NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/1786

Text File | 1992-07-23 | 3.4 KB | 68 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!cc.newcastle.edu.au!medb
From: [e-mail] (Dieter Britz)
Subject: Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 56
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:05:23 GMT

[e-mail] (MIKE JAMISON) writes:

>If I understand what Dr. Ying is saying, Pd may not be the best medium for
>verifying his theory.  The probability  for forming a virtual He atom
>should increase with decreasing distance between atoms (inverse square
>probability?).

>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms, per one of
>(?Frank Close?)'s postings.

>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
>angstroms.

and

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(John Logajan) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms
>>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
>>angstroms.
>>Hence, in liquified D2, the probability for fusion should be at least 2
>>times greater than it is for a PdD cell
>
> Hmmm.  You have the average seperation of D2 to D2, no?  In a gas or even
> in a liquid this is probably much greater than the 1.7 average for Pd:D.
> The liquid D2 is lumpier, but on the average much more dilute, no?  Which
> is the more important value, the average of the lumpiness, or the lumps?
>
> And, something I should know after all this time, but are the D's in the
> Pd lattice mono or do they still hang around together?

If I remember my numbers correctly, the d-d separation in D2 gas is 0.72 A,
and in PdD it is about 4.2 A. This was one of the early "proofs" by physicists
that cnf is impossible. It falls down on the possibility (accepted by some
knowledgable people) that the PdD crystal environment has some special
properties to enhance fusion rates. I wouldn't know. Are Schwinger and
Hagelstein senile and non compos, respectively? We must not go by authority, it
is said, but inevitably we do. Frank Close and Huizenga are authorities, too,
and they flatly deny the possibility of such special solid state effects.

The question whether there is any D2 in PdD is a good one. In fact, there is
no unity about just what form deuterium takes in the deuteride. Most people
accept that it is in the form of rather highly mobile deuterons, i.e.
positively charged deuterium nuclei; I did find at least one paper claiming
that it is in fact negatively charged D- ions that predominate. I don't know.
Metallurgists will tell you that at high loadings, when micro-voids form, some
deuterium will evaporate off into these as D2 gas; this could be the way that
super-0.8 loadings fit in. This is well known to metallurgists and corrosion
people, because these small gas bubbles are under high pressure (not 10**27
atm though) and do damage to the metal; it happens to important metals like
steel, copper, etc. and is called hydrogen embrittlement.

Dieter alias [e-mail]
-------------------------------------