The speakers include Fleischmann & Pons, Jones etc. Texas A&M has three presentations. There are two from Italy -- Instituto Nazionale Di Fisca Nucleare and Centro Ricerche Energia Frascati. There are a total of 35 presentations listed. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudencxb cudfnClay cudlnBooker cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / Rick Strickert / Telecast of Los Alamos Cold Fusion Meeting Originally-From: ricks@cutter.UUCP (Rick Strickert) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Telecast of Los Alamos Cold Fusion Meeting Date: 19 May 89 23:08:47 GMT The following information came from AIP's PI-NET: All sessions of the Los Alamos Cold Fusion Meeting will be broadcast live via satellite. Dates/Times: May 23, 9AM - 5 PM May 24, 9AM - 5 PM May 25, 9AM - 12PM BAND SATELLITE LOCATION TRANSPONDER KU band Spacenet 1 120 deg W Transponder #24 C Westar 5 122.5 deg W Channel #4 (2X) For further information contact Dave Phillips, 505-667-1233. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenricks cudfnRick cudlnStrickert cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.18 / John Moore / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 18 May 89 14:08:14 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <1287@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.UUCP (Mark Wilkins) writes: ]In article <17865@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: ] Well, OK, assume it isn't fusion. Lattices do odd things sometimes. The ]diffusion pressure of the deuterium is potentially quite high if the ]palladium lattice is capable of admitting it. Why shouldn't this cause the ]energy state of the palladium lattice to increase? I mean, the deuterium is ]going from a high to low energy state by diffusing in, it is probable that ]this energy is going somewhere into the lattice. Many would say "Why ]wouldn't it just produce heat?" but the mechanics of such diffusion ]processes are not very well-studied. Actually it has been studied extensively for 120 years! Hydrogen embrittlement of metals is of concern to metallurgists, so they study it. I have two books which go into tons of detail over the thermodynamics of hydrogen occlusion by palladium in particular, and also other metals. They have studied both Hydrogen and Deuterium occlusion. See my previous postings for references. -- 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: cuddy18 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / dietz@cs.roche / Re: The Chemistry of Muon-induced Fusion (and why you should be Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: The Chemistry of Muon-induced Fusion (and why you should be interested) Date: 19 May 89 22:58:22 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <53546@linus.UUCP> terry@ctc.contel.com writes: > Far more worrisome than weak >explanations (quite a few of those have been generated by both sides!) is the >tendency shown by a few Cal Tech researchers to launch clumsy ad hominem >attacks against anyone who claims an inexplicable result. (I believe it was >"deluded" for F&P and "only schools with good football teams" for Texas A&M.) Perhaps you should consider the possibility that, given their extensive knowledge of fusion and electrochemistry, they have concluded that the cold fusion stuff is garbage, and are saying so in terms appropriate to the situation? > It goes on to suggest that solid state media (specifically the > transition metals with high hydrogen solubility) may provide > exceptionally good media for the types of chemical reactions needed to > enhance muon fusion. Specifically, it suggests transition metal > environments which support fairly high (and roughly equal) densities > of two charged deuterium species (D+ and D2+) should provide the best > chances for increasing muon fusion efficiency, and that transition > metal lattices may be inherently superior to plasmas for reasons which ^^^^^^^ > include: a higher total hydrogen density; the ability to rapidly slow > down muons more rapidly after fusion occurs; better support for the > chemical formation of muon hydrogen due to lower temperatures; and > support for higher densities of the cation hydrogen species (D+ and > D2+) that are most likely to capture and react with muons. I also > introduce the idea of a "chemical cross section" to describe the > relative muon reactivity of the various hydrogen species in a > transition metal lattice. We can gun down the muon catalysis explanation for the P&F results without much difficulty: (1) Palladium should preferentially capture muons, taking them out of circulation. A muon in a deep orbit around a Pd nucleus is in a much lower energy state than around a deuteron. Once there, it should sit until it decays. (2) DD muon catalyzed fusion makes neutrons (the presence of a lattice should not change this, since the DD muonic molecule is much smaller than the Pd interatomic spacing). (3) There aren't enough muons present from cosmic rays, and they decay too quickly. (4) Ignoring (1), a muon should be able to catalyze only about 30 fusion reactions before being trapped on a 3He nucleus, which would remove it from further reactions. Also, muon catalytic fusion isn't done in plasmas, it's done in compressed DT at anywhere from cryogenic temperatures up to hundreds of degrees C. In plasmas it wouldn't work, since the electrons still have to be attached to the atoms for mu-molecules to be formed sufficiently quickly. > 1) Most or all of the energy given off by the reaction would be in the form > of highly energetic beta particles, or possibly as highly energetic > deuterons. Both of these can be easily ruled out. Beta particles would have made enough bremsstrahlung to have killed bystanders, and would have made the water glow blue. Energetic deuterons would have a small but nontrivial chance of fusing with stationary deuterons before stopping in the Pd lattice. This would have produced (by hot fusion) 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more neutrons than P&F claim to have seen. Even their crude measurements could not have missed this. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.19 / William Johnson / Agenda for Santa Fe cold-fusion workshop (LONG) Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Agenda for Santa Fe cold-fusion workshop (LONG) Date: 19 May 89 22:39:29 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory My earlier attempt to post an agenda for the Santa Fe meeting led to basically illegible stuff owing to a transmission error; this one should be better. It's ascii, and this time only *slightly* illegible :-). Once again, thanks to Pat Fasel for passing this along; for info on getting access to meeting proceedings via satellite link, refer to the postings of meeting announcements by either Clay Booker or me. (Personal note: if anyone reading this is planning to be at the meeting, leave me a note either at the registration desk or at the poster by R. E. Anderson _et al._, and we'll try to get a lunch date set up.) AGENDA WORKSHOP ON COLD FUSION PHENOMENA May 22--25, 1989 SWEENEY CENTER, SANTA FE, NM Monday, May 22 -------------- Workshop participants arrive in Santa Fe 4:00 -- 8:00 Registration and badge issue at Eldorado Hotel---Hospitality room available at Eldorado Hotel Tuesday, May 23 --------------- 7:30 -- 8:00 Arrival at Sweeney Center 8:00 -- 8:30 Late Registration 8:30 -- 9:00 Preliminary Remarks Reed J. Jensen -- Welcome Sig Hecker -- Introduction of Workshop Norman Hackerman 9:00 -- 12:00 First Plenary Session (A)--- Moderator: Reed J. Jensen Integrated Experiments Los Alamos National Laboratory 9:00 -- 9:30 Evidence for Excess Heat Generation A.J.Appleby,S.Srinivasan, Rates During Electrolysis of D2O O.J. Murphy,C.R. Martin in LiOD Using a Palladium Cathode - Texas A&M A Microcalorimetric Study (Invited Talk) 9:30 -- 9:50 Neutron Emission and the TritiumK.L. Wolf, N. Packham, Content Associated with Deuterium J. Shoemaker,F. Cheng, Loaded Palladium and Titanium Metals D. Lawson Texas A&M 9:50 -- 10:20 BREAK -- Refreshments Available 1 10:20 -- Electrochemical ``Cold Nuclear G.A. Wurden, Fusion'' Attempts at IPP LANL H.S. Bosch,J. Gernhardt, G. Janeschitz F. Karger,J. Perchermeier Max Planck Institut fur Plasma Physic FR Germany 10:40 -- Measurements of Neutron and Gamma D. Albagli,V. Cammarata, Ray Emission Rates and Calorimetry R. Crooks,M. Schloh, in Electrochemical Cells Having Pd M.S. Wrighton,X. Chen, Cathodes C. Fiore,M. Gaudreau, D. Gwinn,P. Linsay, S.C. Luckhardt,R. Parker, R. Petrasso,K. Wenzel, R. Ballinger,I. Hwang,MIT 11:00 -- In Search of Nuclear Fusion in D.R. McCracken, J.Paquette, Electrolytic Cells and Metal/Gas R.E. Johnson,N.A. Briden Systems W.G. Cross, A. Arjena, A.M. Lone,D.C. Tennant, W.J.L. Buyers Chalk River Labs, Ontario 11:20 -- LUNCH/POSTER SESSION 1:30 -- 5:00 Second Plenary Session (B)--- Moderator: Fred Morse Integrated Experiments (Cont'd) Los Alamos National Laboratory 1:30 -- Search for Neutrons from Cold Fusion R.S. Raghavan,L.C. Feldman in Ph-D M.M. Broer,J.S.Kraus, A.C. James,D.W. Murphy AT&T Bell Labs 1:50 -- Calorimetry, Neutron Flux, Gamma Nathan S. Lewis Flux, and Tritium Yield from Charles A. Barnes Electrochemically Charged Palladium Cal Tech in D2O 2:10 -- Search for Fusion in Deuterated F.M. Mueller,K.A. Johnson, Transition Metals: Dynamical W.J. Medina,A.R. Mantheia, Pressures Above 1 Megabar C.L. Talcott,E.K. Storms J.W. Shaner,B.L. Freeman J.E. Vorthman,M.M. Fowler LANL 2:30 -- Tests for ``Cold Fusion'' in the J.G. Blencoe,M.T. Naney Pd-D2 and Ti-D2 Systems at D.J. Wesolowski 350 MPa and 195-300K ORNL 2:50 -- Measurements of Heat, Neutron and M.Chen,S. Steadman, MIT ? Flux Induced by ? Stopped in C.Fiore, M. Gaudreau Deuterium Saturated Targets S. Luckhardt,R. Parker, MIT R. Crooks,M. Schloh, D. Albagli,V. Cammarata, M. Wrighton, MIT R. Debbe,D. Lowenstein, BNL 2 3:10 -- High Precision Cold Fusion M.E. Hayden,U. Narger, Calorimetry Achieved by In Situ J.L. Booth,L.A. Whitehead, Catalytic Recombination of Evolved W.N. Hardy,J.F. Carolan, Gases D.A. Balzarini,C.C. Blake E. Wishnow,Univ. of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada 3:30 -- BREAK -- Refreshments Available Physics of Fusion Reaction 4:00 -- Nuclear Reactions and Screened- G.M. Hale,R.D. Smith, Coulomb Fusion Rates T.L. Talley, LANL 4:20 -- Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Peter M. Richards PD1:1: How Close Can Deuterons Ge SNL 4:40 Conditions Leading to the Production M. Gajda,G. Harley of Cold Fusion Neutrons J. Rafelski Univ. of Arizona Electrochemical Experiments in J.F. Ziegler,T.H. Zabel, Cold Nuclear Fusion J.J. Cuomo,V.A. Brusic G.S. Gargill III, E.J. O'Sullivan, A.D. Marwick,R. Garwin IBM Rsch.Div., Thomas J. Watson Research Center 5:00 -- 5:30 BREAK -- Walk to Eldorado Hotel 5:30 -- 7:00 Reception at Eldorado Hotel 7:00 -- 7:30 Return to Sweeney Center 7:30 -- 9:30 Discussion Period with Presenters J. O'M. Bockris Wednesday, May 24 ----------------- 7:30 -- 8:00 Arrive at Sweeney Center 8:00 -- 12:00 Third Plenary Session (C)--- Moderator: C. A. Barnes Neutron & Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy Cal Tech 8:00 -- Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed S.E. Jones Matter: Recent Results and Open BYU Questions (Invited Talk) 3 8:30 -- Experimental Evidence for Cold A. Bertin,M. Bruschi, Nuclear Fusion in a Measurement M. Capponi,S. DeCastro, Under the Gran Sasso Massif U. Marconi,C. Moroni, M. Piccinini, N. Semprni-Cesari A. Trombini,A. Vitale, A. Zoccoli, Instituto Nazionale Di Fisica Nucleare, Italy J.B. Czirr,G.L. Jensen S.E. Jones,E.P. Palmer BYU 8:50 -- Neutron Emission from a A.De Ninno,A. Frattolillo, Titanium-Deuterium System G. Lollobattista,L. Martinis, (Invited Talk) M. Martone,L. Mori S. Podda,F. Scaramuzzi Centro Ricerche Energia Frascati, Italy 9:10 -- The Measurement of Neutron Emission H.O. Menlove,M.M. Fowler from Ti Plus D2 Gas E. Garcia,A. Mayer, M.C. Miller,R.R. Ryan LANL S.E. Jones, BYU 9:40 -- Upper Limits on Emission Rates ofM. Gai,S.L. Rugari, Neutrons and Gamma-Rays from ``Cold R.H. France,B.J. Lund, Fusion'' in Deuterided Metals Z. Zhao, Yale (Invited Talk) A.J. Davenport,H.S. Isaacs, K.G. Lynn, BNL 10:10 -- BREAK -- Refreshments Available 10:40 -- Lack of Neutron and Gamma Radiation H.Hsuan,D. Manos, from PPPL's Cold Fusion Experiments S. Cowley,R. Motley, L. Roquemore,T. Saito, J. Timberlake,W. Ayeres, T. Bennett,M. Bitter E. Cecil,S.C.J. Cuthbertson, H.F. Dylla,H. Furth, L. Grisham,H. Hendel, K. Hill,R. Kulsrud,D. Meade, S. Medley,D. Mueller, E. Nieschmidt,R. Shoemaker, J. Thomas Princeton University 11:00 -- An Attempt to Measure Characteristi R. Fleming,F. Donahue, X-Rays from Cold Fusion S. Mancini,G. Knoll, B. Heuser, Univ. of Michigan 11:20 -- LUNCH/POSTER SESSION 4 1:30 -- 5:00 Fourth Plenary Session (D)--- Moderator: Anthony Turkevich Calorimetry University of Chicago 1:30 -- Two Fast Mixed Conductor Systems-- A. Belzer,U. Bischler, Deuterium and Hydrogen in Palladium S. Crouch-Baker,T.M. Gur, M. Schreiber,R.A. Huggins 2:00 -- Calorimetric and Thermodynamic N.A. Godshall,E.P. Roth, Analysis of Palladium-Deuterium M.J. Kelly,T.R. Guilinger, Electrochemical Cells R.I. Ewing, SNL 2:20 -- The Possibility of Evaporation A.E. Pontau Dominating ``Cold Fusion'' Power Balance SNLL Calculations 2:40 -- Calorimetric Measurements on Electro- L. Redey,K.M. Myles, chemical Cells with Pd-D and Pd-H D. Dees,M. Krumpelt, Cathodes D.R. Vissers, ANL 3:00 -- Electrochemical Calorimetric Studies D.E. Stilwell,M.H. Miles on Water and Deuterium Oxide Naval Wpns. Cntr. Electrolysis 3:20 -- BREAK -- Refreshments Available Physics of Fusion Reactions--II 4:00 -- Seven Chemical Explanations of J.O'M. Bockris,N. Packham, the Fleischmann-Pons Effect O. Velev,G. Lin, M. Szklarzcyck, R. Kainthla, Texas A&M 4:20 Evidence Against Condensed Matter K.Nagamine,T. Matsuzaki, Fusion Induced by Cosmic-Ray Muons K. Ishida,S. Sakamoto, Y. Watanabe,M. Iwasaki, H. Miyake,K. Nishiyama, H. Kurihara,E. Torikai, T. Suzuki,S. Isagawa, K. Kondo University of Tokyo/RIKEN 4:40 -- DINNER/POSTER SESSION 5:30 -- 7:00 Optional, No-Host Buffet at Eldorado Hotel 7:30 -- 9:30 Discussion Period with Presenters M. Broer at Sweeney Center cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.21 / Rodney Peck / complete archive Originally-From: rodney@ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: complete archive Date: 21 May 89 21:11:08 GMT Organization: RPI Public Access Workstation Lab, Troy NY I'd like to find a copy of the messages posted to alt.fusion for storage 'cause this is a rather interesting flow of information and science via a newsgroup. Where should I look to find it? rodney Rodney@ipl.rpi.edu cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenrodney cudfnRodney cudlnPeck cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / Henry Spencer / Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 22 May 89 04:43:16 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <1989May18.162618.1246@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >... Science requires that extraordinary claims >be proved. It is not necessary for critics to disprove a claim for it >to be rejected, they must merely show the evidence is not convincing. Actually, what they have to show for rejection is that there is a more prosaic explanation, or a reasonable probability of one, and that there is no convincing evidence for rejecting it. It's not entirely clear that this has been satisfactorily shown for F&P fusion. Consider: there are actually *two* extraordinary claims involved here: the experimental observations, and the invocation of fusion to explain them. If one completely accepts the F&P observations, it's hard to find a non-fusion explanation. (Indeed F&P assert fusion mostly from the lack of convincing alternatives.) Most of the criticism attacks the observations themselves, asserting that two reputable and competent electrochemists either are perpetrating a fraud or have goofed on some elementary detail. Unfortunately, this too is (sigh) an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Which is lacking. There just isn't any prosaic way out of this mess. -- Van Allen, adj: pertaining to | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.20 / William Johnson / Re: Fusion/Utah - My mistake Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion/Utah - My mistake Date: 20 May 89 16:19:04 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Stephen Bialkowski writes: > In summary, while the U of Utah is working out the non-disclosure agreements > with [LANL], it appears that BYU is already collaborating and have obtained > confirmation results. Decker did stress that their results only indicate > a scientifically curious effect. He did not discredit claims of a potential > energy source. He only said that with they observe, it could be people > would be mad 20 years down the road. Before rushing to judgement on this, it should be noted that some of the BYU people have had a continuing collaboration with folks here for some time, while Pons and company have not. It is a lot easier to push through an informal collaboration when you have been doing it for a while already. As for whether "confirmation results" have been obtained: stay tuned to next week's workshop, and take anything said before then with a grain of salt. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / Henry Spencer / Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 22 May 89 04:58:58 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <5930@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> broehl@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl) writes: >It should be remembered that a hundred years ago, the world's leading >scientists were all claiming that electric light bulbs were impossible, >and that Edison didn't understand basic physics. Uh, if you check your references, you will find that Edison did not invent the electric light bulb, or even the incandescent light bulb. It is most unlikely that anyone was claiming that the incandescent bulb was impossible, since it had been demonstrated. What was lacking was a *practical* incandescent bulb, one that could be used in an operational lighting system at a reasonable price. Nobody with any brains would have bet against Edison being able to make the concept practical, given his track record. (In fact the stock prices of gas-lighting companies tumbled when Edison announced his intention to tackle incandescent lighting.) >Fifty years ago, the world's leading physicists were offering various >proofs as to why artificial satellites were impossible. Please cite references. There were one or two prominent figures who made unfortunate statements on the subject, but their views were not widely shared. Perhaps you are confusing "impossible" with "not immediately practical"? (Fifty years ago was 1939; the first artificial satellite was not orbited until nearly 20 years later.) -- Van Allen, adj: pertaining to | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.21 / TOM BETZ / Re: Biological Cold Fusion? Originally-From: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Biological Cold Fusion? Date: 21 May 89 18:58:45 GMT Organization: Greyston Business Services, Inc. Quoth "David Wright" in <1467@stl.stc.co.uk>: |In article <9654@dasys1.UUCP> tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) writes: |# FRYENZYME INDUCED CO-FUSION OF DEUTERIUM |# |# H2O + OX = D+ == E + C = Si |# * OX Fryenzyme Catalyst |# BY: John C. Wagner | |Quite an amusing spoof article - I particularly liked the bit about the |nucleus 'spinning down'. I hope we won't find too many of the other |papers we've been reading are less-obvious spoofs! | |Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" | David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK |dww@stl.stc.co.uk ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww PSI%234237100122::DWW If you enjoyed that, wait until you see this! Here's a follow-up to the original, from the same source: DECARBOXYLATION METAL DEGRADATION THROUGH CO-FUSION FRYENZYME INDUCED CO-FUSION OF DEUTERIUM H2O + OX = D+ == E + C = Si * OX Fryenzyme Catalyst BY: John C. Wagner (The Mother Of Co-Fusion) CO-FUSION THE NEW TECHNOLOGY In the development, if you will recall, of the first atomic bomb at Los Alamos, Code name Trinity, the scientific world at that time prior to the explosion of the atomic bomb was afraid that the explosion would act as a catalyst and trigger a worldwide nuclear exploding of the atmosphere - which of course did not happen on a grand scale. The knowledge that led the scientific world into believing that such a phenomena of the Aurora Borealis, or Northern Lights. Of the aurora the spectagraph reveals that the aurora lights is produced by atoms of oxygen and hydrogen and molecules of nitrogen with the upper atmosphere bombarded at times with unusual numbers of charged particles from the sun, creating a rise to the aurora within the magnetic earth's current. With what research I have completed, I believe that it would be possible by harnessing and controlling the trigger mechanism that would result in a low bombardment of the isotopes that would trigger the nutron in atomic instruments by preparing a catalytically controlled atmosphere, that the triggering of an explosion of the atmosphere could be possible. The explosion would be of a cold nature, or if you will, co-fusion of the oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen, resulting in the simulated aurora phenomena producing frigid free energy. To me all future development that can serve mankind, will be developed and result in a completely new technology based on co- fusion and will serve to infinity as do all laws of nature that are derived out of the stone through geometric dynamics. Now that I have given you a detailed view of my technology I will explain what can become of it. As far back as man can remember man through his science has been probing the universe for the simulation of an everlasting free energy source. In the early days great efforts were put into the discovery and development of perpetual motion. With the many giant steps man has taken through his engineering research and with no commercial gadgetry having been developed in the form of a perpetual motion instrument, scientist have put the engineering source basically on the back shelf and proceeded with thermol dynamics, quantum mechanics and all other new technology developed, in hopes that through a heat source produced by man and his ingenuity, that it would be possible to simulate the energy source contained in the sun. Scientist believe that once they can duplicate the B.T.U. of the sun within the earth's atmosphere, it would be possible to create a thermol fusion. Much work in the way of scientific research and development has been completed on this fusion program, not only here in the United States but throughout the scientific world this technology is being employed for its beneficial results that would spring mankind from his plateau into orbit. At this time of this writing, thermol dynamics, together with quantum mechanics has produced fusion in the laboratory, but at such a minute time course the production cost billions of dollars. Until another scientific approach is developed, it would be conceivable that thermol dynamics in a fusion reactor development would also be placed on the back burner of the scientific world. My past scientific developments have led me to believe that any free energy produced by man will have to be based on a catalytic reagent element mixing through a mechanical device causing an occurrence within the earth's atmosphere that would result in the production of co-fusion, energy would evolve. I have used the word "co-fusion" reaction i.e. (co-fusion is a catalytic co-operation of the elements that atoms are made of). And harnessing of this co-fusion will be achieved upon the principles of compounding the reagents for a perfect marriage of the elements that causes one atom to flow naturally into another atom. This will result in the early catalytically controlled oscilating spin of the various elements that are in question causing a perfect ordering of that particular universal element. And through this ordering energy would occur. There have been many arguments both pro and con, dealing with certain statements that I have made, however, my scientific findings and certifications stand on their own merit. My theory to understand for the scientist of the world have lived with Einstein's theory and Oppenhimer's development and seemed to understood the end results and achievements that they have developed from their theories. Due to the successful outcome of the technology that I have developed and understanding the urgent need for the free energy, my scientific endeavors in the past has created a research program dealing with the conversion of seawater into electricity based on my cold fusion energy experiments. My experiments have shown that a minute amount of the catalyst injected into the seawater can indeed place the seawater into a different atmosphere. Once this atmosphere has been converted, the seawater would be bombarded with electrons to produce an extremely high power microwave frequency thus separating the hydrogen from the oxygen of the water. The hydrogen, being the lighter element, would surface and could be burned off as a gas. The catalytic effect on the oxygen would cause the oxygen to degrade or be encapsulated into the silicate molecules of the catalyst. Under this research program, hydrogen can be extracted from seawater and it could produce large amounts of power with no radioactive waste and no threat of melt-down or explosion. The principle of this the particles fuse under pressure. The pressure is the result of the electron bombardment which can reach temperatures of tens of millions of degrees caused by a spin reaction of the atoms of the particles causing a thermo nuclear reaction. This reaction could provide energy that would take the place of all other fuels that are available to us at this time. I have been able to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in seawater; the hydrogen came off as a gas with the oxygen sinking into the silicate catalyst thus being encapsulated giving a controlled non-explosive hydrogen gas. I have been applying one- half volt of electricity. By applying one-half volt of electricity to the experiment vessel, the explosion that I get off of the experiment vessel has a temperature of 3300 degrees. The success of this research program will make it possible to split the hydrogen from the oxygen of the seawater with a solar-energy electric cell. ================================================================ This is an excert from Dr. John Wagner's book on Co-Fusion. If you would like to ask Dr. Wagner a question or just leave him a note, he can be contacted through Tyrone Carlson Fax # (504) 368-7900 Easylink # 62910318 Telex # 584184 Dr. Wagner answers all questions and looks forward for some feedback. If you would like to know more about Commercial Co- Fusion, Dr. Wagner's book, 104 pp. ills, is available for sale for $14.95. If you would like to receive a copy, please send check or money order to: Tyrone Carlson 80 First Street Gretna, La. 70056 Please allow two weeks for delivery. --------------------- end of article ------------------------ Disclaimer: This is not an offering for sale, statement of God's Truth, or even very well-written. Remember, as always, this is an exhibition, not a competion; please, no wagering. -- "Tell me, is this Heaven?" | Tom Betz, 114 Woodworth "No, it's Iowa." | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 | (914) 375-1510 "Iowa... I could have >sworn< it was Heaven." | cmcl2!hombre!dasys1!tbetz cudkeys: cuddy21 cudentbetz cudfnTOM cudlnBETZ cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / Paul Dietz / Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 22 May 89 12:36:15 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <1989May22.044316.5886@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Most of the criticism attacks the >observations themselves, asserting that two reputable and competent >electrochemists either are perpetrating a fraud or have goofed on some >elementary detail. Unfortunately, this too is (sigh) an extraordinary >claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Which is lacking. There just >isn't any prosaic way out of this mess. I disagree. Error on the part of F&P is not an extraordinary claim. Error is ubiquitous in science. F&P's clear incompetence at radiation measurement (where they goofed on an elementary detail -- calibration and background measurement) makes me doubt their ability for self-criticism, which makes me doubt the validity of their other claims. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu The very worst thing that an experimental physicist can do is announce an important result and then have it proven wrong. Richard Muller, "Nemesis" cudkeys: cuddy22 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / Dave Mack / Re: Agenda for Santa Fe cold-fusion workshop (LONG) Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Agenda for Santa Fe cold-fusion workshop (LONG) Date: 22 May 89 04:10:52 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <40232@bbn.COM> denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) writes: > >I'd like to thank you for posting this. I suspect that this session will answer >all our questions on the issue. (By the way, whoever organized this did a hell >of a job!) > >I've been trying, with fading success, to maintain an open mind on this issue, >but one glaring thing has just killed it: Fleischman and Pons refused to come >to the LANL session. > >That's it. I'm no longer a believer. You can line me up firmly in the "skeptic" >side. (DAMN it. I really wanted it to be true.) This is childish. Fleischmann and Pons are restricted in terms of what they can say by the University of Utah. Their failure to appear at this meeting has no meaning whatsoever in terms of the validity of their experiments. Frankly, if I had what amount to billions of dollars in patent rights hanging in the balance, I'd keep my mouth shut too. And I'd probably avoid meetings like the plague, because the temptation to salvage my reputation by letting the cat out of the bag might get to be too much. Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy22 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / Steven Bellovin / Re: Agenda for Santa Fe cold-fusion workshop (LONG) Originally-From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Agenda for Santa Fe cold-fusion workshop (LONG) Date: 22 May 89 16:14:29 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill In article <24585@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: } AGENDA } } WORKSHOP ON COLD FUSION PHENOMENA } May 22--25, 1989 ..... } 9:20 -- Nuclear Fusion from Crack-Generated Particle Acceleration Yah, the N.Y. polic have been worrying about this -- street kids using crack to build their own cold-fusion bombs. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudensmb cudfnSteven cudlnBellovin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.21 / Victor Roberts / Re: Telecast of Los Alamos Cold Fusion Meeting Originally-From: roberts@luxor.steinmetz (Victor D Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Telecast of Los Alamos Cold Fusion Meeting Date: 21 May 89 04:17:56 GMT Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY In article <579@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >>All sessions of the Los Alamos Cold Fusion Meeting will be broadcast live via >>satellite. > >Will these broadcasts be in the clear, or will they be encrypted and Pay-Per- >View? ;^) I have talked to the people responsible for the broadcasts. They say the broadcasts will be in the clear. They are FREE and available to all. Vic Roberts GE Research and Development Center roberts@crd.ge.com cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenroberts cudfnVictor cudlnRoberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / William Nichols / Scientific secrecy(Re:science via networks) Originally-From: wn0e+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Nichols) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Scientific secrecy(Re:science via networks) Date: 22 May 89 17:48:59 GMT Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Just to try putting some issues into historical perspective, please consider the following. Secrecy and priority battles are ancient. Newton refused to publish his work on the calculus so that he could use it as his own private tool. Newton later tried to discredit Leibnitz, accusing him of plagerism. The battles between Newton and Hooke are the stuff of legend. Descartes was known to fail to cite others work. Outright fraud/incompetance is not unheard of, (N-Rays) BTW most large conferences still have some level of *Crank Physics*, (that kind of stuff that never makes it to Phys. Rev. Lett.) It is too bad not all scientific controversy is handled like the Bohr-Einstein quantum mechanics arguments, but such is life. Bill Nichols arpa William.Nichols@andrew.cmu.edu bitnet, Nichols@cmphys,Nichols@fnal cudkeys: cuddy22 cudfnWilliam cudlnNichols cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / Vaso Bovan / Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Originally-From: vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Keep alt.fusion for awhile and keep posting Salt Lake City news Date: 22 May 89 20:44:19 GMT Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA Isn't Swan the inventor of the first practical incandescent lamp ? cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenvaso cudfnVaso cudlnBovan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / S BIALKOWSKI / Fusion/Utah - OK Let's wait Originally-From: UF7047@CC.USU.EDU (STEPHEN BIALKOWSKI) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion/Utah - OK Let's wait Subject: Fusion/Utah - OK Let's wait Date: 23 May 89 00:38:00 GMT Posting-Version: USU; site USU Subject: Fusion/Utah - OK Let's wait Bill Johnson urges us to wait before believing what was said at the Utah Academy meeting. My comment was... >> In summary, while the U of Utah is working out the non-disclosure agreements >> with [LANL], it appears that BYU is already collaborating and have obtained >> confirmation results. Decker did stress that their results only indicate >> a scientifically curious effect. He did not discredit claims of a potential >> energy source. He only said that with [what] they observe, it could be >> people would be mad 20 years down the road. Poor writing on my part. Put another way, 'if no energy source materialized in 20 years, people might be mad'. This paraphrased reply was in reponse to a question about the potential energy source. The BYU people are careful not to mislead anyone about their results. Bill Johnson of LANL replies -- >Before rushing to judgement on this, it should be noted that some of the >BYU people have had a continuing collaboration with folks here for some >time, while Pons and company have not. It is a lot easier to push through >an informal collaboration when you have been doing it for a while already. Makes sense to me. But... >As for whether "confirmation results" have been obtained: stay tuned to next >week's workshop, and take anything said before then with a grain of salt. ...doesn't make sense to me. I guess that this as the same as saying that LANL has no comment. I hope it doesn't mean that Dr. Decker was mistaken. I remember Dr. Decker's seminar well. He was naming off a series of experimental verifications of the BYU results. He mentioned LANL as being amoung the 4 or so verifying labs. This came as news to me so I asked him specifically if LANL had verified. His response to this was that LANL and BYU (ie, Taylor, et. al.) have been collaborating, that that was the reason that noone from the BYU fusion group would be able to present the work, and that they counted LANL amoung those laboratories that had confirmed their findings. He in no way implied that LANL had officially stated this. Stephen Bialkowski cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenUF7047 cudfnSTEPHEN cudlnBIALKOWSKI cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / Dave Mack / Fusion Induced by Microfissure E Fields Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Fusion Induced by Microfissure E Fields Date: 23 May 89 03:27:08 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA Recently, several people on the net have suggested that the neutrons detected in several of the cold fusion experiments have been due to deuteron acceleration by the E fields generated in microcracks in the metal. These fields can be quite intense, 1E6 - 1E7 V/cm. A deuteron in one of these fissures could be accelerated to fairly high energies by the development of this field and fuse with a deuteron in the electrolyte. This theory in tantalizing: it seems to explain all the things the BYU groups has seen. If occlusion stops when the current is turned off, the microfissuring, and therefore the neutron production, should also stop. There should be no neutron production when normal water is used instead of heavy water. And the neutron production rate should scale with the number of cells in operation. Presumably, Scaramuzzi's results could also be arrived at in this way if microcracking occurs when a D-saturated sample of titanium is cooled to liquid N2 temperatures. There are several simple ways to check this hypothesis: 1) He-3 and tritium should be produced in roughly equal quantities, but should occur only infrequently in the electrode - most of it should be generated in the electrolyte. (Assumed: microcracking generally occurs at the electrode surface, not inside the metal. ??) 2) The neutron production rate should scale with the surface area (among other things) not the volume of metal. (Same assumption as 1) 3) When H2O is used for the electrolyte instead of D2O, the same mechanism should work, but with protons being accelerated to significantly higher velocities (same charge, half the mass). These high energy protons should produce gamma rays while thermalizing in the electrolyte. (Assumed: microfissuring occurs regardless of whether H or D is occluded.) Comments? -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy23 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / M Angerman / Sulfur in the Electrolyte Originally-From: michael@raven.lanl.gov (Michael I Angerman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Sulfur in the Electrolyte Date: 23 May 89 04:56:39 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM Somebody who had read the patent application admitted that sulfur was used as a poison... cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnAngerman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / Paul Dietz / Re: Sulfur in the Electrolyte Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Sulfur in the Electrolyte Date: 23 May 89 10:09:38 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article michael@raven.lanl.gov (Michael I Angerman) writes: > Somebody who had read the patent application admitted that sulfur >was used as a poison... Thiourea is used to poison Pd electrodes. However, I speculate that after running for a while, some of the sulfur is oxidized to sulfate. For years the standard means of making hydrogen peroxide was by electrolysis of acid solutions containing sulfate ions. Sulfate at a polished platinum anode forms peroxydisulfate (S2O8--) which (in acid) is decomposed to sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide. Perhaps reactions such as these are occuring and are messing up the energy balance calculations. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy23 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / Martin Lewitt / Re: Stanford Results (little to do with cold fusion) Originally-From: lewitt@Alliant.COM (Martin E. Lewitt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results (little to do with cold fusion) Date: 22 May 89 09:59:31 GMT Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA In article <13827@steinmetz.ge.com> roberts@crd.ge.com (Victor D Roberts) writes: >There seems to be confusion between a 'chemical' reaction and a 'nuclear' >reaction. In a chemical reaction, matter is NOT converted into energy. >If you weigh the stuff you start with, and the stuff you end with, the >weight is the same. That is, matter has been conserved. It depends on whether it is exothermic or endothermic, sometimes energy is converted into matter in a chemical reaction. >In a nuclear reaction, the weight (mass) after the reaction is LESS than >the weight (mass) before the reaction. The "missing" mass has been >converted into energy according to the famous e=mc^2. If one heavy atom >splits into two lighter atoms which together weigh less than the original >we call it fission. If two atoms come together to make a new atom heavier >then either of the originals, but lighter than the sum of the originals >we call it fusion. Consider the following thought experiment: Two exothermic reactions, one chemical and one nuclear: lets say that in each case the only energy escaping the "nearly" closed systems is in the form of a photon. In the case of the chemical reaction this photon might typically be in the visible or infrared part of the spectrum. In the nuclear reaction the photon probably falls in the gamma ray part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you grant that these are possible outcomes of each type of reaction, I don't see how you can say that the mass of one set of reaction products is less in one case and not in the other unless you unfairly discriminate against photons from the "wrong" end of the electromagnetic spectrum. :-) The mass of the both systems is reduced. The principle is easy to see in the preceding example. Yes, physicists emphasize the reduced mass of reaction products (when the gamma ray is excluded that is). Chemists usually deal with experiments where the mass lost to the photon is below their error of measurement: it's a difference in approach, the chemists are usually not measuring accurately enough to note the loss of even the more massive gamma ray. A more difficult example to grasp at first is the case where the chemical reaction releases its energy in the form of "heat", i.e., the kinetic energy of the reactants has been increased (temperature). Still the "rest mass" of the reaction products has been reduced. The system has the same mass as before the reaction, its temperature is just higher. If we can just get its temperature down to what is was before the reaction, we would see that the resulting reactants have less mass. But how do we get this temperature down? We have to transfer the energy out of the system (or have an endothermic reaction, ouch!). This heat can be lost by one of three ways (if memory serves), radiation, conduction or convection. In the case of radiation (e.g., black body) it is easy to see the mass leave the system in the form mostly of infrared photons. In the other two ways, the kinetic energy of the reactions products is transferred to matter not in the system. It is probably tougher to see this transfer of kinetic energy as a loss of mass unless one accepts the basic equivalence of the three forms of energy loss. The resulting system is in the same state. In a sense then chemists, when measuring heat production are measuring the mass loss of the reactants, it is all the same. >Vic Roberts >GE Research and Development Center, Schenectady, NY 12301 >roberts@crd.ge.com The problem most physicists see with the cold fusion claims, is not that the heat can't represent the lost mass of the reactants, because it could. They just don't see a mechanism for gradually converting the high energies of the nuclear reaction to the average kinetic energy of the lattice. High energy particles (neutrons, electrons, gamma rays) "should" be being emitted instead, i.e., dead grad student. :-( I realize that I've over simplified in my thought experiments and left momentum out of the equation, my "nearly closed" systems are set in motion in the opposite direction of the emitted photons. I've also probably played fast and loose with the term temperature. So no flames please unless I deserve them for other reasons, then of course, flame on. :-) -- Phone: (206) 931-8364 Martin E. Lewitt My opinions are Domain: lewitt@alliant.COM 2945 Scenic Dr. SE my own, not my UUCP: {linus|mit-eddie}!alliant!lewitt Auburn, WA 98002 employer's. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenlewitt cudfnMartin cudlnLewitt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.10 / Jim Meritt / Re: Pons address on the net (was Re: COld Nuclear FUSSION ) Originally-From: jwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pons address on the net (was Re: COld Nuclear FUSSION ) Date: 10 May 89 16:14:02 GMT Organization: JHU-Applied Physics Laboratory In article <2081@Portia.Stanford.EDU> bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) writes: }In article <1744@wasatch.utah.edu> ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu (Timothy K Reynolds) writes: }> ... Last time I checked (ca. 2 weeks ago) Pons' address was: }> pons@chemistry.utah.edu } }I'm been fingering him regularly. He hasn't logged on since April 28, }and he has "no new mail" - probably it's being forwarded somewhere else. }Maybe we netters should mail a kind request to him to reassure our }APS-engendered doubts about fusion with a post or two. [PONS] B. Stanley Pons last logged in 7-MAY-1989 11:38:25.54. B. Stanley Pons has no new mail. No Plan: BTW: If you check the mail socket you'll see this isn't a Unix box. I have no idea if you can read news from other than one, but I do know that you can post from a vms or cms box. I have seen it done. While requesting email answers since they cannot read the news. Also, the "no mail" stays that way, in spite of knowing better (I sent some and followed it along the way) Disclaimer: "It's mine! All mine!!!" - D. Duck cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenjwm cudfnJim cudlnMeritt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / Donald Benson / Preparation of Titanium electrodes? Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Preparation of Titanium electrodes? Date: 22 May 89 23:01:57 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino How have the titanium samples been prepared for fusion experiments? So far, I'm just using pellets with the oxide scraped off, and have seen no obvious, gross results. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy22 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / / Re: Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: heumann@hpmtlx.HP.COM ($John_Heumann@hpmtljh) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Re: Stanford Results Date: 22 May 89 16:31:28 GMT Organization: HP Manufacturing Test Division - Loveland, CO / hpmtlx:alt.fusion / roberts@luxor.steinmetz (Victor D Roberts) / 6:52 pm May 19, 1989 / In article <12928@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: (many lines deleted) > >Matter is constantly being converted directly into energy in any >chemical reaction. (more lines deleted) >> reaction. In a chemical reaction, matter is NOT converted into energy. >> If you weigh the stuff you start with, and the stuff you end with, the >> weight is the same. That is, matter has been conserved. Sorry, this is simply incorrect. Mass and energy are fully equivalent. In a chemical reaction which releases energy, there IS a corresponding decrease in the mass of the products. The percentage change is incredibally small, however, and not easily measured. The real difference between a chemical and a nuclear reaction is that in the latter the number of protons and/or neutrons will be altered while in the former it never will. As to matter being "converted" into energy, see Einstein's book "The Meaning of Relativity". Mass and energy are the same thing... you can't have one without the other. -jh- cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenheumann cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / millikan@sbphy / Re: Sulfur in the Electrolyte Originally-From: millikan@sbphy.ucsb.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Sulfur in the Electrolyte Date: 23 May 89 16:48:30 GMT Organization: UC, Santa Barbara Chemistry Department >M. I. Angerman (LANL) says the patents mention sulfur in the electrolyte. >> P. Dietz (UofR) comments 'it's an old trick' We have been following this lead for some time. If the key is loading the Pd lattice to high atom ratios with D, then one wants to raise the driving force (voltage) putting it in. This is frustrated by the increased formation of D2 gas at the cathode. One wants to selectively poison the D atom recomb- ination process, relative to the D atom discharge into the lattice. There is evidence in the literature that this can be done. With Ni cathodes, one usually forms NiH. If thiourea is added, one can form NiH2 - an unstable hydride at room conditions which decomposes outside the cell with a time constant of several hours. Perhaps there is a similar effect with Pd. There are other known surface poisons as well (Iodine, quinoline, Pb, and others). All are candidates. Have my physicist friends tried any of these? Roger C. Millikan, UCSB Chemistry Dept. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmillikan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / Paul Dietz / Calorimetry Calibration Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Calorimetry Calibration Date: 23 May 89 17:53:36 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY There's a question about F&P's calorimetry that has not been raised in this list (although Lewis mentioned it at LA): How did F&P stir the cell during calibration? The heat input during calibration was from a resistive heating coil (wasn't it?). This would *not* create gas bubbles, so no sparging would occur. So, thermal gradients might develop during calibration. If the thermometer is in the bottom of the cell, its temperature (during calibration) could be anomalously low, resulting in a spurious indication of excess heat production during the actual measurement. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy23 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / Jeff Boeing / Re: College Names (was Mike's Madness #6) Originally-From: abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) Newsgroups: rec.humor,alt.fusion Subject: Re: College Names (was Mike's Madness #6) Date: 23 May 89 17:35:13 GMT Organization: CSU Northridge In article <12745@reed.UUCP> amass@reed.UUCP (foobar incarnate) writes: > >No, a Paladin is a Christian Knight. A Pallidin is a crusader for the cause >of cold fusion... (Palladium, y'know? Ahahahahahahahahaha! that's just too >funny.... groan). You know ... I king of like that. Count me in amonst the ranks of the Pallidins! -- Jeff Boeing: ...!csun.edu!csuna!abcscagz (formerly tracer@stb.UUCP) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Thank you for shopping at Pons & Fleischman's used reactor shop." -- Maarten Litmaath, rec.games.hack cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenabcscagz cudfnJeff cudlnBoeing cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Jan Norden / External sources of energy (speculative) Originally-From: jno@imshp1.im.se (Jan Norden) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: External sources of energy (speculative) Date: 24 May 89 01:01:46 GMT Organization: Industri-Matematik Data AB, Sweden Let us for a moment assume that the P&F measurments are essentially correct, ie that there is excess heat. Let us also assume that the critics are right in that there is no fusion going on, in fact let us assume that the energy is not produced in the cell. These assumptions lead to the conclusion that the cell is capturing energy from the outside in a way overlooked by P&F (and others). I can think of plenty of souces of energy, how about the whole electromagnetic spectrum. Does anyone have an idea of the avarege power density from ac wiring, nearby radio and television transmitters, nearby cyclotrons, ambient lightning, black+body radiation from walls etc. It is possible to get the amount of energy qouted by, say a drastic change in IR absorbtion? could the difference between H and D give such a change? On a slightly more speculative note, what is the neutrino flux? I seem to recall that most neutrinos pass right through the earth without interacting with it. Would an increased neoutrino capture produce results of this magnitude. On on even more speculative note, how about other unkwown particles that normaly interact even weaker with matter? I remember reading about astronomers postulating "black mass" to explain the denisity of the universe. Do current theories predict any such particles, and conditions under which they could interact? Could any of the two above also explain the heat generated in the earths core. "Where wise men disagree, tread softly" cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjno cudfnJan cudlnNorden cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / William Johnson / Re: Fusion/Utah - OK Let's wait Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion/Utah - OK Let's wait Date: 23 May 89 23:17:39 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <8905230039.AA09060@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, UF7047@CC.USU.EDU (STEPHEN BIALKOWSKI) writes: [ref. article about Decker's report of a LANL "confirmation" in collaboration with BYU] > Bill Johnson of LANL replies -- > > >Before rushing to judgement on this, it should be noted that some of the > >BYU people have had a continuing collaboration with folks here for some > >time, while Pons and company have not. It is a lot easier to push through > >an informal collaboration when you have been doing it for a while already. > > Makes sense to me. But... > > >As for whether "confirmation results" have been obtained: stay tuned to next > >week's workshop, and take anything said before then with a grain of salt. > > ...doesn't make sense to me. I guess that this as the same as saying that > LANL has no comment. I hope it doesn't mean that Dr. Decker was mistaken. What it means, in all simplicity, is that I don't speak for LANL, or for that matter, for any LANL experiment I'm not a part of. Yes, Jones at BYU has been working with a group here, and that group has a talk in tomorrow's workshop session, with Jones as a co-author, in which a fusion-related observation of neutrons (***NOT*** a confirmation of F&P, and not really a "confirmation result" for BYU either) will be presented. The talk, I believe, will be given by Howard Menlove at about 8:30 MDT; people with a satellite link (see previous postings on how to get satellite access) may want to watch it. But at this point it would be professionally irresponsible for me to give the talk for him, since I don't speak for him, or for LANL. Simple enough? (I'm not aware of any LANL press releases on that experiment, either.) I will, however, summarize his talk, and some subjective impressions of the workshop, for the net when I get back from it tomorrow. Whether the contents of that talk imply that "Decker was mistaken" I don't know, and I'll let the reader judge for him/her/itself. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Victor Roberts / Re: Stanford Results (Not related much to cold fusion) Originally-From: roberts@luxor.steinmetz (Victor D Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results (Not related much to cold fusion) Date: 24 May 89 00:27:37 GMT Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY In article <13827@steinmetz.ge.com> I wrote: >There seems to be confusion between a 'chemical' reaction and a 'nuclear' >reaction. In a chemical reaction, matter is NOT converted into energy. >If you weigh the stuff you start with, and the stuff you end with, the >weight is the same. That is, matter has been conserved. > >In a nuclear reaction, the weight (mass) after the reaction is LESS than >the weight (mass) before the reaction. The "missing" mass has been >converted into energy according to the famous e=mc^2. If one heavy atom >splits into two lighter atoms which together weigh less than the original >we call it fission. If two atoms come together to make a new atom heavier >then either of the originals, but lighter than the sum of the originals >we call it fusion. Many people have written to say I was wrong on this, and they are right, I was wrong. In both nuclear and chemical reactions the mass of the system decreases when energy is liberated. For example H2O has less mass than 2H + O. In chemical reactions, the mass difference is, of course, much smaller than it is in a nuclear reaction, but I must admit, there is a difference. An excellent reference for others who, like me, need some convincing is: The Feynman Lecturers on Physics Feynman, Leighton & Sands Volume 1, pages 16-8 to 16-10 Vic Roberts GE Research and Development Center, Schenectady, NY roberts@crd.ge.com cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenroberts cudfnVictor cudlnRoberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.22 / Henry Etzkowitz / Re: cold fusion, history Originally-From: etz@cs.columbia.edu (Henry Etzkowitz) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: cold fusion, history Date: 22 May 89 01:20:45 GMT Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science For a sociological study of scientific communication through e-mail I would like to get ahold of a complete file of cold fusion postings since March 23rd. Does anyone have such a file or know how I can get one? Henry Etzkowitz etz@cs.columbia.edu cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenetz cudfnHenry cudlnEtzkowitz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / Jeff Berkowitz / Are P&F "restricted" from speaking? Originally-From: jjb@sequent.UUCP (Jeff Berkowitz) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Are P&F "restricted" from speaking? Date: 23 May 89 15:42:52 GMT Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc In article <3625@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > >Fleischmann and Pons are restricted in terms of what they >can say by the University of Utah. > Question: is this true? That is, I've seen several people say this. Is it an urban rumor, or is there some factual reason to believe that U of U is actually attempting to enforce such a policy? Did U of U ever *state* that P&F were "not permitted" to discuss their method? Second question: is there *any* objective reason to believe that there is some "secret"? I've seen the reports that P&F have "new cells" running, that "90% of them work", etc...but only P&F have ever seen the cells. Experimental error seems like a much simpler explanation. -- Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM uunet!sequent!jjb Sequent Computer Systems Custom Systems Group cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjjb cudfnJeff cudlnBerkowitz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Randell Jesup / Re: Calorimetry Calibration Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Calorimetry Calibration Date: 24 May 89 02:14:33 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA In article <1989May23.135336.3802@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > How did F&P stir the cell during calibration? > >The heat input during calibration was from a resistive heating coil >(wasn't it?). This would *not* create gas bubbles, so no sparging >would occur. So, thermal gradients might develop during calibration. >If the thermometer is in the bottom of the cell, its temperature >(during calibration) could be anomalously low, resulting in a spurious >indication of excess heat production during the actual measurement. Sorry, Paul, F&P state that for "dead" electrodes, there is no heat production. Dead electrodes will produce sparging. -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Ted Dunning / partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 06:42:51 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science At the workshop today there were some very interesting developments. In rough order of importance they are: 1) the tamu results are very convincing. they presented micro-calorimetric results from cells using the interesting combinations of heavy water, light water, lithium electrolyte, sodium electrolyte and palladium or platinum cathodes. the results were just about as you would expect if you are a fan. they get p&f scale excess heat from heavy water with lithium electrolyte and palladium cathode. they get slightly smaller heat production with isotopically pure Li7 electrolyte. they get substantially less heat production with sodium electrolyte, but not zero. their calorimetry is a wonder to behold. they claim 3 microwatt resolution (and accuracy?) out of up to 8 watts heat production. the defects in this work seems to be that they did not categorize the amount of recombination while the cell is in the calorimeter, although they did test this on the bench by removing the cells from the calorimeter and testing the evolved gases. there is still the obscure and improbable chance that there is some magical crumbling effect that enhances catalytic recombination ONLY under very special conditions. based on this work i have become (again) a believer in p&f scale heat production. another group at tamu has done some nuclear diagnostics. their neutron experiments are compromised by hokey statistics (3 sigma in 'selected' samples) and small signal to noise. their tritium numbers are large and relatively hard to refute; up to 5e6 disintegrations per minute per ml of electrolyte. this translates back to 1e12 or 1e14 (i forget which, and am too tired to calculate right now) tritons in solution with more in the cathode. this is near the amount needed to explain the heat production. the tritium assays were duplicated at lanl and at general motors with good agreement. assay of the electrodes showed no indications of excess he3 or he4. d loading in excess of 1 were determined by direct weighing of the sample. no poisons were mentioned during the presentation. see below for sad commentary on this issue. **************** second **************** lanl and university of bologna have replicated jones experiment, with guidance from byu. the italian experiment was done under the gran sasso massif where the cosmic ray background is 1e-6 what the sea level background is. the latest byu efforts and these two replications have quit using the 'earth mother' electrolyte and are now using much more conventional electrolyte compositions. neutron levels consistent with the byu numbers were found. these groups will talk tomorrow, and if anything astonishing comes up i may summarize. **************** 3 **************** lanl has replicated the frascatti experiments with ti chips and d2 loading from gas under pressure. neutron emission was in 200 us bursts and was 11 sigma above background using real people statistics. more tomorrow if this turns out interesting. **************** 4 **************** university of british columbia outdid even tamu with their calorimeter design. they recombine the d2 and o2 in the calorimetric cell and claim a system accuracy of better than 0.3%. they find no evidence of excess heat. their loading factor was about 0.8. **************** 5 **************** mit's results involved extensive nuclear measurements and coarse calorimetry. they found no evidence of excess heat. their loading factor was 0.8 **************** 6 **************** chalk river and whitehead presented a joint paper involving fairly nice calorimetry (2%) that showed no evidence of excess heat. they are the only negative group to have used johnson mathey palladium. see below for rude comments. **************** 7 **************** oak ridge presented sloppy calorimetry which showed no excess heat. **************** nth **************** nathan lewis toned down his act and presented a sober negative account with mediocre calorimetry and good nuclear measurements. he now refrains from personal attacks and may even soon rise from the bottom of my personal credibility heap. his answers to questions are framed as 'there is no evidence in our experiments for this phenomenon'. his loading was approximately 0.8 **************** rudenesses **************** this workshop has been a major down cycle on the standard manic depressive cold fusion cycle. the downer is that fusion now appears to work and there is strong evidence that p&f are purposely withholding crucial information, and may even be actively misleading people, or that others (u of u comes to mind as does johnson mathey for reasons to become clear in a mo') are pressuring them to do so. the first evidence of this was the famed gamma spectrum. this spectrum is very wrong, and appears never to have come from a real instrument. this is of course inconclusive. the second hint was contained in the posting by michael recently about the slip of the tongue by somebody who had purportedly read the p&f patent application and was under force of a confidential disclosure agreement. they referred definitively to sulfur poisoning of the electrode. then today, john bockris of tamu was responding to a question after lewis' talk and said 'all of pons' solutions were heavily poisoned'. he substantiated this comment based on '6-7' phone conversations with pons' but also stated that pons had contradicted himself in other ways and had changed the story often. there is substantial agreement by a number of experts in palladium absorption of hydrogen that loading factors in excess of 0.8 CANNOT be acheived without extensive poisoning of the cathode, and that factors in excess of 0.9 are extraordinarily hard to acheive under any circumstances. pons claims loadings of 1.1 - 1.3. tamu claim > 1.0. finally, the queerest rumor of all is that johnson mathey are now selling rods of 'fusion palladium'. these are purportedly 5 9 purity palladium exactly of the sort sent to p&f and to tamu. the kicker is that purchasers must sign a confidential disclosure agreement regarding the composition and preparation of the rods. mike salamon, a member of the uu physics department was allowed into pons' lab for the first time 5 days ago. he was not allowed to ask questions of people in the lab, although after a debate he was allowed to make measurements in the lab. he has not yet had enough time to analyse these measurements. based on these admittedly fragmentary clues, i now feel that p&f are either hiding significant factors in the experimental design, or are deliberately and seriously misleading other researchers working on replication efforts. i do not think that there is any way to interpret their actions as inspired by partial ignorance of the underlying mechanism in their experiment. i would appreciate hearing rebuttals on this matter. it is very serious, and i would much prefer to have a charitable view of the actions taken by p&f. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / John Robinson / Re: External sources of energy (speculative) Originally-From: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: External sources of energy (speculative) Date: 24 May 89 06:29:24 GMT Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge MA In article , jno@imshp1 (Jan Norden) writes: >Let us for a moment assume that the P&F measurments are essentially correct, >ie that there is excess heat. Let us also assume that the critics are >right in that there is no fusion going on, in fact let us assume that >the energy is not produced in the cell. > >These assumptions lead to the conclusion that the cell is capturing >energy from the outside in a way overlooked by P&F (and others). .. and proceeds to produce some nice wild ones. Here's another (energy from the inside): Based on the observation that cast electrodes are somehow good, the cells are finding a way to liberate energy of crystalization of palladium. (in other words, the D2O and electricity are catalyzing a phase change in the palladium!) I have no idea how much energy this would involve. I don't even know the sign (is energy prodced arranging the atoms in lines or in pulling them apart?). The trouble I can see with this theory is that it doesn't really epxlain how the cells can keep going for hundreds of hours without (I assume - we would have heard) visible change in structure. Experiment to test it: take two identical milled rods. melt one, keeping track of energy in. anneal it in a rod-shaped cast, again tracking energy out. assuming that some energy doesn't come out, start two cells with the two electrodes and measure energy out of each. once the toal energies match again, the cast rod should stop showing the P&F effect. (well, it may take a long time to reach equilibrium, during which the relative energy production of the two cells may cross each other until they finally approach and stick). On the other hand, if they never approach, Jan may be onto something. Likelihood of this explanation? I'd estimate 10e-4 or less. -- /jr, nee John Robinson What a waste it is to lose one's mind--or not jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr to have a mind. How true that is. -Dan Quayle cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjr cudfnJohn cudlnRobinson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 23 May 89 23:52:00 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway For forty years physicists have been trying to get controlled nuclear fusion. They've been taking poor little nuclei of heavy hydrogen-- we call 'em "deuterons"-- and crashing them together with brute force. Just a little while ago the news came out of Utah that you could do fusion in a pickle jar, without a lot of expensive equipment. If this turns out to be true, it could be as important to energy production as good old Enrico Fermi's first reactor in the University of Chicago squash courts, way back when. Fusion Girl by Bill Higgins Copyright 1989 by William S. Higgins I was working in the Fusion Lab late one night Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron But I couldn't get my magnetic bottle to light Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron Yeah, it was late at night Yeah, it wouldn't light Yeah, she was a Fusion Girl Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron Then I met a chemist who was kinda pretty Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron She told me that she came from Salt Lake City Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron Yeah, she was kinda pretty Yeah, she came from Salt Lake City Yeah, she was a Fusion Girl Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron She said, "You're wasting your time, and you're bound to lose" Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron "Let me introduce you to a new way to fuse" Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron Yeah, you're bound to lose Yeah, a new way to fuse Yeah, she was a Fusion Girl Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron What Fermi did under a stadium Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron She did with heavy water and palladium Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron Yeah, he had a stadium Yeah, she had palladium Yeah, she was a Fusion Girl Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron We made it together and it was so sweet Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron Just a few neutrons and a whole lotta heat Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron Yeah, it was so sweet Yeah, a lotta heat Yeah, she was a Fusion Girl Da deuteron, ron, ron, da deuteron ron cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenfusion cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / I Price / Re: Fusion: Something to Keep in Mind Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion: Something to Keep in Mind Date: 24 May 89 11:45:50 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <74200006@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > The real question is intellectual property. How long should you keep > an idea to yourself, in order to exploit & develop it?.... > Even Isaac Newton kept calculus to himself for over a decade until > someone else (Leibnitz(sp?)) came up with an inferior imitation, > forcing him to disclose it. In response to your quasi-rhetorical query....... A decade for Isaac is but a twinkling for the 1980s. Consider: a) The technology database is vaster by vast amounts b) Everyday life is vastly more technology-dependent c) The mundane information transfer speed is vastly higher d) The population of information senders/receivers is vastly higher Scaling "a decade" by all these "vasts" should yield a wet-finger metric telling us a socially appropriate waiting time for Messrs. F&P's "secret". Serious sociometricians should also consider e) - h) : as per a) - d), substituting "legal" and "lawyer" where appropriate! Anyone care to estimate? -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenandrew cudfnInformation cudlnPrice cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Doug Roberts / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 15:13:44 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: Thanks, Ted for the good summary of yesterday's Fusion Conference. > > based on these admittedly fragmentary clues, i now feel that p&f are > either hiding significant factors in the experimental design, or are > deliberately and seriously misleading other researchers working on > replication efforts. i do not think that there is any way to > interpret their actions as inspired by partial ignorance of the > underlying mechanism in their experiment. > > i would appreciate hearing rebuttals on this matter. it is very > serious, and i would much prefer to have a charitable view of the > actions taken by p&f. > I also am now under the distinct impression that P & F are keeping a secret magic ingredient or procedure to themselves. I would, however, like to comment on what I view as a positive aspect of John Bockris' comments: he highlighted the potential importance of the d/Pd loading factor -- something to which I believe many of the experimenters had not paid sufficient attention. In fact, I almost believe that a few of the presentors were so fervently wrapped up in their (perhaps subconscious) attempts to prove that cold fusion didn't work that they blinded themselves to some of the more important parameters of the experiment -- such as the loading factor, and then proceeded on with their painstaking, but now meaningless searches for fusion. These are obviously my opinions. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts Los Alamos National Laboratory Box 1663, MS F-602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (505)667-4569 dzzr@lanl.gov =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Paul Dietz / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 15:56:27 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: >this workshop has been a major down cycle on the standard manic >depressive cold fusion cycle. the downer is that fusion now appears ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to work and there is strong evidence that p&f are purposely ^^^^^^^ >withholding crucial information, and may even be actively misleading >people, or that others (u of u comes to mind as does johnson mathey >for reasons to become clear in a mo') are pressuring them to do so. This is a *downer*? If fusion works, I wouldn't care if F&P are axe murderers. Actually, there are two interesting things Ted mentioned: 1. The negative results all have loading of about .8. Since the Pd lattice has one octahedral site per Pd atom, you'd expect a fusion mechanism that needed > 1 atom per site to need a loading of > 1. So, the failed replications that appeared so devastating may be unimportant. 2. Tritium from tamu. The Wall Street Journal said tritium levels jumped from 40 to 60 atoms/ml to several hundred or thousand times that after several hours. (I assume they meant decays/s/ml, since it would be hard to detect 60 atoms/ml of T.) If this hold up, it's pretty good proof of fusion, I think. However, I have to wonder if it can be true. If the dominant fusion mechanism is d+d --> t+p (or, indeed, any reaction making energetic tritons), then recoiling tritium nuclei should occasionally fuse with stationary deuterons, making large numbers of 14 MeV neutrons -- millions per second, I estimate. However, it would explain the lack of large amouts of helium (which the New York Times emphasized -- interesting journalistic bias there). >the first evidence of this was the famed gamma spectrum. this >spectrum is very wrong, and appears never to have come from a real ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >instrument. ^^^^^^^^^^ What are you implying, Ted? It's accepted that the spectrum in the paper does not represent gammas from neutron capture in water, but I have not heard it said that the spectrum was not measured at the experiment with a real detector. Are you claiming they cooked their numbers? > i do not think that there is any way to >interpret their actions as inspired by partial ignorance of the >underlying mechanism in their experiment. Probably not. But, frankly, their reputation will rest on whether fusion is real or not, not on how they release the information. If it is real then All Will Be Forgiven; if not, they're dead no matter what. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / John Robinson / Re: Pons address on the net (was Re: COld Nuclear FUSSION ) Originally-From: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Pons address on the net (was Re: COld Nuclear FUSSION ) Date: 24 May 89 15:45:28 GMT Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge MA In article <3844@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>, jwm@stda (Jim Meritt) writes: >BTW: If you check the mail socket you'll see this isn't a Unix box. >I have no idea if you can read news from other than one, but I do >know that you can post from a vms or cms box. I have seen it done. % telnet sri-nic.arpa hostnames Trying 26.0.0.73 ... Connected to sri-nic.arpa. Escape character is '^]'. hname chemistry.utah.edu HOST : 128.110.192.61 : CHEMISTRY.UTAH.EDU : VAX-8300 : VMS : TCP/FTP,TCP/SMTP,TCP/TELNET : Connection closed by foreign host. >While requesting email answers since they cannot read the news. I wouldn't be surprised to see a nntp implementation among the set of stoff you get from, say, TWG with your VMS TCP/IP. Hell, maybe even DEC does it now. >Also, the "no mail" stays that way, in spite of knowing better >(I sent some and followed it along the way) No doubt there is a mechanism like some mail agents have to run a program over your mail (that's "filter", son) any time new mail arrives. This could put the mail where fingerd won't find it. Could even forward it to another machine (on a DECNET, say) that isn't on the internet at all. Or maybe this fingerd has been "secured" by always reporting no mail. -- /jr, nee John Robinson What a waste it is to lose one's mind--or not jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr to have a mind. How true that is. -Dan Quayle cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjr cudfnJohn cudlnRobinson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Paul Dietz / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 18:23:02 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY I wrote: >What are you implying, Ted? It's accepted that the spectrum in the >paper does not represent gammas from neutron capture in water, but I >have not heard it said that the spectrum was not measured at the >experiment with a real detector. Are you claiming they cooked their >numbers? Ok, I just read the letter in the latest issue of Nature, in which doubt was cast on the reality of the spectrum. They suggest it is actually at 2.5 MeV and F&P shifted the energies. Since the F&P paper said 2.5 MeV gammas would be produced (eq. vii), I have to wonder if they deliberately fudged the data. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Gregory Shippen / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: gshippen@pollux.usc.edu (Gregory Shippen) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 17:15:29 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > >nathan lewis toned down his act and presented a sober negative account >with mediocre calorimetry and good nuclear measurements. he now >refrains from personal attacks and may even soon rise from the bottom >of my personal credibility heap. his answers to questions are framed >as 'there is no evidence in our experiments for this phenomenon'. his >loading was approximately 0.8 > I was one of those in television land. I agree that Nathan Lewis has toned it down. I think this was a wise move on his part since the excess heat stuff seems more and more difficult to refute. Indeed, those who have claimed to see excess heat, while initially supporting their results with questionable technique, seem to be cleaning up their act -- and the effect isn't going away. The tritium stuff is very interesting. Note that TAMU found a dynamically increasing tritium buildup (if I understood correctly). Question is now just what kind of process is favoring the tritium branch over He. >then today, john bockris of tamu was responding to a question after >lewis' talk and said 'all of pons' solutions were heavily poisoned'. >he substantiated this comment based on '6-7' phone conversations with >pons' but also stated that pons had contradicted himself in other ways >and had changed the story often. > >based on these admittedly fragmentary clues, i now feel that p&f are >either hiding significant factors in the experimental design, or are >deliberately and seriously misleading other researchers working on >replication efforts. i do not think that there is any way to >interpret their actions as inspired by partial ignorance of the >underlying mechanism in their experiment. > >i would appreciate hearing rebuttals on this matter. it is very >serious, and i would much prefer to have a charitable view of the >actions taken by p&f. I agree the whole thing seems a bit strange. I think, however, that we still don't know who is really running the show at UU. Surely the adminstration is highly motivated to keep a tight lid on the thing. We must remember, as I think John Bockris mentioned in one of his comments, that P&F probably didn't know at their first announcement and probably don't completely know now what the key is to a working cell. I could be wrong, but Johnson-whatever probably doesn't know either -- their just covering until they do. If you don't know what's going on and you've got a potentially MAJOR discovery on your hands, the best thing to do is be very scanty with details and try to find out what is going on. Note that their ideas about keys to the process may change from day to day. This scenerio seems all the more likely given the fact that P&F want to be only in the lab instead of outside defending themselves and lining collaborative projects up. My last comment is a thought that came to mind while watching the conference. One has to wonder whether the "best" (i.e. MIT, CalTech, Nat. Labs etc) spent most of their time making the measurements more precise rather than spending time changing the experimental set-up (current, rod types, electrolytes). This seems to be supported by a number of yesterday's presentations which seem to indicate that many of the "big-boys" only extensively tested a few configurations. This tendency would probably be enhanced by P&F indicating early on of the necessity of long charge times. The result, I think, is to bias the chance of finding a working configuration in favor of the smaller less sophisticated groups who would be more likely to try many different experimental set-ups. It seems clear now that the configuration is critical in putting together a working (i.e. excess heat) experiment. Comments? Gregory B. Shippen gshippen@pollux.usc.edu University of Southern California ***************************************************************************** cudkeys: cuddy24 cudengshippen cudfnGregory cudlnShippen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / John Logajan / Please post Santa Fe news if you know any. Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Please post Santa Fe news if you know any. Date: 24 May 89 17:41:53 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN Please post any Santa Fe news for us people without satelite receivers :-) Thanks -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / I Price / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 19:50:05 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <1989May24.142302.2366@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > ...Ok, I just read the letter in the latest issue of Nature, in which > doubt was cast on the reality of the spectrum. They suggest it is > actually at 2.5 MeV and F&P shifted the energies. Since the F&P paper > said 2.5 MeV gammas would be produced (eq. vii), I have to wonder if > they deliberately fudged the data. A much more damning objection which I recently read in this group (I believe a precis of the CalTech conference) stated that F&P's spectral resolution was "impossible", given the spectrometer they had used. The implication of course was not slipshoddiness, but straight fudging. Trouble is, I can't recall whether it was neutrons or gammas.. anyone know? (if it's neutrons, that's two strikes in one experiment - looks black). -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenandrew cudfnInformation cudlnPrice cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / S Jammer / Re: Are P&F "restricted" from speaking? Originally-From: waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Are P&F "restricted" from speaking? Date: 24 May 89 18:20:47 GMT Organization: Hacker's haven In article <16411@sequent.UUCP> jjb@sequent.UUCP (Jeff Berkowitz) writes: >In article <3625@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: }> }>Fleischmann and Pons are restricted in terms of what they }>can say by the University of Utah. }> }Question: is this true? That is, I've seen several people say this. }Is it an urban rumor, or is there some factual reason to believe that }U of U is actually attempting to enforce such a policy? Did U of U }ever *state* that P&F were "not permitted" to discuss their method? Having been through the "patent mill" a few times, I suspect that a more accurate statement would be that the U of U lawyers told them they could endanger their patent claims by talking. And that could be BIG $$$ for both them and U of U! Remember the only thing you really are FORCED to do in life is to die, everything else is simly a choice between alternatives. }Second question: is there *any* objective reason to believe that there }is some "secret"? I've seen the reports that P&F have "new cells" }running, that "90% of them work", etc...but only P&F have ever seen }the cells. Experimental error seems like a much simpler explanation. I know nothing of their metalurgy, but in the IC manufacturing world knowledge of subtle surface effects in crystaine structure has many many "secrets" after some 30 years of intensive and well funded research. You could go so far as to say that the entire semiconductor industry is based on subtle surface effects of silicon crystals! I see no reason why this particular effect should be any different.i -- *Mike Waters AA4MW/7 waters@dover.sps.mot.com * Fresco's Discovery: If you knew what you were doing you'd probably be bored. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenwaters cudfnStrawberry cudlnJammer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Dave Mack / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 21:47:33 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > >At the workshop today there were some very interesting developments. > >In rough order of importance they are: > >1) the tamu results are very convincing. they presented >micro-calorimetric results from cells using the interesting >combinations of heavy water, light water, lithium electrolyte, sodium >electrolyte and palladium or platinum cathodes. the results were >just about as you would expect if you are a fan. they get p&f scale >excess heat from heavy water with lithium electrolyte and palladium >cathode. OK. > they get slightly smaller heat production with isotopically >pure Li7 electrolyte. What? > they get substantially less heat production >with sodium electrolyte, but not zero. WHAT??? Assuming that their calorimetry is accurate (they've avoided the Seven Deadly Sins of Dr. Lewis), then these results are amazing. Presumably, what we're talking about here is measured excess heat. If the excess heat depends not only on the chemical composition but the isotopic composition of the electrolyte, we're seeing something very weird happening. One explanation for these results: D + Li-6 --> Be-8 --> 2He-4 + ~ 25 MeV D + Li-7 --> Be-9 + ??? MeV D + Na --> D + Na (no reaction) This suggests that it might be amusing to try an electrolyte made from isotopically pure Li-6. From a safe distance, naturally. Does anyone out there know how soluble lithium is in palladium? This is awfully hard to believe. There has to be some answer that doesn't require D + Li fusion as a primary mechanism. >their calorimetry is a wonder to behold. they claim 3 microwatt >resolution (and accuracy?) out of up to 8 watts heat production. I imagine Dr. Nathan "10%" Lewis standing in the back of the auditorium and screaming, "But did you STIR IT? Was it OPEN CELL CALORIMETRY? WHERE DID YOU PUT THE THERMOMETER?" [No slur of Dr. Lewis intended, merely parody of this whole business.] >their tritium numbers are large and relatively hard to refute; up to >5e6 disintegrations per minute per ml of electrolyte. this translates >back to 1e12 or 1e14 (i forget which, and am too tired to calculate >right now) tritons in solution with more in the cathode. this is near >the amount needed to explain the heat production. Dr. Lewis: "Did you NEUTRALIZE the ELECTROLYTE?" This is a little odd too. If the reaction produces tritium, presumably from D + D --> T + p, it ought to produce nearly equal amounts of He-3 via D + D --> He-3 + n. The compound nucleus has 23.8 MeV of excess energy: while Coulomb repulsion within the nucleus might slightly favor the T + p product, one would expect He-3 + n with a fairly high frequency, as in hot fusion. On the other hand, if T + p is somehow selected, it certainly explains the low neutron flux. >lanl and university of bologna have replicated jones experiment, with >guidance from byu. the italian experiment was done under the gran >sasso massif where the cosmic ray background is 1e-6 what the sea >level background is. the latest byu efforts and these two >replications have quit using the 'earth mother' electrolyte and are >now using much more conventional electrolyte compositions. Comments regarding the Gran Sasso preprint from Robert Perry at OSU include the statement that the BYU soup was used as the electrolyte in Gran Sasso. >there is substantial agreement by a number of experts in palladium >absorption of hydrogen that loading factors in excess of 0.8 CANNOT be >acheived without extensive poisoning of the cathode, and that factors >in excess of 0.9 are extraordinarily hard to acheive under any >circumstances. pons claims loadings of 1.1 - 1.3. tamu claim > 1.0. If the loading is the ratio (D atoms)/(Pd atoms), then the Pons claim is indeed extraordinary, since a loading of 1.0 corresponds to 1263 volumes of D2, in comparison to the published maximum of 800-900 volumes for H2. Presumably, this accounts for the long charging times claimed by F&P. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / cooper%vlab.de / Re: Science via networks Originally-From: cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper in the shadowlands) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Science via networks Date: 24 May 89 22:10:46 GMT Organization: DEC Advanced CI Development, Marlboro MA In article <705400015@cdp>, caulkins@cdp.UUCP writes... > >Plainly, if a real.sci.fusion group had existed along the lines >I suggest, F&P might not have made it past the posting entrance >requirements, which in pre-89 days would have been controlled >by fully blessed and licensed physicists. Certainly many of us >interested amateurs would not have. Are there methods other >than intuition for differentiating between real crazies and >possibly valuable eccentrics ? But wouldn't F&P have been using sci.chem? Something that has been bugging me about all of this is: WHAT were F&P originally planning for this experiment? I find it hard to believe that the *intial* intent was 'well we're going to discover "cold fusion" today'. If the origional experimentation schedule was analyzed it might hold some rather interesting pointers as to how to replicate the experiment. I don't believe in it... but I want to, shades cudkeys: cuddy24 cudencom cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Keith Moore / Does Pons have access to USENET? (Re: Pons address on the net) Originally-From: moore@cygnusx1.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Does Pons have access to USENET? (Re: Pons address on the net) Date: 24 May 89 22:21:35 GMT Organization: CS Dept -- University of TN, Knoxville CHEMISTRY.UTAH.EDU is probably running CMU TCP/IP. You can tell by the way it responds to the FINGER command--every implementation looks a bit different from the others. NNTP-based NEWS software for the CMU TCP environment does exist, but it does not come with the CMU package. You have to get it from the net, compile it on your own, and make arrangements to connect to an NNTP server. So the fact that Dr. Pons has an account on this machine on the net doesn't mean that he has Usenet access. Keith Moore UT Computer Science Dept. Internet/CSnet: moore@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu 107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus BITNET: moore@utkvx Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301 Telephone: +1 615 974 0822 cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenmoore cudfnKeith cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / G Shackelford / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: shackelf@ics.uci.edu (George Shackelford) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 22:49:22 GMT Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS I wonder if the apperance of tritium could be from T20 in the heavy water. I understand from earlier postings that most heavy water is from reactors and hence could contain higher than normal concentrations of T20. Control experiments with normal water would not counter this; you would need to carefully analyse the heavy water itself. Did this come up in the broadcast? Still, the excess heat is very significant, as well as some coorlation to the amount of tritium. -GGS cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenshackelf cudfnGeorge cudlnShackelford cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Steve Smith / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: smith@cos.com (Steve Smith) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 24 May 89 23:56:01 GMT Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA In article <1800@wasatch.utah.edu> jacobs%cmos.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: >In article <17865@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: >>For the extra heat to be produced by D-D fusion, the reaction would have >>to be a currently unknown one, with many orders of magnitude higher >>probability than any known reaction. Not likely. >Currently unknown yes, but it doesn't necessarily need to have a higher >probability than known reaction mechanisms. It merely has to be more >probable _in the Pd lattice_ than the known reactions. The temperature >required for the hot fusion mechanism is not exactly compatible with >the exisitence of solids. >Steve Jacobs ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu) This is true; we all know about the differences between electron behavior in a vacuum tube and in a transistor. The problem is the magnitude -- something like 10 orders of magnitude. The coupling mechanism between a highly activated helium nucleus and the lattice is not obvious, either. The point remains the same -- look for the excess heat and don't assume a mechanism until the evidence points to it. It is *not* pointing to fusion. Assuming fusion may be like the early researchers in radioactivity measuring themselves to death trying to figure the oxygen consumption of thorium. (The excess energy *has* to be from oxidataion, of course ....) The smart money is still on bad calorimitry, but that's no reason to stop looking. -- -- Steve (smith@cos.com) ({uunet sundc decuac hqda-ai hadron}!cos!smith) "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." cudkeys: cuddy24 cudensmith cudfnSteve cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / William Johnson / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 21:57:31 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article , ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: First of all, thanks for entering all this, Ted. I was going to do something similar, but you beat me to it. (And see you tomorrow!) > At the workshop today there were some very interesting developments. > another group at tamu has done some nuclear diagnostics. their > neutron experiments are compromised by hokey statistics (3 sigma in > 'selected' samples) and small signal to noise. > Also by rather shoddy pulse-shape discrimination. The local NE 213 expert (or at least one of the local experts) was sitting in front of me during this presentation and alternating between loud expressions of disgust and episodes of guffaws. The guy who gave the talk is a reputable nuclear physicist (Kevin Wolf), and I admit that I would have expected a better measurement. > their tritium numbers are large and relatively hard to refute; up to > 5e6 disintegrations per minute per ml of electrolyte. this translates > back to 1e12 or 1e14 (i forget which, and am too tired to calculate > right now) tritons in solution with more in the cathode. this is near > the amount needed to explain the heat production. > > the tritium assays were duplicated at lanl and at general motors with > good agreement. (Disclaimer: the LANL duplication was reported last night. The agreement is indeed good. I have nothing to do with that measurement.) > lanl and university of bologna have replicated jones experiment, with > guidance from byu. the italian experiment was done under the gran > sasso massif where the cosmic ray background is 1e-6 what the sea > level background is. the latest byu efforts and these two > replications have quit using the 'earth mother' electrolyte and are > now using much more conventional electrolyte compositions. WAAIIIT a minute! **BYU** thinks LANL has replicated their experiment; the replicating group does **NOT**! The LANL experiment that had a positive result is the one reported by Menlove this morning (the next thing Ted mentioned in his posting), and Howard Menlove SPECIFICALLY states that their positive results were obtained with a FRASCATI-like setup, NOT with something electrochemical! The connection with BYU comes from Jones having supplied material to put in the pressurized system. To claim that this represents a "replication" of Jones (and Ted isn't making this claim, Jones did -- Ted's just passing it along, so don't flame him) is decidedly inaccurate. That claim by Jones has ruffled some feathers. My earlier postings about what constitutes "replication" or "confirmation" had to be vague, because it would have been inappropriate for me to spill Howard's beans, but this was what I had in mind. BTW, the loudest ovation of the first day was reserved not for one of the speakers, but for a questioner who reacted to Bokris' "leaking" technical information he'd somehow obtained from Fleischmann. The questioner chewed Bokris out for collaborating in the "leaks" and concluded, "I'm getting pretty tired of seeing science conducted via press release." And the crowd roared. Today's talks (thus far) consisted of the official reports by Jones, the Gran Sasso group (which was vigorously attacked later by Gai of Yale), Menlove (reporting the stuff alluded to here and in Ted's posting), and others. I left in mid-afternoon (amid boring calorimetry talks); Ted, can you handle today's summary? I'll do the one for Thursday. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Paul Dietz / What is THIS?! Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,misc.legal Subject: What is THIS?! Date: 25 May 89 00:47:28 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY When I got home this evening, my wife said I got a floppy disk in the mail. The package was a small bubble-wrap paper envelope, postmarked May 22 from NY City, no return address. It contained a IBM-PC floppy and a small unsigned note that said: I think you may find the files of the attached floppy (IBM-PC format) interesting. The fist [sic] file is the text of the FPH patent and second file has the drawings for it. !!! I glanced at the first file; it looks genuine. Sorry, no details until I talk to a lawyer; for all I know distributing a possibly stolen patent is illegal. Any lawyers want to comment? This fusion stuff is getting stranger by the minute. Anyone else get one of these "presents"? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Donald Benson / Re: External sources of energy (speculative) Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: External sources of energy (speculative) Date: 24 May 89 18:41:02 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > I can think of plenty of souces of energy, how about the whole electromagnetic > spectrum. Does anyone have an idea of the avarege power density from ac wiring, > nearby radio and television transmitters, nearby cyclotrons, ambient lightning, > black+body radiation from walls etc. It is possible to get the amount of > energy qouted by, say a drastic change in IR absorbtion? could the difference > between H and D give such a change? Good point. I also suggested this (not on the net) a month ago. If they fabricated a solar collector and immersed it, that would produce "excess" heat. Another is that they might have fabricated a heat pump to bring heat in from outside the cell. An electric central heating system can approach (apparent) 100% effiency. A heat pump can (apparently) exceed it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Admiration is the grudging acknowledgement of similarities between others and yourself. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Paul Dietz / Re: What is THIS?! Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What is THIS?! Date: 25 May 89 02:04:00 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Well, I looked through the patent files I got in the mail. A bit disappointing. I won't post it now, but let me say that there is little in the patent application about electrochemical cells that has not already been made public. If they have some magical secret ingredient or technique for making the cathodes, it isn't described. Paul cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Glen Fullmer / Re: Fusion: Something to Keep in Mind Originally-From: fullmer@dover.sps.mot.com (Glen Fullmer) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion: Something to Keep in Mind Date: 24 May 89 21:50:44 GMT Organization: Motorola SPS, Mesa, AZ In article <258@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) writes: >In article <74200006@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> The real question is intellectual property. How long should you keep >> an idea to yourself, in order to exploit & develop it?.... It seems to me that you have the right to keep an idea to yourself forever, if you want to exercise that option. In fact is some cases that is most appropriate. >telling us a socially appropriate waiting time for Messrs. F&P's "secret". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I didn't know that there was such an animal!! Who's discovery is it anyway? To assume that society owns the rights to CF is a bit presumptious. >-- >Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew >National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, I admire P&F for taking flack and waiting until the dust settles. Granted, they stirred it up a bit in the first place! Cold fusion? Time will tell. Until then relax, be happy, and keep in mind the joke I heard on TV last night. "Cold fusion in Utah? Hell, you can't even get a Cold Beer there!" -- _____ _ "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence" {____/ // "over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." \ // _ __Richard P. Feynman, Appendix F of Shuttle Disaster Report {____/ fullmer@dover.UUCP (Glen Fullmer) writes: >In article <258@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) writes: >>In article <74200006@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>telling us a socially appropriate waiting time for Messrs. F&P's "secret". >I didn't know that there was such an animal!! Who's discovery is it anyway? >To assume that society owns the rights to CF is a bit presumptious. On a more practical note, if (IFF) they really HAVE discovered what they claim, then the opinions of every one of us will merely be a "minor footnote" to the biography of F&P! Probably as well known as the anecdote about Sir Isaac Newton posted earlier! If they haven't, then they will be parias anyway - right? -- *Mike Waters AA4MW/7 waters@dover.sps.mot.com * Fresco's Discovery: If you knew what you were doing you'd probably be bored. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenwaters cudfnStrawberry cudlnJammer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / bass randale / Re: Science via networks Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Science via networks Date: 25 May 89 02:28:57 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <2553@shlump.dec.com> cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper in the shadowlands) writes: > > WHAT were F&P originally planning for this experiment? > Believe it or not, their stated intention was to produce fusion by cramming enough deuterium into Pd that the coulomb repulsion was overcome. Hints for the experiment would have to come from the hydrogen storage people (e.g. Huggins). dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Dennis Lou / Re: Fusion: Something to Keep in Mind Originally-From: ec172ahi@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU (Dennis Lou) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion: Something to Keep in Mind Date: 25 May 89 05:48:44 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego In article <1360@dover.sps.mot.com> fullmer@dover.UUCP (Glen Fullmer) writes: >I admire P&F for taking flack and waiting until the dust settles. Granted, >they stirred it up a bit in the first place! Cold fusion? Time will tell. >Until then relax, be happy, and keep in mind the joke I heard on TV last >night. "Cold fusion in Utah? Hell, you can't even get a Cold Beer there!" But when will we know for sure? I'd like to unsubscribe to this news group and resubscribe when we are no longer dealing with speculation and second-guessing. I once told a friend of mine "Usenet is the ultimate in free speach." His reply was "Yes, but it's all trivial." I wonder if free speach, reduced to its basic form, is trivial... -- Dennis Lou ARPA: ec172ahi@sdcc7.ucsd.edu UUCP: [backbone]!ucsd!sdcc7!ec172ahi "If you can't dazzle them with style, riddle them with bullets." cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenec172ahi cudfnDennis cudlnLou cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Richard Sharpe / another use for cold fusion ? Originally-From: rick@bert.Rosemount.COM (Richard R. Sharpe) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: another use for cold fusion ? Date: 25 May 89 06:08:28 GMT If neutron production is a fact in the quantities reported by Jones, could cold fusion be used to safely produce usable amounts of tritium ? Rick Sharpe at Rosemount Inc, Burnsville MN (612)-423-9096(home) uunet!rosevax!bert!rick (612)-895-2017(work) cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenrick cudfnRichard cudlnSharpe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / bass randale / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 25 May 89 06:17:31 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <18483@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: >In article <1800@wasatch.utah.edu> jacobs%cmos.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: > >The smart money is still on bad calorimitry, but that's no reason to >stop looking. > Actually, the smart money is on the very good calorimetry performed by the Applby and Martin groups at A&M and the Huggins' group at Stanford (and probably by the Pons/Fleischmann group). The first A&M group performed microcalorimetry over times of on the order of 100 hours and achieved excess enthalpy generations that were unexplained (or maybe unexplainible) via ordinary understood electrochemical or chemical processes. There is no obvious simple explanation of the phenomenon, not heats of formation, recombination, insufficient stirring, corrosion reactions, lithium or other alloy formation, insufficient calibration, insufficient attention to integral power (suggested by one IBM researcher at the DOE conference), and others. Chemical bond energies will not typically allow these magnitudes of enthalpy generation. The Applby group also performed a very telling experiment where they began charging with a (natural lithium) LiOD 0.1M solution and received the heat effect, they changed the solution to NaOD and the effect disappeared, they then replaced the solution with depleted LiOD (Lithium-7 > 99%) and recieved a heat effect with different characteristics than the first solution. This very important result places very severe constraints on even exotic chemical reactions. Also, we are no longer talking about a calculated effect. Huggins of Stanford stated unequivocally at the DOE workshop, that he is currently getting excess enthalpy generations of > 12% over the V*I input power with triply calibrated data. Yes, it is true. No addition of the recombination energy (the infamous 1.54 V) of the evolved gasses was performed to get this number. For instance, he put in 10 watts of electrical power and got 11 watts out. Possibly you do not understand the nature of much of the calorimetry debate. These groups are well practiced in the operation of calorimeters. They know the processes involved in the electrolysis. Much of the criticism that I have heard (there are a few notable exceptions) consist of physicists saying "This is not possible, there must be something wrong with the calorimetry." I can not think of an objection by electrochemists that has not been satisfied by the Stanford and A&M results. It should be almost certain by now that this is a real effect (whether fusion or not will eventually be settled). I would also like to comment that even though we do not know the exact conditions for reproducibility, each of the negative results for heat measurements at the DOE workshop can be explained by either 1) Insufficient charging time for the sample which is related to 2) Insufficient D/Pd ratio (it has been postulated that ~ 1.0 is necessary, several of the negative groups were at 0.75, some were even smaller) 3) Insufficient attention to surface and volume impurities (it has been pointed out that annealing may bring internal impurities to the surface, and that the quoted purity for metallic samples do not typically include measurements of C, O, H among other problem species.) 4) Insufficient current density (all of the negative groups except Lewis' were operating at less than 120 mA / cm2.) I would like to state that Nathan Lewis' lack of results is a little puzzling. His is the only presentation of negative heat results that does seem to have samples that do not have any of the above four difficulties. However it is probably sufficient to point out that it is very easy to make these experiments not work, especially if you do not believe the results in the first place. I suspect that in the next few weeks, though, even Mr. Lewis will see some heat effect. Since we have gotten completely off the original subject, I would like to ask if someone who actually attended the DOE workshop could give us TV participants any interesting results from the poster sessions that we could not see ( I am especially interested in the He4 diffusion paper). Also, we lost the satellite transmission before the end of the Wed. afternoon session. Does anyone have anything interesting to say about the Colo. Sch. of Mines presentation about D-beam loading of the palladium foil and the 4-sigma Pd-D lines as well as the deep potental well calculated for the Pd-D system. Anyway, back to the original point. The calorimetry appears now to be rock-solid, irrefutable. These measurements are much more definite, it seems to me, than the neutron counts or the tritium measurements. The heat is a much more unambiguous effect. As to fusion .... only time will tell. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.24 / Donald Benson / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 24 May 89 19:35:21 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > their tritium numbers are large and relatively hard to refute; up to > 5e6 disintegrations per minute per ml of electrolyte. this translates > back to 1e12 or 1e14 (i forget which, and am too tired to calculate > right now) tritons in solution with more in the cathode. this is near > the amount needed to explain the heat production. > > the tritium assays were duplicated at lanl and at general motors with > good agreement. > > assay of the electrodes showed no indications of excess he3 or he4. Isn't tritium unstable, with a half life of 12 years, decaying to deuterium by releasing a neutron? The above paragraphs suggest Deuterium -> Helium fusion is not going on, but tritium is being produced. Shouldn't that take energy rather than releasing it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / bass randale / Re: another use for cold fusion ? Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: another use for cold fusion ? Date: 25 May 89 13:40:28 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <7686@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> rick@bert.rosemount.com writes: >If neutron production is a fact in the quantities reported by Jones, >could cold fusion be used to safely produce usable amounts of tritium ? > One of the TAMU groups is actually reporting substantial tritium production. As to safety and usefulness, it is the economics of the situation that govern both of these. I suspect that tritium production in large quantities is still more economical to do with a reactor (assuming that TAMU is correct), though one could do economic studies to determine if it is true. This is all sort of premature, since the levels reported by Jones et. al. are very low (read very, very, very low), and the heat measurements of Huggins, TAMU, Pons/Fleischmann and others have not been definitively connected to nuclear events. I suspect that these questions may be settled fairly soon (i.e. < 1 year), but we really do not know yet. dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Raymond Warner / Try Li Originally-From: warner@udel.EDU (Raymond M Warner) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Try Li Subject: Try Li Date: 25 May 89 15:37:44 GMT Organization: University of Delaware Subject: Try Li -------- Let's review what we "know"/can assume and see what we get: 1. P,F,&H measured significant excess heat in one cell after trying many similar cells (with minor variations) over a period of years. 2. The excess heat can not be explained except as coming from some type of nuclear reaction. 3. Very little measurable radiation was produced. 4. D + D -> (4)He -> ... is not a reasonable nuclear reaction because of assumption 3 above. 5. "Significant" excess heat has been hard to duplicate, although many have made attempts. What other nuclear reactions are possible that could produce the heat with very little radiation ? I have only found one that seems reasonable: D + (6)Li -> (8)Be -> (4)He + (4)He + 22.36 MeV. Here are the numbers: The mass difference above is 0.0240168 AMU (= 22.36 MeV). (8)Be decays with a half life of 2E-16 sec into two alphas. Assume 100ml of 0.1 molar solution of LiOD in the cell. This means that there were about 6.0E21 Li atoms. Naturally occuring Li contains about 7.4% (6)Li, the rest being (7)Li. So the cell may have contained about 4.4E20 atoms of (6)Li. Assume the cell produced 4 watts of excess heat for 120 days. This is about 4.2E7 joule (4 x 1.04E7 sec). 22.36 MeV = 3.57E-12 joule. At 4 joule/sec, this would be about 1.1E12 fusion events per second. 4.2E7 joule / 3.57E-12 joule/atom of (6)Li = 1.18E19 atoms of (6)Li consumed. This is less than 3% of the available (6)Li atoms after 120 days ! This reaction could produce the observed excess energy with little radiation, with little change in rate after 120 days, and negligible change in pH (less than 0.23% of total Li used). Why has this experiment been so hard to duplicate ? 1. "Charge up" time. P,F,&H indicated about 12 weeks before they got excess heat. {Time for Li to diffuse into the Pd rather than just D ?} 2. Preparation of Pd. This net had an extended discussioin of cast vs milled/extruded electrodes. {Do specific types of crystal defects play a part in D + (6)Li, and/or do grain boundries trap or prevent diffusion of Li in Pd ?} 3. Depletion of (6)Li from much available lithium. As mentioned previously on this net, much of the available Li has been depleted of (6)Li by the nuclear weapons industry. {Isn't the (6)Li used for hot fusion in nuclear weapons ? Did failed attempts use depleted Li ?} If this is the reaction producing most of the energy, where is the radiation coming from ? Well, if I have alphas with about 11 MeV of kinetic energy moving thru Pd saturated with D, some of the D's are going to pick up enough energy and fuse. One chance in a billion, you say ? What's missing in this whole sceniario ? I don't have any estimate of the liklihood of the D + (6)Li fusion vs D + (7)Li fusion. The thermal neutron capture cross sections are about the same. (9)Be is stable, but something has to happen to 16+ MeV. {(9)Be + 16+ MeV -> (4)He + (5)He + 14 MeV ? (5)He has not been mentioned by anyone.} Note: on 5/10/89, Michael McClary (michael@xandu.UUCP) posted to alt.fusion: >Remember "D + (6)Li -> (4)He + (4)He + momentum" ? No gammas (?) >no protons, no neutrons. Just alphas, which stop in a VERY short >distance, yielding heat. The stopping distance should be about 0.05 mm (50 microns) in Pd. Mel Warner Warner@huey.udel.edu ------------------------------,----------------------------------------- Why post a disclaimer, nobody | "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should listens to me anyway. | ask God, ...." James 1:5 ------------------------------'----------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenwarner cudfnRaymond cudlnWarner cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 25 May 89 14:46:21 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway >Andrew Palfreyman: >Scaling "a decade" by all these "vasts" should yield a wet-finger metric >telling us a socially appropriate waiting time for Messrs. F&P's > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >"secret". Anyone care to estimate? Well, this is a new term. So this would be the time "allowed" F & P (by whom?) before they are faced with a demand to surrender their procedure? Let's see, would that demand be with or without reinforcements from The People's Police? Sorry, bud--if they have a discovery, it's theirs to do with as they wish, include bury it in a deep hole and forget about it. This would hurt *no one*; we would simply carry on as before. Anyone who wants to discover it on their own and give it away is, of course, free to try. Alan cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenfusion cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 25 May 89 14:38:27 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway I really enjoyed your song 8-) ! I hope I hear it on the radio soon! In fact, would you mind if I sent it to a few stations in the area? There are a few morning shows that might put it to music and give it some air time. Of course all the appropriate copyright info, etc. would accompany the song 8-). In fact, it might make things easier if you sent me an address and/or a phone number where you could be reached. Marc ---- "All my life I always wanted to BE somebody. I see now I should have been more specific." Jane Wagner Marc Guyott mguyott@mirror.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, pyramid, harvard!wjh12, xait, datacube}!mirror!mguyott Mirror Systems Cambridge, MA 02140 617/661-0777 cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenfusion cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Matthew Kennel / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 25 May 89 20:30:15 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <1537@hudson.acc.virginia.edu) crb7q@hudson.acc.Virginia.EDU (bass cameron randale) writes: ) ) The first A&M group performed microcalorimetry over times of ) on the order of 100 hours and achieved excess enthalpy generations ) that were unexplained (or maybe unexplainible) via ordinary ) understood electrochemical or chemical processes. There is no obvious ) simple explanation of the phenomenon, not heats of formation, ) recombination, insufficient stirring, corrosion reactions, lithium ) or other alloy formation, insufficient calibration, insufficient attention ) to integral power (suggested by one IBM researcher at the DOE ) conference), and others. Chemical bond energies will not typically ) allow these magnitudes of enthalpy generation. What exactly are these magnitude of heat generation? Say in eV per atom? 100 hours doesn't seem long enough to rule out a chemical result. ) ) The Applby group also performed a very telling experiment where ) they began charging with a (natural lithium) LiOD 0.1M solution ) and received the heat effect, they changed the solution to NaOD ) and the effect disappeared, they then replaced the solution with ) depleted LiOD (Lithium-7 ) 99%) and recieved a heat effect with ) different characteristics than the first solution. This very important ) result places very severe constraints on even exotic chemical reactions. Whoa...slow down. Differing electrolyte composition could have quite a big effect in how the metal lattice is charged. Did they _know_ that they had exactly the same D charging fraction in all cases with different electrolytes?? It could simply be that different electrolytes are more or less efficient at charging the lattice. ) I can not think of an objection by electrochemists ) that has not been satisfied by the Stanford and A&M results. ) It should be almost certain by now that this ) is a real effect (whether fusion or not will eventually be settled). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yup. This is the important point. Without any sign of nuclear processes, e.g. gammas, neutrons or helium, it's very extremely absurdly unlikely that fusion's going on. In which case, "cold electrochemistry of highly deuterated palladium electrodes" :-) will _not_ ever be useful as a power source, and the physicists aren't going to bother working on it any more---it's not their subject. There could indeed be extra heat produced without fusion---high hydrogen fractions could catalyze a phase change in the Pd lattice. As the preparation of the Pd electrode seems to be crucial to the "success" of the experiment, could it be that it is originally cast into a high-energy low-entropy state, but the perturbations from extreme hydrogen chargings would cause it to relax, either giving up energy or gaining entropy, either of which would cause excess heat to be produced in the cell. If it were a chemical/solid-state effect, it would of course run out after a while. ) Anyway, back to the original point. The calorimetry appears now to be ) rock-solid, irrefutable. Why don't people do "rock-solid irrefutable" radiation measurements on these heat-producing cells???????? It seems strange that the experiments that seem to report real nuclear effects (although these have been hotly debated) don't see any substantial heat gain, while the excess-heat experiments don't report any radiation, except for F&P, whose measurements seem to be acknowledged as bogus. Is anybody trying experiments with half H20 and half D20? If the nuclear physics calculations are correct, (I don't see anything wrong with them), the p+D branch should be favored over D+D by a large margin because of the lower mass of the reactants. (Kinetic tunneling probability is higher, making up for a lower nuclear cross section.) ) dale bass ) crb7q@virginia.edu Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmbkennel cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Try Li Originally-From: mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Try Li Date: 25 May 89 20:37:08 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <16238@louie.udel.EDU> warner@udel.EDU (Raymond M Warner) writes: > > Note: on 5/10/89, Michael McClary (michael@xandu.UUCP) posted to > alt.fusion: > > >Remember "D + (6)Li -> (4)He + (4)He + momentum" ? No gammas (?) > >no protons, no neutrons. Just alphas, which stop in a VERY short > >distance, yielding heat. > The stopping distance should be about 0.05 mm (50 microns) in Pd. Wait. Think "Coulomb excitation". A MeV energy alpha is quite likely to Coulomb excite Palladium nuclei which would then emit gamma energy photons. This was pointed out by a recent preprint posted on the net, which referenced a 50s paper that describes the measurement of these gammas resulting from high-energy alphas in palladium. The same thing should also apply if, somehow the 3He branch were suppressed in the D+D reaction---the high energy proton from D+D -> T + p should Coulomb excite nuclei too, making observable gammas, at very specific energies (excited states of Pd, to wit). Total absence of gammas and neutrons is a very very strong sign against any nuclear reaction. > Mel Warner > Warner@huey.udel.edu Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmbkennel cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 25 May 89 21:12:16 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Bass Cameron Randale writes: > > .. each of the negative results for heat measurements at the DOE > workshop can be explained by either > 1) Insufficient charging time for the sample which is related to > 2) Insufficient D/Pd ratio (it has been postulated that ~ 1.0 is > necessary, several of the negative groups were at 0.75, > some were even smaller) Raymond M Warner writes: > > Why has this experiment been so hard to duplicate ? > > 1. "Charge up" time. P,F,&H indicated about 12 weeks > before they got excess heat. {Time for Li to diffuse into > the Pd rather than just D ?} But if it takes 12 weeks to charge up an electrode, how come TA&MU and Stanford reported excess heat generation within two or three weeks of the press release? And if it can be done in two weeks, how come TA&MU's and Stanford's success hasn't been replicated in the six weeks that have elapsed since then? > The Applby group also performed a very telling experiment where > they began charging with a (natural lithium) LiOD 0.1M solution > and received the heat effect, they changed the solution to NaOD > and the effect disappeared, they then replaced the solution > with depleted LiOD (Lithium-7 > 99%) and recieved a heat effect > with different characteristics than the first solution. > This very important result places very severe constraints on > even exotic chemical reactions. Yes, but it places even greater constraints on exotic nuclear reactions. At the nuclear level, arent't lithium-6 and lithium-7 as different from each other as lithium and sodium? > These groups are well practiced in the operation of > calorimeters. They know the processes involved in the > electrolysis. But are they practiced in the calorimetry of "live" electrolytic cells? (Besides, they obviously DON'T know all the processes involved in the electrolysis.) > Also, we are no longer talking about a calculated effect. Just to quibble, the excess heat is still *calculated* from temperature measurements. > Huggins ... is currently getting excess enthalpy generations > of > 12% over the V*I input power. For instance, he put in 10 > watts of electrical power and got 11 watts out. > The calorimetry appears now to be rock-solid, irrefutable. > These measurements are much more definite, it seems to me, than > the neutron counts or the tritium measurements. The heat is a > much more unambiguous effect. I can't see what is so rock-solid about a claim of 12% excess heat. Given that electrochemistry is far more complicated than nuclear physics, I still think that some unknown chemistry/calorimetry systematic error is far more likely than some unknown nuclear process. The cold fusion claims require that the d+d fusion rate be enhanced by more than 70 orders of magnitude. What is intriguing is that, out of all this enormous range of magnitudes, the enhancement obtained by calorimetrists (F&P/TA&MU/Stanford) is just enough for the excess heat to be barely measurable, whereas the enhancement obtained by nuclear physicists (BYU/Frascati/LANL) is just enough for the neutron flux to be barely measurable. Hmmm... Jorge Stolfi Department of Lukewarm Fusion Division of Supine Epistemology DEC Systems Research Center stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Truth is stranger than fusion" cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / William Johnson / Tritium in heavy water (was: Re: partial summary ...) Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Tritium in heavy water (was: Re: partial summary ...) Date: 25 May 89 19:48:38 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <15671@paris.ics.uci.edu>, shackelf@ics.uci.edu (George Shackelford) writes: > I wonder if the apperance of tritium could be from T20 in the heavy water. I > understand from earlier postings that most heavy water is from reactors and > hence could contain higher than normal concentrations of T20. Control > experiments with normal water would not counter this; you would need to > carefully analyse the heavy water itself. Did this come up in the broadcast? Jacob Bigeleisen of Stonybrook, a pioneer in the electrolysis of heavy water (and my former landlord), summarized tritium contamination of heavy water in his talk this morning. In extremely short form, it turns out that the tritium content of nominal deuterium can vary by several orders of magnitude according to the history of the deuterium and whether it is produced directly as heavy water or as hydrogen gas. Pre-use analysis of a given heavy water supply is about the only way to be sure what the tritium content is. What made the A&M result interesting, in any event, was not just that tritium was found, but that it was seen to "grow in" dramatically as the cell operated. Tritium concentrations were up to **FIVE** orders of magnitude greater in a sample taken from a cell after operation for a while than they were in the stock water. Even for a fusion skeptic (I am one), this is an eye-catching result. I would very much like to know whether *all* of the A&M heavy-water supply was assayed for tritium before use; the electrolysis "uses up" water, requiring addition of enough to replace what's used up, and if some of the added water was manufactured (much!) differently than the root stock, maybe it could have had a higher tritium content, and contributed to the observed grow-in of tritium. Maybe. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Larry Wall / Re: What is THIS?! Originally-From: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What is THIS?! Date: 25 May 89 20:27:16 GMT Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. In article <1989May24.220401.9351@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: : Well, I looked through the patent files I got in the mail. A bit : disappointing. I won't post it now, but let me say that there is : little in the patent application about electrochemical cells that has : not already been made public. If they have some magical secret : ingredient or technique for making the cathodes, it isn't described. Which merely means that your Mr. Fusion will have more than one patent number on it. Instead of numbers, though, I'd rather settle for Patents pending. Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov "New Nukes For Old! New Nukes For Old!" cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / Donald Benson / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 25 May 89 18:09:37 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > I wonder if the apperance of tritium could be from T20 in the heavy water. I > understand from earlier postings that most heavy water is from reactors and > hence could contain higher than normal concentrations of T20. Control Although tritium-contaminated heavy water is available from reactors, it is likely research is done with the 99.9% or purer D20 available inexpensively from scientific supply houses. The manufacturer, Ontario Hydro, tells me recycled heavy water wouldn't be any cheaper because it is just as valuable for cooling reactors as fresh stuff. Hello, Three Mile Island? Would you please send me a liter of contaminated water from your reactor because I don't want to spend $400 for a new bottle? Anyway, pure D20 is safer to handle, is more likely to give indisputable results, etc, etc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / John Moore / Re: Are P&F "restricted" from speaking? Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Are P&F "restricted" from speaking? Date: 25 May 89 13:49:28 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <16411@sequent.UUCP> jjb@sequent.UUCP (Jeff Berkowitz) writes: ]In article <3625@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: ]> ]>Fleischmann and Pons are restricted in terms of what they ]>can say by the University of Utah. ]> ]Question: is this true? That is, I've seen several people say this. ]Is it an urban rumor, or is there some factual reason to believe that ]U of U is actually attempting to enforce such a policy? Did U of U ]ever *state* that P&F were "not permitted" to discuss their method? ] I saw an interview with a Texas A&M scientist who said that when he visited F&P there was a lawyer present AT ALL TIMES, and that frequently F or P would look for approval to the lawyer before answering, and frequently would not answer because the lawyer told them not to. They were told by the attorney general of Utah to do this to protect the state's intellectual property rights. ]Second question: is there *any* objective reason to believe that there ]is some "secret"? I've seen the reports that P&F have "new cells" ]running, that "90% of them work", etc...but only P&F have ever seen ]the cells. Experimental error seems like a much simpler explanation. Well... Texas A&M has similar results, except they only get 70% to work. Also, a Texas A&M spokesman said that F&P had "poisoned" their electrolyte (added something to it to prevent H2 gas bubbles from forming) and that that was important to the effect. He declined to say what the poison was. -- 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: cuddy25 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.25 / John Moore / Re: External sources of energy (speculative) Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: External sources of energy (speculative) Date: 25 May 89 13:59:12 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <40389@bbn.COM> jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) writes: ]In article , jno@imshp1 (Jan Norden) writes: ] ]Based on the observation that cast electrodes are somehow good, the ]cells are finding a way to liberate energy of crystalization of ]palladium. (in other words, the D2O and electricity are catalyzing a ]phase change in the palladium!) I have no idea how much energy this ]would involve. I don't even know the sign (is energy prodced ]arranging the atoms in lines or in pulling them apart?). The speaker from Texas A&M addressed this question: The Pd lattice can take, at a maximum 4eV of stress per atom. The excess heat measured at TAMU was 750eV/atom. End of theory. ] ]The trouble I can see with this theory is that it doesn't really ]epxlain how the cells can keep going for hundreds of hours without (I ]assume - we would have heard) visible change in structure. ] You are right! -- 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: cuddy25 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Jeffrey Siegal / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Originally-From: jbs@fenchurch.mit.edu (Jeffrey Siegal) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys Date: 26 May 89 02:06:59 GMT Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA In article <13768@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >At the nuclear level, arent't lithium-6 and lithium-7 >as different from each other as lithium and sodium? I believe the implication was that "standard" lithium contains both Li-6 and Li-7 and that Li-6 is the active ingredient. Of course, this has not been proven. Jeffrey Siegal cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenjbs cudfnJeffrey cudlnSiegal cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Ted Dunning / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 26 May 89 02:15:03 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <5127@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: ... Assuming that their calorimetry is accurate (they've avoided the Seven Deadly Sins of Dr. Lewis), then these results are amazing. Presumably, what we're talking about here is measured excess heat. lewis did not challenge these calorimetric results. yes this is measured excess heat. If the excess heat depends not only on the chemical composition but the isotopic composition of the electrolyte, we're seeing something very weird happening. good point. This suggests that it might be amusing to try an electrolyte made from isotopically pure Li-6. From a safe distance, naturally. apparently the li6 is on order now. Does anyone out there know how soluble lithium is in palladium? hardly. there were some experiments that indicated up to 2 micron penetration of the li into the pd, but since Li H is very soluble in water as is Li, this coating would tend to disapear as soon as the current is removed. >their calorimetry is a wonder to behold. they claim 3 microwatt >resolution (and accuracy?) out of up to 8 watts heat production. I imagine Dr. Nathan "10%" Lewis standing in the back of the auditorium and screaming, "But did you STIR IT? Was it OPEN CELL CALORIMETRY? WHERE DID YOU PUT THE THERMOMETER?" this sort of calorimeter is demonstrably insensitive to stirring. yes it was open cell and they did check for recombination. they observed less than 1%. it is hard to imagine a recombination effect that would discriminate between isotopes of lithium and sodium. Dr. Lewis: "Did you NEUTRALIZE the ELECTROLYTE?" yes. and to quote our friend mwj@lanl `tritium measurements at this level just don't get screwed up'. this is not a subtle effect. in fact it is on the edge of a biological hazard. This is a little odd too. If the reaction produces tritium, presumably from D + D --> T + p, it ought to produce nearly equal amounts of He-3 via D + D --> He-3 + n. The compound nucleus has 23.8 MeV of excess energy: while Coulomb repulsion within the nucleus might slightly favor the T + p product, one would expect He-3 + n with a fairly high frequency, as in hot fusion. actually at very low energies, T+p is favored by the theory. this was the subject of several of the papers. ... Comments regarding the Gran Sasso preprint from Robert Perry at OSU include the statement that the BYU soup was used as the electrolyte in Gran Sasso. sorry. i defer to people who weren't just taking notes while translating from english into english. ... If the loading is the ratio (D atoms)/(Pd atoms), then the Pons claim is indeed extraordinary, since a loading of 1.0 corresponds to 1263 volumes of D2, in comparison to the published maximum of 800-900 volumes for H2. it is D/Pd in terms of atoms. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: What is THIS?! Originally-From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What is THIS?! Date: 26 May 89 05:36:27 GMT Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Paul Dietz writes: > > When I got home this evening, my wife said I got a floppy disk in the > mail. The package was a small bubble-wrap paper envelope, postmarked > May 22 from NY City, no return address. It contained a IBM-PC floppy > and a small unsigned note that said: > > I think you may find the files of the attached floppy (IBM-PC > format) interesting. The fist [sic] file is the text of the FPH > patent and second file has the drawings for it. Wow! Great! I mean, this cold fusion business was getting pretty boring: all possible theories have been thrown up and shoot down, F&P are playing dead, and respected scientists are no longer calling each other names. But thanks heavens we now have this fresh and wonderfully exciting topic for netwide speculation, namely Who Is Paul's Secret Friend. Oh boy! Off the top of my head I can already think of ten very plausible candidates: 1. The CIA. Deeply worried about the economic and strategic implications of F&P's discovery, they are trying to bury it under an avalanche of misinformation and false leads. 2. The KGB. They figured out a wonderfully simple way to get rid of the US: just spread the details of F&P's cell design over the usenet, then stand back and watch as thousands of self-styled electrochemists build H-bombs in their garages. 3. The H-what-is-his/her-name from F&P&H. Having got pretty mad at F&P for being left out of their fame and fortune pursuits, he/she is trying to get even by making their US patent application public, thereby voiding their foreign patent rights. 4. B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. They decided to "leak" a bogus patent application in order to get rid of those obnoxious scientists who have been pestering them night and day about their presumed "secret formula". 5. Johnson Matthey PLC. They zeroed on the usenet as the most effective (and cheapest) advertising medium for their Genuine F&P Cold Fusion Electrodes, which happen to be the the only ones that fully meet the patent's specs. 6. A reporter for a major daily newspaper. He/she got the files by highly illegal means, and figured out that the only way to publish them impunely would be to "launder" them through the net. Right now he/she is watching alt.fusion attentively; as soon as Paul announces that the files are available by anonymous ftp from cs.rochester.edu, he/she will rush to the presses with his/her prepared article. 7. The US Patent officer who is processing F&P's application. He/she is terrified by the prospects of going down in history as either (a) the idiot who issued a patent for the most absurd energy-from-nothing idea ever, of (b) the idiot who denied a patent for mankind's greatest invention since sliced salami. After agonizing about it for several weeks, he/she decided to get the best expert advice available on Earth, by submitting the files (anonymously, of course, because of legal restrictions) to the scrutiny of the usenet readership. 8. Nathan Lewis from Caltech. Being unable to get answers from F&P about certain details of their experiment, he hit on the idea of leaking a bogus F&P patent application, and then having a friend film F&P's reactions as they find it in the newspapers. By correlating the color of their faces to the saccadic movements of their eyes, he hopes to deduce the isotopic composition of the lithium used in their electrolyte, and whether the latter was stirred or shaken. 9. Paul's grandaunt Emily from Brooklyn, NY. She saw a guy in the street peddling F&P's Authentic Cold Fusion Recipe floppies, and decided to send a nice little surprise gift to her dear grandnephew up in Rochester. 10. Paul's "friend" Joe from the office down the hall. He painstakingly composed a genuine-looking patent application, based on the information that has been floating around on the net, and mailed it to Paul as a perverse joke. Surely you all can come up with more. Jorge Stolfi Department of Funny Fusion Division of Eschatological Trivialization DEC Systems Research Center stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: The above elucubrations are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Dave Mack / Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Date: 26 May 89 04:44:59 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA I have a few questions about the way Texas A&M measured their tritium levels: Did they do open cell calorimetry? Did they measure the tritium levels in the evolved gases or in the electrolyte? Did they rely on mass spec or did they use something like a scintillation cocktail? If they used a cocktail, did they neutralize it? If so, how? Did they measure the tritium content of their heavy water before putting it in the cells? How often did they replenish the electrolyte, and what with? Heavy water or electrolyte? Did they find evidence of tritium in the electrodes? Reason for being nosy: There are several obvious (even to me) ways to screw up tritium measurements. The most obvious is through failure to properly neutralize the electrolyte before adding it to the scintillation cocktail, as Lewis accused several of the groups who detected excess heat of doing. In an open cell calorimeter, the concentration of salt on the electrolyte will increase as water is removed. Neutralization must either be done based on the measured pH of the electrolyte or immediately after replenishing the cell to its original volume with heavy water. It can't be done based on volume of electrolyte and the initial pH of the electrolyte. The second is more subtle and would be present regardless of the care taken in the measurement *if* something someone posted a long time ago is correct. Specifically, someone stated that tritium electrolyzes more slowly than the lighter hydrogen isotopes. If this is true, and the heavy water used contains tritium, then the tritium content in a cell will gradually increase with time. I have no idea how quickly the concentration will increase because I don't know the rate of evolution with respect to deuterium. Obviously, this is not relevant in closed cell calorimetry. I'm not accusing the Texas A&M people of making any of these mistakes, I just don't have any information about this and I find their tritium levels a little bizarre. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy26 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.23 / Charlie Gibbs / Re: cold fusion, history Originally-From: a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: cold fusion, history Date: 23 May 89 21:30:27 GMT Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada I have everything from about April 3 plus a few cross-postings from before this group got started. It's about 3 megabytes, though - are you sure you want it all? Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP cudkeys: cuddy23 cudena218 cudfnCharlie cudlnGibbs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / James_J_Kowalc / Re: Does Pons have access to USENET? (Re: Pons address on the n Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Does Pons have access to USENET? (Re: Pons address on the n Date: 26 May 89 07:18:38 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Users of Chemistry.Utah.EDU do not have access to Usenet. That is why I post from Portal. We do get InterNet mail, however. Based on my own observations, I might very well be the only member of the U. of U. chemistry department who regularly reads Usenet. There is a chance, though, that some chemistry department people read Usenet on the CS microVax, but as far as I know, that system is not set up for posts to Usenet. I also have no idea whether they receive the alt groups. Jim Kowalczyk James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.Portal.com Kowalczyk@Chemistry.Utah.EDU cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / James_J_Kowalc / Re: Science via networks Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Science via networks Date: 26 May 89 07:29:17 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper ...) writes: > Something that has been bugging me about all of this is: > > WHAT were F&P originally planning for this experiment? > > I find it hard to believe that the *intial* intent was 'well we're >going to discover "cold fusion" today'. If the origional experimentation >schedule was analyzed it might hold some rather interesting pointers as to >how to replicate the experiment. They originally intended to see if they could achieve solid-state-fusion (the new term now preferred over "cold fusion" by the SLC media). Seriously, this is what they set out to do. Of course, they say that they were led to try this because of some odd things that they had observed over the years in electrochemical experimentation. Exactly what these observed anomalies were, I do not know. Jim Kowalczyk James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Peter Shirley / LANL results: anyone else seen this? Originally-From: pms@vicorp.UUCP (Peter Shirley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: LANL results: anyone else seen this? Date: 26 May 89 14:53:31 GMT Organization: V. I. Corporation, Amherst, Massachusetts Yesterday's Boston Globe (that is, the Thursday 26 May edition) carried a story on page 4 which said that Los Alamos has confirmed neutron emission from a PF-type cell; heat production was on the order of the BYU results. The whole setup is to be moved to Yale next, as Yale has even more sensitive neutron detectors. I'm somewhat surprised that I haven't seen any mention of this on this group; has anyone else seen this story? -Peter "Subatomic particles almost certainly do not wear shoes." cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenpms cudfnPeter cudlnShirley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Paul Dietz / An Off-the-Wall Theory Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: An Off-the-Wall Theory Date: 26 May 89 15:59:51 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY I thought the calorimetric result from Stanford presented at Los Alamos was pretty impressive. But I also think the evidence for nuclear reactions remains minimal (I think the tritium measurements are probably contamination; there should be lots of neutrons from recoiling tritons). So, how to explain the calorimetry? Chemistry has failed so far, as Bokris explained. I'm motivated to think of really off-the-wall explanations. Here's one: (Begin Wild Fantasy) I'm sure you've heard of the "dark matter" -- the 90% or so of the universe that is supposed (by some) to be there but emits no detectable electromagnetic radiation. Theories about this stuff are a dime a dozen. Some of the more interesting (to me) theories posit fairly massive particles that are in orbit in halos around galaxies, thus explaining the non-keplerian velocity profiles and the stability of the disks of spiral galaxies. My fantasy is that there is a significant amount of the stuff in orbit around the Earth. I assume the particles are normally only very weakly interacting, so they can be in orbits passing through the Earth for a long time before losing their energy. I also assume that for some strange reason, highly deuterated palladium is good at stopping these things. Given those outrageous assumptions, could this work? Perhaps. Suppose the density of these particles at the earth's surface is 5.5e-6 g/cc, or one millionth of the average density of the Earth. Assume the particles are traveling at about 7 km/s. Then, the power flux from the kinetic energy of these particles at the Earth's surface is about 100 kilowatts/cm^2. A thin slab of PdD would stop only a small fraction of the particles; this would explain the volume dependence of heat production. Since it is unlikely that the apogees of the orbits of these hypothetical particles would be at or near the surface, the gravity from the particles at altitude would show up as a non-inverse-square force on orbits of satellites. Perhaps data from the LAGEOS satellite could give upper limits. Other tests would be to put calorimetric cells into high speed aircraft or spacecraft and then look for drag forces and changes in heat production. (end fantasy) Well, that's pretty hard to swallow, but then so is fusion without radiation. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy26 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Donn Seeley / Re: Does Pons have access to USENET? (Re: Pons address on the n Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Does Pons have access to USENET? (Re: Pons address on the n Date: 26 May 89 16:05:10 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept Jim Kowalczyk (James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com) writes: Users of Chemistry.Utah.EDU do not have access to Usenet. That is why I post from Portal. We do get InterNet mail, however. Chemistry.utah.edu is a VAX running VMS whose administrators have chosen not to join Usenet, although NNTP software for VMS is available and I'm sure they could get a feed from wasatch.utah.edu, which is a Gould 9080 serving the Colleges of Engineering and Mines (the Chemistry Dept. is in the College of Science). As far as I know, there are no Unix boxen at Chemistry which could run the more advanced Unix NNTP software... Based on my own observations, I might very well be the only member of the U. of U. chemistry department who regularly reads Usenet. There is a chance, though, that some chemistry department people read Usenet on the CS microVax, but as far as I know, that system is not set up for posts to Usenet. I also have no idea whether they receive the alt groups. I believe Jim is really talking about the Computer Center rather than the Computer Science Dept. when he refers to the 'CS microVax'. Cc.utah.edu is a uVAX running VMS which receives news using a crude hack involving FTP which we in Engineering would really like to terminate (in favor of an NNTP connection, which has been just around the corner for quite some time now). Every machine running SunOS or Berkeley Unix in the CS Dept., including workstations, should be able to post using Pnews and NNTP. As far as I know, all users in the Colleges of Engineering and Mines, and users at the Computer Center, have access to all local, national and world-wide newsgroups, including the 'alt' groups. Of course all this may change when the administration decides that individual departments should move their computing to the new campus- wide IBM 3090 and funding disappears for machines like wasatch.utah.edu. I'm not sure that NNTP exists for CMS (or that I want to use it if it does exist!). I suspect that Usenet on campus will dry up after this, and the Computer Science Dept. may once more be the only Usenet site at the U. So it goes. On another topic :-)... There hasn't been a lot of fusion news here in Utah recently. The newspapers have given fairly superficial coverage to the conference in Santa Fe -- I get most of my information about the latter from Usenet (thanks to Bill Johnson and Ted Dunning!). Pons and Fleischmann are apparently locked up in their lab trying to get data for two new 'definitive' papers. Little news has leaked out; VP Brophy has said that Pons and Fleischmann are now seeing 100x breakeven results, but gave no details (e.g. how long the experiment produced such energy). Pons and Fleischmann are said to be shooting for 1000x now. Brophy said that he had voluntarily cut himself off from the research group so that he couldn't inadvertently leak useful information. How charming. Pons and Fleischmann did take time out to give a group of Utah high school students a tour through their lab, followed by all-you-can-eat burgers and fries at the Panorama Room in the student union building. I understand that the students were more impressed by the burgers, but Pons believes that the supply of scientists should be a top priority in the US, and that scientific research could fade away unless we take steps now to get kids interested in science. Of course many current scientists would have gone to great lengths to get the tour that the kids got... The local physicists and nuclear engineers are now getting a little (but only a little) cooperation from the chemists, and the former have not gone on TV to denounce the chemists in several weeks now. The nuclear engineers are going to set up measuring equipment to try to pin down the possible nuclear effects of the experiment, although it's not clear to me whether Pons and Fleischmann will provide working cells for them. The agreement with LANL is still on hold, but the actual wording has been worked out and the lawyers have signed off on it -- it is now the U which has sole responsibility for holding it up. Currently the claim is that the official signing will be in a couple weeks, after the current round of research is completed; I imagine this means that another patent application is in the works (with six already turned in). As for me, I always head for the mountains on Memorial 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: cuddy26 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Dave Mack / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 26 May 89 17:20:14 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > >In article <5127@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > > ... > > Assuming that their calorimetry is accurate (they've avoided the Seven > Deadly Sins of Dr. Lewis), then these results are amazing. Presumably, > what we're talking about here is measured excess heat. > >lewis did not challenge these calorimetric results. yes this is >measured excess heat. This must have been painful for Dr. Lewis, after he said he wouldn't trust himself to within 10% in open cell calorimetry. > Does anyone out there know how soluble lithium is in palladium? > >hardly. there were some experiments that indicated up to 2 micron >penetration of the li into the pd, but since Li H is very soluble in >water as is Li, this coating would tend to disapear as soon as the >current is removed. If Li were a reaction component, it would also mean that this component of the reaction should scale with the cathode surface area, not the volume, in contradiction to F&P's findings. However, if the majority of the heat production is through D + D in the cathode interior, this effect might be masked. Overall, this suggests that Li+ on the cathode surface affects occlusion of D, rather than participating significantly in any reaction. It obviously isn't the whole answer, given the number of experimenters who have failed to see any effect with LiOD electrolyte. UNLESS: was that 2 micron penetration measured on Pd in alpha or beta phase? Was the Pd loaded to >1.0? Does anyone have an estimate of the Pd lattice spacing when it's heavily loaded? (According to John Moore, quoting Smith, the lattice expands gradually until a bit over 30 volumes of gas have been occluded, then "suddenly" transitions to the beta phase lattice spacing of 4.08 Angstroms. If the lattice spacing continues to increase with additional occlusion, the Li occlusion rate may increase dramatically at some point.) > This is a little odd too. If the reaction produces tritium, presumably > from D + D --> T + p, it ought to produce nearly equal amounts of He-3 > via D + D --> He-3 + n. The compound nucleus has 23.8 MeV of excess > energy: while Coulomb repulsion within the nucleus might slightly favor > the T + p product, one would expect He-3 + n with a fairly high frequency, > as in hot fusion. > >actually at very low energies, T+p is favored by the theory. this was >the subject of several of the papers. Did any of them give estimates of the branching ratio? It would be very interesting to get bounds on the neutron production rate. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Ted Dunning / Re: Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Date: 26 May 89 17:01:57 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <3641@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) writes: I have a few questions about the way Texas A&M measured their tritium levels: so let's play SOCRATES!! (tm from million badly) Did they do open cell calorimetry? yes. they then closed the cell on the bench and checked evolved gas volume to test for recombination. Did they measure the tritium levels in the evolved gases or in the electrolyte? in the electrolyte. Did they rely on mass spec or did they use something like a scintillation cocktail? the second. If they used a cocktail, did they neutralize it? If so, how? this should only be necessary at low count rates. at 10^6 per minute, you begin to worry more about counter saturation. Did they measure the tritium content of their heavy water before putting it in the cells? yes. 10^4 or more lower than after. How often did they replenish the electrolyte, and what with? Heavy water or electrolyte? heavy water only, from the original stock. Did they find evidence of tritium in the electrodes? the only assayed for helium. this is a serious question and was raised at the workshop. The most obvious is through failure to properly neutralize the electrolyte before adding it to the scintillation cocktail, as Lewis accused several of the groups who detected excess heat of doing. In an open cell calorimeter, the concentration of salt on the electrolyte will increase as water is removed. Neutralization must either be done based on the measured pH of the electrolyte or immediately after replenishing the cell to its original volume with heavy water. It can't be done based on volume of electrolyte and the initial pH of the electrolyte. lewis had no objection to these tritium measurements. these measurements were duplicated at lanl and general motors. The second is more subtle and would be present regardless of the care taken in the measurement *if* something someone posted a long time ago is correct. Specifically, someone stated that tritium electrolyzes more slowly than the lighter hydrogen isotopes. If this is true, and the heavy water used contains tritium, then the tritium content in a cell will gradually increase with time. I have no idea how quickly the concentration will increase because I don't know the rate of evolution with respect to deuterium. Obviously, this is not relevant in closed cell calorimetry. we are talking several orders of magnitude to small an effect. I'm not accusing the Texas A&M people of making any of these mistakes, I just don't have any information about this and I find their tritium levels a little bizarre. here is the table appleby presented: **************** - 7 out of 9 palladium wire cathodes (0.1 cm diameter, 4 cm in length) yielded tritium in solution. - palladium cathodes charged at 60 ma/cm2 for 2 weeks - cathodes maintained for 6-8 hours at 500 ma/cm2 solution sample no. disintegrations/min/ml --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2.0 x 10^6 2 4.8 x 10^6 3 3.6 x 10^6 4 2.2 x 10^6 5 3.6 x 10^4 6 2.4 x 10^4 7 6.3 x 10^4 Blank LiOD 210 **************** cudkeys: cuddy26 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Dave Mack / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 26 May 89 16:44:07 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <20420029@hpcuhb.HP.COM> donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: >> their tritium numbers are large and relatively hard to refute; up to >> 5e6 disintegrations per minute per ml of electrolyte. this translates >> back to 1e12 or 1e14 (i forget which, and am too tired to calculate >> right now) tritons in solution with more in the cathode. this is near >> the amount needed to explain the heat production. >> >> the tritium assays were duplicated at lanl and at general motors with >> good agreement. >> >> assay of the electrodes showed no indications of excess he3 or he4. > >Isn't tritium unstable, with a half life of 12 years, decaying to deuterium by >releasing a neutron? Yes and no. The half-life is about right (12.3 y?) but it beta decays to He-3. >The above paragraphs suggest Deuterium -> Helium fusion is not going on, but >tritium is being produced. Shouldn't that take energy rather than releasing >it? D + D --> T + p + 4.03 MeV (p gets 3.0 Mev, T gets 1.03 Mev). According to Bailey, this reaction should produce roughly 10**5 gammas/sec/watt of fusion power, with energies ranging from 0.374 - 0.512 MeV, through Coulomb excitation of Pd nuclei. So far, no one has seen anything like this gamma flux. We're back to square one. Where are the gammas? -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Ted Dunning / Re: LANL results: anyone else seen this? Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: LANL results: anyone else seen this? Date: 26 May 89 18:06:54 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <4033@vicorp.UUCP> pms@vicorp.UUCP (Peter Shirley) writes: Yesterday's Boston Globe (that is, the Thursday 26 May edition) carried a story on page 4 which said that Los Alamos has confirmed neutron emission from a PF-type cell; heat production was on the order of the BYU results. The whole setup is to be moved to Yale next, as Yale has even more sensitive neutron detectors. I'm somewhat surprised that I haven't seen any mention of this on this group; has anyone else seen this story? this is not quite accurate. lanl does not yet feel that their results are good enough to release, but jones does. lanl did see neutrons in scaramuzzi style experiments. moshe gai offered to test a jones type cell and jones accepted (with great fanfare). convincing moshe gai is a far more statistically significant event than detecting a few neutrons. we will see what happens. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / bass randale / Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys (even longer) Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: It's Not Fusion, Guys (even longer) Date: 26 May 89 19:20:03 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <13768@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: > >And if it can be done in two weeks, how come TA&MU's and Stanford's >success hasn't been replicated in the six weeks that have elapsed since >then? > It apparently can be done very quickly via using a small enough sample and using a microcalorimeter. You forget however, that the Applby group is not the same as the Bokris group at A&M. So with the second A&M group and the Case Western group there are two more confirmations. It is very easy to imagine why not very many groups have confirmed. In the first place, very many major groups either made halfhearted attempts (for example the Princeton PPPL group) or improperly replicated P/F conditions (the MIT group and several others at the DOE conference). Also, the exact conditions for replication were very murky (and still are to some degree). Finally, many groups appear to have been run by physicists who searched for nuclear effects without first getting the excess heat. It should be very clear, that in order to complete a sucessful experiment, one should take the attitude that it will work, while being skeptical about the conditions that make it work. This requires a delicate balance. I do not think that most groups maintained the balance and were swayed by their preconceptions about the experiments. I suspect, as well, that several other groups have made the experiment work and are refining technique before publicizing the results and beginning to take the public flak from the flak spewers. >> The Applby group also performed a very telling experiment where >> they began charging with a (natural lithium) LiOD 0.1M solution >> and received the heat effect, they changed the solution to NaOD >> and the effect disappeared, they then replaced the solution >> with depleted LiOD (Lithium-7 > 99%) and recieved a heat effect >> with different characteristics than the first solution. >> This very important result places very severe constraints on >> even exotic chemical reactions. > >Yes, but it places even greater constraints on exotic nuclear >reactions. At the nuclear level, arent't lithium-6 and lithium-7 >as different from each other as lithium and sodium? No, it is the charge that begins to dominate processes on subangstrom scales (before reaching nuclear scales). This assertion is equivalent to expecting hot fusion rates involving tritium and 3He to be similar. Any nuclear reaction involving lithium (and I am not suggesting that this is the case) would have to be very strange for the same reason that a d-d reaction would be very strange. The coulomb barrier is even worse with lithium. My point is that this isotopic effect, along with the D2O - H2O comparison, would make for a very strange chemical effect. So we have a strange effect, whether chemical or nuclear. There are however bosonic screening mechanisms that can be called on to explain the fusion of even numbered particles (if we stretch the mechanisms alot). > >> These groups are well practiced in the operation of >> calorimeters. They know the processes involved in the >> electrolysis. > >But are they practiced in the calorimetry of "live" electrolytic cells? >(Besides, they obviously DON'T know all the processes involved in the >electrolysis.) > Yes, this is their job. I would assert that you do not need to all of the process involved to know about the imoportant ones. We do not know very much about the detailed processes in the flame of a match, that does not prevent us from measuring enthalpy generation or understanding the overall effects of the combustion. >> Also, we are no longer talking about a calculated effect. > >Just to quibble, the excess heat is still *calculated* >from temperature measurements. > This is a quibble. How else do you suggest we measure heat? >Given that electrochemistry is far more complicated than nuclear physics, >I still think that some unknown chemistry/calorimetry systematic error >is far more likely than some unknown nuclear process. > I beg to differ, unless your understanding of nuclear processes is greater than mine. The nuclear people at the DOE conference had to go through all grades of gyrations to slow the neutrons that they wanted to detect to thermal speeds so that they could measure them. The possible errors are enormous. When they did measure neutrons, mostly it was a 3-sigma effect (i.e. three standard deviations above background). The calorimetry is producing a (conservatively from Huggins 12% above VI input) 12 X background effect. Chemistry is usually excluded when you talk about isotope effects. They can slow down a reaction a little, but typically the electronic structure is the all-important characteristic in chemical reactions. >The cold fusion claims require that the d+d fusion rate be enhanced by >more than 70 orders of magnitude. What is intriguing is that, out of >all this enormous range of magnitudes, the enhancement obtained by >calorimetrists (F&P/TA&MU/Stanford) is just enough for the excess heat >to be barely measurable, whereas the enhancement obtained by nuclear >physicists (BYU/Frascati/LANL) is just enough for the neutron flux to be >barely measurable. Hmmm... > The excess heat is not "barely measurable". It is tremendous. I will agree that the neutron flux is "barely measurable". But, why do you require d-d fusion? dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Paul Dietz / Sante Fe Workshop Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Sante Fe Workshop Date: 26 May 89 21:07:35 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY I've been critical of the solid-state fusion claims. But the just-completed workshop was, upon reflection, very supportive of the fusion hypothesis. It provided: -- a plausible explanation of the negative results (D/Pd too low in most experiments), -- a not-too-implausible reaction mechanism (d+d-->t+p but not 3He+n), and -- effective counters to the criticisms of the calorimetry. I thought Huggins did very well (I missed the broadcast of the A&M talks). Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu But when people talk about the "scientific method", they never mention that too much skepticism can be just as bad as too little. Richard Muller, "Nemesis" cudkeys: cuddy26 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / John Moore / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 26 May 89 14:28:45 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <1989May24.115628.22755@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: ]Actually, there are two interesting things Ted mentioned: ] ]1. The negative results all have loading of about .8. Since the Pd ]lattice has one octahedral site per Pd atom, you'd expect a fusion ]mechanism that needed > 1 atom per site to need a loading of > 1. So, ]the failed replications that appeared so devastating may be unimportant. ] I thought this was very significant also. Of course, it was Bockris of TAMU who kept repeating this, and it is hard to ignore such a personality :-) It also appears that it may be impossible to get this loading without poisoning the electrolyte: the formation of gas bubbles at the surface prevents forming high excess overpotentials. However, I should point out that the loading phases of the successful experimenters used low current levels (60ma/cm^2), so during these phases the high loading won't occur anyway. Only when they jack the current up to the .5A/cm^2 do you get the really high overpotentials. ]2. Tritium from tamu. The Wall Street Journal said tritium levels ]jumped from 40 to 60 atoms/ml to several hundred or thousand times ]that after several hours. (I assume they meant decays/s/ml, since it ]would be hard to detect 60 atoms/ml of T.) If this hold up, it's ]pretty good proof of fusion, I think. ] The tritium content of the TAMU sample was verified by the Los Alamos tritium experts and by GM. The reasonable conclusion to draw is that there was some tritium producing nuclear process going on unless there was previous contamination. Other speakers showed how unlikely this was. ]However, I have to wonder if it can be true. If the dominant fusion ]mechanism is d+d --> t+p (or, indeed, any reaction making energetic ]tritons), then recoiling tritium nuclei should occasionally fuse with ]stationary deuterons, making large numbers of 14 MeV neutrons -- ]millions per second, I estimate. However, it would explain the lack ]of large amouts of helium (which the New York Times emphasized -- Yes it would. I wonder if the crystal lattice could be causing the reaction to take place preferentially in a direction that sends the recoil particles straight down a lattice plane, allowing the energy to bleed off slowly by interactions the regular potential variations. This could be a mechanism similar to the high Tc superconductors. How's that for a completely off the wall theory? :^) Another important result that was not discussed in this posting was that the effect vanished when NaOH was substituted for LiOH in a working cell, and reappeared when LiOH was re-introduced. This is most interesting for two reasons: (1) NaOH and LiOH are very similar chemically and have almost equal heats of formation; (2) Li6 can participate in fusion, and one experiment (still in progress) suggested that when Li6 was depleted from the LiOH, the heat output declined. ] ]>the first evidence of this was the famed gamma spectrum. this ]>spectrum is very wrong, and appears never to have come from a real ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ]>instrument. ] ^^^^^^^^^^ ]What are you implying, Ted? It's accepted that the spectrum in the ]paper does not represent gammas from neutron capture in water, but I ]have not heard it said that the spectrum was not measured at the ]experiment with a real detector. Are you claiming they cooked their ]numbers? ] This spectrum was attacked as follows: It does not show a Compton edge (which I think is caused by the Pd crystals), and the spectral line is too narrow. I don't know if this criticism is valid since I don't think F&P had a neutron moderator, where all other experimenters did. ]> i do not think that there is any way to ]>interpret their actions as inspired by partial ignorance of the ]>underlying mechanism in their experiment. I do - I think that they do not understand enough of the mechanism to cover the basic patent ground. Their lawyers are keeping them under tight rein - when Bockris visited them, they were accompanied at all times by lawyers employed by Utah Attorney General, and they frequently refused to answer questions when the lawyer indicated that they shouldn't. I suspect they could actually be subject to civil tort or maybe even criminal action by the state of Utah if they blab [please... no long legal flames here... I'm just guessing]. -- 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: cuddy26 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / John Moore / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 26 May 89 14:37:26 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <15671@paris.ics.uci.edu> George Shackelford writes: ]I wonder if the apperance of tritium could be from T20 in the heavy water. I ]understand from earlier postings that most heavy water is from reactors and ]hence could contain higher than normal concentrations of T20. Control ]experiments with normal water would not counter this; you would need to ]carefully analyse the heavy water itself. Did this come up in the broadcast? ] ]Still, the excess heat is very significant, as well as some coorlation to the ]amount of tritium. The tritium content increased as the system was running. Other papers showed that the amount of enrichment (10^4) could not be due to selective electrolysis enrichment (which would have led to a max 30% increase). Most (ALL?) heavy water in the US comes from Canadian sources. A speaker from a Canadian lab detailed the method of production of D2O and addressed contamination. He claimed that all known contaminants of purchased D2O were way below the TAMU results. [yep... I have a satellite dish too and have been watching with great interest] -- 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: cuddy26 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.27 / Ted Dunning / More Sante Fe Workshop Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: More Sante Fe Workshop Date: 27 May 89 02:37:23 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science I have been rather tardy with this summary of wednesday's activities at the Santa Fe Workshop, but since much of the information consists of personal communications, it is harder to summarize than the previous day's information. The interesting presentations on wednesday included a trio of `positives' to start the day. The first was Jones saying the usual stuff and adding a cute magnitude comparison comparing his results to $1 and p&f's to the national debt. Second came some neutron measurements made under the Gran Sasso Massif in the Italian Alps. These measurements were later HOTLY debated by Gai, who used his greater fluency in English to perhaps unfair advantage. The basic question was a statistical one, which is the standard problem with low level neutron detection. The third presentation of the day was a very neat experiment at LANL that showed very clean indications of bursty neutron emission from deuterides as they warmed from liquid nitrogen temperatures. This experiment was meticulously controlled and repeated. In addition to bursty emission, there was some more ambiguous indication of steady state emission during the cooling process. The emission of bursts was apparently correlated with passage through -30C which may indicate that they were caused by a phase change in the deuterides. In order to maximize information gain from a limited number of detectors, each experiment was loaded with a variety of metals. This technique offers the potential for using a multiple destination bisection search for the material responsible for emissions. Unfortunately, this also led to only limited information being available during the presentation other than the fact that neutron were emitted. Later in the day, the Frascatti group (which is a place, not a person much to my chagrin), reported further results due to warming deuterides. In their latest experiments, they apparently showed that the amount of neutrons emitted was dependent on the hydrogen load in the sample and that titanium loaded at 500C and heated very quickly to 1000C also demonstrated neutron emission. Huggins from Stanford discussed his experiments which consisted of manual calorimetry of a palladium electrolysis apparatus in heavy and light water. They were able to demonstrate a net energy gain in the heavy water case even without the thermoneutral potential as the assumed input. Private conversations with one of the experimenters in Huggins group resulted in some very interesting details on doing this experiment. Apparently the palladium that they were using was previously used in molten salt electrolysis in such a way as to cause the metal to be very seriously depleted of light element interstitial impurities. THe electrodes were produced by puddling palladium with a tungsten arc on a cooled copper hearth in an inert atmosphere. After the palladium cooled sufficiently, it was laid on the bench, covered with paper and tapped lightly with a hammer to simplify size measurements. It was then nicked with wire cutters and wrapped with gold wire. The calorimetry presented was completely new data that included a full calibration at each data point. This involved making approximately 5 measurements at each of 4 points with a 15 minute equilibration time. This meant that each time point required over 6 hours manual labor. They did this after hours, which meant that they were getting home at 4 in the morning and then returning 7 hours later and continuing work. The recommended method for preparing palladium with low interstitial contamination was to repeatedly melt and cool it in a deuterium atmosphere. Don't try this at home. **************** these people NEED help **************** if anyone could loan them equipment to do automated data acquisition and analysis, the cause of science would be distinctly advanced. if there is anyone will to fabricate them a british columbia design calorimeter, i would be thrilled to assist by remote control. the requirements are bending and soldering a BUNCH of copper tubing, hooking up a thermopile and building a float valve controlled reservoir. **************** end of request for help **************** I also spent some time with John Bockris. The consensus is that poisons are a good idea, although the Stanford group did not use them. The customary thiourea is a bad idea in this experiment since it fouls the cathode quickly. Bockris is using 0.1 mM sodium cyanide and the guy from stanford (whose name escapes me for the nonce) recommended arsenic. Needless to say, handling these requires more chemical sophistication than playing with Li. I was beginning to overload at this point in the conference and things got somewhat more hazy; if anyone wants to remind me of things that I forgot, I will summarize them on Monday. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Hal Lillywhite / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 26 May 89 17:03:33 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <20420029@hpcuhb.HP.COM> donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: >Isn't tritium unstable, with a half life of 12 years, decaying to deuterium by >releasing a neutron? close. it decays with a half-life of 12.26 years but by beta decay thus becoming He3, thus no neutrons are involved after the formation of H3. However there should be a proton emitted when 2 deuterons combine to make H3. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.27 / bass randale / Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Date: 27 May 89 09:07:34 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <41@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >In article <1989May24.115628.22755@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >]However, I have to wonder if it can be true. If the dominant fusion >]mechanism is d+d --> t+p (or, indeed, any reaction making energetic >]tritons), then recoiling tritium nuclei should occasionally fuse with >]stationary deuterons, making large numbers of 14 MeV neutrons -- >]millions per second, I estimate. However, it would explain the lack >]of large amouts of helium (which the New York Times emphasized -- >Yes it would. I wonder if the crystal lattice could be causing the >reaction to take place preferentially in a direction that sends the >recoil particles straight down a lattice plane, allowing the energy >to bleed off slowly by interactions the regular potential variations. >This could be a mechanism similar to the high Tc superconductors. >How's that for a completely off the wall theory? :^) > This may not be so completely off the wall. One of the conference participants mentioned an article in this month's Scientific American about channeling of charged particles down the lattice structure. Well, it appears that large particles such as a proton or an alpha can skitter down alleys in the lattice as a result of coulomb repulsion, if the incidence angle is appropriate. It also turns out that these large particles have many allowed quantum states and so behave almost classically as they move through the lattice. Now it may be possible that a proton or an alpha can slide through the lattice spitting out low energy photons nearly continuously without (or maybe rarely) emitting the ugly gammas normally associated with these particles. The acceptable incidence angles would have to be much larger inside the lattice than outside which would be a good feature. But in order to explain no radiation(or very little), you would have to get both a very high occurance of channeling as well as a nearly classical energy bleed from the charged particle. One putative reaction would be Pd + d + d -> 4He + Pd + ~26MeV The Pd absorbs the recoil and keeps momentum happy. And the alpha goes flying through the lattice merrily spitting out small clumps of low-energy photons. It is very interesting that one of the late in the day sessions Wed. (from the Colorado School of Mines, I believe) showed a very deep (300 eV I believe) potential well at 0.2 Angstrom from the Pd in the lattice. If one had deuterium on either side of the Pd in the octahedral sites (actually one could possibly have d in all the adjoining octahedral sites), and one could somehow ignore the substanital coulomb barrier of the Pd and push the d a little closer to the Pd (maybe by another deuteron (or maybe a Li6 which may be mildly favored over Li7 via boson screening) showing up in the octahedral site or an adjacent tetrahedral site), then it is my understanding that tunneling phenomena would essentially ignore the presence of the Pd and would happily allow fusion (of course 0.4 Angstrom is not close enough and the Pd has a very large coulomb barrier ...) But again to be really successful, you have to explain why the alpha doesn't frequently cream the nearest Pd site causing all grades of nasty nuclear stuff. You also have to prove that the deuterons get close enough for long enough to fuse. Also, continuing this drivel, this could allow a sort of chain reaction mechanism. 26 MeV is plenty large enough to hop the deuterium (and the hydrogen) over the potential barrier and fuse. We could send out alphas regularly down channels in the octahedral sites between the Pd and the interstitial deuterons occasionally (since the coulomb barrier is lower for the deuterons) allowing the alpha to nip the deuterons into charging into an adjacent octahedral site and smashing into another interstitial deuteron causing yet another d-d fusion (maybe this time of the tritium + p variety which is preferentaily selected for some unknown reason, the tritium and the p could merrily fly down the lattice via the channeling mechanism again classically emmitting streams of low energy photons). The only problem with this theory is the apparent lack of experimental confirmation of Helium production in A&M's electrodes as well as nagging doubts that if the angles are not just right that every possible output involves loads and loads of gammas. I guess it depends on just how long it takes for a ~26 MeV alpha to traverse the initial lattice unit, how classically it can radiate (I looked very briefly but could find no numbers for allowed radiation of alphas channeling in metallic lattices and I did not wish to try to calculate it, it is left as an exercise for the interested student) and what the cross section of the other lattice Pd's looks like to a 26 MeV alpha reeling from a fusion at a lattice site. My hastily sketched theory cheerfully ignores the actual emmission spectrum of the charged particles, though I suspect that someone in this world has produced emission spectra of alphas channeling in metallic f.c.c lattices (probably at even close to the 26 MeV that we need for d-d into 4He) but a quick check of the literature did not reveal them (very, very quick). I also ignore the possible ugly effects of a channel coming to an end via a dislocation or a point defect (though I suspect that a 26 MeV alpha could take care of any crystal defects rather handily at the expense of a shower of gammas and an chunk of former Pd nucleus). These and other theoretical inconvieniences are taken care of by assuming a perfect lattice with point particles and lattice sites. In any case, channeling looks as promising as any theory for explaining the apparent lack of radiation from charged particle emission if the "P/F effect" (Bockris's words) is nuclear in origin. Theoretically, dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.27 / Paul Dietz / Fusion From Electronic Excitation? Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Fusion From Electronic Excitation? Date: 27 May 89 12:05:36 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY The Sante Fe results made me take another look at possible fusion mechanisms. People seem to have been assuming that fusion is occuring by a very slow tunneling process that affects most of the deuterons. Koonin and Nauenberg show that for the required fusion rates, the D-D distance has to be shrunk by a factor of 10, to about .07 angstroms. Koonin also suggested that fluctuations in the environment could boost the fusion rate. I suggest we look at a specific source of flucuations: electronic excitations of Pd atoms. The idea is that energetic charged particles, like protons or tritons, will lose energy by ionizing and exciting stationary atoms. An excited atom might provide a localized source of energy to help two neighboring nuclei tunnel together and fuse. If this is sufficiently likely, the system will "go critical". The K-shell x rays from Pd go up to over 24 KeV; this is the potential energy of two deuterons separated by about 60 fermis. The fusion rate at this separation would be very fast. The lifetime of this excited state of Pd is on the order of 10^-15 to 10^-14 seconds (I think), which might be long enough for fusion to occur. The L-shell x-rays from Pd at about 3 KeV might also be interesting. Someone with a better detailed knowledge of QM than myself would have to examine this idea to see if it actually would work. However, it has some interesting implications: -- Since the tunneling rate is much higher, the nuclear rate constant becomes more important in determining relative rates of reactions. So, the rates of reactions should be: d+t > d+d > p+d. -- 24 KeV is perhaps enough energy for fusion reactions involving 3He or lithium to occur. Flaws in the idea I can see: -- The excited states might be too shortlived for this to explain low levels of heat production. 10^12 fusion/s, if in a continuous chain reaction, would mean each step would take on average at least 10^-12 s. Perhaps heat production is intermittent -- maybe it quenches itself by locally melting or expanding the lattice, then restarts when the heat leaks away. -- The idea still doesn't explain why, if fusion is occuring, d+d-->3He+n is suppressed. Many experiments suggest themselves: -- Since the d+t rate would likely be higher than the d+d rate, cautiously repeat the FPH experiment with DTO or with D2O containing a few percent tritium. -- Try alloying Pd with other elements; there's no reason to think that Z=46 is optimal for this mechanism. -- There is no reason why the high Z element has to be in a solid. Try gaseous mixtures of roughly equal molar amounts of xenon and deuterium compressed to high density. Other choice would be krypton, argon, mercury, alkalis and perhaps deuterium halides. Instead of a strong pressure vessel, one might want to try compressing the gas using explosives. -- Bombard the experiments with an electron or x-ray beam to get more excited Pd atoms. Even in metal deuterides that don't "go critical" by this mechanism, this still might produce some fusion. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy27 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.27 / Ted Dunning / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 27 May 89 14:41:50 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science It is important to note that the tamu experiment did NOT show that the heat effect disappeared with NaOD, it was cut by a factor of 10. Reference back to appleby's slides shows this very clearly. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.27 / Michael Brooks / Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Originally-From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Date: 27 May 89 22:43:22 GMT Organization: Stanford University The latest discussion of MeV He ions barreling down crystalline channels has interested me greatly since I routinely use this method to characterize materials with a Rutherford Backscatter. This machine consists of an old fashion Van deGraff generator that puts out 2.2MeV 4He+, and a moderate vacuum chamber with appropriate detectors to collect backscattered He ions of various energies. Next door the Physics people have a 10MeV machine that uses the same principals but employs a heavier incident beam for materials characterization and atomic physics studies. In both cases these machines can produce nuclear effects, inducing the beam particles to interact with the target atoms (though we generally must go to protons in the 2.2 in order for this to happen). To the matter at hand: once energies above 5MeV are produced an experimenter must be wary of leaving the coulombic scattering regime of Rutherford scattering behind and entering that regime of non-elastic interactions: "For sufficiently high energies E, the distance of closest approach between the projectile and the target nuclei reduces to the dimensions of nuclear sizes. The short-range nuclear forces then begin to influence the scattering process, and deviations from the Rutherford scattering cross sections appear." [p.32] In the elastic regime: "In most cases, this force [Coulomic repulsion] this force is very well described by the Coulomb repulsion of the two nuclei as long as the distance of closest approach is large compared with nuclear dimensions, but small compared with the Bohr radius a(subo) = h(bar)/m(sube)e = 0.53 A. When these assumptions are made, the differential scattering cross section is given by Rutherford`s formula...: (d(sigma)/d(omega) = [ Z(sub1)Z(sub2)e^2/4E(subc)sin^2{theta-subC/2}]^2 [eqn 2.20, p29] [where subc or subC indicates that values are given wrt. the center of mass coordinate system, E is the incident particle energy, theta is the laboratory scattering angle, Z(sub1) is the atomic number of the projectile species (with mass M1), Z(sub2) is the same for the target species, and e is 4.8 X10e-10 statC. Actually a correction is needed, theta-subC is in the CM coordinate system, and can be relatively easily translated to the lab frame.] This is taken from the Bible of RBSers, Backscattering Spectrometry, by WK Chu, JW Mayer, and MA Nicolet, (1978), Academic Press, NY. It must be understood that this elastic scattering can be minimized if the mean free path of the particle is large; this can correspond to motion thru a planar or axial channel. This can be seen in single crystal material wherein backscattered yield of ions can be reduced as much as 90% relative to the same for a randomly oriented beam. The incident particles can penetrate into the lattice to much longer distances than normally, if a channeling orientation of the lattice is achieved, and become backscattered (and therefore eventually detected) by atoms lying at great depths (>2000A). Final depths of trapped ions can be several microns! But there are problems with invoking channeling of alphas from (or into) any polycrystalline materials, since the large numbers of planar defects such as grain boundaries, are fully capable of dechanneling the scattered or incident beam over a dissappointingly short distance. In my work, a Au layer of 1550 A laying on top of a single crystal semi-conductor substrate is sufficent to prevent channeling from occuring for 2.2MeV incident 4He+. Pd is also heavy, though not as heavy as Au, and in polycrystalline form ought to dechannel a similar beam fairly readily. But what about a ~20MeV He scattered or incident (say just produced) particle? This is more difficult since the shadow cone (crudely, the measure of "how big" an atom looks in it`s effectiveness as a scattering center) may not have it`s usual coulombic dependency (Another excellent reference is Materials Analysis by Ion Channeling, by LC Feldman, JW Mayer, and ST Picraux, Academic Press 1982). Does the shadow cone increase or decrease with these energies (probably decrease) and how does the mf path change (probably it goes up, but I am getting out of my regime of expertise here). The grain boundaries will again serve as excellent scattering targets, so if one can argue that projectile mean free path is increased by higher KE in this regime, one must still account for a high effective density of scattering centers and the likely increase in scattering events. How do the two work against each other---I`ll be pessimistic and bet on the grain boundaries. There is another intriguing possiblility---that some substantial attenuation of gammas occur as a result of alphas traveling some distance (on the order of a grain diameter or two) before collision. From Perkins (Introduction to High Energy Physics, 3rd. ed., Addison-Wesley, 1987, pp44) we find the following: "There are three types of process responsible for attenuation of gamma rays in matter: photoelectric absorption, Compton scattering, and pair production. The photoelectric cross-section varies with photon energy E as 1/E^3, and the Compton cross-section as 1/E, so that for E>10MeV, the process of pair production, with a cross-section essentially independent of energy, is dominant (see Fig. 2.10)." I = I(subo)exp[-7x/9Xsubo] eqn. 2.16 given on p.45, describes the "attentuation of a beam of high-energy photons of intensity I(subo) by pair production in a thickness x of absorber..." where 9X(subo)/7 is called the conversion length. For a value of 10MeV, according to the mentioned figure, "the absorption coefficent" is about 0.05 cm^2/g, which I Think(!?) is the value for the 7/9Xsubo term. One possibility is that alphas are generated, collisions occur, gammas are created and absorbed internally, and pair production is induced. Of course one may ask how far do these travel before subsequent processes occur, and indeed Perkins has the answer, indicating that : "For electrons and photons of high energy, a dramatic result of the combined phenomena of bremsstrahlung and pair production is the occurance of cascade showers. A parent electron will radiate photons, which convert to pairs, which radiate and produce fresh pairs in turn, [of reduced energy], the number of particles increasing exponentially with depth in the medium." At some point this process reaches a maximum, and cuts off, when "ionization loss becomes important and no further radiation is possible." This refers to Bethe-Bloch formula describing ionization loss of energy by a charged particle with high KE. Is pair production involved, and could the cascade showers and bremsstrahlung effects be accounted for? Someone with particle physics background needs to comment on this. I guess some already have, but we may need to re-examine the situation. Finally I`d like to mention that CJ Horowitz` paper "Cold Nuclear Fusion in Metallic Hydrogen and Normal Metals", does discuss pair production as competing reactions for p + D and D + D events that ordinarily lead to gammas. The radiation problem still exists, because alphas will still meet with grain boundaries, most likely. (Thanks, to my anonymous benefactor, it was interesting) Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronic Lab (solid state)/SU MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Absence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of absence." cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.27 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 27 May 89 04:18:06 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Someone in the last posting said that experiments were done that showed that Li diffused only 2 microns into Pd. Are there references for these? I, too, thought this, but an inorganic chemist here stated that it was commonly assumed, but wrong, that Li could not diffuse into Pd. He mentioned this to me many weeks ago, but I did ask him for a reference at the time. Too bad all my notes are packed up in boxes.... Basically, he said that Li diffused all the way to the center over a long period of time. Electrodes became very brittle over this period of time, too. On a different note, here's a thought experiment that I don't understand. Put D + D in a box. They fuse to form T + p. (Ignore the fact that this is unlikely. It's 10e-70 unlikely, but it's possible.) This releases energy. Later, T decays. How can T decay into more stable products. If a neutron is released, you get D + n + energy. So we've gotten energy out of D + D -> D + n + p. This isn't exothermic is it? If T decays by beta emission we have D + D -> 3He + p + e. Is this exothermic? - Jeff Naiman cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenfusion cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.27 / John Moore / Re: Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Date: 27 May 89 03:32:24 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <3641@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: ] ]I have a few questions about the way Texas A&M measured their ]tritium levels: ] ]Did they do open cell calorimetry? Yes - in the sense they got rid of evolved gases rather than recylcing them. ] ]Did they measure the tritium levels in the evolved gases or in the ]electrolyte? ] Electrolyte ]Did they rely on mass spec or did they use something like a scintillation ]cocktail? ] Scintillation cocktail ]If they used a cocktail, did they neutralize it? If so, how? ] Yes - no details on how ]Did they measure the tritium content of their heavy water before putting ]it in the cells? Yes - they sampled it periodically through the experiment ] ]How often did they replenish the electrolyte, and what with? Heavy water ]or electrolyte? Heavy water ] ]Did they find evidence of tritium in the electrodes? ] Unknown ]Reason for being nosy: ] ]There are several obvious (even to me) ways to screw up tritium measurements. ] ]The most obvious is through failure to properly neutralize the electrolyte ]before adding it to the scintillation cocktail, as Lewis accused several ]of the groups who detected excess heat of doing. In an open cell calorimeter, ]the concentration of salt on the electrolyte will increase as water is ]removed. Neutralization must either be done based on the measured pH of ]the electrolyte or immediately after replenishing the cell to its original ]volume with heavy water. It can't be done based on volume of electrolyte ]and the initial pH of the electrolyte. The was addressed in the TAMU talk. ] ]The second is more subtle and would be present regardless of the care ]taken in the measurement *if* something someone posted a long time ago ]is correct. Specifically, someone stated that tritium electrolyzes more ]slowly than the lighter hydrogen isotopes. If this is true, and the heavy ]water used contains tritium, then the tritium content in a cell will ]gradually increase with time. I have no idea how quickly the concentration ]will increase because I don't know the rate of evolution with respect to ]deuterium. Obviously, this is not relevant in closed cell calorimetry. This accounts for only 30% maximum increase for that experiment. They have a 10^4 increase in concentration -- 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: cuddy27 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / Michael Brooks / Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Originally-From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Date: 28 May 89 06:05:43 GMT Organization: Stanford University Well I got to thinking about the range statistics of possible nuclear products in CNF, and with the channeling discussion, I decided to check out just how far some of the high energy particles could go in Pd. It is conceivable that the particles could leave the Pd, taking their energies along, without the channeling being necessary. I found the following data in the Handbook of Range Distributions for Energetic Ions in All Elements, by U.Littmark, and J.F. Ziegler, Volume 6 (ed. J.F. Ziegler, of IBM Yorktown Heights, New York), Pergamon Press, New York. This is a tabular excert based on their graphs for Pd: Energy(MeV) Mean Ion Depth (=approx. escape depth too!) microns H, 10 217 D, 10 142 He,10 25 H, 20 711 D, 20 439 He,71 71 H, 30 8,000 (8mm) D, 30 1,000 (1mm) He,30 627 (0.627mm) As particle energy goes up, the range continues to go up, above what I have shown. Some important points: *This is range data for mean ion depth of an implanted species into Pd. It also represents a good figure of merit for how deep an ion can be, with a given energy, and still escape to the surface of the Pd. Thus a D ion with 30 MeV can be less than 1mm deep and still emerge to the electrolyte, otherwise it will get stuck. *"The target is assumed to be amorhous, made of a single element, and in either in solid [our case] or gas phase with a uniform density. * These are calculated data based on experiment, but usually reliable to 10 to 20% for higher energies (like the above). * This table can be applied to polycrystalline materials, with only 10% variations seen. Speculation: If the nuclear processes are somehow more of a surface effect than a bulk effect, or if the latter can be otherwise explained, then it is possible for nuclear processes to emit one or more of the species above, carrying away high energies into the electrolyte, without channeling coming into the picture at all! (What happens to the particle once it hits the solution is not my problem, baby, OK?) :-) Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Lab (solid state)/SU MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Absence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of absence." cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / Paul Dietz / Are the Gammas Hiding? Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Are the Gammas Hiding? Date: 28 May 89 14:20:19 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY A common complaint about the fusion hypothesis is the lack of gammas. Charged particles should make gammas by coulomb excitation. There is, however, a rather mundane explanation for why the gammas may not have been seen: If the power production is very bursty, rather than continuous, the sensitivity of the gamma detector may be severely degraded due to pileup and detector dead time. There is some evidence (Frascatti & such) that neutron output is bursty. Perhaps the same mechanism, at higher power levels, is at work in FPH's experiment. Suppose FPH's cathode is making (say) 10 watts of heat. Let's say fusion output actually occurs in 1 microsecond, 10 MW bursts once every second. A NaI detector (such as they used) can detect at most about one gamma in 1 microsecond. Pileup (coincident arrival of photons) would also screw up the spectrometry, since the detector would add the energies of the particles. If too much pileup occured the pulse-classifying circuitry might throw out the pulse altogether. [ I have to confess that in my cavalier dismissal of the FPH results, I was making a stupid error: I was using their radiation measurements as negative evidence (there weren't enough gammas, neutrons) but not as positive evidence (since there were obvious calibration problems). If I believe the measurments were faulty I should have tossed them out entirely. ] If burstiness is keeping FPH from seeing all the radiation, they should be careful -- they may be exposed to more radiation than they think. I hope they are wearing those radiation monitoring badges. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / Paul Dietz / Re: Fusion From Electronic Excitation? Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion From Electronic Excitation? Date: 28 May 89 16:07:23 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <1989May27.080536.6654@cs.rochester.edu> I wrote: > An excited atom might >provide a localized source of energy to help two neighboring nuclei >tunnel together and fuse. ... >-- The idea still doesn't explain why, if fusion is occuring, > d+d-->3He+n is suppressed. An idle speculation: maybe this mechanism would force the d+d to have an angular momentum > 0, so the fusion would be p-wave rather than s-wave. Might this change the branching ratio of the d+d reaction? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / Paul Dietz / Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Date: 28 May 89 16:15:56 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <138@sierra.stanford.edu> brooks@sierra.UUCP (Michael B. Brooks) writes: >Speculation: If the nuclear processes are somehow more of a surface effect >than a bulk effect, or if the latter can be otherwise explained, then it is >possible for nuclear processes to emit one or more of the species above, >carrying away high energies into the electrolyte, without channeling >coming into the picture at all! Great! Now all you have to explain is how the particles are preferentially emitted towards the surface, not in towards the center of the cathode. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy28 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.27 / John Moore / Cold Fusion - Area or Surface Effect? Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion - Area or Surface Effect? Date: 27 May 89 18:31:08 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc., Phoenix AZ When speculating about the mechanism which could explain the F&P effect, one needs to know whether a surface or volume effect is occuring. F&P claim a volume dependent, current dependent effect. However, I have been analyzing the experiments of TAMU, F&P and Huggins @ Stanford, and find some evidence for a surface effect. The analysis was done as follows: (1) Only experiments which showed significant excess heat were included (2) Only the high overpotential (==high current density ==> high D/Pd ratio) experiments were included The following ratios were calculated (excess heat in Watts): W/cc - Volume effect W/cm^2 - Surface effect W*A/V - Shape (Area to Volume) Dependence If the calculations are correct (always a dangerous assumption since I did them by hand), the following table gives the results. Note that I had to guess the diameter of the Huggins cathode. Experiment Cathode (Pd) ma/cm^2 W/cc W/cm^2 W*A/V TAMU .5x10mm rod 600 19.3 .24 3.04 TAMU .5x10mm rod 1000 18.5 .24 3.04 TAMU 1.x10mm rod 600 4 - 7 .1-.175 1.24-2.2 TAMU 2.0mm sphere 600 6-12 .2-.4 .76-1.5 F&P 1.x100mm rod 512 8.33 .21 26.16 F&P 2.x100mm rod 512 9.61 .481 121 F&P .4x100mm rod 512 21.4 2.13 268 F&P 2x80x80 mm foil 512 .0061 .0006 .79 Huggins 2x10(?)mm disc 500? 7.64 .55 17 Huggins 2x20(?)mm disc 500? 1.91 .16 14.45 If you plot these results on a W/cc vs W/cm^2 (ignore W*A/V), the following pattern is apparent: There are a lot of datapoints in the range where surface effect is .1-.5 W/cm^2. In fact, there are only two results which differ widely from this: The highest F&P result, and the F&P foil test (which could probably be called a "blank"). Thus, the effect APPEARS, from this data, to be a surface effect, not a volume effect. This also means that it is more sensitive to calorimetry error, since almost all possible error mechanisms are related to surface effect (such as surface reactions, miscalibration of applied I*V, etc). Note also that the shape correlates poorly with the excess heat. If this is true, it's good news in the sense that less Pd would be required to get the effect (ie you could increase the W/cc by increasing the surface to volume ratio). Comments? Does anyone have hard numbers on the Huggins data? All I have is that the electrode is "coin shaped", that it is 2mm thick, and that the max excess heat measured was 1.2 Watts. -- 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: cuddy27 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Cold Fusion - Area or Surface Effect? Originally-From: mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion - Area or Surface Effect? Date: 28 May 89 18:21:00 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <63@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: )Thus, the effect APPEARS, from this data, to be a surface effect, not )a volume effect. This also means that it is more sensitive to )calorimetry error, since almost all possible error mechanisms )are related to surface effect (such as surface reactions, miscalibration )of applied I*V, etc). Note also that the shape correlates poorly )with the excess heat. ) )If this is true, it's good news in the sense )that less Pd would be required to get the effect (ie you could )increase the W/cc by increasing the surface to volume ratio). ) This of course suggests an obvious experiment. I don't know if this is plausible, but one could potentially make a palladium "sponge" with an extremely high surface area. If the effect scales as surface area, this should make a very big effect---much too obvious to be missed. Then again, a surface reaction implies an even stronger fusion reaction--- instead of the energy gain being "spread" out over the whole palladium electrode you now have to attribute all the fusions to a thin layer of atoms. The enhancement in fusion rate would have to be that much larger. If this were true, then why to F&P purportedly report that very large charging times are necessary? )John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu (for one more week only!!!) kennel@cognet.ucla.edu (after that) cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenmbkennel cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Originally-From: mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Date: 28 May 89 18:31:19 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <1989May28.102019.16101@cs.rochester.edu) dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: )A common complaint about the fusion hypothesis is the lack of )gammas. Charged particles should make gammas by coulomb excitation. ) )There is, however, a rather mundane explanation for why the gammas may )not have been seen: ) ) If the power production is very bursty, rather than continuous, the ) sensitivity of the gamma detector may be severely degraded due to ) pileup and detector dead time. ) )Suppose FPH's cathode is making (say) 10 watts of heat. Let's say )fusion output actually occurs in 1 microsecond, 10 MW bursts once )every second. A NaI detector (such as they used) can detect at most )about one gamma in 1 microsecond. Pileup (coincident arrival of )photons) would also screw up the spectrometry, since the detector )would add the energies of the particles. If too much pileup occured )the pulse-classifying circuitry might throw out the pulse altogether. There ought to be some simple ways of checking this out: 1) Move the detector farther away until the number of photons is manageable. (remember 1/r^2 :-) ) 2) Use multiple detectors, and check to see if they happen to be "throwing out" big pulses within a microsecond of each other. Combine (1) and (2) If the gammas come from coulomb excitation their energies should be very well defined (to within a keV I'd guess; even better if Moessbauer emission occurs) and so it might be worthwhile to see if the observed pulses are actually sums of these characteristic energies. If this burstiness were indeed happening, it could be good news for scaleup in that the system is fusing well below its "maximum" rate. ) Paul F. Dietz ) dietz@cs.rochester.edu Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu (for 1 more week only!!) kennel@cognet.ucla.edu (after that) cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenmbkennel cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / Steven Beste / Re: Cold Fusion - Area or Surface Effect? Originally-From: denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion - Area or Surface Effect? Date: 28 May 89 20:03:18 GMT In article <8738@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) writes: > )Thus, the effect APPEARS, from this data, to be a surface effect, not > )a volume effect.... > ) > )If this is true, it's good news in the sense > )that less Pd would be required to get the effect (ie you could > )increase the W/cc by increasing the surface to volume ratio). > ) > > If this were true, then why to F&P purportedly report that very large > charging times are necessary? > I don't think there's much mystery to this: If your experiment operates on the surface of a wet sponge, the only way to wet the surface sufficiently is to saturate the whole thing. Then you can use the surface as you wish. Steven C. Den Beste, BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge MA denbeste@bbn.com(ARPA/CSNET/UUCP) harvard!bbn.com!denbeste(UUCP) cudkeys: cuddy28 cudendenbeste cudfnSteven cudlnBeste cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / David Cyganski / Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Originally-From: cyganski@wpi.wpi.edu (David Cyganski) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Date: 28 May 89 21:40:58 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass. I have just finished watching a video tape that we made from the satellite transmission of the Sante Fe conference from LANL. While I was very much taken by the TAMU results and enjoyed the verification of the tritium content of their electrolyte by LANL, I was most impressed by far by the talk given by Huggins. Since I have seen little said about his talk on the net, I thought I would mention it and get other reactions. In quick summary he had this to say: 1) He wished to describe his success with measuring excess heat in the F&P regime and 2) He wished to address the kinds of preperation of his material that was required to be successful and to pose this as a reason that many others have not been successful. He began by describing certain important points about the Pd-Hydrogen system. In particular that H is absorbed in preference to D by Pd. Hence the need to very carefully load Pd with only D and to protect it from infiltration by H. He also commented on the the need to protect Pd from other impurities such as C that might be picked up in the casting process. His preperation technique: Melt, re-melt, re-melt .... re-melt, up to ten times, the Pd in a highly pure aluminum crucible with an electric arc in an Argon atmosphere. The Argon atmosphere is flushed and replenished with clean Argon after each melting!!!! This sample is then transported to the calorimetry cell with care to not expose it to "wet air" to prevent picking up any H. The cell itself is capped with Argon rather than air and Argon is flushed through the cell to continuously remove evolved gasses. The D2O that is used is also very pure or else again H may infiltrate the Pd. He then went on to described in great detail his calorimetry. It addressed everything that I have ever seen anyone bring up: stirring, elimination of evolved gas recombination, triple calibration at each point, comparison to light water cells, etc. It was a beautiful sight to behold. The results: Light water cells demonstrate a heat output slightly less (absolutely consistent with theory) than electrical energy input due to the endothermic H20-> H2 + 0 reaction. The Heavy water cells begin with exactly the same result as the light water cells...then after 30 to 60 hours the heat production goes up from the endothermically depressed value, through the break even value that one would have if no gas was being evolved, past this point into an excess (above electrical input) value by about 12%. Later in his talk he says that the excess heat has continued to climb with time and showed the excess heat graph with a penciled in point from data taken the previous day with 22% excess heat shown. Finally, in a coup de gras, he showed the result for a "good" Pd rod that had been taken out of service, exposed to "wet air" and put back in. It no longer had an associated excess heat but returned to light water depressed values. I am sold, completely. I now have just to come to grips with my feelings about F&P. I am so happy they discoverd this, I am so mad that they have made life miserable for us by not divulging all these factors of which they must already know some, I will be so happy when their caginess locks the Cold Fusion industry with the good ole USA. David Cyganski Worcester Polytechnic Institute cudkeys: cuddy28 cudencyganski cudfnDavid cudlnCyganski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.26 / Bob Pendleton / Cold fission? Originally-From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Cold fission? Date: 26 May 89 22:38:23 GMT Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah As I understand it, and I'm certainly no expert, one possible explanation for cold fusion is that a situation is created in which there is no quantum difference between 2 D atoms and the highly excited results of the fusion of those 2 atoms. Since the fused results are more stable, less energy tied up as mass, the fusion takes place. Does this imply the possiblity of creating a situation in which there is no quantum difference between a massive atom and a number of highly excited atoms with masses near that of iron? Could we, for example, induce cadmium or thulium to fission into iron? Is catalytic fission possible? Bob P. P.S. Please don't tell me about neutron mediated chain reactions in uranium, and plutonium or the spontaneous fission of californium. I know about those.-- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / John Moore / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 28 May 89 14:45:19 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: ] ]It is important to note that the tamu experiment did NOT show that the ]heat effect disappeared with NaOD, it was cut by a factor of 10. ] ]Reference back to appleby's slides shows this very clearly. A comments: Yes - Appleby's slide does show this, however, I'm not sure how accurately one can interpret these slides - I think they are hand drawn. Also, if you compare them, you will see a discrepancy between the first "positive" slide and the rest... In the first positive one, there appears to be a delay of 10-20 hours after the current is increased before the excess heat appears. In the rest, the excess heat appears instantly. Do we take this literally also? -- 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: cuddy28 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Chuck Sites / BH2++ the experiment (long) Originally-From: chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: BH2++ the experiment (long) Date: 29 May 89 05:13:26 GMT Organization: Copper Electronics, Louisville, Ky. First, I appoligize for the crude-ness of my last posting. Lets just say that I had trouble with an editor (vi to be exact). The resulting chaos that arose caused me post a roughed out version and trash my final version. There were several mistakes in that posting which were not caught. For example the molecule is not BH2--. It's BH2++. The electron orbitals for boron are 1s2 2s2 and 2p1, not s2 p2 and one lone d. Most embarrasing. Grrrrrr. The actual experiments I've run are uncontrolled, and very simplistic in nature. I'm posting these for amusement of the NET. They are basement physics experiements, so beware. Let me explain where the desire to perform these experiments came from and the reasoning behind it. During the first weeks of the F&P anouncement, Paul Dietz posted an idea for a nuclear process; Li7+p->2He4 + energy, to expain the F&P experiement. That seemed a pretty interesting thought so maybe a B11+p->C12 could be done as well, specifically in a material which was catalytic in nature (Ni, Pd, Pt, ect.). Since the electric potential near the D-layer of an electrolytic process can reach, near 10 million to a billion volts / cm, I had to wonder if near the surface of the electrodes we might have a small proton accellarator? (reference: Theories of Electrode Processes, by Conway). Of coarse, if this is the case, could transmutations of surface elements be occuring?. Doubtful, but with such a large P.D. and an ionic pressures reaching near 50000atm, one would expect all sorts of interesting and possibly rare reactions to occur. In reviewing some chem books I found that borax was not only a good source of boron, but also has uses as a flux for nickel based solder: /\ Na B O * 10H O + NiO == 2NaBO + Ni(BO ) + 10H O 2 4 7 2 2 2 2 2 Of interest was the Ni(BO ) compound. Since the initial idea was B11+p -> C12 2 2 I was hoping that B+ would form at the Ni cathode, and protons liberated from the solution by electrolysis would bombard the boron atoms, and fuse. (Yeah right, fat chance, but this was only a week after the F&P experiment, so I was willing to believe anything.) This lead to some quick experiments, which I describe here. As it turned out, some of the results suprised me. For example, the capacitance, and current stored in some of the cells I made seems huge for what little material was involved. In other words there are some pretty interesting battery effects which may be worth pursuing in thier own right. The battery effect also indicates that some fairly polarized ionic compounds are formed. After reviewing papers posted to the net by Koonin, Horowitz, and others, along with calculations for the binding energies of boron, it became clear that B11+p->C12 + binding energy, was pretty far fetched. What is clear from the papers by Koonin is that catalyzed fusion by mediation of a third body has a definate potential for success. In the case of muon catalyzed fusion, the large mass of the muon with respect to electron results in tightly coupled muo-molecule with hydrogen orbiting the muon. The overlap of the wave functions results in the potential for tunneling. The question then, is how to devlope a molecule where a similar overlap could occur. This lead me to wonder if two hydrogen atoms could share the 3P electron of boron in a tri-body coavalt bond, and whether this could result the tightly coulpled conditions necessary for CF. The molecule would be BH2++. When Paul posted the rumor that boron was a component of the Pd rods, I just had to post this idea. From outward appearances it would seem that a B2H++ molecule would be highly unstable, and not occur naturally. However, under an electric field, specifically near the D-layer of the electrodes, and by mediation from nearby ions, formation of BH2++ seems possible, although probably short lived as a transiant compond. I guess the question I'm asking the NET is this: Can 2 protons share a 3P electron, and could this result in a quantum interaction necessary for the H nucli to over-come the coulomb barrier and fuse? In the same line of thought, could an outer electron of Pd be shared by 2 duetrium nucli and create a potential for cold-fusion? Also, if such a bond could form, wouldn't electron-nucli interactions cause selection of the fusion path favoring charged particles over neutral particles? Ie. D + D -> T + p and exclude such processes as D + p -> He3, and D + D -> He4. Along the same line of thought wouldn't there be a correspoding change in the quantum state of the electron resulting from the change of the rest-mass? On to the "basement experiments". These experiments are just for amusement only. I really don't like to call these experiments. Actually they are better called gross observations. I don't want to imply that these observations have anything to do with the previous speculations regarding B2H++, but the connection with boron does exist. I've ran the following tests: In petrea dishes (2 1/2Inch by 1/2inch) filled with 15Ml of distilled H2O and 1.5 gm of borax combinations of Ni & Cu electrodes were used. ('Heat' indicates a rise from 20C to 50C Minimum) Quick Results show: == D/C 10v@1.5mA == == A/C 60Hz 18V@1.5mA == (+) (-) Ni - Ni (Ni Heat, Salts on Ni) Ni - Ni (Heat) Ni - Cu (Ni Heat, Salts on Ni) Ni - Cu (Cu heat) Cu - Ni (Salts on Cu+) Cu - Ni (Cu heat) Cu - Cu (Salts on Cu+) Cu - Cu The first of these experiments began in haste so, trust me, I had no idea how funny this would sound in explaining why I chose the electrodes that I did. Quick what's a fair source of nickel? A good 5 cent piece is, so I used that. Next, I wanted to run a control experiment to verify the reaction with nickel, so I choose copper. Quick, what has copper? Old pennies made before 1982. (I can hear the chuckles in the back there..) Seriously though, when properly cleaned, and shaped, they make good disk electrodes. They are all the same size, shape, mass and are consistanly pure (or pure enough for the effect I was looking for at that time) and very available. Using a transformer based variable voltage power-supply, the DC voltage supplied was 10v @ 1.5mA. For the AC experiments, 18V @ 1.5mA @ 60Hz was supplied. C-shaped disk electrodes were made by cutting slits with a saw about 1/8 inch from the center line on both sides and cutting 5/8 inches down. These tabs were then bent up 90 degrees where the wires were fastened with aligator clips resulting in a C-shaped electrode. The first experiment was nickel - nickel. Blue salts are formed on the positive electrode indicating that a borate compound had formed. After about an hour or so, black salts began to form. Of course hydrogen, and oxygen are released. After 3 to 4 days, most of the blue borate compond will disappear leaving black salts, of Ni(BO2)2 (I assume). The negative electrode collected a thin layer of brown-pink salts while emersed after a few days. The anode heats up significantly when the black salts formed. The copper-copper suprised me initially because copper appeared just as reactive as nickel to the electrolized borate soup. Blue salts are formed on the anode, which remain blue even after several days. However, after 2 days of electrolyzing, the cathode breaks down, releasing some brown salts. Now here is where it got interesting. After turning off the power-supply I noticed some residual charge in this small dish. The voltage output from the electrolyzed soup was 6Volts at nearly an Amp! That would indicate that the electrolysis had caused massive polariztion of charge carring salts to deposit on electrodes. No heat was produced, but it did make a pretty strong battery. Electodes of the nickel-copper, copper-nickel combinations were tried. The Cu cathode/Ni anode produced heat on the Ni anode side. From 20C TO 60C in about 1hr. The heat appears when the black salt form. It took about 3hr to evaporate 15ml of H2O. The A/C experiments are interesting. The Ni-Ni, Ni-Cu, Cu-Ni combinations all generate heat, however, in the Ni-Cu, Cu-Ni combinations, it was the copper that generates heat, not Nickel! The heat seems a little higher too. 20C to about 80C in 3hrs. no salts appear to form, and very, very little gasses evolve. However, the nickel shows some discolorization at the tips of the C-shaped electrodes. Because the Cu electrodes seem to be the source of heat, it throughs a strange twist into the idea of a chemical evolution of heat. But since Ni-Ni also generates heat, and Cu-Cu does not, it sugjests that a Ni-B compound is a component of the source of heat. A control run of all experiments A/C & D/C with pure H2O showed no heat from any combination of electrodes. ========================================================================= Conclusions: Since Ni seems to be involved in all heat evolving systems I suspect the the source of heat is the chemical formation of Ni(BO2)2 and since the chemical equation for borax as a flux requires heat to evolve, I suspect a process under electrolysis, where Ni(BO2)2 is formed releasing heat. Ohmic (resistive) heating is possible since there are obviously metalic salts formed. However, why do none of the Cu-Cu combinations produce heat? Because of this I think resistive heating can be ruled out. This leaves chemical heat or some other process. Wild speculation time: If the heat (or some heat) is due to a fusion process, It would have to be as follows: p + p -> D + beta(+) + 0.42Mev. Formation of a molecule BH2++ under electrolysis seem a plausable. The way I see it, the only way this molecule could form is under electrolysis. A compound like BH2++ where hydrogen shared the one-3p orbital electron looks like it would force the hydrogen together. Thus, If a tri-body covalent bond is possible in a charged field, I suspect that it has the potential for CF to occur. Because of heat results from these gross observations, maybe these experiment is worth pursuing in a formal setting. However, before you rush and try D2O, try H2O first. If the heat can be explained as ohmic, or chemical heating, don't waste the D2O. ------ Cathode ----- ----- Cathode ----- ----- Cathode ----- (+H) (+H) (+H +H) (+D) (+beta) \ / | \ / (B) (B) (B) ++++++ Anode ++++++ +++++ Anode ++++++ +++++ Anode ++++++ Regardless, I've convinced myself that the mechanism which causes cold fusion is a similar to the BH2++ idea and is perhaps more plausable considering the number of electrons, and bonding combinations that exist. The idea is that an outer electron of palladium allows two hydrogen atoms to form a tri-body bond, and the erratic three body coloumb interaction causes hydrogen to approach each other and fuse. However, because of the coloumb interactions between the fusing hydrogen atoms and the electron orbitals, the fusion process would be selective towards a result that retains charge. Thus the idea is: ------ Cathode ----- ----- Cathode ----- ----- Cathode ----- (+D) (+D) (+D +D) (+T) (+p) \ / | \ / (Pd) (Pd) (Pd) ++++++ Anode ++++++ +++++ Anode ++++++ +++++ Anode ++++++ Since the results for H2O with palladium have been dudes when compared to D2O, perhaps the H elements are too light to allow the three-body coloumb interactions. That is, the selection of H+H-> D + beta(+), where the beta(+) is excluded by it's spin, makes the process difficult. End speculation. I predict that excitement of cold fusion will grow significantly in the coming months as the real physics of this phenomenon is developed and discoveries made. I sure wish I had more of a theoretical physics background right now. It would be fun. chuck@coplex ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . Chuck Sites | mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck . . . o o o o chuck@coplex | ATT: (502)-968-8495 WRK: 968-8495 o o o o O O O O O Philosophy: I'm willing to nogotia for a good .signature O O O O O ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / Dave Mack / Re: Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Date: 28 May 89 18:50:51 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > >In article <3641@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) writes: > If they used a cocktail, did they neutralize it? If so, how? > >this should only be necessary at low count rates. at 10^6 per minute, >you begin to worry more about counter saturation. This worries me a bit. The point that Lewis made was that LiOD will react with the scintillation cocktail and produce scintillations that the PM can't distinguish from tritium decay. Even F&P neutralized their electrolyte with potassium hydrogen phthalate before adding it to the cocktail. How do you know that that 10**6 dpm level is actually due to tritium and not to chemical reactions with the electrolyte? > > The most obvious is through failure to properly neutralize the > electrolyte before adding it to the scintillation cocktail, as > Lewis accused several of the groups who detected excess heat of > doing. In an open cell calorimeter, the concentration of salt on > the electrolyte will increase as water is removed. Neutralization > must either be done based on the measured pH of the electrolyte or > immediately after replenishing the cell to its original volume with > heavy water. It can't be done based on volume of electrolyte and > the initial pH of the electrolyte. > >lewis had no objection to these tritium measurements. these >measurements were duplicated at lanl and general motors. This is a very hopeful sign, but I still wish they'd neutralized the electrolyte. >here is the table appleby presented: > >**************** > >- 7 out of 9 palladium wire cathodes (0.1 cm diameter, 4 cm in length) >yielded tritium in solution. > >- palladium cathodes charged at 60 ma/cm2 for 2 weeks > >- cathodes maintained for 6-8 hours at 500 ma/cm2 > >solution sample no. disintegrations/min/ml >---------------------------------------------------------------- > 1 2.0 x 10^6 > 2 4.8 x 10^6 > 3 3.6 x 10^6 > 4 2.2 x 10^6 > 5 3.6 x 10^4 > 6 2.4 x 10^4 > 7 6.3 x 10^4 > Blank LiOD 210 Did anyone offer an explanation for the factor of 100 difference between runs 1-4 and runs 5-7? -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy28 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.28 / James_J_Kowalc / Latest Quotes of Pons in SLC Press Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Latest Quotes of Pons in SLC Press Date: 28 May 89 22:40:58 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) The following is an article from the Deseret News, Sunday, May 28, 1989. The Article is entitled "U.S. fusion panel cancels plans to view U. research" and was written by JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells, Deseret News science writer. The article is Copyright 1989, Deseret News. The Deseret News is published daily by the Deseret News Publishing Company, Salt Lake City, Utah. I am these reproducing these portions of the article without permission. [start of article] A panel organized by the U.S. Department of Energy to evaluate -- and possibly fund -- fusion experiments throughout the United States has canceled a visit to the University of Utah where the fusion fury was ignited nine weeks ago. The visit, scheduled Wednesday, was canceled after fusion researcher B. Stanley Pons told the panel co-chairman, John Huizenga, a University of Rochester professor of nuclear chemistry, to change the makeup of the "negatively biased" committee or stay out of his U. laboratories. "I have refused to entertain this committee for several reasons," Pons told the Deseret News. "I see this visit as a waste of valuable time, since many of these panel members have already clearly stated their positions. I feel there is little one can say to a hostile person that will change his mind." Pons said he and co-researcher Martin Fleischmann think the panel on cold fusion was "organized in a manner that can only lead to a negative and non-objective report on the state of cold and solid-state fusion" in the United States. "It is disappointing that the committee is composed of so many members who have previously stated their very negative position in the press regarding this research," he said. "The most notable of these are Richard Garwin (IBM fellow), Steve Koonin (University of California at Santa Barbara) and Mark Wrighton (head of the chemistry department at MIT)." Pons, a U. chemistry professor, said he and Fleischmann, of Britain's Southampton University, have "only allowed reputable, sincere scientific collaborators into these labs and will continue to do so." Pons said the committee may "label this decision as 'uncooperative.' But we see that the vote has already been cast and counted. We do not believe in voting on the validity and interpretation of scientific data and will not purposely subject ourselves to such a vote." Because of worldwide interest in cold fusion, triggered by the announcement of the Pons-Fleischmann research March 23, the DOE has intensified its fusion research. Last week in Santa Fe, N.M., more than 500 scientists gathered at a DOE-sponsored workshop to discuss cold fusion and its potential as a new energy source. In Santa Fe the 20-member cold fusion panel solidified plans to visit the U. The trip was nixed after Pons expressed his concerns to Huizenga regarding the panel's makeup. "He was very understanding and sensitive to these points; he admitted that my perceptions regarding the composition of the panel were correct: some very open-minded individuals, such as Allen Bard, University of Texas, and William Happer, Princeton, some very negatively biased individuals and no positively biased individuals," Pons said. Pons said he porposed a visit could be arranged if the committee would agree to either of the following conditions: dismiss the negatively biased people from the panel or add an equal number of positively biased scientists. He recommended adding John Bockris, John Appleby or Subramanian Srinivasan of Texas A&M University; Robert A. Huggins, Stanford University; Uziel Landau, Case Western Reserve University; or scientists from some of the international labs that have confirmed the Pons-Fleischmann experiment. Or, Pons or Fleischmann himself. Huizenga's response? Pons was notified Friday the committee's visit to the U. had been canceled. In a telephone interview with the Deseret News on Friday, Huizenga would give no specific reason for the cancellation other than to say that "with Memorial Day in the midst, we weren't able to make all the proper connections." Huizenga said the committee plans to continue to investigate the subject of cold fusion and that "it is not out of the question to come to Utah between now and July." That's when the panel has to provide an interim report to Energy Secretary James Watkins. A final report is due by mid-November. One committee member said he is sympathetic to Pons' concerns. "He is certainly taking a lot of flak and I can certainly understand that he would feel this way," said Happer, professor of physics at Princeton. "Personally I know the people on the board and they wanted to go there (the U.) to learn. I don't think the other committee members have made up their minds, but there is a lot of scepticism." Nonetheless, Happer said most committee members "would be delighted if this (U. claims) were true, but many other labs are having difficulty reproducing the work. "It is still possible he is right and people don't realize what it takes to make the experiment work," Happer said. Pons said Saturday that he's even more convinced fusion is taking place in his U. lab. "The newest results are very strong and indeed confirm and surpass our earlier results," he said. "These data and their analysis will be published later this summer in scientific literature. In addition, we are developing collaborations with reputable scientists who will help us with the rapid development of the fundamental aspects and practical applications of this work." Pons is displeased that the committee canceled its visit rather than negotiate with Fleischmann and him. "It appears that the people who would benefit most by this work being discredited have again taken the initiative to cause us great difficulty," he said. "I am pleased to tell you that they might cause us difficulty, but they will not stop the science." Happer believes Pons is right on that account. A recommendation -- pro or con -- by the government committee, Happer said, won't faze private industry. "If it's right, they (Pons and Fleischmann) don't need much (government) money," he said. "If industry really thinks it's right, they could care less what the U.S. government thinks." Happer added, "It's much too important to industry to worry about what a stupid government committee says. Most companies don't take Washington as seriously as Washington takes itself." Happer and other committee members admitted the obvious: It will be difficult to evaluate and report on the U. experiments without seeing them. Happer said the committee plans to visit Stanford and Texas A&M, which have duplicated parts of the Utah experiment. We'd like it (the U. experiment) to be true, but we want to know what the truth is," Happer said. ...[end of aritcle] The following is a related article in the May 28, 1989, Deseret News. It is entitled "U. backs decision." No credit is given to a specific author, but I assume it is also Copyright 1989, Deseret News. I am reproducing this article without permission. [start of article] While the University of Utah would welcome a visit by the Department of Energy's panel on cold fusion, a U. official said Saturday that he respects the decision made by B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann not to allow the committee in their lab. "When we were asked if the committee could come, we said, 'Of course,'" said James J. Brophy, U. vice president for research. Brophy said the committee was anxious to visit the U. campus before Fleischmann returned to England, where he's professor of electrochemistry at the University of Southampton. Brophy was notified Thursday of the committee's decision to cancel the trip. Friday, however, he said there was a note on his desk saying that the committee chairman had again called. "I assume that he is trying to arrange for another visit later in the month. Other faculty members have indicated their willingness to meet with the committee," Brophy said. "I respect Dr. Pons' and Dr. Fleischmann's individual positions." ...[end of article] I am posting this mainly because of the quotes by Pons, for the benefit of net readers not in the Salt Lake City area who might not be seeing quotes by him in the press on a regular basis. Any typos are likely mine. Jim Kowalczyk Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Paul Dietz / Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Date: 29 May 89 11:26:17 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <2486@wpi.wpi.edu> cyganski@wpi.wpi.edu (David Cyganski) writes: >His [preparation] technique: Melt, re-melt, re-melt .... re-melt, up to ten >times, the Pd in a highly pure aluminum crucible with an electric arc ^^^^^^^^ No, he used a water-cooled copper platen. An aluminum crucible would be about as useful as a square wheel, given aluminum's low melting point. Does argon dissolve in molten palladium? >This sample is then transported to the calorimetry cell with care to >not expose it to "wet air" to prevent picking up any H. The cell itself >is capped with Argon rather than air and Argon is flushed through the >cell to continuously remove evolved gasses. >The D2O that is used is also very pure or else again H may infiltrate >the Pd. I thought the cell was flushed with dry nitrogen, not argon; there is no reason to use argon at room temperature. Also, I don't think it is important to keep the Pd electrode away from "wet air"; the point is to keep the wet air away from the heavy water, since water vapor exchanged with the atmosphere will quickly contaminate it with light water. (The electrolyte would also react with atmospheric CO2.) Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy29 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Ted Dunning / Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: partial summary of santa fe workshop (long) Date: 29 May 89 14:22:14 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <65@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: Yes - Appleby's slide does show this, however, I'm not sure how accurately one can interpret these slides - I think they are hand drawn. I believe that they were drawn by a computer directly from the raw data and then laser printed. the chart strip that appleby show was just a backup. (i think). Also, if you compare them, you will see a discrepancy between the first "positive" slide and the rest... In the first positive one, there appears to be a delay of 10-20 hours after the current is increased before the excess heat appears. In the rest, the excess heat appears instantly. Do we take this literally also? i think so. there was also a strong difference in the precharging profile. cudkeys: cuddy29 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Dave Mack / Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Date: 29 May 89 16:33:25 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <2486@wpi.wpi.edu> cyganski@wpi.wpi.edu (David Cyganski) writes: [Re Huggins' method for preparing electrodes.] >His preperation technique: Melt, re-melt, re-melt .... re-melt, up to ten >times, the Pd in a highly pure aluminum crucible with an electric arc ^^^^^^^^ I think we can safely assume that this should read "alumina", not aluminum. Aluminum melts at 660 C, Pd at 1552 C. Thanks for posting this summary, David. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy29 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Gregory Shippen / Utah <-> LANL coop. cancelled? Originally-From: gshippen@pollux.usc.edu (Gregory Shippen) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Utah <-> LANL coop. cancelled? Date: 29 May 89 18:27:36 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I spoke with my brother in Utah last Sunday night. He tells me that the cooperative agreement between UU and LANL fell through in spite of the comments made by Mr. Brophy at the Santa Fe workshop. Can any one confirm this? Anybody from Utah listening on Memorial Day? Gregory B. Shippen gshippen@pollux.usc.edu University of Southern California ****************************************************************************** cudkeys: cuddy29 cudengshippen cudfnGregory cudlnShippen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Winston Edmond / Re: BH2++ the experiment Originally-From: wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: BH2++ the experiment Date: 29 May 89 20:06:25 GMT Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge, MA In article <587@coplex.UUCP> chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) writes: >Quick what's a fair source of nickel? A good 5 cent piece is, >so I used that. In Canada, yes. In the U.S., no. If memory serves, the U.S. nickel contains very little nickel and is mostly copper. Nickel is magnetic, too. You can pick up a Canadian nickel with a magnet, but not a U.S. nickel. > Next, I wanted to run a control experiment to verify the >reaction with nickel, so I choose copper. Quick, what has copper? Old >pennies made before 1982. (I can hear the chuckles in the back there..) Pre-1982 pennies are 95% copper and 5% zinc. Post-1982 pennies are 95% zinc and 5% copper. Zinc's high electronegativity makes it useful for anti-corrosion protection -- it corrodes first, thus affording protection to whatever it's connected to. This might have contributed to some of the salts you found. Also, with a good electrolyte and some charging, zinc and copper can act as a good battery. -WBE cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenwbe cudfnWinston cudlnEdmond cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / David Cyganski / Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Originally-From: cyganski@wpi.wpi.edu (David Cyganski) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Date: 29 May 89 21:08:31 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA. USA Dietz and Mack have noted errors in my original posting that I would like to verify. I have now re-played the tape of the Huggins' talk and found that Dietz and Mack were correct and can only blame my "punchiness" after having watched about 15 hours of workshop tapes for the errors. Sorry. Corrections: The Huggins' crucible was a water cooled copper crucible. I'd like to add here an observation that I didn't make in the original summary: Huggins used the arc emissions as a means to monitor the Pd purity during this melting/purification/casting process. While Argon was used as an atmosphere in the arc purification/casting system, the electrolysis cell was kept in a nitrogen box, not an argon box. Also noteworthy was that emphasis was placed on not exposing the cell contents to "wet air". On re-listening to this I believe that Dietz is correct that the emphasis was not on isolating the Pd sample as much as the D20 soup from exposure. Again, if you haven't seen this talk, do so! I think it was the most important talk on this workshop and by far the best on the topic of F&P heat producing fusion. It's convinced everyone I have shown it to so far that F&P class heat effects are true. David Cyganski Worcester Polytechnic Institute cudkeys: cuddy29 cudencyganski cudfnDavid cudlnCyganski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Michael Brooks / Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Originally-From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Date: 29 May 89 22:02:18 GMT Distribution, A mail note from Dale Bass made me realize that I have been less than careful with my discussion of charged He and its energy losses. According to the "range distribution" data I cited in my last post, a 30MeV He (alpha) could escape to the Pd surface from an interior generation site (at which the CNF event occurred) if it was less than 0.627 mm deep. It would not escape if deeper because it's energy would be drained away by processes that do not produce gammas---necessarily. The processes are: "The interactions are usually separated in binary elastic collisons with the screened nuclei of the target atoms, and inelastic collisions with the entire electron system of the target." [from U.Littmark and JF. Ziegler, Range Distributions for energetic Ions in All Elements, see my last post] Put another way by Chu, Mayer and Nicolet [see last time also], p.39: "For the light projectile atoms and the energy range of interest to back- scattering spectrometry, the two dominant processes of energy loss are the interactions of the moving ion with the bound electrons or free electrons in the target [Bethe-Bloch ionization losses and electronic "frictional" losses respectively], and the interactions of the moving ion with the screened or unscreened nuclei of the target atoms [nuclear stopping]. The nuclear stopping is less important at higher energies but actually causes the particle to come to rest after it has lost much KE; it is not equal to a nuclear collision of high energy. Instead, it may be thought of as a series of "small angle scattering collisions of the projectile with the atomic nuclei of the target." All of these processes are "electrostatic in nature" and compete with higher energy processes to reduce a particles` energy. They do not produce gammas, though other excitations such as xrays can result (as well as Auger processes). Some of the other processes that compete are 1. Primary Gamma Emission (instead of a high energy particle from the CNF event) leading to a whole variety of things including the pair-production<-->gamma reemission mentioned last time. This is the "cascade" producing phenomena that should be readily detectable. 2. Radiation Loss of Electrons: if high energy electrons are produced at some point in the process following CNF, then bremsstrahlung radiative process become important. According to Perkins (Introduction to High Energy Physics, 3rd Ed., 1987, Addison-Wesley), pp 42-45; E(subc) = 600/Z [in MeV] describes a critical Energy Ec where the rate of ionization losses (Bethe-Bloch again) are equaled by high energy photon losses due to the bremsstrahlung. For Z = 46 (Pd), this is 13 MeV. 3. Gamma Ray Attenuation: through one of three processes (mentioned two posts ago), photoelectric absorption, Compton scattering and pair production. The latter is dominant for E>10MeV (see before). 4. Direct nuclear collisions or reactions: my catch all group for all sorts of high energy products. These might be created from the collision of a high speed particle, like an alpha, with Pd nuclei encountered closely enough so that the strong forces play a role in energy loss. This is distinctly not an elastic process, unlike the "nuclear stopping" referred to above. This is far from a complete list, and I wish someone with an atomic physics background would elaborate on it, as I am getting out of my field of expertise. However, with this in mind some conclusions can be drawn: * For high energy alphas, much if not most of the energy loss comes from the "electrostatic-like" mechanisms described initially. The cross-sections for the processes are large in the energy regimes of interest. As far as "channeling" of particles is concerned---it won`t happen in a poly- crystalline material. The ranges are fairly large anyway. Paul Deitz mentioned the problem of directionality; meaning that if some alphas go out of the Pd, others must go in. This is a valid point, yet IF the only processes are these, it makes no difference whether they go in or out, a gamma free process may (Note, may) result. One could look for xrays and embedded He (via SIMS) to help check on whether alphas are important or not. * The cross-sections for the competing processes 1-4 above are not negligible---indeed 1 may be the central CNF energy loss means---so radiation of some sort of gammas is very probable. A brief calculation for attenuation of 13MeV electrons shows that these can reduce their energy to 1/e of the initial value in ~0.8cm through bremsstrahlung (Perkins, pg. 43 Eqn 2.14, radiation length guessed at ~8-10 g/cm^2, see Table 2.2). Lots of radiative possibilities there. Likewise, 10MeV gammas can reduce their energy to 1/e of initial via pair production in 1.6cm (as above, Eqn 2.16); this too would lead to visible gammas within the physical thicknesses of cathodes being used, assuming a cascade mechanism took place. I havn`t even tried to address 4, and really can`t since I lack the experience and knowledge. In fact we already know that 4 is important based on neutron detection studies done by the Frascati group and verified by others (including LANL). In summary, we can account for a reduced gammas emission by invoking high energy alpha emission as part of the energy loss occuring during CNF. Other effects should be detected if this is occurring. We cannot account for a near complete absence of gammas by this mechanism. Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Lab (solid state)/SU MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Absence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of absence." cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Henry Spencer / Re: What is THIS?! Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What is THIS?! Date: 29 May 89 19:33:08 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <13769@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >7. The US Patent officer who is processing F&P's application. > > He/she is terrified by the prospects of going down in history as > either (a) the idiot who issued a patent for the most absurd > energy-from-nothing idea ever... I doubt it. The Patent Office issues patents for lots of absurd things. (About the only thing they balk at is perpetual-motion machines, for which they have a policy of wanting to see a working model first.) -- Van Allen, adj: pertaining to | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / John Moore / Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Date: 29 May 89 03:41:28 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <1989May28.102019.16101@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: ]A common complaint about the fusion hypothesis is the lack of ]gammas. Charged particles should make gammas by coulomb excitation. ] ] ]Suppose FPH's cathode is making (say) 10 watts of heat. Let's say ]fusion output actually occurs in 1 microsecond, 10 MW bursts once ]every second. A NaI detector (such as they used) can detect at most ] ]If burstiness is keeping FPH from seeing all the radiation, they should ]be careful -- they may be exposed to more radiation than they think. ]I hope they are wearing those radiation monitoring badges. If they were really getting 10 MW bursts every second, they would be thoroughly dead by now! -- 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: cuddy29 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Alan Curtis / Re: Fusion From Electronic Excitation? Originally-From: apc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Alan P. Curtis) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion From Electronic Excitation? Date: 30 May 89 02:22:02 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <1989May27.080536.6654@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: }The Sante Fe results made me take another look at possible fusion }mechanisms. } }-- There is no reason why the high Z element has to be in a solid. } Try gaseous mixtures of roughly equal molar amounts of xenon and } deuterium compressed to high density. Other choice would } be krypton, argon, mercury, alkalis and perhaps deuterium halides. ----- } Instead of a strong pressure vessel, one might want to try } compressing the gas using explosives. Dint't I hear that someone prepared the Pd by melting in an argon atmosphere? Interesting thoughts about the Pd having argon in it spring to ming... } Paul F. Dietz } dietz@cs.rochester.edu -- Alan P. Curtis | AT&T Bell Labs | apc@cblpe.ATT.COM cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenapc cudfnAlan cudlnCurtis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Scott Mueller / Tritium measurements in cold fusion Originally-From: scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Tritium measurements in cold fusion Date: 30 May 89 15:21:27 GMT Organization: Zorch Public-Access Unix; San Jose, CA Ted Dunning (ted@nmsu.edu) writes (in part): = If the excess = heat depends not only on the chemical composition but the isotopic = composition of the electrolyte, we're seeing something very weird = happening. = =good point. = = This suggests that it might be amusing to try an electrolyte made from = isotopically pure Li-6. From a safe distance, naturally. = =apparently the li6 is on order now. I can't speak for the rest of the country (the many criticisms of negative but forthright experiments notwithstanding), but we have tried using pure Li-6 as the supporting electrolyte in a PF&H type cell. We saw absolutely nothing. Of course, we were doing nuclear measurements, not heat. But then, nuclear measurements are the only way to check the fusion hypothesis. = If the loading is the ratio (D atoms)/(Pd atoms), then the Pons claim = is indeed extraordinary, since a loading of 1.0 corresponds to 1263 = volumes of D2, in comparison to the published maximum of 800-900 volumes = for H2. = =it is D/Pd in terms of atoms. Just for completeness, our loadings were circa .7-.8 D/Pd. Similar numbers obtained for pure H/Pd. Dave Mack (csu@alembic.ACS.COM) poses many good questions about tritium. Here are my two cents worth. =The second is more subtle and would be present regardless of the care =taken in the measurement *if* something someone posted a long time ago =is correct. Specifically, someone stated that tritium electrolyzes more =slowly than the lighter hydrogen isotopes. If this is true, and the heavy =water used contains tritium, then the tritium content in a cell will =gradually increase with time. I have no idea how quickly the concentration =will increase because I don't know the rate of evolution with respect to =deuterium. Obviously, this is not relevant in closed cell calorimetry. Tritium in heavy water is a difficult measurement. It can vary from about one microcurie per liter (the lowest number I've seen commercially available) on up. One also has to worry about tritium loading of the Pd from earlier solutions (use a hot solution once, and you've got a hot electrode!). And... the mobility of T and D are different enough in Pd that it can used to separate the two isotopes. Howard L. Hall HLHall @ LBL.gov Lawrence Berkeley Lab -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 298-6213 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Jim Howard / New energy outputs, new statistics? Originally-From: silver@cup.portal.com (Jim B Howard) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: New energy outputs, new statistics? Date: 29 May 89 22:25:23 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) I remember people typing up statistics on how economical a fusion reactor would be, given the limited world supply of palladium, and based mainly on the original reports of 4x energy output. I remember reading numerous places that P&F may have reached 100x energy output since the original announcment, and I've even heard a few rumors that they are "aiming" for 1000x output. Could someone hypothesize on the feasability of fusion power for the world based on 100x energy output? 1000x ? Yeah, this is idle speculation, but after the recent barrage of actual scientific discussion (gasp!), I couldnt resist. cudkeys: cuddy29 cudensilver cudfnJim cudlnHoward cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.29 / Mark Thorson / Re: BH2++ the experiment (long) Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: BH2++ the experiment (long) Date: 29 May 89 23:38:16 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) If I'm not mistaken, U.S. 5-cent pieces contain little or no nickel. I believe Canadian 5-cent pieces do contain nickel. With regard to electrode effects near the surface of the electrode, keep in mind that a thin film of the electrolyte remains tightly bound to the electrode. These "unstirred layers" explain a number of phenomena such as why scale builds up in water pipes rather than being washed away. For an example of how unstirred layers may affect the distribution of charge near the surface of an electrode, you might want to look up some recent papers on mitochondrial membranes, where these layers are quite important (you might start by looking in the biological abstracts under the name Ephriam Racker). cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Paul Dietz / Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Date: 30 May 89 12:58:23 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <66@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >If they were really getting 10 MW bursts every second, they would >be thoroughly dead by now! Why? That's 10 MW, 1 microsecond bursts of *heat*. The radiation we are talking about (coulomb gammas) would be much less. I was not proposing this as a mechanism to hide *neutrons*; indeed, detecting neutrons by thermalizing them would smear the pulse to perhaps 1 millisecond. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy30 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Prem Sobel / Re: Cold fission? (in Plants!?!) Originally-From: prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fission? (in Plants!?!) Date: 30 May 89 14:21:16 GMT Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA In article <1282@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: > >As I understand it, and I'm certainly no expert, one possible >explanation for cold fusion is that a situation is created in which >there is no quantum difference between 2 D atoms and the highly >excited results of the fusion of those 2 atoms. This weekend I was reading the new 1989 edition of the paperback "The Secret Life of Plants". Since we are opening the doors of exploration, to different fusion mechanisms, it well worth examining the reported experiments which show that living plants have been measured to use fusion to manufacture mineral elements that they need but that are not otherwise available to them. Prem cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Michael McClary / Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Date: 30 May 89 13:40:54 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <1989May28.102019.16101@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > > If the power production is very bursty, rather than continuous, the > sensitivity of the gamma detector may be severely degraded due to > pileup and detector dead time. > >There is some evidence (Frascatti & such) that neutron output is >bursty. Perhaps the same mechanism, at higher power levels, is at >work in FPH's experiment. > >[...] > >If burstiness is keeping FPH from seeing all the radiation, they should >be careful -- they may be exposed to more radiation than they think. >I hope they are wearing those radiation monitoring badges. Also, if the gammas are emitted in preferred directions or in laser-style coherent beams, even the film badges would give false negative readings unless hit dead-on (and perhaps even then). Again, I ask, will someone PLEASE run one of these cells in a scintillation bath, preferably with a single-crystal palladium sample? (If you're concerned about the cocktail poisoning the nuclear reaction, use a small reaction vessel and mix your cocktail in the surrounding calorimetry bath.) And PLEASE don't sit on the results if it looks like a porcupine, or a crystal suspended on a half-dozen light beams, OK?. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Jon.Webb@cs.cm / Credo Originally-From: Jon.Webb@cs.cmu.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Credo Date: 30 May 89 14:17:18 GMT Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Well, I'm a 100% believer now in cold fusion. I think that Nathan Lewis will come around soon, probably after he starts observing heat production himself, and Steve Koonin will have to eat his words about Pons and Fleischmann being ``incompetent and deluded'' sometime this summer. Surely those words will go down in the history of science as being one of the more remarkably wrong statements ever. The progress of cold fusion belief is pretty interesting. We now seem to be at the point where people are starting to believe, but are blaming Pons and Fleischmann for not telling them everything up front. (The next step is for people to start claiming they knew it all along, all the nastiness is the fault of Pons and Fleischmann, and they themselves are much more qualified (because of all their work in hot fusion) than Pons and Fleischmann to conduct research into cold fusion.) I have a feeling that people that didn't run around making nasty jokes about the University of Utah were a lot more likely to get cooperation from Pons and Fleischmann than those who did. Remember that Pons and Fleischmann had not completely characterized the conditions necessary for cold fusion before all this started, and wanted to wait 18 months before publishing a ``definitive'' paper; and that the multiple labs working on cold fusion since March 23 have helped define the necessary conditions much more rapidly than Pons and Fleischmann could have. Here's some speculation on why D+D->T+P is favored over D+D->He3+N at low temperatures, based on a letter I saw in Nature: the two protons in the deuterium atoms electromagnetically repel each other. This doesn't matter at high temperatures since the reaction happens so quickly, but at low temperatures, as the deuterium ions approach each other, the protons have time to move away from each other, so that it is much more likely that one of them will be expelled when the reaction happens than a neutron will be expelled. So you see a lot of tritium produced and very little helium, hence very few neutrons. -- J cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenWebb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Paul Dietz / Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Date: 30 May 89 16:46:43 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article michael@xanadu.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes: >Also, if the gammas are emitted in preferred directions or in laser-style >coherent beams, even the film badges would give false negative readings >unless hit dead-on (and perhaps even then). Oh no! The Jello Laser strikes again! :-) Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy30 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Paul Dietz / TAMU results Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: TAMU results Date: 30 May 89 17:11:00 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY A previous message from Ted (I think) said that the A&M group determined the D loading of their cathode by direct weighing. I did not tape that talk, so could someone fill in details on this? Specifically: did they determine how much of the weight increase was due to absorbed lithium? Did they drive off the hydrogen isotopes afterwards by heating in a vacuum, and weigh the cathode again? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochster.edu cudkeys: cuddy30 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / William Johnson / Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Date: 30 May 89 15:59:19 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <1989May28.102019.16101@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > A common complaint about the fusion hypothesis is the lack of > gammas. Charged particles should make gammas by coulomb excitation. > > There is, however, a rather mundane explanation for why the gammas may > not have been seen: > > If the power production is very bursty, rather than continuous, the > sensitivity of the gamma detector may be severely degraded due to > pileup and detector dead time. Whether there "should" be gammas is open to debate, but the pile-up argument is quite a good one. Furthermore, it may apply to neutrons as well. The Menlove experiment described at Santa Fe claimed to see bursts of neutrons coming in less than 128 microseconds. NE 213 scintillators, the normal detectors for doing neutron spectroscopy, typically take several microseconds to record events, most of this time coming in digitization and storage of the event. (The purely analog part of the signal processing doesn't take as long.) Pile-up _per se_ may or may not be a problem -- unless the neutrons are only nanoseconds apart, it probably isn't, but on the other hand, Menlove could only say that the bursts were *less* than 128 microseconds long. Loss of events through dead time, on the other hand, is very likely to be a problem, particularly if the burst length really is much less than 128 microseconds. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / William Johnson / Re: Utah <-> LANL coop. cancelled? Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Utah <-> LANL coop. cancelled? Date: 30 May 89 16:33:46 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <17503@usc.edu>, gshippen@pollux.usc.edu (Gregory Shippen) writes: > I spoke with my brother in Utah last Sunday night. He tells me that the > cooperative agreement between UU and LANL fell through in spite of the > comments made by Mr. Brophy at the Santa Fe workshop. Can any one > confirm this? Anybody from Utah listening on Memorial Day? The following is MOST EMPHATICALLY **NOT** an official statement by Los Alamos National Laboratory; it is only about a third-hand retransmission of an impression. Take it with the appropriately sized grain of salt. I am told that the legal impediments have now been resolved, but that the actual agreement will still not be signed for a while. It is claimed that Pons doesn't want to launch the collaboration until Fleischmann is back at Utah, which will occur some time next month. (Why this desire, which is probably reasonable, should interfere with the signing of the agreement is beyond me.) In any event it is not a dead issue, unless there are very recent (i.e., since Friday) developments that I don't know about. *** SOAPBOX MODE ON *** It is bloody well about time that this stuff all get resolved! *** SOAPBOX MODE OFF *** Again, this is NOT an official LANL statement. I'll try to find out if an official statement exists and will pass it along if applicable. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / heuring@boulde / Whither sci.physics.fusion? Originally-From: heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics,news.groups Subject: Whither sci.physics.fusion? Date: 30 May 89 17:57:50 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Isn't the voting period about up on sci.physics.fusion? ---- Vincent Heuring Dep't of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Colorado - Boulder heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenheuring cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Michael Brooks / Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Originally-From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: ptl sum. of st. fe wksp. (off the wall mechanisms) Date: 30 May 89 17:48:16 GMT Organization: Stanford University After re-reading the Agenda for the DOE Workshop on Cold Fusion, and thinking about my last post some interesting speculation comes to mind. I said last time that we could invoke alphas to carry away MeV energies from a CNF event and dissipate them into a polycrystalline material through "electro-static like" interactions. This can occur without gammas IF (it`s a big if too) other processes do not contribute much due to low cross-sections. For example if d + d ---> t + p plus MeV energies instead by 3He or 4He, then by this idea high energy t and p ought to divide the E between them, later to be dissipated. All of the same qualifications (ifs and buts) that apply to the alphas apply to these but consider this: * not much gamma seems to be emitted * some neutrons are observed * not much 3He or 4He seems to be emitted (except the unverified Cheves Walling observations) * some degree of heat is evolved * substantial amounts of tritium are evolved It seems plausible that high energy t and p could be the main mediators of energy loss from a CNF event. These particles can produce nuclear reactions and MeV neutrons under appropriate collision circumstances (we have done this with 2.2MeV protons on PtSix thin films by accident, I believe), and perhaps yield some of the neutron emission observed. Other nuclear processes are not excluded and would compete with this and may produce the effects observed. We require that their probability be lower, however, to account for reduced gamma emission. Ions that get stuck (two isotopes of hydrogen) will diffuse out of the Pd(D) saturated lattice(s) due to a chemical concentration gradient existing across the solid-liquid(electrolyte) interface. Consistent with this mode of energy loss is the necessary emission of some xrays---indeed R.Fleming, F.Donahue et.al (Univ. of Michigan) seem to have been thinking along these lines. Did they have a "working" cell when they presented their talk "An Attempt to Measure Characteristic X-Rays from Cold Fusion" ? (Wed, 5/24, 11am) This is definitely something to be looked at if high energy particles are involved. Also Dale Bass must have been thinking about this, this may mean that some of you probably are too. If this is so, please try to find out something about the relative cross- sections of some of these processes. We need to be able to discuss the relative yields of the competing reactions (collisions). CJ Horowitz` paper has some data as regards 3He and 4He products. Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Lab (solid state)/SU MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Absence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of absence." cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Georges Lauri / NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: lauri@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Georges Lauri) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 30 May 89 19:46:47 GMT Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY The article in the NYT of 5/30/89 summarizing the DOE workshop is strongly negative. The first quote (by Schrieffer) states that "I personally do not believe that the heat production is due to anything but chemical energies". Second quote (Stephen O. Dean): "There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that P&F are wrong. No one in the world has produced excess heat like P&F." does anyone who was there care to comment on the relevance of these remarks? Was there the quoted "consesus" that P&F were wrong? We have seem much discussion of the actual talks on the net, but so far not many first-hand accounts of the informal part of the workshop. Georges Lauri lauri@cs.cornell.edu cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenlauri cudfnGeorges cudlnLauri cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / I Price / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Date: 30 May 89 19:54:12 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <8905251446.AA22936@emx.utexas.edu>, fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: > >Andrew Palfreyman: > >Scaling "a decade" by all these "vasts" should yield a wet-finger metric > >telling us a socially appropriate waiting time for Messrs. F&P's > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >"secret". Anyone care to estimate? > > Well, this is a new term. So this would be the time "allowed" F & P (by > whom?) before they are faced with a demand to surrender their procedure? > Let's see, would that demand be with or without reinforcements from The > People's Police? > > Sorry, bud--if they have a discovery, it's theirs to do with as they > wish, include bury it in a deep hole and forget about it. Yup, Alan; I had my tongue firmly in my smiley's cheek on that posting. I was really highlighting the acceleration of info transfer speeds since Uncle Isaac, which everyone knows about anyway. Ho hum. More generally, I find this rollercoaster ride like living inside a novel or movie; absolutely fascinating. A new twist was introduced into the already somewhat (for scientific research) bizarre event trace recently; while F&P were attempting to combat the "tsunami" [quote from a Bay Area newspaper] of criticism, a racoon walked into a high-voltage transformer at U of U. It died having achieved a campus-wide blackout, and the erasure of much of F&P's experimental data! The story continues... One more comment; it is being largely played up by the media (following comments by Jones at Santa Fe) that "only uselessly small energy gains are being made" - the implication being that 1.01x out/in ratio is economically irrelevant. This is garbage: if I want 10 watts of cheap energy, I either hook a load of these units up together, or input a larger amount once. Anything over exactly 1.0 is cause for jubilation. -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenandrew cudfnInformation cudlnPrice cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / I Price / Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Date: 30 May 89 20:27:10 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <2486@wpi.wpi.edu>, cyganski@wpi.wpi.edu (David Cyganski) writes: > ... I will be so happy when their caginess locks > the Cold Fusion industry with the good ole USA. I wonder if the University of Southampton is making similar patent arrangements in the UK - anyone know? -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenandrew cudfnInformation cudlnPrice cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / I Price / neutrinos Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: neutrinos Date: 30 May 89 21:47:16 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In the spirit of pure speculation, is there any way that neutrino emission could accompany the heat/neutron output of cold fusion? Is there an easier way to detect neutrinos at the expected (?) energies without walking down a mine filled with a million litres of some liquid or other and temporarily interrupting someone else's experiment? Just wondered... -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenandrew cudfnInformation cudlnPrice cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Ted Dunning / Re: TAMU results Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: TAMU results Date: 30 May 89 21:37:55 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <1989May30.131100.8784@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: A previous message from Ted (I think) said that the A&M group determined the D loading of their cathode by direct weighing. I did not tape that talk, so could someone fill in details on this? Specifically: did they determine how much of the weight increase was due to absorbed lithium? Did they drive off the hydrogen isotopes afterwards by heating in a vacuum, and weigh the cathode again? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochster.edu I can't (without reconsulting notes that are at home) guarantee correct attributions of the following: 1) I think that it was the UBC group that determined D content is accurately determined by weighing the samples. They drove off the deuterium and reweighed with the result that the original weight was recreated to within 0.1 mg. I also seem to remember that Carol Talcott at LANL was also able to do this. 2) the loading of the Pd used by the TAMU group was not mentioned (to my knowledge) in their talk. Carol Talcott, Ed Storms (both from LANL) and I cornered John Bockris on different occasions and all got the story that they had achieved loading in excess of 0.98 (determined by weighing). cudkeys: cuddy30 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / ANDQC@CUNYVM.C / Re: Credo Originally-From: ANDQC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Credo Date: 30 May 89 18:12:53 GMT Organization: The City University of New York - New York, NY In discussing the ongoing debate on ALT.FUSION with a colleague at the graduate center, also in sociology, we came up with a somewhat more nasty gloss on the p position of the physicists. (I should, perhaps, point out that my colleague began his academic career at M.I.T., while I began mine at CALTECH.) The comments made by the author of Credo struck a responsive chord. Assuming that cold or solid state fusion exists (according to the NY Times to day the findings at LANL were negative), one could characterize individual and the community reaction of physicists as going through the five stages of grief which occur when you lose a job, a spouse, contract a terminal illness, etc. The first response is Denial. For instance, the APS meeting and other similar reactions. Denial gives way to Anger. I think some of the comments on the net speak for themselves. The next stage is bargaining. "They should collaborate with us and we can sho them how to do it right. Its fusion but not powerful enough to be a source of power, etc." The next two stages (assuming we are at bargaining) are depression and then fi finally acceptance. Any comments from anyone who has been following this. Andrew A. Beveridge Department of Sociology Queens College and the Graduate Center /CUNY P.S. No matter how it comes out, it has been fascinating. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenANDQC cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / emanuel machado / Re: What is THIS?! Originally-From: emanuel@cernvax.UUCP (emanuel machado) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What is THIS?! Date: 30 May 89 10:36:31 GMT Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland In article <1989May24.204729.5898@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >When I got home this evening, my wife said I got a floppy disk in the >mail. The package was a small bubble-wrap paper envelope, postmarked >May 22 from NY City, no return address. It contained a IBM-PC floppy > >This fusion stuff is getting stranger by the minute. Anyone else get >one of these "presents"? > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu Well, yes, I've received one of those today (international mail takes time, you know), with the same characteristics. I can't read the date, but certainly comes from NY. The same sayings, the same typing errors ('fist'), etc. What I'm forced to conclude it that it is someone who reads usenet ar- ticles, for where else would he/she find my address? I even haven't posted anything to this newsgroup before!!! What I suspect is that Paul and I weren't the only ones to receive. Right? And somehow there might be a good reason to send them. I mean, it cos- ted a whole dolar to send it to Europe! So, if the sender is reading this, thank you for your mail. I'll take a closer look to it after verifying there are no viruses attached :-). But I will certainly NOT take any further steps whatsoever. I find it potentially interesting, but that's ALL. Cheers, Emanuel Machado p.s. Well, if you're wondering about the destiny of this disk, I'll tell you that I'll use it to save the complete version of WANDERER that you can get through usenet... -- Emanuel T.M. Machado, CERN | "Excelence is not | UUCP: ,_ _ | an act, it's an | emanuel@cernvax.UUCP /_ ____ _ __ , , _ |/ | habit." | BITNET: /_ / / / /_ < / / /_/ <'_ /_ | Unknown | emanuel@cernvax.cern.ch cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenemanuel cudfnemanuel cudlnmachado cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / John Moore / Re: BH2++ the experiment (long) Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: BH2++ the experiment (long) Date: 30 May 89 14:32:30 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <587@coplex.UUCP> chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) writes: ]near the D-layer of an electrolytic process can reach, near 10 million to ]a billion volts / cm, I had to wonder if near the surface of the electrodes ]we might have a small proton accellarator? (reference: Theories of Electrode ]Processes, by Conway). Of coarse, if this is the case, could transmutations My question is: over what distance does this accelerator run? I suspect you will find you can only get .5ev by accelerating something with it (it will be over such a short distance that the actual potential, as opposed to the potential gradient, is small). [ lots of interesting speculation deleted ] ]I've ran the following tests: ] ] In petrea dishes (2 1/2Inch by 1/2inch) filled with 15Ml of distilled ]H2O and 1.5 gm of borax combinations of Ni & Cu electrodes were used. ]('Heat' indicates a rise from 20C to 50C Minimum) Quick Results show: ] ]== D/C 10v@1.5mA == == A/C 60Hz 18V@1.5mA == ] (+) (-) ] Ni - Ni (Ni Heat, Salts on Ni) Ni - Ni (Heat) ] Ni - Cu (Ni Heat, Salts on Ni) Ni - Cu (Cu heat) ] Cu - Ni (Salts on Cu+) Cu - Ni (Cu heat) ] Cu - Cu (Salts on Cu+) Cu - Cu ] ... ] Using a transformer based variable voltage power-supply, the DC voltage ]supplied was 10v @ 1.5mA. For the AC experiments, 18V @ 1.5mA @ 60Hz was ... ] Electodes of the nickel-copper, copper-nickel combinations were tried. ]The Cu cathode/Ni anode produced heat on the Ni anode side. From 20C TO 60C ]in about 1hr. The heat appears when the black salt form. It took about 3hr ]to evaporate 15ml of H2O. This is all pretty bizarre. You are only putting in 15mW of electrical power, and yet you are getting a huge temperature rise. I assume that your petri dishes are just laying on the bench in ambient temperature. In that case, it is pretty hard to explain the heat. Thanks for the interesting posting. May try it myself. John -- 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: cuddy30 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / John Moore / Re: Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Questions About Texas A&M Tritium Measurement Date: 30 May 89 14:34:33 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <3643@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > >This worries me a bit. The point that Lewis made was that LiOD will >react with the scintillation cocktail and produce scintillations that >the PM can't distinguish from tritium decay. Even F&P neutralized their >electrolyte with potassium hydrogen phthalate before adding it to the >cocktail. > >How do you know that that 10**6 dpm level is actually due to tritium and >not to chemical reactions with the electrolyte? > The Los Alamos team that did one of the measurement sets has been measuring tritium for >20 years. I suspect they know what they are doing, and probably did neutralize the electrolyte. -- 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: cuddy30 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / John Moore / Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Are the Gammas Hiding? Date: 30 May 89 16:46:49 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <1989May30.085823.28246@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: ]In article <66@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: ]>If they were really getting 10 MW bursts every second, they would ]>be thoroughly dead by now! ] ]Why? That's 10 MW, 1 microsecond bursts of *heat*. The radiation we ]are talking about (coulomb gammas) would be much less. I was not ]proposing this as a mechanism to hide *neutrons*; indeed, detecting ]neutrons by thermalizing them would smear the pulse to perhaps 1 ]millisecond. Oops, I thought you were referring to short neutron or gamma bursts. Didn't this start with the discussion of saturation of neutron detectors in short bursts, followed by the speculation that there really were lots (10W worth) of neutrons given out but that they weren't being detected because they came out in such short bursts that they saturated the counters? -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons! cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Tom Buchsbaum / Heavy Water Originally-From: tom@tnc.UUCP (Tom Buchsbaum) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Heavy Water Date: 31 May 89 02:48:52 GMT Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va. Can anyone explain the reasons for the controlled availability of deuterium in the United States? Are there hazards associated with heavy water that aren't obvious (e.g. high school terrorists using it to moderate an atomic pile)? cudkeys: cuddy31 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnBuchsbaum cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Tom Buchsbaum / Tritium? and thanks for the news Originally-From: tom@tnc.UUCP (Tom Buchsbaum) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Tritium? and thanks for the news Date: 31 May 89 02:52:23 GMT Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va. The outstanding postings in alt.fusion and sci.physics re: CNF coupled with the unreliability of my newsfeed _made_ me subscribe to UUNET directly. Keep it up! Question: Is the high level of tritium production in working cells verified? If so, why the negative press in N.Y.Times 5/30? No opinions are expressed here. | tom!tnc!uunet I've seen what the net does to | opinions. | cudkeys: cuddy31 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnBuchsbaum cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Ted Dunning / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 31 May 89 01:47:12 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <28368@cornell.UUCP> lauri@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Georges Lauri) writes: The article in the NYT of 5/30/89 summarizing the DOE workshop is strongly negative. The first quote (by Schrieffer) states that "I personally do not believe that the heat production is due to anything but chemical energies". ? who is schrieffer ? Second quote (Stephen O. Dean): "There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that P&F are wrong. No one in the world has produced excess heat like P&F." except tamu and stanford. there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that P&F are not acting like perfectly detached champions of scientific idealism and that they screwed up the nuclear measurements. but there is also some pretty interesting data that indicates something very odd is happening. does anyone who was there care to comment on the relevance of these remarks? Was there the quoted "consesus" that P&F were wrong? I heard no consensus at all except that further testing is needed to find the flaws in the replications or in the non-replications. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Ted Dunning / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Date: 31 May 89 01:51:05 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <270@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) writes: One more comment; it is being largely played up by the media (following comments by Jones at Santa Fe) that "only uselessly small energy gains are being made" - the implication being that 1.01x out/in ratio is economically irrelevant. This is garbage: if I want 10 watts of cheap energy, I either hook a load of these units up together, or input a larger amount once. Anything over exactly 1.0 is cause for jubilation. actually if you are putting in electricity and getting out heat, 1+epsilon << 1. only if you are getting heat out at 300C or above and then only if you are getting a multiplier of 3 or more do we have even a chance of a generator that works on this planet. of course, we all know that heating palladium to 300C is a great way to get hydrogen out, not in (sigh). cudkeys: cuddy31 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Ted Dunning / Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Workshop: Huggins' talk Date: 31 May 89 01:53:07 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <271@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) writes: I wonder if the University of Southampton is making similar patent arrangements in the UK - anyone know? the latest rumor that i heard was that part of the effect of a recent cost cutting measure involved relinquishing all rights to his work. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Rob Kutschke / Gordon Conference on Metal Hydrides Originally-From: kutschke@helios.toronto.edu (Rob Kutschke) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Gordon Conference on Metal Hydrides Date: 30 May 89 22:57:57 GMT Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA Computing Consortium I am posting the following for a colleague who does not have access to usenet: The Gordon Conference on Metal Hydrides for 1989 (July 10th- 14th, at Tilton, New Hampshire) is scheduling a special session on the possibilities relating to nuclear fusion occurring in metal-hydrogen systems. The session program is given below: D. K. Ross, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, U.K. Discussion Leader R.J. Perry: Ohio State University, Columbus, OH "The relevant parameters for fusion in molecules and materials". P.M. Richards: Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque NM P. Jena: Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA "Energetics and molecular dynamics of D-D interaction in Pd". S. Srinivasan: Texas A & M University, College Station. "Evidence for excess heat generation rates during electrolysis of D2O in LiOD using a Pd cathode - a microcalorimetric study". This session on fusion possibilities is probably the first time this topic has been dealt with before an audience of specialists involved in the hydrogen in metals field. The Gordon Conference format allows plenty of opportunity for extended, off the record, discussion on current research topics. For general information on Gordon conferences and a brief outline of the program for the Metal Hydrides Conference (before amendment) consult Science (the AAA weekly publication) for March 3rd 1989. This issue also provides instruction on the procedure for filling an application to attend a Gordon Conference. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenkutschke cudfnRob cudlnKutschke cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / William Johnson / Re: Credo Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Credo Date: 31 May 89 15:34:57 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <2254ANDQC@CUNYVM>, ANDQC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: > Assuming that cold or solid state fusion exists (according to the NY Times to > day the findings at LANL were negative), one could characterize individual and > the community reaction of physicists as going through the five stages of grief > which occur when you lose a job, a spouse, contract a terminal illness, etc. > > The first response is Denial. For instance, the APS meeting and other similar > reactions. [etc.] > Any comments from anyone who has been following this. You miss a rather obvious point with this analysis, namely that the assumption is totally irrelevant. Fusion either occurs or it doesn't. One may as well discuss the five stages of grief in the context of a person you haven't seen in ten years: "Assuming Joe is dead ..." Among people who are actually working in the field, by far the dominant emotion appearing thus far is simply frustration that it is proving so hard to determine whether the body is dead or alive. On the one hand, the experiments claiming heat production in electrochemical cells, which (so argue the proponents) can only be coming from cold fusion, are proving remarkably resistant to confirmation by nuclear means, which are the *only* diagnostics that can prove that a nuclear reaction is indeed going on. On the other hand, the experiments that are observing nuclear phenomena (Frascati group, Menlove's group here at LANL, etc.) may or may not have anything to do with cold fusion; no one can say yet. We would really like to know what is going on, and the uncertainty is beginning to get hard on our nerves. The "denial" that you think you saw at the APS meeting, _inter alia_, was something else entirely (with the possible exception of Koonin's talk). The information available at that time was strongly suggestive that sloppy science was being done. Lewis pointed out a whole range of things that supported this view. The subsequent responses to Lewis' talk have done little to put the science on a more rigorous footing, which is contributing to the sense of frustration. You are probably right that some of the observers are going through various emotional reactions that a sociologist might pigeonhole somehow. However, the appropriate analogy is not so much the trauma/bereavement one, as that of sitting outside a hospital's operating room as a succession of doctors come out and make conflicting announcements: "The patient is dead." "The patient is alive." "The patient is alive but a vegetable for life." "Dr. X is an idiot, whether the patient is alive or not." "Is not." "Is so." And so on. Making sociological sense out of this is probably not so easy as when all of the doctors agree that the patient has expired. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / GORDON R / Re: What is THIS?! Originally-From: gordon (GORDON ALLEN R) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What is THIS?! Date: 31 May 89 18:28:08 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder In response to some questions raised about F&P's silence and the subsequent discussion that has ensued, I would like to raise some additional questions to ponder. Is there a net energy gain from F&P's experiment when the energy required to fabricate their electrode(s) is considered? Even if any part of F&P's work turns out to be valid, such as net energy production, then the door is opened for cheap(?) and perhaps abundant energy. This could be a pandora's box, since the problem of rampant energy consumption has not been dealt with. The door will be opened to even more mismanagement of scarce resources. Finally, it seems that the materials needed for fabricating the electrodes are, in part found in 3rd world countries. These countries could become very valuable pieces of real estate and could become the issues of some rather nasty global conflicts. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudfnGORDON cudlnR cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / William Johnson / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 31 May 89 16:03:56 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article , ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > > In article <28368@cornell.UUCP> lauri@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Georges Lauri) writes: > > The article in the NYT of 5/30/89 summarizing the DOE workshop is strongly > negative. The first quote (by Schrieffer) states that > "I personally do not believe that the heat production is due > to anything but chemical energies". > > ? who is schrieffer ? "schrieffer" = J. Robert Schrieffer, workshop co-chairman and Nobel laureate (of Bardeen/Cooper/Schrieffer fame), who made this statement in his remarks closing the workshop on Thursday. (Ted, I think I saw you outside the hall talking to Ed Storms and Carol Talcott about that time.) The statement is quoted correctly; I have it in my notes. I found it to be a surprisingly strong opinion, particularly coming from a co-chairman. I've been procrastinating on getting out the summary of Thursday's events at the workshop (it ended early and most of the talks were pretty dull); I'll try to do so today. I haven't seen the NYT article, but my own impressions were that the workshop definitely was "strongly negative" in assessing the FPH experiment, although somewhat less so on the global topic of whether fusion has been observed (at an impractically low level) in unexpected places. Since FPH is what caused the original uproar, a simplified assessment of "strongly negative" probably fits the media's neverending craving for short, simple quotes. > does anyone who was there care to comment on the relevance of these > remarks? Was there the quoted "consesus" that P&F were wrong? > > I heard no consensus at all except that further testing is needed to > find the flaws in the replications or in the non-replications. Not entirely: either Schrieffer or Hackerman, in their wrapup talks, made a remark trying to get someone to stand in defense of heat production by nuclear reactions. No one did. "Consensus" that FPH are wrong is probably not too strong a statement, although that consensus is certainly not anywhere near unanimous. The consensus that Ted perceived (that further testing is needed) certainly was much nearer a unanimous one. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Paul Dietz / Surface vs. Volume Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Surface vs. Volume Date: 31 May 89 20:29:57 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY FPH claim in their paper that (1) their power output increases with the volume of the electrode, rather than with the surface area, and, therefore, (2) the putative fusion reaction is occuring in the bulk of the electrode. Even given (1), and assuming a fusion reaction is occuring, it is not clear that (2) follows. Suppose the fusion involves lithium, that lithium and deuterium both diffuse into the palladium, and that deuterium has a much larger diffusivity than lithium. At any time, the distances that lithium and deuterium have diffused into the cathode will be proportional. (I am not still clear on whether lithium diffuses in palladium.) Suppose inward diffusion stops when fusion begins (because of localized heating, perhaps). In a larger cathode the lithium can diffuse farther before this happens, and fusion occurs in this larger volume, giving a volume dependence on power output. However, fusion is still occuring close to the surface, where helium can presumably escape (all fusion reactions on lithium that make tritium will also make helium, as far as I can tell). This would imply that the power density in this surface layer is very high, which would be very desirable. This idea suggests that (1) we charge for a long period at low current density to build up more lithium before turning on the high voltages needed to saturate with deuterium, (2) we charge with a surface of the cathode exposed above the electrolyte, so deuterium can escape, then fully immerse it, or (3) we add lithium to the cathode beforehand in some other way (alloying, molten salt electrolysis, etc.). Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy31 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.13 / Mark Wilkins / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 13 May 89 00:09:32 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA In article <11298@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) writes: >F&P claim -> more energy out than in. > >no FUSION implies: >a) fission (what the ?? is fissioning, though???) >b) E = mc2 equation does not always hold, i.e. another way of getting >energy >c) matter converted directly into energy Pseudoscientists listen up. If coal burning did not produce more energy than put into its mining, transportation, and utilization as a fuel, then there would be no power plants. Ever heard of ACTIVATION ENERGY or CATALYSIS? Many chemical (and nuclear) reactions need a kicker to start. A lit match, a fission bomb (in the case of hydrogen bombs), or an applied potential. If you don't think a chemical reaction will ever get more energy out than you put in, rub your fingers together firmly. Then, with the same pressure, light a match. Feel the flame with your fingers. You will notice, I promise. -- Mark Wilkins cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenwilkins cudfnMark cudlnWilkins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Chris Phoenix / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 31 May 89 23:26:07 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. In article <1284@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.UUCP (Mark Wilkins) writes: >In article <11298@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) writes: > >>F&P claim -> more energy out than in. > > Pseudoscientists listen up. If coal burning did not produce more energy >than put into its mining, transportation, and utilization as a fuel, then >there would be no power plants. > Ever heard of ACTIVATION ENERGY or CATALYSIS? ... This has gone around several times. When we say, "more energy out than in," we mean more energy out than the sum of chemical, potential, kinetic, and heat energy in the system. Obviously, if you strike a match, you will get lots of energy out. If you strike it again, you won't. If someone invented a "match" that, with a finite amount of chemical, potential, kinetic, and heat energy to start with, and none added, you could keep striking and get an indefinite amount of energy out, is there any way such a thing could be powered chemically? Next question: Is there any way other than chemical and fusion that energy could be produced in the electrode? If some researchers are right, the energy being produced [sic] is *not* chemical. -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy31 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Mike Pelt / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 1 Jun 89 00:18:50 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <25300@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >"Consensus" that FPH are wrong is probably not too strong a >statement, although that consensus is certainly >not anywhere near unanimous. But... but... but... what about the large and unambiguous measurement of tritium by Texas A&M? The very thorough heat measurements by Huggins of Stanford, showing no heat if you replace the LiOD with NaOD, and less heat if you use LiOD with no 6Li? What about the reported loading of over 1 for the people who see the effect, and .8 for those who don't? This *HAS* to turn out to be fusion. I have a dollar bet on it. :-) -- Mike Van Pelt "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in Video Seven front of Congressional hearings." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Meryl Streep cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / bass randale / Re: What is THIS?! Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: What is THIS?! Date: 31 May 89 22:28:33 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <9116@boulder.Colorado.EDU> gordon (GORDON ALLEN R) writes: > >Finally, it seems that the materials needed for fabricating the electrodes are, >in part found in 3rd world countries. These countries could become very >valuable pieces of real estate and could become the issues of some rather nasty >global conflicts. Not exactly. The Soviet Union and South Africa would probably become miffed if they were referred to as "third world". Since they are the principle (nearly the only, with small supplies in Canada, very small supplies in the US) suppliers of palladium (and all platinum group metals), I think that the global conflicts that are already in place are quite sufficient. And keep in mind, there's always oil, coal and fission nuclear for energy. And, I really don't think that economic analyses of the whole production chain would be very useful until we determine if the process is nuclear in origin, and have an idea of some reliable estimated yield (try operating a carnot engine on a 10 degree temperature differential). dale bass crb7q@virginia.edu cudkeys: cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / John Logajan / Re: Rumor from S.L.C. Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Rumor from S.L.C. Date: 1 Jun 89 00:19:08 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN In article <1286@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: > A rumor floating around S.L.C. says that Pons' has working reactors in > his lab with 2cm diameter by 10cm long palladium rods in them. This corresponds to the apparent size of the rods shown in the Scientific American photo. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Leonard Uhr / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: uhr@thor.cs.wisc.edu (Leonard Uhr) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 1 Jun 89 00:40:56 GMT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Ted Dunning's summary of the SF meeting listed several major successes: * Excess energy (heat) was re-confirmed at Texas A&M and Stanford using calimetry and controls that even the most skeptical accepted; * Successful vs. unsuccessful experiments can be differentiated in terms of whether the palladium was sufficiently loaded with deuterium; * Tritium was found at Texas A&M and LANL in roughly the amount - according to Ted's calculations - needed to explain the excess energy. All that sounded great - but then why have the NYTimes, WSJ, CNN, etc. reported either nothing, or that many negative papers were presented? Their story seemed to be that all were still skeptical - if not more so. The WSJ mentioned a trace of tritium, but implied that was of no more significance than the far-too-low neutron counts got by Jones, etc. Granted that until tritium (or other fusion by-products) are found in the RIGHT AMOUNTS in the SAME experiment where excess energy is found the crucial confirmation is still missing. But clearly finding two very unlikely events, where each nicely explains the other, enormously raises the odds of both in my book. So why do media report failure not success? Can anyone shed light? E.g.: Was tritium too low, not well measured, or explainable on other grounds - e.g., a contaminant? Did anyone look for both tritium and heat, but find only one (is my impression right - these were 2 different experiments, so each looked for only one?)? Were any negative results reported that cast doubt on the positive results? Was there still an overriding negative tone - from panels, audience, or spokespeople for vested interests - that misled reporters? Are those of us reading netnews so longing-to-believe we're also not objective? Are the reporters really as bad as they appear to be? Also, can anyone summarize the (relevant) results? E.g., heat has been confirmed at Utah, Texas A&M, Stanford, Case - where else? Tritium was found at Texas A&M and LANL - where else, and in what quantities? Helium was found at Utah - where else, and how much reason is there to doubt it? Obviously experiments that fail to get heat can't confirm failure to find fusion - but has anyone found excess heat and really tried but failed to find fusion by-products? Is there any hard evidence that Pons et al. have lied, evaded, misled, or held back information - and why? It's sort of amazing if this net sees success, but the media failure because strong partial confirmations are buried under irrelevancies. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenuhr cudfnLeonard cudlnUhr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Ted Dunning / Re: Surface vs. Volume Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Surface vs. Volume Date: 1 Jun 89 00:27:56 GMT Organization: NMSU Computer Science In article <1989May31.162957.10800@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: This idea suggests that (1) we charge for a long period at low current density to build up more lithium before turning on the high voltages needed to saturate with deuterium, (2) we charge with a surface of the cathode exposed above the electrolyte, so deuterium can escape, then fully immerse it, or (3) we add lithium to the cathode beforehand in some other way (alloying, molten salt electrolysis, etc.). hate to mention this at this point, but the guys at stanford were doing molten salt electrolysis with their palladium before they tried the P&F replication. they hypothesized that the most important effect was the scavenging of D from the Pd, but acknowledged that they had some Li contamination, too. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / E Explosion / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Eraserhead @ The Noblest Explosion ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 1 Jun 89 02:32:18 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <7601@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, uhr@thor.cs.wisc.edu (Leonard Uhr) writes: > ...All that sounded great - but then why have the NYTimes, WSJ, CNN, etc. > reported either nothing, or that many negative papers were presented? > Are the reporters really as bad as they appear to be?... I was asking the same question about 20 postings ago - absolutely a mystery to me also. > > Also, can anyone summarize the (relevant) results? E.g., heat has been > confirmed at Utah, Texas A&M, Stanford, Case - where else? Tritium was > found at Texas A&M and LANL - where else, and in what quantities? Helium > was found at Utah - where else, and how much reason is there to doubt > it? We have a fairly small netnews buffer here, and I likewise time for the task. Maybe someone could be kind enough to hack together a small table for our collective edification, since I, for one, am certainly losing track of all the groups' claims. -- Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenandrew cudfnEraserhead cudlnExplosion cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Michael Brooks / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 1 Jun 89 04:40:11 GMT OrganizatiNYT, WST, Consensus negativeon: Stanford University Keywords: In <7601@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Leonard Uhr writes: "It's sort of amazing if this net sees success, but the media failure because strong partial confirmations are buried under irrelevancies." Well since so many have ventured forth with an opinion I guess I'll join the crowd and put in my irrelevant two cents worth. First of all your capsule summary is not half bad as a quick assessment of "where things stand." I agree with the assessment that, from a distance (namely here at SU), the postings we have received indicate that nuclear effects are occuring under certain special circumstances. This is given no major experimental flaws are later uncovered (I am covering myself here, but you gotta right?!). To this extent, the Net has posted indications of "success." Is this "trivial"? Hardly, remember we are talking about a nuclear process taking place at very low temperatures---assuming this bears out it's all brand new physics! This is potentially as important as the High Tc superconductors; basically these materials shouldn't be superconductors, but are. Likewise, we shouldn't see possible indications of fusion at ambient temperatures---it just don't happen, right? The "success" defined in terms of replication of the FPH results is a different matter, and has not been shown to be happening by any of the results presented by any one group. There is much data that is consistent with aspects of their work, also much that isn't. The correct attitude to have (I believe) is that already conveyed by some of our friends who were at Santa Fe: there is enough data to warrant further intensive study (was this Bill Johnson or Ted Dunning?). It seems the press probably has missed this essential two-fold aspect of the results from Santa Fe, and focused on "what the big names say" instead of trying to provide a careful analysis. Not to be too cruel, but let's admit that they routinely get things wrong, that's why the Workshop was held in the first place---so real results could be appropriately given to the scientific community, without going through the newspapers. Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Lab (solid state)/SU MIT astronomer Walter Lewin: "Absence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of absence." cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenbrooks cudfnMichael cudlnBrooks cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Larry Brader / What is poisoning? Originally-From: larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: What is poisoning? Date: 31 May 89 19:41:45 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. First thanks to everyone who posted information about the Cold fusion conference. What is poisoning, and how is it done? Sulfur was mention as a way to perform the poisoning. Are there others? Thank you... -- Larry Brader :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net "Was Science ever a non-political issue?" -- from fortune cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenlarryb cudfnLarry cudlnBrader cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Dave Mack / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Date: 31 May 89 21:04:42 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > >In article <270@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) writes: > > One more comment; it is being largely played up by the media (following > comments by Jones at Santa Fe) that "only uselessly small energy gains > are being made" - the implication being that 1.01x out/in ratio is > economically irrelevant. This is garbage: if I want 10 watts of cheap > energy, I either hook a load of these units up together, or input a > larger amount once. Anything over exactly 1.0 is cause for jubilation. > >actually if you are putting in electricity and getting out heat, >1+epsilon << 1. only if you are getting heat out at 300C or above and >then only if you are getting a multiplier of 3 or more do we have even >a chance of a generator that works on this planet. > >of course, we all know that heating palladium to 300C is a great way >to get hydrogen out, not in (sigh). Indeed? Even if you have a potential on the Pd cathode? Example: Pd cathode, Pt anode, V=1500V, lithium-deuterium plasma as conductor? Pressure and temperature are left as exercises for the student (i.e., I don't know the answer.) Is deuterium occluded by the cathode in this system or not? -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / John Logajan / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: logajan@ns3.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 31 May 89 22:14:25 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN In article <25300@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > "Consensus" that FPH are wrong is probably not too strong a statement, > although that consensus is certainly not anywhere near unanimous. That's what I like, science by plebiscite. Pity poor Columbus, the world really was flat! -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / Chuck Sites / A heat mechanism for CNF? Originally-From: chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: A heat mechanism for CNF? Date: 31 May 89 15:03:25 GMT Organization: Copper Electronics, Louisville, Ky. CNF is getting more interesting all the time. It seems to me that the fusion reaction in the P&F cells follows the tritium producing path. This is looking more and more obvious: D + D -> t + p. How long would it take for the proton from this event to be captured by the electrons of the palladium latice, or by dueturium atoms in the form of DH? If the proton is captured, specifically with a high-speed proton ejected by the fusion event, that would seem to be a pretty strong mechanism for causing, or inducing, changes in the quantum vibrational states of the latice bonds. Wouldn't this create heat? Chuck@coplex ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . . . Chuck Sites | mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck . . . o o o o chuck@coplex | ATT: (502)-454-7218 WRK: 968-8495 o o o o O O O O O Philosophy: A bird in hand is worth 2 bucks if it's chicken O O O O O ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.30 / Bob Pendleton / Rumor from S.L.C. Originally-From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Rumor from S.L.C. Date: 30 May 89 20:39:07 GMT Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah I think this is worth posting for its entertainment value if nothing else. A rumor floating around S.L.C. says that Pons' has working reactors in his lab with 2cm diameter by 10cm long palladium rods in them. The rumor goes on to say that the heavy water in the reactors is being boiled by the excess heat produced by the reactors. The kicker is that they have been boiling for more than 2 months. Since before the announcement. I first heard this rumor about a month ago. Since then I have found 2 people, call them A and B, who claim to have heard this from 3 people, call them X, Y, and Z. X, Y, and Z are reported to have seen water boiling in PFH reactor in Pons' lab. I know A and B and consider them reasonbly reliable sources of information. I can't even prove that X, Y, or Z exist. I only have a name for one of them. In other words this is a completely unconfirmed rumor. Perhaps on its way to becoming and urban myth. But didn't P&Fs original paper say something about reporting the results for 2cm rods in a later paper... Take it with a large dose of salts and a glass of heavy water Bob P. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Bernie Roehl / Re: Credo Originally-From: broehl@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Credo Date: 1 Jun 89 13:25:34 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <25297@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > >The "denial" that you think you saw at the APS meeting, _inter alia_, was >something else entirely (with the possible exception of Koonin's talk). Hmm. It sure sounded a lot like denial to me >The information available at that time was strongly suggestive that sloppy >science was being done. Really? >...of sitting outside a hospital's operating room as a succession of doctors >come out and make conflicting announcements: "The patient is dead." "The >patient is alive." "The patient is alive but a vegetable for life." "Dr. >X is an idiot, whether the patient is alive or not." "Is not." "Is so." >And so on. My impression is more like "Dr. X says the patient is alive because the patient sat up in bed and claimed to feel fine; I won't believe Dr. X until I see an EEG. After all, Dr. X is not a qualified pathologist, so he's probably misinterpreting what the patient is saying". -- Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@watdcsu.UWaterloo{.edu,.csnet,.cdn} BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watdcsu!broehl Voice: (519) 745-4419 [home] (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work] cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenbroehl cudfnBernie cudlnRoehl cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / William Johnson / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 1 Jun 89 15:06:39 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <383@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > In article <25300@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > >"Consensus" that FPH are wrong is probably not too strong a > >statement, although that consensus is certainly > >not anywhere near unanimous. > > But... but... but... what about the large and unambiguous measurement > of tritium by Texas A&M? The very thorough heat measurements by > Huggins of Stanford, showing no heat if you replace the LiOD with NaOD, > and less heat if you use LiOD with no 6Li? What about the reported > loading of over 1 for the people who see the effect, and .8 for those > who don't? Do not mistake "consensus" for "unanimous agreement of proof". If you had polled 100 random people coming out of the workshop, my estimate is that about 75 would have felt confident that no economically-useful fusion had been demonstrated, 20 would be undecided, and 5 would have felt that the A&M and Stanford results did suffice to demonstrate cold fusion. I claim that these proportions support the notion of a "consensus" but obviously stop far short of unanimity. As Ted Dunning has already pointed out, even the harshest critics seemed to agree that more research is needed. That "consensus" was much more widely held. Note also that I am not a card-carrying member of the FPH-are-wrong "consensus" that I report. If I had been in the sample you polled, I would have been in the "undecided" block (and would have been one of the *very* few nuclear physicists present who weren't in the no-useful-fusion block). I am merely reporting the reactions that I observed; as the summary says, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Dave Mack / Re: Surface vs. Volume Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Surface vs. Volume Date: 1 Jun 89 16:48:37 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <1989May31.162957.10800@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >FPH claim in their paper that (1) their power output increases >with the volume of the electrode, rather than with the surface area, >and, therefore, (2) the putative fusion reaction is occuring in the >bulk of the electrode. > >Even given (1), and assuming a fusion reaction is occuring, it is not >clear that (2) follows. Suppose the fusion involves lithium, that >lithium and deuterium both diffuse into the palladium, and that >deuterium has a much larger diffusivity than lithium. At any time, >the distances that lithium and deuterium have diffused into the >cathode will be proportional. > >(I am not still clear on whether lithium diffuses in palladium.) Suppose that it involves D + D fusion and lithium fission: D + D --> T + p + 4.03 MeV (dominant branch) D + D --> He-3 + n + 2.45 MeV n + Li-6 --> T + He-4 + 4.6 MeV n + Li-7 --> n + T + He-4 - 2.47 MeV (note that this is endothermic) It is interesting to note that Li-6 has an enormous thermal neutron absorption cross-section - 960 barns. This may offer a partial explanation of the high tritium production levels, the scarcity of neutrons, and the excess heat dependence on the Li isotopes present in the electrolyte. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / perry@ohstpy.m / Another report on Santa Fe meeting (long) Originally-From: perry@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Another report on Santa Fe meeting (long) Date: 1 Jun 89 17:59:20 GMT This is yet another report of the Santa Fe meeting on Cold Fusion, hosted by Los Alamos. I will follow the agenda, but will not report on most talks. In particular, most speakers presented null results and every talk about which I say nothing falls into this category. It is not my intention to introduce a bias in this manner, but there were simply too many talks to report. Before describing the results in detail, let me provide my own summary. Cold fusion IS NOT DEAD. If anything, the Santa Fe meeting was more positive than any other meeting to date. However, the prospects of cheap and plentiful energy from fusion in Pd continue to fade. I have been satisfied with intriguing science and will not miss the diminishing interest of the press. There is evidence for excess heat, tritium and neutrons in a variety of setups from a number of labs. I asked everyone with whom I spoke at the meeting whether they had reasonable explanations (e.g., temperature gradients from inadequate stirring and chemiluminescence) for the most notable positive results. In each case, there were possible sources of error one could imagine, but no consensus that such errors were likely. In no case could anyone point to an obvious flaw and indicate how the experiment could be corrected to give a null result. The operative word there is "obvious", because people did worry about less than obvious problems. Everyone agreed that the calorimetry results should be checked in a closed system, in which evolved gasses are completely recombined. The tritium results were only a week old, and the people at Texas A&M sounded like they wanted to dissect their equipment (not literally) to search for sources of tritium. Everyone seemed to agree that the tritium is there, at 10**4 times the level that should be there; but few were convinced that alternatives to fusion had been ruled out. Finally, neutrons have now been seen at so many places that sceptics are beginning to admit (and I'm still one of them) that low-level emission rates are being seen. It is unfortunate at best that excess heat has not been seen at the place with the best calorimeter, and neutrons have not been seen by the best neutron detector. Finally, no one seems to have any theory to explain a new source of excess heat. There are lots of ideas, but no theory. Certainly no one has any reasonable theory for enhancing fusion rates to a level required to explain excess heat or tritium. There are theories, but they all invoke a miracle at some point. Low level fusion rates needed to explain Jones level neutron observations, and perhaps neutron bursts, may be explained by small numbers of high energy deuterons generated by short-lived electric fields induced by crack formation; however, it is still not clear that the materials involved can support the requisite fields. In short, the best bet as far as conventional theory is concerned is still experimental error. One other thing most participants agreed upon: There should be a moratorium on conferences until the fall, with increased collaboration between various groups until then. Tuesday, May 23 --------------- 9:00 -- 9:30 Evidence for Excess Heat Generation A.J.Appleby,S.Srinivasan, Rates During Electrolysis of D2O O.J. Murphy,C.R. Martin in LiOD Using a Palladium Cathode - Texas A&M A Microcalorimetric Study (Invited Talk) Someone from this group made the transparencies available. They used a Tronac model 350 microcalorimeter, which they claim allows the measurement of heat generation from 1 microwatt to 8 watt with about 3 microwatt precision. Their electrodes were always either Pd or Pt. Their electrolyte was 7.5-8.0 ml of 0.1M LiOD, 0.1M LiOH, 0.1M NaOD or 1.0M LiOD. Dr. Appleby showed several plots of excess heat as a function of time. For all cases where this should be zero, it was. In particular, when Pt was used as the cathode or LiOH as the electrolyte (note: It is hard to understand why this substitution should eliminate excess heat when D2O is not replaced by H2O.), the excess heat was zero. With the 'correct' setup, excess heat of 30-40 mW was measured for several days at a time. It rose with current and dropped when current dropped. It dropped when LiOD was replaced with NaOD, but stopped at 5-8 mW instead of 0. Cathode Anode Electrolyte Current Density Excess Heat Rate mA/cm**2 W/cm**3 of Pd ------- ----- ----------- --------------- ---------------- Pd 300 16.3 0.5mm dia. Pt 0.1M LiOD 600 19.3 10mm long 1000 18.5 Pd same Pt 0.1M LiOH 600 0 Pt same Pt 0.1M LiOD 600 0 Pd 1.0mm dia. Pt 0.1M LiOD 600 4-7 10mm long Pd 2.0mm dia. Pt 0.1M LiOD 600 6-12 sphere ----------------------------------------------------------------- It is worth noting that these rates are in the same range as reported by Fleischmann and Pons, but are not scaling up with current and volume. My rough calculations seem to indicate that excess heat is possibly independent of volume at Texas A&M. Cathodes from both the Bockris and Appleby group were checked for 3He and 4He, with null results in all cases. The lower bounds were < 0.2-1.2 * 10**9 atoms in samples with masses between 8.79 and 14.49 mg. My understanding is that 4He is not very mobile in Pd, and will remain trapped if produced in the volume of the electrode. Before the mass spec searches for He were performed all species of H were removed, so that no one has looked for tritium and 3He in the same electrode. The removed H gas could be collected and analyzed. Tritium was found in 7 of 10 cathodes, and I believe all of the results reported by Appleby were for cathodes from the Bockris group. If I am not mistaken, none of these cathodes were checked for heat production. All were wire (?) 0.1cm dia. by 4cm length, charged at 60 mA/cm**2 for two weeks, and maintained at 500mA/cm**2 for 6-8 hours. In disintegrations per minute per ml (dpl), the rates were: 2.0E6, 4.8E6, 3.6E6, 2.2E6, 3.6E4, 2.4E4, 6.3E4, and 210 for blank LiOD. They claimed that there was no recombination of D2 and O2 above the 1% level, ruling this out as a source of heat. They noted that 20W/ml for 100 hours is equal to 0.75 keV/Pd atom, while the bond strength is only 0.67 eV. They also mentioned that the formation of a Pd-D alloy would only allow the release of 20W/ml for about 170 seconds. 9:30 -- 9:50 Neutron Emission and the TritiumK.L. Wolf, N. Packham, Content Associated with Deuterium J. Shoemaker,F. Cheng, Loaded Palladium and Titanium Metals D. Lawson Texas A&M No paper was made available and my notes are poor. I talked to Dr. Wolf, and he was at least quite open about his work while explaining the somewhat complicated dynamics between the three separate groups at Texas A&M. The neutron results he reported were at a low level, and were met with a good deal of scepticism. Of 25 active cells, some produced counts and some did not. (Remember, this group does not have a calorimeter, and as far as I know no simultaneous search for heat and neutrons was conducted.) All runs with Ti were negative, and no excess gamma-rays above a level of 60 per minute were found. To detect neutrons, two identical NE-213 detectors were used, with pulse shape discrimination employed to identify neutrons. The background was 0.8 neutrons per min., dropping to 0.4 n/min. when analyzing for 2.5MeV neutrons. (Sorry, I didn't write why.) Also used a surrounding plastic scintillator for cosmic ray rejection. The neutron efficiency of their detectors was about 5%. Wolf showed one plot with about nine points on it spread over 250 min. The count rate climbed from about 1 per min. up to 3-4 per minute, then oscillated and went back to a background level of about 1 per min. This was supposed to be an 8 sigma signal. In the 20 minute data cuts, they were seeing about 40-60 counts. Wolf also reported on tritium results, and I believe he made the first measurements. He mentioned that the 10**4 enhancement of T concentration cannot be explained by isotopic enhancement, which works at about the 30% level, even if it worked at the 100% level. This is simply because they only add about 3 times the volume of D2O in a cell during a run, and can therefore only triple the T level. They claim that all D2O and LiOD comes from the same source. If true, extra T is either produced by fusion or introduced in some other part of the cell. Nobody came up with a popular candidate, although some people wondered aloud whether there could be T in the Pd. 10:40 -- Measurements of Neutron and Gamma D. Albagli,V. Cammarata, Ray Emission Rates and Calorimetry R. Crooks,M. Schloh, in Electrochemical Cells Having Pd M.S. Wrighton,X. Chen, Cathodes C. Fiore,M. Gaudreau, D. Gwinn,P. Linsay, S.C. Luckhardt,R. Parker, R. Petrasso,K. Wenzel, R. Ballinger,I. Hwang,MIT Some of these results are now published in Nature, vol. 339, p. 183. They employed isothermal calorimetry, maintaining constant temperature with a heater and watching the required power. No discussion of Pd history (i.e., treatment). Discussed runs employing 1mm dia. x 10 cm Pd rods, with current density of 196 +/- 2 mA/cm**2 (nearly same for H2O). No gammas, no 4He, no heat. Bockris mentioned during questions that P&F now claim one needs 4-6mm dia. rods and 72 days of charging time, and argued that any discussion of null results for fusion products without first seeing heat is premature. He did not explain why Texas A&M is seeing heat without following these criteria. 1:50 -- Calorimetry, Neutron Flux, Gamma Nathan S. Lewis Flux, and Tritium Yield from Charles A. Barnes Electrochemically Charged Palladium Cal Tech in D2O Dr. Lewis' talk was nearly identical to the one he gave at the Baltimore APS meeting, with no new results as far as I could tell. A wide range of Pd electrodes, including 1 cast, 1 from Texas A&M and many treated in a variety of ways that should enhance deuterium absorption, were tested. No excess heat ( < 6%), no gammas (from 20 keV to 30 MeV), no neutrons ( < 1/10 per second), no tritium (at background level of 100 dpm) and no helium ( < 1 ppm). I will not discuss experimental details. In each case I believe that they are not seeing a signal because it is not there. They have done a thorough job of building electrolytic cells. Their results may not prove that cold fusion and excess heat are fallacious, but certainly demonstrate that if they are real they are difficult to reproduce. Dr. Lewis explained to me how F&P got their percentage breakeven numbers, and his explanation matched what I had guessed. However, I still cannot obtain their third breakeven percentage (the one with the 0.5V assumption). If you know how to get this, please let me know. During the question period, Dr. Bockris argued that null results could be explained by insufficient D/Pd ratio. This is one of the conference themes, but it was not clear to me exactly what other people were doing that was not done at Caltech to get a high ratio. It also was not clear to me that the need for a high ratio had been established at Texas A&M. Certainly no one showed a table with excess heat vs. D/Pd ratio; so at this point this is just intelligent speculation as far as I could tell. Dr. Huggins claimed that Caltech had annealed at 300 C, which is not nearly hot enough for Pd. 2:30 -- Tests for ``Cold Fusion'' in the J.G. Blencoe,M.T. Naney Pd-D2 and Ti-D2 Systems at D.J. Wesolowski 350 MPa and 195-300K ORNL This was a null result in a Frascati-like experiment. Several interesting points were raised. They observed a correlation in their neutron background with atmospheric pressure. They were able to get counts by adding ice and condensing water on cables, by turning lights on and off, and by setting up vibrations near their detectors. These are well-known problems with BF-3 detectors, but illustrate some problem with detecting signals just above background. 3:10 -- High Precision Cold Fusion M.E. Hayden,U. Narger, Calorimetry Achieved by In Situ J.L. Booth,L.A. Whitehead, Catalytic Recombination of Evolved W.N. Hardy,J.F. Carolan, Gasses D.A. Balzarini,C.C. Blake E. Wishnow,Univ. of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada These guys seem to have built the best calorimeter in the cold fusion business. Hopefully they will be given some Pd that is supposed to produce excess heat and clear up some of the mystery. They completely recombine the evolved gasses, removing the major uncertainty in other calorimetric results. 4:00 -- Nuclear Reactions and Screened- G.M. Hale,R.D. Smith, Coulomb Fusion Rates T.L. Talley, LANL This was one of the best theory talks presented, but I needed to get many of the details outside the talk. These calculations actually handle both the nuclear and atomic portions of the fusion interaction "correctly". An R-matrix is used to describe the short range nuclear interaction, while the long-range Coulomb interaction is treated analytically using an approximate screened potential. No substantial increase in the fusion rate can be obtained using screening lengths that might reasonably be obtained in a metal, unless one somehow increases the energy of the deuterons. Dr. Hale was quite surprised recently to discover that one can drastically alter the balance between 3He+n and 3H+p using a reasonable R-matrix; however, his idea of drastic is a 40% enhancement of one channel over the other, not a factor of 10**9. 4:20 -- Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Peter M. Richards PD1:1: How Close Can Deuterons Ge SNL For x = D/Pd < 1, D occupies octahedral sites in Pd, with an equilibrium separation of 2.83 A. For x > 1, D occupies the tetrahedral sites, with an equilibrium separation of 1.73 A. Using classical calculations, Dr. Richards was unable to obtain equilibrium separations nearly as small as found in D2. In other words, the fusion rate should be much lower than in molecular deuterium. Evening -- Jalbert et al, LANL, Results of tritium measurements on Texas A&M samples To make a long story short, although they had only been able to count over the weekend, Los Alamos verified the tritium levels measured at Texas A&M. Some results: Texas A&M Los Alamos --------- ---------- D2O 180 dpm/ml 100 dpm/ml D2O+LiOD 240 100 Cell A (blank) 1300 900 Cell B 2.1E6 2.0E6 Another group from LANL discussed various failed attempts to obtain D/Pd ratios near 1. Although there was certainly indication that they had not tried everything, I still wonder whether anyone can achieve 1 in an electrolytic cell. This has to be well known, but I have not had time to investigate. Moshe Gai argued that one could not trust any of the low level neutron rates coming from BF-3 detectors. He claimed that they were simply watching the gamma tail in their detectors, seeing the occasional gamma ray which double scattered in their detectors. Wednesday, May 24 ----------------- 8:00 -- Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed S.E. Jones Matter: Recent Results and Open BYU Questions (Invited Talk) Unfortunately Dr. Jones spent most of his time discussing sociology and providing anecdotes, instead of discussing new results. I admire the way he has handled himself overall, but he needs to get back to "science as usual." The presentation primarily reproduced those given in Baltimore. An overly brief discussion was given of new results at Los Alamos, in which Dr. Jones claimed a 3 sigma signal for about 0.08 neutrons per second was seen. I have to admit that after my first glance at the plot showing the results, I would not have been surprised to hear that the data was consistent with zero. The setup was quite similar to the original BYU setup, but the electrolyte had been drastically simplified. Dr. Jones was the first person I remember mentioning "fractofusion" in a talk. I will have more to say about this below, but the idea is that cracks develop in the electrode, accompanied by large electric fields that accelerate a few deuterons to energies at which conventional fusion becomes likely. This requires no enhancement of nuclear cross sections, but runs into several problems associated with generating and maintaining sufficiently strong fields. Hagelstein dismissed the idea in private conversations, claiming that electrons would cancel large fields long before deuterons (which accelerate about 2000 times more slowly) could reach 10-100 keV. He showed no calculations, however, and the question remains open to my knowledge. 8:30 -- Experimental Evidence for Cold A. Bertin,M. Bruschi, Nuclear Fusion in a Measurement M. Capponi,S. DeCastro, Under the Gran Sasso Massif U. Marconi,C. Moroni, M. Piccinini, N. Semprni-Cesari A. Trombini,A. Vitale, A. Zoccoli, Instituto Nazionale Di Fisica Nucleare, Italy J.B. Czirr,G.L. Jensen S.E. Jones,E.P. Palmer BYU This talk summarized results that are found in the preprint of the same name. Since this preprint does not seem to be widely available for some reason, I will repeat the most important points. Cosmic ray backgrounds are drastically reduced under the Gran Massif (muons reduced by 10**6), and natural radioactivity is low. The entire gamma-ray background is about 3.4E4 gammas per hour, and the neutron background is about 5-10 neutrons per hour. Fused Ti was used in the original BYU mother earth soup, with three cells each containing about 1 gram of Ti, and all running simultaneously. Two NE-213 detectors are used to detect neutrons, one near the cells and one removed by 8 meters. Results were shown with various electronic thresholds set to eliminate gamma-ray backgrounds, which are still much larger than the neutron signal if not filtered. As the threshold is increased the claimed signal for 2.5 MeV neutrons begins to stand out, although one begins to cut into this count rate as the threshold is further increased. Moshe Gai still believes they are seeing gammas, and that the only way to discriminate is to use two detectors (more below). The rate at which neutrons were seen increased after 1 hour and then dropped to background rates after another three hours. The total number of neutrons collected after background subtraction was 875 +/- 183, and their energy spectrum was consistent with 2.5 MeV. Taking into account the efficiency of the detectors, and the weight of the samples, and the total collection time of ten hours, the neutron production rate seen under the Gran Sasso was claimed to be consistent with the BYU results. Note that this result is consistent with the original high BYU rate of about 0.4 neutrons per second, not their reduced estimate of about 0.06 neutrons per second. The discrepancy between these "high rates" and the fact that Jones continues to emphasize the lower rates for the BYU results was not discussed. 8:50 -- Neutron Emission from a A.De Ninno,A. Frattolillo, Titanium-Deuterium System G. Lollobattista,L. Martinis, (Invited Talk) M. Martone,L. Mori S. Podda,F. Scaramuzzi Centro Ricerche Energia Frascati, Italy At least half of Dr. Scaramuzzi's talk focused on their original results, which are available in a widely distributed preprint. There is a good deal of scepticism about these results, focusing on their neutron detectors and the possibility of getting false signals from vapor condensation, temperature changes, vibrations, etc. In each run 100 g of Ti shavings are degassed at 200 C, placed in D2 gas under a pressure of 50 bar, then cooled to 77 K. Finally the temperature rises as liquid nitrogen levels decrease (why?), and neutrons are seen in bursts. The fact that neutrons are seen in bursts of 20 or 40 was explained by detector saturation, and the fact that they appeared to last for about 55 microseconds was explained by the moderator in the detectors which will naturally spread a signal over about 60 microseconds. New results from ENEA were also reported, but my notes are poor. Repeating the above procedure, counts were seen for three hours during the heating phase. I was sceptical of the results reported and would like to wait for a preprint before saying more. 9:10 -- The Measurement of Neutron Emission H.O. Menlove,M.M. Fowler from Ti Plus D2 Gas E. Garcia,A. Mayer, M.C. Miller,R.R. Ryan LANL S.E. Jones, BYU This talk provided perhaps the most intriguing new results at the conference. During a light-hearted presentation Dr. Menlove reported seeing reproducible bursts of neutrons in an experimental setup similar to that at Frascati. The neutron yields measured to date were too low to determine energy, so the talk concentrated on total yields. Once again this group provided copies of their transparencies, which makes my job much easier. Ti metal chips and sponge were placed in pressurized D2 gas with the pressure ranging from 20 atm to 50 atm, and the amount of Ti from 30 g to 500 g. The neutrons were measured using four detectors, the best of which employed 18 3He tubes to achieve an absolute efficiency of 34%. The gas cells were actually placed inside the detectors, with various precautions being taken to guard against spurious signals resulting from vapor condensation, etc. Dummy cells were run simultaneously, and never produced apparent neutron bursts. Two control counters were placed next to primary counter. The counters have been run for more than a month with no spurious bursts. Random neutron bursts and time-correlated bursts were observed. The time spread in individual bursts was about 200 micro seconds. The bursts were all observed after the cells were cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature and allowed to warm for about 40 minutes, with random emissions seen for at least 12 hours after the sample reached room temperatures. "The neutron emission rates were very low and the twelve hour random emission rate was 0.05-0.2 n/s. However, this yield was still 11 sigma above the background. The instantaneous neutron bursts were more dramatic with yields several orders of magnitude above the coincidence background rates." Correlating the time at which bursts were seen in the warmup phase with the rate at which the cells warm, they found that bursts seem to come when the cell is near -30 degrees C. Each burst consisted of 10-300 neutrons. Their summary table: Sample Number of bursts Burst cycle number ------ ---------------- ------------------ Ti-1 4 3,4 Ti-6 8 4,5,6,7,8,9 Ti-10 2 5,7 Ti-11 2 4 I apologize for not being able to explain each of these columns, but my notes are not good enough. The main item to notice is that many bursts were observed, and reproducibility should not be a problem. The random emissions observed with three detectors varied in significance: 4.3 sigma, 5.3 sigma and 11 sigma. 9:40 -- Upper Limits on Emission Rates of M. Gai,S.L. Rugari, Neutrons and Gamma-Rays from ``Cold R.H. France,B.J. Lund, Fusion'' in Deuterided Metals Z. Zhao, Yale (Invited Talk) A.J. Davenport,H.S. Isaacs, K.G. Lynn, BNL This group has now submitted an article to NATURE, and preprints were available at the meeting. I will not provide an extensive summary of the results. A variety of electrodes were used, both Ti and Pd. In all cases the Pd electrodes were annealed in air, argon or vacuum. It appears that in every case the Pd electrodes were only partly immersed in the electrolyte. Various electrolytes (including one run with the original BYU soup) were tried. In addition, one run was made with pressurized D2 gas ala Frascati. No neutrons or gammas were observed above background. The neutron detection system used in this experiment was better than anything employed in experiments where neutrons have been seen. To be fair, however, in the runs that used the BYU electrolyte a Ti plate was used instead of fused Ti. Moshe Gai agreed to run a cell from BYU. Hopefully Yale will also receive a cell from Texas A&M that is supposed to produce heat and/or neutrons. After all appropriate vetoes are made to remove spurious results, Yale sees about 2 neutron counts in five days. Their sensitivity is obviously good enough to allow them to see neutron production rates well below what has been claimed in all positive results reported. 11:00 -- An Attempt to Measure Characteristic R. Fleming,F. Donahue, X-Rays from Cold Fusion S. Mancini,G. Knoll, B. Heuser, Univ. of Michigan This group took a new approach and looked for Pd K-shell X-rays that should provide a signature for high energy charged particles inside the Pd electrode. Barring some miraculous means of instantly turning energy released from fusion into heat, the only way to hide fusion products is to require that all of them be charged particles. Ignoring the fact that no one has any idea of how to do this, and the fact that even if you do you should see an occasional gamma-ray due to collisions with Pd nuclei (enough to be easily detectable at the milliwatt power level), one should still see a copious X-ray signal in coming out of thin electrodes. Using a Pd foil and 48 mA of current for 5 days, this group observed no signal at the level of 50 d-d fusions per second. 1:30 -- Two Fast Mixed Conductor Systems-- A. Belzer,U. Bischler, Deuterium and Hydrogen in Palladium S. Crouch-Baker,T.M. Gur, M. Schreiber,R.A. Huggins This group has no problems with reproducibility, as it seems that they always get excess heat when they should and never when they shouldn't. I will not report on their electrode preparation, as this is described in many other places. Suffice it to say that it sounds like they spend more time on this than anyone else at the conference. The only measurements Dr. Huggins reported were calorimetric. He claims that they are now seeing more excess heat than TOTAL energy put into their cells during electrolysis, with no induced recombination. They are now stirring their electrolyte, with no change in their results. He is either being dishonest on this point or his critics were wrong. He is willing to run an electrode that produced null results at Caltech as a check. I cannot judge the calorimetric results; however, I am baffled by the lack of any apparent attempt to look for fusion byproducts. At one point Dr. Huggins acted as if it were not even clear whether they still had their old electrolytes, so that someone could check tritium levels. He seemed to be quite defensive (perhaps justifiably), and acted as if they had never considered allowing someone else to come in and do the work involved in looking for neutrons, gammas, tritium or helium. He mentioned that they had not had time to do so, but I could not determine why they were not willing to allow someone else to do so. unknown time -- Dufour et al, Bugey, France Neutron detection with low level background I report this talk simply because their neutron detection is extremely impressive. They used an array of 98 NE-320 liquid scintillators designed to be used in the detection of antineutrinos. Their efficiency was 15-17%. Their reported neutron production rate was 0.4 +/- 1.6 neutrons per hour. Their detector is more than 10 times as sensitive as required to see the lowest level BYU results, but thet ran only a few cells and all were of the Fleischmann-Pons type. 4:00 -- Seven Chemical Explanations of J.O'M. Bockris,N. Packham, the Fleischmann-Pons Effect O. Velev,G. Lin, M. Szklarzcyck, R. Kainthla, Texas A&M Dr. Bockris postulated seven explanations for excess heat and argued against each of them. The criterion for success was the ability to produce 1-10 W/cm**3 for up to 100 hours. 100% recombination of D2 and O2 should do it, but he didn't think anyone was sufficiently incompetent to have missed this. Texas A&M "pessimistically" estimates the recombination rate at less than 2%. Expose the top part of the Pd rod. At best you then recombine D2 and O2 on the exposed part of the rod, obtaining about 68 kcal/mole, or about 0.2 W/cm**2. Texas A&M intentionally exposed rods and found no excess heat. The fact that excess heat is never produced when Pd is replaced by Pt indicates that recombination in the gas alone will not work. An alpha/beta phase transition in the Pd will only produce about 0.03 W/cm**3. Even if one assumes a D/Pd ratio of 6, one can only obtain 0.6 W/cm**3 from the formation of the Pd-D "hydride". If one assumes the entire electrode is somehow involved in the formation of an alloy involving Li, one can get only 0.08 W/cm**3. Pauling's ideas don't work. (Sorry I can't elaborate.) In conclusion, as a nuclear physicist I will continue to point my finger at the chemists; but their task of explaining excess heat at these levels may not be that much easier than ours would be. I can't judge. It seems impossible (if this word is to have any meaning) to explain this heat using fusion, and I'm still not convinced it can't be explained chemically. 4:20 Evidence Against Condensed Matter K.Nagamine,T. Matsuzaki, Fusion Induced by Cosmic-Ray Muons K. Ishida,S. Sakamoto, Y. Watanabe,M. Iwasaki, H. Miyake,K. Nishiyama, H. Kurihara,E. Torikai, T. Suzuki,S. Isagawa, K. Kondo University of Tokyo/RIKEN They used a muon beam to measure the rate of neutron production from muon absorption in electrolysed Pd. The rate was about 0.12 neutrons per muon, not 300. They pointed out that, as has been mentioned by many people, there are many problems with trying to use muon-catalyzed fusion to obtain Jones level neutron production. The main problems are that muons are primarily captured on Pd initially and after inducing a fusion, and that fusion is not rapidly induced even after capture on deuterium because the equilibrium spacing between D's is so large. Thursday, May 25, 1989 --------------------- 8:20 -- Interaction of Deuterium with F. Besenbacher,B.B. Nielsen, Lattice Defects in Palladium S.M. Myers,P. Nordlander, J.K. Norskov University of Aarhus Denmark The most interesting result in this talk to me was the claim that the chance of doubly occupying a site in Pd with D is zero. One can multiply occupy a defect in the metal of course, but the octahedral sites are not multiply occupied. The speaker acted as if this were rigorously established, and I certainly have no reason to doubt it. The experimental results presented were the result of ion beam implantation. 8:40 -- Search for Cold Fusion in S.M. Myers,D.M. Follstaedt, Superstoichiometric Palladium J.E. Schirber,P.M. Richards Deuteride Using Ion Implantation SNL By using ion implantation this group was able to obtain D/Pd ratios of up to 1.3 . This is determined by looking for fusion reaction products coming from standard reactions of D in the 10 keV beam with D already implanted. To look for fusion, this group turned off the beam and just continued to watch for tritium and protons. They saw no evidence of cold fusion. 9:20 -- Nuclear Fusion from Crack- F.J. Mayer,J.S. King, Generated Particle Acceleration J.R. Reitz FJM Assoc., Univ. of Michigan Ford Motor Rsch. Lab Once again, this speaker made his transparencies available. This was the only talk in which any quantitative discussion of fusion during crack formation was provided. The sequence is: deuterium loading --> lattice stress --> lattice cracking --> charge imbalance as gap opens --> large voltage --> deuterons fall through potential and collide to produce fusion at reasonable energies Using gap sizes of 0.1 to 1 micron, and assuming an imbalance of 1 electron for every ten lattice cells on the face of the crack, one gets potential differences of 1-10 kilovolts. The neutron production rate from fusion increase from 10**-10 per second per deuteron to about 1 as the energy goes from about 1.4 keV to 10 keV. Modeling the crack as a capacitor plate shorted out along one side, the time it takes to neutralize the charge imbalance through electron conduction should be about the gap size divided by the speed of sound. This is about 50-500 picoseconds for the above gap sizes. It takes about a picosecond for a free deuteron to fall through the above potentials. These rather simple arguments were intended to show that fusion induced by crack formation is plausible, making no obviously absurd assumptions, at the rates seen by Jones. One has to fold the above considerations with a rate at which cracks of various sizes are formed, determine realistic charge imbalances and electronic response times. Neutron production has been observed during crack formation in LiD crystals (Klyuev et al, Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 12, 551 (1986)), but it should be much easier to set up large fields for sufficient times in dielectrics than in metals. -------------------------- Robert Perry Dept. of Physics The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 bitnet: perry@ohstpy other: perry@public.mps.ohio-state.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenperry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Paul Dietz / Re: Surface vs. Volume Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Surface vs. Volume Date: 1 Jun 89 18:13:50 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <5169@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >It is interesting to note that Li-6 has an enormous thermal neutron >absorption cross-section - 960 barns. > >This may offer a partial explanation of the high tritium production >levels, the scarcity of neutrons, and the excess heat dependence on >the Li isotopes present in the electrolyte. Unfortunately, no, since d+d produces fast neutrons, not thermal neutrons. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Andrew Philips / Re: Stanford Results Originally-From: abp@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov (Andrew B Philips) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Stanford Results Date: 1 Jun 89 18:11:52 GMT Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA The important thing here to think about is whether this system can produce more ENERGY than the amount needed to be put into the system. In this case that would be the electrical current. If less energy came out of the system then the power (V*I) it is not USEFUL as an engine (or energy production device). Because if less work could be done with the black box (this case the fusion cell), then we might as well use the electrical current, see? It may help to think about a gasoline engine and compare it to this system. The analogy is a battery runs the spark plug and gasoline is the fuel. With a working fusion cell, a battery run the reaction and heavy water is the fuel, notice no difference. In both situations we are taking advantage of the stored energy in the system. In the first system the energy is chemical, and in the second it is nuclear. If we examine the engines on a local scale, we find that they both produce more energy out than has been put in. But, on a global or universal scale, neither of these reactions (or any other reaction you can think of) will produce more energy than is put into it. This has to do with the laws of physics, conservation of matter and entropy. Some process had to take energy and produce D2O, whether it was a supernova, the cooling of the universe after the Big Bang, or Joe's Dueteride plant around the corner. That took energy. Now we are trying to take advantage of that energy, just like we take advantage of the chemical energy stored in fermented dinosaur remains from the bowels of the earth. The question of whether all the energy required to produce a working cell is greater than the total output of a working cell is a valid question. Because this refers to the local scale energy production. If it Total Energy In > Lifetime Energy Out than the process can't be used to create more fusion cells. Although I don't have figures for any of this (does anyone really?) it would seem that any process that yeilded more energy out than in at the local level (Volts*Amps) and would run, for say one year, should be able to produce at least one other cell in that time. Probably alot more. That is why it is seen as potentially useful. This is my understanding on the subject. Hope it is clear. All corrections welcome. Andy Philips abp@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenabp cudfnAndrew cudlnPhilips cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Dave Mack / Long Summary of Santa Fe Workshop on CNF Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Long Summary of Santa Fe Workshop on CNF Date: 1 Jun 89 20:13:45 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA I received the following summary of the Santa Fe workshop from Dr. Robert Perry at OSU. It's rather long, but contains information I haven't seen in any of the other summaries posted to the net. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 14:09 EDT Subject: report on Santa Fe cold fusion meeting This is yet another report of the Santa Fe meeting on Cold Fusion, hosted by Los Alamos. I will follow the agenda, but will not report on most talks. In particular, most speakers presented null results and every talk about which I say nothing falls into this category. It is not my intention to introduce a bias in this manner, but there were simply too many talks to report. Before describing the results in detail, let me provide my own summary. Cold fusion IS NOT DEAD. If anything, the Santa Fe meeting was more positive than any other meeting to date. However, the prospects of cheap and plentiful energy from fusion in Pd continue to fade. I have been satisfied with intriguing science and will not miss the diminishing interest of the press. There is evidence for excess heat, tritium and neutrons in a variety of setups from a number of labs. I asked everyone with whom I spoke at the meeting whether they had reasonable explanations (e.g., temperature gradients from inadequate stirring and chemiluminescence) for the most notable positive results. In each case, there were possible sources of error one could imagine, but no consensus that such errors were likely. In no case could anyone point to an obvious flaw and indicate how the experiment could be corrected to give a null result. The operative word there is "obvious", because people did worry about less than obvious problems. Everyone agreed that the calorimetry results should be checked in a closed system, in which evolved gasses are completely recombined. The tritium results were only a week old, and the people at Texas A&M sounded like they wanted to dissect their equipment (not literally) to search for sources of tritium. Everyone seemed to agree that the tritium is there, at 10**4 times the level that should be there; but few were convinced that alternatives to fusion had been ruled out. Finally, neutrons have now been seen at so many places that sceptics are beginning to admit (and I'm still one of them) that low-level emission rates are being seen. It is unfortunate at best that excess heat has not been seen at the place with the best calorimeter, and neutrons have not been seen by the best neutron detector. Finally, no one seems to have any theory to explain a new source of excess heat. There are lots of ideas, but no theory. Certainly no one has any reasonable theory for enhancing fusion rates to a level required to explain excess heat or tritium. There are theories, but they all invoke a miracle at some point. Low level fusion rates needed to explain Jones level neutron observations, and perhaps neutron bursts, may be explained by small numbers of high energy deuterons generated by short-lived electric fields induced by crack formation; however, it is still not clear that the materials involved can support the requisite fields. In short, the best bet as far as conventional theory is concerned is still experimental error. One other thing most participants agreed upon: There should be a moratorium on conferences until the fall, with increased collaboration between various groups until then. Tuesday, May 23 --------------- 9:00 -- 9:30 Evidence for Excess Heat Generation A.J.Appleby,S.Srinivasan, Rates During Electrolysis of D2O O.J. Murphy,C.R. Martin in LiOD Using a Palladium Cathode - Texas A&M A Microcalorimetric Study (Invited Talk) Someone from this group made the transparencies available. They used a Tronac model 350 microcalorimeter, which they claim allows the measurement of heat generation from 1 microwatt to 8 watt with about 3 microwatt precision. Their electrodes were always either Pd or Pt. Their electrolyte was 7.5-8.0 ml of 0.1M LiOD, 0.1M LiOH, 0.1M NaOD or 1.0M LiOD. Dr. Appleby showed several plots of excess heat as a function of time. For all cases where this should be zero, it was. In particular, when Pt was used as the cathode or LiOH as the electrolyte (note: It is hard to understand why this substitution should eliminate excess heat when D2O is not replaced by H2O.), the excess heat was zero. With the 'correct' setup, excess heat of 30-40 mW was measured for several days at a time. It rose with current and dropped when current dropped. It dropped when LiOD was replaced with NaOD, but stopped at 5-8 mW instead of 0. Cathode Anode Electrolyte Current Density Excess Heat Rate mA/cm**2 W/cm**3 of Pd ------- ----- ----------- --------------- ---------------- Pd 300 16.3 0.5mm dia. Pt 0.1M LiOD 600 19.3 10mm long 1000 18.5 Pd same Pt 0.1M LiOH 600 0 Pt same Pt 0.1M LiOD 600 0 Pd 1.0mm dia. Pt 0.1M LiOD 600 4-7 10mm long Pd 2.0mm dia. Pt 0.1M LiOD 600 6-12 sphere ------------------------------------------------------------------ It is worth noting that these rates are in the same range as reported by Fleischmann and Pons, but are not scaling up with current and volume. My rough calculations seem to indicate that excess heat is possibly independent of volume at Texas A&M. Cathodes from both the Bockris and Appleby group were checked for 3He and 4He, with null results in all cases. The lower bounds were < 0.2-1.2 * 10**9 atoms in samples with masses between 8.79 and 14.49 mg. My understanding is that 4He is not very mobile in Pd, and will remain trapped if produced in the volume of the electrode. Before the mass spec searches for He were performed all species of H were removed, so that no one has looked for tritium and 3He in the same electrode. The removed H gas could be collected and analyzed. Tritium was found in 7 of 10 cathodes, and I believe all of the results reported by Appleby were for cathodes from the Bockris group. If I am not mistaken, none of these cathodes were checked for heat production. All were wire (?) 0.1cm dia. by 4cm length, charged at 60 mA/cm**2 for two weeks, and maintained at 500mA/cm**2 for 6-8 hours. In disintegrations per minute per ml (dpl), the rates were: 2.0E6, 4.8E6, 3.6E6, 2.2E6, 3.6E4, 2.4E4, 6.3E4, and 210 for blank LiOD. They claimed that there was no recombination of D2 and O2 above the 1% level, ruling this out as a source of heat. They noted that 20W/ml for 100 hours is equal to 0.75 keV/Pd atom, while the bond strength is only 0.67 eV. They also mentioned that the formation of a Pd-D alloy would only allow the release of 20W/ml for about 170 seconds. 9:30 -- 9:50 Neutron Emission and the TritiumK.L. Wolf, N. Packham, Content Associated with Deuterium J. Shoemaker,F. Cheng, Loaded Palladium and Titanium Metals D. Lawson Texas A&M No paper was made available and my notes are poor. I talked to Dr. Wolf, and he was at least quite open about his work while explaining the somewhat complicated dynamics between the three separate groups at Texas A&M. The neutron results he reported were at a low level, and were met with a good deal of scepticism. Of 25 active cells, some produced counts and some did not. (Remember, this group does not have a calorimeter, and as far as I know no simultaneous search for heat and neutrons was conducted.) All runs with Ti were negative, and no excess gamma-rays above a level of 60 per minute were found. To detect neutrons, two identical NE-213 detectors were used, with pulse shape discrimination employed to identify neutrons. The background was 0.8 neutrons per min., dropping to 0.4 n/min. when analyzing for 2.5MeV neutrons. (Sorry, I didn't write why.) Also used a surrounding plastic scintillator for cosmic ray rejection. The neutron efficiency of their detectors was about 5%. Wolf showed one plot with about nine points on it spread over 250 min. The count rate climbed from about 1 per min. up to 3-4 per minute, then oscillated and went back to a background level of about 1 per min. This was supposed to be an 8 sigma signal. In the 20 minute data cuts, they were seeing about 40-60 counts. Wolf also reported on tritium results, and I believe he made the first measurements. He mentioned that the 10**4 enhancement of T concentration cannot be explained by isotopic enhancement, which works at about the 30% level, even if it worked at the 100% level. This is simply because they only add about 3 times the volume of D2O in a cell during a run, and can therefore only triple the T level. They claim that all D2O and LiOD comes from the same source. If true, extra T is either produced by fusion or introduced in some other part of the cell. Nobody came up with a popular candidate, although some people wondered aloud whether there could be T in the Pd. 10:40 -- Measurements of Neutron and Gamma D. Albagli,V. Cammarata, Ray Emission Rates and Calorimetry R. Crooks,M. Schloh, in Electrochemical Cells Having Pd M.S. Wrighton,X. Chen, Cathodes C. Fiore,M. Gaudreau, D. Gwinn,P. Linsay, S.C. Luckhardt,R. Parker, R. Petrasso,K. Wenzel, R. Ballinger,I. Hwang,MIT Some of these results are now published in Nature, vol. 339, p. 183. They employed isothermal calorimetry, maintaining constant temperature with a heater and watching the required power. No discussion of Pd history (i.e., treatment). Discussed runs employing 1mm dia. x 10 cm Pd rods, with current density of 196 +/- 2 mA/cm**2 (nearly same for H2O). No gammas, no 4He, no heat. Bockris mentioned during questions that P&F now claim one needs 4-6mm dia. rods and 72 days of charging time, and argued that any discussion of null results for fusion products without first seeing heat is premature. He did not explain why Texas A&M is seeing heat without following these criteria. 1:50 -- Calorimetry, Neutron Flux, Gamma Nathan S. Lewis Flux, and Tritium Yield from Charles A. Barnes Electrochemically Charged Palladium Cal Tech in D2O Dr. Lewis' talk was nearly identical to the one he gave at the Baltimore APS meeting, with no new results as far as I could tell. A wide range of Pd electrodes, including 1 cast, 1 from Texas A&M and many treated in a variety of ways that should enhance deuterium absorption, were tested. No excess heat ( < 6%), no gammas (from 20 keV to 30 MeV), no neutrons ( < 1/10 per second), no tritium (at background level of 100 dpm) and no helium ( < 1 ppm). I will not discuss experimental details. In each case I believe that they are not seeing a signal because it is not there. They have done a thorough job of building electrolytic cells. Their results may not prove that cold fusion and excess heat are fallacious, but certainly demonstrate that if they are real they are difficult to reproduce. Dr. Lewis explained to me how F&P got their percentage breakeven numbers, and his explanation matched what I had guessed. However, I still cannot obtain their third breakeven percentage (the one with the 0.5V assumption). If you know how to get this, please let me know. During the question period, Dr. Bockris argued that null results could be explained by insufficient D/Pd ratio. This is one of the conference themes, but it was not clear to me exactly what other people were doing that was not done at Caltech to get a high ratio. It also was not clear to me that the need for a high ratio had been established at Texas A&M. Certainly no one showed a table with excess heat vs. D/Pd ratio; so at this point this is just intelligent speculation as far as I could tell. Dr. Huggins claimed that Caltech had annealed at 300 C, which is not nearly hot enough for Pd. 2:30 -- Tests for ``Cold Fusion'' in the J.G. Blencoe,M.T. Naney Pd-D2 and Ti-D2 Systems at D.J. Wesolowski 350 MPa and 195-300K ORNL This was a null result in a Frascati-like experiment. Several interesting points were raised. They observed a correlation in their neutron background with atmospheric pressure. They were able to get counts by adding ice and condensing water on cables, by turning lights on and off, and by setting up vibrations near their detectors. These are well-known problems with BF-3 detectors, but illustrate some problem with detecting signals just above background. 3:10 -- High Precision Cold Fusion M.E. Hayden,U. Narger, Calorimetry Achieved by In Situ J.L. Booth,L.A. Whitehead, Catalytic Recombination of Evolved W.N. Hardy,J.F. Carolan, Gasses D.A. Balzarini,C.C. Blake E. Wishnow,Univ. of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada These guys seem to have built the best calorimeter in the cold fusion business. Hopefully they will be given some Pd that is supposed to produce excess heat and clear up some of the mystery. They completely recombine the evolved gasses, removing the major uncertainty in other calorimetric results. 4:00 -- Nuclear Reactions and Screened- G.M. Hale,R.D. Smith, Coulomb Fusion Rates T.L. Talley, LANL This was one of the best theory talks presented, but I needed to get many of the details outside the talk. These calculations actually handle both the nuclear and atomic portions of the fusion interaction "correctly". An R-matrix is used to describe the short range nuclear interaction, while the long-range Coulomb interaction is treated analytically using an approximate screened potential. No substantial increase in the fusion rate can be obtained using screening lengths that might reasonably be obtained in a metal, unless one somehow increases the energy of the deuterons. Dr. Hale was quite surprised recently to discover that one can drastically alter the balance between 3He+n and 3H+p using a reasonable R-matrix; however, his idea of drastic is a 40% enhancement of one channel over the other, not a factor of 10**9. 4:20 -- Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Peter M. Richards PD1:1: How Close Can Deuterons Ge SNL For x = D/Pd < 1, D occupies octahedral sites in Pd, with an equilibrium separation of 2.83 A. For x > 1, D occupies the tetrahedral sites, with an equilibrium separation of 1.73 A. Using classical calculations, Dr. Richards was unable to obtain equilibrium separations nearly as small as found in D2. In other words, the fusion rate should be much lower than in molecular deuterium. Evening -- Jalbert et al, LANL, Results of tritium measurements on Texas A&M samples To make a long story short, although they had only been able to count over the weekend, Los Alamos verified the tritium levels measured at Texas A&M. Some results: Texas A&M Los Alamos --------- ---------- D2O 180 dpm/ml 100 dpm/ml D2O+LiOD 240 100 Cell A (blank) 1300 900 Cell B 2.1E6 2.0E6 Another group from LANL discussed various failed attempts to obtain D/Pd ratios near 1. Although there was certainly indication that they had not tried everything, I still wonder whether anyone can achieve 1 in an electrolytic cell. This has to be well known, but I have not had time to investigate. Moshe Gai argued that one could not trust any of the low level neutron rates coming from BF-3 detectors. He claimed that they were simply watching the gamma tail in their detectors, seeing the occasional gamma ray which double scattered in their detectors. Wednesday, May 24 ----------------- 8:00 -- Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed S.E. Jones Matter: Recent Results and Open BYU Questions (Invited Talk) Unfortunately Dr. Jones spent most of his time discussing sociology and providing anecdotes, instead of discussing new results. I admire the way he has handled himself overall, but he needs to get back to "science as usual." The presentation primarily reproduced those given in Baltimore. An overly brief discussion was given of new results at Los Alamos, in which Dr. Jones claimed a 3 sigma signal for about 0.08 neutrons per second was seen. I have to admit that after my first glance at the plot showing the results, I would not have been surprised to hear that the data was consistent with zero. The setup was quite similar to the original BYU setup, but the electrolyte had been drastically simplified. Dr. Jones was the first person I remember mentioning "fractofusion" in a talk. I will have more to say about this below, but the idea is that cracks develop in the electrode, accompanied by large electric fields that accelerate a few deuterons to energies at which conventional fusion becomes likely. This requires no enhancement of nuclear cross sections, but runs into several problems associated with generating and maintaining sufficiently strong fields. Hagelstein dismissed the idea in private conversations, claiming that electrons would cancel large fields long before deuterons (which accelerate about 2000 times more slowly) could reach 10-100 keV. He showed no calculations, however, and the question remains open to my knowledge. 8:30 -- Experimental Evidence for Cold A. Bertin,M. Bruschi, Nuclear Fusion in a Measurement M. Capponi,S. DeCastro, Under the Gran Sasso Massif U. Marconi,C. Moroni, M. Piccinini, N. Semprni-Cesari A. Trombini,A. Vitale, A. Zoccoli, Instituto Nazionale Di Fisica Nucleare, Italy J.B. Czirr,G.L. Jensen S.E. Jones,E.P. Palmer BYU This talk summarized results that are found in the preprint of the same name. Since this preprint does not seem to be widely available for some reason, I will repeat the most important points. Cosmic ray backgrounds are drastically reduced under the Gran Massif (muons reduced by 10**6), and natural radioactivity is low. The entire gamma-ray background is about 3.4E4 gammas per hour, and the neutron background is about 5-10 neutrons per hour. Fused Ti was used in the original BYU mother earth soup, with three cells each containing about 1 gram of Ti, and all running simultaneously. Two NE-213 detectors are used to detect neutrons, one near the cells and one removed by 8 meters. Results were shown with various electronic thresholds set to eliminate gamma-ray backgrounds, which are still much larger than the neutron signal if not filtered. As the threshold is increased the claimed signal for 2.5 MeV neutrons begins to stand out, although one begins to cut into this count rate as the threshold is further increased. Moshe Gai still believes they are seeing gammas, and that the only way to discriminate is to use two detectors (more below). The rate at which neutrons were seen increased after 1 hour and then dropped to background rates after another three hours. The total number of neutrons collected after background subtraction was 875 +/- 183, and their energy spectrum was consistent with 2.5 MeV. Taking into account the efficiency of the detectors, and the weight of the samples, and the total collection time of ten hours, the neutron production rate seen under the Gran Sasso was claimed to be consistent with the BYU results. Note that this result is consistent with the original high BYU rate of about 0.4 neutrons per second, not their reduced estimate of about 0.06 neutrons per second. The discrepancy between these "high rates" and the fact that Jones continues to emphasize the lower rates for the BYU results was not discussed. 8:50 -- Neutron Emission from a A.De Ninno,A. Frattolillo, Titanium-Deuterium System G. Lollobattista,L. Martinis, (Invited Talk) M. Martone,L. Mori S. Podda,F. Scaramuzzi Centro Ricerche Energia Frascati, Italy At least half of Dr. Scaramuzzi's talk focused on their original results, which are available in a widely distributed preprint. There is a good deal of scepticism about these results, focusing on their neutron detectors and the possibility of getting false signals from vapor condensation, temperature changes, vibrations, etc. In each run 100 g of Ti shavings are degassed at 200 C, placed in D2 gas under a pressure of 50 bar, then cooled to 77 K. Finally the temperature rises as liquid nitrogen levels decrease (why?), and neutrons are seen in bursts. The fact that neutrons are seen in bursts of 20 or 40 was explained by detector saturation, and the fact that they appeared to last for about 55 microseconds was explained by the moderator in the detectors which will naturally spread a signal over about 60 microseconds. New results from ENEA were also reported, but my notes are poor. Repeating the above procedure, counts were seen for three hours during the heating phase. I was sceptical of the results reported and would like to wait for a preprint before saying more. 9:10 -- The Measurement of Neutron Emission H.O. Menlove,M.M. Fowler from Ti Plus D2 Gas E. Garcia,A. Mayer, M.C. Miller,R.R. Ryan LANL S.E. Jones, BYU This talk provided perhaps the most intriguing new results at the conference. During a light-hearted presentation Dr. Menlove reported seeing reproducible bursts of neutrons in an experimental setup similar to that at Frascati. The neutron yields measured to date were too low to determine energy, so the talk concentrated on total yields. Once again this group provided copies of their transparencies, which makes my job much easier. Ti metal chips and sponge were placed in pressurized D2 gas with the pressure ranging from 20 atm to 50 atm, and the amount of Ti from 30 g to 500 g. The neutrons were measured using four detectors, the best of which employed 18 3He tubes to achieve an absolute efficiency of 34%. The gas cells were actually placed inside the detectors, with various precautions being taken to guard against spurious signals resulting from vapor condensation, etc. Dummy cells were run simultaneously, and never produced apparent neutron bursts. Two control counters were placed next to primary counter. The counters have been run for more than a month with no spurious bursts. Random neutron bursts and time-correlated bursts were observed. The time spread in individual bursts was about 200 micro seconds. The bursts were all observed after the cells were cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature and allowed to warm for about 40 minutes, with random emissions seen for at least 12 hours after the sample reached room temperatures. "The neutron emission rates were very low and the twelve hour random emission rate was 0.05-0.2 n/s. However, this yield was still 11 sigma above the background. The instantaneous neutron bursts were more dramatic with yields several orders of magnitude above the coincidence background rates." Correlating the time at which bursts were seen in the warmup phase with the rate at which the cells warm, they found that bursts seem to come when the cell is near -30 degrees C. Each burst consisted of 10-300 neutrons. Their summary table: Sample Number of bursts Burst cycle number ------ ---------------- ------------------ Ti-1 4 3,4 Ti-6 8 4,5,6,7,8,9 Ti-10 2 5,7 Ti-11 2 4 I apologize for not being able to explain each of these columns, but my notes are not good enough. The main item to notice is that many bursts were observed, and reproducibility should not be a problem. The random emissions observed with three detectors varied in significance: 4.3 sigma, 5.3 sigma and 11 sigma. 9:40 -- Upper Limits on Emission Rates of M. Gai,S.L. Rugari, Neutrons and Gamma-Rays from ``Cold R.H. France,B.J. Lund, Fusion'' in Deuterided Metals Z. Zhao, Yale (Invited Talk) A.J. Davenport,H.S. Isaacs, K.G. Lynn, BNL This group has now submitted an article to NATURE, and preprints were available at the meeting. I will not provide an extensive summary of the results. A variety of electrodes were used, both Ti and Pd. In all cases the Pd electrodes were annealed in air, argon or vacuum. It appears that in every case the Pd electrodes were only partly immersed in the electrolyte. Various electrolytes (including one run with the original BYU soup) were tried. In addition, one run was made with pressurized D2 gas ala Frascati. No neutrons or gammas were observed above background. The neutron detection system used in this experiment was better than anything employed in experiments where neutrons have been seen. To be fair, however, in the runs that used the BYU electrolyte a Ti plate was used instead of fused Ti. Moshe Gai agreed to run a cell from BYU. Hopefully Yale will also receive a cell from Texas A&M that is supposed to produce heat and/or neutrons. After all appropriate vetoes are made to remove spurious results, Yale sees about 2 neutron counts in five days. Their sensitivity is obviously good enough to allow them to see neutron production rates well below what has been claimed in all positive results reported. 11:00 -- An Attempt to Measure Characteristic R. Fleming,F. Donahue, X-Rays from Cold Fusion S. Mancini,G. Knoll, B. Heuser, Univ. of Michigan This group took a new approach and looked for Pd K-shell X-rays that should provide a signature for high energy charged particles inside the Pd electrode. Barring some miraculous means of instantly turning energy released from fusion into heat, the only way to hide fusion products is to require that all of them be charged particles. Ignoring the fact that no one has any idea of how to do this, and the fact that even if you do you should see an occasional gamma-ray due to collisions with Pd nuclei (enough to be easily detectable at the milliwatt power level), one should still see a copious X-ray signal in coming out of thin electrodes. Using a Pd foil and 48 mA of current for 5 days, this group observed no signal at the level of 50 d-d fusions per second. 1:30 -- Two Fast Mixed Conductor Systems-- A. Belzer,U. Bischler, Deuterium and Hydrogen in Palladium S. Crouch-Baker,T.M. Gur, M. Schreiber,R.A. Huggins This group has no problems with reproducibility, as it seems that they always get excess heat when they should and never when they shouldn't. I will not report on their electrode preparation, as this is described in many other places. Suffice it to say that it sounds like they spend more time on this than anyone else at the conference. The only measurements Dr. Huggins reported were calorimetric. He claims that they are now seeing more excess heat than TOTAL energy put into their cells during electrolysis, with no induced recombination. They are now stirring their electrolyte, with no change in their results. He is either being dishonest on this point or his critics were wrong. He is willing to run an electrode that produced null results at Caltech as a check. I cannot judge the calorimetric results; however, I am baffled by the lack of any apparent attempt to look for fusion byproducts. At one point Dr. Huggins acted as if it were not even clear whether they still had their old electrolytes, so that someone could check tritium levels. He seemed to be quite defensive (perhaps justifiably), and acted as if they had never considered allowing someone else to come in and do the work involved in looking for neutrons, gammas, tritium or helium. He mentioned that they had not had time to do so, but I could not determine why they were not willing to allow someone else to do so. unknown time -- Dufour et al, Bugey, France Neutron detection with low level background I report this talk simply because their neutron detection is extremely impressive. They used an array of 98 NE-320 liquid scintillators designed to be used in the detection of antineutrinos. Their efficiency was 15-17%. Their reported neutron production rate was 0.4 +/- 1.6 neutrons per hour. Their detector is more than 10 times as sensitive as required to see the lowest level BYU results, but thet ran only a few cells and all were of the Fleischmann-Pons type. 4:00 -- Seven Chemical Explanations of J.O'M. Bockris,N. Packham, the Fleischmann-Pons Effect O. Velev,G. Lin, M. Szklarzcyck, R. Kainthla, Texas A&M Dr. Bockris postulated seven explanations for excess heat and argued against each of them. The criterion for success was the ability to produce 1-10 W/cm**3 for up to 100 hours. 100% recombination of D2 and O2 should do it, but he didn't think anyone was sufficiently incompetent to have missed this. Texas A&M "pessimistically" estimates the recombination rate at less than 2%. Expose the top part of the Pd rod. At best you then recombine D2 and O2 on the exposed part of the rod, obtaining about 68 kcal/mole, or about 0.2 W/cm**2. Texas A&M intentionally exposed rods and found no excess heat. The fact that excess heat is never produced when Pd is replaced by Pt indicates that recombination in the gas alone will not work. An alpha/beta phase transition in the Pd will only produce about 0.03 W/cm**3. Even if one assumes a D/Pd ratio of 6, one can only obtain 0.6 W/cm**3 from the formation of the Pd-D "hydride". If one assumes the entire electrode is somehow involved in the formation of an alloy involving Li, one can get only 0.08 W/cm**3. Pauling's ideas don't work. (Sorry I can't elaborate.) In conclusion, as a nuclear physicist I will continue to point my finger at the chemists; but their task of explaining excess heat at these levels may not be that much easier than ours would be. I can't judge. It seems impossible (if this word is to have any meaning) to explain this heat using fusion, and I'm still not convinced it can't be explained chemically. 4:20 Evidence Against Condensed Matter K.Nagamine,T. Matsuzaki, Fusion Induced by Cosmic-Ray Muons K. Ishida,S. Sakamoto, Y. Watanabe,M. Iwasaki, H. Miyake,K. Nishiyama, H. Kurihara,E. Torikai, T. Suzuki,S. Isagawa, K. Kondo University of Tokyo/RIKEN They used a muon beam to measure the rate of neutron production from muon absorption in electrolysed Pd. The rate was about 0.12 neutrons per muon, not 300. They pointed out that, as has been mentioned by many people, there are many problems with trying to use muon-catalyzed fusion to obtain Jones level neutron production. The main problems are that muons are primarily captured on Pd initially and after inducing a fusion, and that fusion is not rapidly induced even after capture on deuterium because the equilibrium spacing between D's is so large. Thursday, May 25, 1989 ---------------------- 8:20 -- Interaction of Deuterium with F. Besenbacher,B.B. Nielsen, Lattice Defects in Palladium S.M. Myers,P. Nordlander, J.K. Norskov University of Aarhus Denmark The most interesting result in this talk to me was the claim that the chance of doubly occupying a site in Pd with D is zero. One can multiply occupy a defect in the metal of course, but the octahedral sites are not multiply occupied. The speaker acted as if this were rigorously established, and I certainly have no reason to doubt it. The experimental results presented were the result of ion beam implantation. 8:40 -- Search for Cold Fusion in S.M. Myers,D.M. Follstaedt, Superstoichiometric Palladium J.E. Schirber,P.M. Richards Deuteride Using Ion Implantation SNL By using ion implantation this group was able to obtain D/Pd ratios of up to 1.3 . This is determined by looking for fusion reaction products coming from standard reactions of D in the 10 keV beam with D already implanted. To look for fusion, this group turned off the beam and just continued to watch for tritium and protons. They saw no evidence of cold fusion. 9:20 -- Nuclear Fusion from Crack- F.J. Mayer,J.S. King, Generated Particle Acceleration J.R. Reitz FJM Assoc., Univ. of Michigan Ford Motor Rsch. Lab Once again, this speaker made his transparencies available. This was the only talk in which any quantitative discussion of fusion during crack formation was provided. The sequence is: deuterium loading --> lattice stress --> lattice cracking --> charge imbalance as gap opens --> large voltage --> deuterons fall through potential and collide to produce fusion at reasonable energies Using gap sizes of 0.1 to 1 micron, and assuming an imbalance of 1 electron for every ten lattice cells on the face of the crack, one gets potential differences of 1-10 kilovolts. The neutron production rate from fusion increase from 10**-10 per second per deuteron to about 1 as the energy goes from about 1.4 keV to 10 keV. Modeling the crack as a capacitor plate shorted out along one side, the time it takes to neutralize the charge imbalance through electron conduction should be about the gap size divided by the speed of sound. This is about 50-500 picoseconds for the above gap sizes. It takes about a picosecond for a free deuteron to fall through the above potentials. These rather simple arguments were intended to show that fusion induced by crack formation is plausible, making no obviously absurd assumptions, at the rates seen by Jones. One has to fold the above considerations with a rate at which cracks of various sizes are formed, determine realistic charge imbalances and electronic response times. Neutron production has been observed during crack formation in LiD crystals (Klyuev et al, Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 12, 551 (1986)), but it should be much easier to set up large fields for sufficient times in dielectrics than in metals. --------------------------- Robert Perry Dept. of Physics The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 bitnet: perry@ohstpy other: perry@public.mps.ohio-state.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Dave Mack / cancel <5170@inco.UUCP> Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: cancel <5170@inco.UUCP> Date: 1 Jun 89 20:45:59 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / hari@ohstpy.mp / checking, IGNORE Originally-From: hari@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: checking, IGNORE Date: 1 Jun 89 21:31:19 GMT just checking! IGNORE!!!!! cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenhari cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Chuck Sites / Lithium Reactions (was Re: Surface vs. Volume) Originally-From: chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Lithium Reactions (was Re: Surface vs. Volume) Date: 1 Jun 89 18:02:57 GMT Organization: Copper Electronics, Louisville, Ky. In article , ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > > In article <1989May31.162957.10800@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > > This idea suggests that (1) we charge for a long period at low current > density to build up more lithium before turning on the high voltages > needed to saturate with deuterium, (2) we charge with a surface of the > cathode exposed above the electrolyte, so deuterium can escape, then > fully immerse it, or (3) we add lithium to the cathode beforehand in > some other way (alloying, molten salt electrolysis, etc.). > [Ted's shortend responce..] > the guys at stanford were doing molten salt electrolysis with there palladium > before the tried P&F replication I just wanted to mention one small reaction which might be applicable to the heat mechanism and perhaps explain why Li loading may be important. Suppose the fusion process is D + D -> T + p. The recoiling proton would have an energy of about 6Mev. I believe this is enough energy for a Li7 + p -> 4He + alpha reaction. Or perhaps Li6 + T -> 4He + alpha + n. Since the D + D -> T + p reaction should cause alot of gamma, perhaps Li plays a role by stopping the high energy protons via a secondary collision reaction, and in the process, No gamma! Primary reaction (1) D + D -> T + p T aprox (1.6Mev) and p aprox (6.0Mev) Secondary collision reactions (2) Li7 + p -> He4 + alpha (3) Li6 + T -> He4 + alpha + n In light of the fact that some helium is claimed to have been observed, and since process (3) would produce relativly low energy neutrons, we have a reaction which looks close to explaining the observations. Anybody care to work out the numbers? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . Chuck Sites | mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck . . . o o o o chuck@coplex | ATT: (502)-454-7218 WRK: 968-8495 o o o o O O O O O headline: Usenet confusion reveals theory on fusion O O O O O ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Jay Fisher / Santa Fe workshop video Originally-From: jay@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Jay Fisher) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Santa Fe workshop video Date: 1 Jun 89 22:46:27 GMT Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas Does anyone have a videotape of the meeting, or know where we can get one? cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjay cudfnJay cudlnFisher cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Peter W. Shack / Recording of Santa Fe Symposium. Originally-From: pws@plnapc.philips.com (Peter Shackle;6385;4.48;$0124) Originally-From: Peter W. Shackle at: Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Recording of Santa Fe Symposium. Date: 1 Jun 89 21:17:15 GMT Originally-From: Peter W. Shackle at: Philips Laboratories Briarcliff New York Phone 914-945-6385 email pws@philabs.philips.com I would like to get hold of a recording of the Santa Fe Symposium proceedings. Does anyone out there in network land have a copy that can be loaned long enough for us to duplicate it? cudkeys: cuddy1 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / John Berryhill / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: berryh@udel.EDU (John Berryhill) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 1 Jun 89 21:46:09 GMT Organization: University of Delaware Submission belongs in alt.sex.bondage, not alt.fusion. John Berryhill 143 King William Newark, DE 19711 cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenberryh cudfnJohn cudlnBerryhill cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Henry Spencer / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 1 Jun 89 19:06:48 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <1420@ns3.network.com> logajan@ns3.network.com (John Logajan) writes: >That's what I like, science by plebiscite. Pity poor Columbus, the world >really was flat! Nope, popular misconception: everyone agreed that the world was round in Columbus's day -- the disagreement was over its diameter, as I recall, and Columbus's faction turned out to be wrong! He'd have been dead if there hadn't been an unsuspected continent in the way, since he didn't have adequate supplies to reach the Orient itself. I wonder if there's an analogy here... :-) -- You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / James_J_Kowalc / Utah <-> LANL coop. cancelled? Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Utah <-> LANL coop. cancelled? Date: 31 May 89 11:34:36 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) gshippen@pollux.usc.edu (Gregory Shippen) writes: >I spoke with my brother in Utah last Sunday night. He tells me that the >cooperative agreement between UU and LANL fell through in spite of the >comments made by Mr. Brophy at the Santa Fe workshop. Can any one >confirm this? Anybody from Utah listening on Memorial Day? As far as I know, it has not "fallen through." As a matter of fact, I last heard that the lawyers had finally worked out all the details, and that it was now up to the scientists on both ends to finalize it. Never know, though. (?) Jim Kowalczyk James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / George Hagerman / CALL FOR VOTES: Creation of sci.energy Originally-From: george@gwusun.gwu.edu (George Hagerman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: CALL FOR VOTES: Creation of sci.energy Date: 2 Jun 89 15:04:58 GMT Organization: Seasun Power Systems, Alexandria Virginia This is a call for votes on the creation of a newsgroup sci.energy. I'm embarrassed to say that the CALL FOR DISCUSSION was posted on 17 April, so this call for votes is long overdue. In order to keep my business afloat, I've been burning the midnight oil on four different proposals. Unfortunately, these have had to take priority over my USENET activity, but now that they're done, I have time to report on the discussion and prepare the call for votes. Please accept my apologies for the delay. As to the discussion, it was fairly light. There were only twenty-one follow-ups/replies. Of these, twenty were favorable, and only one was against, the reason given was that "there are already too many groups". Some of the replies read like votes, but cannot be recorded as such, since the proposal was still under discussion. So if you submitted a YES vote during the discussion period, you must resubmit that vote now in order for it to count! The only point of contention seems to be the proposed use of topic words. Some people would like to see it tried, while others don't think it will work, although these are not mutually exclusive positions. Since this will be an unmoderated newsgroup, the suggested use of topic words in the title of posted articles is voluntary, and if it doesn't work, ... well, it doesn't work! I've modified the suggested titling system to include as much of the feedback as possible, resulting, I hope, in a better scheme. Thanks to all of you who responded!!! Intended Audience of the Proposed Newsgroup ------------------------------------------ Except for the recently created sci.physics.fusion group, there is no group that deals only with energy. From what I have read of the discussion about sci.physics.fusion, and the articles in alt.fusion, those newsgroups are not intended to deal with other forms of renewable energy (solar, wind, wave), or other important technologies such as conservation and end-use efficiency (of lighting, motors, appliances), or conventional electric power generation (hydroelectric, fossil-fuel, nuclear fission). There are also general issues of importance, such as energy education and government policy. Sci.energy is proposed to fill this gap. It is not intended to duplicate either of the fusion newsgroups. Cross-posting of technical fusion articles to sci.energy is therefore discouraged. Fusion articles that would be of general interest to those of us not active in nuclear physics or chemistry are welcome, particularly as they relate to the practicality of a commercial fusion technology. Since sci.energy is unmoderated, it is up to the writer of a fusion article to determine whether it is appropriate for cross-posting to sci.energy. My understanding is that the fusion research community would like a moratorium on conferences until this fall, to enable the collaborative teams to get on with their work. I respectfully request that there be no cross-posting of fusion articles to sci.energy until 1 October. By then, there should be some solid research results that can be generalized, and if sci.energy is created by this vote, it will have been up and running on the net for three months, such that the interests of its readership will be better known. Sci.energy is intended for various types of readers, including: (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. How the Group Would Work ----------------------- Sci.energy would be an UNMODERATED newsgroup. Therefore, none of what is written below can be enforced, but a sincere attempt to follow these suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I suggest a well-defined method of titling articles, such that each title begins with a topic word, chosen from a specific list. This will enable readers to see immediately (by typing [=] in response to "What next?") those unread articles that may be of interest to them. Each topic covers a fairly broad area, such that it is entirely appropriate to list keywords in the space provided in the article header. For example, an article about the Coast Guard's use of solar panels would come under the topic of "Solar", with appropriate keywords being "photovoltaic" (since there are other forms of solar energy) and "navigation buoys". The proposed list of topic words is given below: TOPIC TYPICAL SUBJECT MATTER Fission Nuclear fission power plants Fusion Non-technical articles on the practical implications of both low- and high-temperature fusion research 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 Photovoltaic, 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 gradients 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), superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) 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 fair projects Infosources Bibliographies, lists of contacts, upcoming conferences Government National and state government initiatives (info only, reserve support/dissent comments for next topic) Opinion Editorials, comments, ideas, rumors, lifestyle philosophy Newsgroup Updated list of topic words and other items related to the workings of the group As it stands, the list contains 25 topics. The topic word should be followed by a colon, two spaces, and the title. Example titles: Solar: Coast Guard biggest U.S. user of photovoltaic panels Conversion: Anyone know a good source of DC-AC inverters? Storage: Cost-of-energy for ten hydro pumped storage projects Education: Hawaii to hold solar car race for high schools Opinion: The underlying cause of the Valdez oil spill Unless an article is "Opinion" , reports the author's own research or experience, or is from an "on-line" publication (see below), I encourage everyone to cite a traceable reference when posting an 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: 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. How to Vote ----------- Vote by sending a reply [r] directly to my address below. Provided that I can successfully reach your electronic mail address, I will acknowledge your vote as soon as I record it. Votes should not be posted on the net - DO NOT use the follow-up command [f]. The wording of your vote is not critical, but it should contain either a "YES" (for creation) or a "NO" (against creation) and the description of the group, "sci.energy as proposed". Since the discussion period is over (and then some), please do not send messages like "I would vote for the group if you added this topic", etc. Example votes: "YES, I vote for the creation of sci.energy as proposed." "NO, I vote against the creation of sci.energy as proposed." This article will be posted to news.groups, sci.environment, sci.misc, sci.research, sci.physics, sci.physics.fusion, and alt.fusion on every other Friday - 2, 16, and 30 June 1989. The voting period begins Friday, 2 June 1989 and ends at midnight (your local time) on Sunday, 2 July 1989. The results of the vote will be posted on 4 July, and there will then be a five-day period to clear up any discrepencies or apparent problems with the vote. If, and only if, there are 100 more YES votes than NO votes, sci.energy will be created as proposed. Remember, regardless of your input during the discussion period, you must cast a vote during the next thirty days in order to have an effect on the fate of this proposed newsgroup. _______________________________________________________________________________ George Hagerman, Seasun Power Systems 124 E. Rosemont Ave., Alexandria VA 22310 (703) 549-8067 george@gwusun.gwu.edu -or- uunet!gwusun!george cudkeys: cuddy2 cudengeorge cudfnGeorge cudlnHagerman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / Dave Mack / Re: Surface vs. Volume Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Surface vs. Volume Date: 2 Jun 89 17:12:12 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <1989Jun1.141350.17841@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <5169@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > >>It is interesting to note that Li-6 has an enormous thermal neutron >>absorption cross-section - 960 barns. >> >>This may offer a partial explanation of the high tritium production >>levels, the scarcity of neutrons, and the excess heat dependence on >>the Li isotopes present in the electrolyte. > >Unfortunately, no, since d+d produces fast neutrons, not thermal >neutrons. I assumed that a Pd lattice packed with D to loadings > 1.0 and possibly with Li as well might thermalize the neutrons very quickly. About 20 collisions with deuterons would be required to thermalize a 2.45 MeV neutron. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the data necessary to calculate the mean free path for a neutron in the Pd-D. In heavy water, the mfp is around 2 cm, in Pd it's around 4 cm. As a rough guess, the upper limit in Pd-D should be about 1.5 cm for a loading of 1.0. (This based on the scattering cross-section for deuterium gas from the CRC handbook.) Obviously, given these numbers, the neutron will not interact anything like 20 times before leaving a typical cell. We would need at least a factor of 10 reduction in the mean free path to have the neutron thermalize inside even a large rod. In other words, Paul is probably right. Pity, it offered a nice compact explanation for some of this. If anyone has better numbers on this, I'd appreciate seeing them. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy2 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Donald Benson / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 1 Jun 89 20:59:39 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > So why do media report failure not success? That's the media for you. They are in the business of selling newspapers. Important stories, like cold fusion or "Iran-gate" can be known to some members of the public for years before the details are published by the mainstream media. Often, they are reported in the alternative media, surrounded by stories which are pure BS. Currently, the mainstream media is more interested in assault weapons than cold fusion. Which do you think sells more papers? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / Dave Bailey / Press Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: dbailey@orville.nas.nasa.gov (Dave H. Bailey) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Press Coverage of Fusion Date: 2 Jun 89 18:28:55 GMT Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA No matter how optimistic or skeptical about fusion one may be, I'll guess that many readers have become increasingly disturbed at the press coverage of the fusion affair. The recent New York Times report of the Santa Fe meeting is merely one of a long string of examples of reporting that is either inaccurate, misleading, or indulges in editorializing instead of reporting facts. In addition, many persons in the scientific community continue to make sweeping claims, authoritative pronouncements or intemperate criticisms, which are then quoted by eager reporters, frequently without soliciting opposing viewpoints. I have begun a collection of U.S. press articles on the fusion story, a copy of which is attached. Excerpts are included from many of articles (without permission, of course). If nothing else, it makes for either humorous or outrageous reading, depending on your mood and point of view. I would like to solicit the help of those on the net to complete the collection. To make it manageable, I am restricting it to the following publications, although I may include particularly outrageous material from other sources: 1. New York Times 2. Washington Post 3. Los Angeles Times 4. Wall Street Journal 5. Time 6. Newsweek If any of you have copies of this sort of material, I would appreciate an e-mail note with the reference to dbailey@ew11.nas.nasa.gov. However, PLEASE first check to see if the article is included in the attached list. Cheers, David H. Bailey NASA Ames Research Center ----------------------------------------------- Compendium of Press Coverage of Cold Fusion 1. "Trying to Tame H-Bomb Power", Time, April 17, p. 72. 2. "A Sun in a Test Tube?", Newsweek, April 17, p. 58-59. 3. "Tabletop Fusion Test Verified, Stanford Researchers Report", Washington Post, April 19, p. A3. 4. "Fusion Fever Is on the Rise", Time, April 24, p. 57. 5. "Quest for Fusion Puts Research in Public Eye", Washington Post, April 24, p. A2. 6. "Two Researchers Defend Results of Fusion Tests", Washington Post, April 26, p. A3. 7. C. Suplee, "The Fusion Confusion", Washington Post, April 30, p. C1. 8. J. Maddox, "What to Say About Cold Fusion", Nature, April 27, p. 701. Excerpt: The Utah phenomenon is literally unsupported by the evidence, could be an artefact and, given its improbability, is most likely to be one. 9. G. Sea, "Fusion Leaves Me Cold", San Jose Mercury News, April 30. Excerpt: Regardless of all the talk about cold fusion being "safe" and "clean," it would be neither. In fact, it would involve both dangerous possibilities for nuclear weapons proliferation and complex problems of nuclear pollution. 10. "The Utah Fusion Circus", New York Times, April 30, p. E24. Excerpt: As for the University of Utah, it may now claim credit for the artificial-heart horror show and the cold-fusion circus, two milestones at least in the history of entertainment, if not of science. 11. "Fusion Breakthrough?", Scientific American, May 1989. Excerpt: The claims face profound skepticism: "I would bet my house that they're wrong," says William Happer, Jr., of Princeton University. 12. "Perplexing Times for Fusion", Newsweek, May 1, p. 66. 13. "Significant Errors Reported in Utah Fusion Experiments", Washington Post, May 2, p. A1. Excerpt: "Frankly, I think the explanation is a bit of inexperience" on the part of Pons and Fleishmann, said [Ronald] Parker [of MIT]. 14. "Physicists Debunk Claim of a New Kind of Fusion", New York Times, May 3, p. A1. Excerpts: According to Dr. Nathan Lewis, leader of the Caltech team, every possible variant of the Pons-Fleishmann experiment was tried without success. .... Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleishmann." The audience of scientists sat in stunned silence for a mement [sic] before bursting into applause. .... Referring to a possible error in temperature measurements by the Utah group, Dr. Walter E. Meyerhof of Stanford University offered this contribution: Tens of millions of dollars at stake, Dear Brother [sic -- see 27], Because some scientist put a thermometer At one place and not another. 15. "Fusion Researchers to Answer Critics", Washington Post, May 3, p. A3. Excerpts: When Moshe Gai of Yale was asked whether the panel was prepared to sign a death warrant for room-temperature nuclear fusion, ... Gai said, "You have it...Our results exclude without any doubt the Pons and Felishmann results." .... "The experiment is wrong," [Steven Koonin of Caltech] said. "We are suffering from the incompetence and perhaps the delusions of professors Pons and Fleishmann." The room, filled mostly with skeptical physicists, broke out in applause. 16. Cold Fusion Dispute Boils; Panelists Ridicule Claims", Los Angeles Times, May 3, p. I1. Excerpts: And an indignant Leon Lederman, director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., said that University of Utah President Chase Peterson "ought to be fired" for his role in promoting Pons' and Fleishmann's claims. .... Said physicist Moshe Gai of Yale University, who worked with the Brookhaven group: "Our results exclude without any doubt the Pons and Fleishmann results." ... Temperature measurements made near the electrodes would indicate heat production, Meyerhof [of Stanford] said, while measurements at the edge of the cell would indicate heat consumption. The same problem was present in cells used by Robert Huggins of Stanford, who recently reported a confirmation of the Utah results. 17. "Physicists Cite Errors Behind Fusion Claim", Wall Street Journal, May 3, p. B4. 18. D. Lindley, "More Than Scepticism", Nature, May 4, 1989. Excerpt: At the end of the session at Baltimore, physicists were left with the comfortable feeling that fusion was dead, except for small effects of the sort claimed by the Brigham Young group. 19. Kaul, Donald (of National Public Radio), "How the Fusion Confusion Got Out of Hand", San Jose Mercury News, May 7, p. B12. Excerpt: At last report, the experiment had been partially validated by laboratories in the Soviet Union, Italy, India, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Brazil and by the Remedial Football class at the University of Miami. It has been refuted by Cal Tech, MIT, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Yale and the entire world of nuclear physics. .... We may not be able to manufacture a decent toaster in this country anymore, we've given up on TV sets and our cars are inferior, but we still lead the world in one important sector: producing hare-brained ideas. And we're so far ahead, there's nobody second. 20. "Fusion Illusion?", Time, May 8, p. 72. 21. "The Race for Fusion", Newsweek, May 8, p. 49. Excerpt: If cold fusion is scientifically unlikely, cold fusion by chemists seems, to many, downright impossible. Pons, 46, and Fleishmann, 62, don't teach at name schools and they had no hefty government grants for their work. They're not even physicists, the self-anointed high priests of science, just chemists, mere beaker keepers more suited to plumbing the mysteries of polyester than the mysteries of the universe. 22. "Fusion Researcher Admits Error, Puts Faith in New Test", Washington Post, May 10, p. A1. Excerpt: Fleishmann, facing a now almost overwhelming consensus among scientists that his and Pons' cold fusion claims were false, made the remark late Monday when the two took the defense of their much-advertised experiments to the annual meeting here of their own scientific society, the Electrochemical Society. 23. "Fusion Brouhaha May Be Settled Soon by Helium Test", Wall Street Journal, May 10. 24. "Two Defend Fusion Claim Before Peers", New York Times, May 10, p. A11. 25. "Fusion Genie's Still in Bottle, Scientists' Critics Say", Los Angeles Times, May 10, p. I3. Excerpts: That was less than seven weeks ago. On Monday night in Los Angeles, a starkly contrasting scene unfolded as the two mumbled through presentations before a throng of fellow chemists at the Bonaventure Hotel, ducked sharp questions and then slipped quickly away after failing to defend their supposed breakthrough. The Pons-Fleishmann saga is beginning to raise troubling questions about the lure of patents and prizes in scientific discovery, about institutional and government pressures to attract recognition and money, and about the adverse effects of competition on scientific credibility. Suddenly there is no more talk of a Nobel Prize. The two chemists are besieged by critics -- castigated for their inability to explain their experiment, their failure to reveal full details of the research and their decision to circumvent the normal rules of science by announcing their results at a press conference before reporting them at a meeting or publishing them in a scientific journal. .... Within three weeks, reports of partial confirmation began to appear in the United States and around the world, usually from small research groups lacking access to sophisticated analytical tools. Several of the groups withdrew their claims, citing experimental errors. 26. "Putting the Heat on Cold Fusion", Time, May 15, p. 63. 27. "Fusion Fever Cools Down", Newsweek, May 15, p. 65. Excerpt: Said [Meyerhof]: "Tens of millions of dollars are at stake, dear sister and brother,/ Because scientists put a thermometer at one place and not another." 28. "Playing with Fire", Scientific American, June 1989. 29. "Cold Fusion Tests Remain Mystery", Washington Post, May 25, p. A10. Excerpt: Another team from Texas A&M also reported for the first time the presence of another fusion byproduct -- atoms of tritium, another form of hydrogen. But confirmation of these results has not been reported and several researchers suspect contamination. In any event, the amounts reported were too low to indicate fusion at a high enough rate to create the excess heat. 30. "At Conference on Cold Fusion, The Verdict Is Negative", New York Times, May 30, p. B7. Excerpts: Their verdict on the energy claims was strongly negative. .... The verdict at last week's session, announced by the two co-chairmen at the conclusion on Thursday, was highly unfavorable to the claims of a new energy source. "I suspect there are few of us here that will look on his phenomenon as a viable source of power," said Norman Hackerman, a former president of Rice University and a co-chairman of the conference. The other co-chairman, J. Robert Schrieffer, director of the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, said, "I personally do not believe that the Pons-Fleishmann heat is due to anything but chemical energies." .... "There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Pons and Fleishmann are wrong," [Stephen O. Dean] said in an interview. "No one in the world has produced excess heats like Pons and Fleishmann. No one has duplicated their experiment. .... Teams of scientists speaking here reported finding some excess heat in cold-fusion tests, but nothing as large as Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleishmann claimed. 31. "Reactions Differ at 'Cold Fusion' Meeting", Wall Street Journal, May 26, p. B3. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudendbailey cudfnDave cudlnBailey cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / Paul Dietz / WSJ Fusion Report Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: WSJ Fusion Report Date: 2 Jun 89 20:53:28 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY The Wall Street Journal today reported that three metallurgists at the U. of Utah, in experiments separate and independent from Pons and Fleischmann, have obtained unexplained quantities of excess heat. In the last two weeks, two of their six experiments have started producing excess heat. They used 4mm x 10 cm Pd rods. During one 24 hour period, one rod produced 18 watts of heat energy while running on only 9 watts of electrical input. At one point, a Pd rod heated up its water bath by 25 degrees in 3 minutes, and maintained the high level of heat output for 40 minutes before producing a "small explosion". The metallurgists plan to analyze segments of their rods next week for evidence of nuclear fusion or chemical reactions. [ Sigh. Science by press release continues. ] Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy2 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Donald Benson / Re: Heavy Water Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Heavy Water Date: 1 Jun 89 21:06:55 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino What controlled availability? Walk in to your local science shop and order some. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / Donald Benson / O2 absorber? Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: O2 absorber? Date: 2 Jun 89 00:18:30 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino We know that hydrogen can be absorbed in metals. Can oxygen be absorbed in a similar fashion? I want to capture free O2 in a sealed system and store it in a small volume. Donald Benson donb@hpda cudkeys: cuddy2 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Patrick Smith / On the effects of Lithium on Cold Nuclear Fusion Researchers. Originally-From: p-smith@giga.UUCP (Patrick J. Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: On the effects of Lithium on Cold Nuclear Fusion Researchers. Date: 1 Jun 89 19:36:49 GMT Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City, Utah Experiments with cold (or, more significantly, solid state) fusion cells utilizing .1M LiOD in D2O as an electrolite have had significant effects on the perceptions of the researcher. This was observed while handling the lithium electrolite without proper protection. We further observed that manic depressive researchers were not as severely affected as those with more typical psychies. Since physicists are more often afflicted by these types of mental aberrations (string theorists, for instance), they seldom achieve excess heat. Note that the effect disappears when NaOD solutions is substituted for the lithium electrolite. Since there are no plausible chemical or physical explanations for the observed heat, we propose a psychological source. Is it conceivable that combined exposure to Jack Daniels and lithium ions cause delusions of grandeur and hot flashes? Note that alcohol is generally off limits on the BYU campus, which explains their much lower fusion rate. On a less serious note, we observed, during a brief power failure, that our palladium electrode aquired an obnoxious brown color. Despite the vague similarity of our cathode to the less significant biological entity, we believe that the electrode must have been plated with lithium metal, and that it then oxidized during the power failure. After all, palladium *is* a fairly inert metal. Is it possible then that chemical energy could be stored in the cell during the ``charging'' period? Has anyone integrated the heat-in vs. heat-out during the entire operating period? cudkeys: cuddy1 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Donald Benson / Re: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Date: 1 Jun 89 21:05:13 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > larger amount once. Anything over exactly 1.0 is cause for jubilation. > > actually if you are putting in electricity and getting out heat, > 1+epsilon << 1. only if you are getting heat out at 300C or above and Right. A resistance heater delivers about 1.0, and a heat pump delivers > 1.0 . Put 1 watt electricity in, get 2 or 3 watts heat out. If cold fusion is real but delivers 1.1 watts heat for 1.0 watt electricity, it isn't economically feasible. Only if it produces 1.1 watts electricity out for 1.0 watts electricity in will you be able to hook them together to get useful energy out. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / millikan@sbphy / Neutrons observed from Pd electrolytic cell Originally-From: millikan@sbphy.ucsb.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Neutrons observed from Pd electrolytic cell Date: 2 Jun 89 23:04:01 GMT Organization: UC, Santa Barbara Chemistry Department We have been running a P&F type cell since Sunday 5/28 using a 1.6g Pd wire cathode, a Pt screen anode, and LiOD in D2O electrolyte. At 6V and 0.6A, the current density was about 60 mA/cm2. After about 20 hours of elapsed time, the neutron count in our 3He proportional counter rose to 1.4 times the background rate of 400 per hour. By 50 hours into the run we observed a count rate of 700 - 730 counts per hour. This particular counter has a Cd sheet adjacent to the cell to eliminate thermal neutrons. Then there is a 6 inch thickness of polyethylene to moderate the higher energy neutrons before they enter the counter tubes. Insertion of a second Cd sheet between the polythene and the counter caused the high count rate to return to near background. Removal of the Cd restored the high count rate. We shut off the cell current Wednesday night due to a planned power outage. On Thursday morning, our count rate was back in the vicinity of 400/hr. There is some evidence of "bursts" of neutron emission, but our counter integration time hides these. These are preliminary results which must be repeated. At present we are busy checking on the background, calibra- ting with known sources, and a general rebuild. These are low levels, but some 35 sigma above background. An initial check for tritium using the scintillation counting of the electrolyte showed none above our D2O sample. No effort has been made to do calorimetry. We do plan to look for 3He and 4He as soon as a special UHV cell is complete. Roger C. Millikan We qualify according to the Dept. of Chemistry prowess of our football team. Univ. of California at Santa Barbara cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmillikan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.03 / Donn Seeley / members of the DOE committee visit Pons's lab Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: members of the DOE committee visit Pons's lab Date: 3 Jun 89 02:21:35 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept We were cut off from alt.fusion for a couple days due to a lightning strike at the University of Michigan... Apparently we don't get alt.* or gnu.* from our other backbone feed, the University of Texas; perhaps they don't get these groups? Too bad. There still isn't much new technical information to report, but there have been some curious political developments. The most startling news is that members of the DOE committee actually visited Pons's lab today, in spite of the fact that Pons earlier stated that he wasn't interested in meeting them because he thought they were hopelessly biased. Yesterday's Daily Utah Chronicle (the student newspaper) reported: Following an earlier postponement, a Department of Energy panel studying cold fusion will visit the University of Utah chemistry lab of B Stanley Pons Friday. U Vice President for Research James Brophy said the five scientists from the 20-member panel will be on campus Friday morning to see the cold-fusion experiment firsthand and to talk with several U scientists. ... The panel was originally scheduled to visit Wednesday, but Pons objected to the negatively biased makeup of the panel and said he would not allow panel members in his lab until the bias was balanced out by either replacing the disbelieving scientists or adding more cold-fusion believers. ... Today's (6/2) Chronnie gave a partial agenda: ... The DOE panel ... is scheduled to arrive Friday morning and depart by 2 p.m. ... In the morning, the panel will visit Pons' laboratory along with U chemists Cheves Walling and John Simons. ... ... [T]he panel will [then] have a 'working lunch' with Milton Wadsworth, U dean of the College of Mines and Minerals, and several of his colleagues. ... The 6 o'clock news on channel 2 had a brief report on the visit. None of the committee members were interviewed and the committee briefing was closed to reporters, but Pons came out to chat with reporters later. He said that his group is now 99+% confident that they are observing fusion; they are now seeing substantial sustained bursts of energy in some experiments, apparently including one which amounted to 50x input continuously for about 2 days. Pons thinks that a small demonstration power plant may be ready pretty soon -- 'we know what to do to get power out,' he said, and he believes that the local metallurgists have the key to speeding up the practical device process. The U metallurgists have been very forthcoming over the last couple days. They apparently have at least one working cell, and already have some preliminary results, according to the 6/1 Chronnie: ... Sivaraman Guruswamy, a U metallurgy professor who has been trying to duplicate the fusion experiment using electrodes other than palladium, said ... he has duplicated the Pons-Fleischmann experiment using a palladium electrode, but has been unable to duplicate it using other electrodes. Currently, Guruswamy said he has had an electrochemical cell generating heat since May 21, albeit inconsistently. The cell has been giving off heat in spurts, he explained, and during one 90-minute spurt, 54 watts were being produced for every nine watts put in. ... There were more details in the 6/2 edition: ... Guruswamy has [seen] at least four 'very random bursts of heat' between 10 watts and 60 watts. ... Guruswamy's laboratory has yet to produce a sustained reaction on the scale of Pons and Fleischmann. After letting his experiment run for a few more days, Guruswamy will analyze the palladium cell for possible material changes. In addition to palladium, though, Guruswamy said he will also investigate 'at least four' other metals known to absorb hydrogen as possible cells for the experiment. Guruswamy said one possible metal to be investigated is zirconium, but would not reveal any others he is considering. Guruswamy added he will likely be working with U engineering professor Gary Sandquist and U physicist Michael Salamon in analyzing the cells. ... (Isn't Guruswamy a great name for a university professor? :-) On the patent front, there were rumblings on the evening news that the lawyers are turning out to be more expensive than expected. Originally the patent defense fund contained only twenty some odd thousand dollars but some administrators feel that this is inadequate and there may be a new legislative session called to allocate more money. All this is especially interesting given that the state's own fusion committee still has not officially concluded that fusion was confirmed, as far as I know. The New York Times's Tuesday fusion-bashing did not go unnoticed here. This afternoon's Deseret News reported some comments from the U on the Santa Fe coverage: The international controversy surrounding the University of Utah's cold-fusion claims has, unfortunately, divided the news reporters into two camps -- supporters and non-supporters, two U public relations directors contend. 'Depending on which newspaper you read, you would believe fusion is dead or still going strong,' U news director Pamela Fogle told a Salt Lake communications conference Thursday. As examples of bias in reporting, Fogle cited two recent headlines taken from newspapers reporting on the same event -- the May 24 Santa Fe, NM, conference on fusion: 'Conference on Fusion Told of Failure,' stated the New York Times headline. Conversely, Fogle said, the Wall Street Journal told readers that a 'Texas Group Reports More Signs of Cold Fusion at US Meeting.' Fogle and her colleague, science writer Barbara Shelley, said they have observed, as the fusion story has unfolded, that the West Coast media are more supportive than East Coast press. ... But are West Coast Usenet sites more supportive than the East Coast ones, 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: cuddy3 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / Bob Pendleton / Re: Credo Originally-From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Credo Date: 1 Jun 89 23:25:39 GMT Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah From article <25297@beta.lanl.gov>, by mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson): - On the one hand, the experiments claiming heat production in - electrochemical cells, which (so argue the proponents) can only be - coming from cold fusion, are proving remarkably resistant to - confirmation by nuclear means, which are the *only* diagnostics that - can prove that a nuclear reaction is indeed going on. Now you've confused me. Are the TAMU tritium measurements "confirmation by nuclear means," or not? What would you need to see before you decided that CNF was real and was a usable power source? I'm not a physicist, I'd like to know what would convince a physicist. The TAMU tritium measurements got me all excited and now I'm hearing that they don't mean anything? What's going on? - "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson Bob P. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / TVK@PSUVM.BITN / A Resolution Originally-From: TVK@PSUVM.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: A Resolution Date: 2 Jun 89 21:03:03 GMT Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing A RESOLUTION(?) There appears to be widespread agreement, based on unusually high quality measurements, that neutron production is approximately 10e9 too low to account for the generated heat. The recent report of tritium production is equivalent to 10% of the heat production; if confirmed, it makes correct the attribution to a nuclear process. Herewith is an easily testible proposal for the origin of non-nuclear excess heat. With rare exception, the 'excess' heat falls between the limits IV and I(V-1.54); values above IV would indicate nuclear changes. For the heats below IV there are the intrguing reports of increased outputs with time. I suggest this may be attributable to slow modifications of the electrode(s) to increase their efficiencies for one or more of the listed DO2- + D2O + 2e = 3OD- O2 + 2D2O + 4e = 4OD- O2 + D2O + 2e = DO2- + OD- D2 + 2OD- - 2e = 2D2O reactions, some of which are the electrochemical equivalent of the recombination of D2 and O2, utilising peroxide, O2 and D2 present in solution. The easy experimental test of this suggestion, has nowhere, to my knowledge, been mentioned: With a HEAT-PRODUCING system measure the yields of D2 and O2; any deviation from Faraday's law would support this suggestion, and vice versa. The infrequent references to stoichiometry appear to refer to systems NOT producing heat, and even these have been reported at 98% of the expected O2. PSS cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenTVK cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / TVK@PSUVM.BITN / A Resolution Originally-From: TVK@PSUVM.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: A Resolution Date: 2 Jun 89 21:13:42 GMT Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing A RESOLUTION(?) There appears to be widespread agreement, based on unusually high quality measurements, that neutron production is approximately 10e9 too low to account for the generated heat. The recent report of tritium production is equivalent to 10% of the heat production; if confirmed, it makes correct the attribution to a nuclear process. Herewith is an easily testible proposal for the origin of non-nuclear excess heat. With rare exception, the 'excess' heat falls between the limits IV and I(V-1.54); values above IV would indicate nuclear changes. For the heats below IV there are the intrguing reports of increased outputs with time. I suggest this may be attributable to slow modifications of the electrode(s) to increase their efficiencies for one or more of the listed DO2- + D2O + 2e = 3OD- O2 + 2D2O + 4e = 4OD- O2 + D2O + 2e = DO2- + OD- D2 + 2OD- - 2e = 2D2O reactions, some of which are the electrochemical equivalent of the recombination of D2 and O2, utilising peroxide, O2 and D2 present in solution. The easy experimental test of this suggestion, has nowhere, to my knowledge, been mentioned: With a HEAT-PRODUCING system measure the yields of D2 and O2; any deviation from Faraday's law would support this suggestion, and vice versa. The infrequent references to stoichiometry appear to refer to systems NOT producing heat, and even these have been reported at 98% of the expected O2. PSS cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenTVK cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.03 / TOM BETZ / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 3 Jun 89 01:35:33 GMT Organization: Greyston Business Services, Inc. Quoth lauri@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Georges Lauri) in <28368@cornell.UUCP>: |The article in the NYT of 5/30/89 summarizing the DOE workshop is strongly |negative. And the Wall Street Journal story of 5/26, reporting on the same workshop, is more hopeful. A comparison of the two is an interesting case study in how 'slant' can affect reporting on the same story. Whereas the WSJ story takes into account Huggins' work at Stanford, and others', and the NYT story does not, I would hazard a guess that the Times' slant may have something to do with all those quarter-page Op-Ed page ads Big Oil / Big Nuke buys on a regular basis. -- "There are no magicians. There are no hidden | rutgers!lilink!upaya!tbetz people or gurus somewhere in secret. You have | Tom Betz, Greyston Foundation already been given the teaching by the greatest | 114 Woodworth Ave. illuminated sages born." - Gopi Krishna | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 cudkeys: cuddy3 cudentbetz cudfnTOM cudlnBETZ cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.03 / Steven Beste / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Originally-From: denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Date: 3 Jun 89 14:24:39 GMT In article <20420033@hpcuhb.HP.COM>, donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) writes: > > Right. A resistance heater delivers about 1.0, and a heat pump delivers > > 1.0 . Put 1 watt electricity in, get 2 or 3 watts heat out. If cold fusion > is real but delivers 1.1 watts heat for 1.0 watt electricity, it isn't > economically feasible. Only if it produces 1.1 watts electricity out for > 1.0 watts electricity in will you be able to hook them together to get > useful energy out. > In point of fact, a large amount of the electricity generated in this country is used for simple space heating. If we can make that heating more effective, then we are replacing, watt for watt, electricity generation capability. Though on a microscopic level solid-state fusion may not generate electricity, its effect may be the same. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendenbeste cudfnSteven cudlnBeste cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / Bob Pendleton / Re: Cold fusion? (in Plants!?!) {He wrote "fission" by mistake.} Originally-From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion? (in Plants!?!) {He wrote "fission" by mistake.} Date: 2 Jun 89 20:08:35 GMT Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah I posted the cold fission article. I meant cold FISSION. The question was basically; if catalyzed fusion is possible, might catalyzed fission be possible? It seems that if you hold two duetuerium atoms very close together for a long enough time they wind up in a lower energy state, i.e., tritium + proton. What happens when you hold two heavy atoms close together? Might they wind up in a lower energy state, i.e., a bunch of atoms with masses near that of iron? Just curious. Bob P. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.03 / John Moore / Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: NYT article, 5/30/89 on DOE workshop Date: 3 Jun 89 02:08:41 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <383@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <25300@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >>"Consensus" that FPH are wrong is probably not too strong a >>statement, although that consensus is certainly >>not anywhere near unanimous. > >But... but... but... what about the large and unambiguous measurement >of tritium by Texas A&M? The very thorough heat measurements by >Huggins of Stanford, showing no heat if you replace the LiOD with NaOD, Actually, a different group at TAMU did the LiOD->NaOD->6LIOD work and measured heat in a microcalorimeter. Huggins did not switch electrolytes, but he did do careful heat measurements and showed 22% excess heat and total heat out > total electrical energy in. His main emphasis was on extremely careful treatment of the experimental materials - remelting his palladium 10-15 times, avoiding air exposure in all steps, keeping his D2O very pure, etc. >and less heat if you use LiOD with no 6Li? What about the reported >loading of over 1 for the people who see the effect, and .8 for those >who don't? One of the problems is that the people who have been getting results (with the exceptions of Huggins and maybe Case) are using electrode surface poisons AND NOT PUBLISHING IT. Huggins has admitted that contamination in his palladium, after its peculiar treatment in the salt baths, may also be causing surface poisoning. P&F are known to be using surface poisoning, as are the TAMU folks. These surface poisons are thought to be necessary to build up loading in the high ranges - probably any range greater than about .8 D/Pd. Thus, most of the negative experiments may be a result of the combination of running too low an overpotential (current density) and not using surface poisons - ie trying to duplicate the experiments as published, but not as they were actually done! > >This *HAS* to turn out to be fusion. I have a dollar bet on it. :-) I have an ounce of palladium and a bottle of heavy water "bet" on it.! -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons! cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.04 / Donn Seeley / 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: 'some work, some don't' Date: 4 Jun 89 05:08:57 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept The evening news tonight devoted part of a segment to Pons, and while not much was said, I thought y'all might be interested. Further work in calorimetry is proceeding. Apparently Pons's group has carefully measured all the heat and other energy inputs to a cell and can show that the output exceeds the total input from the beginning of the experiment. The question of the 'secret ingredient' is still up in the air. When asked about reproducibility, Pons's laconic comment was, 'Some work, some don't.' This problem seems to be a reasonable justification for withholding data -- on the one hand, if Pons can't reliably get the cells to generate the effect, it will be hard to write the 'definitive' paper, while on the other hand if someone can find the underlying principle and get the cells to produce large amounts of heat consistently, they stand to make a lot of money. Pons is still looking for helium. Apparently his group is not finding helium in amounts consistent with Walling and Simons' D+D => 4He theory, or at least if they are finding helium, they are not satisfied with the results. They are seeing evidence of tritium, however. Perhaps the 'secret ingredient' is chili peppers, 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: cuddy4 cudendonn cudfnDonn cudlnSeeley cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.03 / John Moore / Fusion Tritium Energy Calculations Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Fusion Tritium Energy Calculations Date: 3 Jun 89 14:41:40 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc., Phoenix AZ I was asked by email to speculate on: If the tritium in the TAMU cells was generated by fusion: (1) How much energy would have been released by the fusion? (2) Is it the same order of magnitude as heat produced? (3) Would large amounts of radiation be expected Also, one could assume that, by some magic, all of the fusion took the t + p path. The power required to produce the tritium over the experimental period is about 1mW. The excess heat measured in the cells is about 40mW. We can reasonably assume that most of the tritium produced is either stuck in the palladium or left the solution as gas, so I would say the tritium and the heat correspond surprisingly well. However, the proton produced would be moving with several MeV of kinetic energy. This would be expected to produce ionizing radiation by several interactions. There has been some speculation on the net that perhaps some form of crystal lattice channeling is preventing this radiation by bleeding off the energy in a large number of low energy interactions. Of course, all of this assumes that the fusion took the t+p path. Forcing that branching ratio to the degree required gives the theorists and experimentalists headaches - no one seems to know how that could be forced, and there are some reasons that it should not happen. -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons! cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.03 / John Moore / More Fusion in Utah Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: More Fusion in Utah Date: 3 Jun 89 14:57:37 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc., Phoenix AZ Per the Wall Street Journal (6/2/89): They say that three U of U metallurgists are also seeing lots of excess heat. The experiments are separate and independent of F&P. They are not claiming fusion, but they are claiming that if it is not fusion, the explanation is "just as mysterious" as fusion. They are using palladium rods 4mmx10cm. They are getting excess heat at "unpredictable times and for various periods." During one 24 hour period, one rod produced 18 watts of heat on 9 watts of electrical energy (not clear if the 9 watts takes into account gas evolution). (That is 777 KiloJoules total excess energy - quite a bit!). Also, "at one point, a palladium rod heated up its water bath by 25 degrees in three minutes and maintained the high level of heat output for 40 minutes before producing a small explosion." The experimenters are Milton Wadsworth, Gerard Byrne, and Sivaraman Guruswamy. They plan to analyze the rods next week for fusion and chemical reactions. VERRY INTELLESTINK :-) UTAH people - Are you out there? Can you get us some more data on the experiments? Like: what did they do to control for gas recombination. Did they measure voltage and current during the excess heat periods? What was the electrolyte? What was the charging time? Did they poison the electrodes? How did they prepare the electrodes? etc..... -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons! cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.03 / John Moore / Re: Tritium measurements in cold fusion Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Tritium measurements in cold fusion Date: 3 Jun 89 04:21:53 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <80@zorch.UU.NET> gamma@Lbl.Bitnet (Howard Hall) writes: ] ]I can't speak for the rest of the country (the many criticisms of negative ]but forthright experiments notwithstanding), but we have tried using pure ]Li-6 as the supporting electrolyte in a PF&H type cell. We saw absolutely ]nothing. Of course, we were doing nuclear measurements, not heat. But then, ]nuclear measurements are the only way to check the fusion hypothesis. Puleez! Someone needs to measure heat and nuclear products AT THE SAME TIME. Since you didn't measure heat, you have no idea whether or not you produced the Fleishman-Pons effect! Is there really a cold fusion uncertainty principle: the certainty with which you measure the heat is inversely proportional to the certainty with which you can measure the fusion products??? ] ]Just for completeness, our loadings were circa .7-.8 D/Pd. Similar numbers ]obtained for pure H/Pd. (1) How did you measure the loading? (2) Did you try for higher loading? (3) Did you try poisoning the electrode? ] ]Dave Mack (csu@alembic.ACS.COM) poses many good questions about tritium. ]Here are my two cents worth. ] ]Tritium in heavy water is a difficult measurement. It can vary from about one That is why the TAMU results were verified by LANL Tritium group and by GM Research Labs! ]microcurie per liter (the lowest number I've seen commercially available) on ]up. One also has to worry about tritium loading of the Pd from earlier ]solutions (use a hot solution once, and you've got a hot electrode!). And... ] ]the mobility of T and D are different enough in Pd that it can used to separate ] ]the two isotopes. The isotopic separation was analyzed quantitatively in a paper given at Santa Fe, and could not come anywhere close to explaining the TAMU results. Also, TAMU measured their heavy water first ("blank LiOD") to get their background Tritium measurements. -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons! cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.03 / John Moore / Re: Another report on Santa Fe meeting (long) Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Another report on Santa Fe meeting (long) Date: 3 Jun 89 23:49:15 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <1218@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> perry@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: >For all cases where this should be zero, it was. In particular, when Pt >was used as the cathode or LiOH as the electrolyte (note: It is hard to >understand why this substitution should eliminate excess heat when D2O >is not replaced by H2O.), the excess heat was I believe that when they say they used LiOH as the electrolyte, they mean that they started with H2O and added Lithium metal. This means that they had NO deuterium in the cell when they used LiOH. This is how F&P did it. Likewise, LiOD is formed by putting Lithium metal into D2O. >still cannot obtain their [F&P] third breakeven percentage (the one with the >0.5V assumption). If you know how to get this, please let me know. Lewis incorrectly described the calculation. It should be done by assume a cell voltage of 1.54 + .5 = 2.04 Volts, not just using .5 Volts. If you use this value, you can duplicate the calculations. However, it still appears to be a strange value. If you put a very small amount of current into a cell, you will in fact measure a cell voltage around 2.04 Volts. However, I know of no way to get the levels of current that F&P used and still maintain the 2.04 Volts. >been established at Texas A&M. Certainly no one showed a table with >excess heat vs. D/Pd ratio; so at this point this is just intelligent >speculation as far as I could tell. Well.. I think the speculation comes from two things: (1) Any fusion reaction at the surface or in the volume is likely to be related to the overpotential on the surface. The higher the overpotential, the higher the D/Pd ratio that results. (2) Most negative experiments used small current densities (~60 ma/cm^2) ALL positive for heat experiments used at least 500mA / cm^2. >100% recombination of D2 and O2 should do it, but he didn't think anyone Even this would not explain the Huggins result: he gets 110% of total input electrical power (which is a way to calculate that assumes all of the evolved gas is recombined). F&P also get positive excess heat if you assume all the evolved gas is recombined (F&P breakeven calculation #2). -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons! cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.03 / John Moore / Re: Surface vs. Volume Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Surface vs. Volume Date: 3 Jun 89 23:50:49 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <1989Jun1.141350.17841@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: ]In article <5169@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: ] ]>It is interesting to note that Li-6 has an enormous thermal neutron ]>absorption cross-section - 960 barns. ]> ]>This may offer a partial explanation of the high tritium production ]>levels, the scarcity of neutrons, and the excess heat dependence on ]>the Li isotopes present in the electrolyte. ] ]Unfortunately, no, since d+d produces fast neutrons, not thermal ]neutrons. Ahhh, but the fast neutrons are thermalized in the electrolyte. -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons! cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.04 / Chuck Sites / Lithium reactions Originally-From: chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: Lithium reactions Date: 4 Jun 89 04:20:56 GMT Organization: Copper Electronics, Louisville, Ky. In the magazine "Nature" volume 339, an analysis is done by R.D Petrasso[1] and company which finds fault with P&F's reported gamma spectrum. The analysis is convincing, and the values for P&F's gamma spectrum should be shifted. The peak pointed out by P&F as proof of n + p -> D + gamma at 2.22 MeV is wrong. The 2.2 Mev peak, when corrected, is positioned at almost exactly 2.5MeV. Also of interest in the corrected gamma spectrum is a secondary peak, very close to the 3.1 MeV range. These peaks are very sharply defined without the characteristic Compton edge of a gamma radiation, so they have been dismissed as instrumental artefacts. What I will present here is an argument that the corrected peaks are not an instrumental artefact, but possibly a tantilizing signature of a proton-lithium fusion reaction! In reviewing discusions presented here on Usenet by Dietz, Moore, Mack, and others, the belief has grown to favor a nuclear reaction which would be D + D -> t + p A calculation of the energy for the D(D,p)t reaction gives the following result: D D t p Delta u (2.0140102u + 2.014102u - 3.016050u - 1.0072766u) = 0.0048774u converting restmass (u) to eV to energy yields, 0.004877u * 931.478 MeV/u = 4.5432 MeV for the fusion reaction. dividing the change in energy by the total energy of the product gives a unit value for the change, 0.0048774u / 4.023366u = 0.001213368. Assuming the energy is distributed evenly per unit mass, then the energy of the proton would be, 1.0072766u * 0.001213368 = 0.001221089u. Converted to eV, 0.001221089u * 931.478 MeV/u = 1.1374 Mev for the proton. For tritium, 3.016050u * 0.001213368 = 0.003656262u converted, 0.003656262 & 931.478 Mev/u = 3.4057 MeV for tritium. Thus D + D -> t (3.4Mev) + p (1.14Mev) classically derived. Assuming nothing strange is going on, one would expect gamma radiation from such a reaction. The lack of gamma might be explained for the proton by a secondary fusion reaction with lithium by means of a collision, or its direct envolvement in mediation the D(D,p)T reaction. So assuming the proton has an extra energy of 1.14Mev what reaction would result with Li6. Li6(p,alpha)He3 is expected so calculating the resulting alpha & He3 energy would give the following: Li6 p Excess E Alpha He3 Delta u 6.015125u + 1.00727u + 0.001221u - 4.002603u - 3.016030u = 0.0049909u converting to MeV, 0.0049909u * 931.478 u/MeV = 4.648MeV. Assuming the energy is distributed evenly per unit mass, and calculating the results with the additional energy gives: 0.0049909u / 7.018633u = 0.00071109 The energy of the alpha particle for the lithium reaction is then found to be: 4.002603u * 0.00071109 = 0.0028462u, and converted to MeV, 0.0028462u * 931.478 MeV/u = 2.65 Mev for the alpha. For He3 the result yields, 3.016030u * 0.00071109 = 0.0021441u. Converted to MeV, 0.0021441u * 931.478 MeV/u = 1.997 Mev for He3. Thus Li6 + p (1.1Mev) -> He3 (1.997Mev) + alpha (2.65Mev). First, I would like to point out an interesting feature about the 1.997 MeV He3 product and the 2.65MeV alpha. The seperation between them is 0.653Mev which corrisponds almost exactly to the seperation of the 2 sharply defined peaks in P&F's spectrum. Also the values for the Li6(p,alpha)He3 products are close to P&F's corrected peak values but not quite. However, if one hap-hazardly adds the restmass of an electron into the equation the results are spoooooooky.. He3 (1.997MeV) + e(restmass) (0.511006MeV) = 2.508 MeV alpha (2.65MeV) + e(restmass) (0.511006MeV) = 3.161 MeV These results are bizzar. The match with P&F's corrected spectrum with sharp peaks at 2.5MeV and 3.1MeV is un-canny. It sugjests number of interesting posibilities, that is, if my calculations not wrong and it's not a fluke. First, there maybe a more exotic fusion reaction than previously proposed which involves electrons. However, I'm at a loss to give any feasable solutions to that idea. Second, and perhaps more plausable, is that the electric fields in the P&F cell are causing the appearance of the shift in energy of the He3 and alpha peaks. Regardless, if these values are correct then prehaps this speculation is worth more treatment. [1] R.D. Petrasso, X. Chen, K.W. Wenzel, R.R. Parker, C.K. Li, C.Fiore. Nature 339, 183-185. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . Chuck Sites | mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck . . . o o o o chuck@coplex | WRK: (502)-968-8495 ATT: 454-7218 o o o o O O O O O Philosophy: He who has toe jam in ear must be abnormal O O O O O ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.04 / Stanley Sutton / Yet another idiotic scheme for cold fusion Originally-From: sms@ficc.uu.net (Stanley M. Sutton) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Yet another idiotic scheme for cold fusion Date: 4 Jun 89 04:04:59 GMT Organization: Service and Test This is something I'm curious about, mostly. How long does tunneling take? Particularly with respect to nuclear transitions. If we assume that D + D -> He(4) + energy -> T + p + energy, how long are the transition periods? If the transition periods are long with respect to tunneling, is there enough energy that the Pd could be involed in the process. How large is the Pd tunneling barrier? Would it be possible that the reaction could be D + D -> He(4) + energy, He(4) + energy + Pd -> T + Ag + energy. Looking at a table of isotopes, almost all of the Ag producable from commonly occuring Pd isotopes decay by internal transitions or electron capture, with a few 1 MeV betas possible. -- Stanley M. Sutton, Service & Test, Ferranti International Controls Corp. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!sms, sms@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5023 Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!sms, sms@sugar.hackercorp.com Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or Service and Test. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudensms cudfnStanley cudlnSutton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.04 / John Gilmore / Re: Press Coverage of Fusion Originally-From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Press Coverage of Fusion Date: 4 Jun 89 10:54:37 GMT Organization: Grasshopper Group in San Francisco dbailey@orville.nas.nasa.gov (Dave H. Bailey) wrote: > No matter how optimistic or skeptical about fusion one may be, I'll > guess that many readers have become increasingly disturbed at the > press coverage of the fusion affair. Aren't you glad you use the net? Don't you wish everybody did? :-) (There *are* people designing a "the net" for full access by the entire reading/writing public. It's called the Xanadu Hypertext System. Prototypes will ship by the end of this year. Though you won't see it in your public library for years, it might be on *your* desk sooner, since it runs on Suns and other Unix machines.) -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com "Genuinely skillful use of obscenities is uniformly absent on the Internet." -- Karl Kleinpaste cudkeys: cuddy4 cudengnu cudfnJohn cudlnGilmore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.04 / John Gilmore / Alt.fusion is dead, long live sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Alt.fusion is dead, long live sci.physics.fusion Date: 4 Jun 89 11:16:44 GMT Organization: Grasshopper Group in San Francisco Alt.fusion did the job, and I will miss it a little, but the bureacracy of Usenet has ground along and produced a mouse, I mean, a newsgroup. So we may as well move in. I see no sense in cross-posting articles to alt.fusion and sci.physics.fusion. Just send them to sci.physics.fusion. I will rmgroup alt.fusion in a few weeks when the traffic falls off. Thanks to jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) for his timely creation of alt.fusion (on 1 April). We seem to have been the premier conduit for relatively accurate information and interactive discussion, and I for one am proud that the alt subnet was able to serve us in this way. -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com "Genuinely skillful use of obscenities is uniformly absent on the Internet." -- Karl Kleinpaste cudkeys: cuddy4 cudengnu cudfnJohn cudlnGilmore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.04 / Paul Dietz / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Date: 4 Jun 89 14:59:48 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article <40882@bbn.COM> denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) writes: > In point of fact, a large amount of the electricity generated in this > country is used for simple space heating. If we can make that heating > more effective, then we are replacing, watt for watt, electricity > generation capability. Though on a microscopic level solid-state > fusion may not generate electricity, its effect may be the same. Given the price of palladium, is would be a lot cheaper to replace those resistive heaters with heat pumps. As was noted, a heat pump can output > 1 watt of heat energy for 1 watt of electrical input. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.04 / Dave Mack / Re: Lithium reactions Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lithium reactions Date: 4 Jun 89 20:39:58 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <592@coplex.UUCP> chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) writes: > >In the magazine "Nature" volume 339, an analysis is done by R.D Petrasso[1] >and company which finds fault with P&F's reported gamma spectrum. The >analysis is convincing, and the values for P&F's gamma spectrum should >be shifted. The peak pointed out by P&F as proof of n + p -> D + gamma >at 2.22 MeV is wrong. The 2.2 Mev peak, when corrected, is positioned >at almost exactly 2.5MeV. This is particularly interesting when you consider that in their original preprint they claimed to be looking for 2.5 MeV gammas - see Eqn. vii. I never did understand why they would regard an obvious peak at 2.2 MeV (Fig. 1A) to be proof of this. Are we to assume that this means that FPH actually were seeing 2.5 MeV gammas? >A calculation of the energy for the D(D,p)t reaction gives the following >result: > > D D t p Delta u >(2.0140102u + 2.014102u - 3.016050u - 1.0072766u) = 0.0048774u > >converting restmass (u) to eV to energy yields, > >0.004877u * 931.478 MeV/u = 4.5432 MeV for the fusion reaction. ^^^^^^^ Bailey gives 4.03 MeV for this reaction. >dividing the change in energy by the total energy of the product >gives a unit value for the change, > >0.0048774u / 4.023366u = 0.001213368. > >Assuming the energy is distributed evenly per unit mass, then >the energy of the proton would be, > >1.0072766u * 0.001213368 = 0.001221089u. > >Converted to eV, > >0.001221089u * 931.478 MeV/u = 1.1374 Mev for the proton. Sorry, but you're forgetting conservation of momentum. In fact, you wind up with a 3 MeV proton and a 1 MeV triton, give or take a few keV, assuming that the center of mass of the D + D system is initially at rest. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy4 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.04 / Dave Mack / Re: 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 'some work, some don't' Date: 4 Jun 89 21:16:09 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <1985@wasatch.utah.edu> donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley) writes: >Pons is still looking for helium. Apparently his group is not finding >helium in amounts consistent with Walling and Simons' D+D => 4He >theory, or at least if they are finding helium, they are not satisfied >with the results. They are seeing evidence of tritium, however. The failure of groups with working cells to find He (3 or 4) is by far the most disturbing thing about the CNF experiments. There is simply no way to avoid finding it if fusion is actually occurring. There should at least be traces of He-3 due to tritium decay. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy4 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.04 / Dave Mack / Re: Surface vs. Volume Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Surface vs. Volume Date: 4 Jun 89 21:48:58 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <126@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >In article <1989Jun1.141350.17841@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >]In article <5169@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >] >]>It is interesting to note that Li-6 has an enormous thermal neutron >]>absorption cross-section - 960 barns. >]> >]>This may offer a partial explanation of the high tritium production >]>levels, the scarcity of neutrons, and the excess heat dependence on >]>the Li isotopes present in the electrolyte. >] >]Unfortunately, no, since d+d produces fast neutrons, not thermal >]neutrons. > >Ahhh, but the fast neutrons are thermalized in the electrolyte. Generally, probably not. The mean free path of a 2.45 MeV neutron in heavy water is probably around 10 cm. ( The MFP for a thermal neutron is 2 cm.) You need around 30 elastic collisions to thermalize the neutron. Given the sizes of the cells we've seen so far, the chance of the neutron escaping long before thermalizing is very good. The chance of thermalizing in the surrounding water bath is somewhat better. I've ignored the presence of Li in the electrolyte. Li-7 will hardly make any contribution to the neutron scattering, and there isn't that much Li-6 there. Also, the value I quoted for the absorption cross-section for Li-6 is for thermal neutrons - .025 eV. It's apparently much smaller for hot neutrons. Also, movement of the neutron through the cathode makes only a negligible contribution to the thermalization process. Corrections? -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy4 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / Robert Munck / Re: The Chemistry of Muon-induced Fusion (and why you should be Originally-From: munck@linus.UUCP (Robert Munck) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Chemistry of Muon-induced Fusion (and why you should be interested) Date: 2 Jun 89 12:07:06 GMT Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA (just posting for Terry. -- Bob Munck) ============================================================================ WHY TM HYDRIDES MIGHT REDUCE MUON-TO-HELIUM "STICKING" PROBABILITIES; A FEW OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROPERTIES OF NEUTRAL MUON HYDROGEN; CAN MUONS INDUCE NOVEL FISSION/FUSION (NUCLEON TRANSFER) REACTIONS? The three short articles described by the above titles are my response to a letter on muon-induced fusion that I received from Paul Dietz. (The key comments from Paul's text are included in the sections.) To quickly summarize the three sections: o In the first section, I discuss why certain chemical environments should be able to reduce the percentage of muons that are retained by helium after a muon-induced fusion, despite the fact that muon orbitals are *normally* far too tightly bound to be affected by the surrounding chemical environment. Also, I give some reasons why transition metal hydrides should be more likely to display such effects than molecular hydrogen. o In the second section, I discuss the interesting question of whether a neutral muon hydrogen atom traveling at thermal energies could behave like a neutron, readily penetrating the electron shells of a higher element to react with the nucleus. My answer is a quite firm "no." o In the third section, I go on to consider the question of just what would happen if neutral muon hydrogen *did* bang into the nucleus of a higher level element as a result of, say, high-speed injection into the atom. The result is very interesting, and my analysis *may* point to a class of muon-induced nuclear reactions that have not yet been properly studied. (Please note, however, that I have not done a literature search on the subject; for all I know, the proposed reactions could be common knowledge to the right people.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TM HYDRIDES MIGHT REDUCE MUON-TO-HELIUM "STICKING" PROBABILITIES [Dietz writes:] > About 3He: the "sticking" probability has been measured in experiments > in deuterium gas. It is fairly high. Even in DT it is on the order > of one percent per fusion. > > The underground experiments in Italy would tend to argue against a > muon explanation for the Jones results. I believe next week's > meeting will include results of experiments with negative muon > beams. By the titles I expect these will be negative results. First, an apology -- I completely misinterpreted an assertion in one of Paul Dietz's earlier letters, in which he said that a typical muon would be captured by a 3He nucleus after about 30 fusion reactions. The point he was trying to make was a very important one, and I flat out missed it -- I thought he was discussing the likelihood of a thermal muon being captured by an "incidental" helium atom that just happened to be in its path. (Yes, that *was* a dumb interpretation.) Also, it's great to hear that some groups are actually *doing* experiments, even if the results of those experiments turn out to be negative. Good experiments are always going to be the bottom line in all of this. However, since the results are not *quite* out yet, I'll just mosey along in the direction I was going and see if anything interesting turns up. (By the way, it's good to know that even though the amount of high-profile work on the F&P results has gone *way* down, there is still a community of anti- establishment physicists willing to do "underground" experiments...) ---------- In muon-induced fusion, the most important mechanism by which muons are lost is retention (or "sticking") of the muons to the helium nuclei formed during fusion, an effect that can eliminate several percent of the muons during each fusion cycle. Once a muon enters into a close orbital around a helium nucleus, it will stay locked there until it decays one or two microseconds later. (Actually, it may not *quite* be true that such muons are always irrevocably lost. I'll discuss an interesting possible exception later in this article.) Although the sticking issue is a bit different from the question of whether transition metals might provide muon-induced fusion media that are *relatively* superior to molecular hydrogen, a major reduction of the sticking effect would almost certainly be needed to build practical energy production systems based on muon-induced fusion. I'll start by making one of my assertions (a rather long one this time): In muon-induced fusion of hydrogen isotopes, fusion reactions which take place in media dominated by strong, high-symmetry covalent bonds (e.g., molecular hydrogen) should be significantly more likely to "lose" muons to the resulting helium nuclei than fusion reactions which take place in media that are characterized primarily by non-covalent (i.e., ionic and/or metallic) bonds. Furthermore, the inhibiting effects of highly covalent media should remain relatively constant over a wide range of media densities (or pressures), while the desirable muon-extending effects of non-covalent media should generally increase as the densities (or pressures) of those media are increased. (Please note that the operative word here is "significant," which does not necessarily mean "huge." Although I am pretty confident in the overall soundness of my argument, I'm *not* at this point trying to make any particular claims about the magnitude of the effect, other than to say that it should at least be readily detectable with good experimental setups.) My assertion seems a bit counter-intuitive, since the energy required to remove a muon from a stable muon helium orbital is far in excess of anything available through chemical (electron) reactions. However, *stable* orbitals are not the most probable state of a muon that has just been in close proximity to a very energetic fusion reaction -- instead, such muons are much more likely to occupy a wide range of highly excited states that extend up to the muon helium+ ionization energy ( muHe+ --> He+2 ). Muons which have been excited beyond the muHe+ ionization energy (that is, the majority of the muons) will generally escape from the helium nucleus. However, it is worth noting that even among "escaped" fraction a number of muons will lose their energy through collisions with the immediate (Angstroms) atomic environment, and may return to helium nucleus if the +2 charge of nucleus is not quickly cancelled by electrons from the immediate environment. The high-energy muon orbitals that are the primary basis for my claim that muon retention percentages *can* be affected by the chemical domain. Just as the orbitals of highly excited electrons can have orbital radii that are orders of magnitude larger than those of ground state electrons, at least some of the excited muons should have orbitals with radii that are orders of magnitude larger than the muon ground state -- in other words, in the Angstrom or atomic range. These excited muons should be no more tightly bound to the helium nucleus than would be electrons with orbitals of comparable radii, since the charge of the muon and electron are identical. (The very tight bonding normally displayed by muons is a result of the very short radius of their ground state orbital, rather than to any "inherent" feature of how a muon interacts with a nucleus positively charged nucleus.) A muon in one of these excited states thus has a some of the same general characteristics as an electron in an orbital with a comparable radius, and should be subject to a variety of chemical domain effects before it drops back to the tightly bound ground state. In particular, a highly excited muon orbitals should be subject to "competition" from other positive charge centers, particularly if the charge centers are in very close proximity to the helium and are able to present a strong field gradient. A list of this and other factors which might encourage removal of excited muons from the helium is given below. 1) Charge competition from positively charged ions in close proximity. In particular, H+ ions should be significantly more effective at such effects because their lack of shell electrons would permit much more intense electromagnetic field gradients to be presented to the muon. 2) Wide availability of conduction electrons to help cancel the residual +2 charge on the helium nucleus. 3) Charge competition from positively charged metal ions within a metallic crystal lattice. 4) Delocalization effects of a metallic crystal lattice. In short, environments such as those found in transition metal hydrides should have a particularly good chance of demonstrating some degree of reduction in the muon retention percentage, since they demonstrate a number of mechanisms which might help "entice" excited muons that would otherwise be retained to leave the helium nucleus. Particularly interesting is the availability of "cold" H+ ions, which could provide highly attractive alternative targets to such muons. It is also worth noting that as the density of such species increases, the ability of the medium to reduce muon retention should increase. The inverse side of this argument is that chemical environments which lack good "targets" for absorbing muons could actually inhibit their escape by removing energy through thermal collisions and decreasing the opportunities for rapid cancellation of the He+2 charge. Chemical environments which are dominated by tightly bonded electrons and little or no ionization or dipole behavior (in other words, dominated by strong, symmetrical covalent bonds) should be the ones most likely to display this inhibiting effect. It is interesting to note that molecular hydrogen, which is the usual medium for experiments in muon-induced fusion, is probably one of the best possible examples of such an environment. The bonds between hydrogen atoms are symmetrical and quite strong, and the level of ionization is minimal. Also, in contrast to the favorable effects of increased numbers of cation species near the helium, an increase in the pressure of neutral covalent species could even reduce the number of muon escapes by increasing opportunities for energy-robbing collisions. In summary: It's worth a little head scratching and/or experimentation. I'd almost be willing to wager that at least some of the effects I've described above do exist -- to me, the big question would be their magnitude. ---------- Now it's time to go on to the second muon capture issue, which is: Can a muon *ever* be recovered after it enters into low orbital binding with a helium nucleus? Oddly enough, I think that the answer may be yes -- but it would require a much higher density of muons than one would normally assume. My argument is based in part on an application of the "transient transmutation" idea (observation, really) that I mentioned in my last article. To repeat: Because of the very tight binding of a muon to the nucleus of any element above hydrogen, the shell electrons of that element will be forced to reconfigure as if the nuclear charge had suddenly dropped by one -- in other words, to the configuration of the next lower element in the periodic table. (It does not work in the case of hydrogen, by the way, since there are no shell electrons to "cover" the electrostatic behavior of the muon orbital.) This means that single-muon helium (muHe) will have a chemical behavior that is more like hydrogen than helium, and will thus be able to participate in the chemistry of the TM hydride system. In particular, one can conceive of the formation of analogs to H2+ or D2+, with structures such as muHeD+. Now the interesting question: What happens if muHeH+ happens to encounter *another* muon? Well, yes, you guessed where I was heading -- the muHeH+ system *might* (only might!) be compressed in much the same way as, say, D2+ in the same situation. At some point in the compression process, either 2muHe (now *that* is a dead-end muon product...) will form and the deuteron will be freed, OR... another fusion will occur via proximity tunnelling, and the sequence: 3He + D --> 5Li --> 4He + p will result. And, of course, the muons would both stand a good chance of returning to the system, with the net result of freeing the previously captured muon. (I must admit, however, that although I *do* think both reactions are feasible, I tend to think that the first (2muHe) would be dominant, and possibly by a large margin; the pairing of the muons may be too tempting energetically.) Even though the hypothetical muon-freeing reaction I just described might not be particularly helpful in trying to build an effective muon fusion system, it does help make an important point: Second order effects of muons may be more important in muon-induced fusion than they might at first seem. In other words, systems in which the density of muons is kept very high might exhibit behaviors that are significantly different (and possibly more desirable) than those of sparse-muon systems. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE CHEMICAL BEHAVIOR OF NEUTRAL MU HYDROGEN IN A TM HYDRIDE [Dietz writes:] > About muon induced fusion in palladium... > > I would expect the Pd to capture muons quickly. Here's why. When a > free muon is captured by a deuteron, it falls into close orbit. The > resulting object is very small -- 200 times smaller than a hydrogen > atom -- and at longer distances looks neutral. It sails through the > PdD crystal like a neutron. If this muonic atom comes close to a Pd > nucleus, there would be a good chance the muon would be stripped off > and lost. There are two problems with comparing neutral muon hydrogen (muH) isotopes with neutrons: 1) Muons orbital fields are essentially identical in form an properties to their electron counterparts, and are very much subject to the effects of electron clouds. In contrast, the effects of the electromagnetic force on neutrons are negligible for the situation described above. Nonetheless, the argument would still hold *if* the muH particle were small enough, which leads to the second point... 2) Although small in comparison to conventional atoms, muon atoms are far larger than subatomic particles such as neutrons. In fact, they are roughly halfway between in orders of magnitude -- that is, a muon atom such as muH is about a couple of hundred times larger than some atomic nuclei, while a normal hydrogen atom is a couple of hundred times larger than muH. Because the atomic orbitals of electrons and muons are very similar in all of their properties except size, the "nerf ball" analogy comes in handy for this one. First, imagine two nerf balls of similar size, which represent two similar atoms. An average thermal collision between the two atoms at, say, room temperature and pressure, can then be represented by pressing the two nerf balls together with a fixed amount of force. Both balls will be compressed by the same amount, as measured by the degree of indentation. Next, squeeze one of the nerf balls until it has a radius that is about 200 times smaller than before. The squeezed nerf ball then represents the equivalent muonic atom, with a field that is similar to the other ball, but 200 times smaller and much more intense. A average thermal energy collision between the these two balls is then simulated by pressing them together with the same fixed force used before, and then determining the degree of indentation. The degree of indentation of the larger ball can be estimated by noting that the area of the smaller ball is now 40,000 times smaller (200 x 200) than before, and that the effective force applied to the surface of the large ball will thus be increased by the same factor. (Yes, there are some minor effects from the curvature of the balls, but nothing that needs to be taken into account for this type of ball park approximation.) Also, the field of the smaller ball is now so compact that it is essentially incompressible in comparison to the large ball, so its indentation will be very small. Since the small ball no longer "taking its share" of the indentation, the net effect will be to double the pressure on the surface of the large ball, to give a net multiplication factor of about 80,000. That means that to find out how much pressure or "penetrating power" the shrunken ball (muH) will apply to the electron cloud of a conventional atom, the effects of the equivalent conventional atom at the same temperature and pressure should be multiplied by a factor of 80,000. For a system at room temperature and pressure, that would mean that muH "dings" conventional atoms with a force of about 80 kilobars -- which is roughly the same as what is available in commercial diamond synthesis machines. Needless to say, that is way, *way* less than what is needed to penetrate the electron shells of a conventional atom. The bottom line: Although they are small, muon atoms still have far more in common with conventional atoms than they do with subatomic particles such as neutrons. Except for the special case of muon hydrogen formation (in which there are no inner shell electrons to interfere), they will tend to be bumped and jostled around by electron clouds in much the same fashion as their larger brethren. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAN MUONS INDUCE NOVEL FISSION/FUSION (NUCLEON TRANSFER) REACTIONS? Now that I've given my reasons for why I do not think that a muH atom can easily reach the nucleus of one of the heavier elements, I cannot resist going on to look at what might happen if such an event did occur. The reaction of muH isotopes with heavy nuclei is not completely hypothetical, since it's conceivable that a neutral muon hydrogen could be injected at a high enough speed to reach the interior of higher elements. (Note, however, that energy range needed for *that* type of scenario might very well be high enough to strip the muon off as it passes through the electron cloud.) Dietz mentions the possibility that the heavier nucleus will simply strip the muon from the muH, which would then be followed by rapid ejection of the H by simple electrostatic repulsion. He may very well be exactly right on that scenario, but I would like to at least suggest another possibility: that of the formation of extremely tightly bound hydride compounds, which might then be followed by all sorts of interesting nuclear events. In either case, a few good quantum orbital calculations (have at) should be able to resolve the issue of whether of not such muon hydrides can form. I will give an intuitive model here for why I think such compounds could form. Keeping in mind that muon orbitals are much larger than both of the nuclei involved (by about two orders of magnitude), it is at least possible that the muH atom will behave like a dipole as it comes near the extremely intense field gradient of the large nucleus. Since the dipole would have net neutrality, it would be able to persist near the intense field of the larger nucleus; in effect, the large muon orbital would "shield" the H+ from powerful repulsive effects of the larger nucleus. It is also possible that such an effect could exist, but that residual repulsion effects on the H will eventually blow it away from the nucleus. If the dipole analogy holds and muon hydrides can in fact form, then a number of interesting nucleon tunneling scenarios become possible. For the moment I will assume that deuterium is being used, and will then describe three major classes of reactions. These are: 1) For quite low atomic numbers, the most energetically favorable tunneling scenario would for the deuteron to fuse with the larger nucleus in a reaction that is quite similar in concept to that of muon induced D-D fusion. 2) For somewhat larger atomic numbers, peculiar things could begin to happen. The formation of helium from deuterium is an extremely energetic reaction, whereas the addition of a deuteron to an atomic nucleus is a more modest reaction that produces less and less energy until iron is reached, at which point it produces no net energy at all. This means that for a number of elements below iron, it would be *more* energetically favorable for, say, a neutron-proton pair from the heavy nucleus to be "boiled off" onto the deuteron, with the energy required to lower the atomic number of the element being derived from the energy gain of the fusion reaction. Direct fusion of the deuteron with the nucleus would still provide a net energy production, however, and should thus be another significant reaction route. Once such a nucleon transfer occurred, the dipole bond would immediately be broken by the addition of the second +1 charge (since there would no longer be enough negative charge to maintain dipole neutrality). The helium would driven away as an alpha particle, and the muon would stand a good chance of exiting the system, given all of the jostling of positive charges that is going on. 3) For elements above iron, the "boiling off" of a proton-neutron pair (not the only possibility, by the way) would become energetically favorable for both nuclei, whereas fusion of the deuteron with the nucleus would result in an energy loss and would be effectively forbidden. The level of energy released would increase with larger atomic numbers, and the net result would be an interesting form of high-energy "fission"/fusion reaction. A couple of notes about these proposed reactions: First, I am describing them because I think they are interesting possibilities, *not* because I think they are **THE SOLUTION** to either the F&P or Jones results. *If* they even exist, perhaps they might be related to some aspect of what's going on, and perhaps not. I personally do not see any obvious no connection. A second note: If by any strange chance anyone out there would happen to use an idea or note from one of my e-mail articles in a formal paper, the inclusion of a reference to the specific e-mail article would be appreciated. After all, this ain't no refereed journal, but it *is* a form of publishing, and simple courtesy would seem to apply. Cheers, Terry Bollinger (terry@ctc.contel.com) (A reminder -- I am not on the UUCP net, so if you want me to respond to any comments or questions, you will need to send them directly to me at the Internet address given above.) cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenmunck cudfnRobert cudlnMunck cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / Chuck Sites / Re: Lithium reactions Originally-From: chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Lithium reactions Date: 5 Jun 89 07:17:12 GMT Organization: Copper Electronics, Louisville, Ky. In article <3659@alembic.ACS.COM>, csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) writes: > In article <592@coplex.UUCP> chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) writes: > > > >In the magazine "Nature" volume 339, an analysis is done by R.D Petrasso[1] > >and company which finds fault with P&F's reported gamma spectrum. The > >analysis is convincing, and the values for P&F's gamma spectrum should > >be shifted. The peak pointed out by P&F as proof of n + p -> D + gamma > >at 2.22 MeV is wrong. The 2.2 Mev peak, when corrected, is positioned > >at almost exactly 2.5MeV. > > This is particularly interesting when you consider that in their > original preprint they claimed to be looking for 2.5 MeV gammas - > see Eqn. vii. I never did understand why they would regard an > obvious peak at 2.2 MeV (Fig. 1A) to be proof of this. > > Are we to assume that this means that FPH actually were seeing 2.5 MeV > gammas? I just went back and read the preprint as well. FPH gave the following reaction: D + D -> He3 (0.82Mev) + n (2.45Mev) H1 + n(2.45MeV) -> D + gamma(2.5MeV) Humm.. Let me quote the Nature article, "As compelling evidence that fusion occured, they (FPH) reported the observation of the 2.22MeV gamma-ray line that originates from neutron capture by hydrogen nuclei, n + p -> d + gamma (2.22Mev)." further, "we argue that thier purported gamma-ray line actually resides at 2.5MeV rather than 2.2MeV" That is a very interesting discrepency you pointed out Dave. The 2.2MeV result neglects the kenetic energy of the neutron from the previous reaction. There is a very well defined sharp, narrow peak at 2.5MeV +- 0.03MeV. Also as pointed out in the article, is what could be a peak starting at 3.09MeV to 3.1MeV. Perhaps a proton from D(D,p)t? That peak is hard to call since it's right at the edge of photo. The peak for the tritium side of the equation could easily be overwelmed by the high background around the 1.3 to 0.4 MeV range. But a peak at 2.5...yeap it's definately there! > > >A calculation of the energy for the D(D,p)t reaction gives the following > >result: > > > > D D t p Delta u > >(2.0140102u + 2.014102u - 3.016050u - 1.0072766u) = 0.0048774u > > > >converting restmass (u) to eV to energy yields, > > > >0.004877u * 931.478 MeV/u = 4.5432 MeV for the fusion reaction. > ^^^^^^^ > > Bailey gives 4.03 MeV for this reaction. Your right. The value that needs to be changed is the value for 'p'. If one uses the restmass of H1 at 1.007825u the energy released is 4.032Mev. This is something I've never really understood. How can a full hydrogen restmass result from a reaction that is only supposed to be producing a proton? The restmass of a proton is 1.007276u, add in the restmass of an electron of 0.0005485u and you get the an H1 restmass (1.007825u). Question? Where did the restmass of an electron get added in D+D->t+p and second, why? [Some wrong calculations deleted] > Sorry, but you're forgetting conservation of momentum. Darn, I knew it was something. My appoligies for cring wolf... again. The Li6(p,alpha)He3 seemed unlikely anyway since threashold energy looks to be about 8MeV by my calculations (for whatever thats worth ;-) > In fact, you wind up with a 3 MeV proton and a 1 MeV triton, give > or take a few keV, assuming that the center of mass of the D + D > system is initially at rest. I stand corrected. Thanks > -- > Dave Mack Chuck Sites ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . Chuck Sites | chuck@coplex mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck . . . o o o o WRK: 502-9688495 ATT: 4547218 A personal comment below: o o o o O O O My support and sympathy goes to the chinese students of Beijing O O O ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 31 May 89 12:52:18 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway >Originally-From: emanuel@cernvax.UUCP (emanuel machado) >Newsgroups: alt.fusion >Subject: Re: What is THIS?! >Date: 30 May 89 10:36:31 GMT >Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics, CH-1211 Geneva, Sw > > What I suspect is that Paul and I weren't the only ones to receive. >Right? And somehow there might be a good reason to send them. I mean, it cos- >ted a whole dolar to send it to Europe! It seems that someone sent out a bunch of them, although no one at this site got one (or has mentioned it if they have). I confess that I would like to see the patent, but I'm pretty sure that it is covered by law, so I guess I'll have to wait and see if it's accepted. Then I can get it for a buck, or whatever the fee is. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs | rochester}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen voice: (518) 387-6489 Smail: GE Corp R&D Center, Box 8, KW-C206, Schenectady NY 12345 cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenfusion cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.05.31 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 31 May 89 12:53:30 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway >Originally-From: andrew@berlioz (Information @ Any Price ) >Newsgroups: alt.fusion >Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media >Date: 30 May 89 19:54:12 GMT >Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara > >One more comment; it is being largely played up by the media (following >comments by Jones at Santa Fe) that "only uselessly small energy gains >are being made" - the implication being that 1.01x out/in ratio is >economically irrelevant. This is garbage: if I want 10 watts of cheap >energy, I either hook a load of these units up together, or input a >larger amount once. Anything over exactly 1.0 is cause for jubilation. I don't think you can do anything useful with a gain that small. The inpuyt is electricity and the output is heat... therefore the "real" breakeven point is when the output can be converted to electricity equal to the input power. 1.01 is just not enough. I would guess that 2x is about the bottom line, and maybe 10x for commercial power generation. Since Pd is scarce and expensive, the output has to be pretty high to make it practical. The cost per watt-hr is more or less the actual cost of operation plus the interest on the cost of construction. Other applications, such as off-planet power, may be ideal applications for a system with a high power to weight ratio. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs | rochester}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen voice: (518) 387-6489 Smail: GE Corp R&D Center, Box 8, KW-C206, Schenectady NY 12345 cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenfusion cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / perry@ohstpy.m / Re: Credo Originally-From: perry@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Credo Date: 5 Jun 89 15:20:27 GMT I am posting some comments on the tritium measurements at Texas A&M. In article <1290@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: > - On the one hand, the experiments claiming heat production in > - electrochemical cells, which (so argue the proponents) can only be > - coming from cold fusion, are proving remarkably resistant to > - confirmation by nuclear means, which are the *only* diagnostics that > - can prove that a nuclear reaction is indeed going on. > > Now you've confused me. Are the TAMU tritium measurements > "confirmation by nuclear means," or not? What would you need to see > before you decided that CNF was real and was a usable power source? > > I'm not a physicist, I'd like to know what would convince a physicist. > The TAMU tritium measurements got me all excited and now I'm hearing > that they don't mean anything? What's going on? > > - "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson > > Bob P. > > -- > - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. > - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet > - > - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. I'm a nuclear physicist, but nothing in my reply requires expertise in nuclear physics. Barring alchemy, if one gets more tritium out of an electrolytic cell than is put in, fusion has occurred. The trick is to conclusively demonstrate that more tritium is found in the electrolyte (or electrode) than could have been introduced by ANY source in the cell! The TAMU tritium results are the most intriguing available for anyone who wants to believe that there is excess heat in F&P cells coming from fusion. I see no good reason to doubt that the levels claimed are accurate, as they have been confirmed by several labs. I have no reason to believe that the excess tritium was introduced in the D2O or LiOD, because these are reported to come from the same stock that was measured to contain low levels of tritium. There is no way the electrolysis could have concentrated tritium from the D2O at the required level, because the total amount of D2O added during elctrolysis was only about three times the volume of D2O initially in the cell. I see no way that the concentration can vary by large amounts through the electrolyte. Thus, the tritium has either been produced by fusion or introduced in some other part of the cell. There are not very many parts, so it should be relatively easy to demonstrate beyond any doubt that tritium is not being introduced (or to find that it has been introduced). The main focus should be on the Pd itself, since blank runs employing two Pt electrodes should allow one to rule out all other sources. If anyone can see a flaw in this reasoning, please let me know. Robert Perry Dept. of Physics The Ohio State University perry@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenperry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / Paul Dietz / Re: heat pumps... Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: heat pumps... Date: 5 Jun 89 18:37:46 GMT Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY In article dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs >Twice now on this newgroup, from two separate people (Donald Benson, >Paul Dietz) I have seen statements of the form > >"A heat pump produces >1 watt of heat for each watt of electric >input." > >(Specifically Benson says >>> Put 1 watt electricity in, get 2 or 3 watts heat out. > >and Dietz says > >>> As was noted, a heat pump >>> can output > 1 watt of heat energy for 1 watt of electrical input. >) > >Now, either these statements are intended to mean something something >other than what they say, or my understanding of the law of >conservation of mass-energy is incorrect, or heat pumps actually >convert mass to energy. Would anybody care to explain which of these >alternatives is the right one? No, we mean exactly what we say. A heat pump moves heat, so its "output" can be greater than the electrical input. This does not violate the First Law, since something, typically outside air, gets colder (i.e., has less heat energy content). Nor does it violate the Second Law, since work must be done to pump the heat "uphill", and this work is more than the work that could be obtained by running a heat engine between the hot and cold sides of the heat pump. When the temperature difference is small (for example, heating a house to 295 K when it is 280 K outside) a heat pump can provide much more heat than a "100% efficient" resistive heater. Heat pumps are described in any thermodynamics textbook. They are a 19th century invention (Kelvin, I think). Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu cudkeys: cuddy5 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / Maciej Pindera / Re: heat pumps... Originally-From: zenon@chopin.llnl.gov (Maciej Zenon Pindera) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: heat pumps... Date: 5 Jun 89 18:44:07 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory In article dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs >other than what they say, or my understanding of the law of >conservation of mass-energy is incorrect, or heat pumps actually >convert mass to energy. Would anybody care to explain which of these >alternatives is the right one? >Thanks. >-- >Dave Detlefs Any correlation between my employer's opinion Like the name says, its a pump. It transfers heat from one place to another. A heat pump does not create energy any more than a water pump create water. Since the thing only _transfers energy_ you can see why you can get more out than what you put in. Cars do it all the time... For this reason, heat pumps, fridges, etc., are not rated using efficiency, but the so called coefficient of performance. That way a rating of over 100% does not cause too much confusion with the conservation (of energy,mass, etc) people who like to have efficiencies below 100% maciej cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenzenon cudfnMaciej cudlnPindera cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / cooper%vlab.de / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Originally-From: cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper in the shadowlands) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion, racoons, media Date: 5 Jun 89 23:01:05 GMT Organization: DEC Advanced CI Development, Marlboro MA In article <1989Jun4.105949.27648@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes... >In article <40882@bbn.COM> denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) writes: > >> In point of fact, a large amount of the electricity generated in this >> country is used for simple space heating. If we can make that heating >> more effective, then we are replacing, watt for watt, electricity >> generation capability. Though on a microscopic level solid-state >> fusion may not generate electricity, its effect may be the same. > >Given the price of palladium, is would be a lot cheaper to replace >those resistive heaters with heat pumps. As was noted, a heat pump >can output > 1 watt of heat energy for 1 watt of electrical input. But if this does, as it appears to do, produce a significant increase in heat output over energy input and if it is correlative to the crystalline structure then the possibilty exists that other similar structures comprised of less expensive materials could produce cost effective heat sources. Also auxiliary effects could produce revenue; desalination of sea water in CA. The questions to be posed now are: 1) what other materials are to be tested for similar reactions 2) what contaminants provide increased production of energy 3) what is the effective lifetime of a cell ... Knowing questions have to be asked but not knowing which, shades ============================================================================ | But I that am not shaped for sport- | Geoffrey D. Cooper | | ive trick, nor formed to court an | cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com | | amorous looking glass... | business (508) 467-3678 | | | home (617) 925-1099 | ============================================================================ Note: I don't work for DEC I'm a consultant. My opinions are just that. MINE! cudkeys: cuddy5 cudencom cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / cooper%vlab.de / Re: 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper in the shadowlands) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 'some work, some don't' Date: 5 Jun 89 23:13:06 GMT Organization: DEC Advanced CI Development, Marlboro MA In article <3660@alembic.ACS.COM>, csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) writes... >The failure of groups with working cells to find He (3 or 4) is by far >the most disturbing thing about the CNF experiments. There is simply >no way to avoid finding it if fusion is actually occurring. There should >at least be traces of He-3 due to tritium decay. Have they checked the traces after letting a cell sit for a period of time? Might it not be that as long as the energy input is above a certain level that the production of He-3|4 is inhibited? Wishing I remembered more of my physics, shades ============================================================================ | But I that am not shaped for sport- | Geoffrey D. Cooper | | ive trick, nor formed to court an | cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com | | amorous looking glass... | business (508) 467-3678 | | | home (617) 925-1099 | ============================================================================ Note: I don't work for DEC I'm a consultant. My opinions are just that. MINE! cudkeys: cuddy5 cudencom cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / David Detlefs / Re: heat pumps... Originally-From: dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: heat pumps... Date: 5 Jun 89 15:19:24 GMT Organization: CMU CS Department Twice now on this newgroup, from two separate people (Donald Benson, Paul Dietz) I have seen statements of the form "A heat pump produces >1 watt of heat for each watt of electric input." (Specifically Benson says >> Put 1 watt electricity in, get 2 or 3 watts heat out. and Dietz says >> As was noted, a heat pump >> can output > 1 watt of heat energy for 1 watt of electrical input. ) Now, either these statements are intended to mean something something other than what they say, or my understanding of the law of conservation of mass-energy is incorrect, or heat pumps actually convert mass to energy. Would anybody care to explain which of these alternatives is the right one? Thanks. -- Dave Detlefs Any correlation between my employer's opinion Carnegie-Mellon CS and my own is statistical rather than causal, dld@cs.cmu.edu except in those cases where I have helped to form my employer's opinion. (Null disclaimer.) -- cudkeys: cuddy5 cudendld cudfnDavid cudlnDetlefs cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / William Johnson / Re: Credo Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Credo Date: 5 Jun 89 15:15:28 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <1290@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: > From article <25297@beta.lanl.gov>, by mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson): > > - On the one hand, the experiments claiming heat production in > - electrochemical cells, which (so argue the proponents) can only be > - coming from cold fusion, are proving remarkably resistant to > - confirmation by nuclear means, which are the *only* diagnostics that > - can prove that a nuclear reaction is indeed going on. > > Now you've confused me. Are the TAMU tritium measurements > "confirmation by nuclear means," or not? What would you need to see > before you decided that CNF was real and was a usable power source? The problem with the tritium measurements is that they may or may not have anything to do with a cell producing heat. There are at least three different, and apparently nearly orthogonal, groups at Texas A&M that are working on cold-fusion experiments. The reporting of those groups' results at Santa Fe was somewhat garbled, since Appleby (who gave the leadoff talk claiming excess heat) alluded to nuclear measurements done in the Bockris group. My understanding -- and I would be delighted if someone from Texas A&M is listening who can confirm or correct this -- is that the elevated tritium levels were observed in electrolytes from cells that weren't even being monitored calorimetrically; accordingly, to connect tritium with production of excess heat is premature at this point. IMHO, demonstration that a cell producing excess heat also produces tritium (note that "produces" tritium is **not** the same thing as *contains* tritium) would be a very major step toward confirmation. Because the heat and tritium results at A&M don't come from the same group, this step has not occurred -- yet. But we can hope. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.02 / Roberto J.G. B / Santa Fe Report request Originally-From: scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) Originally-From: Roberto J.G. Bevilacqua ROBEVI at ARGCNEA2 Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: Santa Fe Report request Date: 6 Jun 89 17:20:42 GMT Date: 2 June 1989, 18:59:27 LOC Organization: Zorch Public-Access Unix; San Jose, CA Date: 2 June 1989, 18:59:27 LOC Originally-From: Roberto J.G. Bevilacqua ROBEVI at ARGCNEA2 (054) (01) 753-0370 (Directo) 755-0181 Int 7-341 CNEA - CAC - Centro de Calculo Cientifico Div. Sistemas - Grupo Sistemas Operativos Av. de los Constituyentes y Av. Gral Paz (1650) Buenos Aires - Argentina To: FUSION at NDSUVM1 Hi : Can anyone send me the Santa Fe Report fairly complete ? Thank you in advance. Roberto Bevilacqua ROBEVI@ARGCNEA2.BITNET -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 298-6213 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott cudkeys: cuddy2 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 5 Jun 89 14:28:03 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway > > Given the price of palladium, is would be a lot cheaper to replace > those resistive heaters with heat pumps. As was noted, a heat pump > can output > 1 watt of heat energy for 1 watt of electrical input. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu Since you post from a cold climate I'm surprized that you would say this. A heat pump will just not produce enough thermal head for mush of the northern part of the U.S. (and, I'm sure, Canada). Homes in this part of the country need supplimentary heating in addition to heat pumps. CNF sounds like a great way to heat around here. Other issues: 1) yes an house can be insulated well enough to use the inhabitants as the auxilary heat source. 2) yes you can use a multi-stage heat pump for a high thermal head, but the efficiency drops considerably. 3) unless the Pd is used up in some way, the initial cost won't be a big deal. Figure the typical heating cost of a house in this climate as $900/yr (range $500-1300 was quoted by Niagra Mohawk 2 years ago) and the cost of a conventional furnace as about $1200 (plus installation). 4) if we did use CNF as a heat source, I suspect that steam heat would become more popular, if the CNF source could be directly used to boil water as a "flash boiler." 5) I am assuming that the Pd needed would be less than 2 oz, based on figures for heat output and assuming a 300% improvement in the output when the effect is understood. As always additional facts are solicited. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- davidsen@crdos1.uucp) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenfusion cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.01 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 1 Jun 89 11:21:44 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway >Originally-From: gordon (GORDON ALLEN R) >Date: 31 May 89 18:28:08 GMT >Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder >... >production, then the door is opened for cheap(?) and perhaps abundant energy. >This could be a pandora's box, since the problem of rampant energy consumption >has not been dealt with. The door will be opened to even more mismanagement of >scarce resources. > It seems to me that if cold fusion is ever proven (and made commercially feasible) the term "scarce resources" becomes rather hollow. >Finally, it seems that the materials needed for fabricating the electrodes are, >in part found in 3rd world countries. To say nothing of the worlds oceans, and probably a number of off-planet sources, such as the asteroids. (And further assuming these to be the ONLY materials which will(?) work, now or ever. Very shaky ground, as those involved in superconductivity research probably have noticed. >These countries could become very >valuable pieces of real estate and could become the issues of some rather nasty >global conflicts. More likely another OPEC-style cartel. They could also finally be wealthy enough to feed themselves, to say nothing of possibly being in a position to prevent further exploitation by others. IMHO, this is an extension of the don't-invent-electricity-because-someone- might-build-an-electric-chair reasoning presently in use by some of the more (in)famous Eco-Fascists and environmental obstructionists already discussed on this list. ............................................................................... |W. K. "Bill" Gorman | | |Foust #5, Cent. MI Univ. | "Only a fool fights in a burning house." | |Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859 | | |(517) 774-3183 | - Klingon proverb - | |.........................|...................................................| Disclaimer: Pick one. Copyright (C) 1989 W. K. Gorman. All rights reserved. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenfusion cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.06 / Ernst Mulder / Re: Credo Originally-From: rcbaem@eutrc3.UUCP (Ernst Mulder) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Credo Date: 6 Jun 89 11:03:55 GMT Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands In article <25610@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: > >IMHO, demonstration that a cell producing excess heat also produces tritium >(note that "produces" tritium is **not** the same thing as *contains* >tritium) would be a very major step toward confirmation. Because the heat >and tritium results at A&M don't come from the same group, this step has >not occurred -- yet. But we can hope. > *FLAME* on Maybe it's the same as when you try to measure the position of a particle: Either you measure Tritium, or you measure excess-heat. Not both at the same time... *FLAME* off. sorry for this :) pooh. cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenrcbaem cudfnErnst cudlnMulder cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / Bob Pendleton / Other news from SLC Originally-From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Other news from SLC Date: 5 Jun 89 16:35:33 GMT Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah From article <1982@wasatch.utah.edu>, by donn@wasatch.utah.edu (Donn Seeley): > On the patent front, there were rumblings on the evening news that the > lawyers are turning out to be more expensive than expected. Originally > the patent defense fund contained only twenty some odd thousand dollars > but some administrators feel that this is inadequate and there may be a > new legislative session called to allocate more money. The June 3 Salt Lake Tribune had an article titled: "Lawyer Bills for Fusion Patents Using Up Funds" It gives many details of the lawyer bills including the number of hours/lawyer and the $/hour rate of each lawyer billing to the job. It says that at most $500,000 of the $5 million allocated to support the fusion project can be spent on legal fees. The $500,000 should run out in November or December. It goes on to say that seven patent applications have been submitted and more are sure to be filed over the next several months. One of the reasons given for the high costs is the increased security needed by the law firms. One of the law firms has had its fax machine bugged and there have been other attempts have been made to tap the documents related to the U of Us fusion research. A previous article mentioned that the state had a hard time finding a good patent law firm because most such firms already had conflicts of interest. That is most patent law firms were already handling someone elses cold fusion patent applications. > 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 Bob P. P.S. Donn and I don't seem to read the same newspaper or watch the same T.V. station. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbpendlet cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.06 / DN5@PSUVM.BITN / How about heat generation? Originally-From: DN5@PSUVM.BITNET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: How about heat generation? Date: 6 Jun 89 13:05:26 GMT Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing This is a followup to several messages dealing with the possibility that solid-state fusion (or whatever we are seeing) is too inefficient to ever be useful as a power source. This may be true. However, even if it can't be usefull as a power system, it would still be useful as a heat source. Right now I have to convert electricity to heat to warm my house. Wouldn't a heat source which provides 1.01 watts of heat for 1.00 watts of electicity be better than the current means of heating? This still may prove to be too expensive (due to deutronium and manufacturing costs) but people should still keep an open mind about possible uses. Don't get too discouraged just because it might not be an efficient electic generator. Of course, if it actually does produce nasty types of radiation, this could give new meaning to the word "Radiator" :-). Jay, etc... (D. Jay Newman) dn5 AT psuvm.bitnet cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenDN5 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.07 / Dave Mack / Re: 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 'some work, some don't' Date: 7 Jun 89 02:58:25 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <2776@shlump.dec.com> cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper in the shadowlands) writes: >In article <3660@alembic.ACS.COM>, csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) writes... >>The failure of groups with working cells to find He (3 or 4) is by far >>the most disturbing thing about the CNF experiments. There is simply >>no way to avoid finding it if fusion is actually occurring. There should >>at least be traces of He-3 due to tritium decay. > >Have they checked the traces after letting a cell sit for a period of time? >Might it not be that as long as the energy input is above a certain level that >the production of He-3|4 is inhibited? If it is, then we're seeing a *major* discovery - something at the atomic level that operates through the weak interaction. For He-3 to be absent when tritium is present, you would have to suppress the beta decay of tritium. The only circumstance I can think of where this could happen would be an electron gas so dense that the Pauli exclusion principle prevents the decay. You might get conditions like this inside a white dwarf star, but inside a palladium rod? The TAMU measurement looked for tritium in the electrolyte and helium in the cathode. They found lots of tritium and no helium to within the limits of experimental error. Possible explanations: 1) The tritium is being generated in the electrolyte, not in the electrode. 2) The heavy water was contaminated with tritium after the reference measurement was made. 3) The cathode was already impregnated with tritium. 4) The tritium measurement was incorrect. (Does a scintillation gel react only to tritium or will it react to any beta emitter?) 5) Helium was present in the cathode but wasn't found due to procedural error. 6) He-3 diffuses out of Pd much more rapidly than expected. Four types of experimental error, two physical explanations. The error explanations should be easy to verify or eliminate. The evolved gases should be checked for helium, as well as the cathode. Walling, at U of U, claimed to find He-4 in the evolved gases. Does anyone know if he also found tritium or He-3? -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy7 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.06 / Arnie Frisch / Re: heat pumps... Originally-From: arnief@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: heat pumps... Date: 6 Jun 89 16:33:14 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article , dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs) writes: > Twice now on this newgroup, I have seen statements of the form > > "A heat pump produces >1 watt of heat for each watt of electric > input." > > > Now, either these statements are intended to mean something something > other than what they say, or my understanding of the law of > conservation of mass-energy is incorrect, or heat pumps actually > convert mass to energy. Would anybody care to explain which of these > alternatives is the right one? > > Thanks. > > > -- > Dave Detlefs Carnegie-Mellon CS Heat pumps don't produce heat. They pump heat. That means, they have the capability to move heat from a low temperature source to a high temperature sink. Like from the cold outdoors to the warmer (though not warm enough) indoors. They do this by using a process that can absorb heat at the cold temperature (like boiling liquid into a gas) and release heat at the high temperature (like compressing the gas back to a liquid). It takes less than a watt to pump a watt of heat from a "cold" temperature to a "hot" temperature - if it's not too "cold", and not too "hot", and the system is well designed. Arnold Frisch Tektronix Laboratories cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.07 / Alan Bowler / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: atbowler@watmath.waterloo.edu (Alan T. Bowler [SDG]) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 7 Jun 89 03:54:09 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <8905311254.AA04179@crdgw1.ge.com> uunet!crdos1.crd.ge.com!davidsen writes: >I would guess that 2x is >about the bottom line, and maybe 10x for commercial power generation. According to an interview on Quirks and Quaks with someone from AECL the magic number is 4x for current thermal electric plants (Probably CANDU fission reactors since that is what AECL is most known for) cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenatbowler cudfnAlan cudlnBowler cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.05 / Donald Benson / Re: 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: donb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Donald Benson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 'some work, some don't' Date: 5 Jun 89 19:33:13 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino > no way to avoid finding it if fusion is actually occurring. There should > at least be traces of He-3 due to tritium decay. Are they finding tritium but not helium? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My radical ideas would never be accepted by a staid company like this. DonB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy5 cudendonb cudfnDonald cudlnBenson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.08 / fusion@zorch.U / Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 8 Jun 89 01:49:15 GMT Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway Dear E632 and WA84 Collaborators, CERN, 28 May - 1 June 1989. COLD FUSION NEWS No. 14 SANTA FE MEEETING. 1. Introduction 2. Results on the Fleischmann-Pons Effect - Calorimetry 2.1 Summary 3. Possibilities of Use for Power Production. 4. Results on Possible Fusion Products 4.1 Neutrons 4.1.1 Conclusions 4.2 Tritium 4.3 Gammas 4.4 X-rays, helium 4.5 Other Experiments - Muon Bombardment, Deuteron Ion Implantation 4.6 Summary 5. Basic Studies of Hydrogen in Palladium 6. Compilation of Results. Regionalisation 7. Other Comments 8. Possible Future Meetings 1. INTRODUCTION A Workshop on Cold Fusion sponsored by Los Alamos and the US Department of Energy, was held in Santa Fe 23 to 25 May. Most participants were from North America and covered a very wide spectrum of interests. Apart from academic scientists, there were people from power companies, new companies set up in the last two months to exploit cold fusion, etc. The 20-strong Cold Fusion Panel of the Energy Research Advisory Board whose Co-chairs are Norman Ramsey and John Huizenga, attended and had their first meetings. The proceedings were broadcast live by satellite TV which interfered surprisingly little with the proceedings. Profs. Fleischmann and Pons refused to attend, but most major participants were present. Although one of the summary speakers said that nothing much had changed over the course of the Workshop and that there had been very roughly equal numbers of papers with positive and null results, workers active in the field that I talked to afterwards felt that distinct progress had been made. There were a number of positive results presented not seen at the APS meeting - in particular calorimetric results from Appleby (Texas A&M), Huggins (Stanford), and a very large tritium yield from Wolf (Texas A&M) and preliminary evidence for bursts of neutrons from Menlove (Los Alamos). Among the new null results were the very low neutron counting rates (2 per 5 days) in the Frejus tunnel reported by Declais (Annecy), and for the first time calorimetric experiments using good techniques (Paquette of Chalk River used a catalyser to recombine the gases and Hayden of British Columbia used a closed system with a catalyser and Redey of Argonne used a constant heat loss calorimeter). Crooks of MIT reported the non-observation of helium in a palladium electrode as did Appleby who had a positive heat effect. There were talks on previous knowledge of hydrogen in palladium where Besenbacher of Aarhus expressed grave doubts about the possibilities of fusion there. Garwin and Morrison indicated that there may be no cold fusion effects. One good result is that some labs agreed to co-operate and arranged to operate their cells in another group's more powerful detector - and some did not agree. 2. RESULTS ON THE FLEISCHMANN-PONS EFFECT - CALORIMETRY The meeting opened with a talk by Prof. John Appleby of Texas A&M who used a microcalorimeter which had a precision of 1 microWatt over the range 1 microW to 8 W (it is used for work with pacemaker batteries and uses the Seebeck effect). The experiment appeared to be not a measurement of energy balance but a measurement of energy flow. They used small cathodes to avoid long charge-up times, rods of 0.5 or 1.0 mm diameter and 10 mm length, plus a 2mm diameter sphere. The cell had stainless steel walls and was said to be closed but in fact the D2 and O2 gases were allowed to escape. Several plots were shown of the excess rate of heat in mW against the time in hours. Variations of the order of tens of milliWatts were observed during runs which lasted typically 100 hours as the current was varied, e.g. from 60 to 600 to 1000 mA and then reduced again. The excess heat flow corresponded to changes in the current, to the cell being opened, or to changes in the electrolyte from LiOD to NaOD. Their calculations scaled up to an excess heat of about 16 to 20 Watts per cm3 of Pd for the rods and less 4 to 12 W for the sphere, but more (about 30 W) for annealed rods. The amount of 3He and 4He in the cathodes was measured to be less than 3 E9 and less than 0.3 E9 atoms per cm3 resp.[ Please note that my private comments are in square brackets - this would seem to exclude fusion as the origin of the effect observed]. He sought a chemical explanation and excluded D2 and O2 gas recombination. One check made was with a platinium cathode instead of a palladium one and no effect was observed, but as the current was kept at 600 mA, this was not a test of the effect of varying the current. In the abstract it is written that tests were made with light water in a cell and no effect was seen. [comment- the changes in the heat flow were clearly visible - but no details of how this was converted to excess energy were given and no errors were given]. At the start of his talk, Prof Alleby said that the results were not conclusive and that they would not stand up in a court of law. He also showed results on tritium production made at the same time - these results were discussed in more detail by Kevin Wolf of Texas A&M. In a period of 10 hours the tritium yield rose very sharply from 10 disintegrations per min. to almost a million. In the one graph shown by Appleby, the rise was very sharp [ comment - it was not linear as might have been expected from the excess heat results]. Prof. Robert Huggins of Stanford gave a somewhat unusual talk much of which was concerned with "major quandries" where he suggested various reasons as to why the results were not reproducible, both from group to group and within a group. He mentioned cast versus wrought palladium, dislocations serving as traps for hydrogen, blocking layers at the palladium surface, influence of carbon when the palladium crucibles are made of carbon, effect of H2O on D2O, but this discussion was purely speculative - no numbers were given e.g numbers of failures to number of excess heat observations, nor was any attempt made to correlate the statements with experimental observations [e.g. Fleischmann and Pons had appreciable H2O in their experiments; Case Western Reserve who claimed observation of excess heat, used annealed rods that he had previously equated with failure]. For his own experiment, he showed plots of the heat rise, delta T, as a function of the heater power, for the calibration and for D2O and H2O - all were straight lines. For H2O, the heat rise was slightly less than for the calibration but for D2O it started the same but after some time diverged giving finally a 12% higher value. Thus his basic claim is that they have observed a 12% heat excess (he also says that D2O is 22% more than H2O, but this is not a heat excess). At the APS meeting Prof. Meyerhof had suggested that his results could be due to lack of stirring. Prof Huggins said they had added a water bath shaker and showed that there were no effects that could be ascribed to lack of stirring. Since it was said that there would be a full evening devoted to asking questions of the speakers, there were few asked immediately. In the evening quite a few questions were asked of Prof. Huggins, but he tended to answer that he had already given a full description and they should talk together afterwards. He was asked by Nathen Lewis if he could measure one of their cells and replied yes, but not just now as they were too busy - similar replies were given later. No temperatures were given at this calorimetry talk, but from the APS meeting I had learnt that speakers often speak more freely when they are being questioned by a few journalists who are often very well informed - so I was the only scientist at Prof. Huggins' press conference. There he said that the total temperature rise was 10 degrees and that the D2O rose by between one and one and a half degrees more than the H2O [should it not be more than the calibration?] and this was the heat excess. [ comment - this is almost the same as the value of 2 degrees measured by the Tata Institute in their full account of their work - they do not claim excess heat but simply note that the cathode is hotter with D2O than with H2O]. He also said that he thought it was caused by material effects [another reason for calling it the Fleischmann- Pons effect and not calling it cold fusion]. He said his calculation was very conservative, they subtract the 1.54 Volts and do not include heat of recombination of the gases. Both Profs Bockris in his frequent interventions, and Huggins said that maybe the reason for groups not getting excess heat was that the palladium rod was not sufficiently loaded with deuterium - they suggested that the D/Pd ratio or "loading ratio' namely the ratio of deuterium atoms to Pd atoms, should be higher, above 0.8. However they seemed not to have measured this themselves and when Huggins was asked how it was possible to go above 0.8 which is the normal limit, did not reply effectively. Prof. Bockris of Texas A&M give a talk entitled "Seven Chemical Explanations of the Fleischmann-Pons effect" where he estimated the heat excess produced but always got values much less than the early claims of F-P and of Huggins of the order of 10 Watts - the highest he calculated was 0.9 W for the Pauling suggestion of PdH2 formation. He was asked about the Wigner effect, but had not considered it [ comment - this is a favourite explanation of many people. It was responsible for a large release of radioactivity in about 1957 at Windscale - the neutrons absorbed by the graphite had stored a lot of energy in the graphite by changing its structure and the subsequent release of this energy caused the trouble. It had previously been predicted by Wigner. Similarly the absorption of hydrogen or of deuterium by palladium causes the palladium to swell and this stores a lot of energy in the cathode. When the loading stops (e.g. the current is switched off or the level of the electrolyte falls and exposes part of the cathode), then this Wigner energy can be released]. These two positive results have been discussed in some detail, but both are in principle technically inferior to the two Canadian experiments. Dr. Paquette of the Chalk River - Whiteshell Collaboration said the leaving gases went through a catalyst. They found that the power in and the power out were both 5.0 Watts with an error of 0.1 Watt. This was with a current of 100 mA [at times Bockris et al. suggested much higher currents were needed, but Fleischmann and Pons obtained large excess heat with similar currents]. They tried 13 cathodes of Pd in the form of wires, sheets, rods and tubes with masses varying from 1.4 to 41 grams [people with positive results had suggested that those finding null results had too small cathodes but this seems to answer that]. In 11 of the cells the Pd was annealed. The Pd from Johnson Matthey was 99.995% pure [which seems to answer other objections]. The electrolyte temperature varied between 16 and 50 degrees C. The D/Pd ratio was 0.7 and no variation was found to at least a depth of 20 microns - this after 25 days. Dr. Hayden of the University of British Columbia, used a completely closed system [at last], with a Pd catalyser near the top of their cell giving a 100% efficiency in the recombination of gases. The experiment was thermally isolated by multiple layers of heat shields. The Pd cathodes are 4 by 0.8 by 0.4 cm3 and weigh about 10 grams. Several cells were used with loading factors of 0.8 to 0.84 by weighing. Controls were done using platinium cathodes. the ratio of the power produced of Pd to Pt cathodes was 1.000 +/- 0.003, i.e. 0.3% over the range of input powers from 4 to 18 Watts. He emphasised the importance of the latent heat of vaporisation which at 20 degrees C is only 2% but at 40, 60 and 80 degrees is 6.5, 18 and 44 % resp. so that if the temperature rises for some reason [e.g. electrolyte level falling and releasing the Wigner energy], then an apparent excess heat would be observed temporarily. It is important to know if the gases escaping in other experiments are saturated with D2O vapour and where does this heat go. He showed a graph of the variation with time of the D/Pd ratio - it initially rises linearly then flattens off at 0.8 after 10 hours. This would tend to show that very long charging times are not necessary as had been suggested by finders of positive results. The subsequent run was 12 days. They say they would be pleased to accept cells from others to test. The paper describes other controls in detail - this is the best calorimetric experiment so far. Dr. Scott of Oak Ridge described their normal cell. They observed no excess power to less than 10%. There were short temperature excursion up to 70 degrees but they could account for them by evaporation processes. Dr. R. Crooks of MIT described their calorimetric measurements in a constant temperature bath and looked for variations in the heater power needed to keep the temperature constant [a very good technique]. No significant change in power was observed to better than 9%. The palladium rod was analysed for helium and a number of 4 E11 atoms per cm3 found - this would correspond to a maximum power output of 1.8 microWatts. Prof. Bockris said there were many sources of possible errors for experiments that found no effect - the current should be greater than 150 mA - reply "The current was chosen to be 100mA to correspond to the middle of the Fleischmann and Pons range". Bockris said that first the experiment must show that it can find excess heat and then its futher measurements can be believed - this comment rather surprised many people. Dr. L. Redey of Argonne National Lab. described their experiments using a constant heat loss calorimeter with baths of 30 and 21 degrees C round the cell. This gives an accuracy of 0.1 Watt or 0.8 mW per cm3 of Pd. The cell was semi-sealed which meant the gases could escape. The rate of recombination was found to be very low. The loading ratio D/Pd quickly rose to about 0.8. No excess heating was observed when the current was varied between 12.5 and 500 mA. The experiment was interupted 3 or 4 minutes to weigh the Pd rods to find the D/Pd ratio. A poster presentation was made by Dr. H. W. Randolph of the Savannah River Site. "An argon purged D2O electrolysis cell is mounted inside a dry calorimeter which measures heat output to +/- 0.2% at 10 Watts thermal. Constant flow Argon sweep gas is dried for evaporation water measurement and analysed by an on-line quadrupole mass spectrometer to measure off-gas species and amounts. Electrolysis power is measured at 10 sec intervals, integrated, and compared with the sum of calorimeter heat, electrolytic heat of formation, evaporation heat, and argon heat gain." [Seems a very good calorimetric experiment.] The result given on their poster was; Power in = 1.944 E5 joules Power out = 1.912 E5 joules. The errors were about +/- 0.1 Watt. Dr. D. J. Wesolowski of Oak Ridge National Lab. said that some simple tests of calorimetry had shown no excess heat production - their main experiment was to measure neutrons. Nathan Lewis et al. of Cal Tech used a constant temperature bath accurate to a few mK. They found no excess enthalpy to 6%. The D/Pd ratio was 0.78 to 0.8. He explained various ways in which apparent power excess could be obtained - e.g. it is necessary to have continuous calibration of the heat loss, unlike some other experiments which find positive effects. Prof. Bockris said that to obtain positive heat excess it was necessary to have D/Pd ratios greater than 1.0 and the hydrogen content must be kept low. Lewis answered that 0.8 and 64 mA was the same as Fleischmann and Pons and their aim was to replicate their experiment. Details have been given in previous notes of their experiments using a wide variety of palladium cathodes - it is not impossible that they have comparable results for titanium. 2.1 SUMMARY ON CALORIMETRY The results of Appleby et al. and of Huggins et al. considered by themselves and if one does not ask too many questions, look impressive and some people watching on Satellite, said they were convinced of the reality of excess heat production. Initially Fleischmann and Pons said that cold fusion could be easily demonstrated on a table top and one did not need complicated apparatus. However with experience it is shown that calorimetry is NOT easy. There are many pitfalls and it is not difficult to get positive results - it depends on your technique and on the assumptions of the calculation. What was good about the Santa Fe meeting was that some groups were now reporting technically good experiments which meant that one did not have to make unverified assumptions. In particular having a closed system with catalyser to recombine the D2 and O2 gases is a major step forward. Several other experiments had constant temperature baths which meant that they avoided the uncertainties in using Newton's Law of Cooling. Thus there are 8 experiments reporting null results for excess power, the best experiment quoting an upper limit of 0.3%. An 8th experiment that finds no effect is by David Williams of Harwell - as the details have not been presented, it cannot be considered on the same level as the other ones, but many people are impressed by it as Martin Fleischmann is a consultant at Harwell and if there had been some special secret [as some believers say but not Fleischmann], they assume that Harwell would know it. So the most reasonable conclusion from all the evidence is that there is no heat excess. However there is some evidence from Tata and Stanford, that the cathode used with D2O runs 1 to 2 degrees hotter than the cathode used with H2O. So far I have not seen any comment on this from the 8 groups reporting null results, nor from theorists. One of the workshop summary speakers, Prof. R. Schrieffer, said that "I personnally do not believe that the heat production is due to anything but chemical effects." There are indications that the origin of the heat excesses observed by Fleischmann and Pons may be due to the long intervals between adding electrolyte so that as the level falls, part of the loaded Pd rod becomes exposed, releasing the D as gas. This relieves the structure of the lattice and raises the temperature. I had suggested this to Martin Fleischmann almost two months ago, but had been told it was impossible. 3. POSSIBILITIES OF USE FOR POWER PRODUCTION In talking with people not closely in contact with the results, when I summarise the experiments, they regret it as it would be so wonderful to have a new source of unlimited power with little pollution, and they often refuse to believe the data and ask if perhaps by developing the technique a litle bit more one could improve it enough to be useful. However there is confusion in the public mind between the claims of some groups to have observed excess heat and hence possibly a new energy source and the linkage with cold fusion. It is not appreciated enough that ALL measurements of fusion products are many many orders of magnitude lower. So that even if the claims of excess heat were true, they would not release fusion energy. In a Workshop summary, Prof. N. Hackerman said that "suspect few of us here look on it as a truely viable source of power" and no one objected (though it is very difficult to object to anything a workshop summariser says). However there was at least one person who would not agree. This was Prof. Huggins who at his press conference said that he thought it could be a practical source of heat. He said to be useful heat, one would need a higher temperature, several hundred degrees centigrade and perhaps a cheaper material than palladium.It would also be necessary to reduce the heat input, say by cutting it from 10 Watts to 3 Watts - but he would not suggest how he might accomplish this other than by using other materials - titanium. While he obtained 12% excess heat, if one recombined the escaping D2 and O2 gases, this would give more heat. When asked if he had counted the cost of the palladium, he replied that with hot fusion with big machines, one did not include the capital cost. He did not believe that the source of his excess heat was fusion but was some material effect [comment - this seems a contradiction; to believe that one has a practical source of heat but has to derive it from a material that one has to prepare]. Being rather surprised by this, I talked to him privately next day and he confirmed that he believed that his work could lead to practical power output. When I tried to quote to him the argument that Dick Garwin had presented the previous evening, he replied "which argument, there were so many". When I explained that the real power in was more than just IV, he brushed it aside. There did not seem much point in continuing to try to discuss. 4. RESULTS ON SEARCH FOR FUSION PRODUCTS 4.1 NEUTRONS There were some half dozen "positive" results which were generally contested and "explained" and a slightly larger number of null results which tended not to be contested except by Prof Bockris who said that the cells were badly prepared (see Section 2 and later section 5 for replies). Kevin Wolf of Texas A&M said they had altogether 5 groups working, had 25 cells and more than 200 experiments using electrolysis and absorption of D2 gas for both Pd rods of 1/2 to 6 mm diameter and Ti rods of 1/2 to 3 mm diameter. The NE213 scintillator used for neutron detection had an overall efficiency of 5%. Pulse Shape Discrimination, PSD, was used to separate gammas from neutrons. They have had negative results and positive results. They can measure between 0.5 and 50 MeV. The background rate is 0.8 n per min. and at times they observed 3 to 4 times this for the range 0.4 to 2.5 MeV which corresponds to a source of 50 n per min. over a period of 1 to 2 hours. The graphs of n/min as a function of time showed marked variation, sometimes appearing to correlate with current changes, but not in a clearly reasonable way. A calibration curve for 2 MeV neutrons was shown where the data and the Monte Carlo did not quite fit. Moshe Gai seized on this to say it was the same as he had observed initially and at that time he thought he had evidence for cold fusion. However he found that it was due to multiple reflections of gammas in his ring of neutron counters. Kevin Wolf refused to believe this though I tried to explain for Moshe, that in neighbouring counters if there were neutrons the signals would be displaced in time, whereas if they were gammas, the signals would coincide - and they found coincidences in time. Prof. F Scaramuzzi of Frascati gave a sympathetic talk where he started by saying that his experiment was relatively crude with a BF3 detector placed next to the cell. They had 3 positive runs out of 10 attempts. They used 100 g of titanium outgassed at 200 degrees. There was some measure of correlation with changes of temperature or pressure. The fact that the counting rate was apparently quantised at 0, 20 or 40 counts could possibly be accounted for if one assumes that the neutrons are emitted in very short bursts as the dead-time of the counters is 2 to 3 microsec. However Dick Garwin objected that if the burst from the cell was so brief, it would be spread out to about 60 microseconds by the time it takes to slow down the neutrons in the moderator. He also reported the work of Dr. F. Magni of the ENFA CASACCIA who used a sponge of titanium loaded with D2, cooled and then pumped - a small peak of neutrons was observed after about 700 minutes. Further he reported that Dr. G Massoni et al. had the opposite idea of taking used blades of Ti 0.5 mm thick heating them very quickly (20 sec.) to 1000 degrees C. add D2 and cool to 500 degrees. The BF3 counters were inside shielding. Bursts of neutrons were observed when the conditions were changed. Both sets of results looked very preliminary and had apparently not been repeated or controls performed. There were two reports of experiments performed deep underground in tunnels where the cosmic background is expected to be low. Prof Bertin of Bologna who had been collaborating with the Brigham Young group of Steve Jones, reported their results (described in a previous note) in the Gran Sasso tunnel. The background was 10 counts per hour and the signal 35 +/- 5 counts/hour giving effectively 875 +/_ 183 counts per hour from the cell which was in good agreement with the rate observed by Jones et al. in Nature. Moshe Gai pointed out that these rates were very high for a deep underground observatory and were probably due to gammas. Yves Declais of Annecy presented the results of the College de France, Marseille, Grenoble, Annecy Collaboration who used the Frejus Tunnel. They used the new liquid scintillator NE320 loaded with 0.15% 6Li. They observe both the proton recoils from the slowing of the neutron and also the reaction products when the thermal neutron is captured by the 6Li to give 3He + t in coincidence after a 30 ns delay. PSD gives a very good separation of the neutrons from the gammas. So they have 4 constraints and not only one with NE213. First experiments were done at the Bugey site where they have developed their detectors over a number of years. One point that is very important is to have a good Monte Carlo which fully takes into account the shielding. Their detector was calibrated in the Gran Sasso Tunnel when the background was 1 count per day. The efficiency was 2.7%. The background obtained after off-line analysis was 2 per 5 days. Four different cells with palladium cathodes were used. No neutrons were seen above a background of 0.017 neutrons per hour. If one were to make the ultra-pessimistic assumption that all the background of 2.5 Mev neutrons were in fact signal, the 2 Std. Dev. limit would be less than 1.2 neutrons per hour (but this is an unreasonable assumption). Dr. Declais finished by inviting other groups to come to the Frejus Tunnel where they have a well-established and tested neutron detector which has place inside for several cells. Several groups said they were interested (in particular Prof. Bertin). [Comment - the fact that background rates of Declais et al. are so much lower than those of the Bologna-BYU Collaboration, lends support to Moshe Gai's argument that the latter group's "neutrons" are largely gamma induced]. Moshe also gave a short evening talk about possible errors that can occur. Firstly he said that BF3 counters should not be used! - they were too unreliable and subject to false counts from temperature changes, humidity, vibration.... Also PSD could cause errors and calibration was necessary. Further gammas could give multiple reflections simulating neutrons. Howard Menlove of Los Alamos reported very recent measurements at LANL in an experiment in which Steve Jones of BYU collaborated. Their results were spectacular and encouraged some people to believe that neutrons are emitted in bursts. They use stainless steel cylinders containing Ti chips and sponge. D2 gas at pressures up to 20 to 50 atm. is used to load the Titanium and then the cylinder is placed in liquid nitrogen then in the neutron detector system beside a control cylinder, and it then warms up. After about 40 min. (sometimes 80 min.) a burst of neutrons is recorded - this time corresponds to a temperature of about -35 degrees C. The normal random neutron emission is 0.05 to 0.2 n per sec. while the bursts are from 10 to 300 n/s. The burst lasts less than 100 microsec. The neutron detector consists of 18 3He tubes and has a high efficiecy of 34%. The dummy cylinder gave no counts over 2 hours. The active one was followed for longer periods up to 25 hours but the burst only occurred in the first 40 to 80 minutes. The result looks very significant but the experiment has a major problem. I asked if they had done the control experiment with H2 in place of D2, and the answer was "No"! Now most people have said that one should not accept experiments where the most elementary checks have not been made and should not have press releases - and co-author Steve Jones is quite strong about it as a major article in Nature accused him and Fleischmann and Pons in very strong language of not having tried H2O as well as D2O. Now this accusation was justified for Fleischmann and Pons but was untrue for BYU (incidently have not seen a written apology from Nature, only a brief correction - should Steve take this to the Press Council or does this only apply to newspapers that falsely accuse someone?). One has some sympathy for LANL as it is natural to present recent results when the lab organises the workshop, still.... So for the present one should suspend judgement even though there is a Reuters press release. There was a talk by B. Emmoth representing three Swedish institutes. They used a BF3 counter close to an electrolytic cell with Pd and Pt electrodes. The efficiecy was 0.1%. Most of their runs gave no effect and were not discussed but they showed two plots where there were 2 or 3 peaks whose existence did not seem to be correlated with any other activity. They got up to 240 n/s. They were aware of moisture and vibration effects on their BF3 counter. They seem to have done no checks such as running with H2O. To some it was surprising that they presented such a result, but at the same time there was an AP press release which quoted "The results indicate fusion reactions can occur at low temperatures in the electrode material palladium. This gives certain support to Fleischmann and Pons ideas". "The results were reported in a paper to be published by the scientific journal 'Physica Scripta'. The Stockholm daily Svenska Dagbladet was told that the tests were easier to repeat using new palladium plates of sufficient size, rather than already used plates and small ones. "Also the character of the time limited 'bursts' of course are in line with (Pons and Fleischmanns) results even though theirs were longer, almost 24 hours". It surprised some that such a work was chosen for presentation while other careful pieces of work with controls and checks were not - it reminds me of the time when it was claimed that the A2 was split and organisers were delighted to ask speakers with positive results to speak but not those with negative results (as they were not capable of finding it). Steve Jones gave essentially the same talk as at the APS. There I had said that his statistics were wrongly calculated and he had more like a 2 to 3 standard deviation effect. After we discussed privately he agreed that to evaluate the significance of the assumed peak, one had to take into account the scaling of the background curve under it and this was a serious effect. However the claims were uncorrected. This applied to Run 6 which is almost the only one that shows any significant effect. Including this run, he derived a fusion rate of lambda(f) = E-23 fusions/d pair/sec. However at Los Alamos he proposed that as Run 6 was unusual, he would not take it alone and this would make his rate lambda(f) = E-24 fusions/d pair/sec. Some such as Moshe Gai were puzzled but seemed to accept this sudden improvement by an order of magnitude when one wishes to compare experiments. However maybe it would be wiser to accept the earlier value in Nature. Dr. Scott of Oak Ridge reported on neutron measurements using NE213 with PSD. The overall efficiency was 1.46 E-3. The temperature was nominally 28 to 45 degrees C but there was a controlled excursion to 70 degrees. The counting rate was about 4 per hour. No neutrons were seen over a period of 300 hours. Dr. Paquette of Chalk River also reported on measurements of neutrons using moderated 3He and BF3 counters with efficiencies from 0.1 to 1.5%. No neutrons were found with Pd electrodes or with Ti loaded by D2 gas pressure of 40 atm. lowering the temperature to -196 degrees C, releasing the pressure and warming to room temperature (as Frascati). No neutrons were observed and an upper limit of < 0.6 n per sec was established which is less than F&P and Frascati but not quite as low as Jones et al. Matthews Broer of AT&T Bell Labs described their measurements of neutrons in electrolytic cells with 3 different Pd cathodes. The cells were in a large box with Pb and borax walls and then scintillators to veto cosmic ray muons. Neutrons were slowed in polyethelyne round the cells and the gamma rays produced measured by capture by protons (2.24 MeV) and by 23Na and 127I which give gammas in the range 3.5 to 7 MeV in the NaI and is the more sensitive. After 4 weeks they obtained a limit of < 0.007 n/sec/g Pd which corresponds to <2.2 E-24 fusions/dd pair/sec which is less than the Jones et al. value for titanium. Nathan Lewis of Cal Tech reported their neutron measurements (described in an earlier note). They give an upper limit of < 100 n/hour/cm3 of Pd. Dr. D. J. Wesolowski of Oak Ridge National Lab said they used BF3 counters to measure neutrons emitted from Pd and Ti loaded with D2 by gas pressure. The cells and neutron detectors are in a thermostatically controlled bath. They find no neutrons at a level of one thousandth of those reported by Frascati and Fleischmann and Pons but about the same as Jones et al. An interesting point of their experiment was that with the BF3 counters they could get large signals when the leads were moist which disappeared when they dried out. Also when they turned on the sodium vapour lamps, they got 70 000 counts and this was a reproducible effect. With vibration they found hundreds of counts This confirmed the warnings of David Williams and Moshe Gai about the dangers of using BF3 counters. Dr. Tanihasi from Korea loaded Pd electrodes to a D/Pd ratio of 0.8 +/- 0.1 The neutron spectra with D2O and H2O were the same after 20 hours. Moshe Gai reported on the Yale - BNL results (given in an earlier note and now submitted to Nature). They have done a major and careful experiment and learnt by experience of the possible traps that give positive results. Pd and Ti rods were used as cathodes and Ti powder was loaded with D2 gas under pressure. They estimate a 3 std. dev. upper limit for d - d fusion giving neutrons to be 1 E-25 fusions/dd pair/sec. which is a factor of 50 to 100 times smaller than that reported by Jones et al.,(they noted that the Jones et al. rate is close to the rate expected for cosmic rays). The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab used BF3 counters and found their background counting rate was highly variable from 5 to 30 counts/hour. With Pd cathodes and with gas-loaded Ti turnings, no neutrons were observed at a level of 1 n/s for both the d-d and p-d reactions, which is not lower than Jones et al. An unusual experiment, reported by a theorist, F. M. Mueller, was done at Los Alamos. Samples of Pd and Ti were loaded to D/Metal ratios of 0.7 and then were subjected to a shock pressure of greater than one megabar for a period of about 14 microsec. Neutron detectors were placed behind sandbags and Pb bricks nearby. A small instaneous pulse was observed. The authors conclude that less than 1 E4 neutrons were generated. On the posters there were several negative results. R.I.Ewing of Sandia Nat. Labs, reported no neutrons giving a limit of < 100 n/ hour using 3He counters around Pd cells. LBL - UC Berkeley Collaboration said they found, for currents of 0.25 to 1.25 A, no neutrons corresponding to a limit of 1 E-22 fusions/dd pair per sec. Dr. C Ellegaard et al. of the Neils Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, used 10 rods of Pd with 500 mA current and 3 litre NE213 detector surrounding the cells and also Ti loaded with D2 gas under pressure and heated to 500 degrees and cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature then warmed to room temp. No neutrons were found. J. C. Hill of the Ames Lab at Iowa State reported no neutrons from cells with a Pd cathode at a lower rate than F&P. With Ti loaded with D2 gas absorbed at 110 degrees and up to 660 psia where the achieved a maximum loading of D/Ti of 1.9 [this is possible with Ti not Pd] no neutrons were observed above a counting rate of 6.5 counts per 10 min. 4.1.1 CONCLUSIONS There are many groups who report upper limits of neutron production many orders of magnitude less than those of Fleischmann and Pons for cells with Pd cathodes and for those of Frascati for gas loaded Ti and it must be concluded that these results are excluded. The neutron rates of Jones et al. are appreciably higher than those of Frejus and of Yale - BNL but BYU used Ti and the others Pd which may provide a temporary loophole, but other experiments find no neutrons at the same level as Jones et al. Also the statistical accuracy of BYU has not yet been properly calculated yet. Thus the probability is that the BYU results are mistaken. This issue should be settled soon as Steve Jones took up the challenge from the floor of Moshe Gai to bring one of his working cells to Yale to test in their apparatus ! 4.2 TRITIUM One of the striking results at the conference was the report by Kevin Wolf of abundant tritium production. 5 E12 tritium atoms were detected in the solution of the cell several days after the neutron production runs. The solution was also analysed by Sandia and General Motors who confirmed the presence of tritium, which therefore was not due to chemiluminescence. Prof. Appleby showed a graph with the tritium count, disintegrations per minute rising exponentially from 10 to a million in 10 hours [why such a short run compared to other runs of the same Texas teams?]. The tritium content of the cell before is not known. The energy spectrum of the betas looks reasonable (unlike Fleischmann and Pons). It is difficult to evaluate the fusion rate as one does not know in what time the tritium was produced, so the rate could vary between 1 E-3 to 1 E-8 Watts per cm3 of Pd. This is both a very low rate compared with the Watts reported by Fleischmann and Pons and is a very high rate compared with any other fusion product rate reported. Now in first approximation the fusion reactions d + d ---> t + p and d + d ---> 3He + n have equal cross sections and hence one would expect the rates for n, p, t and 3He to be closely comparable. But this tritium rate is in contradiction with all neutron yield experiments and is in contradiction with the 3He yield of Texas itself! Perhaps Dick Garwin's comment is best - he believes there was tritium there but does not know where it came from! It was suggested that cathodes be analysed to look for tritium. M. L. Muga et al. of Florida Univ., Gainsville find no tritium in contradiction to a report from another Gainsville group - it is thought that the latter's room was heavily contaminated. R. Crooks et al. of MIT looked for tritium but did not find any - do not have a note of any limit being given. 4.3 GAMMAS Six groups whose experiment is described above, reported that they had searched for gammas and had not found them. They were; Dr. Scott et al. of ORNL, R. Crooks et al. of MIT, Dr. Tanihasi of Korea, N. Lewis et al. of Cal Tech, all reported null results, but do not have limits. Dr. M. Gai of Yale-BNL Collaboration gave a rate of < 1 E-22 fusions/dd pair/s The Princeton group gave a limit of < 3 gammas per sec. What was very worrying was the discussion of the Fleischmann and Pons result by Dr. Crooks. He showed plots of their result together with his, which is very different as the peak at 2.2 meV is twice as wide and also on the low energy side the rate rises due to the Compton edge and other effects. The mystery is how Fleischmann and Pons could produce such a plot? It is also worrying that they showed an earlier plot of a different shape and even indicated that the peak was at 2.5 MeV (the value you would expect if the neutrons were not slowed down) and not at 2.2 (as expected when the neutrons are captured at rest. This is troubling. 4.4 X-RAYS, HELIUM R. Fleming et al. of Michigan Univ. looked for the 21 KeV characteristic X-rays from Pd. The background rate was 3 counts/hour and no increase was seen during 2 days running of a Pd cell. The observation of 3He or 4He in the cathode after electrolysis is considered a major test of fusion since the only possible explanation of the observation of Watts of heat but of fusion products only at many order of magnitude lower rates, would be that one had d + d ---> 4He + energy and possibly p + d ---> 3He + energy and this energy is somehow absorbed by the lattice instead of emitting a gamma as it would normally [this is pretty far-fetched as timing is wrong by many orders of magnitude, but it is useful to check anyway]. One result has already been reported in section 2 and was; Appleby et al. gave upper limits of 3 E9 and 0.3 E9 atoms per cm3 for 3He and 4He resp. Crooks et al. of MIT said they had examined a small sample of Pd and found no 4He giving an upper limit of < 0.1 E9 atoms per cm3 of Pd. This confirms that if there is excess power, it does not come from fusion. 4.5 OTHER EXPERIMENTS - MUON BOMBARDMENT, DEUTERON ION IMPLANTATION It has been suggested that fusion might be triggered by muons from Cosmic Rays. This has already been tested at Bugey by a French-Swiss Collaboration where there was a layer of scintillator to detect muons, inside the Pb, water and boron layers. 2% of the time there was the signal of the passage of muons, and separate counts were made of neutrons, but no effect was seen. More direct experiments were made by firing beams of muons into an electrolytic cell. M. Gaudreau of MIT reported passing 80 KeV/c muons into Pd and Ti targets at a rate of 1000 muons/sec/cm2. The authors are still interpreting the results but indicate no dramatic effects were observed. At KEK, K. Nagamine et al. passed muons into Pd samples loaded to a ratio of D/Pd = 0.6, and unloaded. They observed no differences. They deduced a neutron production rate of < 0.012 n per muon. It was concluded that the rate of producing neutrons from cosmic ray muons was < 1.3 E-6 per sec. The Colarado School of Mines reported that they had implanted D ions of 95 KeV in 1.5 micron thick foils of Pd giving D/Pd ratios of 1.0 or above. No significant effect was found giving a limit of < 0.2 n/dd pair/sec or < 5E-10 Watts/cm3 of Pd. S. M. Myers of Sandia Nat. Labs. gave a talk about ion implantation which will be discused below. They also did an experiment where D ions of 10 KeV, were implanted into Pd at 40 degrees K. Clear signals of 1 MeV tritons and of 3 MeV protons were observed from the reaction d + d = t + p and this allowed the loading ratio D/Pd to be measured. After the beam was turned off no significant rate of fusion was observed despite the loading being much higher than can be obtained by electrolytic or gas pressure methods. An upper limit of 2 E-22 fusions/dd pair/sec was estimated. Ti and Zr were also tried with null results. During the conference a press release was received saying that a group of Mexican scientists had achieved cold fusion producing more energy than any other experiment reported to date. "With this success, they have increased the (prospects) in our country for the use of fusion to produce energy". The team of M. Fernandez et al. at the National Institute for Nuclear Reasearch, had discharged electrodes one of steel and the other of titanium and magnesium in an atmosphere of enriched deuterium. "A considerable number of neutrons per second" were produced. Such press releases illustrate the importance of responsible workers in the field explaining clearly what is happening to all countries in the world. 4.6 SUMMARY The major conclusion is that all the measurements of fusion products agree that any possible fusion rate is many orders of magnitude less than would be needed to account for any positive measurement of excess power that is claimed. There is the question "is there any experiment which has been carefully performed and all the checks and controls made, which has statistics that everyone agrees are significant, which shows a positive result?". This is tough and for some an emotional issue. Many would not like to answer this question yet. But the best and most careful experiments with the most controls, (e.g. Frejus, Yale-BNL) find nothing. One would still like to check further for the possibility of bursts as suggested by the data of Menlove et al., but first these need to have basic checks done. Inevitably in trying to report many papers, there must be some mistakes. Please accept my apologies and send me corections or additions 5 BASIC STUDIES OF HYDROGEN IN PALLADIUM On the last morning there were some interesting talks on the fundamentals of hydrogen in palladium by long-term experts in the field. G. S. Collins of Washington State University studied ions in lattices by perturbed gamma-gamma angular correlations, PAC techniques - essentially observing waves of various frequencies. For example as H ions diffuse into Ni, the waves change as the Ni is annealed at various temperatures. It was observed that Li ions can diffuse into platinium as its radius is small, 0.7 A. F. Besenbacher of Aarhus in Denmark gave a major talk. He compared their results with the Effective Medium Theory (Morskov, PRL 35 (1987) 7433) which he showed fitted the data very well. He showed drawings of the effective electron density in palladium lattices. He described trapping, channeling, the depth of ion implantation, annealing effects. I asked him 2 questions; Q; What is the chance of having two deuterons in the same site? A; Zero Q; What do you think of the chances of d-d fusion in Palladium? A; (after a long pause - for politeness?) I am sceptical. Other answers were equally illuminating. Q; Is palladium the best metal to use? A; I would not chose palladium. Aluminium or copper would be better. Q; Normally people reach D/Pd ratios of 0.7 to 0.8, but it is said that to succeed with fusion, you need > 0.8 A; Alice in Wonderland (later he said that for > 0.8, one needs ion implantation). S. M. Myers of Sandia Nat. Labs. said that normally by electrolysis or by gas pressure one can fill the octahedral sites, but to bring the deuteron ions closer together, one needs to fill all octahedral sites first which means going beyond the stoichiometric condition to superstoichiometric palladium hydrides, i.e. D/Pd ratios of above one. D-implantation is found to give D/Pd ratios up to 1.3 at 35 degrees K. Graphs were shown of the D/Pd ratio as a function of depth as more and more D was implanted. As the temperature was raised, the ratio fell to 0.8 but then stayed there from 100 to 130 degrees K, then fell again, indicating that there is a stable condition at 80 K (it means that 80% of the octahedral sites are filled). He said the error on 1.3 was 0.1. J. Bigelstein of SUNY discussed enrichment of tritium during electrolysis and gave a table of enrichment ratios as a function of the fraction of electrolyte used - the ratio goes from about 1.4 at 0.6 electrolysised to 5.1 at most for 100% electrolysis. He said he would look with suspicion at any experiment that did not find an enrichment. On the other hand this did not explain the very large tritium yield claimed by Wolf et al. of Texas A&M Another point brought out in the discussion was that there is tight control over the amount of tritium in liquid D2O for radioactive safety reasons (must be safe to drink), but not for D2 gas - so D2 gas can sometimes contain high amounts of tritium and experimenters should measure the initial amount of tritium before measuring tritium afterwards. 6. COMPILATION OF RESULTS. REGIONALISATION In compiling results reported on cold fusion, I found that the ratio of positive to null results varied greatly from region to region of the world. There was a strong correlation with the information available in the region. Also the results within a region varied with time. These results are statistically very significant. As this survey was not presented in detail at the Santa Fe workshop, these results from 83 different labs will be given in a separate note. 7. OTHER COMMENTS After many protests, the Wednesday evening was given to discussion with no presentations allowed except that Dick Garwin was given at the start, 5 minutes for comments - this was rather brief as he made major comments on all the positive results. He started by saying that of the original results of BYU and Fleischmann and Pons, they were all gone except for some evidence of excess heat, but not fusion. Huggins had found more heat and one might believe that but not necessarily energy. The power in is not just IV but is twice that in a realistic calculation. His result if fusion, would imply 3 E5 neutrons per sec while the Texas result would imply 3 E9 neutrons per sec - which should have observable effects. As for the tritium result, Garwin said he believed there was tritium, but did not know its origin. For the subject of neutron bursts - as one counts thermal neutrons, they take time to diffuse and hence there cannot be sharp bursts in times less than these diffusion times which are exponential decays. He also discussed briefly what was happening inside the palladium lattice explaining how difficult it was to have two deuterons close to one another. Pyroelectrics can give large fields but not fusion. Near the close of the discussion, D. R. O. Morrison said that Dick Garwin had given a major talk hinting that many results had other explanations, but no one had commented on it. Dick Feynman had offered a solution to the situation that we face today where; (1) we cannot find a theory that fits all the data, or as Peter Hagelstein had asked "does anyone have a theory that will allow two deuterons to come close enough together that they have a good chance of fusing?" (2) experiments seem to be in contradiction with one another. Feynman's solution was to say that sometimes one has to assume that an experiment is wrong. Now this is not something that one likes, but everyone makes mistakes. Now have been interested in Wrong Results in Science for many years and after reading the famous chemist, Irving Langmuir's paper on Pathological Science, I have extended it to more subjects and have been giving lectures on it for the past 13 years. After analysing 83 experiments on cold fusion reported so far, there is strong statistical evidence that cold fusion is a case. In view of the great interest and importance attached to the subject, no serious explanation, evem if disappointing, can be neglected. In his balanced and kindly summary talk, Bob Schreiffer said something that made me ask him afterwards if he had been reading Langmuir's "Pathological Science" article - he said , yes he had. In a previous note, I had repeated a public statement that Peter Hagelstein of MIT had withdrawn his explanations of cold fusion. At Santa Fe he has told me that he has not withdrawn them. Am told there are 6 patents applied for by U of U, one by BYU and two by U. St. U. (who are working away busily without drawing attention to themselves). Someone seems to be mailing anonomously tapes of what is said to be a patent application by Pons and Fleischmann - one person who looked said it did not contain anything special or magical. There are quite a number of companies which have been set up to exploit cold fusion, at least six in Utah and I gather they are not short of investors. Of the $5 million that has been set aside for cold fusion by the State of Utah, it is said that one million has already been released - to pay the lawyers! While in Santa Fe, I heard that the DOE Cold Fusion Panel which had wanted to visit the labs quickly, had been refused permission to visit Pons's lab at U of U. and they did not want DOE funding. This rather unscientific decision surprised some, but the Deseret News of SLC (Salt Lake City) explains the other point of view. On 28 May there was an article entitled "US Fusion Panel cancels plans to view U research". "The visit scheduled Wednesday, was cancelled after fusion researcher B. Stanley Pons told the panel co-chairman, John Huizenga,... to change the make-up of the "negatively biased" committee or stay out of his U. laboratory." "I have refused to entertain this committee for several reasons" Pons told the Deseret News, "I see this visit as a waste of valuable time, since many of the panel members have already clearly stated their positions. I feel there is very little one can say to a hostile person that will change his mind". .... "It is disappointing that the committee is composed of so many members who have previously stated their very negative position in the press regarding this research" he said. "the most notable of these are Richard Garwin, Steve Koonin, and Mark Wrighton. He said they "have only allowed reputable sincere scientific collaborators into their labs and will continue to do so" "He was very understanding and sensitive to these points; he admitted that my perceptions regarding the composition of the panel were correct: some very open-minded individuals such as ......., some very negatively biased individuals, and no positively biased individuals". "Pons said he proposed a visit could be arranged if the committee would agree to either of the following conditions; dismiss the negatively biassed people or add an equal number of positively biassed individuals". "He recommended adding..............Or Pons or Fleischmann himself". He was notified Friday the committee's visit had been cancelled. A committee member, X, said he is sympathetic to Pons' concerns. "He is certainly taking a lot of flak and I can certainly understand that he would feel this way" "Personally I know the people on the board and they wanted to go there (the U.) to learn. I don't think the other committee members have made up their minds, but there is a lot of scepticism"... "It is still possible that he is right and people do not realise what it takes to make the experiment work" Pons said "The newest results are very strong and indeed confirm and surpass our earlier results. These data and their analysis will be published later this summer in scientific literature. In addition, we are developing collaborations with reputable scientists who will help us with the rapid development of the fundamental aspects of and practical applications of this work". Pons is displeased that the commitee cancelled its visit rather than negotiate with Fleischmann and him. "It appears that the people who would benefit most by this work being discredited, have again taken the initiative to cause us great difficulty" he said."I am pleased to tell you that they might cause us difficulty, but they will not stop the science" X "believes Pons is right on this point". "A recommendation -- pro or con-- by the government committee won't faze private industry" In a related article entitled "U. backs decision", it is written "While the University of Utah would welcome a visit by the Department of Energy's panel on cold fusion, a U. official said Saturday that he respects the decision made B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann not to allow the committee in their lab". "When we were asked if the committee could come, we said 'of course' said James J. Brophy, Vice-president for research. 8. POSSIBLE FUTURE MEETINGS At the end of the Santa Fe Workshop, it was suggested that there should be another workshop sometime, perhaps in the autumn. The basic idea of a workshop is excellent as it succeeds in allowing scientists working in different fields to discuss together instead of having meetings where only certain people are invited (e.g. only those with positive results). Also it allows people who are investing commercially in the field, and there are millions of dollars engaged, to evaluate the practicalities of the subject. Some of the features of the Santa Fe workshop were excellent, others could be modified. Some comments; 1. The workshop should be announced as early as possible and those concerned targetted so that people from all parts of the world can attend. 2. It is not enough that most people get a chance to present their work or ideas it is necessary to avoid that the discussions are so dispersed that no one has any idea what the conclusions might be. Normally this is done by having a series of survey talks on each sub-topic as well as broad topics, early in the workshop which can focus the discussion (often by being a target for the workers in the field). This prevents also undue repetition and sometimes wilder ideas (some people said they had never heard so much bad science at a conference). 3. With 450 people in a room, it is difficult to have a profitable discussion; it is better to have many separate working groups with fewer people. 4. An innovation at the conference was to have badges with a small number on them. It was also hard to write on the glossy surface. It was very effective in convincing people that there is an advantage in having badges with their name and affiliation on them. I realised that of the 450 persons present, that two months ago, there were only three whom I had previously met occasionally, but the subject is so intense and interesting on different levels, that I now feel as if I had known many of them for years. 5. The registration fee of $400 was a surprise to many and jokes were heard that Los Alamos was the first to make money out of Cold Fusion (wrong - the lawyers were first - or someone who played the palladium futures). Normally we arrange that for a sponsored conference, the sponsors contribute and for $400 one has 5 nights accomodation, 5 breakfasts, 5 lunches and 5 dinners plus the conference hall and proceedings. So it was a surprise to find only two lunches and the conference hall plus proceedings were included. On the other hand the conference hall was very big which had the advantage that coffee could be served at the back without disturbing the proceedings and those having a discussion there could still hear the speakers and decide if they wished to return to their seats - small point but good organisation. The library service and the copying service were excellent a great help to the distribution of knowledge in a very fast moving field. So finally the $400 was almost justified even if it probably discouraged some who would otherwise have attended. 9. CONCLUSIONS The conference will clearly be judged a very useful step when the history of Cold Fusion comes to be written. It was the first time that a large proportion of those interested could meet together, electrochemists, chemists, particle physicists, nuclear physicists, material scientists, venture capitalists, power organisations, government officials and the DOE panel, etc. Nothing too dramatic happened. But many people may have gotten a first taste of evidence and opinions that they had not been exposed to before and this can only be valuable in the long term. Finally society must make a judgement on this subject that has excited such great interest and raised such wonderful hopes. Although most, though not all, workers in the field realise that cold fusion will never be of any practical use for power production, this is still not the popular perception of it. Most people still hope that maybe something will come of it. There seems to be a tendancy amongst some to let the bad news leak out slowly. This is often good politics and PR, but not all scientists feel this way - they want to avoid people getting into false positions because of lack of knowledge of the facts. There is a second question which is of purely academic interest - does there exist cold fusion at some very low level (a billionth or a trillionth or a billion-billionth of a Watt). Clearly the Fleischmann and Pons level is excluded by the data, but some hope it might occur at the BYU level, but again there are good experiments which find no counts at much lower levels. So one cannot avoid asking the difficult question of whether all the positive results are mistaken. Scientists do not want this to be correct, but can one exclude it? The consequence will be that for many we are not yet in phase 3 and the debate and experiments will continue for some time more. Douglas R. O. Morrison. cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenfusion cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.07 / Keith Ivey / More CNF-based advertising Originally-From: IVEKEIC@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Keith Calvert Ivey) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: More CNF-based advertising Date: 7 Jun 89 22:02:18 GMT Organization: Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA has the following question at the bottom of the front cover: Did you know that Dr. Stanley Pons at the University of Utah used CIL's "Heavy Water" in his famous cold fusion experiments? -------- Keith Calvert Ivey Yale University Chemistry Department Box 6666, 1 SCL, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenIVEKEIC cudfnKeith cudlnIvey cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.06 / David Detlefs / Re: Re: heat pumps... Originally-From: jwatts@hpihoah.HP.COM (Jon Watts) Originally-From: dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Re: heat pumps... Date: 6 Jun 89 19:40:36 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Originally-From: dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs) >Twice now on this newgroup, from two separate people (Donald Benson, >Paul Dietz) I have seen statements of the form > >"A heat pump produces >1 watt of heat for each watt of electric >input." > >(Specifically Benson says >>> Put 1 watt electricity in, get 2 or 3 watts heat out. > >and Dietz says > >>> As was noted, a heat pump >>> can output > 1 watt of heat energy for 1 watt of electrical input. >) > >Now, either these statements are intended to mean something something >other than what they say, or my understanding of the law of >conservation of mass-energy is incorrect, or heat pumps actually >convert mass to energy. Would anybody care to explain which of these >alternatives is the right one? The trick here is that it's 1 watt of *electrical* energy in and > 1 watt of heat energy out. What isn't mentioned is that there is also heat energy in. What a heat pump does is not convert electrical energy to heat but use electrical energy to move heat energy from one place to another. So a heat pump takes heat energy form a cold place and moves it to a warm place (making the cold place colder and the warm place warmer). Since your not actually *creating* heat you can get more energy (heat) out of the hot side than you put in in the form of electricity. How much more depends on the temperatures of the hot and cold sides of the heat pump and the efficiency of the equipment. cudkeys: cuddy6 cudendld cudfnDavid cudlnDetlefs cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.07 / Steve Hosgood / Re: Alt.fusion is dead, long live sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Alt.fusion is dead, long live sci.physics.fusion Date: 7 Jun 89 09:11:56 GMT Organization: Institute for Industrial Information Technology In article <7531@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Alt.fusion did the job, and I will miss it a little, but the >bureacracy of Usenet has ground along and produced a mouse, I mean, >a newsgroup. So we may as well move in. > >I see no sense in cross-posting articles to alt.fusion and >sci.physics.fusion. Just send them to sci.physics.fusion. >I will rmgroup alt.fusion in a few weeks when the traffic falls off. > Please don't rmgroup alt.fusion Would it not be good to have the 'what if...' postings and the 'newspaper cuttings' postings kept in this group? Reserve 'sci.physics.fusion' for discussions about actual (or hypothesised) physical mechanisms. (Hot or Cold) I would agree that cross-postings should be *strongly* discouraged though. Steve cudkeys: cuddy7 cudensh cudfnSteve cudlnHosgood cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.08 / David Gudeman / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 8 Jun 89 23:48:53 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson In article <8906071716.AA17210@cernvax.uucp> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: >...Bockris said that first the >experiment must show that it can find excess heat and then its futher >measurements can be believed - this comment rather surprised many people. You mean it surprised people because it is so painfully obvious? Surely no one would suggest that negative measurements of fusion products on a P&F cell mean something if there are are no excess heat measurements on the cell. It is apparent that many cells do _not_ show the P&F effect and if you aren't getting excess heat, then the effect is not occurring, and any other measurements are useless. It always amazes me when I see a statement like "Dr. so-and-so did _very_ good experiments and did not find any X.", when Dr. so-and-so's cell was not showing the P&F effect in the first place. By what sort of mental gymnastics does one conclude anything from that information? >... Initially Fleischmann and Pons said >that cold fusion could be easily demonstrated on a table top and one did not >need complicated apparatus. However with experience it is shown that >calorimetry is NOT easy... I wish people would lay off this calorimetry criticism. The calorimetry that P&F do is perfectly adequate. It would have been accepted without question in any non-controversial measurements. Their precision was not the finest possible, but it was plenty good enough for the magnitudes of effect they were measuring. Yes, it is possible that they made errors, but there is _no_ reason to assume that they did unless you first decide that their results are wrong. This sort of prejudice is silly. Just because one groups sees an effect that another group doesn't see, you can't conclude that one group must have made errors in measurements. It much is more likely that the two groups have build their P&F cells differently. >(2) experiments seem to be in contradiction with one another. >Feynman's solution was to say that sometimes one has to assume that an >experiment is wrong... There is another solution, one that is perfectly obvious to anyone who has an open mind on the subject. Perhaps there is an unknown factor in building a P&F cell. If you include this factor, then the cell works and produces heat at P&F levels. If you don't include this factor, then you get much lower reactons. Perhaps groups who measured large amounts of heat stumbled across the correct sort of cell, and those who measured small or no effects (heat and fusion products) just did not build the cell correctly. This answer has the advantages that (1) it doesn't assume incompetence of a large number of otherwise competent people. (2) it offers an explanation of why groups doing calorimetry get more positive results than groups doing measurement of fusion products -- people who do calorimetry are much more likely to be familiar with hydrogen-palladium systems and electro-chemistry than are people who do radiation measurements. People who "know" that the P&F effect is bogus didn't really come to that conclusion because of measurements. They began with a theory that makes the effect impossible, and use the measurements as an excuse not to have their beliefs discredited. There just is not enough evidence at this point to decide one way or another. Why do people feel that they have to take a stand immediately? Is this some sort of social gambling game (if you turn out to be right you get to gloat, and if you are wrong you have to be embarrassed)? Why can't you just wait for enough evidence to accumulate? -- David Gudeman Department of Computer Science The University of Arizona gudeman@arizona.edu Tucson, AZ 85721 {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,noao}!arizona!gudeman cudkeys: cuddy8 cudengudeman cudfnDavid cudlnGudeman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.07 / John Moore / Re: 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 'some work, some don't' Date: 7 Jun 89 23:56:44 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <3663@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: ]The TAMU measurement looked for tritium in the electrolyte and helium ]in the cathode. They found lots of tritium and no helium to within ]the limits of experimental error. ] ]Possible explanations: ] ]1) The tritium is being generated in the electrolyte, not in the electrode. ] ]2) The heavy water was contaminated with tritium after the reference ] measurement was made. ] ]3) The cathode was already impregnated with tritium. ] ]4) The tritium measurement was incorrect. (Does a scintillation gel ] react only to tritium or will it react to any beta emitter?) ] ]5) Helium was present in the cathode but wasn't found due to procedural ] error. ] ]6) He-3 diffuses out of Pd much more rapidly than expected. ] 7) The He concentration was too low to measure due to: The half life of 3H is 12.26 years. Not much tritium would decay to produce He in the 1 or 2 days from experiment to measurement. In fact you would get about 4x10E-4 as much He as 3H. ]Four types of experimental error, two physical explanations. The error ]explanations should be easy to verify or eliminate. ] ]The evolved gases should be checked for helium, as well as the cathode. Not to mention checking evolved gases for Tritium. -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons! cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / John Moore / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 9 Jun 89 01:46:45 GMT Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ In article <8906071716.AA17210@cernvax.uucp> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: Thanks for the long summary. A few comments below: ] ...many words... now discussing Huggins results. ]after some time diverged giving finally a 12% higher value. Thus his ]basic claim is that they have observed a 12% heat excess (he also says that ]D2O is 22% more than H2O, but this is not a heat excess). At the APS meeting Actually, the 22% is closer to a true measure of excess heat produced. The 12% is relative to total electrical power in. If one takes into account the energy stored in liberated D2 and O2, one gets 22% more power out than power in. This is a reasonable way of calculating things, as D2 O2 recombination has been shown to occur at a small level if at all. ]themselves and when Huggins was asked how it was possible to go above 0.8 ]which is the normal limit, did not reply effectively. "poisoning" the electrode surface is thought to allow much higher conentrations. Metallurgists do this routinely. Bockris mentioned this but appeared reluctant to explain. ]trouble. It had previously been predicted by Wigner. Similarly the absorption ]of hydrogen or of deuterium by palladium causes the palladium to swell and this ]stores a lot of energy in the cathode. When the loading stops (e.g. the current ]is switched off or the level of the electrolyte falls and exposes part of the ]cathode), then this Wigner energy can be released]. Actually this amount of energy is well known as is quite small and could not explain the effect. Furthermore the excess heat is seen while the cathode is fully immersed, and when the highest cathode currents are in process. Thus, this is simply not a good explanation for the excess heat. ] Dr. Paquette of the Chalk River - Whiteshell Collaboration said the leaving ]gases went through a catalyst. They found that the power in and the power out ]were both 5.0 Watts with an error of 0.1 Watt. This was with a current of ]100 mA [at times Bockris et al. suggested much higher currents were needed, but ]Fleischmann and Pons obtained large excess heat with similar currents]. They ]tried 13 cathodes of Pd in the form of wires, sheets, rods and tubes with masses ]varying from 1.4 to 41 grams [people with positive results had suggested that No, F&P only obtained LARGE excess heat with 512ma/cm^2. The Chalk River current densities (it is the DENSITY that counts) were much smaller than that. ]It is not appreciated enough that ALL measurements of fusion products are ]many many orders of magnitude lower. So that even if the claims of excess ]heat were true, they would not release fusion energy. This does not address the TAMU tritium results. Their tritium levels are consistent with the amount of heat measured for similar experiments. Unless there was experimental error, the tritium proves that fusion did occur! [and no, I don't know where the neutrons, 4He, 3He, gammas and xrays went, either, and I realize that experimental artifact may explain the 3H. :-) ] ] He [Huggins] did not believe that the source of his excess heat was ] fusion but was ]some material effect [comment - this seems a contradiction; to believe that ]one has a practical source of heat but has to derive it from a material that ]one has to prepare]. He did not publicly state whether the effect was fusion or material effect. In fact, he scrupulously avoided speculation about the mechanism. ] 4.2 TRITIUM ]as one does not know in what time the tritium was produced, so the rate could ]vary between 1 E-3 to 1 E-8 Watts per cm3 of Pd. This is both a very low rate ]compared with the Watts reported by Fleischmann and Pons and is a very high Could you post your calculations for the power rate? I get much higher values using the disintegration rates. ]Crooks et al. of MIT said they had examined a small sample of Pd and found ]no 4He giving an upper limit of < 0.1 E9 atoms per cm3 of Pd. ] This confirms that if there is excess power, it does not come from fusion. Well... not really. Everyone keeps analyzing the results assuming that this is a volume effect. As I posted previously, the sparse experimental data so far give much stronger evidence for a surface effect. A surface fusion would not put any significant amount of helium into the electrode. ] ]4.6 SUMMARY ] The major conclusion is that all the measurements of fusion products ]agree that any possible fusion rate is many orders of magnitude less than ]would be needed to account for any positive measurement of excess power that ]is claimed. With the possible exception of tritium, this certainly appears to be true. It is most troubling if one is trying for a fusion explanation. ]believe that but not necessarily energy. The power in is not just IV but is ]twice that in a realistic calculation. His result if fusion, would imply Would you care to explain that? Unless you are counting the conversion of stored chemical energy (which also NO evidence was found for), I find that explanation pretty difficult to buy. The electrical power in is really IV - where do you get a factor of two??? ] Am told there are 6 patents applied for by U of U, one by BYU and two by ]U. St. U. (who are working away busily without drawing attention to themselves). Hmmm... what is this about U. St. U. (Utah State)? Do you have more details? ] Finally society must make a judgement on this subject that has excited ]such great interest and raised such wonderful hopes. Although most, though ]not all, workers in the field realise that cold fusion will never be of any ]practical use for power production, this is still not the popular ]perception of it. Most people still hope that maybe something will come of it. I must sadly agree with this position. While there are many positive results to be explained, the lack of fusion products means that it is unlikely that an energy source has been found. However, I suspect that the F&P heat effect is likely to be real and may turn out to be scientifically interesting. -- John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john (602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons! cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / bass randale / Re: How about heat generation? Originally-From: crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: How about heat generation? Date: 9 Jun 89 13:30:22 GMT Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville In article <7160001@hpcuhc.HP.COM> edwardm@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) writes: > >In fact, a heat source which provides 0.5 watts of heat for 1.00 watts of >electricity would be better than the current means of heating. > What does YOUR home do with the other 0.5 watts? dale bass C.R. Bass crb7q@virginia.edu Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia cudkeys: cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnbass cudlnrandale cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / William Johnson / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 9 Jun 89 15:56:34 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <11478@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: > In article <8906071716.AA17210@cernvax.uucp> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: > >...Bockris said that first the > >experiment must show that it can find excess heat and then its futher > >measurements can be believed - this comment rather surprised many people. > > You mean it surprised people because it is so painfully obvious? > Surely no one would suggest that negative measurements of fusion > products on a P&F cell mean something if there are are no excess heat > measurements on the cell. It is apparent that many cells do _not_ > show the P&F effect and if you aren't getting excess heat, then the > effect is not occurring, and any other measurements are useless. WRONG. Totally wrong. And I would *certainly* suggest that "negative measurements of fusion products ..." are still useful, for a host of reasons. Let me start with a -- necessarily oversimplified -- reminder of what constitutes scientific method: 1) Observe a phenomenon. 2) Formulate a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. 3) Devise and perform experiments designed to test the hypothesis. 4) Iterate on 1-3 until the "hypotheses" are replaced by a "theory," that is, a statement of physical principles that has predictive power. Now let's see how this simple statement of method has been applied to the cold fusion business. First, an effect is observed (note that all of the following is from the points of view of people working in the field other than the Utah and BYU groups; I except them for a reason that will appear shortly): electrochemical cells of a certain description appear to generate excess heat. Next, a hypothesis is framed to explain this unexpected phenomenon: electrochemical cells of a certain description allow nuclear reactions to happen, in contradiction to established views of how the relevant nuclear reactions can occur. Now comes the third step, again and again. There is no "unique" experiment that provides a test for the hypothesis; some experiments (for example, putting nuclear diagnostics on a cell claimed to be producing heat) are more urgent than others, but with the framing of the hypothesis as above, these experiments are certainly not *the* unique experiments that will answer all of the questions. Why not? Because the underlying question that's *really* interesting is, "Under what conditions do nuclear reactions occur in electrochemical cells?", and for defining those conditions, it is as useful to determine the conditions under which reactions do *not* occur as it is to see the actual reactions occurring. Now let's return to the first step for a moment, because it is in need of some modification. *One* of the groups reporting the phenomenon claimed excess heat. The other -- Jones and company -- SPECIFICALLY did nuclear measurements, of apparent relevance to the FPH experiments, and formulated the nuclear hypothesis in readily-tested terms. A successful test of this hypothesis -- that is, an observation of nuclear reactions in an electrochemical cell EVEN ON THE TINY LEVEL REPORTED BY JONES -- goes far toward affirming the application of that hypothesis to the much more inexplicable FPH results, on which no reliable nuclear diagnostics had been done. (This may be changing with the A&M tritium measurements, but certainly was the case when most of the nuclear measurements from electrochemical cells started.) *Failure* to reproduce the Jones results, on the other hand, is also valuable, because it causes one to reformulate the hypothesis in about the following way: "The description of the electrochemical cells as distributed by Jones _et al._ does not suffice to allow reproduction of the observed phenomenon. Therefore, if nuclear reactions really are occurring in electrochemical cells, more specific conditions are needed to cause them. HYPOTHESIS: These conditions are ..." -- and follow with the conditions you want to test. Obviously, one can substitute "Pons and Fleischmann" for "Jones _et al._" in the above statement; practically, however, most people doing nuclear diagnostics are using BYU as the straw man, for the simple reason that they have been more forthcoming with descriptions of their work than FPH, making it easier to test. Furthermore, let me again stress that a confirmation even on the BYU level would have interesting things to say about FPH. It is a TOTALLY different thing to assert the hypothesis that "the excess heat produced in the FPH cells comes from nuclear reactions." This formulation is much more specific and indeed can only be tested by instrumenting a cell alleged to produce heat. But it is *not* the only hypothesis of relevance to cold fusion. The danger that must be avoided -- and too many of the experimenters are failing to avoid it -- is that negative experiments will lead blindly to the conclusion that no nuclear reactions in electrochemical cells are occurring under *any* circumstances. This conclusion may be correct; it may not. The data are inconclusive at this point. Some experimenters, however, are arrogantly reaching this conclusion from a combination of their own biases and a set of negative experiments that are large but not all-inclusive. Bockris is right (IMHO) to be incensed by these experimenters, but he overstates it somewhat by asserting that the negative experiments are "worthless". The one thing that *everybody* agrees on is that good nuclear diagnostics of the actual FPH cells would go far toward telling us what's really going on. When that finally happens, some of the hypotheses formed until now can be tossed out, and the experiments associated with those hypotheses will become moot. But not until then, and Utah still isn't being very cooperative. COME ON, PONS AND COMPANY ... ***GIVE***!!! -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / / IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: pa2533@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (pa2533) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 9 Jun 89 05:45:19 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego Hi there, I'm new to this newsgroup session. There were so many news on fusion in the last weeks. But most of them asked, whether it works or not. The few people, who ask "Do we want it or not ?" seem to be overheard. I am a physicist from Europe. I am here as a research scholar and I will go back very soon. What I am very, VERY concerned about in the US is the waste of energy. And lack of environ- mental thinking. What do you say to the following: If fusion works, then more energy is available, more energy will be used (our society of consumption), any kind of energy use leads to irreversibel changes in nature this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics !!! more industry, more roads, more cars, more pollution, ... Fusion is definitely better than fission. But a unlimited source of energy is even worse. At least as long as PEOPLE cannot handle it. And just look around in our world today, and you will see: People cannot handle it today. Maybe next century. So I think, researchers should be more careful in praising a new technology. Think about what Friedrich Duerrenmatt wrote in his book "The Physicists". I am looking forward to response. To be able to show Europeans a forward-looking America. cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenpa2533 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / John Logajan / Crosspost of Santa Fe Meeting Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Crosspost of Santa Fe Meeting Date: 9 Jun 89 19:10:05 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN My (john logajan) appolgies for reposting this to sci.physics.fusion, but I figured that it deserved to be seen there. ------------------------ Sender: scott@zorch.UU.NET Dear E632 and WA84 Collaborators, CERN, 28 May - 1 June 1989. COLD FUSION NEWS No. 14 SANTA FE MEEETING. 1. Introduction 2. Results on the Fleischmann-Pons Effect - Calorimetry 2.1 Summary 3. Possibilities of Use for Power Production. 4. Results on Possible Fusion Products 4.1 Neutrons 4.1.1 Conclusions 4.2 Tritium 4.3 Gammas 4.4 X-rays, helium 4.5 Other Experiments - Muon Bombardment, Deuteron Ion Implantation 4.6 Summary 5. Basic Studies of Hydrogen in Palladium 6. Compilation of Results. Regionalisation 7. Other Comments 8. Possible Future Meetings 1. INTRODUCTION A Workshop on Cold Fusion sponsored by Los Alamos and the US Department of Energy, was held in Santa Fe 23 to 25 May. Most participants were from North America and covered a very wide spectrum of interests. Apart from academic scientists, there were people from power companies, new companies set up in the last two months to exploit cold fusion, etc. The 20-strong Cold Fusion Panel of the Energy Research Advisory Board whose Co-chairs are Norman Ramsey and John Huizenga, attended and had their first meetings. The proceedings were broadcast live by satellite TV which interfered surprisingly little with the proceedings. Profs. Fleischmann and Pons refused to attend, but most major participants were present. Although one of the summary speakers said that nothing much had changed over the course of the Workshop and that there had been very roughly equal numbers of papers with positive and null results, workers active in the field that I talked to afterwards felt that distinct progress had been made. There were a number of positive results presented not seen at the APS meeting - in particular calorimetric results from Appleby (Texas A&M), Huggins (Stanford), and a very large tritium yield from Wolf (Texas A&M) and preliminary evidence for bursts of neutrons from Menlove (Los Alamos). Among the new null results were the very low neutron counting rates (2 per 5 days) in the Frejus tunnel reported by Declais (Annecy), and for the first time calorimetric experiments using good techniques (Paquette of Chalk River used a catalyser to recombine the gases and Hayden of British Columbia used a closed system with a catalyser and Redey of Argonne used a constant heat loss calorimeter). Crooks of MIT reported the non-observation of helium in a palladium electrode as did Appleby who had a positive heat effect. There were talks on previous knowledge of hydrogen in palladium where Besenbacher of Aarhus expressed grave doubts about the possibilities of fusion there. Garwin and Morrison indicated that there may be no cold fusion effects. One good result is that some labs agreed to co-operate and arranged to operate their cells in another group's more powerful detector - and some did not agree. 2. RESULTS ON THE FLEISCHMANN-PONS EFFECT - CALORIMETRY The meeting opened with a talk by Prof. John Appleby of Texas A&M who used a microcalorimeter which had a precision of 1 microWatt over the range 1 microW to 8 W (it is used for work with pacemaker batteries and uses the Seebeck effect). The experiment appeared to be not a measurement of energy balance but a measurement of energy flow. They used small cathodes to avoid long charge-up times, rods of 0.5 or 1.0 mm diameter and 10 mm length, plus a 2mm diameter sphere. The cell had stainless steel walls and was said to be closed but in fact the D2 and O2 gases were allowed to escape. Several plots were shown of the excess rate of heat in mW against the time in hours. Variations of the order of tens of milliWatts were observed during runs which lasted typically 100 hours as the current was varied, e.g. from 60 to 600 to 1000 mA and then reduced again. The excess heat flow corresponded to changes in the current, to the cell being opened, or to changes in the electrolyte from LiOD to NaOD. Their calculations scaled up to an excess heat of about 16 to 20 Watts per cm3 of Pd for the rods and less 4 to 12 W for the sphere, but more (about 30 W) for annealed rods. The amount of 3He and 4He in the cathodes was measured to be less than 3 E9 and less than 0.3 E9 atoms per cm3 resp.[ Please note that my private comments are in square brackets - this would seem to exclude fusion as the origin of the effect observed]. He sought a chemical explanation and excluded D2 and O2 gas recombination. One check made was with a platinium cathode instead of a palladium one and no effect was observed, but as the current was kept at 600 mA, this was not a test of the effect of varying the current. In the abstract it is written that tests were made with light water in a cell and no effect was seen. [comment- the changes in the heat flow were clearly visible - but no details of how this was converted to excess energy were given and no errors were given]. At the start of his talk, Prof Alleby said that the results were not conclusive and that they would not stand up in a court of law. He also showed results on tritium production made at the same time - these results were discussed in more detail by Kevin Wolf of Texas A&M. In a period of 10 hours the tritium yield rose very sharply from 10 disintegrations per min. to almost a million. In the one graph shown by Appleby, the rise was very sharp [ comment - it was not linear as might have been expected from the excess heat results]. Prof. Robert Huggins of Stanford gave a somewhat unusual talk much of which was concerned with "major quandries" where he suggested various reasons as to why the results were not reproducible, both from group to group and within a group. He mentioned cast versus wrought palladium, dislocations serving as traps for hydrogen, blocking layers at the palladium surface, influence of carbon when the palladium crucibles are made of carbon, effect of H2O on D2O, but this discussion was purely speculative - no numbers were given e.g numbers of failures to number of excess heat observations, nor was any attempt made to correlate the statements with experimental observations [e.g. Fleischmann and Pons had appreciable H2O in their experiments; Case Western Reserve who claimed observation of excess heat, used annealed rods that he had previously equated with failure]. For his own experiment, he showed plots of the heat rise, delta T, as a function of the heater power, for the calibration and for D2O and H2O - all were straight lines. For H2O, the heat rise was slightly less than for the calibration but for D2O it started the same but after some time diverged giving finally a 12% higher value. Thus his basic claim is that they have observed a 12% heat excess (he also says that D2O is 22% more than H2O, but this is not a heat excess). At the APS meeting Prof. Meyerhof had suggested that his results could be due to lack of stirring. Prof Huggins said they had added a water bath shaker and showed that there were no effects that could be ascribed to lack of stirring. Since it was said that there would be a full evening devoted to asking questions of the speakers, there were few asked immediately. In the evening quite a few questions were asked of Prof. Huggins, but he tended to answer that he had already given a full description and they should talk together afterwards. He was asked by Nathen Lewis if he could measure one of their cells and replied yes, but not just now as they were too busy - similar replies were given later. No temperatures were given at this calorimetry talk, but from the APS meeting I had learnt that speakers often speak more freely when they are being questioned by a few journalists who are often very well informed - so I was the only scientist at Prof. Huggins' press conference. There he said that the total temperature rise was 10 degrees and that the D2O rose by between one and one and a half degrees more than the H2O [should it not be more than the calibration?] and this was the heat excess. [ comment - this is almost the same as the value of 2 degrees measured by the Tata Institute in their full account of their work - they do not claim excess heat but simply note that the cathode is hotter with D2O than with H2O]. He also said that he thought it was caused by material effects [another reason for calling it the Fleischmann- Pons effect and not calling it cold fusion]. He said his calculation was very conservative, they subtract the 1.54 Volts and do not include heat of recombination of the gases. Both Profs Bockris in his frequent interventions, and Huggins said that maybe the reason for groups not getting excess heat was that the palladium rod was not sufficiently loaded with deuterium - they suggested that the D/Pd ratio or "loading ratio' namely the ratio of deuterium atoms to Pd atoms, should be higher, above 0.8. However they seemed not to have measured this themselves and when Huggins was asked how it was possible to go above 0.8 which is the normal limit, did not reply effectively. Prof. Bockris of Texas A&M give a talk entitled "Seven Chemical Explanations of the Fleischmann-Pons effect" where he estimated the heat excess produced but always got values much less than the early claims of F-P and of Huggins of the order of 10 Watts - the highest he calculated was 0.9 W for the Pauling suggestion of PdH2 formation. He was asked about the Wigner effect, but had not considered it [ comment - this is a favourite explanation of many people. It was responsible for a large release of radioactivity in about 1957 at Windscale - the neutrons absorbed by the graphite had stored a lot of energy in the graphite by changing its structure and the subsequent release of this energy caused the trouble. It had previously been predicted by Wigner. Similarly the absorption of hydrogen or of deuterium by palladium causes the palladium to swell and this stores a lot of energy in the cathode. When the loading stops (e.g. the current is switched off or the level of the electrolyte falls and exposes part of the cathode), then this Wigner energy can be released]. These two positive results have been discussed in some detail, but both are in principle technically inferior to the two Canadian experiments. Dr. Paquette of the Chalk River - Whiteshell Collaboration said the leaving gases went through a catalyst. They found that the power in and the power out were both 5.0 Watts with an error of 0.1 Watt. This was with a current of 100 mA [at times Bockris et al. suggested much higher currents were needed, but Fleischmann and Pons obtained large excess heat with similar currents]. They tried 13 cathodes of Pd in the form of wires, sheets, rods and tubes with masses varying from 1.4 to 41 grams [people with positive results had suggested that those finding null results had too small cathodes but this seems to answer that]. In 11 of the cells the Pd was annealed. The Pd from Johnson Matthey was 99.995% pure [which seems to answer other objections]. The electrolyte temperature varied between 16 and 50 degrees C. The D/Pd ratio was 0.7 and no variation was found to at least a depth of 20 microns - this after 25 days. Dr. Hayden of the University of British Columbia, used a completely closed system [at last], with a Pd catalyser near the top of their cell giving a 100% efficiency in the recombination of gases. The experiment was thermally isolated by multiple layers of heat shields. The Pd cathodes are 4 by 0.8 by 0.4 cm3 and weigh about 10 grams. Several cells were used with loading factors of 0.8 to 0.84 by weighing. Controls were done using platinium cathodes. the ratio of the power produced of Pd to Pt cathodes was 1.000 +/- 0.003, i.e. 0.3% over the range of input powers from 4 to 18 Watts. He emphasised the importance of the latent heat of vaporisation which at 20 degrees C is only 2% but at 40, 60 and 80 degrees is 6.5, 18 and 44 % resp. so that if the temperature rises for some reason [e.g. electrolyte level falling and releasing the Wigner energy], then an apparent excess heat would be observed temporarily. It is important to know if the gases escaping in other experiments are saturated with D2O vapour and where does this heat go. He showed a graph of the variation with time of the D/Pd ratio - it initially rises linearly then flattens off at 0.8 after 10 hours. This would tend to show that very long charging times are not necessary as had been suggested by finders of positive results. The subsequent run was 12 days. They say they would be pleased to accept cells from others to test. The paper describes other controls in detail - this is the best calorimetric experiment so far. Dr. Scott of Oak Ridge described their normal cell. They observed no excess power to less than 10%. There were short temperature excursion up to 70 degrees but they could account for them by evaporation processes. Dr. R. Crooks of MIT described their calorimetric measurements in a constant temperature bath and looked for variations in the heater power needed to keep the temperature constant [a very good technique]. No significant change in power was observed to better than 9%. The palladium rod was analysed for helium and a number of 4 E11 atoms per cm3 found - this would correspond to a maximum power output of 1.8 microWatts. Prof. Bockris said there were many sources of possible errors for experiments that found no effect - the current should be greater than 150 mA - reply "The current was chosen to be 100mA to correspond to the middle of the Fleischmann and Pons range". Bockris said that first the experiment must show that it can find excess heat and then its futher measurements can be believed - this comment rather surprised many people. Dr. L. Redey of Argonne National Lab. described their experiments using a constant heat loss calorimeter with baths of 30 and 21 degrees C round the cell. This gives an accuracy of 0.1 Watt or 0.8 mW per cm3 of Pd. The cell was semi-sealed which meant the gases could escape. The rate of recombination was found to be very low. The loading ratio D/Pd quickly rose to about 0.8. No excess heating was observed when the current was varied between 12.5 and 500 mA. The experiment was interupted 3 or 4 minutes to weigh the Pd rods to find the D/Pd ratio. A poster presentation was made by Dr. H. W. Randolph of the Savannah River Site. "An argon purged D2O electrolysis cell is mounted inside a dry calorimeter which measures heat output to +/- 0.2% at 10 Watts thermal. Constant flow Argon sweep gas is dried for evaporation water measurement and analysed by an on-line quadrupole mass spectrometer to measure off-gas species and amounts. Electrolysis power is measured at 10 sec intervals, integrated, and compared with the sum of calorimeter heat, electrolytic heat of formation, evaporation heat, and argon heat gain." [Seems a very good calorimetric experiment.] The result given on their poster was; Power in = 1.944 E5 joules Power out = 1.912 E5 joules. The errors were about +/- 0.1 Watt. Dr. D. J. Wesolowski of Oak Ridge National Lab. said that some simple tests of calorimetry had shown no excess heat production - their main experiment was to measure neutrons. Nathan Lewis et al. of Cal Tech used a constant temperature bath accurate to a few mK. They found no excess enthalpy to 6%. The D/Pd ratio was 0.78 to 0.8. He explained various ways in which apparent power excess could be obtained - e.g. it is necessary to have continuous calibration of the heat loss, unlike some other experiments which find positive effects. Prof. Bockris said that to obtain positive heat excess it was necessary to have D/Pd ratios greater than 1.0 and the hydrogen content must be kept low. Lewis answered that 0.8 and 64 mA was the same as Fleischmann and Pons and their aim was to replicate their experiment. Details have been given in previous notes of their experiments using a wide variety of palladium cathodes - it is not impossible that they have comparable results for titanium. 2.1 SUMMARY ON CALORIMETRY The results of Appleby et al. and of Huggins et al. considered by themselves and if one does not ask too many questions, look impressive and some people watching on Satellite, said they were convinced of the reality of excess heat production. Initially Fleischmann and Pons said that cold fusion could be easily demonstrated on a table top and one did not need complicated apparatus. However with experience it is shown that calorimetry is NOT easy. There are many pitfalls and it is not difficult to get positive results - it depends on your technique and on the assumptions of the calculation. What was good about the Santa Fe meeting was that some groups were now reporting technically good experiments which meant that one did not have to make unverified assumptions. In particular having a closed system with catalyser to recombine the D2 and O2 gases is a major step forward. Several other experiments had constant temperature baths which meant that they avoided the uncertainties in using Newton's Law of Cooling. Thus there are 8 experiments reporting null results for excess power, the best experiment quoting an upper limit of 0.3%. An 8th experiment that finds no effect is by David Williams of Harwell - as the details have not been presented, it cannot be considered on the same level as the other ones, but many people are impressed by it as Martin Fleischmann is a consultant at Harwell and if there had been some special secret [as some believers say but not Fleischmann], they assume that Harwell would know it. So the most reasonable conclusion from all the evidence is that there is no heat excess. However there is some evidence from Tata and Stanford, that the cathode used with D2O runs 1 to 2 degrees hotter than the cathode used with H2O. So far I have not seen any comment on this from the 8 groups reporting null results, nor from theorists. One of the workshop summary speakers, Prof. R. Schrieffer, said that "I personnally do not believe that the heat production is due to anything but chemical effects." There are indications that the origin of the heat excesses observed by Fleischmann and Pons may be due to the long intervals between adding electrolyte so that as the level falls, part of the loaded Pd rod becomes exposed, releasing the D as gas. This relieves the structure of the lattice and raises the temperature. I had suggested this to Martin Fleischmann almost two months ago, but had been told it was impossible. 3. POSSIBILITIES OF USE FOR POWER PRODUCTION In talking with people not closely in contact with the results, when I summarise the experiments, they regret it as it would be so wonderful to have a new source of unlimited power with little pollution, and they often refuse to believe the data and ask if perhaps by developing the technique a litle bit more one could improve it enough to be useful. However there is confusion in the public mind between the claims of some groups to have observed excess heat and hence possibly a new energy source and the linkage with cold fusion. It is not appreciated enough that ALL measurements of fusion products are many many orders of magnitude lower. So that even if the claims of excess heat were true, they would not release fusion energy. In a Workshop summary, Prof. N. Hackerman said that "suspect few of us here look on it as a truely viable source of power" and no one objected (though it is very difficult to object to anything a workshop summariser says). However there was at least one person who would not agree. This was Prof. Huggins who at his press conference said that he thought it could be a practical source of heat. He said to be useful heat, one would need a higher temperature, several hundred degrees centigrade and perhaps a cheaper material than palladium.It would also be necessary to reduce the heat input, say by cutting it from 10 Watts to 3 Watts - but he would not suggest how he might accomplish this other than by using other materials - titanium. While he obtained 12% excess heat, if one recombined the escaping D2 and O2 gases, this would give more heat. When asked if he had counted the cost of the palladium, he replied that with hot fusion with big machines, one did not include the capital cost. He did not believe that the source of his excess heat was fusion but was some material effect [comment - this seems a contradiction; to believe that one has a practical source of heat but has to derive it from a material that one has to prepare]. Being rather surprised by this, I talked to him privately next day and he confirmed that he believed that his work could lead to practical power output. When I tried to quote to him the argument that Dick Garwin had presented the previous evening, he replied "which argument, there were so many". When I explained that the real power in was more than just IV, he brushed it aside. There did not seem much point in continuing to try to discuss. 4. RESULTS ON SEARCH FOR FUSION PRODUCTS 4.1 NEUTRONS There were some half dozen "positive" results which were generally contested and "explained" and a slightly larger number of null results which tended not to be contested except by Prof Bockris who said that the cells were badly prepared (see Section 2 and later section 5 for replies). Kevin Wolf of Texas A&M said they had altogether 5 groups working, had 25 cells and more than 200 experiments using electrolysis and absorption of D2 gas for both Pd rods of 1/2 to 6 mm diameter and Ti rods of 1/2 to 3 mm diameter. The NE213 scintillator used for neutron detection had an overall efficiency of 5%. Pulse Shape Discrimination, PSD, was used to separate gammas from neutrons. They have had negative results and positive results. They can measure between 0.5 and 50 MeV. The background rate is 0.8 n per min. and at times they observed 3 to 4 times this for the range 0.4 to 2.5 MeV which corresponds to a source of 50 n per min. over a period of 1 to 2 hours. The graphs of n/min as a function of time showed marked variation, sometimes appearing to correlate with current changes, but not in a clearly reasonable way. A calibration curve for 2 MeV neutrons was shown where the data and the Monte Carlo did not quite fit. Moshe Gai seized on this to say it was the same as he had observed initially and at that time he thought he had evidence for cold fusion. However he found that it was due to multiple reflections of gammas in his ring of neutron counters. Kevin Wolf refused to believe this though I tried to explain for Moshe, that in neighbouring counters if there were neutrons the signals would be displaced in time, whereas if they were gammas, the signals would coincide - and they found coincidences in time. Prof. F Scaramuzzi of Frascati gave a sympathetic talk where he started by saying that his experiment was relatively crude with a BF3 detector placed next to the cell. They had 3 positive runs out of 10 attempts. They used 100 g of titanium outgassed at 200 degrees. There was some measure of correlation with changes of temperature or pressure. The fact that the counting rate was apparently quantised at 0, 20 or 40 counts could possibly be accounted for if one assumes that the neutrons are emitted in very short bursts as the dead-time of the counters is 2 to 3 microsec. However Dick Garwin objected that if the burst from the cell was so brief, it would be spread out to about 60 microseconds by the time it takes to slow down the neutrons in the moderator. He also reported the work of Dr. F. Magni of the ENFA CASACCIA who used a sponge of titanium loaded with D2, cooled and then pumped - a small peak of neutrons was observed after about 700 minutes. Further he reported that Dr. G Massoni et al. had the opposite idea of taking used blades of Ti 0.5 mm thick heating them very quickly (20 sec.) to 1000 degrees C. add D2 and cool to 500 degrees. The BF3 counters were inside shielding. Bursts of neutrons were observed when the conditions were changed. Both sets of results looked very preliminary and had apparently not been repeated or controls performed. There were two reports of experiments performed deep underground in tunnels where the cosmic background is expected to be low. Prof Bertin of Bologna who had been collaborating with the Brigham Young group of Steve Jones, reported their results (described in a previous note) in the Gran Sasso tunnel. The background was 10 counts per hour and the signal 35 +/- 5 counts/hour giving effectively 875 +/_ 183 counts per hour from the cell which was in good agreement with the rate observed by Jones et al. in Nature. Moshe Gai pointed out that these rates were very high for a deep underground observatory and were probably due to gammas. Yves Declais of Annecy presented the results of the College de France, Marseille, Grenoble, Annecy Collaboration who used the Frejus Tunnel. They used the new liquid scintillator NE320 loaded with 0.15% 6Li. They observe both the proton recoils from the slowing of the neutron and also the reaction products when the thermal neutron is captured by the 6Li to give 3He + t in coincidence after a 30 ns delay. PSD gives a very good separation of the neutrons from the gammas. So they have 4 constraints and not only one with NE213. First experiments were done at the Bugey site where they have developed their detectors over a number of years. One point that is very important is to have a good Monte Carlo which fully takes into account the shielding. Their detector was calibrated in the Gran Sasso Tunnel when the background was 1 count per day. The efficiency was 2.7%. The background obtained after off-line analysis was 2 per 5 days. Four different cells with palladium cathodes were used. No neutrons were seen above a background of 0.017 neutrons per hour. If one were to make the ultra-pessimistic assumption that all the background of 2.5 Mev neutrons were in fact signal, the 2 Std. Dev. limit would be less than 1.2 neutrons per hour (but this is an unreasonable assumption). Dr. Declais finished by inviting other groups to come to the Frejus Tunnel where they have a well-established and tested neutron detector which has place inside for several cells. Several groups said they were interested (in particular Prof. Bertin). [Comment - the fact that background rates of Declais et al. are so much lower than those of the Bologna-BYU Collaboration, lends support to Moshe Gai's argument that the latter group's "neutrons" are largely gamma induced]. Moshe also gave a short evening talk about possible errors that can occur. Firstly he said that BF3 counters should not be used! - they were too unreliable and subject to false counts from temperature changes, humidity, vibration.... Also PSD could cause errors and calibration was necessary. Further gammas could give multiple reflections simulating neutrons. Howard Menlove of Los Alamos reported very recent measurements at LANL in an experiment in which Steve Jones of BYU collaborated. Their results were spectacular and encouraged some people to believe that neutrons are emitted in bursts. They use stainless steel cylinders containing Ti chips and sponge. D2 gas at pressures up to 20 to 50 atm. is used to load the Titanium and then the cylinder is placed in liquid nitrogen then in the neutron detector system beside a control cylinder, and it then warms up. After about 40 min. (sometimes 80 min.) a burst of neutrons is recorded - this time corresponds to a temperature of about -35 degrees C. The normal random neutron emission is 0.05 to 0.2 n per sec. while the bursts are from 10 to 300 n/s. The burst lasts less than 100 microsec. The neutron detector consists of 18 3He tubes and has a high efficiecy of 34%. The dummy cylinder gave no counts over 2 hours. The active one was followed for longer periods up to 25 hours but the burst only occurred in the first 40 to 80 minutes. The result looks very significant but the experiment has a major problem. I asked if they had done the control experiment with H2 in place of D2, and the answer was "No"! Now most people have said that one should not accept experiments where the most elementary checks have not been made and should not have press releases - and co-author Steve Jones is quite strong about it as a major article in Nature accused him and Fleischmann and Pons in very strong language of not having tried H2O as well as D2O. Now this accusation was justified for Fleischmann and Pons but was untrue for BYU (incidently have not seen a written apology from Nature, only a brief correction - should Steve take this to the Press Council or does this only apply to newspapers that falsely accuse someone?). One has some sympathy for LANL as it is natural to present recent results when the lab organises the workshop, still.... So for the present one should suspend judgement even though there is a Reuters press release. There was a talk by B. Emmoth representing three Swedish institutes. They used a BF3 counter close to an electrolytic cell with Pd and Pt electrodes. The efficiecy was 0.1%. Most of their runs gave no effect and were not discussed but they showed two plots where there were 2 or 3 peaks whose existence did not seem to be correlated with any other activity. They got up to 240 n/s. They were aware of moisture and vibration effects on their BF3 counter. They seem to have done no checks such as running with H2O. To some it was surprising that they presented such a result, but at the same time there was an AP press release which quoted "The results indicate fusion reactions can occur at low temperatures in the electrode material palladium. This gives certain support to Fleischmann and Pons ideas". "The results were reported in a paper to be published by the scientific journal 'Physica Scripta'. The Stockholm daily Svenska Dagbladet was told that the tests were easier to repeat using new palladium plates of sufficient size, rather than already used plates and small ones. "Also the character of the time limited 'bursts' of course are in line with (Pons and Fleischmanns) results even though theirs were longer, almost 24 hours". It surprised some that such a work was chosen for presentation while other careful pieces of work with controls and checks were not - it reminds me of the time when it was claimed that the A2 was split and organisers were delighted to ask speakers with positive results to speak but not those with negative results (as they were not capable of finding it). Steve Jones gave essentially the same talk as at the APS. There I had said that his statistics were wrongly calculated and he had more like a 2 to 3 standard deviation effect. After we discussed privately he agreed that to evaluate the significance of the assumed peak, one had to take into account the scaling of the background curve under it and this was a serious effect. However the claims were uncorrected. This applied to Run 6 which is almost the only one that shows any significant effect. Including this run, he derived a fusion rate of lambda(f) = E-23 fusions/d pair/sec. However at Los Alamos he proposed that as Run 6 was unusual, he would not take it alone and this would make his rate lambda(f) = E-24 fusions/d pair/sec. Some such as Moshe Gai were puzzled but seemed to accept this sudden improvement by an order of magnitude when one wishes to compare experiments. However maybe it would be wiser to accept the earlier value in Nature. Dr. Scott of Oak Ridge reported on neutron measurements using NE213 with PSD. The overall efficiency was 1.46 E-3. The temperature was nominally 28 to 45 degrees C but there was a controlled excursion to 70 degrees. The counting rate was about 4 per hour. No neutrons were seen over a period of 300 hours. Dr. Paquette of Chalk River also reported on measurements of neutrons using moderated 3He and BF3 counters with efficiencies from 0.1 to 1.5%. No neutrons were found with Pd electrodes or with Ti loaded by D2 gas pressure of 40 atm. lowering the temperature to -196 degrees C, releasing the pressure and warming to room temperature (as Frascati). No neutrons were observed and an upper limit of < 0.6 n per sec was established which is less than F&P and Frascati but not quite as low as Jones et al. Matthews Broer of AT&T Bell Labs described their measurements of neutrons in electrolytic cells with 3 different Pd cathodes. The cells were in a large box with Pb and borax walls and then scintillators to veto cosmic ray muons. Neutrons were slowed in polyethelyne round the cells and the gamma rays produced measured by capture by protons (2.24 MeV) and by 23Na and 127I which give gammas in the range 3.5 to 7 MeV in the NaI and is the more sensitive. After 4 weeks they obtained a limit of < 0.007 n/sec/g Pd which corresponds to <2.2 E-24 fusions/dd pair/sec which is less than the Jones et al. value for titanium. Nathan Lewis of Cal Tech reported their neutron measurements (described in an earlier note). They give an upper limit of < 100 n/hour/cm3 of Pd. Dr. D. J. Wesolowski of Oak Ridge National Lab said they used BF3 counters to measure neutrons emitted from Pd and Ti loaded with D2 by gas pressure. The cells and neutron detectors are in a thermostatically controlled bath. They find no neutrons at a level of one thousandth of those reported by Frascati and Fleischmann and Pons but about the same as Jones et al. An interesting point of their experiment was that with the BF3 counters they could get large signals when the leads were moist which disappeared when they dried out. Also when they turned on the sodium vapour lamps, they got 70 000 counts and this was a reproducible effect. With vibration they found hundreds of counts This confirmed the warnings of David Williams and Moshe Gai about the dangers of using BF3 counters. Dr. Tanihasi from Korea loaded Pd electrodes to a D/Pd ratio of 0.8 +/- 0.1 The neutron spectra with D2O and H2O were the same after 20 hours. Moshe Gai reported on the Yale - BNL results (given in an earlier note and now submitted to Nature). They have done a major and careful experiment and learnt by experience of the possible traps that give positive results. Pd and Ti rods were used as cathodes and Ti powder was loaded with D2 gas under pressure. They estimate a 3 std. dev. upper limit for d - d fusion giving neutrons to be 1 E-25 fusions/dd pair/sec. which is a factor of 50 to 100 times smaller than that reported by Jones et al.,(they noted that the Jones et al. rate is close to the rate expected for cosmic rays). The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab used BF3 counters and found their background counting rate was highly variable from 5 to 30 counts/hour. With Pd cathodes and with gas-loaded Ti turnings, no neutrons were observed at a level of 1 n/s for both the d-d and p-d reactions, which is not lower than Jones et al. An unusual experiment, reported by a theorist, F. M. Mueller, was done at Los Alamos. Samples of Pd and Ti were loaded to D/Metal ratios of 0.7 and then were subjected to a shock pressure of greater than one megabar for a period of about 14 microsec. Neutron detectors were placed behind sandbags and Pb bricks nearby. A small instaneous pulse was observed. The authors conclude that less than 1 E4 neutrons were generated. On the posters there were several negative results. R.I.Ewing of Sandia Nat. Labs, reported no neutrons giving a limit of < 100 n/ hour using 3He counters around Pd cells. LBL - UC Berkeley Collaboration said they found, for currents of 0.25 to 1.25 A, no neutrons corresponding to a limit of 1 E-22 fusions/dd pair per sec. Dr. C Ellegaard et al. of the Neils Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, used 10 rods of Pd with 500 mA current and 3 litre NE213 detector surrounding the cells and also Ti loaded with D2 gas under pressure and heated to 500 degrees and cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature then warmed to room temp. No neutrons were found. J. C. Hill of the Ames Lab at Iowa State reported no neutrons from cells with a Pd cathode at a lower rate than F&P. With Ti loaded with D2 gas absorbed at 110 degrees and up to 660 psia where the achieved a maximum loading of D/Ti of 1.9 [this is possible with Ti not Pd] no neutrons were observed above a counting rate of 6.5 counts per 10 min. 4.1.1 CONCLUSIONS There are many groups who report upper limits of neutron production many orders of magnitude less than those of Fleischmann and Pons for cells with Pd cathodes and for those of Frascati for gas loaded Ti and it must be concluded that these results are excluded. The neutron rates of Jones et al. are appreciably higher than those of Frejus and of Yale - BNL but BYU used Ti and the others Pd which may provide a temporary loophole, but other experiments find no neutrons at the same level as Jones et al. Also the statistical accuracy of BYU has not yet been properly calculated yet. Thus the probability is that the BYU results are mistaken. This issue should be settled soon as Steve Jones took up the challenge from the floor of Moshe Gai to bring one of his working cells to Yale to test in their apparatus ! 4.2 TRITIUM One of the striking results at the conference was the report by Kevin Wolf of abundant tritium production. 5 E12 tritium atoms were detected in the solution of the cell several days after the neutron production runs. The solution was also analysed by Sandia and General Motors who confirmed the presence of tritium, which therefore was not due to chemiluminescence. Prof. Appleby showed a graph with the tritium count, disintegrations per minute rising exponentially from 10 to a million in 10 hours [why such a short run compared to other runs of the same Texas teams?]. The tritium content of the cell before is not known. The energy spectrum of the betas looks reasonable (unlike Fleischmann and Pons). It is difficult to evaluate the fusion rate as one does not know in what time the tritium was produced, so the rate could vary between 1 E-3 to 1 E-8 Watts per cm3 of Pd. This is both a very low rate compared with the Watts reported by Fleischmann and Pons and is a very high rate compared with any other fusion product rate reported. Now in first approximation the fusion reactions d + d ---> t + p and d + d ---> 3He + n have equal cross sections and hence one would expect the rates for n, p, t and 3He to be closely comparable. But this tritium rate is in contradiction with all neutron yield experiments and is in contradiction with the 3He yield of Texas itself! Perhaps Dick Garwin's comment is best - he believes there was tritium there but does not know where it came from! It was suggested that cathodes be analysed to look for tritium. M. L. Muga et al. of Florida Univ., Gainsville find no tritium in contradiction to a report from another Gainsville group - it is thought that the latter's room was heavily contaminated. R. Crooks et al. of MIT looked for tritium but did not find any - do not have a note of any limit being given. 4.3 GAMMAS Six groups whose experiment is described above, reported that they had searched for gammas and had not found them. They were; Dr. Scott et al. of ORNL, R. Crooks et al. of MIT, Dr. Tanihasi of Korea, N. Lewis et al. of Cal Tech, all reported null results, but do not have limits. Dr. M. Gai of Yale-BNL Collaboration gave a rate of < 1 E-22 fusions/dd pair/s The Princeton group gave a limit of < 3 gammas per sec. What was very worrying was the discussion of the Fleischmann and Pons result by Dr. Crooks. He showed plots of their result together with his, which is very different as the peak at 2.2 meV is twice as wide and also on the low energy side the rate rises due to the Compton edge and other effects. The mystery is how Fleischmann and Pons could produce such a plot? It is also worrying that they showed an earlier plot of a different shape and even indicated that the peak was at 2.5 MeV (the value you would expect if the neutrons were not slowed down) and not at 2.2 (as expected when the neutrons are captured at rest. This is troubling. 4.4 X-RAYS, HELIUM R. Fleming et al. of Michigan Univ. looked for the 21 KeV characteristic X-rays from Pd. The background rate was 3 counts/hour and no increase was seen during 2 days running of a Pd cell. The observation of 3He or 4He in the cathode after electrolysis is considered a major test of fusion since the only possible explanation of the observation of Watts of heat but of fusion products only at many order of magnitude lower rates, would be that one had d + d ---> 4He + energy and possibly p + d ---> 3He + energy and this energy is somehow absorbed by the lattice instead of emitting a gamma as it would normally [this is pretty far-fetched as timing is wrong by many orders of magnitude, but it is useful to check anyway]. One result has already been reported in section 2 and was; Appleby et al. gave upper limits of 3 E9 and 0.3 E9 atoms per cm3 for 3He and 4He resp. Crooks et al. of MIT said they had examined a small sample of Pd and found no 4He giving an upper limit of < 0.1 E9 atoms per cm3 of Pd. This confirms that if there is excess power, it does not come from fusion. 4.5 OTHER EXPERIMENTS - MUON BOMBARDMENT, DEUTERON ION IMPLANTATION It has been suggested that fusion might be triggered by muons from Cosmic Rays. This has already been tested at Bugey by a French-Swiss Collaboration where there was a layer of scintillator to detect muons, inside the Pb, water and boron layers. 2% of the time there was the signal of the passage of muons, and separate counts were made of neutrons, but no effect was seen. More direct experiments were made by firing beams of muons into an electrolytic cell. M. Gaudreau of MIT reported passing 80 KeV/c muons into Pd and Ti targets at a rate of 1000 muons/sec/cm2. The authors are still interpreting the results but indicate no dramatic effects were observed. At KEK, K. Nagamine et al. passed muons into Pd samples loaded to a ratio of D/Pd = 0.6, and unloaded. They observed no differences. They deduced a neutron production rate of < 0.012 n per muon. It was concluded that the rate of producing neutrons from cosmic ray muons was < 1.3 E-6 per sec. The Colarado School of Mines reported that they had implanted D ions of 95 KeV in 1.5 micron thick foils of Pd giving D/Pd ratios of 1.0 or above. No significant effect was found giving a limit of < 0.2 n/dd pair/sec or < 5E-10 Watts/cm3 of Pd. S. M. Myers of Sandia Nat. Labs. gave a talk about ion implantation which will be discused below. They also did an experiment where D ions of 10 KeV, were implanted into Pd at 40 degrees K. Clear signals of 1 MeV tritons and of 3 MeV protons were observed from the reaction d + d = t + p and this allowed the loading ratio D/Pd to be measured. After the beam was turned off no significant rate of fusion was observed despite the loading being much higher than can be obtained by electrolytic or gas pressure methods. An upper limit of 2 E-22 fusions/dd pair/sec was estimated. Ti and Zr were also tried with null results. During the conference a press release was received saying that a group of Mexican scientists had achieved cold fusion producing more energy than any other experiment reported to date. "With this success, they have increased the (prospects) in our country for the use of fusion to produce energy". The team of M. Fernandez et al. at the National Institute for Nuclear Reasearch, had discharged electrodes one of steel and the other of titanium and magnesium in an atmosphere of enriched deuterium. "A considerable number of neutrons per second" were produced. Such press releases illustrate the importance of responsible workers in the field explaining clearly what is happening to all countries in the world. 4.6 SUMMARY The major conclusion is that all the measurements of fusion products agree that any possible fusion rate is many orders of magnitude less than would be needed to account for any positive measurement of excess power that is claimed. There is the question "is there any experiment which has been carefully performed and all the checks and controls made, which has statistics that everyone agrees are significant, which shows a positive result?". This is tough and for some an emotional issue. Many would not like to answer this question yet. But the best and most careful experiments with the most controls, (e.g. Frejus, Yale-BNL) find nothing. One would still like to check further for the possibility of bursts as suggested by the data of Menlove et al., but first these need to have basic checks done. Inevitably in trying to report many papers, there must be some mistakes. Please accept my apologies and send me corections or additions 5 BASIC STUDIES OF HYDROGEN IN PALLADIUM On the last morning there were some interesting talks on the fundamentals of hydrogen in palladium by long-term experts in the field. G. S. Collins of Washington State University studied ions in lattices by perturbed gamma-gamma angular correlations, PAC techniques - essentially observing waves of various frequencies. For example as H ions diffuse into Ni, the waves change as the Ni is annealed at various temperatures. It was observed that Li ions can diffuse into platinium as its radius is small, 0.7 A. F. Besenbacher of Aarhus in Denmark gave a major talk. He compared their results with the Effective Medium Theory (Morskov, PRL 35 (1987) 7433) which he showed fitted the data very well. He showed drawings of the effective electron density in palladium lattices. He described trapping, channeling, the depth of ion implantation, annealing effects. I asked him 2 questions; Q; What is the chance of having two deuterons in the same site? A; Zero Q; What do you think of the chances of d-d fusion in Palladium? A; (after a long pause - for politeness?) I am sceptical. Other answers were equally illuminating. Q; Is palladium the best metal to use? A; I would not chose palladium. Aluminium or copper would be better. Q; Normally people reach D/Pd ratios of 0.7 to 0.8, but it is said that to succeed with fusion, you need > 0.8 A; Alice in Wonderland (later he said that for > 0.8, one needs ion implantation). S. M. Myers of Sandia Nat. Labs. said that normally by electrolysis or by gas pressure one can fill the octahedral sites, but to bring the deuteron ions closer together, one needs to fill all octahedral sites first which means going beyond the stoichiometric condition to superstoichiometric palladium hydrides, i.e. D/Pd ratios of above one. D-implantation is found to give D/Pd ratios up to 1.3 at 35 degrees K. Graphs were shown of the D/Pd ratio as a function of depth as more and more D was implanted. As the temperature was raised, the ratio fell to 0.8 but then stayed there from 100 to 130 degrees K, then fell again, indicating that there is a stable condition at 80 K (it means that 80% of the octahedral sites are filled). He said the error on 1.3 was 0.1. J. Bigelstein of SUNY discussed enrichment of tritium during electrolysis and gave a table of enrichment ratios as a function of the fraction of electrolyte used - the ratio goes from about 1.4 at 0.6 electrolysised to 5.1 at most for 100% electrolysis. He said he would look with suspicion at any experiment that did not find an enrichment. On the other hand this did not explain the very large tritium yield claimed by Wolf et al. of Texas A&M Another point brought out in the discussion was that there is tight control over the amount of tritium in liquid D2O for radioactive safety reasons (must be safe to drink), but not for D2 gas - so D2 gas can sometimes contain high amounts of tritium and experimenters should measure the initial amount of tritium before measuring tritium afterwards. 6. COMPILATION OF RESULTS. REGIONALISATION In compiling results reported on cold fusion, I found that the ratio of positive to null results varied greatly from region to region of the world. There was a strong correlation with the information available in the region. Also the results within a region varied with time. These results are statistically very significant. As this survey was not presented in detail at the Santa Fe workshop, these results from 83 different labs will be given in a separate note. 7. OTHER COMMENTS After many protests, the Wednesday evening was given to discussion with no presentations allowed except that Dick Garwin was given at the start, 5 minutes for comments - this was rather brief as he made major comments on all the positive results. He started by saying that of the original results of BYU and Fleischmann and Pons, they were all gone except for some evidence of excess heat, but not fusion. Huggins had found more heat and one might believe that but not necessarily energy. The power in is not just IV but is twice that in a realistic calculation. His result if fusion, would imply 3 E5 neutrons per sec while the Texas result would imply 3 E9 neutrons per sec - which should have observable effects. As for the tritium result, Garwin said he believed there was tritium, but did not know its origin. For the subject of neutron bursts - as one counts thermal neutrons, they take time to diffuse and hence there cannot be sharp bursts in times less than these diffusion times which are exponential decays. He also discussed briefly what was happening inside the palladium lattice explaining how difficult it was to have two deuterons close to one another. Pyroelectrics can give large fields but not fusion. Near the close of the discussion, D. R. O. Morrison said that Dick Garwin had given a major talk hinting that many results had other explanations, but no one had commented on it. Dick Feynman had offered a solution to the situation that we face today where; (1) we cannot find a theory that fits all the data, or as Peter Hagelstein had asked "does anyone have a theory that will allow two deuterons to come close enough together that they have a good chance of fusing?" (2) experiments seem to be in contradiction with one another. Feynman's solution was to say that sometimes one has to assume that an experiment is wrong. Now this is not something that one likes, but everyone makes mistakes. Now have been interested in Wrong Results in Science for many years and after reading the famous chemist, Irving Langmuir's paper on Pathological Science, I have extended it to more subjects and have been giving lectures on it for the past 13 years. After analysing 83 experiments on cold fusion reported so far, there is strong statistical evidence that cold fusion is a case. In view of the great interest and importance attached to the subject, no serious explanation, evem if disappointing, can be neglected. In his balanced and kindly summary talk, Bob Schreiffer said something that made me ask him afterwards if he had been reading Langmuir's "Pathological Science" article - he said , yes he had. In a previous note, I had repeated a public statement that Peter Hagelstein of MIT had withdrawn his explanations of cold fusion. At Santa Fe he has told me that he has not withdrawn them. Am told there are 6 patents applied for by U of U, one by BYU and two by U. St. U. (who are working away busily without drawing attention to themselves). Someone seems to be mailing anonomously tapes of what is said to be a patent application by Pons and Fleischmann - one person who looked said it did not contain anything special or magical. There are quite a number of companies which have been set up to exploit cold fusion, at least six in Utah and I gather they are not short of investors. Of the $5 million that has been set aside for cold fusion by the State of Utah, it is said that one million has already been released - to pay the lawyers! While in Santa Fe, I heard that the DOE Cold Fusion Panel which had wanted to visit the labs quickly, had been refused permission to visit Pons's lab at U of U. and they did not want DOE funding. This rather unscientific decision surprised some, but the Deseret News of SLC (Salt Lake City) explains the other point of view. On 28 May there was an article entitled "US Fusion Panel cancels plans to view U research". "The visit scheduled Wednesday, was cancelled after fusion researcher B. Stanley Pons told the panel co-chairman, John Huizenga,... to change the make-up of the "negatively biased" committee or stay out of his U. laboratory." "I have refused to entertain this committee for several reasons" Pons told the Deseret News, "I see this visit as a waste of valuable time, since many of the panel members have already clearly stated their positions. I feel there is very little one can say to a hostile person that will change his mind". .... "It is disappointing that the committee is composed of so many members who have previously stated their very negative position in the press regarding this research" he said. "the most notable of these are Richard Garwin, Steve Koonin, and Mark Wrighton. He said they "have only allowed reputable sincere scientific collaborators into their labs and will continue to do so" "He was very understanding and sensitive to these points; he admitted that my perceptions regarding the composition of the panel were correct: some very open-minded individuals such as ......., some very negatively biased individuals, and no positively biased individuals". "Pons said he proposed a visit could be arranged if the committee would agree to either of the following conditions; dismiss the negatively biassed people or add an equal number of positively biassed individuals". "He recommended adding..............Or Pons or Fleischmann himself". He was notified Friday the committee's visit had been cancelled. A committee member, X, said he is sympathetic to Pons' concerns. "He is certainly taking a lot of flak and I can certainly understand that he would feel this way" "Personally I know the people on the board and they wanted to go there (the U.) to learn. I don't think the other committee members have made up their minds, but there is a lot of scepticism"... "It is still possible that he is right and people do not realise what it takes to make the experiment work" Pons said "The newest results are very strong and indeed confirm and surpass our earlier results. These data and their analysis will be published later this summer in scientific literature. In addition, we are developing collaborations with reputable scientists who will help us with the rapid development of the fundamental aspects of and practical applications of this work". Pons is displeased that the commitee cancelled its visit rather than negotiate with Fleischmann and him. "It appears that the people who would benefit most by this work being discredited, have again taken the initiative to cause us great difficulty" he said."I am pleased to tell you that they might cause us difficulty, but they will not stop the science" X "believes Pons is right on this point". "A recommendation -- pro or con-- by the government committee won't faze private industry" In a related article entitled "U. backs decision", it is written "While the University of Utah would welcome a visit by the Department of Energy's panel on cold fusion, a U. official said Saturday that he respects the decision made B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann not to allow the committee in their lab". "When we were asked if the committee could come, we said 'of course' said James J. Brophy, Vice-president for research. 8. POSSIBLE FUTURE MEETINGS At the end of the Santa Fe Workshop, it was suggested that there should be another workshop sometime, perhaps in the autumn. The basic idea of a workshop is excellent as it succeeds in allowing scientists working in different fields to discuss together instead of having meetings where only certain people are invited (e.g. only those with positive results). Also it allows people who are investing commercially in the field, and there are millions of dollars engaged, to evaluate the practicalities of the subject. Some of the features of the Santa Fe workshop were excellent, others could be modified. Some comments; 1. The workshop should be announced as early as possible and those concerned targetted so that people from all parts of the world can attend. 2. It is not enough that most people get a chance to present their work or ideas it is necessary to avoid that the discussions are so dispersed that no one has any idea what the conclusions might be. Normally this is done by having a series of survey talks on each sub-topic as well as broad topics, early in the workshop which can focus the discussion (often by being a target for the workers in the field). This prevents also undue repetition and sometimes wilder ideas (some people said they had never heard so much bad science at a conference). 3. With 450 people in a room, it is difficult to have a profitable discussion; it is better to have many separate working groups with fewer people. 4. An innovation at the conference was to have badges with a small number on them. It was also hard to write on the glossy surface. It was very effective in convincing people that there is an advantage in having badges with their name and affiliation on them. I realised that of the 450 persons present, that two months ago, there were only three whom I had previously met occasionally, but the subject is so intense and interesting on different levels, that I now feel as if I had known many of them for years. 5. The registration fee of $400 was a surprise to many and jokes were heard that Los Alamos was the first to make money out of Cold Fusion (wrong - the lawyers were first - or someone who played the palladium futures). Normally we arrange that for a sponsored conference, the sponsors contribute and for $400 one has 5 nights accomodation, 5 breakfasts, 5 lunches and 5 dinners plus the conference hall and proceedings. So it was a surprise to find only two lunches and the conference hall plus proceedings were included. On the other hand the conference hall was very big which had the advantage that coffee could be served at the back without disturbing the proceedings and those having a discussion there could still hear the speakers and decide if they wished to return to their seats - small point but good organisation. The library service and the copying service were excellent a great help to the distribution of knowledge in a very fast moving field. So finally the $400 was almost justified even if it probably discouraged some who would otherwise have attended. 9. CONCLUSIONS The conference will clearly be judged a very useful step when the history of Cold Fusion comes to be written. It was the first time that a large proportion of those interested could meet together, electrochemists, chemists, particle physicists, nuclear physicists, material scientists, venture capitalists, power organisations, government officials and the DOE panel, etc. Nothing too dramatic happened. But many people may have gotten a first taste of evidence and opinions that they had not been exposed to before and this can only be valuable in the long term. Finally society must make a judgement on this subject that has excited such great interest and raised such wonderful hopes. Although most, though not all, workers in the field realise that cold fusion will never be of any practical use for power production, this is still not the popular perception of it. Most people still hope that maybe something will come of it. There seems to be a tendancy amongst some to let the bad news leak out slowly. This is often good politics and PR, but not all scientists feel this way - they want to avoid people getting into false positions because of lack of knowledge of the facts. There is a second question which is of purely academic interest - does there exist cold fusion at some very low level (a billionth or a trillionth or a billion-billionth of a Watt). Clearly the Fleischmann and Pons level is excluded by the data, but some hope it might occur at the BYU level, but again there are good experiments which find no counts at much lower levels. So one cannot avoid asking the difficult question of whether all the positive results are mistaken. Scientists do not want this to be correct, but can one exclude it? The consequence will be that for many we are not yet in phase 3 and the debate and experiments will continue for some time more. Douglas R. O. Morrison. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / Doug Roberts / Re: How about heat generation? Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: How about heat generation? Date: 9 Jun 89 19:09:34 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <1615@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) writes: > > In article <7160001@hpcuhc.HP.COM> edwardm@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) writes: > > > >In fact, a heat source which provides 0.5 watts of heat for 1.00 watts of > >electricity would be better than the current means of heating. > > > > What does YOUR home do with the other 0.5 watts? > > dale bass > > I wondered about that myself. The last time I looked a resistance electric heater was about as close to 100% efficient as you can get: eff. = watts in/watts out. --Doug -- =============================================================== Douglas Roberts | Los Alamos National Laboratory |You can get more with a kind Box 1663, MS F-602 |word and a gun Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 |then you can with a kind word. (505)667-4569 | dzzr@lanl.gov | =============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / John Logajan / Reminder: post to sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Reminder: post to sci.physics.fusion Date: 9 Jun 89 19:25:55 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN PLEASE POST TO sci.physics.fusion instead (or at least in addition to) of posting to alt.fusion! I would hazard to guess that the sci. subnet has greater connectivity than the alt subnet. Thanks. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / David Gudeman / Missing gammas Originally-From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Missing gammas Date: 9 Jun 89 21:17:54 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson I've seen several comments of the form "If you don't see gammas you aren't getting fusion.". I'd like to know why people are ruling out quantum effects. What I mean is that suppose the environment of the palladium lattice creates several quantum stages in the fusion of two nuclei. Or suppose that the quantum states exist outside of the lattice but they are not observed in high-energy collisions. In analogy to the quantum states of electron orbitals, there might be a spectrum of radiation emitted by fusion in a palladium lattice, so high-energy gammas are only produced in the case when a two-nucleus system moves from highest energy to lowest energy in one transition. Any physicists care to comment? -- David Gudeman Department of Computer Science The University of Arizona gudeman@arizona.edu Tucson, AZ 85721 {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,noao}!arizona!gudeman cudkeys: cuddy9 cudengudeman cudfnDavid cudlnGudeman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / John Logajan / Who doesn't get sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Who doesn't get sci.physics.fusion Date: 9 Jun 89 21:23:09 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN I just got a response to my last note about posting to sci.physics.fusion instead of alt.fusion -- the writer said that they do not receive sci.physics.fusion. If you get some or all of the sci. groups, but do not get sci.physics.fusion, please request that your news administrator install it. It a simple procedure -- the administrator merely has to type: inews -d local -C sci.physics.fusion Also, if the /usr/lib/news/sys file specifically calls out individual newsgroups (i.e. sci.electronics) instead of just the general category (i.e. sci) then the administrator will also have to add the name there and request the neighbor feed site to do likewise. Typical sys lines look like comp,sci,rec... and so need no special changes to get the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. You also might try reading the "junk" newsgroup until s.p.f gets installed on your system. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / William Johnson / Negative results and "useful" experiments <> Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Negative results and "useful" experiments <> Date: 9 Jun 89 20:05:59 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory In article <11478@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: > In article <8906071716.AA17210@cernvax.uucp> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: > >...Bockris said that first the > >experiment must show that it can find excess heat and then its futher > >measurements can be believed - this comment rather surprised many people. > > You mean it surprised people because it is so painfully obvious? > Surely no one would suggest that negative measurements of fusion > products on a P&F cell mean something if there are are no excess heat > measurements on the cell. It is apparent that many cells do _not_ > show the P&F effect and if you aren't getting excess heat, then the > effect is not occurring, and any other measurements are useless. Earlier today I wrote a lengthy response to this pointing out that this line of reasoning is invalid, given that one wants to determine the conditions under which fusion occurs. I would like, however, to add the following, not-so-polite note to that discussion. That response was intended to be factual in nature; as for this one, FLAME ON. You have been warned. There is another *very* important hypothesis that can be tested by any experiment that adequately reproduces the described FPH setup, namely: FPH screwed up. This hypothesis fits any number of facts. It is supported -- not proven, just supported -- by FPH's apparent unwillingness to cooperate with any but a few "favorite" people; by their admission of having done faulty nuclear diagnostics; and by the near-universal failure of the many attempts that are being made to support their claims, whether calorimetrically or through nuclear means. (And, of course, the hypothesis is damaged -- not refuted, just damaged -- by the few experiments that do claim to be seeing excess heat or reaction products.) Any experiment that approximates the FPH setups sufficiently well, while obtaining a negative result, supports this hypothesis. The strength of the support is proportional to the quality of the experiment. It is *not* dependent upon claims of "excess heat" from the cells, any more than it requires that the experimenters live in the state of Utah. Bockris, understandably, does not want to see this hypothesis confirmed. Well, on a visceral level, most people don't; I certainly don't. But like it or not, the experiments that fail to find reaction products, like those that fail to find evidence of excess heat, *do* support the hypothesis, and neither Bockris nor anyone else -- the author of the cited posting included -- can evade the implications of a carefully-done negative experiment simply by proclaiming it irrelevant. Please learn more about what's going on, both in terms of methodology and in how it must be applied to the relevant questions, before saying anything as silly as you have above. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / Vaso Bovan / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 9 Jun 89 22:58:02 GMT Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA In article <421@sdcc15.ucsd.edu> pa2533@sdcc15.UUCP () writes: >What I am very, VERY concerned >about in the US is the waste of energy. And lack of environ- >mental thinking. > >I am looking forward to response. To be able to show >Europeans a forward-looking America. It seems to me the problem is primarily economic. American energy users are shielded from the "true" cost of energy (and pollution). If gasoline cost $3 to $4 as in most of the world, and if garbage disposal costs were included in the price of products, and if potable water was ten times its current cost, our environmental problems would decrease dramatically. Market forces are generally more successful than laws and regulations. Europe has no monopoly on "environmental thinking". There are few North American waterways as polluted as parts of the Baltic and the Mediterranian seas. Neither is Europe's softheaded Green Movement much of an environmental improvement. These hysterical people have essentially blocked nuclear power in favor of the much more polluting fossil fuel power plants. (America has its own share of crackpot Greens). re: criticism of America/Americans, if you'd stayed in the U.S. a little longer you would have found that few nations are as adept at self-criticism. The unfortunate corollary is that Americans do not understand nor appreciate criticism from "foreigners." Such criticism is best offered in more tactful terms than the one's you've used. -Vaso Bovan (Canadian and British citizen who learned the hard way) cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenvaso cudfnVaso cudlnBovan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / Anand Iyengar / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 9 Jun 89 23:05:19 GMT Organization: The Lab Rats In article <421@sdcc15.ucsd.edu> pa2533@sdcc15.UUCP () writes: >of them asked, whether it works or not. The few people, who >ask "Do we want it or not ?" seem to be overheard. >and I will go back very soon. What I am very, VERY concerned >about in the US is the waste of energy. And lack of environ- >mental thinking. >What do you say to the following: >If fusion works, then more energy is available, >more energy will be used (our society of consumption), >any kind of energy use leads to irreversibel changes in nature > this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics !!! >more industry, more roads, more cars, more pollution, ... > >Fusion is definitely better than fission. But a unlimited >source of energy is even worse. >At least as long as PEOPLE cannot handle it. >And just look around in our world today, and you will >see: People cannot handle it today. Maybe next century. >So I think, researchers should be more careful in praising >a new technology. Think about what Friedrich Duerrenmatt wrote >in his book "The Physicists". An interesting point, but I'm not sure that such an energy source is all that bad. Many of the problems related with energy today stem from unclean/hazardous methods of production. The big problem with cars is not so much the heat they create (which is a still a problem), but the pollution they produce (not just nasty/noxious gasses released into the atmosphere, but excess amounts of CO2). Nuke-reactors (and just about anything else that produces energy (solar cells not barred -- the stuff used-in/resulting-from their production is pretty bad)) have similar problems, in varying degrees. The thought of cheap energy isn't scary: going on the way we are now is. Anand. P.S. I was tempted to direct follow-ups to sci.environment, but all too often, such issues are *not* discussed and a dose of reality won't hurt. -- "Surely you're not happy: you no longer play the game." {arpa | bit}net: anand@vax1.acs.udel.edu iyengar@eniac.seas.upenn.edu uucp: !$ | uunet --- Lbh guvax znlor vg'yy ybbx orggre ebg-guvegrrarq? --- cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenanand cudfnAnand cudlnIyengar cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.09 / Dave Mack / Re: 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 'some work, some don't' Date: 9 Jun 89 22:17:41 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <161@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >In article <3663@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >]The TAMU measurement looked for tritium in the electrolyte and helium >]in the cathode. They found lots of tritium and no helium to within >]the limits of experimental error. >] >]Possible explanations: >] >]1) The tritium is being generated in the electrolyte, not in the electrode. >] >]2) The heavy water was contaminated with tritium after the reference >] measurement was made. >] >]3) The cathode was already impregnated with tritium. >] >]4) The tritium measurement was incorrect. (Does a scintillation gel >] react only to tritium or will it react to any beta emitter?) >] >]5) Helium was present in the cathode but wasn't found due to procedural >] error. >] >]6) He-3 diffuses out of Pd much more rapidly than expected. >] > >7) The He concentration was too low to measure due to: > The half life of 3H is 12.26 years. Not much tritium would decay to > produce He in the 1 or 2 days from experiment to measurement. In > fact you would get about 4x10E-4 as much He as 3H. Quite possible. I'd forgotten that they'd only run these cells for a few hours each at high power (512 mA/cm**2 ?). The Wolf group at TAMU found ~10**6 dpm/ml with LANL and GM confirming. If the tritium was being generated in the cathode via D + D --> T + p, one would expect the concentration in the electrode to be at least as high as in the electrolyte, and probably much higher (I assume that T has a lower mobility in Pd than D does), at least while the current remained on. If so, we can assume at least 10**6 He-3/min/cm**3 of electrode material. So we would expect to see a He-3 concentration of ~ 10**9/cm**3 after 17 hours of operation, minus whatever diffused into the electrolyte. If I remember correctly, Wolf claimed abundances of < 1.2E9 He atoms in 8 - 14 mg samples. After 8 hours of operation, one would expect a maximum of about 5E8 He-3/cm**3 of Pd, or about 4.5E6 He-3 total in each sample. This implies that He-3 should be easily detectable in the cathode after a run of a week or so in 1 cc (12 gm) samples, unless it diffuses out of the Pd much more quickly than expected. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.10 / Mike Pelt / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 10 Jun 89 02:57:54 GMT Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA In article <421@sdcc15.ucsd.edu> pa2533@sdcc15.UUCP () writes: >There were so many news on fusion in the last weeks. But most of them >asked, whether it works or not. The few people, who ask "Do we want it >or not ?" seem to be overheard. ... What I am very, VERY concerned >about in the US is the waste of energy. And lack of environmental >thinking. What do you say to the following: If fusion works, then >more energy is available, more energy will be used (our society of >consumption), any kind of energy use leads to irreversibel changes in >nature this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics !!! more industry, more >roads, more cars, more pollution, ... This issue has been addressed on alt.fusion before. Essentially, it comes down to those who believe that technological civilization is a bad thing, and those who believe that it is a good thing. Stated so baldly, few people will admit to opposing technolgical civilization. But that is certainly the essence of much of the anti-technology sentiment I've seen in the U.S., and from all accounts, the Green Party position in Europe is far more extreme. To maintain any kind of technological civilization at all, some source of energy is necessary. Wouldn't you prefer that the source used be less polluting? Less polluting that fossil fuels? Certainly there are, at this time, more questions than answers about cold fusion. But the tendency of some people to instantly jump in, sight unseen, to denounce it as something that should not be developed at all is, to say the least, chilling. >Fusion is definitely better than fission. But a unlimited source of >energy is even worse. At least as long as PEOPLE cannot handle it. >And just look around in our world today, and you will see: People >cannot handle it today. Maybe next century. And here we get down to the basics -- ALL energy is evil. Cold fusion is to be opposed because it might really turn out to be cheap, clean, abundant energy. What gives you or anyone else the right to decide what I or anyone else can handle? Maybe you like the idea of some kind of Ecological Police doling out what technology has been determined to be Politically Correct, if any, but that sounds to me like nothing less than fascism. >I am looking forward to response. To be able to show Europeans a >forward-looking America. Tell me about the Black Forest... -- Mike Van Pelt Headland Technology/Video 7 ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp There are no perfect power sources. There is no such thing as 100% perfect safety. There is no such thing as zero environmental impact short of the entire human race committing mass suicide. cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.10 / Stan Friesen / Re: 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 'some work, some don't' Date: 10 Jun 89 00:31:42 GMT Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA In article <3660@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >The failure of groups with working cells to find He (3 or 4) is by far >the most disturbing thing about the CNF experiments. There is simply >no way to avoid finding it if fusion is actually occurring. There should >at least be traces of He-3 due to tritium decay. > This is based on an *assumption*, namely that there is no way, in reality as opposed to theory, to bias the reaction to tritium. It is, after all, possible that current theory of nuclear reactions is incomplete. And the last statement is specious. If there is tritium, from *any* source, it will be undergoing decay, so the argument is flawed. Since the tritium measurements seem to be solid, this must mean that the time frame is too small for measurable decay to He-3 to occur. This is true regardless of what is actually happening (even if it is enrichment). -- Sarima Cardolandion sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM aka Stanley Friesen rutgers!marque!gryphon!sarima Sherman Oaks, CA cudkeys: cuddy10 cudensarima cudfnStan cudlnFriesen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.08 / Bob Headrick / Re: How about heat generation? Originally-From: bobh@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Bob Headrick) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: How about heat generation? Date: 8 Jun 89 17:32:53 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino >> Wouldn't a heat source which provides >> 1.01 watts of heat for 1.00 watts of electicity be better than the current >> means of heating? > >In fact, a heat source which provides 0.5 watts of heat for 1.00 watts of >electricity would be better than the current means of heating. >---------- Actually thats backwards; its easy to get ~1.0 watts of heat out for 1 watt of electricity in. The difficulty would be to get .5W or more electricity out for 1W of heat input. Bob Headrick cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenbobh cudfnBob cudlnHeadrick cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.10 / Dave Mack / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 10 Jun 89 18:21:56 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <169@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >In article <8906071716.AA17210@cernvax.uucp> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: >] 4.2 TRITIUM >]as one does not know in what time the tritium was produced, so the rate could >]vary between 1 E-3 to 1 E-8 Watts per cm3 of Pd. This is both a very low rate >]compared with the Watts reported by Fleischmann and Pons and is a very high > >Could you post your calculations for the power rate? I get much higher >values using the disintegration rates. Likewise. For reference: dn/dt = 1.E6 dpm/ml --> n = (tritium-halflife)*(dn/dt)/.693 = 9E12 triton/ml if V = 10 ml --> N ~ 1.E14 tritons if tritium generation was constant over eight hours at high current density, dN/dt = 3.5E9 triton/sec --> 1.4E10 MeV/sec ( 4.03 MeV per T) dE/dt = 2.24E-3 W (total power) For a Pd wire 10 cm long and .1 cm diameter, V = .0785 cm**3 so power/cm**3 of Pd = .028 W/cm**3. This is far below the level F&P claimed, but still not bad for a 4-inch piece of wire. >] Finally society must make a judgement on this subject that has excited >]such great interest and raised such wonderful hopes. Although most, though >]not all, workers in the field realise that cold fusion will never be of any >]practical use for power production, this is still not the popular >]perception of it. Most people still hope that maybe something will come of it. > >I must sadly agree with this position. This is a little like looking at the Wright brothers' airplane at Kitty Hawk and saying that powered flight will never be practical for transporting people and freight. Until we have a clear theoretical understanding of what is happening, any assessment of the commercial possibilities of cold fusion is premature. > While there are many positive results >to be explained, the lack of fusion products means that it is unlikely >that an energy source has been found. However, I suspect that the F&P heat >effect is likely to be real and may turn out to be scientifically interesting. "lack of fusion products"? What's tritium, chopped liver? (I admit, I'd feel a bit more comfortable about this if they were seeing some gammas, or at least x-rays.) -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy10 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.11 / / Novice question about surface effect. Originally-From: phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Novice question about surface effect. Date: 11 Jun 89 15:16:30 GMT Organization: What organization? Hi - a novice question from somebody who has been following this for a while but missed a bunch in the middle... Way back when, a lot of people were discussing whether this was a surface or volume effect. Has anybody tried high-surface, low-volume experiments, using Pd in such relatively odd shapes as twisted strips? This would produce a lot of surface area with relatively small volume. If this wouldn't be useful, I'd like to know why (I haven't studied physics in years... I was a physics major once, but switched to Studio Art and Computer Science.) - R'ykandar. -- | "Signature V1.2.1.2..." | phoenix@ms.uky.edu | phoenix@ukma.bitnet | | "Got enough addresses, bub?" | CIS 72406,370 | PLink: Skywise | | "Alms! Alms! Laser printers for the poor!" | QLink: Bearclaw | cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenphoenix cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.11 / Robin LaPasha / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: ruslan@ecsvax.UUCP (Robin C. LaPasha) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 11 Jun 89 15:49:34 GMT Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service In article <421@sdcc15.ucsd.edu>, pa2533@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (pa2533) writes: > I am a physicist from Europe. I am here as a research scholar > and I will go back very soon. What I am very, VERY concerned > about in the US is the waste of energy. And lack of environ- > mental thinking. Me too. I have no sympathy with folks who bandy labels about ("eco-nut" and the like) condemning those concerned about the world environment. The attempt to disparagingly dismiss an attitude rather than an argument paralyzes discussion. > What do you say to the following: > If fusion works, > then more energy is available, > more energy will be used (our society of consumption), Sounds reasonable. Notice that somewhere (probably in "fusion works") you're assuming that it's economical to produce. > any kind of energy use leads to irreversibel changes in nature > this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics !!! I'm not a physicist so I'm cautious about doubting this. However, is the point that whatever energy is used will turn to heat and that global warming will occur? Supplies from nature will be consumed? Be more specific, please. > more industry, more roads, more cars, more pollution, ... > We are increasing in world population, so "industry" must increase to serve the increased needs. I have a gripe at this point - you are assuming that if more energy is available, it will lead to more of the same in terms of uses. But - the now-experimental "alternative" energy uses may become feasible and preferable if other sources become available. To use a hackneyed example or two - electric cars are more expensive (and more trouble) to run than combustibles, but with lots of electricity available that could change. And they would be less polluting if their energy is from a "clean" source. Maybe with more power available, there could be better filtration of pollutants (i.e. scrubbers for air or water) and less need for industry to use polluting energy sources. My point is that we can choose how to use energy; perhaps with more cheap energy, enough pressure can be applied to convince industries to switch over to the clean forms (economic motivations are always easiest.) > Fusion is definitely better than fission. But a unlimited > source of energy is even worse. I _do_ hope that fusion turns out better; fission as done in US power plants is not a reassuring scenario, in my own opinion. It will be interesting to see whether the elusive neutrons are eventually detected in the F-P type experiments, and in what amounts. (We may not have any better solutions for disposal of neutron-bombarded shielding of fusion reactors than we've had for any other radioactive waste.) However, I don't see unlimited energy as bad in and of itself (which is why I'd like to implement better [decentralized, home-scale] solar collection devices. Hey, I'd like to stop paying power bills...) I see the more important issues as - can we get the raw materials (palladium etc.), are they scarce/expensive, and is the production really clean (and if not, what are the tradeoffs compared to what we're doing now?) > At least as long as PEOPLE cannot handle it. > And just look around in our world today, and you will > see: People cannot handle it today. Maybe next century. > So I think, researchers should be more careful in praising > a new technology. Think about what Friedrich Duerrenmatt wrote > in his book "The Physicists". I must admit I haven't read Duerrenmatt. Still, if it espouses the opinion that we shouldn't invent anything because we can't "handle" what we've already made, I don't think I'd enjoy it... If "PEOPLE" are not to be trusted with energy, with the decisions on its use, what are we to do? Or more to the point, WHO is to withhold unlimited energy? An elite class of self-appointed decision-makers? Government? (_I_ don't consider any government capable of making any decision except those which preserve the status quo.) Industry? (Multinationals or mere corporations, their interests seem to be short-term profits, without consideration for PEOPLE or the environment.) Who then, if not PEOPLE? I don't have such a low opinion of human individuals or groups that I think we're incapable of deciding our own destiny. Do you? > > I am looking forward to response. To be able to show > Europeans a forward-looking America. Well, I don't ask to _show_, merely to _try_ for better than what we have now, without hindrance by those who would not trust me as one of the PEOPLE. In order to better discuss this broader issue - the future of energy and who should be involved - can you suggest a more appropriate forum? (This site doesn't get alt.groups, or soc.groups, though the topic doesn't seem sci.* based... I'm not sure I can redirect followups in this news version anyway...) -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=- Robin LaPasha |Deep-Six your ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu |files with VI! ;^) ;^) ;^) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenruslan cudfnRobin cudlnLaPasha cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.11 / Chris Phoenix / Re: heat pumps... Originally-From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: heat pumps... Date: 11 Jun 89 17:01:16 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. In article <2015@wasatch.utah.edu> jacobs%cmos.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: >... The previous statements >about heat pumps simply mean that one watt of electricity, when used to >drive the motor/compressor of a heat pump, can effect the transfer of _more_ >that one watt of heat from a cold place to a warm place. ... Is it valid to express it this way? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the heat pump can transfer enough energy to the warm place that it warms it up more than dumping one watt of energy in would? It seems like your "one watt of heat" is very dependent on the temperature difference and absolute temperature. I'm not quite sure how to read it, but I don't think it says what it should. How would you express something like this? -- Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!" cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate. Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student! cudkeys: cuddy11 cudencphoenix cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.11 / Steven Jacobs / Re: heat pumps... (and analysis of Pd rods) Originally-From: jacobs%cmos.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: heat pumps... (and analysis of Pd rods) Date: 11 Jun 89 18:43:59 GMT Organization: University of Utah CS Dept In article <9374@csli.Stanford.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >In article <2015@wasatch.utah.edu> jacobs%cmos.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: >>... The previous statements >>about heat pumps simply mean that one watt of electricity, when used to >>drive the motor/compressor of a heat pump, can effect the transfer of _more_ >>that one watt of heat from a cold place to a warm place. ... ^^^^ should have been "than" > >Is it valid to express it this way? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say >that the heat pump can transfer enough energy to the warm place that it >warms it up more than dumping one watt of energy in would? You're right, I'm using power where I should be using energy. Let me rephrase that. "The previous statements about heat pumps simply mean that one joule of electrical energy, when used to drive the motor/compressor of a heat pump, can effect the transfer of _more_ than one joule of heat energy from a cold place to a warm place. " ------------ Now for a fusion tidbit, just so this will fit in better with alt.fusion. (This is from memory, so it may be a bit hazy) Pons was interviewed a few days ago on the local news, and said that they had received a report on the analysis of one of the fusion rods. He said they had found something interesting near the _surface_ of the rods. He wouldn't say exactly what they found, but my best guess would be tritium. This also seems to imply a surface effect, rather than a volume effect, as has been deduced by others in this forum. Steve Jacobs ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenedu cudfnSteven cudlnJacobs cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.08 / Scott Mueller / D/Pd loading Originally-From: scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: D/Pd loading Date: 8 Jun 89 09:25:00 GMT Organization: Zorch Public-Access Unix; San Jose, CA Please can someone looking at this digest, and who is doing some work on the cold fusion experimentally, tell me how everyone is determining the D/Pd ratio being achieved in their experiments. We have been trying to do this in our system by looking at the cell response when the electrolysis is turned off, but maybe there is some special techinique people are using to determine precisely what the loading is... I am keen to know. [Please reply to the Reply-To: address, demo@phga.york.ac.uk - \scott] -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 298-6213 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.11 / Dave Mack / Re: Negative results and "useful" experiments <> Originally-From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Negative results and "useful" experiments <> Date: 11 Jun 89 20:31:33 GMT Organization: Alembic Computer Services, McLean, VA In article <25966@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >In article <11478@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >> In article <8906071716.AA17210@cernvax.uucp> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: >> >...Bockris said that first the >> >experiment must show that it can find excess heat and then its futher >> >measurements can be believed - this comment rather surprised many people. >> >> You mean it surprised people because it is so painfully obvious? >> Surely no one would suggest that negative measurements of fusion >> products on a P&F cell mean something if there are are no excess heat >> measurements on the cell. It is apparent that many cells do _not_ >> show the P&F effect and if you aren't getting excess heat, then the >> effect is not occurring, and any other measurements are useless. > >Earlier today I wrote a lengthy response to this pointing out that this >line of reasoning is invalid, given that one wants to determine the >conditions under which fusion occurs. I would like, however, to add the >following, not-so-polite note to that discussion. That response was intended >to be factual in nature; as for this one, FLAME ON. You have been warned. The line of reasoning you quote above is not "invalid". It is the result of decomposing the problem differently than you've done. Consider your own analysis in your other response: An effect has been observed by F&P - excess heat production in an electrolytic cell of such-and-such a description. Hypothesis: this excess heat is the result of D + D fusion. This hypothesis can be tested by searching for the byproducts of nuclear reactions - helium, tritium, neutrons, gammas. F&P did this, albeit badly. However, testing the hypothesis is futile unless the effect which the hypothesis is intended to explain - excess heat - has been observed previously. There is no reason to expect a cell which produces no excess heat to produce any nuclear byproducts, any more than you'd expect them from a glass of orange juice. You are confusing the separate problems of reproducing the F&P Effect and validating the fusion hypothesis. You are treating fusion as the observed effect and excess heat, gammas, neutrons, etc. as the experimental evidence of the effect. Of course, F&P have done exactly the same thing, apparently. They began to attempt to validate the fusion hypothesis before they understood the parameters required to reproduce the effect. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy11 cudencsu cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.12 / Timothy Freeman / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: tsf@PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 12 Jun 89 02:27:24 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI >In article <421@sdcc15.ucsd.edu>, pa2533@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (pa2533) writes: >> any kind of energy use leads to irreversibel changes in nature >> this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics !!! This is bogus. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The smallest system that is nearly closed that includes me is the solar system. The irreversible changes in nature due to the Sun shining into space are far far greater than anything I can forsee man doing in the next few decades. -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo.css.gov!cs.cmu.edu!tsf -- cudkeys: cuddy12 cudentsf cudfnTimothy cudlnFreeman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.12 / David Gudeman / Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Originally-From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion Date: 12 Jun 89 01:42:21 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson In article <25950@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >In article <11478@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >> In article <8906071716.AA17210@cernvax.uucp> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes: >> >...Bockris said that first the >> >experiment must show that it can find excess heat and then its futher >> >measurements can be believed - this comment rather surprised many people. >> >> You mean it surprised people because it is so painfully obvious? >> Surely no one would suggest that negative measurements of fusion >> products on a P&F cell mean something if there are are no excess heat >> measurements on the cell. It is apparent that many cells do _not_ >> show the P&F effect and if you aren't getting excess heat, then the >> effect is not occurring, and any other measurements are useless. > >WRONG. Totally wrong. And I would *certainly* suggest that "negative >measurements of fusion products ..." are still useful, for a host of >reasons. I'm afraid you missed my point entirely. [taken out of order] >The danger that must be avoided -- and too many of the experimenters >are failing to avoid it -- is that negative experiments will lead >blindly to the conclusion that no nuclear reactions in electrochemical >cells are occurring under *any* circumstances. This conclusion may be >correct; it may not. The data are inconclusive at this point. Some >experimenters, however, are arrogantly reaching this conclusion from >a combination of their own biases and a set of negative experiments >that are large but not all-inclusive. Bockris is right (IMHO) to be >incensed by these experimenters, but he overstates it somewhat by >asserting that the negative experiments are "worthless". [I don't know whether Bockris used the word "worthless" or not. I would hate to have my words put in his mouth.] That paragraph expresses my point (probably better than I expressed it). I guess the word "useless" was too strong, I should have said that such negative experiments do not lead the the conclusion that "no nuclear reactions in electrochemical cells are occurring [at F&P levels] in *any* circumstances." I included the [at F&P levels] since that seems to be the only thing that is _really_ controversial. My reply was to an author who seemed to be making such a conclusion and should have been read in that light. [now, off the subject...] >Let me start with a -- necessarily oversimplified -- reminder of what >constitutes scientific method: > 1) Observe a phenomenon. > 2) Formulate a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. > 3) Devise and perform experiments designed to test the hypothesis. > 4) Iterate on 1-3 until the "hypotheses" are replaced by a "theory," > that is, a statement of physical principles that has predictive > power. I (speaking as someone outside the field) think this series of steps is outdated, at least in physics. A better series would be 1) Observe a phenomenon 2) Formulate a model that predicts the phenomenon 3a)Make predictions based on the model 3b)Formulate experiements to test the predictions 4) Iterate, refining the model until it no longer works and a new model is needed. The point of the change to (2) is that too many physicists come to think of their mathematical models as "truth", rather than the artificial and incomplete structure that they really are. The change to (3) was just for more accuracy, I expect that that was what you intended. The change to (4) is the most important, since it codifies the observation no perfect, comprehensive model will ever be formulated. I expect that some physicists talk this way, I'm not offering anything new, but I don't think the idea is as pervasive as it should be. Physicists might be able to gain some insight from the study of the semantics of programming languages*, where we make a rigorous distinction between the representation (the "syntax") and thing being represented (the "model"). We also make a distinction between the transitions that occur in computation (the "implementation") and the mathematical results that the computation is meant to emulate (the "semantics"). We define a function from the syntax to the model, called the "meaning" function. The job of a physicist might be described as "designing a semantic model of the real world, where the real world is a syntax, and events in the real world are transitions". If some evidence appears which seems to contradict the current model, maybe physicists should ask themselves whether when the model was constructed, did the experiments really take into acount that set of conditions? In the case of the F&P results, it seemed that too many people were saying "that can't be true because current theory says...". I would ask "Did the experiments on which the current theories are based really give any information about nuclear interactions in low-temperature, high-density environments?" * Computer scientists sometimes take insights in this way from physics. For example there are several places where we use the concepts of work, potential energy, and the first law of thermodynamics to handle things that work similarly in math and programming. Also, the concept of "frames of reference" has been useful to me in complex programming applications. -- David Gudeman Department of Computer Science The University of Arizona gudeman@arizona.edu Tucson, AZ 85721 {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,noao}!arizona!gudeman cudkeys: cuddy12 cudengudeman cudfnDavid cudlnGudeman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.12 / Michael McClary / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 12 Jun 89 08:22:03 GMT Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA In article <421@sdcc15.ucsd.edu>, pa2533@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (pa2533) has stated the entire totalitarianism-by-environmentalism meme in a single package, and turned it against fusion. What is most annoying about this posting is that someone genuinely concerned with the environment should be SUPPORTING fusion development, not trying to suppress it. > any kind of energy use leads to irreversibel changes in nature > this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics !!! Only if you're talking about a closed system. Is the poster accepting the Club of Rome's bogus assertion that the Earth is a closed system? Or Rifkin's bogus assertion that entropy in matter and energy are separate? Or is he just worried that a little fusion on Earth will pollute the entire universe? > more industry, more roads, more cars, more pollution, ... No, LESS pollution. > Fusion is definitely better than fission. But a unlimited > source of energy is even worse. Garbage. Given unlimited cheap energy, you can use it to do things in cleaner ways, and clean up things that have already been done in dirty ways. You can make more stuff, and damage the environment less, at the same time. This is called "better". > At least as long as PEOPLE cannot handle it. > And just look around in our world today, and you will > see: People cannot handle it today. Maybe next century. > So I think, researchers should be more careful in praising > a new technology. Think about what Friedrich Duerrenmatt wrote > in his book "The Physicists". Aha! Elitism, and the exposure of the hidden agenda. ~The people can't handle it. Those who are smarter must keep this dangerous thing out of their hands.~ Is the poster volunteering himself for this service? cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnMcClary cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.12 / John Robinson / Re: How about heat generation? Originally-From: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: How about heat generation? Date: 12 Jun 89 16:43:37 GMT Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge MA In article , roberts@studguppy (Doug Roberts) writes: >In article <1615@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> crb7q@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (bass cameron randale) writes: >> In article <7160001@hpcuhc.HP.COM> edwardm@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) writes: >> >In fact, a heat source which provides 0.5 watts of heat for 1.00 watts of >> >electricity would be better than the current means of heating. >> > >> What does YOUR home do with the other 0.5 watts? >> >I wondered about that myself. The last time I looked a resistance >electric heater was about as close to 100% efficient as you can >get: eff. = watts in/watts out. Also, you have to look at the entire circuit the electricity travels. Wholesale conversion to electric heat using electricity generated elsewhere leads to more current in the electric grid and (asuming no improvements in transmission technology) more outdoor heating. Not enough to affect the greenhouse calculation, but it may have an effect on the efficiency computation. If you generate your own heat or electricity in your basement FPH cell, however, you capture most of the transmission losses as heat. I was surprised by the comment about the lack of heat pumps in Rochecter NY. They seem to be pretty popular here in the Boston area. Maybe it is more in the cost recovery calculation. Heat pumps are also more attractiuve if you are installing central air conditioning at the same time - you get to run the heat pump either way. Boston may need more a/c than Rochester. Then again, it could just be how effective the sales force. -- /jr, nee John Robinson What a waste it is to lose one's mind--or not jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr to have a mind. How true that is. -Dan Quayle cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenjr cudfnJohn cudlnRobinson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.12 / John Logajan / Re: Who doesn't get sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Who doesn't get sci.physics.fusion Date: 12 Jun 89 16:50:29 GMT Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN In article <41205@bbn.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > In article <1441@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: > }You also might try reading the "junk" newsgroup until s.p.f gets > }installed on your system. > > Some 'junk' newsgroup: we get pilloried as being a pit and the world is > waiting for the sci. version where the REAL folk can do their posting.... No wait! There really is a "junk" newsgroup ... I didn't mean alt.fusion, I meant junk, spelled J U N K. Honest! -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org - cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.12 / W Davidsen / Re: Who doesn't get sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (William Davidsen) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: Who doesn't get sci.physics.fusion Date: 12 Jun 89 17:18:46 GMT Organization: General Electric Corp. R&D, Schenectady, NY In article <1441@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: | If you get some or all of the sci. groups, but do not get | sci.physics.fusion, please request that your news administrator | install it. | | It a simple procedure -- the administrator merely has to type: | | inews -d local -C sci.physics.fusion I think you're missing the point... people not only want the group to exist but that it should be getting articles. I think alt.fusion better stay around until distribution improves, and possibly after that as a place to discuss the non-technical aspects of the subject, to avoid flame wars. bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me cudkeys: cuddy12 cudendavidsen cudfnWilliam cudlnDavidsen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.12 / Jigsaw / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: ded@kossy.jhuapl.edu (Jigsaw) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 12 Jun 89 17:08:23 GMT Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory >>more energy will be used (our society of consumption), >>any kind of energy use leads to irreversibel changes in nature >> this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics !!! >>more industry, more roads, more cars, more pollution, ... >> >>Fusion is definitely better than fission. But a unlimited >>source of energy is even worse. An unlimited source of energy would be worse if we just dumped a bunch of heat into the atmosphere, but with unlimited energy I'm sure we could come up with some scheme to beam the excess heat into space. Unlimited energy would make many things possible. And faced with melting ice caps, we might even have the political will to do them. me cudkeys: cuddy12 cudended cudlnJigsaw cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.13 / Joe Smith / Re: Who doesn't get sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Who doesn't get sci.physics.fusion Date: 13 Jun 89 03:18:22 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas Field Service Co, San Jose CA In article <41205@bbn.COM> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: >In article <1441@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: }}I just got a response to my last note about posting to sci.physics.fusion }}instead of alt.fusion .... }} }}You also might try reading the "junk" newsgroup until s.p.f gets }}installed on your system. } }Some 'junk' newsgroup: we get pilloried as being a pit and the world is waiting }for the sci. version where the REAL folk can do their posting.... and so }one of the first threads on the sci. is worrying about whether mankind }is ready for unlimited energy while those of us who haven't 'U'ed the }ghetto-group are still working on threads that look like real nuclear }physics..... go figure... } } /Bernie\ John's response was: >No wait! There really is a "junk" newsgroup ... >I didn't mean alt.fusion, I meant junk, spelled J U N K. In case John's response is still not clear, I add the following: 1) Whenever an article arrives, the rnews programs checks the file /usr/lib/news/active to see if its newsgroup is valid on your system. 2) If the article is posted to "sci.physics.fusion" and your system admin has not made sci.physics.fusion a valid newsgroup on your machine, then rnews/inews puts the article in a newsgroup called "junk". 3) Subscribe to the newsgroup "junk" and look for articles there. (The actual file names may be different on your system, etc etc etc) -- Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: JMS@F74.TYMNET.COM or jms@tymix.tymnet.com McDonnell Douglas FSCO | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms PO Box 49019, MS-D21 | PDP-10 support: My car's license plate is "POPJ P," San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!" cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjms cudfnJoe cudlnSmith cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.13 / Tim Priddy / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: tpriddy@homrun.intel.com (Tim Priddy ~) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 13 Jun 89 04:06:02 GMT Organization: INTeL Santa Clara Microcomputer Division In article <5189@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, tsf@PROOF (Timothy Freeman) writes: >>In article <421@sdcc15.ucsd.edu>, pa2533@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (pa2533) writes: >>> any kind of energy use leads to irreversibel changes in nature >>> this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics !!! >This is bogus. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed >systems. The smallest system that is nearly closed that includes me >is the solar system. The original poster has a point. While the earth`s atmosphere does not make for a closed system, there is a delta between what the atmosphere lets in and lets out (closed from the perspective that we can input energy, but not eliminate it). Non solar energy, fission and fusion, represent little threat compared to the growing affect of the atmoshpere. We have the two problems of the green house effect (less out) and the breakdown of the ozone layer (more in) to worry about, thank you very much. If we could use cheap energy to exhaust energy from our planet, we'd have something ultimately more important than the modern conveniences technology has given us so far to rejoice about. Tim Priddy (Oakland Coliseum, Sec: 123, row: 3, seat: 13) internet: tpriddy@homrun.intel.com uucp: ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!tpriddy cudkeys: cuddy13 cudentpriddy cudfnTim cudlnPriddy cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.13 / M Cranford / Perpetual Commotion Originally-From: mikec@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Perpetual Commotion Date: 13 Jun 89 01:16:04 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Henry : In article <1989May29.193308.20369@utzoo.uucp> you wrote: * * " ... The Patent Office issues patents for lots of absurd things. * (About the only thing they balk at is perpetual-motion machines, for * which they have a policy of wanting to see a working model first.) * While the Patent Office requirement for a "working model" is true in principle, it is quite false in practice. At least two perpetual motion machines have been patented during the last 13 years [1] (and Joe Newman is still trying [2..6]). The secret is to specifically avoid calling it a "perpetual motion" machine. Also note that patent examiners are often not knowledgeable enough to identify and reject perpetual motion machines (this is also true of many people with degrees in science or engineering). Former Patent Office commissioner William E. Schuyler Jr. has claimed over 100% efficiency for the Newman machine (Schuyler is an electrical engineer). Joe Newman has been trying to patent his "energy machine" for about nine years. He has also sued the Patent Office and accused the National Bureau of Standards of conspiring against him (the NBS measured efficiencies under 70% [7]). More information on this topic is available upon request. REFERENCES [1] For example, patent number 3,934,964 Gravity-Actuated Fluid Displacement Power Generator, by David Diamond, 1976 and patent 4,151,431 Permanent Magnet Motor, by Howard R. Johnson. Both inventions are perpetual motion machines. The Patent Office "working model" requirement was enacted in 1918 but isn't strictly followed. [2] Science, Volume 223, pages 571-572. [3] Science, Volume 233, page 154. [4] The Institute (IEEE publication), Sept 1986, pages 12-13. [5] Discover, May, 1987, pages 46-63. [6] Smithsonian, Nov 1986, pages 193-208. [7] NBSIR 86-3405, "Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device", June 1986. This publication is available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The efficiency ranged from 27% to 67% (this is below the maximum efficiency of a high quality permanent magnet DC motor). [8] Arthur WJG Ord-Hume, "Perpetual Motion - the History of an Obsession", St. Martin's Press, 1977, New York. UUCP: uunet!tektronix!tekgvs!mikec or M.Cranford uunet!tektronix!tekgvs.labs.tek.com!mikec Principal CS/EE ARPA: mikec%tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET Resident Skeptic CSNet: mikec@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM TekLabs, Tektronix cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenmikec cudfnMicheal cudlnCranford cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.13 / Geo Swan / Dumping excess heat to space (was Re: IS FUSION GOOD ???) Originally-From: gswan@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Geo Swan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Dumping excess heat to space (was Re: IS FUSION GOOD ???) Date: 13 Jun 89 06:11:07 GMT Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Many recent articles have suggested that if we had unlimited energy we wouldn't need to worry about accumulating excess heat in the atmosphere. The following is an example. >An unlimited source of energy would be worse if we just dumped a bunch >of heat into the atmosphere, but with unlimited energy I'm sure we >could come up with some scheme to beam the excess heat into space. >Unlimited energy would make many things possible. And faced with >melting ice caps, we might even have the political will to do them. > me I'm sorry, I don't think these suggestions are well thought out. How _do_ these people propose tapping the excess heat we have dumped into the atmosphere? Dumping excess heat to outer space implies that we would have to generate as much power using sources of renewable energy as we as we generate in our new clean fusion plants. This is my key point. Does anyone deny this is true? How much of our current energy comes from clean renewable sources now? Beaming energy from our new fusion plants of course is pointless. Beaming energy from power plants that burn wood or alcohol generates pollution, but we have agreed that we don't need to pollute now that we have these new fusion plants. It seems to me that that only leaves wind mills, hydroelectric plants, seabed wave and tide turbines, and geothermal. How much of the world's energy comes from hydro power? Probably less than 5%. I doubt the other three sources amount to even 1%. Each of these sources has theoretical limits to its usefulness. There are only so many rivers in the world. Cordially, Geo Swan cudkeys: cuddy13 cudengswan cudfnGeo cudlnSwan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.13 / Dave Mack / Re: 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 'some work, some don't' Date: 13 Jun 89 15:24:34 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA In article <16619@gryphon.COM> sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen) writes: >In article <3660@alembic.ACS.COM> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >>The failure of groups with working cells to find He (3 or 4) is by far >>the most disturbing thing about the CNF experiments. There is simply >>no way to avoid finding it if fusion is actually occurring. There should >>at least be traces of He-3 due to tritium decay. >> > This is based on an *assumption*, namely that there is no way, in >reality as opposed to theory, to bias the reaction to tritium. It is, >after all, possible that current theory of nuclear reactions is incomplete. No, this is based on the *observation* that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has measured enhanced He levels except Walling at U of U, and while those measurements were apparently not as flawed as Lewis suggested they might be, I still don't have full confidence in them. I am perfectly willing to accept that D + D fusion in Pd might be biased toward T + p. I believe there are good physical reasons for it. What I have a hard time believing is that D + T fusion doesn't subsequently occur, giving He-4 + n. > And the last statement is specious. If there is tritium, from >*any* source, it will be undergoing decay, so the argument is flawed. >Since the tritium measurements seem to be solid, this must mean that the >time frame is too small for measurable decay to He-3 to occur. This is >true regardless of what is actually happening (even if it is enrichment). Get a dictionary and find out what the word "specious" means. Other than that, you're correct. I had confused the chargeup time in the TAMU experiments (several weeks) with the run time (6 - 10 hrs), resulting in an expected He-3 level that was higher than their detection limit. This is what we call A Mistake. The failure of the TAMU group to find He in their cathodes is not terrifically meaningful at this point, but groups who have been running heat-producing cells for hundreds of hours should be getting easily detectible helium enhancements. If they aren't (experimental difficulties aside) then the fusion explanation becomes very dubious. -- Dave Mack cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.12 / Mark Muhlestein / Local News Originally-From: mmm@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Muhlestein) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Local News Date: 12 Jun 89 17:30:38 GMT Organization: ICON International, Inc., Orem, UT The following article appeared in yesterday's (June 11) Salt Lake City Deseret News: Independent study group calls U. results `sure thing' By JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells Deseret News science writer An independent research organization announced Saturday that the University of Utah's fusion experiments are ``a sure thing'' and will produce usable electrical energy within a few years. ``Solid-state fusion in palladium is real,'' said Hal Fox, president of the Fusion Information Center Inc., located in the U.'s Research Park but not affiliated with the U. ``The Pons-Fleischmann effect involves fusion reactions, the effect can be replicated, the fusion reactions can be controlled, and the process has strong commercial applications.'' That's the official position of the corporation, formed a month ago by a group of researchers -- who like other entrepeneurs -- are interested in ``aiding and building Utah business through the commercialization of fusion power.'' It's a conclusion the 12 corporate researchers reached after several weeks of extensive investigation of the U. laboratory work. Following a May 23-25 cold fusion workshop conducted by the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the federal Department of Energy, Fox said Fusion Information Center scientists and engineers have reviewed more than 100 papers on the research. ``In addition, the center has had personal communication with several scientists working on cold fusion outside the U. of U.,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``The result is the statement of reality of cold fusion released today.'' While hostile, overt criticism of the research of B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann has tempered over the past couple of weeks, Fox's announcement is one of the most forthright endorsements of the pair's fusion-in-a-flask discovery, which U. officials have said has the potential to revolutionize the world's energy course. If their fusion reaction can be scaled up to commercial generating plants, it could provide cheap, relatively safe and virtually inexhaustible energy. Unlike critics of the electrochemists, Fox believes commercial applications of solid-state fusion energy will come sooner than expected. ``The construction of a new power plant that will produce millions of kilowatts of electrical energy may be 10 to 15 years in the future, but applications that can use the current low-level of heat produced are expected in two to three years,'' he said. And, according to Fox, the U. researchers -- Pons and Fleischmann -- and scientists from Brigham Young University -- Steve Jones and his co-workers -- can take the credit. ``They are to be especially congratualted on the work they have done over the past several years to demonstrate that cold fusion exists,'' Fox stressed. ``These scientists deserve to be considered for Nobel Prizes.'' Meanwhile, every piece of available information about fusion research could soon be available at the Fusion Information center. Fox said the center will be providing survey articles, technical reports and papers, converence reviews and computer-based, student interactive education courses on cold nuclear fusion energy. ***** END OF NEWS ARTICLE ***** Sorry if someone else posts this article, but lately several local items have been passed over by the other people posting local news, so I thought I'd put this out. Another item was the announcement made of the results of the ``autopsies'' being performed by P&F's palladium supplier, Johnson Matthey. Pons gave a news conference in which he stated, somewhat mysteriously, that they had found fusion products, but he did not elaborate on exactly what the products were, or in what amounts. He stated that they were doing further work they would report on later. I believe the results he was describing were of the *surface* only; they are now examining the interior of the electrodes. They are being very close-lipped now, saying they will publish later this summer. I suppose they have a right to be somewhat touchy about premature announcements, but it sure is frustrating to everyone else. -- Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc. uunet!iconsys!mmm cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.13 / William Johnson / News item: "Lab Scraps Cold-Fusion Partnership" Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.fusion Subject: News item: "Lab Scraps Cold-Fusion Partnership" Date: 13 Jun 89 23:42:21 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Today's Albuquerque Journal carried a front-page article by Byron Spice (Journal science writer) with the above title. I quote (without permission) the lead paragraph: "Los Alamos National Laboratory officials Monday said inaction by the University of Utah has forced them to scuttle plans to collaborate with the university on cold fusion research." The article then goes on to quote various Los Alamos and Utah people (example: says James Brophy, Utah's VP for research, "They frankly are peeved with us, and I don't blame them.") and give the standard layman's description of what is going on in the field and what collaborative work had been planned. It mentions "hopes" that a collaboration will still be possible, although Pons and Fleischmann won't be available until next month at the earliest. AARGH. So it has come to this. I will have more to say on this later, in alt.fusion (to which followups should be directed). I don't speak for Los Alamos National Laboratory, obviously ... but I am definitely going to speak some more for myself, once I get cooled down. -- "Times are bad. Children no longer | Bill Johnson obey their parents, and everyone is | Los Alamos National Laboratory writing a book." (Cicero) | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} "Or a paper on cold fusion." (Johnson) | (mwj@lanl.gov) cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.13 / Mike Smith / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 13 Jun 89 21:40:20 GMT Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific Ca In article <1517@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@kossy.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (Jigsaw) writes: >>>more energy will be used (our society of consumption), ... >>>more industry, more roads, more cars, more pollution, ... >>>Fusion is definitely better than fission. But a unlimited >>>source of energy is even worse. >An unlimited source of energy would be worse if we just dumped a bunch >of heat into the atmosphere, but with unlimited energy I'm sure we >could come up with some scheme to beam the excess heat into space. Take a chunk of desert. Cover with panels that have a silver side and a flat black side. Have the silver side up during the day. Have the black side up at night. Calculate heat gain reduction during the day and heat loss increase at night.... -- E. Michael Smith ems@apple.COM 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war) cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenems cudfnMike cudlnSmith cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.13 / Andrew Philips / Re: 'some work, some don't' Originally-From: abp@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov (Andrew B Philips) Newsgroups: alt.fusion Subject: Re: 'some work, some don't' Date: 13 Jun 89 20:52:47 GMT Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA In article <5214@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > > I am perfectly willing to accept that D + D fusion in Pd might be > biased toward T + p. I believe there are good physical reasons for > it. What I have a hard time believing is that D + T fusion doesn't > subsequently occur, giving He-4 + n. > I would like a clarification on why you find it hard to believe that D + T may not occur (or rather if it doesn't than fusion isn't occuring). If we assuming that D + D -> T + p in Pd has the highest probability of occuring, then why couldn't it be the case that there is enough energy to force D + D to undergo fusion, but not enough to force D + T? Just wondering. > Dave Mack Andy Philips abp@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov -- =========================================================== = Andy Philips = "Life is a fatal, sexually = = abp@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov = transmitted disease" = =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenabp cudfnAndrew cudlnPhilips cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.13 / jeffrey bokor / DOE committee visit to Utah? Originally-From: jbokor@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (jeffrey.bokor) Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics.fusion Subject: DOE committee visit to Utah? Date: 13 Jun 89 23:48:32 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I have been waiting for news of the DOE committee headed by Norman Ramsey of Harvard which is supposed to evaluate cold fusion and visit Utah. So far no word in this forum. Rumor has it that the objections by Pons to the makeup of this committee were resolved and the group has actually been to Pons' lab. Does anyone out there know what the facts are? J. Bokor AT&T Bell Labs cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjbokor cudfnjeffrey cudlnbokor cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 ------------------------------ 1989.06.14 / kim hwan / Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Originally-From: laba-4hg@web-4f.berkeley.edu (kim dong hwan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: IS FUSION GOOD ??? Date: 14 Jun 89 02:24:43 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article