Article 4741 of sci.physics Subject Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion Keywords This

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Article 4741 of sci.physics: Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!ucsd!ames!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!cernvax!jon From: jon@cernvax.UUCP (jon) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.research,sci.space Subject: Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion Keywords: This IS for real Message-ID: <967@cernvax.UUCP> Date: 31 Mar 89 14:17:58 GMT Followup-To: sci.physics Organization: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland Lines: 95 Xref: dasys1 sci.physics:4741 sci.research:664 sci.space:8407 Posted: Fri Mar 31 09:17:58 1989 This is a summary of a talk given by Professor Fleischmann at CERN, Geneva on Friday 31st March. I should point out that I am a computer programmer and not a physicist or a chemist, so therefore not all my understanding of the facts may be 100% correct, but I kept notes so hopfully the following will make some sense. Also this was strictly a scientific seminar, no questions were allowed on the non-scientific aspects of the talk. In fact the camera crews of various TV stations were asked to leave before the talk began. But they were given a chance to interview Professor Fleischmann after the seminar. It has taken Prof. Fleischmann and his collegue 5 years to get this far and they had hoped to keep the experiment secret for about another 18 months so they could be 100% certain of the results. But the results where "leaked" (This was news to me, any confirmation?), and then they had the "awful news conference", as he called it. They also funded the experiment privately because they didn't think anyone would give them money for such a mad idea. The equation in the at the palladium cathode is as follows D2O + e- <=> Dabs + OD- Dabs <=> Dlattice Dabs + D2O + e- <=> D2 + OD- Dabs = Absorbed Deuterium Dlattice = Deuterium in the Palladium lattice The deuterium in the lattice is very mobile. He then said something that I quite didn't understand and gave the figure of 0.8eV. I think this is the potential of the deuterium in the lattice. This 0.8eV is equivalent to a pressure of 10^27 atm for gaseous deuterium. The QM of the s-electron density of the Deuterium is VERY strange and is not understood. In the lattice the following nuclear reactions occur 2D + 2D -> 3T + 1H + 4.03MeV 2D + 2D -> 3He + n + 3.77Mev Their first experiment was with a palladium cube, this finished when the cube ignited, in the nuclear sense. The conclusion of this is that this reaction does not fail safe. When it starts to run hot it runs very hot. The cube almost burnt down their fume cupboard. But at least the effects are not quite as serious as a meltdown of a fission reactor. They then tried sheets before finally trying rods. These rods a 10cm long and have diameters of 1mm ,2mm and 4mm. The best results are with the 4mm rod therefore the reaction is dependent on volume as opposed to surface area, it also seems to be dependant on temperature. After 100 hours the measured output was 5MJ / cm3. They managed to detected neutrons, gamma-rays and 5 fold increase in the tritrium in the heavy water. They didn't manage to get a energy spectrum for the neutrons. They calulated there are 10^4 neutron producing events/sec but to account for the energy released there must be 10^13 events/sec, this means that the prefered reaction path does not produce neutrons. They do not know what this path is but lithium was being mentioned. The efficiency of their cell is "miserable" and their best result was 111% of breakeven (i.e. 100% => power in == power out), but they predicte that with a properly designed cell their efficiency could be over 1200%, i.e. 10 times out what you put in. It takes 3 months to charge a cell before it starts to produce anything. That's the end of my notes, now for some editorial comments. I personally could see nothing wrong with his explanation of the phenomena, there is no known chemical reaction which can produce the amounts of energy involved. It has to be nuclear fusion. Whether or not this is going to have any practical use is still to be seen, as Prof. Fleischmann said a lot of work now has to go into understand why and how this is happening. There were some very worried theoretical physicists leaving the hall after the talk, and there were mumbles about rewriting the theory of quantum mechanics. The are going to be a hell of a lot of papers on cold fusion in the next years!! *---------------------------------------------------------------* | | | Jon Caves {world}!mcvax!cernavx!jon | | Division DD, jon@cernvax.cern.ch | | CERN CH-1211, | | Geneva 23, "Quote? I haven't got time to think | | Switzerland. of a quote!" | | | *---------------------------------------------------------------* Article 4770 of sci.physics: Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!lanl!hc!pprg.unm.edu!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!blake!oregon!rhaller From: rhaller@oregon.uoregon.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: differences between pons group and the byu group findings Message-ID: <524@oregon.uoregon.edu> Date: 1 Apr 89 10:45:57 GMT Organization: University of Oregon Lines: 45 Posted: Sat Apr 1 05:45:57 1989 I now think have a pretty clear picture of what happened. So far there are two independent discoveries that have been submitted for publication. I will call them the SLC and the BYU teams. The SLC team surfaced first in a news conference called on 3/23, I believe, by the Un. of Utah at their instigation, not the experimenters. See previous notices for more info. This is counter to normal scientific practice which is to wait until after formal publication. The BYU group instead kept a low profile following tradition, though there was a rumor that a press conference was called yesterday at MIT. This has not been confirmed on the net as of 9am today. Both teams report accelerated rates of fusion using similar apparatus. However, there is an extremely significant difference. The SLC team also reports lots of heat produced: 3-4 times as much as would be predicted from the observed rate of neutron emmission. In fact, if that amount of heat were to come from the same fusion reaction that they actually detected, there should have been 10**9 times as many neutrons and they would be dead men. The BYU team reports no such heat. They report the same numbers and energies as SLC of neutrons, et cetera, but no excess and unexpected heat. They also report no important difference between palladium and titanium as the negative electrode. However, the Pons seminar summary reports that Pons says that while they observed the neutron emmissions with 'other metals', only the palladium showed the excess heat. Another difference in the experiments that may or may not be important is that BYU used gold foil for the postive electrode while SLC used a coil of platinum surrounding a palladium rod (negative electrode). Also, in the electrolyte. Not enought detail published yet on the SLC electrolyte to tell. Another difference is that my reading of the BYU preprint leads me to conclude that their process stopped emitting neutrons after about 8 hours of operation and that it appears to have something to do with deposits forming on the negative electrodes. SLC on the other hand claims operations for extended periods with a net output of more energy than is put in. What does this all mean? It means that one of two things is true. Either SLC has discovered a new non-chemical process that generates heat and might therefor have commercial applications, or they have goofed somewhere and the heat is being produced by some chemical process. Speculation on the net includes oxidation of hydrogen produced by the electrolysis. Pons makes a case in the seminar summary that no known chemical or nuclear reactions can explain what they have found. Only time will tell. If it turns out to be a chemical process that is being in someway catalyzed by the concurrent cold fusion, it still might turn out to have commerical and cultural implications.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank