Salt Lake and the 5 megabucks
Mark G. Johnson
>It would seem that all the State of Utah will get for its
>$5 million is a lesson in the value of peer review.
There seems to be a lot of harping about the monetary figure
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ... as though this is the biggest financial
flop of all time. While I don't pretend to know whether C.N.F.
is a complete fiasco, I would like to suggest that if it is,
it is a very inexpensive one indeed. Consider
HEAVEN'S GATE ... a Michael Cimino feature film starring Kris
Kristofferson. Lost >$40M
Apple Lisa ... the flop in between the ][ and MacIntosh. Lost
upwards of $25M.
Trilogy ... Famous Silicon Valley startup formed by Gene
Amdahal to commercialize wafer scale integration.
Funded to the tune of $300M, never delivered a
product.
Lincoln Savings Charles Keating and company manage to piss away
a billion and a half bucks.
Eastern Airlines Red ink to the tune of $-100M per quarter.
I humbly suggest that a financial loss of $5M isn't, in itself, noteworthy.
Not in an environment where people are willing, nay eager, to blow $20M in
production costs for "Star Trek V - The Voyage Home" or to spend $10M
to purchase airtime so consumers can be subjected to the piquant question
"Why ask why? Drink Bud Dry."
--
-- Mark Johnson
MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques M/S 2-02, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
(408) 524-8308 ma...@mips.com {or ...!decwrl!mips!mark}
Mark H. North
>
>I humbly suggest that a financial loss of $5M isn't, in itself, noteworthy.
And I not so humbly suggest that you are totally clueless. That $5M is only
the tip of the iceberg monetarily. Then there's the loss of 6 months to a
year of hundreds of scientists productivity which went into teaching these
two miscreants some basic nuclear physics (e.g. no neutrons - no fusion).
If you think I'm annoyed, you're right. I'm one of those hundreds who gave
these two the benefit of the doubt. This was foolishness on my part,
however, because if they had gone through proper peer review there would
have been no doubt.
Getting back to the money issue. Even now, after this whole thing has been
shown to be nonesense, there are still people out there getting money from
their managers to work on this. So the total cost has yet to be tallied but
it is FAR more than $5M. BTW your comparisons to movie making, etc are
irrelevant.
Mark
William Baxter
>In article <42...@mips.mips.COM> ma...@mips.COM (Mark G. Johnson) writes:
>>I humbly suggest that a financial loss of $5M isn't, in itself, noteworthy.
>And I not so humbly suggest that you are totally clueless. That $5M is only
>the tip of the iceberg monetarily. Then there's the loss of 6 months to a
>year of hundreds of scientists productivity which went into teaching these
>two miscreants some basic nuclear physics (e.g. no neutrons - no fusion).
They must be evil, since they refuse to tow the party line. Time for a
reality check. Here are some funding figures for the Department of
Energy, from the Office of Management and Budget's FY1991 budget
proposal. (figures in thousands of dollars)
Program by Activities 1989 actual 1990 est. 1991 est.
Naval reactors development 629,032 643,694 652,000
High energy physics 651,620 586,828 621,287
Nuclear physics 258,765 290,791 330,829
Solar and renewable energy 152,220 140,457 175,126
technology base
Nuclear Fission 617,715 581,999 358,490
Magnetic Fusion 346,698 323,018 325,300
Coal research and development 265,370 309,550 112,733
Oil, gas, and shale research 46,968 62,144 54,371
and development
Storage facility development 169,846 204,417 182,719
for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Natural gas regulation 54,739 56,569 57,301
Hydropower licensing regulation 26,050 31,136 35,795
Electric power regulation 24,503 25,700 26,448
Management and administration 166,707 172,356 159,419
--
William Baxter
ARPA: web@{garnet,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web
Mark H. North
>
>In article <12...@manta.NOSC.MIL> no...@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) writes:
>
>>In article <42...@mips.mips.COM> ma...@mips.COM (Mark G. Johnson) writes:
>>>I humbly suggest that a financial loss of $5M isn't, in itself, noteworthy.
>
>>And I not so humbly suggest that you are totally clueless. That $5M is only
>>the tip of the iceberg monetarily. Then there's the loss of 6 months to a
>>year of hundreds of scientists productivity which went into teaching these
>>two miscreants some basic nuclear physics (e.g. no neutrons - no fusion).
>
>They must be evil, since they refuse to tow the party line. Time for a
>reality check. Here are some funding figures for the Department of
>Energy, from the Office of Management and Budget's FY1991 budget
>proposal. (figures in thousands of dollars)
>
So what's your point? If you have one I'll be glad to address it.
Mark
Ramsey Haddad
> if they had gone through proper peer review there would
>have been no doubt.
I think that a fairly clear reading of the situation is this: P&F would
have preferred to have had everything completely figured out and to have
then submitted it for peer review. This way they could claim full credit.
It was only when they incorrectly thought that Jones of BYU was trying to
steal their ideas that they felt they needed to go public quickly.
>Then there's the loss of 6 months to a
>year of hundreds of scientists productivity which went into teaching these
>two miscreants some basic nuclear physics (e.g. no neutrons - no fusion).
This only happened because of the arrogance and egos of said scientists.
Why did *all* of them need to drop everything they were doing? Again,
because they wanted all the credit for debunking or verifying the finding.
They could have easily said, "Well, 5 other qualified people are verifiying
this, I'll leave it to them." or: "This is all very sketchy and incomplete,
I'll wait a year or so until it becomes clearer before I decide whether to
spend any effort on it." If they feel that they wasted their time, they
have no one but themselves to blame.
And indeed, if you look at my field, Computer Science, this is how we
handle plausible claims to solving the great unsolved "P vs. NP" question.
So many people take the "This is too sketchy, I'll wait" position, that it
requires a fair bit of dragooning to get anyone credible to perform the
verification/disproving.
--
Ramsey Haddad <had...@decwrl.dec.com>
Paul M. Koloc
>the tip of the iceberg monetarily. Then there's the loss of 6 months to a
>year of hundreds of scientists productivity which went into teaching these
>two miscreants some basic nuclear physics (e.g. no neutrons - no fusion).
NO NEUTRONS - NO FUSION ??? ..
Maybe, P&F should run the 360 megabuck + fusion program at DOE.
I seriously doubt that earth's community can accept fusion energy WITH
neutrons, or at least a significant (involving greater than five percent
of the reactions) release of neutrons.
So how is it that neutrons MUST be a part of a fusion reaction? This
sounds like tripe from people running "hot" experiments that then can't
come up with the pressure required to burn the "good stuff*".
>If you think I'm annoyed, you're right. I'm one of those hundreds who gave
>these two the benefit of the doubt. This was foolishness on my part,
>however, because if they had gone through proper peer review there would
>have been no doubt.
Don't panic. I wouldn't burn my stock just yet! What I have seen coming
from most of the labs is shoddy metallurgy and electrochemistry. Consider
past tech history examples such as the LASER. It could have been
discovered at a much earlier date; and once it was theoretically known, it
might have taken a few years before someone developed the correct
technique to fire the first one up. As it was Maiman produced the first
visible light beams in 1960. And more recently, look at the unlikelihood
of ever finding the workable warmer class of super conductors; yet, they
are with us.
The level of the emotionalism over cold fusion from scientists and
engineers, especially from the spokesman for hot fusion has astonished me.
Looking at this travesty from afar, it is a touch of behavior here that
gives one a vague impression of an occasional "feeding frenzy" and
"packing" phenomena as seen with wild dogs.
It reminds one of religious or ethnic hatreds that occasionally crop up.
Why? I can't believe the reasons given to date (P&F are jerks). There
has got to be something driving this thing from the subconscious fear
reaction center (if there is such a thing). That means: At least at
some level, the cold fusion "threat???" is being taken very seriously.
That might be a few plus points for a gambling person. I'm watching
this one for the long haul - - Although not so long by standards of the
total expired time of the hot fusion program.)
Good luck.
* aneutronic fuels
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; p...@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
JOSEPH T CHEW
>
> >It would seem that all the State of Utah will get for its
> >$5 million is a lesson in the value of peer review.
>
>There seems to be a lot of harping about the monetary figure
>FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ... as though this is the biggest financial
>flop of all time.
It's the principle of the thing.
>While I don't pretend to know whether C.N.F.
>is a complete fiasco, I would like to suggest that if it is,
>it is a very inexpensive one indeed. Consider
>
> HEAVEN'S GATE ... a Michael Cimino feature film starring Kris
> Kristofferson. Lost >$40M
>
> Trilogy ... Famous Silicon Valley startup formed by Gene
> Amdahal to commercialize wafer scale integration.
> Funded to the tune of $300M, never delivered a
> product.
>
> Eastern Airlines Red ink to the tune of $-100M per quarter.
It's as if Michael Cimino had filmed a documentary about the cowboys of
Lapland...Gene Amdahl had built a factory to make ICs out of potato chips
rather than silicon...Frank Borman had forsaken the airline business to
run NY-to-LA steam passenger trains...
>I humbly suggest that a financial loss of $5M isn't, in itself, noteworthy.
>Not in an environment where people are willing, nay eager, to blow $20M in
>production costs for "Star Trek V - The Voyage Home" or to spend $10M
>to purchase airtime so consumers can be subjected to the piquant question
>"Why ask why? Drink Bud Dry."
Well, by the standards of some sectors of the economy, $5M may be chump
change, but I can't think of a research center that wouldn't like to
have it.
What's more, you can't really compare public-sector funding, or even not-
for-profit funding, with the things the private sector can do when there
is a hope of turning a profit. And even by private-sector standards,
you've got to wonder about the "due diligence" and "oversight" associated
with that $5M. (I have trouble picturing a venture capitalist, even in
Silicon Valley's high-rolling days, throwing $5M at me so easily, on
such dubious grounds, with so little attention to what I'd be doing with it.)
Those who must exercise good stewardship of the taxpayers' monies are
playing by different rules and have to be judged thereby.
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Loren Petrich
>In article <12...@manta.NOSC.MIL> no...@manta.nosc.mil.UUCP (Mark H. North) writes:
>>And I not so humbly suggest that you are totally clueless. That $5M is only
>>the tip of the iceberg monetarily. Then there's the loss of 6 months to a
>>year of hundreds of scientists productivity which went into teaching these
>>two miscreants some basic nuclear physics (e.g. no neutrons - no fusion).
>
>NO NEUTRONS - NO FUSION ??? ..
>
>Maybe, P&F should run the 360 megabuck + fusion program at DOE.
>
>I seriously doubt that earth's community can accept fusion energy WITH
>neutrons, or at least a significant (involving greater than five percent
>of the reactions) release of neutrons.
>
>So how is it that neutrons MUST be a part of a fusion reaction? This
>sounds like tripe from people running "hot" experiments that then can't
>come up with the pressure required to burn the "good stuff*".
Neutrons are expected to appear from fusion reactions on very
strong theoretical grounds. Nuclear physics is a well-explored field,
and I think it is VERY safe to extrapolate from that. One important
feature of nuclear interactions is that one can do the interchange
p <--> n
without changing any interaction strengths. This is "isospin
symmetry". True, there are effects like the electromagnetic
interaction and whatever is responsible for the p-n mass difference
which break this symmetry, but these can usually be corrected for.
Most cold-fusion reactions have been performed with deuterium
(D). Its fusion reactions are:
D(pn) + D(pn) -> T(pnn) + p
D(pn) + D(pn) -> He3(ppn) + n
D(pn) + D(pn) -> He4(ppnn) + gamma
Inside the ()'s is the proton-neutron content. Nuclear reactions that
emit gammas are typically very suppressed (say, 10^-8) compared to
nuclear reactions that do not involve gamma emission, all other things
being equal, as they are here. And the first two are known
experimentally to go at approximately the same rate, as predicted from
the isospin-symmetry hypothesis. True, most fusion-rate experiments
have been conducted at a few MeV of energy, but extrapolation to low
energies is well understood.
So it is inevitable that D-D fusion should produce neutrons.
It is unfortunate that none of the cold-fusion enthusiasts have
seriously addressed the question of neutron-emission suppression. They
seem to think that all the work on nuclear physics is somehow
irrelevant to the cold-fusion question. If I am wrong here, then
please correct me. Present me with some theoretical analysis that
accounts for this (alleged) neutron suppression.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: lo...@sunlight.llnl.gov
Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:
Mark H. North
> [ excellent brief lesson in nuclear physics of DD reactions ]
I couldn't have said it better. Thank you for saving me the trouble.
Mark
Mark H. North
>In article <12...@manta.NOSC.MIL> no...@manta.nosc.mil.UUCP (Mark H. North) writes:
>> if they had gone through proper peer review there would
>>have been no doubt.
>
>I think that a fairly clear reading of the situation is this: P&F would
>have preferred to have had everything completely figured out and to have
>then submitted it for peer review. This way they could claim full credit.
Well of course this is moot. But my reading of their published statements
was that they did have it all figured out and that they were claiming full
credit.
>It was only when they incorrectly thought that Jones of BYU was trying to
>steal their ideas that they felt they needed to go public quickly.
As I recall, perhaps incorrectly, they had made an agreement with Jones as
to when an announcement would be made jointly. They then reneged and jumped
the gun leaving Jones hanging out to dry. I do not recall hearing anything
Jones did to make them think he might be 'stealing' their ideas. If any-
one might be stealing it could have been them since Jones was in this
business long before they were.
>
>>Then there's the loss of 6 months to a
>>year of hundreds of scientists productivity which went into teaching these
>>two miscreants some basic nuclear physics (e.g. no neutrons - no fusion).
>
>This only happened because of the arrogance and egos of said scientists.
>Why did *all* of them need to drop everything they were doing? Again,
>because they wanted all the credit for debunking or verifying the finding.
Perhaps you should examine your own ego. I get the funny feeling you are
not being very objective here. When you impugn *all*, as you have, you are
leaving yourself open to a charge of prejudice. I can say this concerning
myself: When this was announced, though I felt the method of announcement
unorthodox, I was intrigued and even excited at the prospects of such a
wonderful development. Yes, I wanted a part of it insofar as I was able to
contribute and I wanted to be at the forefront of the work simply because
it had the potential to be exciting and fun and I happened to have
expertise in a pertinent area of the research. If this is arrogant and
egotistical then I am guilty. But I think not. What motivates most of us
(scientists) and others, I hope, is just the shear fun of discovery and
learning. Unfortunately, there are others of us (scientists) and others,
I fear, who have baser motives but surely not all as you are saying.
>They could have easily said, "Well, 5 other qualified people are verifiying
>this, I'll leave it to them." or: "This is all very sketchy and incomplete,
>I'll wait a year or so until it becomes clearer before I decide whether to
>spend any effort on it." If they feel that they wasted their time, they
>have no one but themselves to blame.
When one is trained in a field of science one is expected to apply their
training. Else what's the point? If I wait six months before I look at
something I might be able to contribute to then I have a lot of catching
up to do. Not to mention that which I will have missed totally for not
being current. For example, I have been on top of this since day one, I
read about two or three papers a day, I follow this forum, I talk to others
working on this by phone and go to conferences. If I came into this six
months after the fact I would be hopelessly behind probably useless my
particular expertise notwithstanding. Now, have I wasted my time? Yes and
no. I have certainly learned a lot and I'll probably be able to use what
I have learned to good advantage in the future but in the long run I believe
it would have been much better for all if this baby had died at birth. (I.e.
peer review).
Enough said.
Mark
Ramsey Haddad
>In article <1990Oct29....@wrl.dec.com> had...@wrl.dec.com (Ramsey Haddad) writes:
>> If they feel that they wasted their time, they
>>have no one but themselves to blame.
>
>When one is trained in a field of science one is expected to apply their
>training. Else what's the point?
When one is trained in a field of science, one is expected to accept
responsibility for ones own decisions about: what research to accept as
solid and trustworthy, what research to dismiss as incomplete and suspect,
and more importantly *what research avenues to persue*. Else what's the
point?
--
Ramsey Haddad <had...@decwrl.dec.com>
Mike Van Pelt
>>steal their ideas that they felt they needed to go public quickly.
I think "steal" is far overstating the case. They found out that Dr.
Jones was independantly working on the same thing, and had also found
something, and they wanted to publish first.
That would seem to me to be a significant data point, for those so
quick to poo-poo the whole thing: Two independant groups came up with
some kind of anomalous results, prior to any announcement. Though I
certainly conceed that Pons' precipitous departure from the country
doesn't look good for his claims at all.
By the way, what's the latest on Dr. Jones' work? Has anyone heard of
any tritium results from the water samples he was taking near that
Alaskan volcano? Does anyone have *ANY* other mechanism which could
result in significant tritium release by volcanoes? (I.e., alpha
emitters sometimes releasing tritium nucleii rather than helium-4.)
If it's there, with a 10-year half-life, it obviously has to be
produced in quantity by some sort of continuous process.
--
Mike Van Pelt "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in
Headland Technology/Video 7 front of Congressional hearings."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Meryl Streep
Steve Hix
> In article <42...@mips.mips.COM>, ma...@mips.COM (Mark G. Johnson) writes...
> > >It would seem that all the State of Utah will get for its
> > >$5 million is a lesson in the value of peer review.
> >There seems to be a lot of harping about the monetary figure
> >FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ... as though this is the biggest financial
> >flop of all time.
>
> It's the principle of the thing.
When someone says "it's not the money, it's the priciple..", it's the money.
:}
--
------------
The only drawback with morning is that it comes
at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------
Paul M. Koloc
>>In article <12...@manta.NOSC.MIL> no...@manta.nosc.mil.UUCP (Mark H. North) writes:
>>>two miscreants some basic nuclear physics (e.g. no neutrons - no fusion).
>>
>>NO NEUTRONS - NO FUSION ??? ..
>>
>>sounds like tripe from people running "hot" experiments that then can't
>>come up with the pressure required to burn the "good stuff*".
>
> Neutrons are expected to appear from fusion reactions on very
>strong theoretical grounds. Nuclear physics is a well-explored field,
>and I think it is VERY safe to extrapolate from that. One important
>feature of nuclear interactions is that one can do the interchange
>
> p <--> n
>
>without changing any interaction strengths. This is "isospin
>symmetry". True, there are effects like the electromagnetic
>interaction and whatever is responsible for the p-n mass difference
>which break this symmetry, but these can usually be corrected for.
Q
True, neutrons are expected from SOME fusion reactions. However,
several fusioning fuels or FUEL COMBINATIONS produce very few or
NO NEUTRONS.
> Most cold-fusion reactions have been performed with deuterium
>(D). Its fusion reactions are:
>
> D(pn) + D(pn) -> T(pnn) + p
> D(pn) + D(pn) -> He3(ppn) + n
> D(pn) + D(pn) -> He4(ppnn) + gamma
It is true the Deuterium is one of the fusioning nuclei in the
critical thermal bursts, However, Deuterium is NOT the ONLY light
fusionable nuclei available to undergo the fusion reaction in these
cold fusion experiments. I am speaking, directly, to the those
reactions NOT producing tritium (or He3) but to those only producing
heat plus a mystery ash which can't be found. This ash is too common
to the universe and the reaction is highly confined to the outermost
shell of the rods. Incidentally, this is usually stripped off for
impurity analysis since it also contains lots of electrochemical "crud".
>Inside the ()'s is the proton-neutron content. Nuclear reactions that
>emit gammas are typically very suppressed (say, 10^-8) compared to
>nuclear reactions that do not involve gamma emission, all other things
>being equal, as they are here. And the first two are known
>experimentally to go at approximately the same rate, as predicted from
>the isospin-symmetry hypothesis. True, most fusion-rate experiments
>have been conducted at a few MeV of energy, but extrapolation to low
>energies is well understood.
>
> So it is inevitable that D-D fusion should produce neutrons.
>It is unfortunate that none of the cold-fusion enthusiasts have
>seriously addressed the question of neutron-emission suppression.
>They seem to think that all the work on nuclear physics is somehow
>irrelevant to the cold-fusion question. If I am wrong here, then
>please correct me. Present me with some theoretical analysis that
>accounts for this (alleged) neutron suppression.
IF THE REACTION IS CONFINED TO ONLY D-D, then you're correct. BUT,
for those few rods that do work (produce a terrific amount of heat from
such a confined sub-volume) after so many, many hours of fuel "loading",
it is NOT the correct fusion reaction nor is a feasible one (as you
point out). Look further, it must not be obvious, otherwise others
would have realized the mechanism long ago. It is not a tested fact,
yet, either (it may not work, and I may be barking up the wrong tree).
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, Paul M. Koloc, 1990
Randell Jesup
>
> Early reactions: D+D -> T and He3, with p's and n's
>
> Later reactions: D+D reactions with D+T -> He4+n, D+He3 -> He4+p
>
> Final state: D gone, unconsumed T and He3 remaining.
But the initial state is NOT only D, it's really a mix of D and p.
(In fact, a mix of D, p, and T, plus other random things.) This opens the
possibility of D+p -> T. Admittedly, unlikely under normal thermal/pressure
fusion, but it is a possibility, and is aneutronic.
--
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, je...@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup
Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"
Mark H. North
>
> But the initial state is NOT only D, it's really a mix of D and p.
>(In fact, a mix of D, p, and T, plus other random things.) This opens the
>possibility of D+p -> T. Admittedly, unlikely under normal thermal/pressure
>fusion, but it is a possibility, and is aneutronic.
>
D + p -> 3He + gamma(5.4 Mev) This gamma has not been observed.
Mark
Loren Petrich
>In article <85...@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> lo...@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren
Petrich) writes:
>
>True, neutrons are expected from SOME fusion reactions. However,
>several fusioning fuels or FUEL COMBINATIONS produce very few or
>NO NEUTRONS.
True, there are some reactions that produce no neutrons, like
He3 + D -> He4 + p
But this reaction requires a mix of D and He3, and what makes
D-He3 reactions happen but not D-D reactions?
>> Most cold-fusion reactions have been performed with deuterium
>>(D). Its fusion reactions are:
>>
>> D(pn) + D(pn) -> T(pnn) + p
>> D(pn) + D(pn) -> He3(ppn) + n
>> D(pn) + D(pn) -> He4(ppnn) + gamma
>
>It is true the Deuterium is one of the fusioning nuclei in the
>critical thermal bursts, However, Deuterium is NOT the ONLY light
>fusionable nuclei available to undergo the fusion reaction in these
>cold fusion experiments. I am speaking, directly, to the those
>reactions NOT producing tritium (or He3) but to those only producing
>heat plus a mystery ash which can't be found. This ash is too common
>to the universe and the reaction is highly confined to the outermost
>shell of the rods. Incidentally, this is usually stripped off for
>impurity analysis since it also contains lots of electrochemical
"crud".
If this "ash" can't be found, then how can one tell how common
it is in the Universe?
And which reactions are these? In principle, they ought to be
repeatable.
>> [Why D+D -> neutrons]
>IF THE REACTION IS CONFINED TO ONLY D-D, then you're correct. BUT,
>for those few rods that do work (produce a terrific amount of heat from
>such a confined sub-volume) after so many, many hours of fuel "loading",
>it is NOT the correct fusion reaction nor is a feasible one (as you
>point out). Look further, it must not be obvious, otherwise others
>would have realized the mechanism long ago. It is not a tested fact,
>yet, either (it may not work, and I may be barking up the wrong tree).
But where would the He3 come from?
One source is, of course, D+D. But that would produce an
abundance of neutrons, which are, of course, not seen. The reaction
sequence would be
Initial state: only D
Early reactions: D+D -> T and He3, with p's and n's
Later reactions: D+D reactions with D+T -> He4+n, D+He3 -> He4+p
Final state: D gone, unconsumed T and He3 remaining.
For cold fusion, D+T is almost certainly more likely than
D+He3, because the Coulomb barrier is lower. The first set, like D+D,
has charges 1 and 1, while the second set has charges 1 and 2.
Aneutronic fusion does not seem like a very convincing
possibility, unless at temperatures at least as great as the H and He
Coulomb barriers.
Paul M. Koloc
>In article <1990Oct30....@prometheus.UUCP> p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>In article <85...@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> lo...@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren
>Petrich) writes:
>>> [on neutron-proton symmetry and why neutrons are expected to appear]
>>True, neutrons are expected from SOME fusion reactions. However,
>>several fusioning fuels or FUEL COMBINATIONS produce very few or
>>NO NEUTRONS.
> True, there are some reactions that produce no neutrons, like
>
> He3 + D -> He4 + p
>
> But this reaction requires a mix of D and He3, and what makes
>D-He3 reactions happen but not D-D reactions?
In HOT fusion with sufficient pressure (adiabatic heating) and operating
at a temperature of 70-75 keV and using a 50-50 solution, most of the
fusion reactions will be of the He(3) + D variety (95%+). In fact only
about 2% of the reactions will involve neutrons since half of the D-D
reactions produce neutrons.
> If this "ash" can't be found, then how can one tell how common
>it is in the Universe?
The reason this element "can't" be found is not that it's not there, but
that it is a relatively abundant element and therefore is ubiquitous, and
would be present as an common impurity. It is almost as bad as looking
evidence of a child's wanderings across a beach by following a trail of
sand that was dribbling from a hole in the sand pail the child was
carrying. In this case the hole would be teeny and there are more atoms
of the ash in circulation within the lab then sand on the beaches.
> And which reactions are these? In principle, they ought to be
>repeatable.
That is correct, assuming clever preparation is made.
> But where would the He3 come from?
That was your deduction. It is but one of the isotopes of possible
aneutronic reactions with Deuterium! I didn't mention He3, nor did
I suggest it. As far as I know He3 has NOT been used in ANY
electrochemistry loaded cold fusion experiments, although it MIGHT
be a POSSIBILITY for cold PLASMA loaded ones. What I did say was:
" It is true the Deuterium is one of the fusioning nuclei in the
critical thermal bursts, However, Deuterium is NOT the ONLY light
fusionable nuclei available to undergo the fusion reaction in
these cold fusion experiments. "
> For cold fusion, D+T is almost certainly more likely than
>D+He3, because the Coulomb barrier is lower. The first set, like D+D,
>has charges 1 and 1, while the second set has charges 1 and 2.
In cold fusion, tunneling is even more important than in Hot fusion.
Some isotopes of certain light elements in certain crystalline metals
have much, much larger mobility than other isotopes of the same element.
Try this:
Simply take all of the isotopes of salts in abundance in the electrolytes
of "working" experiments and list them in order of atomic number and
atomic weight. Pick those which are as light as or lighter than say
Boron 11, and then see if there are any interesting aneutronic reactions
available with Deuterium. You and others have already eliminated
elements of hydrogen and helium and all of their isotopes as the "other
partner" reactant.
Other characteristics may be important. For example, also find from
the elements listed those isotopes which have the greatest mobility in
palladium. The best mobility of an isotope in a selected element may not
match that of Deuterium, but it could stand out from other isotopes of the
same element.
> Aneutronic fusion does not seem like a very convincing
>possibility, unless at temperatures at least as great as the H and He
>Coulomb barriers.
It would seem highly unlikely that "temperatures" to produce fusion could
occur at all in matter in the solid state. Yet we know that tritium
is likely generated from subterranean sources and from the lab evidence
of Jones and others. We find a tendency for neutron and proton couplets
or alpa clusters to form within nuclear soup. Maybe isotopes made up
of such pairings could generate interesting low temperature nuclear
chemistry within special metal matrices. Ridiculous ..probably, but..
Let's face it, without tunneling even hot reactions would not work well
and we would have a huge galaxy full of nearly all very cold stellar
mass objects. This particular heat producing cold fusion reaction HAS
TO BE ANEUTRONIC, IF it works, even occasionally, as reported.
NOT protium or tritium
Deuterium is one .. . must find THE OTHER fuel constituent
NOT helium
.. . But don't quit yet, Boron is not far ahead. .. (Yawn)
All Rights Reserved 1990 Paul M. Koloc
phys...@waikato.ac.nz
> In article <12...@manta.NOSC.MIL> no...@manta.nosc.mil.UUCP (Mark H. North) writes:
>> if they had gone through proper peer review there would
>>have been no doubt.
>
> I think that a fairly clear reading of the situation is this: P&F would
> have preferred to have had everything completely figured out and to have
> then submitted it for peer review. This way they could claim full credit.
> It was only when they incorrectly thought that Jones of BYU was trying to
> steal their ideas that they felt they needed to go public quickly.
>
>>Then there's the loss of 6 months to a
>>year of hundreds of scientists productivity which went into teaching these
>>two miscreants some basic nuclear physics (e.g. no neutrons - no fusion).
>
> This only happened because of the arrogance and egos of said scientists.
> Ramsey Haddad <had...@decwrl.dec.com>
I think you miss the point, most of these people are in this for the challenge,
and when something as radical as what P&F claimed came out alot of people all
over the world became very interested and wanted to learn as much as possible,
and did so, experimentally (much the same as what happened in high
temperature SC). It appeared trivial (even to a humble grad student), and the
willingness to challenge (or naivity) of experimentalists all over the world
was exposed, it also took alot of there time as well. The main thing is that it
challenged fundamental
laws, which if proved wrong needed changing (thats exciting, not egotistical).
geoff.