1989.04.01 / Tim Ihde /  Re: Noise please stop or use follow ups  was Re: Room Temperature fusion
     
Originally-From: tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.research,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Noise please stop or use follow ups  was Re: Room Temperature fusion
Date: 1 Apr 89 17:23:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T DSO-HQ, Morristown, NJ

In article <3001@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>This started as a discussion on room temp fusion (I'm reading in
>sci.research).  It has digressed into knit picking about non-fusion
>energy output.  No wonder why REAL physicists don't have the time to
>read news.
 
>Perhaps we need talk.energy (and talk.mass 8)?  This certainly
>isn't science anymore.
 
Alt.fusion has now been created; I suggest that this is the place for
most of the unsubstantiated statements, comments, and speculations.  New
newsbreaks to misc.headlines, and FACTS in sci.physics.  That should cut
the volume down in the sci groups to next to nothing . . .
 
Further discussion on THIS topic is directed to alt.fusion.
 
	tim
 
--
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:
cuddy1 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnIhde cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.01 / Gary Dare /  Re: Success with cold fusion reported
     
Originally-From: gld@CUNIXD.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,sci.misc,sci.research,sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported
Date: 1 Apr 89 20:09:19 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. EE & CTR

At the Friday afternoon seminar on Cold Fusion at 501 Schermerhorn
(Columbia University), March 31st, a researcher from Brigham Young
University disclosed some results from their parallel efforts.  In the
process, he elaborated on ideas from a Soviet theoretician and even a
UCSD geologist (!), as well as cite previous research on this idea;
that is, those two guys mentioned in the papers were not geniuses
hiding in the closet coming out with a miracle (that's the illusion in
the press; we know better, right?).
 
The idea is that hydrogen atoms in heavy water, when brought into
close enough proximity to one another, will fuse as a result of
resonance from the interactions due to attractive forces.  The result
is Helium-3 (3He) and heat (energy).
 
Clues to the natural occurance of this phenomenom are the presence of
3He in metals from the preatomic age; the presence of this isotope in
modern metals is easily explainable from the increased levels due to
fallout since the 40's, but not so in ancient samurai swords.  Also,
the largest heat emissions are currently coming from shelves in the
Pacific Ocean.  Supposedly, natural fission of heavy matter in the
mantle and core are not sufficient to explain the amount of heat this
planet is generating (recent measurements of internal temperatures
have doubled since the IGY figures were made).  If sea water travels
into the interior through cavities and heavy isotopes are squeezed
close together by the enormous pressures, "piezofusion" will result.
These two clues inspired the BYU people to proceed in this direction.
Probably the same with the people cited in the NY Times.
 
The BYU people have demonstrated that this process indeed works, and
it yields . . . 10e-13 Watts of energy!  Certainly not the 4 W yield
for 1 W applied.
 
There were a few worried faces in the audience at the start of the
talk; at the end, the speaker received a raucous applause from the
audience.
 
gld
 
Disclaimer: please feel free to make any corrections to the above.
This is my best recollection, as I was squeezed under a row of seats
in the packed auditorium.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Gary L. Dare				> gld@eevlsi.ee.columbia.EDU
					> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 	
	"I AM SALMAN RUSHDIE"		> gld@cunixc.BITNET
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengld cudfnGary cudlnDare cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.02 / Root Beer /  Fusion!
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.UU.NET (Root Beer)
Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.fusion,news.groups,misc.headlines,sci.physics
sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.sf-lovers
Subject: Fusion!
Date: 2 Apr 89 01:42:48 GMT
Organization: At Home; San Jose, CA

Well folks, it has been created:  alt.fusion.  The discussion and comments
that I had been seeing have been running about 10-1 in favor of creation.
Now that we've got the group, I hope that the fusion traffic will migrate
into it so I don't have to read size different groups in order to follow
the news.
 
For those people at sites that do not receive alt.fusion, I am providing
a gateway service - send mail to fusion-request@zorch.UU.NET to receive
digests of the contents of alt.fusion right in your very own mailbox :-)
Mail to fusion@zorch.UU.NET will be posted to alt.fusion.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenscott cudfnRoot cudlnBeer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.01 / Ethan Vishniac /  Re: Success with cold fusion reported
     
Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported
Date: 1 Apr 89 22:12:09 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

As I understand it, from summaries of talks by Pons and Fleischmann
(not from their preprint) they have detected Helium4 as a byproduct
of their reaction.  Their estimation of production rates for
Helium3 and tritium are consistent with each other and much lower
(by about 10^9) than the rates required by the observed (or claimed)
energy production.  It therefore seems impossible to invoke any
reactions that use He3 or tritium as fuel to explain the energy
production.  This leaves 2D into He4, but under normal circumstances
this is down from the production rates for He3 and tritium by one
power of the fine structure constant since it involves emitting
another photon.  So we can either discard this possibility or choose
to believe in an enhancement of the rate due to the emission of
phonons with energies of several MeV.  (Incidentally, this makes
the fusion experiment the shrillest noise on Earth :-)).  I find
the idea of these "super-phonons" unlikely, but I'm hardly an
expert.
 
The only alternative that comes to mind is Li6 + D into 2He4.  This
has the virtue of avoiding nucleon emission in a reaction whose rate
is not obviously tied to the measured reaction rates for 2D into
something.  (Actually, I assume that this would make Be8 which
would decay into 2He4 on a time scale of 10^(-8?) seconds.)
This means the addition of LiOD to the solution is important for
physical, as opposed to chemical, reasons.  However, is it really
true that the lithium would dissolve into the palladium?  If not,
it is difficult to see how it could be involved.
 
The results of P and F still don't make much sense to me, but if
they are correct then this would seem like the most likely hypothesis
(which may be a dubious honor).  If this is right then it suggests
that lithium is about to become a little more expensive.  :-)
(sort of).
 
--
 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:
cuddy1 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.03 /  fusion@zorch.U /  Submission for Alt.fusion
     
Originally-From: fusion@zorch.UU.NET
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion
Date: 3 Apr 89 09:32:57 GMT
Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
			The View from Here:
			___________________
 
Section 1: Foundations and Preconditions:
 
People have known for some time that some metals and alloys are
capable of storing remarkably large quantities of hydrogen at or near
room temperature. (Many, if not all, of the Platinum group; Titanium;
La5Ni are all examples. La5Ni, in fact, can store hydrogen at a
density that compares with the density of liquid hydrogen. Too bad
it's 5 Lanthanums to 1 Nickel.)
 
Here's a quote from something that was posted to sci.physics by
paf@unixprt.UUCP (Paul Fronberg), about Palladium:
 
 >
 >from "Guide to Uncommon metals" by Eric N. Simons
 >
 >One of the most remarkable properties of the metal is its ferocious
 >absorption of hydrogen, which it readily takes up, to the extent of
 >about 800 times its own volume at room temperature. This makes it
 >highly valuable as a diffusion barrier for the production of small
 >vlumes of extremely pure hydrogen.  In the same way septa or membranes
 >of palladium are now embodied in electrolytic cells for the separation
 >of hydrogen isotopes by electrolytic migration.
 >
 
It occurred to some people that if a metal were filled with Deuterium
rather than Protium, a modest number of fusion reactions could
conceivably occur.
 
There are three possible fusion reactions involving only Deuterium:
 
2 Deuteriums combine to form a Tritium and a Proton. The Tritium then
decays, with a halflife of something like 12.8 years, giving off an
electron and becoming Helium-3.
 
2 Deuteriums combine to form Helium-3 and a Neutron (the Neutron then
decays, with a halflife of something like 512 seconds, giving off an
electron and becoming a Proton)
 
2 Deuteriums combine to form Helium-4. This is rather much less
likely, as far as I know. It is, on the other hand, rather pleasant,
because it results only in charged particles, which are easily handled
and don't make the reactor 'hot'. (Neutrons are nasty critters.)
 
I believe that all of these give off gamma.
 
 
NOW: at least two groups proceed, apparently with private and/or
out-of-pocket funding, to build devices intended to explore the
possibility of fusion in metals at "room temperature". Some months go
by. The two Utah groups (Brigham Young University and University of
Utah (Pons) in collaboration with Birmingham, England (Fleischman))
obtain some results.  They both submit papers, which are scheduled for
publication in Nature or Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, in
late April and/or early May.
 
Meanwhile, word gets out. Oooops!
 
The two Utah groups are obliged to tell people what they have found.
There is at least one press conference, and (several?) internal
colloquia. FROM THESE ITEMS, and from preprints of the papers, various
things begin to emerge. Again, from a posting to sci.physics, this
time from ch-tkr@wasatch.UUCP (Timothy K Reynolds) [I've made minor
grammatical and spelling corrections]:
 
 >
 >Dr. Pons began with a brief history of the work began by
 >himself and Fleischman.  Initially, their interests were in
 >the development of a metallic hydrogen material for use as a
 >semiconductor.  They realized that immense pressures were
 >required in a lattice for this to occur.  However, they
 >theorized that it would be possible to bring about the
 >equivalent of this immense pressure by electrochemical
 >methods.  From these initial musings, they also considered
 >whether this "eletrochemical pressure" could be used to fuse
 >like nuclei (Deuterium).
 >
 >The initial experiment used a cube of Pd (size not stated) in D2O at
 >high current density (magnitude not stated).  A Geiger counter was used
 >to detect any radiation from the fusion reaction of D.  However no
 >radiation was detected.  The experiment was discontinued by reducing
 >the current density, and shortly thereafter (overnight I think is what
 >he said) the experimental apparatus was vaporized.  Left approximately
 >1/10 of the initial Pd.
 >
 
The researcher (Pons) stated that he and his group could not
convince themselves that any chemical energy source was
capable of providing the amount of energy released in their
experiments. If the description here is accurate, I could
well believe it!
 
Please note that the report says that they turned down the current
density fairly abruptly. Some sources have suggested that the
Deuterium inside the Palladium, no longer under electrochemical
pressure, attempted to leave, and in the process generated a region of
extremely high Deuterium density near the surface. Here, fusion
reactions presumably occurred, creating lots of neutrons, gamma, and
heat.  Whether the description is accurate, I couldn't say. There is
mention, toward the end of this summary, of a peculiar and extremely
exothermic phase transition in Palladium Hydrides...
 
Further items:
 
1) The Brigham Young University group finds some evidence for fusion
reactions. They do NOT see ANYTHING LIKE "breakeven", reporting
instead 10^-13 watts from their apparatus.
 
2) Again, quoting Timothy K Reynolds -
 
 >
 >Dr. Pons explained a control experiment where they used a closed
 >cell to detect tritium (else some tritium would be lost as by
 >exchange with D2O).  Tritium was detected, and its concentration
 >increased over time.  Also the neutron flux was measured at
 >10**4 n/s.  This is 3X higher than background and was considered
 >statistically significant.  However, the reactions to produce
 >tritium and 3He do not explain the amount of heat produced.
 >
 >The production rate of Tritium was found to match that of Neutrons.
 >
 
(As far as I understand it, the amount of heat corresponds to
about 10^9 times as many reactions as they have neutrons to
explain. That's a very large discrepancy.)
 
3) The Pons and Fleischman group detect Helium-4, but not
Helium-3. This is a mystery to me (and, as near as I understand
it, to them) at this time. (Further information later in this
summary.)
 
4) The University of Utah group reports one thermal runaway, as
mentioned above, and several other experiments which apparently
generated enough heat that they are unable to explain it away by any
non-thermonuclear means. This is odd. They say that they had to
'charge' the system for some months, and that once it was 'charged',
it gave off copious amounts of heat for about 120 hours. (For
'copious', one reads "on the order of 4 megajoules"...) They
calculated 26 watts/cc of electrode material. [Your humble
correspondent calculates this to mean that they had about 1/3 of a cc
of electrode. Could be off, though.]
 
As mentioned, the number of neutrons they are seeing, which as far as
they are aware should indicate the number of fusion reactions, is only
a billionth of what it would take to explain this amount of energy
output. Can you say "Oops!"? On the other hand, it clearly isn't
chemical. 26 watts/cc for 1 hour, I could maybe think about believing,
maybe, but not for 120, no way. 4 MILLION Joules out of some stupid
little piece of stuff that's not even a cubic centimeter? Give me a break!
 
Anybody have the data on the energy density of the Hydrogen spin-flip
reaction? Can that even conceivably be taking place here? (I think
Deuterium may not do that, but I'm too long out of school, and don't
really remember.)
 
5) The [fusion] reaction seems to be diffusion limited. Dr. Pons
apparently stated that the diffusion rate for Deuterium in Palladium
is on the order of 10^-7 cm^2/sec.
 
6) Several apparently unfounded rumors appear, to wit: that someone at
Los Alamos has duplicated the work, and lost a lab bench doing so,
that someone at Princeton has duplicated the work, that someone at
CalTech has duplicated the work. Los Alamos, at least, appears to have
denied the part of the rumor that mentions them. (This observer
believes that the 'lost lab bench' is probably the result of people
playing "telephone" about the thermal runaway in Utah.)
 
7) The price of Palladium appears to be climbing rapidly, unless we
are being bamboozled by April Fool reports.
 
 
SOME FURTHER EXPLANATIONS and OTHER ITEMS:
 
1) The electrolyte in the cells seems to have been heavy water
(typically 99.5% D2O, if you get high-quality stuff) with something
very much like household lye dissolved in it to make it conduct
electricity; the 'lye' actually has lithium instead of sodium, and has
deuterium instead of hydrogen, thus making it LiOD instead of NaOH.
 
If you want to think of that another way, it's D2O with one of the
Deuteriums replaced by a lithium. [I have one report that it was LiOH,
and one report that it was LiOD. Not that it makes a hell of a lot of
difference, at this level, as far as we know.]
 
2) If this observer correctly understands what is going on, both
groups report that the effect is a volumetric one; that is, the
reactions are NOT just taking place at the surface of the Palladium,
but involve Deuterium that has migrated INTO the crystal lattice.
Certainly, the Pons/Fleischman group reports that it's
volume-dependent. Moreover, the claim is that before the Palladium
surface is saturated with D, the D starts to migrate into the
interior. Odd, but not terribly so.
 
3)Quoting again from Timothy K Reynolds:
 
 >
 >Dr. Pons stated that the potential of this electrochemical
 >couple is 0.8V.  In terms of pressure to get the same degree of
 >difference in chemical potential = 10**27 atmospheres.
 >
 
Apparently, the 'electrochemical pressure' encourages considerable
amounts of Deuterium to take up residence inside the crystal lattice
of the Palladium. Still, the Palladium is a solid and it is fairly
dense, so it takes a fair amount of time for the Deuterium to get in
there.  People are reporting 'charging times' on the order of months.
 
4) DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDS!! Neutrons have this annoying
tendency to get into things and make them radioactive. If you want
your gonads to glow in the dark, make sure the benchtop is at the
right height for you...
 
5) Possible explanation for the presence of Helium-4: At least one
source has suggested that a fusion reaction involving one Deuterium
and one Lithium results in 2 Helium-4s, and could be going on. This
observer does not know whether Lithium can get inside the Palladium,
but it is always possible that it is merely getting into the surface,
and the reaction could be taking place there. (In the low atomic
numbers, many different reactions are known to take place. The
reaction that has been suggested for this explanation: Lithium-6 plus
Deuterium gives Beryllium-8, which then decays with remarkable
promptness [nanoseconds?] to 2 Helium-4s.)
 
6) Neutrons are not the only thing coming out of these reactions! Many
(if not all) of them give off Gamma as well. In fact, a distinctive
Gamma spectrum is one of the significant signatures for fusion, just
as a distinctive Neutron spectrum is.
 
7) Palladium seems to have a small cross-section for activation by
fast Neutrons, but could be activated by slower ('thermal') Neutrons
coming back out of the heavy water (which is a good Neutron moderator,
as witness the excellent Canadian fission reactor system, "CANDU").
Apparently the University of Utah group has not yet attempted to assay
their electrodes, to see whether any activation has taken place.
 
8) Again, quoting Timothy K Reynolds,
 
 >
 >No 2.45 MeV Neutrons were detected. [Dr. Pons] speculated that these
 >Neutrons may [have been] consumed by reactions with Lithium, as
 >follows:
 >
 >		7Li + n + 2.45MeV --> 3T + 3He + n
 >		6Li + n           --> 3T + 3He + 4.5MeV
 >
 
Not bad work, if you can get it. The concentration of Lithium in the
electrolyte has not, as far as I can tell, been specified. As to
isotopes, if my hazy memory is correct, there are roughly equal
amounts of Lithium-6 and Lithium-7 around in nature. I could be wrong
about that, though.
 
9) In a report from CERN, where Dr. Fleischman apparently lectured,
there is a claim that the Quantum Mechanics of the Deuterium
S-electron density is bizarre and not well understood. (Someone, I
don't know who, has speculated that the Deuterium exists within the
Palladium lattice as a sort of plasma. Nifty, if true.)
 
10) Also from CERN, fusion reactions and slightly different figures.
 
This information comes from
Jon Caves {world}!mcvax!cernavx!jon (or jon@cernvax.cern.ch)
Division DD
CERN CH-1211
Geneva 23
Switzerland.
 
 >
 >In the lattice the following nuclear reactions occur
 >
 >   2D + 2D -> 3T + 1H + 4.03MeV
 >
 >   2D + 2D -> 3He + n + 3.77Mev
 >
 >Their first experiment was with a palladium cube, this finished when
 >the cube ignited, in the nuclear sense. The conclusion of this is that
 >this reaction does not fail safe. When it starts to run hot it runs
 >very hot.  The cube almost burnt down their fume cupboard. But at
 >least the effects are not quite as serious as a meltdown of a fission
 >reactor.
 >
 >They then tried sheets before finally trying rods. These rods a 10cm
 >long and have diameters of 1mm ,2mm and 4mm. The best results are with
 >the 4mm rod therefore the reaction is dependent on volume as opposed
 >to surface area, it also seems to be dependant on temperature.
 >
 >After 100 hours the measured output was 5MJ/cm^3. They managed to
 >detect Neutrons, gamma, and a 5-fold increase in the [amount of]
 >Tritium in the heavy water. They didn't manage to get an energy
 >spectrum for the Neutrons.
 >
 
Too bad, too. Would have been nice to see a 4.5MeV peak...or maybe to
miss one.
 
11) If, in fact, something is catalyzing a T+p path about 10^9 times
as much as the 3He+n path, then the lack of Neutrons could be
explained fairly easily. But what would cause that much of a
differential? Moreover, I don't know whether they are detecting
appropriate Tritium levels.
 
12) Several people (Ron Merrill of BIX included) have mentioned a
curious fact: so far as we are currently aware, no attempt was made to
run a control with water instead of heavy water. It seems that the
researchers have decided that chemistry just cannot be responsible for
the amount of heat they are seeing. It would be nice, nonetheless, to
see a control hit!
 
13) The Brigham Young University people, who are seeing 10^-13 watts
output, apparently cannot understand the University of Utah results.
Different experimental setups, maybe? I still, alas, haven't seen
preprints of either paper, though I understand that scanned versions
of at least one are around the net somewhere.
 
14) Marvin Weinstein (BIX again, I think) mentions "...a known,
somewhat peculiar, phase transition [that] occurs in Palladium Hydride
(that is what this stuff is), which is powerfully exothermic and could
explain strange fires." Apparently occurs when the Palladium absorbs a
large amount of Hydrogen. Presumably also occurs with Deuterium?
 
Could this possibly explain the initial 'meltdown' in Utah? How
powerfully exothermic is this thing, and how does the Deuterium
version differ from the Protium version? All unknown to me at this
time.
 
15) Several people, including Leo Schwab, have wondered about the long
charging time. Can it be that the U of U people have invented a new
sort of battery? Seems unlikely - I would presume that much of the
heat generated in electrolysis, if that is indeed what is going on,
would just be conducted away, and that the excess O2 would be bubbled
off. This should be calculable, anyway. Lee Rimar (BIX) claims that in
fact you have to heat the Palladium to get the Hydrogen back out
(under ordinary circumstances), which argues against the 'battery'
hypothesis on at least one level.
 
 
			...and that's how it looks from here,
		Sunday night, 3 April 1989, on the Net, thriving
		on chaos and confusion. Hope this summary has
		been of some use to someone. Sorry it's so
		disorganized.
 
						Jon Singer
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.03 / Steven Bellovin /  reported confirmation of Pons/Fleischmann results
     
Originally-From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: reported confirmation of Pons/Fleischmann results
Date: 3 Apr 89 21:37:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill

According to the Associated Press and the New York Times, the Hungarian
news agency MTI has reported that two physicists at Lajos Kossuth University
have succeeded in reproducing the Pons/Fleischmann results.  The rector
of the university has confirmed the news agency report.
 
They claim to have observed neutron emission, and to have confirmed this
``by subsequent control tests''.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensmb cudfnSteven cudlnBellovin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.03 / Ethan Vishniac /  section of preprint from Fleischmann and Pons
     
Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: section of preprint from Fleischmann and Pons
Date: 3 Apr 89 21:35:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

A few people have asked for copies of the preprint.  I have sent
them, but do not really have time to send more.  On the other hand
there has been a lot of questions regarding details of the experimental
setup.  I'm going to take a minute to quote liberally from the preprint
to pass on such information as it contains.  One thing it does not
contain is any clear information on control experiments that would
obviously eliminate chemical effects (such as using hydrogen instead
of deuterium).  That's not to say that they didn't do them, but for
whatever reason they choose not to mention them.
 
"In the work reported here D+ was compressed galvanostatically into
sheet, rod and cube samples of Pd from 0.1 M LiOD in 99.5% D2O + 0.5%
H20 solutions.  Electrode potentials were measured with respect to
a Pd-D reference electrode charged to the alpha-beta phase equilibrium.
We report here experiments of several kinds:
 
1) Calorimetric measurements of heat balances at low current densities
(=1.6mA cm^-1) were made using a 2mmx8cm Pd sheet cathode surrounded by
a large Pt sheet counter electrode.  Measurements were carried out in Dewar
dells maintained in large constant temperature water bath (300K), the
temperature inside the cell and of the water bath being monitored with
Beckman thermometers.  The HEavy Water Equivalent ofthe Dewar and contents
and the rate of Newton's law of cooling losses were determined by addition
of hot D2O and by following the cooling curves.
 
2) Calorimetric measurements at higher current densities were carried out
using 1, 2 and 4 mm diameterx 10 cm long Pd rods surrounded by a Pt wire
anode wound on a cage of glass rods.  The Dewars were fitted with resistance
heaters for the determination of Newton's law of cooling losses; temperatures
were measured using calibrated thermistors.  Experiments with rods up to 2cm
in diameter will be reported elsewhere.  Stirring in these experiments (and
in those listed under 1) was achieved, where necessary, by gas sparging
using electrolytically generated D2.  Measurements at the highest current
density reported here (512 mA cm^-2) were carried out using rods of 1.25
cm length;  the results given in Table 1 have been rescaled to those for rods
of 10 cm length.
 
3)  The spectrum of gamma rays emiited from the water bath due to the (n,gamma)
reaction 1H+n(2.45MeV) into 2D +gamma(2.5MeV) (vii) was determined using a
sodium iodide crystal scintillation detector and a Nuclear Data ND-6 High
Energy Spectrum Analyzer.  The spectrum was taken above the water immediately
surrounding an 0.8x10cm Pd-rod cathode charged to equilibrium; it was corrected
for background by subtracting the spectrum over a sink (containing identical
shielding materials) 10 m from the water bath.
 
    The neutron flux from a cell containing a 0.4x10cm Pd rod electrode was
measured using a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, Type 95/0949-5.
The counting efficiency of the Bonner-sphere type instrument for 2.5MeV
neutrons was estimated to be ~2.4x10^-4 and was further reduced by a factor
detector).  The background count was determined by making measurements 50m
from the laboratory containing the experiments: both locations were in the
basement fo a new building which is overlain by 5 floors of concrete.  In
view of the low counting efficiency, counting was carried out for 50 hours.
Measurements on a 0.4x10 cm rod electrode run at 64mA cm^-2 gave a neutron
count 3 times above that of the background.
 
4)  The rate of generation/accumulation of tritium was measured using similar
cells (test tubes sealed with Parafilm) containing 1 mm diameter x 10 cm
Pd rod electrodes.  Measurements on the D/T separation factor alone
were made using an identical cell containing a 1 mm diameter x 10 cm Pt
electrode (this measurement served as a blank as the H/D separation factors
on Pd and Pt are known to be closely similar).  1 mL samples of the electrolyte
were withdrawn at 2 day intervals, neutralized with potassium hydrogen
phthalate and the T-content was determined using Ready Gel liquid scintillation
"cocktail" and a Beckman LS 5000 TD counting system.  The counting
efficiency was determined to be about 45% using standard samples of
T-containing solutions.  The beta decay scintillation spectrum was
determined using the counting system.
 
    In these experiments standard additions of 1 mL of the electrolyte
were made following sampling.  Losses of D2O due to electrolysis in these
and all other experiments recorded here were made up using D2O alone.
A record of the volume of D2O additions was made for all the experiments.
 
    In all of the experiments reported here all connections were fitted
Kel-F caps and the caps were sealed to the glass cells using Parafilm.
 
   Results for the mass spectroscopy of the evolved gases and full
experimental detials for all the measurements will be given elsewhere."
--
 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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.03 / Walter Bright /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 3 Apr 89 21:26:09 GMT
Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA

In article <1989Apr2.145310.29132@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.e
u (Paul Dietz) writes:
>  Solid state fusion is immoral because...
>	[stuff deleted]
>Any others?  ;-)
 
You forgot the usual Luddite objections:
	1. It would cost thousands of jobs in the oil, gas & coal industries.
	2. There are unanswered questions about it.
	3. It represents *change*!
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbright cudfnWalter cudlnBright cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.03 / Ted Acon /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: rebe@tank.uchicago.edu (Ted Acon)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 3 Apr 89 21:26:37 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1694@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> larsonjs@thor.stolaf.edu
(James S. Larson @ St. Olaf College) writes:
>Has anyone given any thought to the reactions of the oil companies and OPEC
>countries to the new developments in fusion?  They must certainly realize that
>practical fusion will put them out of business.
 
I believe Robert Heinlein wrote a short story about this
very dilemma.  A man came up with a new power source and
found himself being forced out of production by various
legal and illegal means.
 
His solution: publicize.
 
He sent the plans for the energy source to every newspaper, magazine,
and journal he could think of.  Admittedly, putting an invention
into the public domain isn't profitable, but it would be the surest
means to actively advance it's utilization.
 
If anyone can remember the title of the story, tell me.
A copy should be in _The Past Beyond Tomorrow_, or whatever the
huge collection of his alternate timeline is called.
 
T_Deacon
rebe@tank.uchicago.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrebe cudfnTed cudlnAcon cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.03 / Wayne Schmidt /  Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: wayne-s@cis.ohio-state.edu (Wayne Schmidt)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
Date: 3 Apr 89 23:06:05 GMT

Just out of curiousity, what about instead of water how about Lithium?
If i remember correctly the decay process in lithium after being zotzed
with the neutrons (2.2 Mev?) yeilds deteurium.
 
if some containment system were devised for the lithium that allowed the
incident neutrons to impact on the "sheilding" could THIS be feasible?
 
wayne-s@cis.ohio-state.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudens cudfnWayne cudlnSchmidt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.03 / Tim Ihde /  Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
     
Originally-From: tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
Date: 3 Apr 89 20:14:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T DSO-HQ, Morristown, NJ

In article <Mar.29.01.31.38.1989.26758@caip.rutgers.edu> giraldi@caip.ru
gers.edu (John Giraldi) writes:
>>The low fuel weight would be a tremendous boon for aircraft, since the
>>biggest limiting factor in their present performance is the fuel
>>weight penalty. Cold fusion could improve aircraft cost performance by
>>at least an overall factor of two . . .
 
>I remember reading about the nuclear airplane where the Sec. of the
>AirForce warned the Sec. of the Navy that the AirForce would have
>a nuclear airplane in the sea before the Navy had a nuclear sub in
>the sky.
 
Seeing as that at this time he must have been talking about fission power,
I'm glad they never whent through with this plan.  Even those who accept
fission reactors as relativly safe should have problems with a fission
powered airplane.  A nuclear sub would just sink (bad enough), but can you
imagine a fission reactor in a plane strewn over several miles when the
thing crashes?  A plane crash is much more likely than a meltdown . . .
 
As for a cold fusion powered plane, the biggest difficulty is probably
lifting the weight of the shielding around the reaction (Commercial airline
studies have shown that pilots and passangers get cranky if exposed to
lethal amounts of neutrons :-)  If the reaction is powerful enough, then of
course this is not a problem.
 
Wait and see.
--
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:
cuddy3 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnIhde cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Brad Sherman /  Deja Vu
     
Originally-From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Deja Vu
Date: 4 Apr 89 00:42:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

Didn't the "Skylark" series of novels by (Chemist) "Doc" E.E. Smith,
go sort of like this: Scientist puts wire in chemical bath, applies
current, wire flies through wall, interstellar travel?
 
	--Brad Sherman
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbks cudfnBrad cudlnSherman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Scott Mueller /  Purpose of alt.fusion
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Purpose of alt.fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 03:14:05 GMT
Organization: At Home; San Jose, CA

I have seen in passing a couple of articles questioning just what sort of
material should go into alt.fusion.  While a definitive answer is not possible,
as the proposer of alt.fusion I feel that I should take a crack at it.
 
For a start, I guess that we will have to trust our posters to have some
judgement.  I would prefer to see articles at the moderately technical and
lay level on the results in Utah.  I feel that those wishing to discuss
the truly esoteric details of the process can do so in sci.physics and
are welcome to congregate there.
 
Also, I would have to say that speculation on political, social and economic
aspects of fusion power are welcome here.  Think of it on the level of a
newsmagazine dedicated to the topic.  You would expect to see lead articles
on the latest results, leavened with pieces on the various potentials
brought to mind by events.  You would not expect to see vicious flaming,
though if you have ever read discussion of the place of GOTO in Communications
of the ACM, you would realize that disagreement is to be expected.
 
I can hardly expect to lay down the law with regard to alt.fusion; after all
this is the alt net.  However, I would like this group to be used in such a
manner that all who participate feel that is a valuable or even enjoyable
resource.
 
Thanks for listening, and thanks for your interest.
 
           \scott
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller   scott@zorch.UU.NET
(408) 298-6213        (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Fen Labalme /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: flabalme@oracle.com (Fen Labalme)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 01:05:38 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA

In article <1989Apr3.151736.23062@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rocheste
.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
> If Exxon, Gulf, Shell, etc. are smart...
 
Don't assume too much.  This is a serious newsgroup.  Get the facts.
--
Fen Labalme		Anarchist Information, Inc.	We Are Everywhere
fen@oracle.com		Oracle Corporation		The usual disclaimer
fen@hop.toad.com	Metaview Corporation		Makers of smarTV(tm)
sun!hoptoad!well!fen	Peace Conference host		Are You Kind?
Copyright 1989 Fen Labalme; you may redistribute only if your recipients may.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenflabalme cudfnFen cudlnLabalme cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.03 / Dave Newman /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: newman@ut-emx.UUCP (Dave Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 3 Apr 89 23:26:46 GMT
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas

 
I'm just a little peeved at the people who seem to feel
that all oil companies are EVIL.  From personal experience
I can safely say that they are just a bunch of people trying
to do a job - just like you or me. (Actually not me at the
moment ...)  So, the point is, just because the oil compay
folks can't defend themselves here is no reason to bash
them unmercifully.
 
As for the oil companies reactions to cold fusion, I think it
obviously comes down to a couple of questions: 1) after cold
fusion is commercial, will there still be a market for petrolium
products?  2) Is there some way that they can get in on the ground
floor of this new industry?  People have already argued that
there will be an oil industry for some time to come, and certainly
cheap electricity does not eliminate the other uses for oil
that we may be forgetting (plastics, etc.)  Also, the oil companies
have been looking at alternate energy sources for a long time.
The big solar power plant out in the Mojave desert is sponsored
in part by an oil company I believe, and I know that several
companies have been researching solar cells.
 
So, what with all of the above and the average person's basic
inertia, I suspect the oil companies or their direct descendents
will be around for a while.
 
>>Dave
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudennewman cudfnDave cudlnNewman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / L Chiaraviglio /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 02:45:11 GMT
Organization: Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental
Biology at Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <1989Apr3.151736.23062@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu
(Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>If Exxon, Gulf, Shell, etc. are smart, they will realize that they are
>not in the oil business, but the *energy* business, and they will
>start their own research programs immediately -- not to suppress
>fusion, but to market it.  The corporations that develop commercial
>fusion reactors will have a vast new market open to them.  The others
>will go the way of the huge, powerful, and now non-existent railroad
>companies who thought they were in the train business and should have
>realized that they were in the *transportation* business.
 
	Oh?  I guess Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Illinois Central, Santa
Fe, Denver & Rio Grande, etc. don't really exist?  To think that the wool has
been pulled over my eyes all this time. . . :-)
 
	Let me point out that for a long time federal regulations hampered the
railroads from diversifying.  They realized this, and complained about it, but
government action was quite slow.  When they could diversify, many of them
did.  For instance, ever see a Santa Fe or Union Pacific truck trailer?
 
	As far as I know, the above comments do NOT apply to the oil companies
and the automotive industry, but they may apply to some extent to some other
energy companies.  Naturally, if the oil companies are absolutely convinced
that they aren't going to be able to make much more money out of oil, they
will try to co-opt fusion, but they will also try to milk every last bit of
money out of oil that they can (by slowing conversion if necessary) just
because that is a large amount of money and because converting to fusion would
mean that they would have to compete with everyone else.  Of course, the
government could do something stupid like preventing the oil companies from
having anything to do with fusion, thus giving them even more of a stake in
fighting it, or it could do something stupid like throwing it right into their
lap to keep them happy (this latter possibility is more likely, and would give
them a license to hold it up indefinitely, or at least until the oil runs
out).
 
--
|  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:
cuddy4 cudenchiaravi cudfnLucius cudlnChiaraviglio cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Stewart Clamen /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: clamen@CLAMEN.AVALON.CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 02:26:22 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

In article <28300@apple.Apple.COM> jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) writes:
 
   In article <CLAMEN.89Apr2224810@CLAMEN.CS.CMU.EDU>
   clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
 
   >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.
   >>
		   [material deleted for brevity]
   >>
   >>     Solid state fusion is immoral because...
   >
   >i. (One that I've though about a bit)  It will free people from their
   >   reliance on a central power supplier, thereby increasing
   >   self-sufficiency, and encouraging people (and terrorist groups) to
   >   become more anti-social in their behaviour.
   >
 
   I can readily agree about self-sufficiency, but you fail to support
   any causality for the other half. Just how is this supposed to happen?
   Can you cite instances in which people become more anti-social when
   they become more self-reliant? (I can't.) C'mon, now, give us some
   reason to believe the nasty claim! :-)
 
   >
   >   Relatedly, it decreases interdependance among nations, and thereby
   >   increases the likelihood of major, national conflicts.
   >
 
   Again, unsupported. Not only that, I don't buy it. Maybe it decreases
   _forced_ interdependency, but not _voluntary_ interdependency, and
   once again, you haven't bothered to make any case for your claimed
   causality.
 
When people want you to do something for them, they often find that
they are more successful when they are nice and friendly towards you.
I believe that this works similarly the diplomatic world.  If you want
something from a country, like oil, you have to be moderately friendly
to it, like send over an ambassador, sell them weapons, and accept
the ruling group's kids into Harvard.  If you suddenly find that your
trading partner has nothing to trade, you would be more apt to make
fun of his strange habits, since you would have less to lose if he got
angry with you.
 
Did the Western Allies and the Soviet Union join forces in WW2 because
they liked each other?  Why do you think the EEC is aiming at an open
market by 1992? because they are really psyched about getting
multilingual newscasts?  Are Americans really so pro-"Free Trade"
that they are willing to allow cheaper wood into their country,
costing American jobs?
 
Few countries decide their foreign policy based on ideology.  When two
countries join forces or begin to trade good and services, they do so
because they each see advantages to be gained on their side, either a
common enemy more likely to be defeated if attacked from the east and
west, or larger markets for THEIR OWN goods and services.  If energy
is free, Western (and Eastern) industrialized nations will not need to
trade as much with the often less-than-democratic OPEC nations of the
world, and won't.
 
   It has occurred to me that you may merely be playing devil's advocate
   here, but even if that's the case, you really want to do a righteous
   job of it. Don't just put up straw-men that we can knock down without
   any huffing and puffing.  :-)
 
I agree, but I thought that some others would come up with similar
points, so I didn't think I had to put much effort into elaborating.
 
 
 
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart M. Clamen
School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
 
INTERNET: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU
USENET:   ...!uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenclamen cudfnStewart cudlnClamen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / L Chiaraviglio /  Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 03:02:44 GMT
Organization: Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental
Biology at Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <15261@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Dave Cole)
writes:
>                                               [. . .]  In a fission reactor,
>the neutron flux which escapes the core is pretty much soaked up in the
>production of deuterium in the coolant water.  This is a problem for
>fission, since the deuterium is radioactive and useless.
 
	Deuterium is stable.  You must be thinking of tritium, which is the
radioactive isotope of hydrogen, and which you can get by hitting deuterium
with neutrons (amont other ways).
 
>                                                          But in a fusion
>reactor, we actually need deuterium for fuel!  So the deposition of neutrons
>in the coolant water might mean that the fusion reactor, once turned on,
>will run forever without ever needing refueling!  In practice that almost
>certainly won't be true, but having the fusion reactor produce enough
>deuterium to replace the amount consumed should easily be possible.
 
	Actually, this won't work, because you have to use at least 2
deuteriums for each neutron you get out.  It almost works for breeding
tritium from deuterium if you are using a deuterium + tritium fusion reaction;
the reason it doesn't quite work is because you will lose some of the neutrons
(that is, they get absorbed by something other than a deuterium nucleus), and
each deuterium + tritium reaction only produces 1 neutron.  To get more
tritium than you use you need a different kind of breeder reaction, such as
 
	(7)Li + n --> (4)He + (3)H + n
 
where the neutron comes out slower than it went in, but might be able to
participate in one or more additional reactions of the same kind if it was
originally going fast enough.  To get deuterium, you just purify it out of
ordinary water, where it is present in something like 1 part in 5000 (relative
to total hydrogen).
 
--
|  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:
cuddy4 cudenchiaravi cudfnLucius cudlnChiaraviglio cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / S Chandrashekha /  excluding political discussions
     
Originally-From: chandy@brand.usc.edu (Sundaresan Chandrashekhar)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: excluding political discussions
Date: 4 Apr 89 04:32:13 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <8137@polya.Stanford.EDU> gangolli@wolvesden.Stanford.EDU
(Anil R. Gangolli) writes:
)In article <3688@mit-amt> jrd@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Jim Davis) writes:
)  )I beg you all, please keep this discussion to
)  )the physics of fusion, not the politics
)  )of fusion or the politics of science or
)  )science journalism.  I want to hear facts or
)  )*well informed* speculation.  ...
)
)I second his motion.  Please, let's get off things like fusion and
)OPEC, fusion and terrorism, fusion and anti-nuke groups, etc.  Please
)keep the discussion centered on fusion physics and technology. --anil.
 
	I oppose the motion. Science, politics and human welfare are closely
related. The scientist who concentrates on the technical/physical aspects of
 problem, and ignores the political, social and humanitarian aspects is
a danger to society. If the scientists who built the first atomic bomb had
thought about the consequences of their actions, the holocausts in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki may never have taken place. As engineers and scientists we have
a duty towards the human beings who are going to feel the impact of our
discoveries and inventions.
	I suggest that the keywords 'scientific', 'political', 'economic' etc.
be used to indicate the nature of the contents of all postings on this net.
------------
chandra.
 
send your flames to chandy@brand.usc.edu.
 
*********************************
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchandy cudfnSundaresan cudlnChandrashekhar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Joe Dellinger /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: joe@hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 08:25:40 GMT
Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Geophysics

In article <11732@ut-emx.UUCP> newman@emx.UUCP (David Newman) writes:
>
>I'm just a little peeved at the people who seem to feel
>that all oil companies are EVIL.
 
Growing up in Texas, I've never figured out why the oil companies are so
widely hated either. My research group is closely tied to the Oil industry.
I would vouch that the oil industry is not particularly evil... although
they do have a strong attachment to 1970's model IBM mainframes (that's
why you don't see many postings from oil companies) that make them
at least a _little_ suspect...
 
The US oil companies ought to already be prepared for "death by fusion".
Why? All the cheap oil in the US is about gone anyway. It is useful
to keep looking for national security reasons, but Saudia Arabia has
single fields now with more than the entire remaining US reserves.
The US oil companies were already switching over to relying more on
distribution and retailing to make their money, even if fusion never
works at all!
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjoe cudfnJoe cudlnDellinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Mark Thorson /  Re: Cold fusion as a terrorist weapon?
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a terrorist weapon?
Date: 4 Apr 89 00:18:53 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

 
An ITT X-ray tube would be simpler, cheaper, no maintenance, and packs
lots of punch.  Some radioactive waste also would work.
 
However, if you are intent on using cold fusion for this purpose, might
I suggest taking a large oil-filled capacitor, cutting the top off with
a can opener, dumping out the oil, and unrolling the innards.  The innards
are very thin metal sheets separated by thin paper.  Soak the paper in solvent
to remove the oil.  Electroplate a heavy coating of palladium on the metal
sheets.  Re-roll and stuff back into the can.  Fill can with heavy water
and appropriate electrolytes.  Turn on power and book passage on next train
out of town.
 
The above assumes the best terrorist weapon would have a high surface ratio
for the palladium.  The recent disclosure of the self-destruction of a cube
of saturated palladium suggests a mechanism based on low surface area might
be more effective.  If this is the case, perhaps a cylinder with a cone-
shaped hollow space machined into one end might be used to create a
focussed "event", similar to the Munroe effect.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Ric Helton /  Re: The deal
     
Originally-From: RCH@cup.portal.com (Ric C Helton)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: The deal
Date: 4 Apr 89 10:02:33 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Aside from a quick blurb on CNN, I have not heard *anything* wrt cold
fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
Is this thing being covered at all by the general media?  CNN's announcer
gave the impression by his attitude, that this was another "Yawn,
perpetual motion hoax" type affair.....  Even so, you'd think the papers
would have *something* about it.
 
 -Ric Helton RCH@cup.portal.com
 -Freestyle BBS 404/546-8256
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenRCH cudfnRic cudlnHelton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Eric Fielding /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: eric@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 13:34:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Geological Sciences, Cornell University

In a recent article bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) wrote:
>In article <1989Apr2.145310.29132@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rocheste
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeneric cudfnEric cudlnFielding cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Deborah Wilbert /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: dwilbert@bbn.com (Deborah Wilbert)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 15:02:05 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

 
The Economist, a well-respected British journal has a Science and Technology
section. The leading article in their last issue reported the Utah
announcement. Their article was a very good introductory-level explanation
of the experiment and the salient issues. The Economist is not main-stream
media by any means, but the announcement is being taken seriously in serious
circles.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendwilbert cudfnDeborah cudlnWilbert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Ethan Vishniac /  Li6 plus D as a candidate fusion reaction
     
Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Li6 plus D as a candidate fusion reaction
Date: 4 Apr 89 15:24:58 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

After posting a note which suggested that *if* the results of Fleischmann
and Pons are indeed due to some fusion reaction that one possibility might
be Li6+D into Be8 into 2He4 I looked up a few relevant numbers.
(This being the net I am merely following custom in adhering to this order
of doing things.  :-))
 
A few comments appear in order.
 
First, my vague impression that Li6 was
the usual isotope of lithium was seriously wrong.  Lithium is mostly
Li7.  Li6 is not exactly rare, but it is less than 10 times as common
as Li7.
 
Second, comparing the masses of D, Li6 and Be8 one finds that D+Li6
has about 0.025 AMU to spare when making Be8, or about 25 MeV.
 
Third, the halflife of Be8 is a few times 10^-16 seconds, about
seven orders of magnitude faster than I had recalled.
 
In view of the relative scarcity of Li6, the difficulty getting
it into the Pd, and the relatively large difference between
the sum of the masses of  D and Li6 it would appear that this is
not a particularly promising mechanism.  In addition, the preprint
by Pons and Fleischmann states that losses of D2O due to electrolysis
were made up by the addition by D2O alone.  In other words, they were
not replacing the Li6 consumed, if Li6 was being consumed.  It is not
clear if this is a problem since the total energy available from the
Li6 present is *much* larger than the energy they claim to produce.
 
If Li6 + D *is* the mechanism by which all this energy is being produced
it can only mean that Be8 has an excited nuclear state with the correct
energy to make the reaction resonant.  This line of reasoning is
strikingly similar to the way the an excited state of C12 was deduced
from the requirement that 3He4 into C12 be reasonably efficient in Red Giants.
Of course, we know that C12 is abundant in the universe and that Red Giants
exist.  We don't know that F and P are actually producing abundant fusion
energy.
--
 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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Dale Cook /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 16:26:54 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corp, Marlboro, MA

In article <1989Apr3.160534.25257@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.e
u (Paul Dietz) writes:
>My impression was that alt.fusion was created as a ghetto for fluffy
>nonsense about fusion, and that sci.physics is the place to post more
>substantial stuff.  Or do we want a alt.fusion.nonsense?
>
The usual procedures for newsgroups is to collect all the commentary on a
subject initially and fragment the group when *demonstrated traffic* becomes
excessive.  20 or so postings a day is *far* from excessive!
 
Besides, I find all aspects of the fusion break through interesting.  The
bomb scientists have received heaps of abuse for NOT considering the
social consequences of their research.  Surely we are mature enough to
sift through all the material and choose what interests us.  Use a kill
file if you must.
 
 
 
	- Dale (N1US)	
INTERNET:	cook@pinocchio.encore.com
UUCP:		{buita || talcott || husc6 || bellcore} !encore!pinocchio!cook
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencook cudfnDale cudlnCook cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Jim Burke /  Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jimb@mas.UUCP (Jim Burke)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 16:24:33 GMT
Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino CA

In article <1262@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes:
> >     2)  Anyone know if there are steel-producing processes that don't
> >         use petrochemical coke? I.e., could you use fusion energy to do
> >         it, or would you have to keep smelly steel plants?
>
> 	Yes, there are direct-reduction steelmaking processes that don't
> 	use coke.  They're used mostly for specialty steels that can't
> 	tolerate certain impurities that come with the coke, but they're
> 	becoming more popular for less-exotic alloys.  If electricity
> 	ever does become too cheap to meter, it will be useful for
> 	steelmaking.
>
 
Basic Oxidation Furnaces (BOF's) blow oxygen into the bath of molten metal
to generate the heat required.  Electric Arc furnaces are also commercially
used today although they are expensive to run and are used more for the
specialty steels.  Coke is typically used to fuel blast furnaces because
it is cheaper than natural gas or oil so a fusion generated heat should
certainly be a good replacement.
 
Steel mills use an ENORMOUS amount of energy for secondary processing
after the steel has been made metalurgically.  These
processes include reheat furnaces and rolling mills.
 
Could the U.S. become a primary steel producing country again???  Stay
tuned.
 
 
--
Jim Burke (mas1!jimb)                   Measurex Automation Systems
{...}pyramid!voder!mas1!jimb            10411 Bubb Road
{...}apple.com!mas1!jimb                Cupertino, CA  95014
                                        (408) 973-1800 ext. 722
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjimb cudfnJim cudlnBurke cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Larry Blair /  Re: short-term economic impact of cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: short-term economic impact of cold fusion?
Date: 4 Apr 89 19:16:21 GMT
Organization: VICOM Systems Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <8111@polya.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU
(Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
=The reason is that if the price of oil is clearly going to drop
=catastrophically in the next twenty years (say), then the price of
=oil is going to drop substantially almost immediately.  The reason
=is that the oil producers in the Middle East will no longer feel that
=they have to conserve their oil in order to preserve their money flow
=into the distant future.  As soon as it becomes clear that the price
=of oil is going down in the future, they will all start pumping as
=much as they can, as fast as they can.  And the price of oil will
=drop immediately, not twenty years from now.
 
No.  More oil output == less income - something the Saudis finally proved to
the rest of OPEC last year.  Unless you can increase your production by
10X (which even the Saudis can't), $20 oil pays better than $2 oil.
 
Oil will continue to be a valuable resource even if it not burned.  Besides,
if cold fusion really looks like it will come along, all "expensive"
exploration will stop and OPEC will have only game in town.
 
OK.  The $64 question.  It has been said that only palladium will allow the
kind of high density saturation that appears to be necessary.  Exactly how
abundant is palladium?  Is there enough that the world's energy needs could
be met, or are we talk about something that, like solar, is free power that
costs too much.  Before you flame me, I'm talking orders of magnitude here.
I know the process will be drastically improved.  Btw, what's happening to
the price of palladium?
--
Larry Blair   ames!vsi1!lmb   lmb@vicom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlmb cudfnLarry cudlnBlair cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Brian Yamauchi /  Re: excluding political discussions
     
Originally-From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: excluding political discussions
Date: 4 Apr 89 18:35:20 GMT
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY

In article <16283@oberon.USC.EDU> chandy@brand.usc.edu (Sundaresan
Chandrashekhar) writes:
>In article <8137@polya.Stanford.EDU> gangolli@wolvesden.Stanford.EDU
(Anil R. Gangolli) writes:
>)In article <3688@mit-amt> jrd@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Jim Davis) writes:
>)  )I beg you all, please keep this discussion to
>)  )the physics of fusion,
>)
>)I second his motion.  Please, let's get off things like fusion and
>)OPEC, fusion and terrorism, fusion and anti-nuke groups, etc.  Please
>)keep the discussion centered on fusion physics and technology. --anil.
>
>	I oppose the motion. Science, politics and human welfare are closely
>related.
>
>chandra.
 
If people are *strongly* opposed to discussion on the social,
economic, political, and long-range (read: highly speculative)
technological affects of cold fusion, perhaps this group could be
split into:
 
alt.fusion.news	:	Reserved for new information only.
			(experimental verification, publications)
 
alt.fusion.sci :	Reserved for scientific and technical
			discussions of cold fusion.
 
alt.fusion.spec :	Reserved for speculations on the applications
			for cold fusion as well as the possible
			social, economic, political effects.
 
 
In addition, this would provide a way for people to keep up with new
developments (in alt.fusion.news) without reading the other groups.
Even though I am interested in all three subjects, my tendency would
be to read all of the articles in the first group and skim the other
two.
 
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenyamauchi cudfnBrian cudlnYamauchi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Thant Tessman /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: thant@horus.SGI.COM (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 18:23:26 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <CLAMEN.89Apr3222622@CLAMEN.AVALON.CS.CMU.EDU>, clamen@CLAMEN
AVALON.CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
> In article <28300@apple.Apple.COM> jon@Apple.COM (Jon Singer) writes:
>
>    In article <CLAMEN.89Apr2224810@CLAMEN.CS.CMU.EDU>
>    clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>    >
>    >i. (One that I've though about a bit)  It will free people from their
>    >   reliance on a central power supplier, thereby increasing
>    >   self-sufficiency, and encouraging people (and terrorist groups) to
>    >   become more anti-social in their behaviour.
>    >
>
>    I can readily agree about self-sufficiency, but you fail to support
>    any causality for the other half. Just how is this supposed to happen?
>    Can you cite instances in which people become more anti-social when
>    they become more self-reliant? (I can't.) C'mon, now, give us some
>    reason to believe the nasty claim! :-)
>
>    >
>    >   Relatedly, it decreases interdependance among nations, and thereby
>    >   increases the likelihood of major, national conflicts.
>    >
>
>    Again, unsupported. Not only that, I don't buy it. Maybe it decreases
>    _forced_ interdependency, but not _voluntary_ interdependency, and
>    once again, you haven't bothered to make any case for your claimed
>    causality.
>
> When people want you to do something for them, they often find that
> they are more successful when they are nice and friendly towards you.
> I believe that this works similarly the diplomatic world.  If you want
> something from a country, like oil, you have to be moderately friendly
> to it, like send over an ambassador, sell them weapons, and accept
> the ruling group's kids into Harvard.  If you suddenly find that your
> trading partner has nothing to trade, you would be more apt to make
> fun of his strange habits, since you would have less to lose if he got
> angry with you.
 
You didn't notice the _voluntary_ versus _involuntary_ part.  International
politics is the art of getting other governments to screw their people so our
government doesn't have to.
 
One of the U.S.'s main diplomatic tools is the CIA which functions by
fixing elections, assasinations, etc., not by being nice.  This is what makes
people from other countries mad at the U.S.
 
Another tool is the World Bank.  It's policies help keep in power unpopular
(puppet) and inefficient governments and industries.
 
Involuntary interdependencies, especially lopsided ones, CAUSE wars and
terrorist activities.  War is just a very large form of theft.
 
>
> Are Americans really so pro-"Free Trade"
> that they are willing to allow cheaper wood into their country,
> costing American jobs?
 
 Trade restrictions are designed to support local industries at the (greater
but more distributed) cost to consumers. A voluntary interdependency is more
likely to incite action when it is interfered with (such as trade
restrictions).
 
> Few countries decide their foreign policy based on ideology.
 
Especially the U.S.  The countries the U.S. gives aid to pay very little, if
any attention to human rights, free trade, or democracy.
 
>  When two
> countries join forces or begin to trade good and services, they do so
> because they each see advantages to be gained on their side, either a
> common enemy more likely to be defeated if attacked from the east and
> west, or larger markets for THEIR OWN goods and services.  If energy
> is free, Western (and Eastern) industrialized nations will not need to
> trade as much with the often less-than-democratic OPEC nations of the
> world, and won't.
 
And this may then finally allow those less-than-democratic governments to
fall from their own weight, hopefully to be replaced with something a little
more constructive (like free markets).
 
I'm sorry to talk so much about politics but people seem so ready to confuse a
people and their government.  Corporations don't tax, draft teenagers, mine
harbors, or conduct assasinations (unless they're paid to).
 
Also, it is a very old argument that technology destroys jobs.  There are
always more jobs created by the resources freed up by the technology than
lost to it.  It just requires people to change.  (There's that word again.)
 
Technology is the ONLY thing that improves the average standard of living.
(It does this by increasing labor productivity.)  Free markets foster the
distribution of the benefits of technology which in turn fosters
improvements in technology.
 
Anybody who tells you different probably wants to force you to buy something
from them instead of the Japanese (appropriately marked up, of course).
 
thant@sgi.com "Here's to cold fusion!"
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenthant cudfnThant cudlnTessman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Gary Dare /  Re: short-term economic impact of cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: gld@CUNIXD.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: short-term economic impact of cold fusion?
Date: 4 Apr 89 20:51:03 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. EE & CTR

In article <1617@vicom.COM> Larry Blair  wrote:
>
>Besides, if cold fusion really looks like it will come along, all
>"expensive" exploration will stop and OPEC will have only game in town.
 
This would be a disaster for the projects in the North Sea, Alaska and
the Canadian Arctic.  Most Canadian exploration and pilot research is
suspended because of low world prices, but my sources in Calgary tell
me that a lot of plans have been drawn up and set to go once US$24 is
hit (the papers always say US$20 is the magic number, but we're there
and Alberta is still quiet).  North Sea oil only broke even in the
last few years for the Brits, so this is the last thing they need, too.
 
C'est la vie!  (That's life!)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Gary L. Dare				> gld@eevlsi.ee.columbia.EDU
					> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 	
	"SLAINTE MHATH!"		> gld@cunixc.BITNET
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengld cudfnGary cudlnDare cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Ralph Hyre /  Hiding stuff with patents (was Re: Reactions to Fusion)
     
Originally-From: ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Hiding stuff with patents (was Re: Reactions to Fusion)
Date: 4 Apr 89 21:09:51 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI

In article <1694@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> larsonjs@thor.stolaf.edu
(James S. Larson @ St. Olaf College) writes:
[If cold fusion works:]
>What could the oil companies do?  For instance they could buy the patents to
>the new devices and then keep them hidden, like they did to methane and
>hydrogen powered cars.
You can only hide something in this way for the life of the patent, right?
(17 years in the U.S.)
 
 
--
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
Internet: ralphw@{ius{3,2,1}.,}cs.cmu.edu    Phone:(412) CMU-BUGS
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
"You can do what you want with my computer, but leave me alone!8-)"
--
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenralphw cudfnRalph cudlnHyre cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Paul Campbell /  Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 22:40:25 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland

In article <15261@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Dave Cole) writes:
>a turbine trick, just as is done in a fission reactor.  In a fission reactor,
>the neutron flux which escapes the core is pretty much soaked up in the
>production of deuterium in the coolant water.  This is a problem for
 
Um ... doesn't 'water' contain things other than hydrogen? things rather
more massive? ....
 
	Paul
 
 
--
 
Paul Campbell, Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnCampbell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / T Kunselman /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas Kunselman)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 5 Apr 89 02:29:20 GMT
Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences

In article <CLAMEN.89Apr2224810@CLAMEN.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen@CLAMEN.CS.CMU.
DU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
>     Solid state fusion is immoral because...
 
>i. (One that I've though about a bit)  It will free people from their
>   reliance on a central power supplier, thereby increasing
>   self-sufficiency, and encouraging people (and terrorist groups) to
>   become more anti-social in their behaviour.
>Stewart M. Clamen
>INTERNET: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU
>USENET:   ...!uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
 
 
How will helping people become more self-sufficient encourage
them to engage in anti-social behaviour?
I would be more inclined to think that if people were more
self-sufficient then they would be less anti-social since they
wouldn't have to steal from me to survive.  Also they wouldn't
have to rely on governmental subsidies to survive.  If you
consider that sort of thing anti-social.
 
--
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:
cuddy5 cudentek cudfnThomas cudlnKunselman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Ethan Vishniac /  Re: Li6 plus D as a candidate fusion reaction
     
Originally-From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Li6 plus D as a candidate fusion reaction
Date: 4 Apr 89 21:07:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <11750@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes:
> Lithium is mostly
> Li7.  Li6 is not exactly rare, but it is less than 10 times as common
> as Li7.
 
My brother has gently pointed out to me that I meant that Li7 is more than
10 times as abundant as Li6.
 
Sorry about that.
 
--
 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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / daniel offutt /  Patents on the Pons-Fleischmann fusion reactor
     
Originally-From: offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Patents on the Pons-Fleischmann fusion reactor
Date: 5 Apr 89 02:58:00 GMT
Organization: caen

In article <4645@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) writes:
>In article <1694@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> larsonjs@thor.stolaf.edu
(James S. Larson @ St. Olaf College) writes:
>[If cold fusion works:]
>>What could the oil companies do?  For instance they could buy the patents to
>>the new devices and then keep them hidden, like they did to methane and
>>hydrogen powered cars.
>You can only hide something in this way for the life of the patent, right?
>(17 years in the U.S.)
 
I believe that Pons, Fleischmann, and U. Utah are not going to be able to
obtain patents in many countries outside of the US, due to the fact that
they revealed their method before applying for patents in those countries.
(Or perhaps they did apply for those patents and I am not aware of it.)
So the Pons-Fleischmann fusion reactor appears to be freely usable in
many places outside the US.  Under such circumstances, even if an oil
company purchased the rights to the PFFR, it is hard to believe they
would be able to suppress exploitation of the technology in the US.
 
Depending upon the cost effectiveness of the PFFR, there may not be
an oil company big enough to pay for all of the patent rights.  Why wouldn't
the U. Utah simply hold the patent rights and let companies bid for the
right to use the technology?
 
Also, cold fusion was not looked into by many researchers until very recently.
The simplicity and low-cost of the PFFR, along with the likelyhood that
hundreds or thousands of researchers will be studying this technology
from now on suggests that the technology may advance very quickly to something
quite different from its present form.  Different enough that independent
patents may be issued.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan Offutt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offutt@cean.engin.umich.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenoffutt cudfndaniel cudlnoffutt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Mike Butts /  What would fusion power do to Japan?
     
Originally-From: mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.fusion
Subject: What would fusion power do to Japan?
Date: 4 Apr 89 16:56:57 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation, Beaverton Oregon

As you may have heard in the popular press lately, a breakthrough may
have occurred in fusion power generation.  If the early claims by
Fleischmann and Pons of the University of Utah turn out to be true
(which is far from clear yet) it *may* turn out to be possible to build
fusion power plants which generate heat and/or electricity with fuel
which is easily extracted from seawater.  The process appears to be
intrinsically much safer than current fission power plants, and may
even work on a small scale (cars?).  It would generate no air pollution
or carbon dioxide, and only a small amount of radioactive waste, if any.
So far, it appears to depend on palladium, a precious metal which
is not consumed by the power plant, but which makes it fairly
capital-intensive.  Perhaps a substitute will be developed.
It is generally considered that practical developments might take
place on the scale of a decade or two, if the effect is true.
 
Here's a question I'd like to toss into discussion:  What would
cheap, safe, locally fueled energy do to Japan?  No one would be be
dependent on the outside world for their energy anymore.  We might
further postulate that abundant energy could make processes like
recycling much more practical, and thus reduce dependence on outside
materials.
 
I think a great increase in Japan's ability to be independent of
others would have a profound impact on Japan's view of the world
and of itself.  At first, I should think it would be an enormous boon.
However, much of the Japan's performance in trade and commerce, and
even cultural character, is fueled by its need to make the most of
outside material resources, as Japan has so little of its own.  If
this is no longer so much the case, Japan may not feel the need to be
so sharp to survive in the long run.  On the other hand, American
culture and attitudes have arguably been affected by our independence
of the need for outside resources, until recently.  What do you think?
--
Mike 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
These are my opinions, & not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmbutts cudfnMike cudlnButts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Jeff Erickson /  CALL FOR DISCUSSION: alt.fusion.politics
     
Originally-From: krazy@claris.com (Jeff Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: alt.fusion.politics
Date: 5 Apr 89 07:49:20 GMT
Organization: Claris Corporation, Mountain View CA

No, just kidding.
 
Are you physicists so unconcerned about the possible human consequences
of this discovery?  People are going to be affected by it in very
unscientific, political, economic ways.  Yes, let's hear discussions of
possible scientific repercussions, but let's not exclude the other topics
which may be more relevant to the "real" world.
 
Terrible misquote: "If I had known then what I know now, I would have become
a watchmaker." -- Albert Einstein.
 
[Please, someone, find the quote and correct me!]
 
--
Jeff Erickson     \  Internet: krazy@claris.com          AppleLink: Erickson4
Claris Corporation \      UUCP: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!krazy
415/960-2693        \________________________________________________________
____________________/        "I'm so heppy I'm mizzabil!" -- Krazy Kat
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenkrazy cudfnJeff cudlnErickson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Tom Wilson /  Re: excluding political discussions
     
Originally-From: wilson@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Tom Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: excluding political discussions
Date: 5 Apr 89 06:28:56 GMT
Organization: East-West Center, Honolulu

In article <1989Apr4.143521.17150@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rocheste
.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
[quotes others who (a) don't want OPEC/fission/nuke/terrorism discussions,
 and those who argue that discussions of science should include the social
 ramifications]
 
>If people are *strongly* opposed to discussion on the social,
>economic, political, and long-range (read: highly speculative)
>technological affects of cold fusion, perhaps this group could be
>split into:
>
>alt.fusion.news	:	Reserved for new information only.
>			(experimental verification, publications)
>
>alt.fusion.sci :	Reserved for scientific and technical
>			discussions of cold fusion.
>
>alt.fusion.spec :	Reserved for speculations on the applications
>			for cold fusion as well as the possible
>			social, economic, political effects.
 
Let's not get carried away just yet.  Note that purely scientific/technical
discussions are still appropriate to sci.physics (but keep out the news
flashes and speculation).
 
It seems to me that the volume on this subject is already slowing down some;
I've been making a file of interesting/new articles, and the articles per
day is way down.  After all, this group is only about 1 week old, and the
original announcement about two weeks.
 
So IMHO, there is no need quite yet to go subgroup-crazy.
 
 
--
Tom Wilson                        wilson@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Internet)
                                  wilson@uhccux.UUCP || wilson@uhccux (Bitnet)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenwilson cudfnTom cudlnWilson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Ric Werme /  Re: So how do we get rid of by products?
     
Originally-From: werme@Alliant.COM (Ric Werme)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: So how do we get rid of by products?
Date: 4 Apr 89 00:00:39 GMT
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA

In article <338@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
[On getting reation products out of Pd electrodes:]
>Maybe we do want to let the fusion get 'out of hand' so that the lump melts
>and the He4 gasses off, then we cool it by having it dribble into our heat
>exchanger etc etc
 
How about making electrodes out of sintered Pd powder?  The vastly improved
surface to volume ratio should allow much faster D adsorption and let the
reaction products out faster too.  Of course, if He is produced, well, it
does pretty well at slipping through most anything!
 
I recall a post about Pons talk warn about how dangerous trying to
replicate the experiment with Pd powder might be.  Until people figure out
just what is going on, I suspect efficiency and power density are not key
goals.
--
 
| 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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Lee Hollaar /  Re: Hiding stuff with patents (was Re: Reactions to Fusion)
     
Originally-From: hollaar%cs.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Hiding stuff with patents (was Re: Reactions to Fusion)
Date: 5 Apr 89 07:45:26 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <42711f76.f3a4@lamo.engin.umich.edu> offutt@caen.engin.umich.
du (daniel m offutt) writes:
>I believe that Pons, Fleischmann, and U. Utah are not going to be able to
>obtain patents in many countries outside of the US, due to the fact that
>they revealed their method before applying for patents in those countries.
>(Or perhaps they did apply for those patents and I am not aware of it.)
>So the Pons-Fleischmann fusion reactor appears to be freely usable in
>many places outside the US.  Under such circumstances, even if an oil
>company purchased the rights to the PFFR, it is hard to believe they
>would be able to suppress exploitation of the technology in the US.
 
Without commenting on the specifics of a fusion patent, I'd like to state
that the University of Utah has an excellent technology transfer office,
headed by a patent attorney, and also employes outside patent counsel
when an invention appears to warrant filing for a patent.
 
>Depending upon the cost effectiveness of the PFFR, there may not be
>an oil company big enough to pay for all of the patent rights.  Why wouldn't
>the U. Utah simply hold the patent rights and let companies bid for the
>right to use the technology?
 
Gee, I wonder if the people in the technology transfer office thought of
that ;-).
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenedu cudfnLee cudlnHollaar cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Jr Mccauley /  Are you trying fusion in a Test Tube?
     
Originally-From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. John S Mccauley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.research,alt.fusion
Subject: Are you trying fusion in a Test Tube?
Date: 5 Apr 89 05:59:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ

Dennis Manos (manos@ppl.mfenet) of the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
would like to get in touch with people who are trying to do cold
fusion experiments, especially if you think you are getting positive results.
 
Please send him email at the address below if you have the names
and phone numbers/addresses of the Principle Investigators doing
cold fusion research.
 
Here are some more questions he has:
 
1. Pons and Fleischmann's Calorimetry
 
	Would appreciate further commerce with ANYONE, repeat ANYONE, who
	actually understands all of the ins-and-outs of P&F's calorimetry.
	What exactly did they measure and how - has anyone seen the data?
	Can anyone infer what the data may have looked like from the
	tabular summary they give? The 10**27 atm calculation also seems
	misguided.
 
	They completely neglected the accumulated strain energy of the
	Pd lattice, which could well have been at explosive levels indeed.
	Thoughts from cognescenti also welcomed on this subject.
 
2. The Jones 3*me quasiparticle
 
	Does anyone know what the 3*me quasiparticle proposed
	by Jones could look like?
	How does it get into the valence shell? Thoughts? Worries?
 
	Thanks,
 
		Scott
 
Addresses for Dennis Manos:
manos@ppc.mfenet			(MFENET)
manos%ppc.mfenet@nmfecc.llnl.gov 	(ARPA-INTERNET)
ucbvax!manos%ppc.mfenet@nmfecc.llnl.gov (UUCP)
manos%ppc.mfenet@ANLVMS.BITNET		(BITNET)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjsm cudfnJr cudlnMccauley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Mike Pelt /  Submission for Alt.fusion
     
Originally-From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Submission for Alt.fusion
Date: 5 Apr 89 05:16:51 GMT
Organization: Alt.fusion/Mail Gateway

There's been a bit in the newspapers, but radio and TV have had pretty
close to absolutely zero on the subject.  Is it because the average
TV news reader (a.k.a. "journalist") has just about the comprehension
of science and technology of a cockroach?  Is it because they believe
that their audience is composed entirely of imbeciles?  Is it because
unless it's dead bodies, little fuzzy animals, or sports that it isn't
_news_?  (As you might guess, I'm more than a bit ticked off by this.)
 
Well, I'm sure glad I'm on the net.  Beats the Wall Street Journal by
a day or two, with more detail and not filtered through a reporter
with a shakey grasp on the subject.
--
Mike Van Pelt      mvp@video7.uucp
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / J Chandross /  Re: Cold fusion as a terrorist weapon?
     
Originally-From: jac@paul.rutgers.edu (J. A. Chandross)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion as a terrorist weapon?
Date: 4 Apr 89 01:53:29 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mattb@microsoft.UUCP (Matt Bamberger)
> Put LSD in the water supply.
 
LSD breaks down in sunlight.  Sorry to ruin your and Timothy Leary's day.
 
 
Jonathan A. Chandross
Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu
UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJ cudlnChandross cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / Cullen Schaffer /  Why is fusion good?
     
Originally-From: schaffer@steeleye.rutgers.edu (Cullen Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Why is fusion good?
Date: 4 Apr 89 15:55:18 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

 
I've always thought that the reason fusion is such a big deal is that
it gets us away from dealing with nasty radioactive fuels and waste:
hydrogen in, helium out.  But now I think I understand that the
high-energy neutron emissions from a fusion reaction create
radioactive materials.  Is that true?  Is dealing with fusion waste
somehow easier than dealing with fission waste?  Or are we mainly
excited about fusion (beyond the obvious scientific interest) because
it will make power cheaper?
 
In general, I'd like an informed technical opinion about the benefits
of fusion.  What do we gain if the recent claims check out?
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschaffer cudfnCullen cudlnSchaffer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Randell Jesup /  Re: So how do we get rid of by products?
     
Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: So how do we get rid of by products?
Date: 5 Apr 89 02:09:33 GMT
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA

In article <338@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
>So suppose we are building a fusion engine of some sort - we have to:
>
>	1) squirt D into palladium etc
>	2) wait 'till it's "full" so that fusion starts
>	3) collect the power .... :-)
>
>so now what happens? at some point the fusion by-products start to build up
>inside the palladium, can they get out? Maybe they diffuse out at a slower
>rate than that at which D diffuses in (after all they have larger masses etc)?
>
>So eventually we have a lump of palladium so full of He4 (or whatever) that
>it's not much use.
 
	No, when it's fuel is used up (assuming it uses it up faster than
it diffuses in), you rotate a fresh one in and start recharging the old
one (or melt it down and recrystallize it to lett all the various gases
out).  Hopefully you can get enough out controllably that you can "throttle"
it, and have a large enough (long enough) bar full of deuterium when you
start for the journey (or enough small ones).  The power/weight ratio of
fusion, assuming you can even fuse a few percent of the deuterium, should be
excellent (at least for interplanetary travel).
 
	Does anyone know whether you can stop the fusion once it starts?
The UofU guys said they had their meltdown when they thought they were
shutting down the experiment.
 
--
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Randell Jesup /  Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
Date: 5 Apr 89 02:44:16 GMT
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA

In article <366@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> BOLBENM@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>     1)  How much tritium might a cold fusion reactor produce?  I seem
>         to recall that tritium is really nasty stuff (the people at the
>         Princeton Tokamak have worried a lot about containing the
>         tritium they use), and it seems that a reaction which generates
>         tritium and also has the potential to burn a 4" hole in concrete
>         might be kind of nasty ...
 
	Well, people were talking that a lunar mining base should be built
eventually merely to mine tritium captured in lunar soil from the solar
wind.  Tritium is much better for hot fusion than deuterium, I believe.
Amusing: cold fusion may make hot fusion more practical by providing fuel.
 
>     2)  (This one is very unrealistic, assumes that cold fusion becomes
>         commercially practical very soon)
>           Anyone know if there are steel-producing processes that don't
>         use petrochemical coke? I.e., could you use fusion energy to do
>         it, or would you have to keep smelly steel plants?
 
	Well, hot fusion == a really good element seperator - put some big
mass spectrography equipment on the output of a fusion flame which you added
other material to.  Of course, there ARE some engineering problems...
(understatement of the week!)
 
--
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Randell Jesup /  Re: Submission for Alt.fusion
     
Originally-From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for Alt.fusion
Date: 5 Apr 89 03:49:31 GMT
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA

In article <8904030932.AA10433@apple.com> fusion@zorch.UU.NET writes:
>1) The Brigham Young University group finds some evidence for fusion
>reactions. They do NOT see ANYTHING LIKE "breakeven", reporting
>instead 10^-13 watts from their apparatus.
 
	Then again, UofU saw differing results for different diameters
of palladium rod (wire).
 
	Also, BYU was ONLY measuring neutrons, and not heat energy.  UoU
showed neutrons, but also showed a low number of neutrons.
 
	BYU had a different setup, and used palladium and titanium electrodes,
I believe.
 
--
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjesup cudfnRandell cudlnJesup cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 /  James_J_Kowalc /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 5 Apr 89 03:01:01 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>My impression was that alt.fusion was created as a ghetto for fluffy
>nonsense about fusion, and that sci.physics is the place to post more
>substantial stuff.  Or do we want a alt.fusion.nonsense?
>
>        Paul F. Dietz
>        dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
Perhaps this group should be re-named "alt.confusion" to avoid
ambiguity.
 
Jim Kowalczyk
Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 /  James_J_Kowalc /  Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: random thoughts on cold fusion
Date: 5 Apr 89 03:22:34 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

dmc@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Dave Cole) writes:
 
>a turbine trick, just as is done in a fission reactor.  In a fission reactor,
>the neutron flux which escapes the core is pretty much soaked up in the
>production of deuterium in the coolant water.  This is a problem for
>fission, since the deuterium is radioactive and useless.  But in a fusion
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Deuterium is neither radioactive nor useless.
 
Jim Kowalczyk
Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Paul Dietz /  Re: section of preprint from Fleischmann and Pons
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: section of preprint from Fleischmann and Pons
Date: 5 Apr 89 15:37:37 GMT
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY

In article <11727@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes:
 
>The spectrum of gamma rays emitted from the water bath due to the (n,gamma)
>reaction 1H+n(2.45MeV) into 2D +gamma(2.5MeV) (vii) was determined using a
>sodium iodide crystal scintillation detector and a Nuclear Data ND-6 High
>Energy Spectrum Analyzer.  The spectrum was taken above the water immediately
>surrounding an 0.8x10cm Pd-rod cathode charged to equilibrium; it was corrected
>for background by subtracting the spectrum over a sink (containing identical
>shielding materials) 10 m from the water bath.
...
> The [neutron] background count was determined by making measurements 50m
>from the laboratory containing the experiments: both locations were in the
>basement of a new building which is overlain by 5 floors of concrete.  In
>view of the low counting efficiency, counting was carried out for 50 hours.
>Measurements on a 0.4x10 cm rod electrode run at 64mA cm^-2 gave a neutron
>count 3 times above that of the background.
 
Does anyone but me have problems with this?  First, n+p ->d+gamma releases
2.2 MeV of binding energy; I don't see where the 2.5 MeV comes from.
 
Second, how could moving the detectors 10 and 50 meters from the
apparatus constitute a background measurement?  Couldn't there be
a spurious gamma & neutron source near their apparatus?  For example,
suppose someone played a prank on Pons and stuck a neutron source
under the table?
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 /  Doug /  Re: What would fusion power do to Japan?
     
Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug &)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: What would fusion power do to Japan?
Date: 5 Apr 89 15:01:04 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1989Apr4.095659.672@mntgfx.mentor.com> mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.
om (Mike Butts) writes:
 
 
   Here's a question I'd like to toss into discussion:  What would
   cheap, safe, locally fueled energy do to Japan?  No one would be be
   dependent on the outside world for their energy anymore.  We might
   further postulate that abundant energy could make processes like
   recycling much more practical, and thus reduce dependence on outside
   materials.
 
Interesting question. I am continuously amazed that Japan can import
the raw materials for steel, and also the fuel to process the
materials, _and_ ship the steel across the Pacific to sell the product
for a profit in the US *while undercutting the US steel prices*! The
Japanese spent years investing capital in their steel industry, and as
a result the have the state of the art in efficient steel processing
capability. The managers of the US steel industry, on the other hand,
have spent the last 30 or so years skimming profits instead of
returning an appropriate number of $'s for capital investments. (The
last time I was in Pittsburg I saw a steel plant that had a rejection
rate for its only product, schedule 40 pipe, of **80** percent!! The
plant has since closed.)
 
A cheap energy source will only make the Japanese more effective as a
marketing power.
--
 
===============================================================
Douglas Roberts
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Box 1663, MS F-602
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
(505)667-4569
dzzr@lanl.gov
===============================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenroberts cudlnDoug cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / daniel offutt /  Re: Hiding stuff with patents (was Re: Reactions to Fusion)
     
Originally-From: offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Hiding stuff with patents (was Re: Reactions to Fusion)
Date: 5 Apr 89 15:53:00 GMT
Organization: U of M Engineering, Ann Arbor, Mich.

In article <1530@wasatch.utah.edu> hollaar%cs.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu
(Lee Hollaar) writes:
>Without commenting on the specifics of a fusion patent, I'd like to state
>that the University of Utah has an excellent technology transfer office,
>headed by a patent attorney, and also employes outside patent counsel
>when an invention appears to warrant filing for a patent.
 
The Netherlands, for example, does not give out patents on devices
described in public before a patent application is filed.  You cannot
publish first and then patent; you must patent before you publish.
Insofar as this is true in many countries, either UU has foregone
patent rights in those countries (in which case the technology is
freely usable by anyone there) or it applied some time ago for patents in
these countries.  In the latter case, it is likely that there would
have been some leaks from various non-US patent offices.
 
>>Depending upon the cost effectiveness of the PFFR, there may not be
>>an oil company big enough to pay for all of the patent rights.  Why wouldn't
>>the U. Utah simply hold the patent rights and let companies bid for the
>>right to use the technology?
>
>Gee, I wonder if the people in the technology transfer office thought of
>that ;-).
 
The question was for the benefit of those who suggested that an oil
company, utility, etc. might buy the patent rights and sit on the
technology.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan Offutt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenoffutt cudfndaniel cudlnoffutt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 /  andrew /  New fusion results reported
     
Originally-From: andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: New fusion results reported
Date: 5 Apr 89 15:51:03 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Brookhaven have "duplicated" the
P&F results. I don't have more details.
=====
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:
cuddy5 cudenandrew cudlnandrew cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / John Nagle /  Re: Patents on the Pons-Fleischmann fusion reactor
     
Originally-From: jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Patents on the Pons-Fleischmann fusion reactor
Date: 5 Apr 89 16:50:47 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

 
      Basic patent info on foreign filings:
 
      - Publication anywhere before any filing inhibits patenting in most
	countries outside the U.S.
 
      - One can still file in the U.S. up to one year after public disclosure.
 
      - Having filed in one country, one has up to one year to file in
	any other country which is a signatory to the International Convention
	for the Protection of Industrial Property (the "Paris Convention").
	This holds even if disclosure takes place after the first filing.
	The non-Paris Convention countries are mostly non-industrial,
	although the list includes Hong Kong, India, Kuwait, the Philippines,
	the Republic of China, Singapore, and Venezuela.  All the European
	countries (East and West), the USSR, Japan, Canada, and Mexico
	subscribe to the Paris Convention.
 
      - Patent protection also protects against imports, not just domestic
	manufacture.
 
					John Nagle
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjbn cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / J Chandross /  Re: Reactions to Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@paul.rutgers.edu (J. A. Chandross)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions to Fusion
Date: 4 Apr 89 03:35:49 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
>You forgot the usual Luddite objections:
>	1. It would cost thousands of jobs in the oil, gas & coal industries.
>	2. There are unanswered questions about it.
>	3. It represents *change*!
 
Actually, you are not being fare to Ludd.  The automatic loom threatened
the jobs of Ludd and the other weavers.  Ludd didn't care about change,
or the unanswered questions, he just cared about his job.  Nothing wrong
with that; special interest and human greed is what makes the world work.
You wouldn't be a commie would you?
 
 
Jonathan A. Chandross
Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu
UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJ cudlnChandross cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Peter Desnoyers /  Re: Why is fusion good?
     
Originally-From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Why is fusion good?
Date: 5 Apr 89 18:13:57 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <Apr.4.11.55.14.1989.3450@steeleye.rutgers.edu> schaffer@stee
eye.rutgers.edu (Cullen Schaffer) writes:
>
>I've always thought that the reason fusion is such a big deal is that
>it gets us away from dealing with nasty radioactive fuels and waste:
>hydrogen in, helium out.  But now I think I understand that the
>high-energy neutron emissions from a fusion reaction create
>radioactive materials.  Is that true?
 
Yes. Layperson-level articles I have seen (Sci. Am.? IEEE Spectrum?)
about Tokomaks have mentioned that such a reactor would have a working
life of about 30 years (neutrons make stainless steel brittle) and
would be quite radioactive by the time it was decommissioned. Unless
you shield with something that does not become radioactive, you have
radioactive waste when you decommission a fusion reactor, whether
plasma or room temp. Somehow, I don't think we are ever going to see
these things in cars - they might make liquid sodium / liquid sulfer
batteries look safe.
 
				Peter Desnoyers
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendesnoyer cudfnPeter cudlnDesnoyers cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / William Johnson /  Re: section of preprint from Fleischmann and Pons
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: section of preprint from Fleischmann and Pons
Date: 5 Apr 89 17:27:19 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

Paul Dietz writes:
[ref. Ethan Vishniac's posting of a section from the F&P paper alluding to
"H+n->D+2.5 MeV"]
 
> Does anyone but me have problems with this?  First, n+p ->d+gamma releases
> 2.2 MeV of binding energy; I don't see where the 2.5 MeV comes from.
 
The 2.5 was a typo, apparently; the figure with the F&P paper clearly points
out a peak at 2.2 MeV, more or less.
 
> Second, how could moving the detectors 10 and 50 meters from the
> apparatus constitute a background measurement?  Couldn't there be
> a spurious gamma & neutron source near their apparatus?  For example,
> suppose someone played a prank on Pons and stuck a neutron source
> under the table?
 
You don't mind asking the hard ones, do you?
 
As an example of such a source -- and please understand that I am NOT saying
this is the cause of the peak in F&P's spectrum -- there is a well-known gamma
ray of energy 2.204 MeV that is emitted in the decay of bismuth 214, a
naturally-occurring member of the uranium-238 decay chain.  With the resolution
achievable with a sodium iodide detector, this gamma ray cannot be resolved
from the 2.223-MeV gamma ray resulting from neutron capture in hydrogen.
 
It is therefore at least *theoretically* possible that F&P could have been led
astray by some large concentration of uranium (in equilibrium with its
daughters) near their operating experimental setup.  Personally, I doubt this;
F&P have too good a reputation to fall into something this transparent.
 
As for a "prank": neutrons sources are much harder to come by than gamma
sources are, and they tend to be carefully monitored by health physicists at
the instutitions that have them.  (I have a rather chilling story from graduate
school as a counterexample to this, I must say ...)  That explanation too
seems a bit far-fetched -- but so are all the alternatives, so maybe you're
onto something. :-)
 
--
"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:
cuddy5 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 /  newton2@violet /  Re: New fusion results reported
     
Originally-From: newton2@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: New fusion results reported
Date: 5 Apr 89 18:29:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

This is false; the WSJ reported that Brookhaven has tentatively
confirmed the Brigham Young (Jones) results, not the Pons results;
in effect the BYU experiment disconfirms the Pons claim of energy
breakeven and is at least consistent (i.e. reasonable agreement
between neutrons and heat) with known physics.
 
Yesterdays New York Times reported the first for-attribution
skeptical remark whose temperature and energy spectrum were
consistent with the behavior of the UUtah pair: a (real) fusion
physicist from LLNL said "pure self-deception...preposterous".
 
doug maisel
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennewton2 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.04 / J Hall /  Re: The deal
     
Originally-From: josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: The deal
Date: 4 Apr 89 21:32:27 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

RCH@cup.portal.com writes:
>Aside from a quick blurb on CNN, I have not heard *anything* wrt cold
>fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
 
I have personally seen stories in Science, Science News, the NY Times,
and Business Week, and a preprint of one of the papers.
 
...of course, you're seeing *this* message over the net, so you still
don't know what to think...  :^)
 
--JoSH
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjosh cudfnJ cudlnHall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Travis Winfrey /  Re: The deal
     
Originally-From: travis@douglass.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: The deal
Date: 5 Apr 89 00:12:13 GMT
Organization: Columbia University

In article <16664@cup.portal.com> RCH@cup.portal.com (Ric C Helton) writes:
>Aside from a quick blurb on CNN, I have not heard *anything* wrt cold
>fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
>Is this thing being covered at all by the general media? ...
>Even so, you'd think the papers
>would have *something* about it.
 
It was prominently featured in the NY Times, as well as in the
Economist, a well-respected British news magazine.  There was an NPR
correspondent on the net posting info not too long ago, so he'll
probably get a report out.  All of these news sources are especially
well-read in the Washington community.
 
I think public discussion of room-temperature superconductivity took
at least as long -- and met an equally perplexed lay audience.  You
have to keep in mind how technically minded the audience is on usenet.
 
t
 
Arpa:	travis@mojo.cs.columbia.edu	Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentravis cudfnTravis cudlnWinfrey cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Walter Bright /  Re: The deal
     
Originally-From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: The deal
Date: 5 Apr 89 22:16:13 GMT
Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA

In article <16664@cup.portal.com> RCH@cup.portal.com (Ric C Helton) writes:
<Aside from a quick blurb on CNN, I have not heard *anything* wrt cold
<fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
<Is this thing being covered at all by the general media?  CNN's announcer
<gave the impression by his attitude, that this was another "Yawn,
<perpetual motion hoax" type affair.....  Even so, you'd think the papers
<would have *something* about it.
 
The Wall Street Journal has had a number of well-informed articles about
it. I think that other papers don't cover it because they don't understand
the significance of it. It is very possibly the discovery of the century
(though only time will tell!). The usual media is only interested in stuff
like who is sleeping with who, Oprah's new diet plan, and the latest
movie star who's recovered from alcoholism.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbright cudfnWalter cudlnBright cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Ray Dueland /  Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: rayd@laidbak.UUCP (Ray Dueland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: Heavy Water
Date: 5 Apr 89 17:30:40 GMT
Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, Il.

In article <1989Apr4.095659.672@mntgfx.mentor.com>
mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts) writes:
>[... deuterium] which is easily extracted from seawater.
 
How is deuterium obtained from water?  I would imagine some type of
column chromatography, but I'm only guessing.  Does water have to be
broken down in to hydrogen (deuterium) and oxygen first?
 
--
Ray Dueland
{amdahl|clout|masscomp|nucsrl|sun|tellab5}!laidbak!rayd
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrayd cudfnRay cudlnDueland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Dave Mack /  Re: So how do we get rid of by products?
     
Originally-From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: So how do we get rid of by products?
Date: 5 Apr 89 23:46:03 GMT
Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA

In article <6498@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
>In article <338@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
>>So suppose we are building a fusion engine of some sort - we have to:
>>
>>	1) squirt D into palladium etc
>>	2) wait 'till it's "full" so that fusion starts
>>	3) collect the power .... :-)
>>
>>so now what happens? at some point the fusion by-products start to build up
>>inside the palladium, can they get out? Maybe they diffuse out at a slower
>>rate than that at which D diffuses in (after all they have larger masses etc)?
>>
>>So eventually we have a lump of palladium so full of He4 (or whatever) that
>>it's not much use.
>
>	No, when it's fuel is used up (assuming it uses it up faster than
>it diffuses in), you rotate a fresh one in and start recharging the old
>one (or melt it down and recrystallize it to lett all the various gases
>out).  Hopefully you can get enough out controllably that you can "throttle"
>it, and have a large enough (long enough) bar full of deuterium when you
>start for the journey (or enough small ones).  The power/weight ratio of
>fusion, assuming you can even fuse a few percent of the deuterium, should be
>excellent (at least for interplanetary travel).
 
I don't pretend to understand this but how about a Pd pipe with high-pressure
deuterium on the inside, low-pressure deuterium on the outside, pipe thickness
tuned to allow continuous fusion as the deuterium diffuses through the pipe
carrying the waste products with it?
 
Naturally, coolant and electrode geometries will interfere with this, but
would this work in principle?
 
--
Dave Mack
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmack cudfnDave cudlnMack cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.06 / Mark Chadwick /  Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
     
Originally-From: ncc1701@pawl.rpi.edu (Mark O. Chadwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
Date: 6 Apr 89 00:09:21 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

In article <1586@attdso.att.com> tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) writes:
>Seeing as that at this time he must have been talking about fission power,
>I'm glad they never whent through with this plan.  Even those who accept
>fission reactors as relativly safe should have problems with a fission
>powered airplane.  A nuclear sub would just sink (bad enough), but can you
>imagine a fission reactor in a plane strewn over several miles when the
>thing crashes?  A plane crash is much more likely than a meltdown . . .
 
I seem to recall something about a bomber being flown in the late 40's or
early 50's that used NUCLEAR power.  It's a good thing that didn't crash,
or a mess would certainly have been generated!
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
ncc1701@pawl.rpi.edu       | Live long and prosper, Spock
USERGDES@rpitsmts.bitnet   | I shall do neither.  I have killed my
 (Mark Chadwick)           |    captain...and my friend
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenncc1701 cudfnMark cudlnChadwick cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / John Marvin /  Request for scan of Cold Fusion Paper
     
Originally-From: jsm@hpfcdc.HP.COM (John Marvin)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion
Subject: Request for scan of Cold Fusion Paper
Date: 5 Apr 89 03:07:26 GMT
Organization: HP Ft. Collins, Co.

 
	Is there someone who has the Pons & Fleischmann preprint who would
be willing to scan it and make it available vi anonymous ftp? I enjoyed
reading the Jones, etc. preprint that was made available in the same manner.
 
	John Marvin
	jsm%hpfcls@hplabs.hp.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMarvin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1989 
------------------------------
1989.04.05 / Sho Kuwamoto /  Jones and Palmer Paper
     
Originally-From: sho@pur-phy (Sho Kuwamoto)
Newsgroups: alt.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Jones and Palmer Paper
Date: 5 Apr 89 16:41:38 GMT
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., W. Lafayette, IN

I just got a text version of the Jones and Palmer paper from BYU.
As far as I know, the only place I've seen this on the net was
the digitized file who some kind soul set up at an FTP site.
Please excuse me if it's been posted before and I just missed it.
I have crossposted to sci.physics since not all machines get the
alt.groups.
 
----------
                            OBSERVATION OF
                COLD NUCLEAR FUSION IN CONDENSED MATTER
 
  S. E. Jones, E. P. Palmer, J. B. Czirr, D. L. Decker, G. L. Jensen,
                    J. M. Thorne, and S. F. Taylor
 
                  Department of Physics and Chemistry
                       Brigham Young University
                           Provo, Utah 84602
 
                                  and
 
                              J. Rafelski
                         Department of Physics
                         University of Arizona
                         Tucson, Arizona 85721
                            March 23, 1989
 
Fusion of istopic hydrogen nuclei is the principal means of producing
energy in the high-temperature interior of stars.  In relatively cold
terrestrial conditions, the nuclei are clothed with electrons and
approach one another no closer than allowed by the molecular Coulomb
barrier.  The rate of nuclear fusion in molecular hydrogen is then
governed by the quantum-mechanical tunneling through that barrier, or
equivalently, the probability of finding the two nuclei at zero
separation.  In a deuterium molecule, where the equilibrium separation
between deuterons (d) is 0.74 A, the d-d fusion rate is exceedingly
slow, about 10E-70 per D  molecule per second. [1]
                        2
 
By replacing the electron in a hydrogen molecular ion with a more
massive charged particle, the fusion rate is greatly increased.  In
muon-catalyzed fusion, the internuclear separation is reduced by a
factor of approximately 200 (the muon to electron mass ratio), and the
nuclear fusion rate correspondingly increases by roughly eighty orders
of magnitude [1].  Muon-catalyzed fusion has been demonstrated to be
an effective means of rapidly inducing fusion reactions in low-
temperature hydrogen isotopic mixtures [2].
 
A hypothetical quasi-particle a few times as massive as the electron
would increase the cold fusion rate to readily measureable levels,
about 10E-20 fusions per d-d molecule per second [1].  Our results
imply that an equivalent distortion on the internuclear hydrogen
wavefunction can be realized under certain conditions when hydrogen
isotopic nuclei are loaded into metallic crystalline lattices and
other forms of condensed matter.
 
We have discovered a means of inducing nuclear fusion without the use
of either high temperatures or radioactive muons.  We will present
direct experimental results as well as indirect geological evidence
for the occurrence of cold nuclear fusion.
 
DETECTION OF COLD FUSION NEUTRONS
 
We have observed deuteron-deuteron fusion at room temperature during
low-voltage electrolytic infusion of deuterons into metallic titanium
or palladium electrodes.  The fusion reaction
 
                         3
                d + d ->  He (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV)            (1a)
 
                           +
is evidently catalyzed as d  and metal ions from the electrolyte are
depostited at (and into) the negative electrode.  Neutrons having
approximately 2.5 MeV energy are clearly detected with a sensitive
neutron spectrometer.  The experimental layout is portrayed in Figure
1.  We have not yet obtained results regarding the parallel reaction
 
                 d + d -> p (3.02 MeV) + t (1.01 MeV)             (1b)
 
as this requires different measuring procedures.  However, it can be
presumed that the reaction (1b) occurs at a nearly equal rate as the
reaction (1a), which is usually the case.
 
The neutron spectrometer, developed at Brigham Young University over
the past few years [3], has been crucial to the identification of this
cold fusion process.  The detector consists of a liquid organic
scintillator (BC-505) contained in a glass cylinder 12.5 cm in
diameter, in which three lithium-6-doped glass scintillator plates are
embedded.  Neutrons deposit energy in the liquid scintillator via
collisions and the resulting light output yields energy information.
These, now low-energy neutrons are then scavenged by lithium-6 nuclei
                                           6           4
in the glass plates where the reaction n +  Li --> t +  He results in
scintillations in the glass.  Pulse shapes from the two media differ
so that distinct signals are registered by the two photomultiplier
tubes (whose signals are summed).  A coincidence of signals from the
two media with 20 microseconds identifies the neutrons.
 
An energy calibration of the spectrometer was obtained using 2.9 and
3.2 MeV neutrons, generated via deuteron-deuteron interactions at 90
degrees and 0 degrees, respectively, with respect to the deuteron beam
from a Van de Graaf accelerator.  The observed energy spectra show a
broad structure which implies that 2.45 MeV neutrons should appear in
the multi-channel analyzer spectrum in channels 45-150.  Stability of
the detector system was checked between data runs by measuring the
counting rate for fission neutrons from a broad-spectrum californium-
252 source.  We have performed other extensive tess proving that our
neutron counter does not respond in this pulse height range to other
sources of radiation such as thermal neutrons.
 
Background rates in the neutron counter are approximately 10E-3 1/s in
the energy region where 2.5 MeV neutrons are anticipated.  By
comparing energy spectra from gamma and neutron sources we have
determined that nearly all of the background stems from accidental
coincidences of gamma-ray events.  Improvements in the shielding and
gamma-ray rejection were pursued throughout the experiments, resulting
in significant reduction in background levels.
 
During the search for suitable catalytic materials, we developed the
following (unoptimized) prescription for the electrolytic cells. The
electrolyte is a mixture of 160 g deutermium oxide (D O) plus various
                                                      2
 
metal salts in 0.2 g amounts each:  FeSO  . 7H O, NiCl  . 6H O,
                                         4     2       2     2
 
PdCl , CaCO , Li SO  . H O, NaSO  . 10H O, CaH (PO )  . H O,
    2      3    2  4    2       4      2      4   4 2    2
 
TiOSO  . H SO  . 8H O, and a very small amount of AuCN.
     4    2  4     2
 
(Our evidence indicates the importance of co-deposition of deuterons
and metal ions at the negative electrode.)  The pH is adjusted to
pH < 3 with HNO .  Titanium and palladium, intially selected because
                3
of their large capacities for holding hydrogen and forming hydrides,
were found to be effective negative electrodes.
 
Other metals receiving preliminary tests include lanthanum, nickel,
iron, copper, zirconium, tantalum, and lithium-aluminum hydride.
Individual electrodes consisted of approximately 3 g purified "fused"
titanium in pellet form, or 0.5 g of 0.25 mm thick palladium foils, or
5 g of mossy palladium.  Typically 4-8 cells were used simultaneously.
The palladium pieces were sometimes re-used after cleaning and
roughening the surfaces with dilute acid or abrasives.  Hydrogen
bubbles were observed to form on the Pd foils only after several
minutes of electrolysis, suggesting the rapid absorption of deuterons
into the foil; oxygen bubbles formed at the anode immediately.  Gold
foil was used for the positive electrodes.  DC power supplies provided
3-25 volts across each cell at currents of 10-500 mA.  Correlations
between fusion yield and voltage, current density, or surface
characteristics of the metallic cathode have not yet been established.
 
Small jars, approximately 4 cm high x 4 cm diameter, held 20 ml of
electroylte solution each.  The electrolytic cells were placed on or
alongside the neutron counter, as shown in Figure 1.  The cells are
simple and doubtless far from optimum at present.  Nevertheless, the
present combination of our cells with the state-of-the-art neutron
spectrometer is sufficient to establish the phenomenon of cold nuclear
fusion during the electrolytic infusion of isotopic hydrogen into
metals.
 
Figure 2 displays the energy spectrum obtained under conditions
described above, juxtaposed with the background spectrum.  Assuming
conservatively that all deviations from background are statistical
fluctuations, we scale the background counts by a factor of 0.46 to
match the foreground counts over the entire energy range (Figure 2). A
feature in channels 45-150 still rises above background by nearly
four standard deviations.  This implies that our assumption is too
conservative and that this structure represents a real physical effect.
By re-scaling the background by a factor of 0.44 to match the
foreground level in regions outside this feature, the difference plot
(Figure 3) is obtained.  It shows a robust signal centered at channel
100 of over five standard-deviation statistical significance. A
Guassian fit to this peak yields a centroid at channel 101 and a
sigma of 28 channels.  This is precisely where 2.5 MeV fusion
neutrons should appear in the spectrum according to our calibration.
The fact that a significant signal appears above background with the
correct 