Article 4701 of sci.physics: Subject: Other metals for cold fusion system Date: 31 Mar 89

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

Skeptic Tank!

Article 4701 of sci.physics: Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!husc6!lotto From: lotto@midas.harvard.edu (Gerald I. Lotto) Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics Subject: Other metals for cold fusion system Message-ID: Date: 31 Mar 89 15:18:42 GMT Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Organization: Harvard Chemistry Dept., Harvard University Lines: 24 Xref: dasys1 sci.chem:24 sci.physics:4701 Posted: Fri Mar 31 10:18:42 1989 I have seen many references to Ti as an alternative to Pd in the cold fusion system that has received some attention :-) in these newsgroups lately. d-block metal H affinities seem to fall into two broad categories: 1) Little or none - generally true of metals not mentioned in the following paragraph(s). 2) Ti, Zr, Hf (IVa) and V, Nb, Ta (Va) form (exothermically) hydrides that are pretty stable. Ti and Zr in particular form materials that are commonly used as reducing agents in metallurgy. These tend to be nonstoichiometric hydrides in a 1:~1.5 M:H ratio. Pd is unique in how labile the "hydrides" that it forms are. Copper is also strange - but in a different way, not particularly useful in this context. If other metals are to be used for this process, I would think that Ru or Rh would be more likely candidates than Ti from a chemical standpoint. More info from: F. A. Lewis, The Palladium-Hydrogen System, Acad. Press, 1967 -- Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept. Article 4728 of sci.physics: Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!think!husc6!m2c!wpi!mchamp From: mchamp@wpi.wpi.edu (Marc J. Champagne) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Palladium vs Titanium fusion claims Keywords: cold fusion, palladium, titanium Message-ID: <1626@wpi.wpi.edu> Date: 1 Apr 89 02:08:25 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass. Lines: 103 Posted: Fri Mar 31 21:08:25 1989 I've recently seen several postings on USENET regarding reports of cold fusion occuring within titanium now, as well as palladium. This is basically being reported as a manifestation of the same property which theorists are saying allows the fusion of deuterium to occur in the lattice wells of palladium. I disagree. Can anyone confirm the following, and offer some possible explanations. 1) lattice structure -palladium has a type of cubic lattice structure at STP ; the lattice is reportedly saturated with palladium ions during a 10 hour "charging time", after which fusion occurs via tunneling -titanium has a stable hexagonal structure below 882 C ; it's cubic lattic is only stable ABOVE 882 C3sius 2) hydrogen absorbtion -palladium is known to absorb 800-900 times its own volume in hydrogen - nium decomposes steam at 700 C to oxidize ; it liberates hydrogen ; at the temperature at which it has the lattice structure to hold the deuterium ions, it would break down the heavy water and react with the oxygen, not absorb the hydrogen 3) electrical resistance -palladium is an extremely good conductor ; it is commonly used in relays and other electrical-mechanical components, since it compares favorably to platinum at a fraction of the cost (about 1/4) -titanium is a poor electrical conductor by comparison to copper 4) reactivity -palladium is one of the most (if not the most) reactive of the platinum group metals ; yet, it is relatively inert compared to other metals, having a resistance to oxidation somewhere between that of silver and gold -titanium is a VERY reactive metal ; this reactity is well known, since it makes it very difficult to refine and causes some serious brittleness tendancies under a variety of circumstances 5) superconductivity -I have never seen any claims that palladium has superconducting properties -itanium has been shown to have superconductive tendancies at extremely low temperatures, and was the center of a good deal of research in this area All of the above are facts which would tend to suggest we are NOT looking at a cold fusion supporting ability in these two metals based on their common electro-chemical properties.....they have very few common and significant properties. Just what is going on here? Looking at the theoretical explanations which have been formed (preliminary and unconfirmed, I admit, but nonetheless logical) to explain deuterium fusion in the palladium lattice structure, I would have to say that fusion of this type could either NOT occur in titanium or would be guaranteed to be FAR BELOW the break-even point. Perhaps fusion HAS been occuring in certain types of electro-chemical reactions involving deuterium for quite some time, but the occurances have been so isolated in time that we have not had any reason to sit up and take notice. Perhaps the palladium-platinum-deuterium electrolysis system set up in Utah has drawn our attention to a relatively common occurance, except that the fusion has occured at such a fantastic rate that it was the first system in which it was really NOTICED. If this is a correct assumption, than fusion on titanium probably is not capable of occuring above the break-even point and has absolutely **ZERO** commercial viability. The people out there trading palladium futures probably have nothing to worry about yet (grin). After all, palladium is the most common of the platinum-group metals in the earth's crust (which seem to be the prime fusion "environment" candidates according to the cold fusion theories produced so far). Still, it raises some interesting regulatory questions. Even if fusion on nium (or perhaps some even MORE common metal) is not possible above the breakeven point (not commercially viable for power production), some person who sets up such a device has made himself a potent little neutron-generator. How can we possibly hope to prevent such a person from neutron-activating a variety of materials, or worse yet from intentionally/accidentally exposing living organisms (God forbid, people) from this device? The NRC has pretty tight control over nuclear material and "special" nuclear material. But these devices which seem to be cropping up involve nothing more rare than several publicly traded metals and a little heavy water. Even if you enact more stringent controls on heavy water possession, you can seperate out the deuterium from sea-water using a Physics 101 electrolysis setup. Junk the oxygen and allow the deuterium to settle below the hydrogen because of its mass. That's a grossly inefficient method, but you can easily get process seawater to have a 25-40% deuterium content by only slightly more advanced methods. And the Canadians routinely enrich the deuterium content above 98% (can't remember the exact figure) for their heavy-water reactors. Even if the readers out there would rather not touch the regulatory issues, I'm despirately looking for informed opionions on he palladium vs titanium fusion claims. Article 4733 of sci.physics: Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!sunybcs!lanthony From: lanthony@sunybcs.uucp (Lawrence Anthony) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Palladium vs Titanium fusion claims Summary: Are close-packed structures necessary for solid-state fusion? Keywords: cold fusion, palladium, titanium Message-ID: <4990@cs.Buffalo.EDU> Date: 1 Apr 89 09:31:34 GMT References: <1626@wpi.wpi.edu> Sender: news@cs.Buffalo.EDU Reply-To: lanthony@sunybcs.UUCP (Lawrence Anthony) Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science Lines: 21 Posted: Sat Apr 1 04:31:34 1989 In article <1626@wpi.wpi.edu> mchamp@wpi.wpi.edu (Marc J. Champagne) writes: > >1) lattice structure > -palladium has a type of cubic lattice structure at STP ; the > lattice is reportedly saturated with palladium ions during a 10 > hour "charging time", after which fusion occurs via tunneling > - nium has a stable hexagonal structure below 882 C ; it's > cubic lattic is only stable ABOVE 882 C3sius > Both the face-centered cubic (cubic close-packed) structure of Pd and the hexagonal close-packed structure of Ti are close- packed structures, even if the c/a ratio for the latter departs somewhat from the ideal. This close-packed structure seems to be a common property of all the putative fusion-supporting lattices mentioned thus far. bitnet: lanthony@sunybcs.bitnet internet: lanthony@cs.buffalo.edu Article 24 of sci.chem: Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!husc6!lotto From: lotto@midas.harvard.edu (Gerald I. Lotto) Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics Subject: Other metals for cold fusion system Message-ID: Date: 31 Mar 89 15:18:42 GMT Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Organization: Harvard Chemistry Dept., Harvard University Lines: 24 Xref: dasys1 sci.chem:24 sci.physics:4701 Posted: Fri Mar 31 10:18:42 1989 I have seen many references to Ti as an alternative to Pd in the cold fusion system that has received some attention :-) in these newsgroups lately. d-block metal H affinities seem to fall into two broad categories: 1) Little or none - generally true of metals not mentioned in the following paragraph(s). 2) Ti, Zr, Hf (IVa) and V, Nb, Ta (Va) form (exothermically) hydrides that are pretty stable. Ti and Zr in particular form materials that are commonly used as reducing agents in metallurgy. These tend to be nonstoichiometric hydrides in a 1:~1.5 M:H ratio. Pd is unique in how labile the "hydrides" that it forms are. Copper is also strange - but in a different way, not particularly useful in this context. If other metals are to be used for this process, I would think that Ru or Rh would be more likely candidates than Ti from a chemical standpoint. More info from: F. A. Lewis, The Palladium-Hydrogen System, Acad. Press, 1967 -- Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept. Article 36 of sci.chem: Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!lanl!hc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsz!dleigh From: dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf-lovers Subject: Jack Williamson was right Summary: Now we've had it! Message-ID: <3172@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> Date: 4 Apr 89 00:55:46 GMT References: Reply-To: dleigh@hplabs.UUCP (Darren Leigh) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf-lovers Organization: Open Fly Systems Lines: 24 Xref: dasys1 sci.chem:36 sci.physics:4779 rec.arts.sf-lovers:16336 Posted: Mon Apr 3 19:55:46 1989 In article lotto@midas.harvard.edu (Gerald I. Lotto) writes: >Pd is unique in how labile the "hydrides" that it forms are. Copper is >also strange - but in a different way, not particularly useful in this >context. If other metals are to be used for this process, I would >think that Ru or Rh would be more likely candidates than Ti from a >chemical standpoint. I bet they would be! Now I've got it all figured out. Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhodium . . . I can add two and two. Our friendly Utah researchers haven't discovered cold fusion, they've discovered rhodo-magnetism! Now we're really in trouble. The humanoids undoubtedly detected the reactions and are on their way at this very instant. The only decent weapon o use against them is a rhodo-magnetic monopole and where the hell are we going to get one of those? The only advice I can give you is DON'T BUY ANY ROBOTS! Especially not black ones with metal eyes. Don't even let them in your house. Cowering in terror, Darren Leigh Internet: dleigh@hplabs.hp.com UUCP: hplabs!dleigh Article 4763 of sci.physics: Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!lanl!hc!ames!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!reading!minster!martin From: martin@minster.york.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Palladium, etc Message-ID: <607391696.27748@minster.york.ac.uk> Date: 31 Mar 89 23:54:56 GMT Reply-To: martin@minster.UUCP (martin) Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England Lines: 28 Posted: Fri Mar 31 18:54:56 1989 I was just looking at a table of `Electronic configurations of the elements', (with particular interest in the entry for Pd - You can probably guess why!) and I noticed that Palladium is unique in that it has a completely full, `naked' d electron subshell. Ie it is a bit like an inert gas, except that they all have full p subshells - all other elements with full d subshells have electrons either in the corresponding f subshell, or in the s subshell of the next shell. In either case `outside' the d subshell. (Sorry that sounds convoluted, I hope it is clear enough!) Could someone who understands the implications of this tell me more? Is there a simple explaination as to why this happens? (Or is it `just life'!). Are there any interesting properties of Pd which result from this? Is there any possibility that this could have any bearing on he current speculation? If the report of similar results using Titanium are true then presumeably the answer to that is `no'. Martin usenet: ...!mcvax!ukc!minster!martin JANET: martin@uk.ac.york.minster surface: Martin C. Atkins Dept. of Computer Science University of York Heslington York YO1 5DD ENGLAND

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank