From: Amara Graps (amara@amara.com)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 15:15:45 MST
jeff davis:
> It was clear to the respectable scientific community
> that cold fusion was not possible. The laws of
> physics made that quite clear.
Not sure this statement is true, Jeff.
Amara
================== from the Past =======================================
From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons and Fleischmann -- and Paul Kammerer
Message-ID: <19752@cup.portal.com>
Date: 22 Jun 89 03:09:54 GMT
References: <24528@mordor.s1.gov>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
lip@voyager..ARPA (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
... lot's of stuff not relevant to sci.physics.fusion deleted
>combined with inadvertent Darwinism, it seems that the excess heat
>production could well be accounted for by chemical reactions in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>electrodes, and not nuclear fusion. And there are parallel tests for
>both. For the first, one breeds very carefully, in an attempt to
>counteract natural selection. For the second, one redoes the
>experiment with varying mixes of hydrogen isotopes, including "natural"
>hydrogen (with almost no deuterium).
>
> I hope that some of these critical tests are done in the
>months to come.
I am getting pretty tired of seeing this idea brought up.
Face it, there are only two possibilities: either a nuclear process
is producing the excess heat, or (due to sloppy measurements)
there is no excess heat. Excess heat of the magnitude that Pons and
Fleischmann are claiming *cannot be due to a chemical reaction.*
To quote Pons: "Heat is the primary evidence that it's nuclear. If you
take all possible hydrogen in the reaction and burn it (a chemical
reaction), you get two watts per cubic centimeter; we get 20 times that
much energy."
Jim Kowalczyk
James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com
Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu
From: rim@csadfa.oz (Bob McKay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons and Fleischmann -- and Paul Kammerer (long, a bit flamey?)
Message-ID: <1879@csadfa.oz>
Date: 22 Jun 89 06:22:28 GMT
References: <24528@mordor.s1.gov>
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University College, UNSW,
ADFA, Canberr
* a, Australia
From article <24528@mordor.s1.gov>, by lip@voyager..ARPA (Loren I. Petrich):
> .... P and F have repeatedly claimed
> that they cannot give away important details before their patent
> application goes through; they have claimed that they will be more
> forthcoming by the end of the summer. I personally do not find this
> patent-application excuse very convincing; it seems that they have
> well-documented priority over anyone else in this field....
Essentially this comment has come up in a few postings regarding F & P. It
reflects a concentration on purely American patent law. In most of the rest
of the World, publication of any sort prior to the filing of the patent
automatically invalidates the patent. A number of US companies have been badly
burned by this - I imagine U of U just don't want to add their names
to the list
--
Bob McKay Phone ISD: +61 62 68 8169 STD: (062) 68 8169
Dept. Computer Science ACSNET,CSNET: rim@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz
Aust. Defence Force Academy UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!csadfa.cs.adfa.oz!rim
Canberra ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA ARPA: rim%csadfa.cs.adfa.oz@uunet.uu.net
From: heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Vincent Heuring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons and Fleischmann response
Message-ID: <9780@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 29 Jun 89 21:55:20 GMT
References: <24562@mordor.s1.gov>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Vincent Heuring)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
In article <24562@mordor.s1.gov> lip@s1-amid.UUCP () writes:
>
> Well, at least I stimulated some discussion on why Pons and
>Fleischmann have been evasive about the details of their techniques. I
>think that one really has to wonder why they hide behind their concern
>about the protection of their patent rights. It seems that, if the
>effect they claim is real, that they have priority over everybody
>else. And with all the negative results that others have reported,
>they at least have the responsibility to tell others what they had
>been doing wrong.
>
> I think P and F will have a lot to answer for, leading the
>rest of the scientific community on a wild goose chase as they have
>been doing. If they know something that the rest of us do not, they
>should tell. If not, they should admit that they goofed. Otherwise...
>
Well, of course, time will tell. My personal opinion is that P&F
don't know what's going on, in a fundamental sense. They have observed
an apparently inexplicable phenomenon, but at this point they can't really
explain it. In fact, they can't always even reproduce it.
Now patent applications can be for
1) A novel composition of matter, or
2) A new process or way of doing things.
If they don't yet know what's going on completely, they can't completely
specify a composition of matter *or* a new process, completely
enough so that it can be reproduced by "one skilled in the art."
In other words, I suspect they are still in the early phases of trying
to spell out *exactly* how to produce excess head from their system,
what the important parameters of this process are, and possible extensions
such as other metals, etc. And until they can, they are wise to keep their
mouths shut, less they give somebody else a leg up in what could be
the most lucrative patent ever granted. What would you do, lip?
----
Vincent Heuring Dep't of Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Colorado - Boulder heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU
From: schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Problems with Fusion Reactions and Pathological Science (long)
Date: 7 Jul 89 18:27:12 GMT
References: <24588@mordor.s1.gov>
Sender: news@bnr-fos.UUCP
Reply-To: schow%BNR.CA.bitnet@relay.cs.net (Stanley Chow)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
---- Repeat offer ----
In response to your article <24528@mordor.s1.gov> comparing P&F to
Lamarck, Kammerer, Lysenko. I offered in article <643@bnr-fos.UUCP> to let
you bet "on a sure thing". The offer still stands.
The highlights of the offer:
- If P&F are wrong or cheated, you win minimum of five to one.
- If P&F cheated, you win ten to one.
Since you are so sure that CNF cannot be happening, I have no idea why
you are not jumping at this chance. Just think, you can be as famous
as Nathan Lewis by being the first man to *publicly* bet against P&F. :-)
----- End of offer ---
Incidentally, for those people interested, I have received no bets
at all. To those who have sent encouraging mail, thank you.
-- Get on soap box for a tirade against "Physics-centric" views ---
In article <24588@mordor.s1.gov> lip@s1-voyager.UUCP () writes:
[A long argument why CNF cannot work according to current physics,
complete with a calculation of thebranching ratios. SC]
> Thus, neutrons are an inevitable byproduct of fusion
>reactions, and their presence at appropriate energies should be a good
>index, superior to simple heat production.
>
This shows a very biased view point. You go through your calculations
in particle physics and say it can't be fusion. But calculation of
chemical energies show the heat cannot be or chemical or crystaline
phase transitions. Are you saying your view of particle physics totally
overrides the chemical views?
Given the current state of affairs:
1) There is heat being observed by multiple groups.
2) Some of the groups observing heat have given detailed
description of their experiments. Consensus appears to
be that the heat is real. No simple "killer-defect" here.
3) Some groups have observed T to be increasing over time.
4) The people who did the T measerments know what they are
doing. The magnitude of T is too large to be contemination.
5) Various control experiments with different setups give
very confused signals as to what is going on.
6) Many groups cannot duplicate either heat or T.
The conclusions that I class as *unreasonable* are:
1) Many otherwise competent groups have screwed up in their
respective specialty.
2) Many otherwise "straight" people are participating in a
gigiantic hoax.
3) Many independent groups are "deluded" into "believing".
Remember, canels on Mars are seen by human eyes whereas
heat is measured by thermometer.
4) The "believers" have enough "psychic" infleuence to make
the thermometers and counters read the desired results.
Other conclusions that I class as *unlikely*:
1) Conservation of energy is broken.
2) Spontaneous conversion of matter into energy.
3) New conservation law that favors some reaction branches.
This leaves me with the only *reasonable* conclusion:
Nuclear fusion is happening, but with some unknown mechanism
to suppress N, or change branching ratio, or ...
Assuming something unknown is happening, why should I assume that
it is chemical when there are some many more possibilities in
Quantum mechanics, QED, etc.?
> Effects that would invalidate these conclusions, (1)
>suppressing neutrons and (2) enhancing internal conversion, would be
>very important discoveries -- if they existed. But the supposed
>"evidence" is ambiguous at best, and the theory behind these
>conclusions seems very well-established.
>
As I understand it, there is also "very well-established" theory that
says the heat is not chemical in origin. If anything, these theories
are better established and more throughly studied.
-- Get off soap box. Run to my ever-ready flame-resistant suit. ---
Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA
BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
(613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
====================================================================
From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF Paper Archive
Message-ID: <5342@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 28 Jun 89 22:31:54 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
s
Below is a list of the papers I have in my archive. If you have any
papers that I do not have (especially if they are in ascii) please
send me mail.
Vince Cate
internet: vac@cs.cmu.edu or hpda!vcate@hplabs.hp.com
bitnet: s171vc09@cmccvb
PS I just posted gcmg.ascii to sci.physics.fusion from a computer
in California, so you may get this before that paper gets to you.
computer
Papers:
sum1 Summary of "Fleischmann-Pons" type experiments.
Dave Mack
sum2 Summary of "Jones-Frascatti" type experiments.
Dave Mack
gcmg "Dynamic Response of Thermal Neutron Measurements in Electrochemically
Produced Cold Fusion Subject to Pulsed Current"
J. R. Granada, J. Converti, R. E. Mayer, G. Guido, P. C. Florido,
N. E. Patino, L. Soverhart, S. Gomez and A. Larreteguy
Centro Atomico Bariloche and Instituto Balseiro,
Comision Nacional de Energia Atomica and Universidad Nacional de Cuyo
Argentina
srb "Electochemically initiated cold fusion of deuterium"
K. S. V. Santhanam, J. Rangarajan, O'Neil Braganza, S. K. Haram,
N. M. Limaye & K. C. Mandal
Chemical Physics Group, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Bombay 400 055, India
pp "The Reported Conversion of Hydrogen into Helium"
"The Transmutation of Hydrogen into Helium"
Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters
Papers in the 1926 issues of Nature.
kkr "Calorimetric Studies of Electrolysis of D2O and H2O using
a Palladium Cathode"
E. Krishnakumar, V. Krishnamurthy, U.T. Raheja, C. Badrinathan,
F.A. Rajgara and D. Mathur
Laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research -- India
lb0 "Solid-State Effects Cannot Enhace the Cold Fusion Rate Enough"
A. J. Legget and G. Baym
Dept of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
lb "Can "Solid-State" Effects Enhace the Cold Fusion Rate?"
A. J. Legget and G. Baym
Dept of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
nfl "Evidence of Emission of Neutrons From a Titanium-Deuterium System"
A. De Ninno, A. Frattolillo, G. Lollobattista, L. Martinis, M. Martone,
L. Mori, S. Podda, F. Scaramuzzi
ENA, Dip. TIB, U.S. Fisica Applicata, Centro Ricerche Energia Frascati,
C. P. 65-00044 Frascati, Rome, Italy
h4 "Dephasing in Coherent DD Fusion and the Long Chain Model"
Peter L. Hagelstein
Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT
cam "Cold Nuclear Fusion: Where's the Heat? - Just a Simple Minded
(JASM) Theory not using Muons Bosons, or DD reactions"
C. A. Melendres
Argonne National Laboratory
aps Abstracts from the American Physical Society's
Special Session on Cold Fusion.
May 1-2, 1989
aps.a, aps.b -- Two pages listing first 20 papers
aps.1.ps.Z, to aps.40.ps.Z - Abstracts of papers
Note that 13 was withdrawn.
~fp "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium"
Martin Fleischmann - Dept of Chemistry, University of Southampton
Stanley Pons - Dept of Chemistry, University of Utah
Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Interfacial Electrochemsitry
April 10, Volume 261, No 2a
-- NOTE - This is in your library already. I did not scan it in
because it has a copyright; however, it is nearly the
same as "fp" below.
cjh "Cold Nuclear Fusion in Metallic Hydrogen and Normal Metals"
Charles J. Horowitz
Physics Department and Nuclear Theory Center - Indiana University
Submitted to Physical Review C
dcb "Gammas from Cold Nuclear Fusion"
David C. Bailey
Department of Physics - University of Toronto
April 20, 1989
sek "Enhancement of cold fusion rates by fluctuations"
S. E. Koonin
Institute for Theoretical Physics
University of California, Santa Barbara
Submitted to Physical Review Letters, April 19, 1989
kn "Cold fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules"
S. E. Koonin and M. Nauenberg
Institute for Theoretical Physics
University of California, Santa Barbara
Submitted to Nature, April 7, 1989
ws "Two Innocent Chemists Look at Cold Fusion"
Cheves Walling and Jack Simons
Chemistry Department, University of Utah
h1 "A Simple Model for Coherent DD Fusion in the Presence of a Lattice"
Peter L. Hagelstein
Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT
April 10, 1989
h2 "Phonon Interactions in Coherent Fusion"
Peter L. Hagelstein
Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT
h3 "Rates for Neutron and Tritium Production in Coherent DD Fusion"
Peter L. Hagelstein
Research Laboratory of Electronics - MIT
April 10, 1989
gcm "Catalysis of Deuterium Fusion in Metal Hydrides by Cosmic Ray Muons."
M. W. Guinan, G. F. Chapline, and R. W. Moir
Submitted to Physical Review Letters
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
April 7 1989
rj "Theoretical Limits on Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter"
J. Rafelski, M. Gajda and D.Harley - University of Arizona
S.E. Jones - Brigham Young University
March 27, 1989
fp "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium"
Martin Fleischmann - University of Southampton
Stanley Pons - University of Utah
March 20, 1989
jpr "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter"
Jones, Palmer, Czirr, Decker, Jensen, Thorne, Taylor
- Brigham Young University
Rafelski - University of Arizona
March 23, 1989
====================================================================
File "USER$DISK7:[GRAPS.FUSION]137.;"
1.2 Jones Experiments
1.2.1 Jones, Brigham Young University, Utah, USA
Claimed results are ~0.04 fusions/sec.
1.2.2 Bertin, Instituto Nazionale Di Fisica Nucleare, Bologna, Italy
"Work in collaboration with Bologna in the Gran Sasso using
liquid scintillators with pulse-shape discrimination. The
neutron signal seen in a counter near the cell turns on and
off with the cell current, while a counter remote from the
cell shows nothing. They see a signal of about 50 neutrons per
hour lasting for about 3 hours, before it turns off. There is
some evidence that the energy is 2.5 MeV, but the energy
resolution is poor. Overall, it's a 7 sigma effect."
1.2.3 Tanihasi. Korea
Pd electrodes were loaded to a D/Pd ratio of 0.8 +/- 0.1.
The neutron spectra with D2O and H2O were the same after
20 hours.
1.2.4 Broer, AT&T Bell Labs, USA
Electrolytic cells with 3 different Pd cathodes. The cells
were in a large box with Pb and borax walls and then scintillators
to veto cosmic ray muons. Neutrons were slowed in polyethylene
round the cells and the gamma rays produced measured by capture
by protons (2.24 MeV) and by 23Na and 127I which give gammas in
the range 3.5 to 7 MeV in the NaI and is the more sensitive.
After 4 weeks they obtained a limit of < 0.007 n/sec/g Pd which
corresponds to <2.2 E-24 fusions/dd pair/sec which is less than
the Jones et al. value for titanium.
1.2.5 Emmoth, Sweden
Used a BF3 counter close to an electrolytic cell with Pd and
Pt electrodes. The efficiency was 0.1%. Most of their runs
gave no effect, but they showed two plots where there were
2 or 3 peaks whose existence did not seem to be correlated
with any other activity. They got up to 240 n/s. They were
aware of moisture and vibration effects on their BF3 counter.
They seem to have done no checks such as running with H2O.
1.2.6 Ewing, Sandia National Lab, USA
Reported no neutrons giving a limit of < 100 n/ hour using
3He counters around Pd cells.
1.2.7 Unknown, LBL - UC Berkeley, USA
For currents of 0.25 to 1.25 A, no neutrons corresponding
to a limit of 1 E-22 fusions/dd pair per sec.
1.3 Scaramuzzi Experiments
1.3.1 Scaramuzzi, Centro Ricerche Energia, Frascati, Italy
Results:
They had 3 positive runs out of 10 attempts. There was some
measure of correlation with changes of temperature or pressure.
1.3.2 Menlove, LANL, USA
The random emissions observed with three detectors varied in
significance: 4.3 sigma, 5.3 sigma and 11 sigma.
1.3.3 Tommasini, Trieste
This yielded 1:1 D:Nb ratio in the beta phase. Cylinders were
then cooled first to room temperature, then to LN2 temperature.
Detector: two-channel proportional counter for recoil protons.
Procedure: alternating 30-min periods with the Nb cylinder in the
reactor and with it out. ["For a day" 8 hrs?].
Results: Signal of 300+/- 60 (5 std dev) above background.
[More info available.] [Submitted by Steve Koonin]
1.3.4 Blencoe, ORNL, USA
This was a null result in a Frascati-like experiment.
1.3.5 Magni, ENFA CASACCIA, Italy
A sponge of titanium is loaded with D2, cooled and then pumped.
A small peak of neutrons was observed after about 700 minutes.
1.3.6 Massoni, Italy
Blades of Ti, 0.5 mm thick, heated very quickly (20 sec.) to
1000 degrees C., add D2 and cool to 500 degrees. The BF3
counters were inside shielding. Bursts of neutrons were
observed when the conditions were changed.
1.3.7 Furth, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, USA
Used BF3 counters and found their background counting rate
was highly variable from 5 to 30 counts/hour. With Pd cathodes
and with gas-loaded Ti turnings, no neutrons were observed at a
level of 1 n/s for both the d-d and p-d reactions, which is
not lower than Jones et al.
1.3.8 Ellegaard, Neils Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
Used 10 rods of Pd with 500 mA current and 3 litre NE213
detector surrounding the cells and also Ti loaded with D2
gas under pressure and heated to 500 degrees and cooled
to liquid nitrogen temperature then warmed to room temp.
No neutrons were found.
1.3.9 Hill, Iowa State University, Iowa, USA
Reported no neutrons from cells with a Pd cathode at a
lower rate than F&P. With Ti loaded with D2 gas absorbed
at 110 degrees and up to 660 psia where the achieved a
maximum loading of D/Ti of 1.9 (this is possible with
Ti not Pd) no neutrons were observed above a counting
rate of 6.5 counts per 10 min.
1.3.10 Fernandez, National Institute for Nuclear Reasearch, Mexico
Charged electrodes, one of steel and the other of titanium
and magnesium, in an atmosphere of enriched deuterium. "A
considerable number of neutrons per second" were produced.
1.4 Other CNF Experiments
1.4.1 Paneth/Peters, 1926
Towards the end of the paper they say that they were looking for
gamma radiation, but could not detect any with their electroscopes.
In a paper published in Berichte d. Dt. chem. Ges. vol. 60B,
p. 808 (1927), Fritz Paneth, Kurt Peters and Paul Guenther
described the repetition of the experiment in the Baker
laboratory in Cornell University (NY). The outcome of this
work is that they had underestimated the effects of some of the
error sources. Among other things, they found that their palladium
asbestos probably contained some helium.
In papers in die Naturwissenschaften (vol. 15, p. 379 (1927))
and Nature (vol. 119, p. 706-707 (1927)) Fritz Paneth declares
the results to be false. Quotation from Chemical Abstracts:
"The recently announced results on transmutation of H to He
proved on further investigation to be false. Glass and asbestos,
which do not give off He in the presence of O_2 or in vacuo,
yield quantities of He of the order of 10^-9 cm^3 on heating
in a H_2 atm. One day's standing in contact with air is
sufficient to cause this adsorption."
1.4.2 Tandberg, 1927
Electrolytic saturation of a Pd wire with D, followed by
exploding wire ignition. Null result - radioactive particles.
1.4.3 Kondo, University of Tokyo/RIKEN, Japan
Used a muon beam to measure the rate of neutron production from
muon absorption in electrolysed Pd. The rate was about 0.12
neutrons per muon, not 300. They pointed out that there are
many problems with trying to use muon-catalyzed fusion to
obtain Jones level neutron production. The main problems
are that muons are primarily captured on Pd initially and
after inducing a fusion, and that fusion is not rapidly
induced even after capture on deuterium because the equilibrium
spacing between D's is so large.
1.4.4 Myers, Sandia National Laboratory, USA
After the beam was turned off, no significant rate of
fusion was observed despite the loading being much higher
than can be obtained by electrolytic or gas pressure methods.
An upper limit of 2 E-22 fusions/dd pair/sec was estimated.
Ti and Zr were also tried with null results.
1.4.5 Mueller, LANL, USA
A small instantaneous pulse
was observed. The authors conclude that less than 1 E4 neutrons
were generated.
1.4.6 Gaudreau, MIT, USA
Passed 80 KeV/c muons into Pd and Ti targets at a rate of
1000 muons/sec/cm2. The authors are still interpreting the
results but indicate no dramatic effects were observed.
1.4.7 Nagamine, KEK, Japan
Passed muons into Pd samples loaded to a ratio of D/Pd = 0.6,
and unloaded. They observed no differences. They deduced a
neutron production rate of < 0.012 n per muon. It was concluded
that the rate of producing neutrons from cosmic ray muons
was < 1.3 E-6 per sec.
1.4.8 Unknown, Colorado School of Mines, Colorado, USA
Implanted D ions of 95 KeV in 1.5 micron thick foils of Pd
giving D/Pd ratios of 1.0 or above. No significant effect
was found giving a limit of < 0.2 n/dd pair/sec or
< 5E-10 Watts/cm3 of Pd.
--
********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD email: amara@amara.com
Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the
future of the human race." -- H. G. Wells
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:47 MST