1993.12.30 / Matt Kennel /  Re: OrbitFun!
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OrbitFun!
Date: 30 Dec 1993 23:09:23 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Norman H Redington (redingtn@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
: The Mills theory does not attempt to combine classical and quantum
: physics, but to start modern physics over in 1913. It has a very
: respectable pedigree. 

It's the stuff that came *after* 1913 that makes the Mills stuff
look silly.

: The existence of stable non-radiating classical
: moving charge distributions was made by Ehrenfest long before the Bohr 
: model. These distributions - orbitspheres and orbitrings - were the
: basis of the various "plum-pudding" atomic models: the electrons didn't
: radiate because they were on orbitsurfaces inside a blob of positive
: atom-stuff. 

What's the stability of the nucleus inside a uniform ball of charge?
How does *it* stay in the middle?

:Why no-one made the obvious modification (i.e. the Mills
: theory) after Rutherford found the positive charge to be all con-
: centrated in the nucleus I have no idea.

: If someone had, would life be different? Well, I doubt we'd believe
: in orbitspheres today, any more than we believe in Bohr-Sommerfeld
: elliptical orbits. But the founders of quantum mechanics would have
: had a different image of what atoms "look like", and would probably
: have formulated a different paradigm...

No I don't think so.  How does the Mills 'theory' explain electron
diffraction and other *experimental* facts known by the Founders of Quantum
Mechanics.  How does it explain splitting in magnetic fields?  Orbital
angular momentum coupling?  Remember all of those come out of the spherical
harmonic solutions + radial wave function solutions to the *wave* equation
and work in quantitative detail.  How does Mills explain hybridization?

Yes, you need a *wave* equation, for the wavefunction psi  (*not* the 
charge density Z|Psi|^2) in order to have interference.  (This is why
I am uncomfortable with the frequent assertion that the 'wave function
has no physical reality', because there seems to be few alternatives for
predicting physical results)

Schroedinger thought 'Well DeBroglie says that electrons work like
waves!  Well then, if we have waves, there must be a wave equation'.

And then it was unified with Heisenberg's stuff & quantization and uncertainty
and it worked.

Mills takes the point of view that you *axiomatically* impose the condition
of "no classical radiation".  It's not clear how the dynamics of the
nucleus is supposed to work.

Quantum mechanics takes as an axiom "radiation isn't necessarily classical".
Einstein got the Nobel prize for that one.  Experiments seem to be
on Einstein's side.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Steven Robiner /  ANSWERS
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ANSWERS
Date: 30 Dec 1993 16:41:12 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

As promised here is the summary of responses, not many, but nevertheless,
informative on the following questions:

RE: WHERE ARE P & F:
From Tom Droege:

Pons and Fleischmann were last seen by me personally 9 December 1993 in Maui
Hawaii.  I personally shook Pons hand 6 December and can report that it was 
warm so he was likely alive - or at least had been heated up for the occasion.
They are in the employ of the Japanese, IMRA (I think) which is an R&D arm 
of Toyota.  They work in Nice, France where they have roughly a 50,000 sq ft
laboratory.  

RE: WHAT OTHER USES ARE THERE FOR PALLADIUM:
Also Tom:

Palladium has a number of uses.  You can speculate in it as a precious metal
at your local coin store where you can buy one ounce Palladium bars.  I last
paid $105 for them but they are more expensive now.  

They are a heavy duty industrial catalyst.  You can buy catalyst pellets in
many forms.  It is also used in some brands (Ford I remember) of catalytic 
converters.  

The Japanese use Palladium for wedding bands.  They like it because it is 
shiny but not too shiny.  

My favorite use is as a hydrogen valve.  For something like a proton source 
as used in a particle accelerator, hydrogen can be valved out of a bottle by 
heating a Palladium membrane.  

Dentists use a lot of it for crowns.  Cheaper than platinum, and I think 
stronger than platinum and gold and about as inert.  

I think that dentistry, catalysts, and wedding bands cover most of the 
production.  But this is from memory.  

You will usually find the price of Palladium listed in the Wall Streed Journal
next to Platinum.  You can buy futures contracts on it for speculation.  The 
contract is for 100 oz, about $15,000 settlement at recent prices.  

When the P&F news hit, one experimenter here at Fermilab found a piece of 
Palladium from the lead of an ancient x-ray tube.  It will hole over 1000 
relative volumes of hydrogen.  

You can electroplate it.  Some printed circuit houses use it as an alternate 
to gold for printed circuit board fingers.  Look at some of the boards in your
PC.  If they have silver colored fingers they are likely Palladium.  

You can make jewelry using Palladium plated parts.  It makes a good (but 
expensive) underplate for gold.  Particularly where the object is in contact
with the skin.  Normally nickel is used under gold to make it shiny.  But the
nickel will work through the gold and make missys ears red if it is used under
gold for ear ring wires.  Palladium makes a good "seal" layer.  

 -------------------------
More from Mike Pettigrew:

Palladium has a unique outer electron shell configuration and can adsorb
vast quantities of hydrogen gas.  The basis of Cold Fusion theory is that
the hydrogen atoms in such solids are disassociated from their electron
shells, and can be brought together by some unknown process that neutralizes
the replusion between the protons without requiring measurable activation
energy.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Peter Olsen /  Cold Fusion: "potential future energy source"?
     
Originally-From: pcolsen@super.org (Peter C Olsen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion: "potential future energy source"?
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 16:26:32 GMT
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Bowie, MD

I would like to contact anyone who has any information about the
current state of research into "Cold Fusion" as a "potential future
energy source"?

I recently obtained a copy of a United States Coast Guard publication
titled "The Road to 2012: Looking Toward the Next Two Decades".  It
claims to be a "scan of the global environment in which the Coast
Guard is likely to operate in the next 20 years" which "emphasizes the
critical roles that political, economic, societal, technological and
environmental driving forces have in chaping the future."  The report
is the product of a commercial "think tank" and was published under
the auspices of the

   Strategic Planning Staff (G-CX), 
   Commandant, United States Coast Guard, 
   2100 Second Street S.W., 
   Washington, DC 20593-0001
 
   (202-267-2690/6813-FAX) 

and paid for Department of Transportation Contract
DTOS59-91-R-00190.  Copies for non-Government purchasers will be
available soon from the National Technical Information Service in
Springfield, VA, (document control number AD-A272448), telephone
703-487-4650.  Government agencies (or organizations with contractual
relationship with the government) can obtain copies now from the
Defense Technical Information Center, 703-274-7633.

Most of the report deals with anticipated social and economic changes,
about which I know little, so I've concentrated on trying to
understand the "technology" section.  Although I am an engineer with a
fairly good background in physics and math, I frankly don't understand
lots of things in it, including the statements about cold fusion.  I'm
not a physicist (or an electrochemist), so my entire knowledge comes
from reading "Scientific American", "American Scientist", sci.physics,
and the book "Bad Science" by Gary Taubes.  As all of these sources
seem to have been negative, but the Coast Guard report seems quite
positive, it's possible (likely?) that I don't have the complete
story.  If anyone can point me to a documented *positive* reference, I
would appreciate it.  I have quoted part of the report below:

Pg 79:  Cold Fusion ...

   Room-temperature fusion research, effectively dismissed by the
   American scientific community, is alive and well in Japan and India.
   Cold fusion is the process that researchers believe takes place when
   an electric current is sent into palladium and platinum electrodes
   that are immersed in a jar of heavy water, rich in deuterium.  The
   experimental results sometimes suggest that lots of energy is released
   in the process.  If it is true, it could lead to the development of a
   virtually unlimited supply of inexpensive energy.  

   The idea was largely depreciated, especially in the U.S., when the
   experiments of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, who claimed to have
   discovered cold fusion, could not be replicated by other researchers.
   But Japanese scientists, intrigued with the concept invited Pons and
   Fleischmann to Japan to discuss their work in 1989.  Since then
   Japanese experimenters have apparently replicated Pons and
   Fleischmann's findings, producing up to 70 percent more entergy in
   heat than was put into the system in electricity.  

   The "Wall Street Journal": reported that 5 to 6 labs in the U.S.,
   India, and Japan had conducted experiments that produced as much as 3
   to 4 times more excess heat than the input power although researchers
   are questioning whether it is "cold fusion" they are seeing or an
   other phenomena.

   Twenty or so university groups are pursuing cold fusion in Japan, most
   on financial shoestrings. But now, Japan's Ministry of International
   Trade and Industry (MITI) has decided to fund some of the research.
   If this new effort produces more concrete results it could open a
   whole new avenue of potential future energy sources and would shift
   the focus of a good deal of energy research.  
-- 
   Peter Olsen, n2ell, pcolsen@super.super.org  ...!uunet!super!pcolsen
         P.O. Box 410, Simpsonville, MD 21150-0410; 410-997-8584
     "Engineering is the art of applying a professional knowledge of
   mathematics and the physical sciences to improve the quality of life"
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpcolsen cudfnPeter cudlnOlsen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: 29 Dec 93 17:39:00 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Pre-script:  I enjoyed Terry Bollinger's hard-hitting yet humorous posting
on "orbitfun".  Now to revisit some theoretical work of his which
may really lead somewhere  -->  sonoluminescence revisited.

December 29, 1993

Dear Terry,

As notions of "cold fusion" in deuterided palladium
fade, I have re-visited your lengthy paper entitled "ULTRA
CAVITATION" (UC) which was posted on sci.physics.fusion on 31
December 1992 (one year ago!).  This has re-vitalized my interest
in your ideas regarding (low-level) fusion during D2-bubble
cavitation in D2O, and their relationship to sonoluminescence.
The physics here is potentially rich; there are clearly a large
number of issues to be explored both experimentally and
theoretically:

How long does the implosion last?  How dense does the hydrogen
(all isotopes) become during the implosion?  How hot?  Can we use
fusion-generated neutrons as a probe of processes occuring during
the UC?  (E.g., with d-d or better d-t fusion.)  With hydrogen
and deuterium present, we may be able to generate 5.4 MeV gammas
from p-d fusion -- how does the p-d reaction rate compare with
neutron production from d-d fusion?  What does this tell us about
the temp./pressure during UC?

What if we use mercury as a driver rather than water (D2O)?  (You
posted in '92 a very well-motivated idea here.)  Will the UC result
in higher temperatures and pressures, thus in larger fusion
rates?  What if we use liquid lithium as a driver -- will we see
and p-Li or d-Li nuclear effects during the extreme conditions of
UC?  Does your "wedge-out" mechanism serve to generate high-
temperature ions, so as to enhance fusion rates?  How can we
monitor such a process?

If fusion occurs, what is the time-distribution of generated
neutrons?  (The BYU detector system is set up to answer this
question very well.  See below.)

A crucial first step is to push conditions for stable
sonoluminescence in D2O with a central deuterium bubble, until
neutrons are seen.  I'll be happy to see a few neutrons by
reproducible means.  (I seem to have devoted my career to off-
beat fusion paths, including in particular muon-catalyzed
fusion.)  IFF this is achieved, we can proceed to answering the
questions above, using neutrons and gammas as probes.  And maybe
we can even get some outside funding...

Wait -- you have already taken an initial step by postulating
fusion under extreme conditions of sonoluminescence -- e.g.,
using mercury as the fluid driver.  And I am enthused by this
approach of having theoretical ideas suggest experiments --
something pitifully lacking in the "excess-heat-is-nuclear" camp.
But this is not "cold fusion" which you are proposing and should not
be mistaken as such.

Now let me ask a big favor:  please supply *numerical*
predictions.  How many neutrons or gammas per bubble-collapse?
Then we can determine whether our detectors will see anything
(see below.)  I will dig up some numbers on fusion rates at low
temperatures for d-d, p-d and d-t fusion and post these soon (as
long as you agree we should continue this discussion openly,
letting others eavesdrop and participate).

For completeness for this discussion, I include below a
description of detectors available here.  Note that we have
already run piezoelectric crystals *inside* our most sensitive
neutron detector -- and have demonstrated that our detector does
not pick up noise-artifacts from this process.  But we are still
(ugh!) working on achieving stable sonoluminescence.  And it
appears we will be getting expert assistance.


OVERVIEW OF DETECTOR SYSTEMS AVAILABLE IN PROVO CANYON TUNNEL LAB

Our primary detector for low-level neutron emissions consists of
a combination of a large plastic scintillator core with a
surrounding bank of sixteen 3He-filled proportional counter tubes
(Figure 1), with all signals digitized at 50 Mhz and stored in
computer memory. The central plastic scintillator is 25 cm in
length and 8.9 cm in diameter.  A central cavity of 4.4 cm
diameter admits test cells.  Fast neutrons from the sample can
generate a recoil proton in the plastic generating scintillations
(efficiency about 45%) which are viewed by a photomultiplier
tube.  Then the neutron slows further in polyethylene moderator
28 cm diam. X 30 cm long, and finally may be captured in one of
16 helium-3-filled proportional counter tubes embedded in the
moderator (efficiency about 34%).  These tubes are arranged in
four quadrants incorporating 4 proportional-counters in each.

The detector and experiments have the following special features:

1.  All signals are digitized using a LeCroy fast-waveform
digitizer operating 50 MHz, so that we retain pulse-shape
information as well as timing between pulses.  Pulse-shape
analysis permits excellent noise rejection, along with giving
some neutron-energy information (from the prompt plastic
scintillator pulse).  By rejecting events having small or no
plastic pulse, we strongly discriminate against slow (especially
thermal) neutrons.  This background-reducing feature is not
available to many detectors including those using BF3, 3He and
even the Kamiokande.  By studying neutron-capture time
distributions based on prompt and capture-neutron pulses, we
check whether the distributions agree with those found with a
plutonium source.

2.  The PC-based data acquisition system records which of the
four quadrants of the 3He-type counter showed neutron capture,
allowing for checking that the quadrants are hit in equal
proportions.

This detector segmentation has, for example, allowed us to throw
out apparent large bursts of neutrons (over 60 "neutrons" in a
160-microsecond window) whose signals unrealistically came from
just one quadrant.  We have seen several cases of such large
bursts in the past year of running (see for example Figure 2);
but all bursts of over five detected neutrons have proven to be
spurious.  Therefore, we suggest that compelling data for large
neutron bursts requires detector segmentation and pulse
digitization, allowing signal visualization and scrutiny, as we
have done.

3.  Three large cosmic-ray veto counters show the passage of
cosmic rays, which events are rejected off-line.  Passive
shielding of at least 35 m of rock (12,000 g/cm2) also greatly
reduces cosmic ray-induced events and removes dependence of
cosmic-ray rates on atmospheric pressure.  After cosmic-ray
rejection, the event rate is approximately 0.7 neutron-like
singles per hour with an efficiency of 15% for 2.5 MeV neutrons,
and 0.07 burst-events per hour with a detection efficiency
exceeding 20% (increasing with neutron-burst multiplicity).

4.  Two additional highly-sensitive neutron detectors are
available in the same deep-underground facility based on a
different neutron-capture scheme (capture in lithium-doped
glass), to permit checking of results found in the primary
detector.

5.  For gamma-ray detection, we have two large NaI detectors
(which are ideal for registering 5.4 MeV gammas from proton-
deuteron fusion) as well as two germanium detectors.  A portable
X-ray spectrometer has also been used in the Provo Canyon Tunnel
Laboratory.

Let's go:  son-o-fusion in '94!

Best Regards and Happy New Year (to all),
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Dec29.173237.1201@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Dec29.173237.1201@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 93 17:40:29 -0700

cancel <1993Dec29.173237.1201@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan  1 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1993.12.31 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1993 10:53:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Hello all,

I have spent the last week reading The Book, and the update, about to go into
the file cnf-bks, is seen below. As usual, the abstract is neutrally bland,
but I want to add some less bland remarks here, in the form of a review, plus
some extra remarks.

Review:

Despite having been burned once before, I am going to stick my neck out and
say that, despite a few flaws, this book is the best written and most
significant book on "cold fusion". It has the ring of truth (obviously, some
will dispute that) and is thus the nail in the coffin of the cold fusion
affair. Where Frank Close has given us the sordid details of the gamma
spectrum story, GT gives us the sordid details of the helium and tritium
stories, and - most significantly - the main investigators' scientific
behaviour, and all this damns "cold fusion" thoroughly. This is the bottom
line; there never was such a thing as "cold fusion" in this context (it still
lives, of course, in the form of muon catalysed fusion, the original cold
fusion and a real, verified phenomenon). As I write in my abstract, GT has
picked out the main players in the game and thus by (mostly) ignoring the
large number of minor ones, making up the bulk of the authorship of the 846
papers in the bibliography, has made the story very clear. He writes in a
clear style and in clear chronological sequence.

The book was not written in haste, and has very few errors. GT is, according
to the back of the book, a physicist as well as aeronautical and astronautical
engineer, and his training shows. I will list some of those few errors I
found, as well as some weak points: On p.45, there is "the temperature emitted
by the cell"; p. 201 "Kuzmin ... would not be heard again on the subject"
shows that GT did not read the "scientific" literature on CNF, as there is a
paper by Kuz'min (on "erzions"); p. 215 "a gold cathode", where anode is
correct; p. 235, where gas phase cold fusion "became known as dry fusion" - I
have never seen this term used for "gas phase" or "Italian-style" CNF; p. 257,
middle paragraph, shows GT's (understandable) lack of knowledge of the
difference between cell voltage and electrode overpotential (the paper under
discussion, FPH-89, does not help him, however); p. 271, Fleischmann's video
of the dispersal of a dye in his cell is not bogus and does indeed support his
assertion of a 20 s mixing time constant, applying both to solutes and heat
content in the solution; p. 325, definition of tritiated water is in error,
this being ordinary light water with some content of tritium oxide, rather
than all tritium oxide; p. 406 "linear regression" was in fact nonlinear; and
same page, "100 pages of paper" was in fact 56 pp and shows that GT only saw a
draft, not the final paper. I found only two typing errors in the whole book:
"Pleith" (p. 290) instead of Plieth, and a doubling of the word "that" on p.
418 - remarkable. None of these errors is serious or detracts in any way from
GT as a writer or from his competence to judge the issue. I find his remark on
Steve Jones, on p.41, a little more serious: he writes that "Jones once again
began to work on cold nuclear fusion, although still by proxy through his
students"; every supervisor of graduate students to some extent works by
proxy, and this sentence seems to indicate that GT is trying to discredit
Steve Jones here by inference.

The book provides some useful and interesting history, for example the
"prehistory" of Steve Jones' work on piezonuclear fusion, also called
pycnofusion, and muon catalysis.  We see also that not only did the U team, at
the press conference, fail to mention the Jones work only 45 miles away, but
(p. 60) there are instances of Jones failing to mention the F&P work. GT
brings out quite clearly how the "melt-down" or "explosion" in Pons' lab,
allegedly making a 4" hole in the concrete, was used again and again to
bolster the cold fusion claim, despite being doubtful. We note as well that
Pons has perhaps been misrepresented in some ways. It seems that he never did
want that $5m from the State of Utah, and this might explain his lack of
enthusiasm for cooperating with the NCFI; he is also reported on several
occasions to be looking pale or green, and Fleischmann smoothly taking over
from him. So perhaps the driving force was/is more likely Fleischmann, not
Pons, in this affair.

It appears that some of the scientists that provided what has at times seemed
solid, quality, support for the phenomenon, were not so solid after all.
Huggins was, at least at one time, a highly respected materials man, but
according to GT, has discredited himself with his excess heat claims; the case
for this appears solid. Similarly, Hagelstein never was a physicist (he is an
electrical engineer) and has strayed into physics without the necessary
training. Not even his famous x-ray laser is in fact real (p.218). Schwinger's
theory predicted that the dp reaction is more likely, and the only effect of
this was to provide some spurious explanations here and there, as convenient
(when there was light water in a cell, per se or as a contaminant). There is
great detail on Bockris and this is very damaging of the man's credibility.
The quote on p. 276, giving his reasons for leaving the US for Australia in
1972, is food for thought, at the very least. I hope it is a paraphrase but am
afraid that it is not.

I have long suspected that Wolf was trying to extricate himself gracefully
from his tritium results and used the prior contamination of the Pd wire as a
handy vehicle. GT more or less supports this view; the contamination level
really was not sufficient to account for all Wolf's results, being only a few
hundreds of disintegrations/min/ml, whereas at least one of his cells had
"produced" some hundreds of thousands. So here is a case of incommensurability
in reverse.

What has kept this affair going for so long? It is certainly not the fact that
CNF is real; rather, a number of people have been successful in persuading
others to provide money, using circular reference to each other as evidence
that the effect is real. There must have been (and still are) some key persons
at EPRI and several other agencies, who wanted to believe, and pushed for
support. No doubt there was wide-spread reluctance to believe in scientific
misconduct. The University and the State of Utah wanted fame and fortune, and
scientists wanted the money, whether personally or for research; and GT hints
at the end also at what I believe is now the main motivation for the most
vocal proponents of CNF: investment money. The accumulation of money in
certain places will be the most tangible outcome of "cold fusion".

Added remarks:

Having read the book, I feel like a boobie for not being an ultrahard skeptic
like Huizenga, or Douglas Morrison, or Frank Close, or Dale Bass, or Greg
Kuperberg, or Dick Blue etc etc, all along. I was skeptical, but was impressed
by some of those (very few) papers that seemed like quality positives to me.
None of it means a thing. The F&P work is preposterous; so is that of Bockris
et al; Steven Jones has retracted and will no doubt leave the area soon. I
congratulate the ultrahard skeptics on their steadfast refusal to believe the
impossible, despite the considerable propaganda and false information, and I
apologise to them for having occasionally been critical of their absolute
stand. I apologise to Douglas for embarassing him with his cigarette lighter
effect; I thought that my demolition of his attempt to explain the "boiling
cell" of F&P was required in the interest of science and even-handedness. In
fact, the "boiling cell" is a scientific absurdity, and my little pedantry
about Douglas's argument laughable, taken in proportion. It is useless
pedantry to try to find rational explanations, or argue about such, for these
"experimental findings", as becomes abundantly clear from reading GT's book. I
have vigorously defended Bockris; true, he is a pillar of electrochemistry,
but he does not deserve such a defense, given his behaviour in this affair.
The same goes for Fleischmann, whom I have also defended here on occasion. Let
them now defend themselves.

I have wasted quite a deal of valuable research time on this house of cards
during the last four years or so. It has not been all for nothing, as my
bibliography documents this affair, and will no doubt be useful to science
sociologists and philosophers. I will continue the work (there is little to do
anymore now), with that in mind, but in a slightly different form, which I
will announce in this group some time soon.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 31-Dec-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 846

Books: file cnf-bks
^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taubes G;        "Bad Science. The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion".
Random House, NY 1993, ISBN 0-394-58456-2.
** This book, by physicist and aeronautical and astronautical engineer Gary
Taubes, turned science journalist, focusses on the stories behind the story of
cold fusion. It is based not only on newspaper reports and (a few) journal
papers on cold fusion, but mostly on a huge number of interviews (over 260).
The book is filled with material from these interviews. It deals mainly with
the major US players in the area, i.e. the groups of/around Pons &
Fleischmann, Jones and Bockris; some others, such as Huggins, Martin, McKubre
etc are mentioned, as well as a very few foreign teams such as that of
Scaramuzzi. This enables GT to go into great detail, and brings out the story
very sharply. It ends (except for an Epilogue) in the middle of 1991, as the
National Cold Fusion Institute closes its doors. The conclusion of the book is
inescapable: "cold fusion" as used in this context is wholly imaginary.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.31 / Robert Horton /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert Horton <wente@lll.llnl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: 31 Dec 1993 19:18:04 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article <EACHUS.93Dec29180159@spectre.mitre.org>
Robert I. Eachus, eachus@spectre.mitre.org writes:
>      For those lost by what I am saying, the losses in a mirror
> machine would mostly be at the ends.  You can connect these together
> (Actually you build two side by side mirror machines, and feed the
> "lost" particles from one into the other.)  However last time I played
> this game the "best guess" dimensions for ignition were seven to eight
> hundred meters long, and about one to two MW(t) generated per meter...
> (Unlike tokamaks, in mirror machines ignition really is ignition, once
> you are there, you turn off the pumping and generate useful power.)

As one who spent a few years working on the Livermore mirror program,
I'd like to quench your enthusiasm for mirrors a bit. Why do you believe
that parallel mirror machines connected by (I presume) semicircular
axial-field sections wouldn't suffer from the same problems as
a simple torus? The whole reason people bother to provide a rotational
transform, either from external coils (stellarator) or internal
plasma currents (tokamak) is that a curved axial field doesn't confine
particles: they drift, on average, in a direction perpendicular
to the directions of magnetic field and magnetic field gradient
(i.e., up or down). Wouldn't your mirror-with-end-benders have the
same problem?
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenwente cudfnRobert cudlnHorton cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1994.01.01 / John Logajan /  Re: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 94 18:52:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>What has kept this affair going for so long? It is certainly not the fact that
>CNF is real; rather, a number of people have been successful in persuading
>others to provide money, using circular reference to each other as evidence
>that the effect is real.

While this seems to explain it, it really explains nothing, as all science
is but circular reference.

>Having read the book, I feel like a boobie for not being an ultrahard skeptic

It was amusing to see your "lightning bolt conversion."  

Unfortunately, such conversions are powerful indications of "true-believerism."
My advice is to take a few minutes every couple weeks and double-check your
assumptions.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.01 / Greg Kuperberg /  The End
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The End
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 1994 20:21:51 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <01H74MWR4PMQ95MVAK@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Having read the book, I feel like a boobie for not being an ultrahard skeptic
>like Huizenga, or Douglas Morrison, or Frank Close, or Dale Bass, or Greg
>Kuperberg, or Dick Blue etc etc, all along...

Thanks for the credit.  The past few weeks have brought an interesting
turn of events:  Two of the very few honest and competent scientists
remaining in the cold fusion fiasco, Dieter Britz and Steve Jones, have
jumped ship.  To be sure, you two were only half-believers rather than
True Blue True Believers.  Still, it was a puzzle to me and perhaps
others as to why you still took cold fusion seriously.  Perhaps it was only
intellectual generosity stretched to the limit.

In any case, let me apologize for being brutally critical at times in
the past.  I wanted to drive my point home, but I know that I wasn't
being very nice.  Let me say that scientific sobriety is not a matter
of always being right, it is a matter of being able to change your mind
when you are completely wrong.  Incessant practice at intellectual
self-criticism is the only way to be right most of the time.

Of course, there is such a thing as being right.  One of the main
defenses of cold fusion is an annoying relativism whereby you can
always claim that all standard physics is wrong.  Changing your mind in
flights of fancy is not the same thing as being able to tell when you
are wrong.

Who is the best scientist left in the fray?  Schwinger, maybe?  Fritz
Will?  I am not counting people who used to be competent and honest
scientists but obviously no longer are.  Perhaps we can all soon call
it quits and leave the cold fusion discussion to the nincompoops.  In
fact I have already vowed to do so; I am mainly responding here to
temper my previous comments about Steven Jones and Dieter Britz.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.01 / Greg Kuperberg /  Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 1994 23:36:35 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

Piezonuclear fusion is Steve Jones' term for inducing fusion by
squeezing deuterium nuclei together (in a more literal sense
than by heating them to millions of degrees).  Of course, this
has nothing to do with electrochemical cold fusion, because their
is nothing particularly piezo about the hydrogen-palladium
system; the deuterium nuclei are farther apart than in a D2 molecule.
Nevertheless, the idea has some merit.

Steve Jones suggests constant pressure in the form of a diamond anvil
as a way to get the piezo.  However, it's pretty clear that highest
pressures that you can get are with extreme violence.  The typical
diamond anvil pressure of 1 Mbar is a mere caress compared to what you
get with an implosion with high explosives.  Alas, violence often begets
violence.  The only currently successful fusion technology, thermonuclear
bombs, relies on an implosion twice, first in its fission trigger
and second in the confinement of its lithium hydride fuel.
However, the resulting energy release is too violent for conversion
to electricity (to say the least).

In fact, an implosion is exactly the goal of laser fusion, also called
fusion by inertial confinement.  Before I knew anything about laser
fusion, I assumed that the lasers were there to heat the deuterium
pellets that they are aimed at.  They might do that, but their main
role is to explode the outer shell of hydrogen to make the innermost
core implode.  Although it is far from breakeven, I think that laser
can give you a measurable neutron flux.

In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
fusion is declassified.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: 2 Jan 1994 02:02:46 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: Piezonuclear fusion is Steve Jones' term for inducing fusion by
: squeezing deuterium nuclei together (in a more literal sense
: than by heating them to millions of degrees).  Of course, this
: has nothing to do with electrochemical cold fusion, because their
: is nothing particularly piezo about the hydrogen-palladium
: system; the deuterium nuclei are farther apart than in a D2 molecule.
: Nevertheless, the idea has some merit.

But fusion depends on the probability of very close encounters rather
than equilibrium distance.

: Steve Jones suggests constant pressure in the form of a diamond anvil
: as a way to get the piezo.  However, it's pretty clear that highest
: pressures that you can get are with extreme violence.  The typical
: diamond anvil pressure of 1 Mbar is a mere caress compared to what you
: get with an implosion with high explosives.  Alas, violence often begets
: violence.  The only currently successful fusion technology, thermonuclear
: bombs, relies on an implosion twice, first in its fission trigger
: and second in the confinement of its lithium hydride fuel.
: However, the resulting energy release is too violent for conversion
: to electricity (to say the least).

: In fact, an implosion is exactly the goal of laser fusion, also called
: fusion by inertial confinement.  Before I knew anything about laser
: fusion, I assumed that the lasers were there to heat the deuterium
: pellets that they are aimed at.  They might do that, but their main
: role is to explode the outer shell of hydrogen to make the innermost
: core implode.  Although it is far from breakeven, I think that laser
: can give you a measurable neutron flux.

: In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
: We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
: fusion is declassified.

What *exactly* are the pellets in ICF fusion made out of?  Anbody
here who knows?  If it's hydrogen is it a gas in some ampule? 

H-bomb fuel is lithium hydride.  So somehow is it all timed that
neutrons from the fission explosion get there right away to convert
lithium into tritium, right before the implosion?   

How does ICF work then?

One thing to remember is that bomb and ICF piezonuclear fusion implosions
are *not* driven by physical fluid pressure (as in 'anvil' or hypothetical
sonoluminesence-fusion) , but rather by photon pressure, which operates
*much* more quickly (speed of light vs. speed of sound).  Alot of ICF work
doesn't directly use the laser light but rather the x-rays from a high-Z
shell surrounding the fuel that's vaporized by the lasers.

To ignite it appears you need to squeeze hard and squeeze fast---if you
squeeze slow, the stuff will just bounce back without ever getting to a
high-enough density.  

If you squeeze slower, you have to hope that you can keep it hot for
longer.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 03:50:20 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2g5a06INN47i@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.ne
 (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: Piezonuclear fusion is Steve Jones' term for inducing fusion by
>: squeezing deuterium nuclei together (in a more literal sense
>: than by heating them to millions of degrees).  Of course, this
>: has nothing to do with electrochemical cold fusion, because their
>: is nothing particularly piezo about the hydrogen-palladium
>: system; the deuterium nuclei are farther apart than in a D2 molecule.
...
>But fusion depends on the probability of very close encounters rather
>than equilibrium distance.

Your comment is true but it doesn't work as a defense of
electrochemical cold fusion either.  Whether or not you intended it
that way, and whether or not electrochemical cold fusion has any good
scientific motivation (which it doesn't), there is nothing particularly
"piezo" about the hydrogen-palladium system.

>What *exactly* are the pellets in ICF fusion made out of?  Anbody
>here who knows?  If it's hydrogen is it a gas in some ampule? 

I have seen a photograph of IC fusion pellets sitting on a quarter.
They were each about the size of the eyeball of the eagle on the
quarter if it had one (one was sitting in the eye socket).  The owner
of the photograph explained to me that each pellet is three concentric
gold shells with hydrogen gas between them.  I assume that the hydrogen
is segregated into three different mixtures of H, D, and T.  A thing
that I don't know is how the gold shells stay separated.  I might
suggest electrostatic repulsion, except that I think that it does not
work.

>H-bomb fuel is lithium hydride.  So somehow is it all timed that
>neutrons from the fission explosion get there right away to convert
>lithium into tritium, right before the implosion?

It is true that a large neutron flux from several places in a
thermonuclear device converts the lithium into tritium.  However, I do
not think that timing is a problem.  As I will explain below, I think
that bomb fusion is confined by fluid pressure, which as you note is
much slower than photon flux and neutron flux alike.  Another thing
that I do not understand is why it is Li-6 rather than Li-7.  Unlike
Li-6, Li-7 creates a new neutron to replace the old one that it ate and
is a more abundant isotope.  I bet the reason is that a single Li-7 is
too unlikely to capture a neutron, thus the conversion rate is too
inefficient.  One could call that a question of timing.

>How does ICF work then?

I'm not completely sure, but I think that it is similar to bomb fusion.

>One thing to remember is that bomb and ICF piezonuclear fusion implosions
>are *not* driven by physical fluid pressure (as in 'anvil' or hypothetical
>sonoluminesence-fusion), but rather by photon pressure, which operates
>*much* more quickly (speed of light vs. speed of sound).  

According to Richard Rhodes, *The Making of the Atomic Bomb*, the X
rays are there to heat both the lithium deuteride and a plastic jacket
around it.  The plastic jacket, finding itself to be a very hot,
light-nucleus plasma, explodes in a big way, and that explosion
squeezes both the lithium deuteride and extra fission material.

>A lot of ICF work doesn't directly use the laser light but rather the
>x-rays from a high-Z shell surrounding the fuel that's vaporized by the
>lasers.

That might be useful for heating the fuel.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 06:33:34 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

Some nice comments from Gary Collins, and a _question_...


In article <1993Dec29.163921.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:

> Do you still think that the emission or absorption takes place in only
> 10^-23 seconds, Terry?


A simply delightful question!  Here is how to figure out my answer to it:

    Do _you_ believe that the gamma photon absorption/emission event takes
    place within a region of space no more than 2 angstroms in diameter?

      o  If your answer is YES, my answer to your question is also YES.

      o  If your answer is NO,  my answer to your question is also NO.


				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan  2 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 06:40:11 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)


Hi folks,

In article <tomkCIu45x.BFI@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

> In article <1993Dec29.212221.27112@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> 
> | Hey, you've got my vote!  What a brat!  (No degree in physics, either!)  :-)
> 
> Well, I think you got the point. That sort of misunderstanding is what
> is really holding back CNF...

Note:  You may be assuming that I am a "CNF" advocate.  I am not.  I have in
the past remained opened to the _possibility_ of unusual heat events in some
types of transition metal hydride systems, but after the retraction in 1993
of a couple of (for me) key points of evidence -- the magical "disappearing
hole-in-the-floor" of P&F, and another less publicized but perhaps even more
critical reproducibility failure -- I would judge that there is no evidence
for "excess heat" worth considering.  Plus true "CNF" has been dead ever
since the products ratios were shown to be wrong, no matter how much its
proponents have been inclined to pummel the corpse.

My position about low-level nuclear signatures is more complicated.  I bow
to Steve Jones and others for assessments of how good the physical evidence
for such events may be (not good, excepting perhaps the volcanic tritium
results?).  But I remain open that their may exist unexpected mechanisms in
condensed matter that could result in detectable "hot spots," which could
then lead to some enhancement in _fully conventional_ fusion reactions.

> ... Everyone's ideas have at least the merit of their own. There is
> nothing new under the sun -- or at least very little.  Who's to say that
> some classical Greek 2,500 years ago hadn't the universe figured out. Yet
> such a discovery would be of interest to me should I be the one to stumble
> across it no small time later. :-) ...

I really do appreciate the more amiable tone of these comments, but it is
perhaps a less profound situation than this.  Dr. Chubb made a remark to
the effect that I had used some ideas of his without properly referencing
his paper.  The remark was not true, and that made me angry.  I reacted
more strongly than I should have because I could not understand why he
had not simply _asked me privately_ whether I had used some of his ideas.

I apologize to Dr. Chubb for the anger and excessiveness of the response.
A short reply to the effect that his remark was incorrect would have been
the correct response; I did not succeed in creating a correct response.

(Incidentally, the post office returned the Chubb envelope back to me, with
big tractor-style marks on it that I presume to mean: "Don't try returning
months-old mail again, turkey!"  So once again it remains on my desk, still
unopened.  Perhaps I should have it bronzed?)


> ... Your ideas are yours, but others could be completely capable of having
> the same revelation from the same evidence.  If we must argue physics at
> least let's argue with the understanding that we could _all_ be wrong.
> (And probably are.)

Good comments -- thanks.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Replies to Schultz and Page
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Schultz and Page
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 07:02:41 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)


Richard Schultz:

    If you will look back at my original Mossbauer posting to this group
    (sci.physics.fusion) group, you will note that it was a courtesy copy
    only.  The original was sent to sci.physics.research.  In that group
    this and similar earlier postings of the same general type have tended
    to get thoughtful responses, including excellent and highly relevant
    references, sets of appropriate equations, and comments on whether or
    not there are key errors in the approach.

    My original Mossbauer posting thus was neither derived from, nor in any
    way intended to be, a "cold fusion" posting.  I simply hoped that there
    might be some participants in this group who still enjoy physics simply
    because it is a fascinating topic in its own right.


Bill Page:

    Heh.  Amazing how familiar you and Richard seem to think you are with
    what I have and haven't read over the past 25 years.

    If you are convinced that the secrets of the Vigier molecule are right
    in the front of any standard QM text, I don't think it's my place to
    try to dissuade you.  You might instead try corresponding with the
    authors of one or two of those texts, and see how _they_ react to such
    an assertion.  In fact, I would strongly recommend that you do just
    that.  Please let us know how it goes.

    More generally, Mat Kennel posted some very good commentary on the
    dangers of using pre-1925 physics to come up with "new" ways of looking
    at physics.  Since you mentioned some of these older models in your
    discussions of Vigier-style molecules, you might look at his comments.

    Judging by his subsequent key role in developing the Copenhagen way
    of interpretation of post-1925 quantum theory, I believe it would be
    quite safe to surmise that Niels Bohr would have been very upset --
    not just a little upset, but _very_ upset -- at anyone using parts
    of his old Bohr atom publications to support a "new" interpretation
    of how atoms work.  The DeBroglie/Schroedinger/Planck revelation that
    quantum states were nothing more than _standing waves_, with wave
    equations strikingly similar to those of the well-understood wave
    equations of the previous century, was an incredibly powerful and
    unifying concept.  It caused a nearly immediate abandonment the
    extremely arbitrary and inelegant assumptions of the Bohr and early
    post-Bohr formalisms, and allowed the basic themes of modern quantum
    theory to be completed within a remarkably short period of time.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 07:34:52 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Dear Steve,

Thank you for the interest, and _wow_ was that an impressive/intimidating
list of mostly hard questions.

I will be examining his list in detail.  Folks, I hope you won't mind if
I keep my responses on other topics a bit short for a while.

I would note that as best I can recall, the idea of using D2 for cavitation
was Tom Droege's idea.  Tom also pointed out a potentially rich source of
photo documentation from old bubble chambers.  I don't recall at the moment
whether I even mentioned D2 anywhere in the UC document, and even if I did
it was just in passing.  I certainly would never have come up with the neat
bubble chamber idea, either.

More later.  Profound thanks again for the interest, Steve.  The liquid
metal approaches were, are, and should continue to be highly interesting
if any of the ideas in the UC document are even roughly correct.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: 2 Jan 94 13:40:14 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1994Jan1.233635.21020@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

> In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
> We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
> fusion is declassified.


This is confused.  Inertial confinement fusion is not "piezo" or
"pycno" nuclear fusion.  The compression itself is too little to cause
significant fusion to occur.  The fusion that does occur is
thermonuclear.

The actual reason for the compression is to allow much smaller amounts
of fuel to be efficiently burned.  A compressed target of a given
temperature and composition will disassemble in time proportional to
its radius.  The time required to burn a given fraction of its fuel,
however, is proportional to 1/density, or radius^3.

The figure of merit for targets is the density x radius; for DT
targets the necessary figure is around 4 g/cm^2.  Note that this means
that a sufficiently large target could be ignited without any
compression, but an extremely large driver would be needed (the
required mass, and therefore the energy needed to heat to ignition, go
as density^-2.)

	Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 14:36:06 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Jan2.134014.25694@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.e
u (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1994Jan1.233635.21020@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
>> We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
>> fusion is declassified.
...
>This is confused.  Inertial confinement fusion is not "piezo" or
>"pycno" nuclear fusion.  The compression itself is too little to cause
>significant fusion to occur.  The fusion that does occur is thermonuclear.

I admit that it is a bit sloppy to call inertial confinement fusion
piezonuclear, since however piezo it may be, it is not piezo enough for
nuclear reactions in the absence of high temperatures.  The fusion
threshold is usually given in terms of a minimum temperature and
a minimum density times confinement time.

The fact remains that in laser fusion one sees extremely high
pressures, much higher than in a diamond anvil.  (And a diamond anvil
in turn achieves much higher pressures than the electrochemical
pressure of Pd-D.)  I have not seen actual numbers, but my guess is
that they are in the gigabar range.  If the implosion in laser fusion
is not enough to cause fusion without heating in addition, a diamond
anvil doesn't stand a chance.

Admittedly a diamond anvil has a particularly long confinement time,
but in fusion research it is well-established that that does not
make up for insufficient temperature and pressure.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Greg Kuperberg /  Confining jello with rubber bands
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Confining jello with rubber bands
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 18:00:06 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

Someone recently said that magnetic fusion is as hard as confining
jello with rubber bands.  It's good to remember this famous analogy,
but the words "as hard as" do not do it justice.  Magnetic confinement
of a plasma is surprisingly similar to confining jello with rubber
bands, and it is instructive to compare the two to understand
the barriers to magnetic fusion.

The first model of magnetic plasmas is called ideal magnetohydrodynamics
(ideal MHD), determined by Maxwell's equations, the Lorentz force
of a magnetic field on a current-carrying object, and the pressure
equation and other fluid equations.  The plasma is assumed to be
an ideal, non-viscous gas with zero electrical resistance; these
assumptions are the "ideal" part of ideal MHD.  It is also assumed
that there is no significant charge separation in the plasma or
other possible source for a significant electric field, so Maxwell's
equations simplify to equations for the magnetic field only.

The main qualitative conclusions of the ideal MHD equations are that
the magnetic field lines carry an effective tension, and that they are
swept with the perpendicular motion of the plasma, although the plasma
can travel parallel to the magnetic field freely.  Thus, ideal MHD is
similar to an impermeable jello (representing the plasma) with greased
rubber bands suspended in it.  The rubber bands cannot cut through the
jello, but the jello can slide up and down the bands.  Squeezing the
rubber bands together (i.e., decreasing the spacing between them) is
akin to ramping up the magnetic field; what happens to the jello?  If
you squeeze hard, it narrows in the perpendicular directions and
lengthens parallel to the bands.  In fact it can lengthen to the point
that it spills off the ends of the rubber bands or crashes into
whatever suspends them.  Oops.  This suggests the well-known problem in
magnetic fusion of tying the ends of magnetic field lines.  In a
tokamak you connect the ends to make a torus.  In a mirror machine you
try electrostatic repulsion and other tricks to keep enough plasma away
from the ends.

In reality, a hydrogen plasma is slightly non-ideal, and although the
corrections to the ideal theory are numerically small, they can have
large consequences.  A non-ideal plasma can be likened to a jello that
is not quite impermeable.  Suspended rubber bands can cut through the
jello at a slow rate.  If you squeeze the jello with the rubber bands,
a little bit of jello spills out the sides, and then a little more, and
a little more, and so on.  Eventually the rubber bands are in the
middle and the jello is on the outside.  Most importantly, there is no
way to push back the jello that has slipped part way out.  This
phenomenon also appears in magnetic confinement of plasmas.

A final lesson of the analogy is that bigger is better.  If you want to
build up a certain minimum pressure or confinement time in a jello, one
strategy is to pile on more and more pressure, a little bit a time,
with more jello and more rubber bands.  (You have to ignore gravity or
launch the jello confinement assembly into space to make it intuitive.)
On the periphery the rubber bands give a gentle tug, but in the middle,
if it is far enough in, the pressure is quite large.  Similarly, the
magnetic confinement problem gets easier if you are willing to build a
bigger machine.  This is the scientific rationale (or rationalization,
perhaps) for building tokamaks and other machines as large and
expensive as the TFTR.  If we were a breed of titans with tremendous
power needs and we thought nothing of tokamaks ten times as large as
TFTR, we would have commercial fusion now.  Unfortunately, although we
are large animals with even larger energy appetites, we are not big
enough for current technology to be practical.

Of course, the jello-plasma connection doesn't do everything for you.
There are various instabilities and barriers to magnetic confinement
not suggested by this analogy, things like "sausage instabilities" and
so forth.  Magnetic fusion is ever more complicated the more
you learn about it.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan  3 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Robert Eachus /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: 3 Jan 94 11:34:51
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2g1ttc$c0o@lll-winken.llnl.gov> Robert Horton <wente@lll.llnl.gov> writes:

  > As one who spent a few years working on the Livermore mirror program,
  > I'd like to quench your enthusiasm for mirrors a bit. Why do you believe
  > that parallel mirror machines connected by (I presume) semicircular
  > axial-field sections wouldn't suffer from the same problems as
  > a simple torus?

      It would, but...

  > The whole reason people bother to provide a rotational transform,
  > either from external coils (stellarator) or internal plasma
  > currents (tokamak) is that a curved axial field doesn't confine
  > particles: they drift, on average, in a direction perpendicular to
  > the directions of magnetic field and magnetic field gradient
  > (i.e., up or down). Wouldn't your mirror-with-end-benders have the
  > same problem?

    Yep.  However...

    In any mirror geometry without additional electrostatic fields,
there are paths that "escape" through the end caps.  If the end caps
are connected together like I described deuterons, etc. in these paths
will rapidly drift out of confinement--IF they do not collide with
another nucleon first.  (This collision need not result in fusion,
just in a different "orbit.")  If the machine is large enough, and the
density is high enough, the likelihood of a nucleon staying in an
escape orbit long enough to drift out is small.

    Of course, that last scaling observation was exactly the point of
my posting.  Build it big enough, and a mirror machine will work.  The
science that needs to be done is to get "big enough" down to something
humans can and want to build.  What I have seen recently in the
tokamak community is that a "big enough" tokamak will be as large as a
workable mirror machine, and have lots more engineering problems.

    So tokamaks may have been the right choice for plasma experiments,
but I think we have now reached the point where there is NO reason to
build larger tokamaks.  It is time to start on geometries that power
companies will be willing to build.  I don't say that mirrors, or
electrostatic confinement, or stellarators, or sphereomaks, or z-pinch
is the right way to go--just that tokamaks are not it.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: 3 Jan 94 10:19:52 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <1994Jan2.063334.4084@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Some nice comments from Gary Collins, and a _question_...
> 
> 
> In article <1993Dec29.163921.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
> collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
> 
>> Do you still think that the emission or absorption takes place in only
>> 10^-23 seconds, Terry?
> 
> 
> A simply delightful question!  Here is how to figure out my answer to it:
> 
>     Do _you_ believe that the gamma photon absorption/emission event takes
>     place within a region of space no more than 2 angstroms in diameter?
> 
>       o  If your answer is YES, my answer to your question is also YES.
> 
>       o  If your answer is NO,  my answer to your question is also NO.
> 
 
My answer is YES.  It is only accelerating charge distributions that
radiate.  During a nuclear transition, the charge of the nucleus oscillates
between distributions of the excited and ground state.  An emitting
nucleus itself has a radius of about 1-10 x 10^-5 angstroms.  (Thermal
motion in a solid will increase the effective radius of the emitting
volume to about 0.1 angstroms.)

Your answer should be NO.  Previously, I pointed out that, from the
measured width (energy uncertainty) of the Mossbauer resonance of 57Co, 
the time of emission must be of the order of 100 ns (or longer).  
Here are two other arguments.

(1)  I already noted that the energy uncertainty of a photon emitted 
within a time period of 10^-23 seconds would be about 70 MeV.  But the 
energy uncertainty can be no less than the energy, as shown by the
following simple argument.  The energy E of a photon corresponds to
frequency f of the (complementary) light wave, with E= hf.  The shortest
possible pulse from a wave of frequency f must be roughly equal to the
inverse of the period of a wave, so that E= hf >= h/T.  For a 14 keV
photon, this gives a lower limit on the time of emission equal to about
3 x 10^-19 seconds, that is, 4 orders of magnitude longer than your claim.

(2)  Experimentally, Mossbauer gamma rays are found to produce 
sharp Bragg diffraction peaks, meaning peak widths much less than one
radian (57 degrees).  From the Bragg diffraction formula, it can be shown
that the peak width is (roughly) equal to the fractional change in the
wavelength of the (complementary) light wave.  But since the fractional 
uncertainties in the energy of a photon and the wavelength of the 
corresponding light wave are equal, the energy uncertainty of the emitted
photon is also much less then 14 keV.  Using the argument from point (1)
leads to the conclusion that the time of emission of a 14 keV photon 
must be at least several orders of magnitude longer than 10^-19 seconds. 

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins              | e-mail: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Michael Andrews /  magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: mra@bink.mit.edu (Michael Raskin Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: magnetic fields
Date: 3 Jan 1994 19:13:03 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

Is anyone familiar with state of the art technology in creating a magnetic  
field whose absolute magnitude is spherically symmetric? 

I know of the so-called "Baseball Trap" magnetic field configuration used  
several decades ago in fusion research, but do not know of progress beyond  
that point.

My field is "Neutral Atom Trapping," where such a magnetic field is of  
interest.

[If its not too much trouble, could those who reply give me a quick note  
via email just to let me know to look back to this newsgroup? Thanks.]

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmra cudfnMichael cudlnAndrews cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / John Cobb /  Re: magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: magnetic fields
Date: 3 Jan 1994 13:34:22 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2g9qnv$j4f@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
Michael Raskin Andrews <mra@bink.mit.edu> wrote:
>Is anyone familiar with state of the art technology in creating a magnetic  
>field whose absolute magnitude is spherically symmetric? 
>
>I  know of the so-called "Baseball Trap" magnetic field configuration used  
>several decades ago in fusion research, but do not know of progress beyond  
>that point.
>

I can't say that I am familiar with the state of the art, but I did play
on an intramural softball team once. :>

I think your question may not yet be specific enough. By magnitude, I
assume that what you wish is to have a field strength that doesn't vary
with polar or azimuthal variables (in spherical coordinates). Of course,
the direction of the field must vary or you will not be able to satisfy
Div B = 0 (unless you have Carreras' monopole in your pocket :> ).

One simpleton answer is let B be completely uniform (i.e. the field from
a solenoid). Since this is such a trivial solution, I must assume that you
are really asking for a bit more. So maybe you can clarify a bit.



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: D unloading rates
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D unloading rates
Date: 3 Jan 94 02:51:35 GMT
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <1994Jan3.061352.6150@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
> Tom Droege, I have been looking at the ICCF4 abstracts sent to me by Jed
> Rothwell, and I see that in a paper numbered M 2.10 by Tsuchida, Akita,
> Nakata and Kunimatsu of IRMA, that upon current shut off, H diffuses out
> of standard Pd electrodes from about a loading ratio of 0.86 to about 
> 0.81 in the period of several hours -- but then stays at the 0.81
> loading ratio for several days thereafter (looks like forever from the
> slope of the graph :-)
> 
> It doesn't look like Pd unloads H easily beyond the 0.81 level under
> static conditions.  It seems to me that that hasn't been necessarily
> your observation.  These guys look like they were very careful in their
> methods.
>  ...
> - John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853

The observed differences might be due to differing unloading conditions.
For example, suppose that unloading occurs at 20 degrees Celsius under 
(effectively) 1 atmosphere of hydrogen.  According to pressure/loading 
isotherms for H2, [see E. Wicke and H. Brodowsky, in Hydrogen in Metals II, 
ed. G. Alefeld and J. Voelkl (Springer, 1978) p. 81]  the loading should 
be about 0.725.  Once the ambient pressure drops below about 0.005 
atmospheres, the loading drops rapidly to about  0.1.  Things should be 
qualitatively the same under D2.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins              | e-mail: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Michael Andrews /  Re: magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: mra@bink.mit.edu (Michael Raskin Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: magnetic fields
Date: 3 Jan 1994 19:48:22 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

In article <2g9rvuINNitt@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu  
(John W. Cobb) writes:
> I think your question may not yet be specific enough. By magnitude, I
> assume that what you wish is to have a field strength that doesn't vary
> with polar or azimuthal variables (in spherical coordinates). Of course,
> the direction of the field must vary or you will not be able to satisfy
> Div B = 0 (unless you have Carreras' monopole in your pocket :> ).
> 
> One simpleton answer is let B be completely uniform (i.e. the field from
> a solenoid). Since this is such a trivial solution, I must assume that  
you
> are really asking for a bit more. So maybe you can clarify a bit.
> 
> 
Please excuse my original message's lack of specificity. Now that I look  
at what I wrote two messages back, I realize I did not ask for useful  
information at all! What I meant is this:

The kind of magnetic field I'm interested in is one whose absolute field  
magnitude is monotonically increasing and spherically symmetric about
a central point. 

Anyone know of such a magnetic field? 

--- Thanks

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmra cudfnMichael cudlnAndrews cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 19:51:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Jan3.104532.16824@desire.wright.edu>,
 <jbatka@desire.wright.edu> wrote:
>> 
>I don't know what percentage of the sci.physics.fusion group also read
>Scientific American, but it seems that interesting topics that appear
>in this group, magically appear in the short articles of that magazien
>a month or two later (this was the case for sonoluminescence [sp?] amoungst
>others).
>
>In the Sci. Am. article on it, they stated that one researcher reached
>bubble temperatures of at least 10,000 (C I believe).  However, as a fluid
>dynamicist these high temperatures seem very highly improbable if generated
>by shock waves, even if it is a gas-liquid phase driven one.  However,
>I have not been involved in experiments or computations involving a
>gas-liquid phase shock either.

     Last I checked, the 'temperatures' are inferred from light spectra 
     assuming blackbody emission.  As this is clearly a nonequilibrium
     process, the 'temperatures' may be quite misleading.

     And 'temperatures' up to 100,000C have been mentioned, and
     I find them improbable too.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Michael Andrews /  Re: Magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: mra@bink.mit.edu (Michael Raskin Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnetic fields
Date: 3 Jan 1994 20:30:56 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

You wrote: ( "GARY S. COLLINS, PHYSICS, WASHINGTON STATE  
UNIV.<COLLINS@JAGUAR.CSC.WSU.EDU>)
>Using Gauss's law for the magnetic field shows that you would need to 
>have a magnetic monopole at the center of the sphere in order for the
>magnetic field to be spherically symmetric (and radial, as I suppose
>that you meant).
>-- 
>Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.   
>(collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)

Thanks for the reply. The field I am interested in would not be radial,  
but would have the looser constraint of its _magnitude_ being spherically  
symmetric. To make myself more clear, by magnitude I mean the square root  
of the sum of squared field components. By "spherically symmetric," I  
actually mean "as spherically symmetric as possible."
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmra cudfnMichael cudlnAndrews cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
Date: 30 Dec 93 17:21:36 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

This exchange is getting rather lengthy, so while I will answer Tom's questions
below, let me provide a precis of my arguments about the significance of null
results for neutrons and x-rays (in state-of-the-art detectors) 
in cold fusion experiments.

1.  In his recent paper under discussion, F. Will et al. state:
"It is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd; only nuclear
reactions, whose nature is as yet unknown, could have produced the observed
tritium."  (J. Electroanal. chem.  360 (1993) 161.)
Notice that this is a variation of the old song, "We don't know what it is, but
it must be fusion"  -- here the 'f' word is replaced by "nuclear reactions."

2.  How do we check whether the premise of "unknown" "nuclear reactions" holds
up?  We don't even know the end products, except for (in this case) tritium.

3.  Well, we know that nuclear reactions are characterized by MeV-scales.
And we are constrained by momentum and energy conservation and light-cone
constraints, as we have previously explored.  In the case of tritium
production, *charge conservation* becomes a useful tool, since in the arbitrary
unknown nuclear reaction:

   A  +  B  -->  3H  +  X,               (reaction 1)

X *must* be charged.  Charged particles with just tens of keV of energy will
produce lattice-ion excitations, resulting in characteristic X-ray emissions,
in this case the 21 keV k-alpha line of Pd should be pronounced-- as I have
argued here before.  And no one has shown the presence of this line in any
cold fusion experiment.  Makes you think, doesn't it?

4.  In my critique of the Will paper, I added that secondary neutrons *must*
be produced also, from triton interactions on deuterons which are present in
the Pd:  

t (just requires keV energies!)  +  d  -->  4He(3.5MeV) + n(14.1 MeV).  (2)

What irks me about the 1993 paper and Will's talk at ICCF-4, which both 
contain the *same* data as the 1991 paper included in the NCFI Final Report,
is that Dr. Will failed to report in 1993 that they indeed looked for neutrons
but did not find anything significant, certainly not the (order) 10^6 neutrons
which would be expected from reaction 2 above.  (NOTE that I am speaking
of *secondary* neutrons from t+d reactions;  I am NOT requiring that d+d -->
3He + n produce neutrons via ordinary fusion-type reactions.  That's *another*
problem.  Here I'm focussing on the absence of (sufficient) neutrons from
secondary reactions which must be present no matter what the "unknown" nuclear
reaction should turn out to be, as long as the secondary reaction includes
tritium as claimed by Will.  The secondary neutrons being absent, so is the
"unknown" nuclear reaction.  Thus the tritium is not nuclear in origin.) 

5.  Now, Tom, think:  is there any way for the triton produced in *nuclear*
reaction (1) above to have less than keV energies?  No way.  Even the crazy
argument that   d + d --> 4He + (energy dumped on the lattice) fails for
reaction 1 (which includes tritium production )
since there are at least two final-state species -- both charged!
Phase space/ momentum conservation *requires* that the charged species carry
off the MeV-scale energy of the "unknown" nuclear reaction.  And those charged
nuclei, products of "unknown" nuclear reactions, must produce *copious* x-rays
and the tritons must produce copious (secondary) neutrons.  These secondary
products tell us whether a nuclear reaction indeed produced the claimed tritium.
In particular, the absence of significant neutrons means that the tritium
claimed by Will et al.
was *not* nuclear in origin.  Thus we have a *crucial test*, provided by
x-rays and neutrons even when the reaction is "unknown."  Can't hide the fact.
And Will failed to see the neutrons.  End of story. 

In article <931228165048.20a030ee@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,      Tom Droege
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Under the heading "F. Will tritium claims/Not a "quality positive" paper" 
> Steven Jones writes:
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> In his "CNF bibliography update" dated 22 Dec. 1993, Dieter Britz says:
> 
> "Then we have a quality positive, the Will et al paper...  From his criticism
> of F&P, we know that Will is no naive TB, and I know him as a solid
> electrochemist.  The one niggling doubt in this work is that it was a batch of
> Pd wire (the 2mm lot) from Hoover and Strong only that produced tritium. ...
> I will add this paper to my small list of quality positives."
> 
> Will is indeed a solid electrochemist.  And he claimed no excess heat
> production in his extensive electrolytic-cell experiments at NCFI before its
> demise.  But does this mean that he is competent to claim tritium production?
> He boldly states in this paper:
> "it is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd;  only nuclear
> reactions, whose nature is as yet unknown, could have produced the observed
> tritium."  (F. Will et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161-176.)
> 
> "Whose nature is unknown"... what could it be?  How can they be so sure of a
> nuclear reaction, if there are no other evidences, such as MeV-scale energies
> associated with the reaction?  In particular, if tritons are produced via
> nuclear reactions, where are the *secondary* reactions such as
>   t + d (there is abundant deuterium available in the Pd) --> 4He + n.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Quotation ended here although there is much more.
> 
> I am confused.  If we do not understand the primary reaction, then how can 
> Steve be so sure that there must be a secondary reaction?  How does x --> t 
> guarantee that t + d --> 4He + n???  Steve Jones' assumption seems to be that 
> the t must be created with high energy and so later fuses with a d.  The logic 
> seems to be that we don't know what happens, but if it happens it must happen 
> in a certain way.  We have a miracle, but it must be a conventional miracle.  
> 

See above.  I just start from the claim that tritium is produced by a nuclear
reaction, albeit "unknown," as Will et al. published.  The rest falls out from
conservation laws.  

> I agree that it would be nice if there was a multi-MeV particle coming off.  
> We could all measure that.  Until there is, we must try to understand the 
> experiments as presented.  

"mult-MeV:"  not needed for secondary reactions to make neutrons (and x-rays) --
we just need keV's.
> 
> I am surprised that Steve Jones did not mention the Fritz Will paper at ICCF4.  

Excusez-moi.  Actually, I did mention speaking to Fritz about neutrons
privately at that meeting, and this was in response to his paper.  But that
paper is *not* new data, my friend -- it's the same stuff presented in the NCFI
Final Report, and is about three years old.  It *was* presented as new and
exciting at ICCF-$, I think -- but it is neither.

> For me, it was one of the better presentations at the conference.  150 control 
> samples were sliced and diced and measured for tritium.  Is this the same old 
> data Steve?  To me, the paper looks like an heroic effort to use a variety of 
> controls to insure that the tritium somehow appeared in the experimental 
> samples.  150 control samples were cut from the supply spool interleaved with 
> the active test samples of a few times 4.  You got it folks, many more control 
> samples than test samples.  Also H2SO4 control runs to compare with the D2SO4 
> runs.  

Sounds impressive, but a close look at the NCFI Final Report reveals irksome
details:  "In *previous* analysis of over 100 as-manufactured palladium samples
from the same supplier as the present palladium cathodes, we have found no
evidence for tritium contamination within the detection levels of our
procedure."  My stars.  That means to me that they looked at a different
*batch* of Pd than used in the tritium-producing cathodes.  But they looked at
several batches/suppliers of Pd, and only *one* showed tritium -- a certain
batch from Hoover & Strong!  Remember that Wolf found contamination in a batch
of Pd.  As far as I can tell from the NCFI report (which has more detail than
either the NCFI talk or the 1993 J. Electroanal. Chem. paper), only *four*
controls were run in H2SO4 from the same batch of Pd.

On a scale from contamination to cold-fusion-without-secondary-neutrons,
I would rank contamination as more likely, wouldn't you honestly?  Will's
evidence for tritium production via "unknown" nuclear reactions is not
compelling. 

[Droege again:]
>Seems to me that this paper only offers 3 possibilities: 
> 
> 1) a) The data has been falsified.  and/or
>    b) Gross error and incompetence.
> 
> 2) The experiments produce tritium.
> 
> 3) Tritium/pseudotritium can appear to hide in certain batches of Palladium so 
>    that it cannot be detected by dissolving the Palladium and using 
>    conventional tritium measurement.  Electrolysis "uncloaks" the 
>    tritium/pseudotritium so that it can be detected.  
> 
> Fritz Will seems to have a good reputation, so one easily rules out 1) b).  

Whoa -- an appeal to authority?  And is Will an authority in nuclear
measurements?  Hardly.

>  Is 
> there a possibility for 1) a)?  I assume that Will has tenure, so it is hard 
> to figure a reason for 1) a).  2) is unthinkable, so we are left with 3).

F. Will works for EPRI, the sponsor of the ICCF-4 meeting in Maui.  Figure any
reasons now?
1b and 3 go together; much more likely than 2 I agree.

> 
> With 3) there appear to be much better chances for a "miracle".  My 
> investigation into the measurement of tritium indicates that it is not all 
> that easy.  Remember that early on I talked to my physicist friends about 
> whether to look for neutrons, tritium, or to do heat.  I chose to look for 
> heat, not because it looked easy but because neutrons and tritium are likely 
> beyond any basement experimenter.  As I understand it, tritium analysis is 
> performed by dissolving the sample, then mixing it with a liquid scintillator 
> and putting the result in a "whole body" counter.  One must shield the mess 
> from cosmic rays and veto out what makes it trough the shielding.  This I 
> thoroughly understand.  What I do not understand is the alchemical brew that 
> makes up a liquid scintillator.   One mixes in tiny amounts of the stuff in 
> those odd branches of the periodic table.  Now we need only to chemically 
> change by electrolysis some impurity in the "good" palladium so that the 
> likelihood of seeing a scintillation flash is improved.  I know that this is 
> unlikely (the direction is wrong - Murphy normally decreases sensitivity), but 
> this is in an area where there is already a lot of fussing going on.  
> 
> I am told that there are real problems with liquid scintillators.  They can 
> "glow" for a while after mixing, so it is necessary to wait for the glow to 
> die down before counting.  What if some impurity in the "good" palladium 
> is activated by electrolysis so that it produces a delayed fluorescence which 
> extends into the counting period?  Seems to me that this sort of speculation 
> is not even in the "astounding" class, much less a "miracle".

And note that NCFI had to retract one set of tritium-production claims before:

"The low levels of tritium production discussed at the conference (8 DPM/ml
average) were quite preliminary.  Completion of routine consistency checks
revealed them to be only an *artifact* of calibration..."   My stars!
  
(In "Attempt to confirm the X-ray radiography results reported by S. Szpak et
al." by Tian, Barrowes and Bergeson, NCFI, Univ. of Utah, in AIP Conf.
Proceedings 228, p. 551.)  

Will et al. used  a Beckman LS5000 TD for tritium counting, which is
susceptible to problems as you mentioned, Tom.
>                            
> OK, you experts can now jump me.  I likely have it all wrong.  But I will 
> persist in looking for the good work of Dr. Murphy when faced with an 
> astounding result.  Very likely something has gone wrong.  Very careful 
> workers like Fritz Will can sometimes be had by the good Murphy because they 
> are so careful and repeat the exact process that caused the error.  
> 

Then why did Will et al. conveniently "leave out" the neutron measurements?
Not good.  Actually, the absence of neutrons in the Will experiments shows that
the tritium was not produced by nuclear reactions.  And they should have
kept the neutron results in their 1993 presentations even if these did not
"fit" their conclusion:  

"It is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd; only nuclear
reactions, whose nature is as yet unknown, could have produced the observed
tritium."  (J. E. Chem. 1993)

> So to me Fritz Will's experiment looks good as far as it goes.  He now has a 
> nice result, so it is time to "break it" by learning how to fool the tritium 
> analysis.  While Dieter knows him as a "solid electrochemist" he may have less 
> than solid tritium measurement advice. 
> 
> Tom Droege
> 

I suggest that the lack of *secondary* neutrons as reported dutifully in 1991
already "breaks" the Will claims of tritium production via nuclear reactions. 
 Too bad he neglected to mention these neutron studies in 1993.

I think I've had enough of dissecting others' hyped-up claims for 1993.
I'd rather talk about sonoluminescence, or even nuclear waste.
See you next year!

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 18:32:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <01H74MWR4PMQ95MVAK@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>
>Having read the book, I feel like a boobie for not being an ultrahard skeptic
>like Huizenga, or Douglas Morrison, or Frank Close, or Dale Bass, or Greg
>Kuperberg, or Dick Blue etc etc, all along. I was skeptical, but was impressed
>by some of those (very few) papers that seemed like quality positives to me.
>None of it means a thing. The F&P work is preposterous; so is that of Bockris
>et al; Steven Jones has retracted and will no doubt leave the area soon.

     This must be *some* book.  I'm impressed by the speed of your 
     'conversion', completing mine took a couple of years. 

     Was it a specific piece of evidence that crystalized your
     new stance or was it the sum of the interviews and evidence presented in
     the book?  Really, I must now try to find Taubes' book.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / John Logajan /  D unloading rates, question for Droege
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D unloading rates, question for Droege
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 06:13:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Tom Droege, I have been looking at the ICCF4 abstracts sent to me by Jed
Rothwell, and I see that in a paper numbered M 2.10 by Tsuchida, Akita,
Nakata and Kunimatsu of IRMA, that upon current shut off, H diffuses out
of standard Pd electrodes from about a loading ratio of 0.86 to about 
0.81 in the period of several hours -- but then stays at the 0.81
loading ratio for several days thereafter (looks like forever from the
slope of the graph :-)

It doesn't look like Pd unloads H easily beyond the 0.81 level under
static conditions.  It seems to me that that hasn't been necessarily
your observation.  These guys look like they were very careful in their
methods.

These guys were trying things like thiourea, Pd/Rh and Au coatings to see
the effects on maximum loading versus overvoltage.  Thiourea and/or Pd-Rh
alloys increased ultimate loading ratios, whereas Au plating slowed down
loading but didn't increase the ultimate loading, and it *didn't* much
slow down unloading!

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 06:52:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1994Jan2.064011.4138@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>Note:  You may be assuming that I am a "CNF" advocate.  I am not.

I think that you are confusing my statements (like that's difficult :-))
It is my opinion that CNF has all of the earmarks of a con game. However
there are some very good scientists working on the idea that are very hard
pressed to report negative results or retract past positives when they
discover experimental errors when they are sure to be treated as buffoons
for even having the thought that there might be something to CNF.

It appears that we are seeing something of this nature with Dr. Bokris
at the present time. (No matter what _my_ opinion of his alchemic theories.)

>Dr. Chubb made a remark to
>the effect that I had used some ideas of his without properly referencing
>his paper.  The remark was not true, and that made me angry.  I reacted
>more strongly than I should have because I could not understand why he
>had not simply _asked me privately_ whether I had used some of his ideas.

If I understood what went on, it was in a private conversation that Dr. Chubb
suggested that some of your ideas might have been responses to his letter
to you. Since you admit that he did send you a letter (granted you didn't 
open it, but how is that appatent to Dr. Chubb?) it might _seem_ pretty
plain to him should you thereafter say something in a similar vein.

I do agree that it would have probably been more polite to ask you first
but I interpretted that statement that you printed to be Dr. Chubb suggesting
that you _extended_ his ideas, not claimed credit for them. That wasd
more along the lines of a compliment than an insult.



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Mark Gemmell /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: mark@tid.es (Mark Gemmell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 11:53:42 GMT
Organization: Telefonica I+D

:    Does anyone know where I can mail order for a " Sturmey-Archer
: Dynohub." I have 3 mountain bicycles-- a German Kettler, a Trek 7600,
: and a Trek 9800. 

When i was a kid in Scotland these were very common on our bikes. I
agree that they worked very well and would have expected them to have
had more success.

I'm afraid I can't say where they can be obtained as I'm now in Spain
but I can tell you that the hub dynamo was about 6" in diameter on
one side and a normal hub size on the other. This meant that the spokes
on the fat hub side had to be shorter. For you that's going to mean
re-building your wheels and getting hold of considerably shorter
spokes too. Not impossible by any means, but perhaps more hastle
than clamping a tyre wall dynamo to some oversized tubing?

It may not have been succesfull simply for this reason, and perhaps
because the axle was also a bit special and thus expensive to replace.


					...Mark...
					mark@tid.es
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmark cudfnMark cudlnGemmell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Vigier and ORBITFUN
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vigier and ORBITFUN
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 01:13:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Terry for the concept of orbitfun!  Now what does that have
to do with Vigier?  This is where the flim-flam gets you.  By using
simplistic pictures of particular configurations of an electron between
two dueterons Vigier, as Terry points out, is sneeking in a particular
form of radial wave function without ever demonstrating that this functional
form has any justification.  Is it a solution to the Schroedinger
equation?  I doubt it.  If the d-e-d picture is the ground state for
this system what are the ordinary dd+ molecular ions?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Laughing and Hissing
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laughing and Hissing
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 01:13:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bill Page correctly notes that spin-spin and spin-orbit interactions are
treated perturbatively in orthodox quantum calculations, but suggests that
leaves room for other solutions to the d-e-d three-body problem in which
those interactions could play a significantly large role.  If indeed such
solutions were to exist, what is the "correct" approach toward establish-
ing their reality?

As I understand it the Vigier approach starts with a Hamiltonian for
a totally non-relativistic quantum sytem that includes the spin-spin
and spin-orbit terms with unspecified strengths and never so much as
demonstrates that there is a solution to the problem that has the
desired properties.  In what sense is this a theory?

My reason for suggesting that this approach is far enough off base to
be laughable stems largely from the sense that until there is some
experimental evidence confirming the existance of exotic states having
the desired properties these incomplete speculations are totally
pointless.  At the very least they can be considered as nothing more
than suggestions for new experiments to look for these states by
more definitive means than the typical CF experiment.  Since no one
seems inclined to design experiments that can answer any questions
concerning these unexpected interactions all these half-baked
theories float around without ever being challanged.  In this
case I would at least like to know how many d-e-d systems are
supposed to exist and what happens to them in the course of the
typical CF electrolysis experiment.  Somewhere I heard some
speculation that this ion is supposed to have a binding energy
sufficient to put the total mass down near that of 4He.  Anybody
making such statements ought to have some experimental evidence.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  What did Bockris do wrong?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What did Bockris do wrong?
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 01:13:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In the flap resulting from Bockris's recent adventures into bad science
many commentators seem to lose contact with what constitutes proper
action relating to scientific research done in an academic setting under
the sponsorship and funding of some outside party.  Having been around
I can tell you JOMB is not the first to cross over the line between what
is common practice and what is unacceptable.

Generally speaking, funded research at universities involves more than
just a deal between a Professor and the party putting up the cash.
There is presumably some document that defines obligations of all parties
involved and the conditions underwhich money will change hands.
Normally the University takes its cut, the infamous overhead, and
handles all the bookkeeping, etc.  In this case it appears that
Bockris used a gimmick (Not uncommon practice when it suits both
parties.) to avoid the overhead.  In this case the $200,000 is
accepted as a designated gift to support Bockris's research program.
Ordinarily there would be nothing wrong with this unless Bockris
agreed to some unspecified stipulation, something not clearly made
part of the documents defining the terms of the gift.  Now if
TAMU accepted a gift specifically to fund screwball research, I
would think Bockris is not the only one who should be called on
the carpet.

As to what the signers of that petition have to complain about, well
that comes down to what Bockris did to get that money, what he said
he was doing by way of research, and what he actually did with the
money.  Dishonesty could have crept in any of the three parts of
the transaction.  If, as seems to be the case, he talked freely
about transmutation of elements being the goal of the research I
would say he was being scientifically dishonest in that he had
no reason to expect that his research would make progress toward
the stated goal.  If he actually believed that he could achieve
that goal, then he probably should be put out to pasture for
being incompetent.  TAMU should certainly not accept any more
gifts, grants, or contracts to fund his research without some
oversight by others better able to judge what Bockris is
capable of doing.  The institution does have some responsibility
for what is done on campus, and I would hope that TAMU has
seen enough examples of what can go wrong that they will be
extremely cautious about anything relating of cold fusion and
nuclear reactions induced by chemical means.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: 3 Jan 94 10:45:32 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1994Jan2.073452.4738@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> I would note that as best I can recall, the idea of using D2 for cavitation
> was Tom Droege's idea.  Tom also pointed out a potentially rich source of
> photo documentation from old bubble chambers.  I don't recall at the moment
> whether I even mentioned D2 anywhere in the UC document, and even if I did
> it was just in passing.  I certainly would never have come up with the neat
> bubble chamber idea, either.
> 
> More later.  Profound thanks again for the interest, Steve.  The liquid
> metal approaches were, are, and should continue to be highly interesting
> if any of the ideas in the UC document are even roughly correct.
> 
I don't know what percentage of the sci.physics.fusion group also read
Scientific American, but it seems that interesting topics that appear
in this group, magically appear in the short articles of that magazien
a month or two later (this was the case for sonoluminescence [sp?] amoungst
others).

In the Sci. Am. article on it, they stated that one researcher reached
bubble temperatures of at least 10,000 (C I believe).  However, as a fluid
dynamicist these high temperatures seem very highly improbable if generated
by shock waves, even if it is a gas-liquid phase driven one.  However,
I have not been involved in experiments or computations involving a
gas-liquid phase shock either.

regards,


-- 

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjbatka cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: 3 Jan 94 10:36:18 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1994Jan2.035020.26648@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@ellis.uchic
go.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> In article <2g5a06INN47i@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.
et (Matt Kennel) writes:
>>A lot of ICF work doesn't directly use the laser light but rather the
>>x-rays from a high-Z shell surrounding the fuel that's vaporized by the
>>lasers.
> 
> That might be useful for heating the fuel.

Although this didn't jump out at me until after stated here, this makes
alot of sense.  If you used normal (optical, UV, IR, or microwave) wavelength
lasers on this material, the photons would tend to interact with the
electrons.  This would lend itself to 'heating' the material in the
conventional sense or ionizing the atoms.  The X-rays, however, would be
alot more likely to directing interact with the nucleus and impart momemtum.

Just some idle observations from a physicist wannabe,
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjbatka cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Jim Carr /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: 3 Jan 1994 21:45:28 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>
>: In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
>: We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
>: fusion is declassified.

They are not very closely related, given the temp and time scales. 

In article <2g5a06INN47i@network.ucsd.edu> 
mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
>
>What *exactly* are the pellets in ICF fusion made out of?  Anbody
>here who knows?  If it's hydrogen is it a gas in some ampule? 

Based on a colloquium I heard over a decade ago, it is d+t 
frozen into a pellet.  Based on the way the speaker put on 
ballet slippers to tiptoe around certain issues, it would appear 
that classification enters with respect to certain pellet designs 
that he could not talk about.  Most of the research in ICF seemed to 
concern big lasers and pellet implosion configurations, so it does not 
have much at all to do with the diamond-anvil work. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Jack Treger /  Sonofusion (Terry's UC) R
     
Originally-From: jack.treger@channel1.com (Jack Treger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) R
Date: Mon,  3 Jan 94 15:42:00 -0500
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

ST>3900.1202@physc1.byu.edu>
ST>Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion
ST>Organization: Brigham Young University

ST>What if we use mercury as a driver rather than water (D2O)?  (You
ST>posted in '92 a very well-motivated idea here.)  Will the UC result
ST>in higher temperatures and pressures, thus in larger fusion
ST>rates?  What if we use liquid lithium as a driver -- will we see
ST>and p-Li or d-Li nuclear effects during the extreme conditions of
ST>UC?  Does your "wedge-out" mechanism serve to generate high-
ST>temperature ions, so as to enhance fusion rates?  How can we
ST>monitor such a process?

  Steven,

    What if sonofusion was attempted at temperature that would
    promote Bose type condensdation?  Let's say, in a liquid helium
    driver?  Perhaps such conditions might be useful in Pd lattice
    cold fusion experiments (in that case we should call it frigid
    fusion <g>).  Any thoughts?

    ...Jack
---
 ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ -
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentreger cudfnJack cudlnTreger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Jay James /  Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: jayjames@rahul.net (Jay James)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Laser Fusion
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 00:40:09 GMT
Organization: a2i network


Whatever happened to laser fusion?  When I was in school back in the early
80's it was all the rage (I haven't kept up since) ... First Internet
posting...pls excuse the format...
-- 
Jay James <jayjames@rahul.net>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjayjames cudfnJay cudlnJames cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  ICCF-4 Paper
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 Paper
Date: 3 Jan 94 16:58:27 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Draft 3 January 1993 
Nearing final draft; for the ICCF-4 proceedings and, probably, Fusion
Technology.  Comments welcomed.  --Steven Jones

SEARCH FOR NEUTRON AND GAMMA EMISSIONS IN Pd/LiOD ELECTROLYTIC
CELLS:  A NULL RESULT

Steven E. Jones, David E. Jones, David S. Shelton, and Stuart F.
Taylor
Departments of Physics and Chemistry
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah  84602


ABSTRACT

We have conducted a series of experiments using state-of-the-art
neutron and gamma detectors to look for evidence for nuclear
reactions occurring in Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells.  No evidence
for neutron or gamma emissions was obtained in extended
experiments.


OVERVIEW OF DETECTOR SYSTEMS AT BYU

Our primary detector for low-level neutron emissions consists of
a combination of a large plastic scintillator core with a
surrounding bank of sixteen 3He-filled proportional counter tubes
(Figure 1), with all signals digitized at 50 Mhz and stored in
computer memory. The central plastic scintillator is 35 cm in
length and 8.9 cm in diameter.  A central cavity of 4.8 cm
diameter admits test cells.  Fast neutrons from the sample can
generate a recoil proton in the plastic generating scintillations
(efficiency about 40%) which are viewed by a photomultiplier
tube.  Then the neutron slows further in polyethylene moderator
28 cm diam. X 30 cm long, and finally may be captured in one of
16 helium-3-filled proportional counter tubes embedded in the
moderator (efficiency about 34%).  These tubes are arranged in
four quadrants incorporating 4 proportional-counters in each.

[Figures 1&2 not transmitted electronically.]

The detector and experiments have the following special features:

1.  All signals are digitized using a LeCroy fast-waveform
digitizer operating 50 MHz, so that we retain pulse-shape
information as well as timing between pulses.  Pulse-shape
analysis permits excellent noise rejection, along with giving
some neutron-energy information (from the prompt plastic
scintillator pulse).  By rejecting (in software) events having
small or no plastic pulse, we strongly discriminate against slow
(especially thermal) neutrons.  This background-reducing feature
is not available to many detectors including those using BF3, 3He
and even the Kamiokande detector in Japan [1].  By studying
neutron-capture time distributions based on prompt and capture-
neutron pulses, we check whether observed distributions agree
with those found using a plutonium source.

2.  The PC-based data acquisition system records which of the
four quadrants of the 3He-type counter showed neutron capture,
allowing for checking that the quadrants are hit in equal
proportions.  
 
This detector segmentation has, for example, allowed us to throw
out apparent large bursts of neutrons (over 60 "neutrons" in a
160-microsecond window) whose signals unrealistically came from
just one quadrant. (Occasionaly two quadrants are involved, due
to electronic cross-talk).  We have seen several cases of such
large bursts in the past year of running (see for example Figure
2); but all bursts of over five detected neutrons have proven to
be spurious.  Therefore, compelling data for large neutron bursts
would require detector segmentation and pulse digitization
(allowing signal visualization) or other reliable methods of
noise elimination. 

3.  Three large cosmic-ray veto counters show the passage of
cosmic rays, which events are rejected off-line.  Passive
shielding of at least 35 m of rock (12,000 g/cm2) also greatly
reduces cosmic ray-induced events and removes dependence of
cosmic-ray rates on fluctuations in atmospheric pressure.  After
cosmic-ray rejection, the event rate is approximately 0.6
neutron-like singles per hour with an efficiency of 14% for 2.5
MeV neutrons, and 0.07 burst-events per hour with a detection
efficiency exceeding 20% (increasing with neutron-burst
multiplicity) [2].

4.  Two additional highly-sensitive neutron detectors are
available in the same deep-underground facility based on a
different neutron-capture scheme (capture in lithium-doped
glass), to permit checking of any positive results found in the
primary detector [2].  


RESULTS USING Pd/LiOD ELECTROLYTIC CELLS

The data presented below represent 1,054.6 hours (6.3 weeks) of
observation of Pd/LiOD cells [3] and backgrounds in our most
sensitive neutron detector, described above.  Experimental
protocols follow those provided by Dr. Thomas Passell [4],
namely:

1.  Pd cathodes (6mm diam. expect 4mm diam rod described in 2
below) were used in a 0.1 M LiOD solution (in D2O).   Electrode
spacing of the Pd rods relative to Ni-gauze which formed the
cylindrical anode is approximately 2 mm, with a septum used to
prevent electrical contacts.

2.  Three cells were polarized in series at 40 mA from Sept. 24,
1993 to October 25, 1993, then at 80 mA until October 29, 1993.  

3.  Following a suggestion of Prof. K. Wolf [5], a fourth Pd/LiOD
cell was operated at high altitude (8,500') for three weeks at
20mA/cm2, then added in series connection with the other three
cells on October 25, 1993.

4.  The palladium cathode rods were scraped/sanded approximately
every seven days, and replaced in the cells within a period of
about fifteen minutes to minimize deuterium loss from the
cathodes during the cleaning procedure.  We noticed that the cell
potential slowly increased over days of (constant-current)
operation, then decreased after the cathodes were cleaned,
showing that a resistive surface coating had built up during cell
operation.  We also observed a gradual rise in electrolytic cell
temperature, using a platinum-resistance probe, consistent with
increased resistance and joule heating as the resistive surface
coating developed.

5.  A 12-hour cooling treatment was applied to the three primary
cells on day 17.  The fourth cell (described in 2 above) was
subjected to diurnal cooling and heating due to its exposure to a
mountain environment; the electrolyte was found to be frozen on
two occasions.

6.  Boron and aluminum (about 0.001 molar) were added to the LiOD
electrolyte on the 18th day.


*Time-correlated (burst) neutron-like rates

A neutron burst event is defined as having a hit in the plastic
scintillator core followed by two or more signals in the 3He-
filled proportional-counter tubes within 320 microseconds.  Since
the die-away time for neutrons in the outer detector/polyethylene
moderator is 55 microseconds, there is a possibility to see
multiple distinct neutron hits there.  In effect, the outer
detector "de-multiplexes" neutrons should an instantaneous burst
occur, as first reported by H. Menlove et al. [6].  A burst is
then defined as two or more neutrons captured in 3He within 320
microseconds of a start pulse in the plastic scintillator.  The
background rate for bursts is (0.07 +- 0.01) n/hr, all from
multiplicity = 2 events, established using Pd loaded with
hydrogen in 394 hours of separate runs.

We also scrutinize the time spectra of 3He-captured neutrons
relative to the start pulse in the plastic scintillator to
determine whether the time distribution corresponds to the 55-
microsecond die-away time for neutrons in the 3He-portion of the
counter, as seen with a plutonium neutron source.

The Pd/LiOD cells described above were polarized for 708.8 hours. 
During this time, 24 neutron-like burst events were seen, all
having multiplicity = 2.  (This represents approximately one
burst candidate per 30 hours, a very low rate indeed.)  Thus, the
neutron-like rate for these events was 48/708.8h = (0.07 +- 0.01)
n/hr.  These numbers are in complete agreement with those found
with hydrogen controls discussed above.  There is therefore no
indication of a neutron burst signal above a very low background.

To complete the scrutiny for burst-like events, we compare time
spectra from these Pd/LiOD electrolytic cell runs with those
obtained from H2-control runs and from Pu-source runs.  Figure 3
shows the time between each start pulse in the plastic
scintillator detector and each stop pulse from the 3He-type outer
detector.

Figure 3.  Neutron capture times for Pu source, H2 control, and
Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells.

Capture time   Pu source (known neutrons)   H2 control  P/F cells
 (microsec.)      (1310 second run)          (394 hrs)   (708.8h)

0-25            32                           6            14
25-50           17                           5             3
50-75           11                           8             9
75-100           8                           2            11
100-125          1                           5             0
125-150          1                           2             4
150-175          0                           0             7

The neutrons from the plutonium source follow a pattern
consistent with the 55-microsecond die-away time for neutrons in
the counter, but neither the controls or the Pd/LiOD cells show
such a distribution (the latter two spectra being consistent with
backgrounds.)  We conclude that there is no evidence for neutron-
burst activity in the electrolytic cells.


*Total neutron-like count rates

Even if there are no burst-like events, there may still be
neutron counts above background which we consider "singles."  The
background rate for such events has been established as (0.7 +-
0.1) counts/hour using Pd loaded with hydrogen.  Figure 4
displays results from each run of the electrolytic cells, showing
1-sigma error bars (statistical only).

*Numbers given here for Fig. 1 for electronic distribution; more
significance is given than the error justifies -- in order to
permit data-plotting:

Before current application:
0.73 +- 0.10  neutron-like signals/hour
0.64    0.24

40 mA runs using Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells:
0.70 +- 0.10
0.28    0.26
0.63    0.13
0.63    0.12
0.62    0.14
0.52    0.12
0.61    0.11
0.44    0.08
0.55    0.11
0.63    0.11
0.39    0.16
0.58    0.11
0.91    0.17
1.33    0.33
0.73    0.18

80 mA runs:
0.59 +- 0.14
0.82    0.21
0.85    0.13
0.69    0.4
0.88    0.20
0.77    0.20
0.64    0.24
0.38    0.14

Empty detector runs:
0.72 +- 0.11
0.65    0.11


Again, we see that the rates are entirely consistent with
background levels of 0.7 h^-1.  This exercise has as its
conclusion that no neutrons were seen above very low background
levels, in a high-efficiency detector.  The most important
observation may be that state-of-the-art neutron detectors are
now available for studies requiring high-sensitivity instruments.

*Gamma-ray spectroscopy

Immediately following the neutron search, all palladium rods were
taken to Los Alamos for gamma-ray spectroscopic analysis.  The
purpose of this search was to determine whether radioactive
isotopes of palladium, rhodium, ruthenium and silver might have
been generated during the electrolytic runs, pursuant to claims
of Y. Kucherov and others of such transmutations in deuterium-
loaded palladium [7].  All four Pd rods were placed in a low-
background germanium detector operated by Dr. J. Parker and
counted for 75,000 seconds.  No gamma lines above background were
seen, except for a weak 59.5 keV line which represents americium-
241.  The americium contamination was traced to the nickel gauze
used for anodes.  The migration of americium from anode to Pd
cathode during operation of the electrolytic cells demonstrates
that radioisotopes can be picked up by the cathode originating
from either the electrolyte or the anode.  Therefore, any claims
of nuclear transmutation in such cells must first show that the
claimed radioisotopes were not originally present in the
electrolyte or the anode.  These checks must supplement checks
for contamination of the cathode.

Further gamma-spectrographic analysis of essentially all of the
palladium cathodes used in experiments at BYU and Kamiokande over
the past five years have been undertaken:  we found absolutely no
evidence for radioisotope formation in any palladium cathodes. 
Careful scrutiny should therefore be applied to any claims that
nuclear reactions produce transmutations in electrolytic cells. 
In particular, claims that radioisotopes are formed far off the
line of nuclear stability should immediately arouse suspicion
that materials used in the electrodes or electrolyte could have
been contaminated or subjected to irradiation by an energetic
particle beam.  For example, if palladium-100 is found by gamma
spectroscopy, then beam irradiation is likely since negative-Q
reactions are implicated.

We also report here that we have followed our own challenge [8]
of searching for x-rays as would be expected if nuclear reactions
are indeed producing measureable heat in electrolytic cells. 
Nuclear reactions are characterized by release of MeV-scale
energies, hence their importance to power-production schemes. 
Energy release at the nuclear level implies that secondary x-
rays will be produced in the environment of a metal lattice,
where only tens of keV are required to generate x-rays.  That is,
if nuclear reactions are indeed producing heat at the levels
claimed (>1 mW), then sufficient x-rays should be produced to be
detectable, since x-rays arise from ionizing effects of nuclear
products on the materials in which the purported heat develops. 
Thus, x-ray measurements provide a crucial test for the presence
of heat-generating nuclear reactions.

Characterisitic x-rays of Pd (K-alpha of 21.1 keV) or Ni (K-
alpha of 7.5 keV) which result from K shell vacancies produced by
nuclear products are readily detected.  We have searched for such
lines using two x-ray spectrometers, a 10mmX10mm reverse-biased
photodiode having high sensitivity down to about 4 keV [8] and a
lithium-drifted silicon detector with high sensitivity down to
approximately 1 keV.  We used a Pd/D2O electrolytic cell in which
25 micron Pd foil formed both cathode and external wall; no x-
ray production was seen with this electrolytic cell.  We also
used a Ni/H2O cell in which the Ni cathode was placed against a
very thin plastic window.  Again, no x-ray production was in
evidence in the electrolytic cell.  

Indeed, *no* "cold fusion" experiment anywhere has shown the
presence of secondary x-rays lines (using a spectrometer) which
would characterize fusion or any other nuclear reaction in a
metal lattice to the best of our knowledge [9].  We conclude that
there is no compelling evidence to link nuclear reactions to
excess-heat production claims.  Indeed, the absence of
significant (primary or secondary) x-rays, gammas and neutrons
after five years of searching argues convincingly against claims
of excess heat production by nuclear reactions in electrolytic
(or equivalent) cells.  This conclusion is supported by related
experiments at BYU which show up to 700% "excess heat", but which
is in fact due to hydrogen-oxygen recombination in the cells
coupled with commonly-used (but misleading) analysis techniques
for excess-power production in "cold fusion" experiments [10].


CONCLUSIONS

In order to find compelling evidence for cold-fusion effects,
state-of-the-art calorimeters and nuclear detectors are required. 
Table 1 juxtaposes such systems with other systems now more
generally in use.  It is disquieting that some researchers select
open electrolytic cells over closed cells, and very long sampling
intervals (e.g., 5-minute sampling intervals for input voltage
used by Pons and Fleischmann in recent boiling-cell experiments
[11]).  Some researchers continue to use x-ray films instead of
x-ray spectrometers, helium or tritium gas sampling (and Geiger
counters) instead of charged-particle spectrometers, and neutron
survey meters instead of sensitive neutron detectors as described
above.  It is time to strongly question claims of cold fusion
based on crude techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous
scientific-proof level.  Compelling evidence requires use of the
best instruments available, incorporating fast data-sampling and
digitization methods, the use of different detectors whose
signals agree quantitatively, and presence of signals well above
background levels.  A real signal should be capable of scaling,
and should not shrink as background levels are reduced.  However,
as we have proceeded to better detectors, cold-fusion data surety
has diminished.  

With these criteria for state-of-the-art detectors, we find that
no compelling evidence for neutron or gamma production from
deuterided materials currently exists in any cold-fusion
experiment, including our own [12].  The only verified form of
cold nuclear fusion to date is muon-catalyzed fusion. 
Nevertheless, the search will continue for several more months. 
We invite those with evidence for neutron production to accept
our invitation to test their systems in the deep-underground
neutron detection facility in Provo Canyon.  Gamma and x-ray
spectrometers are also available on request.

We acknowledge the assistance of J.B. Czirr, L.D. Hansen, G.L.
Jensen, and E.P. Palmer of BYU and valuable comments from the
following:  J. Parker, N. Hoffman, D. Britz, T. Droege, R.
Schroeppel, B. Liebert, R. Eachus, R. Blue, C. Sites, T.
Schneider, T. Passell, T. Claytor, D. Morrison, J. Huizenga and
H. Menlove.


REFERENCES

1.  T. Ishida, "Study of the Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Solid-
Deuterium Systems," Masters Thesis, Feb. 1992, University of
Tokyo, ICRR-Report-277-92-15.

2.  J. B. Czirr, G.L. Jensen, and J.C. Wang, "High efficiency
neutron and charged particle spectrometers," in AIP Conf.
Proceedings #228 (BYU, Provo, UT, October 1990), editors S.E.
Jones, F. Scaramuzzi and D. Worledge (NY: American Institute of
Physics), 1991.

3.  M. Fleischmann, B.S. Pons, M. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem.
261 (1989) 301.

4.  T. Passell, priv. comm., 16 July 1993.

5.  K. Wolf, priv. comm.; see also K.L. Wolf, J. Shoemaker, D.E.
Coe, L. Whitesell, AIP Conf. Proc. #228 (NY:  Am. Inst. Physics,
1991), p. 341-353.

6.  H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, A. Mayer, M.C. Miller,
R.R. Ryan, S.E. Jones, J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 495-506.

7.  A.B. Karabut, Y.R. Kucherov, I.B. Savvatimova, "Possible
nuclear reaction mechanisms at glow discharge in deuterium,"
Proc. ICCF-3, editor H. Ikegami, Frontiers Science Series. No. 4,
pp. 165-168.

8.  D.B. Buehler, L.D. Hansen, S.E. Jones and L.B. Rees, "Is
Reported 'Excess Heat' Due to Nuclear Reactions?", Frontiers of
Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami, 1993, p. 245.

9.  See Proceedings of International Conferences on Cold Fusion.

10. J.E. Jones, L.D. Hansen, S.E. Jones, D.S. Shelton, and J.M.
Thorne, paper in preparation.

11. M. Fleischmann and B.S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O
system:  from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Phys.
Lett. A 176 (1993) 176; and "Fleischmann responds to Jones,"
sci.physics.fusion, 28 October 1993 posting; and M. Fleischmann
remarks at ICCF-4 (Maui, HI, 6 December 1993).

12. S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L.
Jensen, J.M. Thorne, S.F. Taylor and J. Rafelski, Nature, 338
(1989) 737-740.


TABLE 1.  COMPARISON OF COLD-FUSION RESEARCH METHODS

It is evident that much of the present confusion surround "cold
fusion" stems from the continued use of inadequate detectors. 
This list juxtaposes crude, better and state-of-the-art systems
to help in the quest for compelling data, one way or the other. 
Use of the best available methods is clearly the path-of-logical
science.

Crude                    Better                State-of-the-art
(simply add to the       (but not good enough) (can provide 
 confusion)                                     compelling evidence)
______________________   _____________________ ______________________

Neutron survey meters,   Segmented 3He,        Segmented 3He or Li-
  BF3                    Plastic scintillators doped glass *plus*
                                               scint. with digitizing

Helium gas detection,    Charged-particle det. Thin dE/dx detector
 Tritium gas detection   (Si surface barrier)  plus Si spectrometer
                         (requires thin foil)  (particle ID & energy)
                          
X-ray film               X-ray film with foil  X-ray spectrometer
                         energy-filters        (SiLi, etc.)

Geiger counter            see detectors listed above; Germanium det.

Infrequent I*V(t) sampling                     Integral I*V(t) correct
 (e.g., every 300 s)                            via frequent, redundant
                                                sampling

Open cell calorimetry,   Measure H2/D2 + O2    Recombiner inside
no H2/D2 +O2 monitoring,  simultaneous w/heat   separate calorimeter
during experiment

Metal of unknown source,                       Alloyed with known
quality or purity                              purity and properties

D2O of unknown source    D2O from known source,  Highly distilled D2O,
                         not exposed to reactor  known H,O isotopes

Visual techniques        Computer-logging,     Redundant probes with
                          several probes       fast data acquisition

Theories which dis-       Fractofusion ignoring     ???
regard P, E conservation  e- vs. d+ acceleration 
or light-cone constraints
(e.g., "heating lattice")
or known branching ratios
from muon-catalyzed cold
fusion (e.g. 4He or 3H 
but no neutrons)
or which use incorrect 
wavefunctions

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please send comments to Steven Jones.
              






cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan  4 04:37:09 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Craig Harmon /  Re: Sono