Project UFO/Project UFO (Disk 3 of 6).adf/FUSION.PON

Text File | 1980-01-09 | 57KB | 1,139 lines

Article 4706 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan
From: [e-mail] (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium (preprint)
Keywords: Pons Fleischmann Fusion
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Mar 89 17:07:13 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 55
Posted: Fri Mar 31 12:07:13 1989

I have here a copy of a preprint by Pons and Fleischmann which
has been submitted to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.
They list the paper as accepted but no publication date is given.
The paper is all over this department (Astronomy!!) so I assume
that it is widely distributed in the U.S..  Most of what is in
it is more or less a rehash of what the rumor mill here has
already thrown around.  A few relevant quotes follow:

"in research on thermonuclear fusion, the effects are expressed
as a percentage of the breakeven where 100% implies that the thermal
output equals the input (neglecting the power required to drive the
equipment).  In electrochemical experiments we have additionally to
take into account whether breakeven should be based the Joule heat
or total energy supplied to the cell.  Furthermore, in the latter case
the energy supplied depends on the nature of the anode reaction.
Table 2 lists three such figures of merit and it can be seen that we
can already make reasonable projections to 1000%.  "

Table 3 is missing from my copy.

"Use of equation (2) then indicates that the reaction (v) [note:
this is tritium production] takes place to the extent of 1-2x10^4
atoms s^-1 which is consistent with the measurements of the neutron
flux [note:due to helium production].."

"On the other hand, the data on enthalpy generation would require
rates for reactions (v) and (vi) [note:tritium and helium production]
in the range 10^11-10^14 atoms s^-1.  It is evident that reactions
(v) and (vi) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme
and the other nuclear processes must be involved."

"Finally, we urge the use of extreme caution in such experiments:
a plausible interpretation of the experiment using the Pd-cube
electrode is in terms of ignition. " [note: this is the experiment
in which the apparatus and the fume hood were destroyed.]


The bottom line seems to be that the calorimetry results are the
basis for their claims of net energy production, althought the
appearance of fusion is, by itself, extremely interesting.  It
is worth noting that the BYU result confirms only the appearance
of fusion, not the high energy production rate.  Clearly, if they
are right then something *very* strange is going on.

I will be happy to post such experimental details as I have upon
request.  Being an astrophysicist, it is not clear to me which details
of their setup are of general interest.

--
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) [e-mail]
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) [e-mail]

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?


Article 4722 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!wasatch!donn
From: [e-mail] (Donn Seeley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Pons's talk was closed...
Summary: but we did get some reports
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Apr 89 00:25:52 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 69
Posted: Fri Mar 31 19:25:52 1989

Originally the talk was going to be open to the public.  Then it was
restricted to faculty and to College of Science grad students, with any
extra seats going first come, first serve.  In the event, they tried to
limit it to just faculty from the Colleges of Science and Engineering,
with a dean at the door to throw out people they didn't recognize; an
overflow room with A/V was organized for other faculty and grad
students.  No recording was permitted; a friend with a tape recorder
had it confiscated.  I haven't yet found anyone who took useful notes,
unfortunately.

I didn't get in, not being faculty or a grad student, but some friends
did.  They came back with a press release, which I will copy out here:

    BACKGROUND FOR NUCLEAR FUSION SEMINAR
    FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1989
    2008 HENRY EYRING CHEMISTRY BUILDING

    An article written by Drs B Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann
    describing their nuclear fusion research at the University of
    Utah has been accepted for publication by the Journal of
    Electroanalytical Chemistry.  The article is expected to appear
    in the publication in late April or early May.

    In the article the researchers state:  'We conclude that the
    conventional deuterium fusion reactions are only a small part
    of the overall reaction scheme and that other nuclear processes
    must be involved.'

    There is not yet a complete understanding of where the heat is
    coming from.  Fusion occurs in the cells but fusion reactions
    do not account for all the heat that is observed.  As we stated
    at the press conference last week and on several occasions
    since then, the investigators believe that no chemical reaction
    can account for the heat output so they attribute it to other
    nuclear processes.

    Evidence for nuclear fusion includes:  generation of heat over
    long periods that is proportional to the volume of the
    electrode and reactions that lead to the generation of neutrons
    and tritium which are expected by-products of nuclear fusion.

    The researchers have also co-authored and submitted a second
    article to Nature for consideration for publication.

    Dr James J Brophy
    Vice President for Research

The crowd was large, but not as large as it could have been.  The line
went around the courtyard; the halls of the building were crammed.
Several hundred people turned up, perhaps as many as a thousand.  There
were a couple TV crews who were thrown out of the halls and reduced to
filming the milling masses.  Campus security was tight -- no one was
permitted in without an ID, and in the main auditorium everyone was
supposedly identified by face (although some people apparently got in
anyway).

Everyone I talked to who actually got in came back with the impression
that the experiments are for real.  On the other hand the actual
descriptions are still quite vague, as you can tell from the press
release.  I picked up a fair amount of hearsay from attendees, some of
it contradictory; I may post some of it later if I can get it to make
sense.  I gather that one of the main points, to no one's surprise, was
that the experimental apparatus is VERY DANGEROUS and can lead to
serious damage and injury if not handled properly.

Our tape just has security people shouting on it,

Donn Seeley    University of Utah CS Dept    [e-mail]
40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W    [phone]    utah-cs!donn


Article 4729 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!lanl!hc!pprg.unm.edu!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!wasatch!ch-tkr
From: [e-mail] (Timothy K Reynolds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.research,sci.space
Subject: summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89 (long, > 200 lines )
Keywords: cold fusion, notes. (long, > 200 lines )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Apr 89 04:51:09 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 225
Xref: dasys1 sci.physics:4729 sci.chem:27 sci.research:659 sci.space:8397
Posted: Fri Mar 31 23:51:09 1989


            The following  is the  text of  a handout which was given to
            most of  the attendees of Dr. Pons seminar at the University
            of Utah  on 3/31/89.   (reprinted w/o permission, but it was
            freely distributed)

            ^^^^^^^^^^^^begin text^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

                       BACKGROUND FOR NUCLEAR FUSION SEMINAR
                              FRIDAY, MARCH 31,  1989
                        2008 HENRY EYRING CHEMISTRY BUILDING

            An article  written by  Drs. B.  Stanley  Pons  and  Martin
            Fleischman describing their nuclear fusion research at the U
            of U  has been  accepted for  publication by the "Journal of
            Electroanalytical Chemistry."   The  article is  expected to
            appear in the publication in late April or early May.

            In the  article the researchers state: "We conclude that the
            conventional deuterium  fusion reactions  are only  a  small
            part of  the overall  reaction scheme and that other nuclear
            processes must be involved."

            There is  not yet a complete understanding of where the heat
            is coming  from.   Fusion occurs  in the  cells  but  fusion
            reactions do  not account for all the heat that is observed.
            As we  stated at  the press  conference  last  week  and  on
            several occasions since then, the investigators believe that
            no chemical reaction can account for the heat output so they
            attribute it to nuclear processes.

            Evidence for  nuclear fusion  includes; generation  of  heat
            over long  periods that is proportional to the volume of the
            electrode and  reactions that  lead  to  the  generation  of
            neutrons and  tritium  which  are  expected  by-products  of
            nuclear fusion.

            The researchers have also co-authored and submitted a second
            article to "Nature" for consideration for publication

            Dr. James J. Brophy
            Vice President for Research
            University of Utah

            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^end text^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

            What follows  is a  summary of  my notes from the lecture by
            Dr. Pons.   Due to limited seating, I watched the lecture on
            a projection TV.  Not very good resolution, so I missed some
            of the  equations,   but I think I got most of it.  Also the
            physicist in our group didn't get a seat in either lecture hall
            and was  not able  to verify  my notes/impressions.   He did
            look at my notes with me though and helped clear some things
            up.

                          Electrochemically Induced Fusion


                               By Dr. B. Stanley Pons

            Dr. Pons  began with a brief history of the work began by he
            and Fleischman.   Initially,  their interests  were  in  the
            development of  a metallic  hydrogen material  for use  as a
            semiconductor.   They realized  that immense  pressures were
            required in  a lattice  for this  to occur.   However,  they
            theorized that  it would  be possible  to  bring  about  the
            equivalent  of  this  immense  pressure  by  electrochemical
            methods.   From these  initial musings, they also considered
            whether this  "electrochemical pressure"  could be  used  to
            fuse like nuclei (deuterium).

            The initial  experiment used  a cube of Pd (size not stated)
            in D2O at high current density (again not stated).  A Geiger
            counter was  used to  detect any  radiation from  the fusion
            reaction of  D.   However no  radiation was  detected.   The
            experiment was discontinued by reducing the current density,
            and shortly  thereafter (overnight  I think is what he said)
            the   experimental    apparatus   was   vaporized.      Left
            approximately 1/10 of the initial Pd.

            Current apparatus  uses a Pd rod in 0.1M D2O in a cell which
            has been  widely seen in the media.  It consists of a Pd rod
            surrounded by  a Pt  coil in a special made glass container.
            There are  openings for  charging and  adding D2O, measuring
            temperature, and  heaters.   The use  of  rod  gives  better
            control of the surface to volume ratio.  During electrolysis
            of the D2O the following reactions take place:

                            D2O + e-   <--->   Da + OD-
                                  Da  <--->  Dlat
                           Da + D2O + e-  <--->  D2 + OD-

            where Da is deuterium adsorbed on the surface of the Pd rod,
             and Dlat is deuterium diffused into the lattice of the Pd.

            Before the  surface of  the electrode  is saturated with Da,
            the D  diffuses into  the lattice  of the  Pd.  The evidence
            suggests that  the deuterium  diffuses into  the lattice  as
            deuterons and  electrons.  The electrons go to the k band of
            the lattice.

            Dr. Pons  stated that  the potential of this electrochemical
            couple is 0.8V.  In terms of pressure to get the same degree
            of difference in chemical potential = 10**27 atmospheres.

            Dr. Pons  explained a  control experiment  where they used a
            closed cell  to detect  tritium (else  some tritium would be
            lost as  by exchange  with D2O).   Tritium was detected, and
            its concentration  increased over  time.   Also the  neutron
            flux was  measured as  10**4 n/s.   This  is 3X  higher than
            background and  was  considered  statistically  significant.
            However, the  reactions to  produce tritium  and 3He  do not
            explain the amount of heat produced.

            In this  same vein,  he pointed  out that  their experiments
            indicated that  the heat  produced was  proportional to  the
            volume of  the electrode  used, not  the surface area of the
            electrode.     This  indicates   that  the  process  is  not
            electrochemical in  nature.   An energy density of 26W/cc of
            electrode was  calculated.   One experiment  produced 4MJ of
            heat in 120 hours.  He reiterated that this could not be due
            to any known physical or chemical process.  Since the fusing
            of deuterium  is only  part of  the overall reaction scheme,
            other as  yet unknown processes produce the rest of the heat
            which  is   detected.    Dr.  Pons  believes  these  unknown
            processes must be nuclear processes.

            He also  surmised that  the  deuterons  existed  in  the  Pd
            lattice as  a low  temperature plasma  which is  shielded by
            electrons.

            Dr.  Pons  then  answered  several  questions  from  Faculty
            members (there  were no  microphones in  the room  with  the
            graduate  students  where  I  was).    The  content  of  his
            responses are summarized below.

            This reaction  is diffusion  controlled, with  the diffusion
            coefficient for deuterons in Pd given as 10^-7 cm^2/s.

            The production  rate of  tritium was  found to match that of
            the neutrons.

            Although the  cross-section of  Pd is too small to allow for
            significant reaction  with energetic  neutrons, it may react
            with neutrons back-scattered from the heavy water.  No assay
            of the  Pd electrodes  has  been  undertaken  to  check  for
            activation by-products of Pd.

            The ignition/vaporization  of  the  initial  experiment  was
            caused by  a steep  concentration  gradient  of  D+  as  the
            current  density   was  decreased.     This   gave  rise  to
            compression (even  greater than  *normal*) as the D+ species
            moved out  from the  lattice in  a radial  direction.   This
            "shock" resulted in the vaporization.

            No 2.45Mev neutrons were detected.  He speculated that these
            neutrons may be consumed by reaction with Li:

                        7Li + n + 2.45MeV ---> 3T + 3He + n
                           6Li + n ---> 3T +3He + 4.5MeV

            The concentration  of the  deuterons in  the Pd  lattice  is
            greater than  0.67 (deuterons/Pd  atoms) and is estimated to
            be 1.0  -  1.2.    They  are  believed  to  cluster  at  the
            octahedral sites  in the  Pd (Pd  has a  face centered cubic
            crystal structure).

            In looking  for products of fusion, 3He was not seen but 4He
            was.   Part of  the reason  for not seeing 3He is due to the
            apparatus  used   (apparently   not   very   airtight)   and
            instruments used.

            Other metals  (which  were  not  specified)  were  tried  as
            electrodes but  no heat  was detected.   Radiation  was  not
            monitored.

            No experiments  have been  carried out in magnetic fields to
            determine quadrupole  effects.   He admitted  that spin-spin
            interactions could have an effect.

            The reaction  is diffusion controlled.  In a 0.4 - 0.5mm rod
            with X=10^-7 cm^2/s, the time required to start the reaction
            is [ (0.2)^2 / X ].

            He did  not know the effective mass of the electron carriers
            in the Pd matrix.

            He felt  that the  addition of  hydrostatic pressure  to the
            cell would  have a  negligible affect  on the  rate  of  the
            reaction.  The potential gradient at the D2O Pd interface is
            on the  order of  10^12 V/m.    This  gradient  can  not  be
            achieved in gas or vacuum phase conditions.

            They have recently achieved a 1W in 10W out energy ratio.

            Essentially no  neutrons or  tritium are  detected until the
            fusion process begins.

            He jokingly  predicted that  100 years  would be  needed  to
            bring this technology to commercial use.

            He admitted that the results were just as puzzling to him as
            they are to many others.  He openly admits that much more work
            is needed to understand this phenomenon.  (He did not seem to
            resent any questions, and was honest in his responses.)

            He ended  his talk  with a  WARNING.   Please do  not DO NOT
            attempt to  repeat this  experiments until you have read the
            journal  articles  or  have  consulted  with  Drs.  Pons  or
            Fleischman directly.  The initial experiment which vaporized
            is no  joke.   Please consult  with them  or  wait  for  the
            articles to  appear before  you begin  a possibly  dangerous
            experiment.  Please act responsibly in this regard.

            [Please remember, these are my personal notes taken during a
            lecture presented in less than optimum conditions.  If there
            are any  gross errors,  they are  probably my  fault.   As I
            said, I  briefly went over these notes with a physicist from
            or lab,  and he  did  not  point  out  any  glaring  errors.
            Nonetheless, the  information presented  is essentially that
            presented by  Dr. Pons.   No  sound or video recordings were
            allowed, so  the opportunity  to check my notes was limited.
            In other words please don't flame me.]

            [e-mail]            Behind the Zion Curtain


Article 4734 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!wasatch!donn
From: [e-mail] (Donn Seeley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89
Summary: Some more tidbits
Keywords: cold fusion, notes
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Apr 89 08:14:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 68
Posted: Sat Apr  1 03:14:00 1989

I didn't get to see the presentation at all, unlike Tim Reynolds, and
Tim definitely has the best notes I've seen so far.  He's saved me a
lot of work!

I did manage to gather a few more interesting tidbits that Tim seems to
have overlooked.  Here are some of them:

  +    Dr Pons's admonition to people who are attempting to duplicate
    his experiment and not succeeding was, 'Do your chemistry
    first!' (Or words to that effect...) Apparently he is not
    surprised that no official reports of success have been heard
    yet -- unless the apparatus is designed just right, it can take
    two weeks to get enough deuterium in the electrode.  Two tricks
    to success are a small diameter electrode and a high deuterium
    concentration.  Again, kiddies, DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME (not
    that every kitchen has palladium electrodes by the sink, or a
    D2O tap, of course).

  +    The story goes that Pons's son was the person who found the
    missing apparatus when the original successful reaction blew
    up.  The researchers hadn't expected anything interesting, and
    had sent the poor fellow to check the equipment later on, after
    turning the power down and going home.  The beaker was smashed,
    wires were melted, most of the electrode was vaporized, the
    radiation detection tube was destroyed.  The notes I have say
    that the current density was 250 amps / cm2 and it had been
    sharply cut in half before the accident occurred.  Apparently
    you must be very gentle about adjusting the current.

  +    One of the reasons why the experiment can be VERY DANGEROUS is
    that palladium in the wrong form or shape can blow up.  I'm
    told that Pons wasn't very specific about mad-scientist
    activities in the Chemistry basement, but he did advise against
    powdered palladium, and electrodes with sharp corners.  The
    original experiment apparently used an electrode with a square
    cross-section.

  +    Pons apparently said that BYU does not have the same setup, but
    would not otherwise comment on their work.  I've heard no new
    word on BYU patent applications; the U applications have
    already been filed.  It may be possible for independent
    investigators to license the process from the U.

  +    I've heard that the reason for holding the seminar in a
    relatively small room, instead of an auditorium like Kingsbury
    Hall or the Huntsman Center (the basketball arena), was that
    Pons 'didn't want a circus' (not a quote from Pons).  It's hard
    to imagine Pons holding an open seminar from now on that will
    be anything except a circus...

At least two local TV stations plus the national NBC News crew were on
campus today.  NBC News presented bits of an interview with Dr Pons in
his lab and office.  The correspondent had to stand outside in the rain
and wind to file his report with the appropriate backdrop...  The
physicists who were skeptical last night were more charitable today
after attending the seminar; they no longer implied that it could be a
hoax, although they still doubt that there is significant fusion.  One
smiled and said that physicists say that the excess heat must be due to
chemistry, the chemists maintain that it must be nuclear physics...
Still, people who saw the presentation have said that the analysis of
break-even was well-presented and persuasive, with second-order effects
identified and accounted for.  10 watts out for every 1 watt in for
long periods sounds pretty good to me even for a chemical reaction...

Still don't have a reactor in my office yet,

Donn Seeley    University of Utah CS Dept    [e-mail]
40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W    [phone]    utah-cs!donn


Article 4745 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!att!ihlpe!jho
From: [e-mail] (Yosi Hoshen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89
Keywords: cold fusion, notes
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Apr 89 16:12:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 39
Posted: Sat Apr  1 11:12:42 1989



It seems to me that the simplest test Pons et. al. should have done
and hopefully have done is to run their experiment with H2O and
compare the results.

The assumption is that hydrogen would not undergo cold nuclear reaction
at the condition described by Pons.  If that is the case than under
the exact same conditions they should not get the large heat output.
If there is only chemical reaction for both isotopes than the
energy output difference should be related to the difference in the
enthalpy of formation of H2O and D2O which is small as compared to
nuclear reaction (Even if hydrogen goes nuclear reaction under
the same conditions then there would be relatively large difference
in energetics between D and H because the difference in output
of the H and D in the nuclear reactions)

Assuming that hydrogen does not ungo nuclear reaction (this could be checked
by detecting neutron or other particles) than Pons at
al. calculations should be able to account for the heat balance
of the hydrogen reaction. At this point they claim that they cannot
balance their energies unless they take into account a nuclear
reaction.  Well, if they could balance it for the hydrogen
reaction, they would have a very convincing argument.  Did
they actually do any comparative experiments with H2O versus D2O?

Finally, if their claim is true and they see nuclear reaction
that produces energy but with neutron flax smaller than the
normal fusion reaction by 10^9 then this is very good news.
The major problem with fusion (D+D) is a high neutron flux which
causes neutron activation of the surrounding materials including
the palladium.  This could imply that the rate of neutron
activation would be smaller by 10^9 reducing the amount of
radio active waste by the same factor.

Another question what do you get if NaOD, KOD, RbOD are used
instead of LiOD?

Yosi Hoshen


Article 4768 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!husc6!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!silver!chiaravi
From: [e-mail] (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.research,sci.space
Subject: Re: summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89 (long, > 200 lines )
Summary: A couple of these equations don't add up; also, where does the lithium come from?
Keywords: cold fusion, notes.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Apr 89 06:51:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Organization: Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology at Indiana University, Bloomington
Lines: 41
Xref: dasys1 sci.physics:4768 sci.chem:33 sci.research:682 sci.space:8438
Posted: Mon Apr  3 01:51:10 1989

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Timothy K Reynolds) writes:
>            No 2.45Mev neutrons were detected.  He speculated that these
>            neutrons may be consumed by reaction with Li:
>
>                        7Li + n + 2.45MeV ---> 3T + 3He + n
>                           6Li + n ---> 3T +3He + 4.5MeV

    Neither of these equations is balanced -- the first contains 3 protons
and 5 neutrons on the left as opposed to 3 protons and 4 neutrons on the
right; the second contains 3 protons and 4 neutrons on the left as opposed to
3 protons and 3 neutrons on the right.  Also, are you sure the second reaction
is supposed to be exothermic?  I think I have seen these before, but I can
only remember the first one with any degree of accuracy:

    (7)Li + n --> (3)H + (4)He + n

where the neutron comes out slower than it went in (thus supplying the energy
for the reaction).  I can't remember whether the second reaction should be

    (6)Li + n --> (3)H + (4)He

or

    (6)Li + n --> (3)H + (3)He + n

with the neutron again coming out slower than it went in.  I saw these
equations (obviously only one version of the second one, but I can't remember
which one) in some report on conventional fusion experiments discussing ways
to breed tritium.  (I think this report was from the Princeton Plasma Fusion
Physics Laboratory, but couldn't swear to that.)

    My other question is:  these people used a cell with palladium and
platinum electrodes and heavy water.  Where would the lithium come from?  I
didn't hear any mention of lithium in the electrodes or in the solution
before this article that I am replying to.

--
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  [e-mail]
BITNET:  [e-mail] (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      [e-mail]
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  [e-mail]


Article 4769 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: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.research,sci.space
Subject: Re: summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89 (long, > 200 lines )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Apr 89 10:41:18 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 9
Xref: dasys1 sci.physics:4769 sci.chem:34 sci.research:683 sci.space:8439
Posted: Sat Apr  1 05:41:18 1989

>
>             Current apparatus  uses a Pd rod in 0.1M D2O in a cell which
>             has been  widely seen in the media.  It consists of a Pd rod
>             surrounded by  a Pt  coil in a special made glass container.
>             There are  openings for  charging and  adding D2O, measuring
>             temperature, and  heaters.   The use  of  rod  gives  better

If someone has details on the composition of the electrolyte solution, please
post.


Article 4742 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!ucsd!ames!lll-winken!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!James_J_Kowalczyk
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.research,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: cold fusion seminar
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Apr 89 07:35:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 43
Xref: dasys1 sci.physics:4742 sci.chem:29 sci.research:665 sci.space:8408 sci.space.shuttle:2667
Posted: Sat Apr  1 02:35:56 1989

Well, the seminar today at U of U by Stan Pons was poorly planned.
About 2,000 people showed up for the 350 seats.  So, they had another 300
or so "over-flow" seats in a room with a live video broadcast.

Anyway, I did manage to get some data:

The cell contains D2O, and LiOH.
The Pd anode is a wire of about 4-5 mm diameter.
Since the diffusion rate of D2 into Pd is ca. 10^-7 / sec,
the apparatus must be running "a few weeks" to set up equilibrium
conditions before fusion can occur.

They have measured 2 meV gamma rays.
They have measure neutrons being emitted at ca. 2x10^4 neutrons/sec.
They have measure tritium released at the same rate as the neutrons
("within experimental error").
They have not measured the energy of the neutrons, but expect them to
be 2.4 m eV.
They have seen Helium 4, but not Helium 3 (!?), but are still looking.

They don't think the neutrons are interacting with the palladium, but
they have checked their palladium by elemental analysis after use, and
they have not seen any evidence for changes.

They had been getting out 4 times the energy put in as of last Thursday,
but now it is up to 7-10 times (ignoring the heat produced at the cathode).
That is, they are getting 26 times the energy put in, but most of it is
Joule heating of the wires and heat produced by electrolysis of D2O.

Warning by Pons:  Don't try this without the proper precautions.
Once after they had set up equilibrium conditions, they accidentally
halved the current density in the Pd, and the Pd vaporized and all the
D2O boiled away.  Also, those neutrons are nothing to fool around with.


**I am writing this with the aid of notes, but I do not guarantee that
I have not made any mistakes.  If something sounds ludicrous, I am sure
you will let me know.** :)


Jim Kowalczyk

[e-mail]


Article 32 of sci.chem:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!lanl!opus!dante!ted
From: [e-mail] (Ted Dunning)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.research,sci.physics
Subject: cold fusion report
Keywords: more report on pons' talk in utah
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Apr 89 01:32:27 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: poster
Lines: 318
Xref: dasys1 sci.chem:32 sci.research:681 sci.physics:4764
Posted: Sun Apr  2 20:32:27 1989


I was able to attend the pons lecture in utah in the main hall.  i also
discussed the lecture with a number of people afterwards and have
the following impressions/corrections to the original posting in sci.physics.:


                          Electrochemically Induced Fusion


                               By Dr. B. Stanley Pons

            Dr. Pons  began with a brief history of the work began by he
            and Fleischman.   Initially,  their interests  were  in  the
            development of  a metallic  hydrogen material  for use  as a
            semiconductor.   They realized  that immense  pressures were
            required in  a lattice  for this  to occur.   However,  they
            theorized that  it would  be possible  to  bring  about  the

            equivalent  of  this  immense  pressure  by  electrochemical
            methods.   From these  initial musings, they also considered
            whether this  "electrochemical pressure"  could be  used  to
            fuse like nuclei (deuterium).

            The initial  experiment used  a cube of Pd (size not stated)
            in D2O at high current density (again not stated).  A Geiger
            counter was  used to  detect any  radiation from  the fusion
            reaction of  D.   However no  radiation was  detected.   The
            experiment was discontinued by reducing the current density,
            and shortly  thereafter (overnight  I think is what he said)
            the   experimental    apparatus   was   vaporized.      Left
            approximately 1/10 of the initial Pd.

the cube was 1cm3.  the experiment consisted of running
the electrolysis at 250 ma / cm2 for several weeks/months with no
results.  the current was cut to 125 ma / cm2 late one day, and the
next morning the cube of palladium and the electrolysis cell were gone.
a nearby geiger counter was also ruined.  pons used the word 'vaporized'
several times, but i wonder if what happened is really just that the pd
melted, and consequently could no longer hold hydrogen.  at the density
quoted (1 atom D for each atom Pd), this would cause, at the least, a
vigorous mechanical explosion, and much of the molten palladium would be
spattered, if not atomized.

since no detailed calorimetric data was kept for this experiment (and
apparently the remainder of the cube is also not available), it is
only tantalizing, and cannot be used in any way but anecdotal.  it is
true that the chemical energy contained in the hydrogen saturated cube
was not sufficient to even completely melt the cube, it is not clear
that the reaction was not caused by boiling some part of the electrolyte
with attendant local heating, melting and mechanical/chemical exploscion.
this is, however, perhaps the most viscerally interesting story released
so far.

the current apparatus uses pd rods of varying diameters from 1mm to
5mm.  pons stated that work had also been done with larger diameters.
the electrolyte is 0.1 M lithium deuteroxide formed by dissolving the
pure metal in the d2o (to avoid h contamination).  precharge time
is on the order of weeks for rods of this size.

            Current apparatus  uses a Pd rod in 0.1M D2O in a cell which
            has been  widely seen in the media.  It consists of a Pd rod
            surrounded by  a Pt  coil in a special made glass container.
            There are  openings for  charging and  adding D2O, measuring
            temperature, and  heaters.   The use  of  rod  gives  better
            control of the surface to volume ratio.  During electrolysis
            of the D2O the following reactions take place:


                            D2O + e-   <--->   Da + OD-
                                  Da  <--->  Dlat
                           Da + D2O + e-  <--->  D2 + OD-

            where Da is deuterium adsorbed on the surface of the Pd rod,
             and Dlat is deuterium diffused into the lattice of the Pd.

            Before the  surface of  the electrode  is saturated with Da,
            the D  diffuses into  the lattice  of the  Pd.  The evidence
            suggests that  the deuterium  diffuses into  the lattice  as
            deuterons and  electrons.  The electrons go to the k band of
            the lattice.

            Dr. Pons  stated that  the potential of this electrochemical
            couple is 0.8V.  In terms of pressure to get the same degree
            of difference in chemical potential = 10**27 atmospheres.

it is  of course impossible to attain such physical pressures in pd, where
physical strength of materials would limit the pressure to approximately
4000 atmospheres.  the figure of 10**27 if the equivalent pressure needed
(assuming van der wahls gas) to attain this electrochemical potential.  one
possible reason that this effective pressure can be attained without serious
problems because the electrons from the D are also in the lattice, although
they are separated from the deuterons.

there is also considerable doubt on the part of several electrochemical
experts i have spoken with on this matter.  they state that without
careful poisoning of the surface of the palladium, it is difficult to
achieve such electrochemical potentials.  there was no mention of special
surface treatment in pons talk, and it is very difficult to avoid considerable
contamination of the surface.

            Dr. Pons  explained a  control experiment  where they used a
            closed cell  to detect  tritium (else  some tritium would be
            lost as  by exchange  with D2O).   Tritium was detected, and
            its concentration  increased over  time.   Also the  neutron
            flux was  measured as  10**4 n/s.   This  is 3X  higher than

tritium detection was by sampling the electrolyte and determining a beta
spectrum.  the energies of the betas indicated tritium.  the neutrons
were detected using a harwell detector as well as by detecting secondary
gammas from the surrounding light water bath.  gamma spectra indicated
a clear peak at 2200 KeV.  unfortunately NONE of these measurements weree
corrected back to specific source intensities.  it is also not clear that
the tritrium measurements were not considerably in error due to residual
tritium trapped in the palladium.
            background and  was  considered  statistically  significant.
            However, the  reactions to  produce tritium  and 3He  do not
            explain the amount of heat produced.

no detections of He3 were possible since the solubility is so low.  the
detection of on the order of 10**4 to 10**6 atoms of a non radioactive
gas is non trivial.  apparently they have done some preliminary mass
spectroscopy.  anomalously, he4 WAS detected.  the D-D fusion which
produces He4 + gamma is normally very rare.  the gamma has a 15-17 Mev
energy which is considerably outside the range shown on the spectrum
in pons talk.

            In this  same vein,  he pointed  out that  their experiments
            indicated that  the heat  produced was  proportional to  the
            volume of  the electrode  used, not  the surface area of the
            electrode.     This  indicates   that  the  process  is  not
            electrochemical in  nature.   An energy density of 26W/cc of
            electrode was  calculated.   One experiment  produced 4MJ of
            heat in 120 hours.  He reiterated that this could not be due
            to any known physical or chemical process.  Since the fusing
            of deuterium  is only  part of  the overall reaction scheme,
            other as  yet unknown processes produce the rest of the heat
            which  is   detected.    Dr.  Pons  believes  these  unknown
            processes must be nuclear processes.

unfortunately, as was made clear by the cluttered table momentarily shown
during the talk, the highest power density was acheived at high current
densities, while the best efficiency was attained at low current densities.
no mention of temperature coefficients was made.  also, the higher
efficiencies were only extrapolated assuming recovery of the energy due
to recombination of the electrolysed oxygen and deuterium.

            He also  surmised that  the  deuterons  existed  in  the  Pd
            lattice as  a low  temperature plasma  which is  shielded by
            electrons.

            Dr.  Pons  then  answered  several  questions  from  Faculty

            members (there  were no  microphones in  the room  with  the
            graduate  students  where  I  was).    The  content  of  his
            responses are summarized below.

            This reaction  is diffusion  controlled, with  the diffusion

this is unfortunately inconsistent with the pre-charge times quoted.
of course this figure is for diffusion in the alpha state, while the
deuterons are in the beta phase.  pons stated that he expected the
diffusivity to be nearly equal for both phases, but that he had not
confirmed this.
            coefficient for deuterons in Pd given as 10^-7 cm^2/s.

others have said that this is a very conservative figure and that
diffusion at a poisoned surface would likely predominate.

            The production  rate of  tritium was  found to match that of
            the neutrons.

as mentioned above it is very doubtful that this conclusion can be reached.

this would be very significant given the expected cross sections for the two
dd fusion reactions at higher temperatures.

            Although the  cross-section of  Pd is too small to allow for
            significant reaction  with energetic  neutrons, it may react
            with neutrons back-scattered from the heavy water.  No assay
            of the  Pd electrodes  has  been  undertaken  to  check  for
            activation by-products of Pd.

no assay has been completed.  pons stated that he has sent several of the
electrodes out for testing.  the mean free path of 2.5 MeV neutrons in
heavy water is about 20cm, which combined with the low density of neutrons
should preclude detectable residual activation of the palladium.

            The ignition/vaporization  of  the  initial  experiment  was
            caused by  a steep  concentration  gradient  of  D+  as  the
            current  density   was  decreased.     This   gave  rise  to
            compression (even  greater than  *normal*) as the D+ species
            moved out  from the  lattice in  a radial  direction.   This
            "shock" resulted in the vaporization.

this is COMPLETELY hypothetical at this point.  the formation of a shock
in a diffusion situation is also unbelievable.  this shock should also
be formed when the current is turned on, but that would contravene the
observed pre-charge phenomenon.


            No 2.45Mev neutrons were detected.  He speculated that these
            neutrons may be consumed by reaction with Li:

                        7Li + n + 2.45MeV ---> 3T + 3He + n
                           6Li + n ---> 3T +3He + 4.5MeV

the pertinent cross section of lithium in the electrolyte for this
reaction is MUCH to low for this happen

            The concentration  of the  deuterons in  the Pd  lattice  is
            greater than  0.67 (deuterons/Pd  atoms) and is estimated to
            be 1.0  -  1.2.    They  are  believed  to  cluster  at  the
            octahedral sites  in the  Pd (Pd  has a  face centered cubic
            crystal structure).

            In looking  for products of fusion, 3He was not seen but 4He
            was.   Part of  the reason  for not seeing 3He is due to the
            apparatus  used   (apparently   not   very   airtight)   and
            instruments used.

see above comments.  even if the apparatus is airtight, this many atoms
would be extraordinarily hard to find.
            Other metals  (which  were  not  specified)  were  tried  as
            electrodes but  no heat  was detected.   Radiation  was  not
            monitored.


            No experiments  have been  carried out in magnetic fields to
            determine quadrupole  effects.   He admitted  that spin-spin
            interactions could have an effect.

            The reaction  is diffusion controlled.  In a 0.4 - 0.5mm rod
            with X=10^-7 cm^2/s, the time required to start the reaction
            is [ (0.2)^2 / X ].

this does not jibe with the announced pre-charge times.  we should also
be watched for a precharge time dilation effect (i.e. as the amount of
time without confirmation increases, the pre-charge time may also be
observed to increase, apparently without bound.  this is a p.r. effect).
:-)

            He did  not know the effective mass of the electron carriers
            in the Pd matrix.

the snide comment here was that he 'hoped that it is about 200'.  this
refers to the possibility of heavy electron catalyzed fusion similar to
muon catalyzed fusion.  this is not possible since the heavy electron
effect is due to electrons hauling lattice disturbances along with them
when traveling free in a metal lattice.  the point of muon catalyzed fusion
is that since a muon is so much more massive than an electron, the effective
diameter of a muon containing atom is much less than for a normal atom.
if the deuterium exists in pd as a plasma, then this effect would not
be pertinent.

            He felt  that the  addition of  hydrostatic pressure  to the
            cell would  have a  negligible affect  on the  rate  of  the
            reaction.  The potential gradient at the D2O Pd interface is
            on the  order of  10^12 V/m.    This  gradient  can  not  be
            achieved in gas or vacuum phase conditions.

this has implications regarding both the pumping of D into the pd lattice
and ionization of the D.

            They have recently achieved a 1W in 10W out energy ratio.


these energy ratios are extrapolated after assuming that a fuel cell
anode is used to recombine the evolved deuterium.  actual power out/
power in is about 1.11 .  considerable amounts of energy are stored as
separated heavy water.

            Essentially no  neutrons or  tritium are  detected until the
            fusion process begins.


            He jokingly  predicted that  100 years  would be  needed  to
            bring this technology to commercial use.

            He admitted that the results were just as puzzling to him as
            they are to many others.  He openly admits that much more work
            is needed to understand this phenomenon.  (He did not seem to
            resent any questions, and was honest in his responses.)

            He ended  his talk  with a  WARNING.   Please do  not DO NOT
            attempt to  repeat this  experiments until you have read the
            journal  articles  or  have  consulted  with  Drs.  Pons  or
            Fleischman directly.  The initial experiment which vaporized
            is no  joke.   Please consult  with them  or  wait  for  the
            articles to  appear before  you begin  a possibly  dangerous
            experiment.  Please act responsibly in this regard.


in particular if you try this, avoid

a) large electrodes
b) sharp corners
c) powdered electrodes
d) sharp changes in current
e) extremely high current densities
f) experiments with D-T or T-T reactions

the reason for the last is that these reactions are expected to occur
10**3 or 10**4 times more quickly than D-D reactions.  10**4 W/cm3 is
very dangerous.

if you are trying these experiments, careful calorimetry and accounting
of evolved gases must be done.  just running an open cell without good
heat flow measurements is worthless.  keep neutron and gamma detectors
handy and treat the experiment as a low grade radiation source and a
serious chemical hazard at the same time.  be ready for radiation flashes
and chemical or other small scale explosions.  no data yet exists indicating
that dangerous levels of radiation will be observed, but there is no sense
in being a famous dead person.  still less in being a kind of famous near
dead bald person.

pons and fleischman paper will be publised soon in the journal of
electroanalytical chemistry.  i have reason to believe that the contents
of the paper will not answer many questions that his seminars will not.


Article 4774 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!lanl!hc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan
From: [e-mail] (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: section of preprint from Fleischmann and Pons
Keywords: experimental setup
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Apr 89 21:35:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 87
Posted: Mon Apr  3 16:35:35 1989

A few people have asked for copies of the preprint.  I have sent
them, but do not really have time to send more.  On the other hand
there has been a lot of questions regarding details of the experimental
setup.  I'm going to take a minute to quote liberally from the preprint
to pass on such information as it contains.  One thing it does not
contain is any clear information on control experiments that would
obviously eliminate chemical effects (such as using hydrogen instead
of deuterium).  That's not to say that they didn't do them, but for
whatever reason they choose not to mention them.

"In the work reported here D+ was compressed galvanostatically into
sheet, rod and cube samples of Pd from 0.1 M LiOD in 99.5% D2O + 0.5%
H20 solutions.  Electrode potentials were measured with respect to
a Pd-D reference electrode charged to the alpha-beta phase equilibrium.
We report here experiments of several kinds:

1) Calorimetric measurements of heat balances at low current densities
(=1.6mA cm^-1) were made using a 2mmx8cm Pd sheet cathode surrounded by
a large Pt sheet counter electrode.  Measurements were carried out in Dewar
dells maintained in large constant temperature water bath (300K), the
temperature inside the cell and of the water bath being monitored with
Beckman thermometers.  The HEavy Water Equivalent ofthe Dewar and contents
and the rate of Newton's law of cooling losses were determined by addition
of hot D2O and by following the cooling curves.

2) Calorimetric measurements at higher current densities were carried out
using 1, 2 and 4 mm diameterx 10 cm long Pd rods surrounded by a Pt wire
anode wound on a cage of glass rods.  The Dewars were fitted with resistance
heaters for the determination of Newton's law of cooling losses; temperatures
were measured using calibrated thermistors.  Experiments with rods up to 2cm
in diameter will be reported elsewhere.  Stirring in these experiments (and
in those listed under 1) was achieved, where necessary, by gas sparging
using electrolytically generated D2.  Measurements at the highest current
density reported here (512 mA cm^-2) were carried out using rods of 1.25
cm length;  the results given in Table 1 have been rescaled to those for rods
of 10 cm length.

3)  The spectrum of gamma rays emiited from the water bath due to the (n,gamma)
reaction 1H+n(2.45MeV) into 2D +gamma(2.5MeV) (vii) was determined using a
sodium iodide crystal scintillation detector and a Nuclear Data ND-6 High
Energy Spectrum Analyzer.  The spectrum was taken above the water immediately
surrounding an 0.8x10cm Pd-rod cathode charged to equilibrium; it was corrected
for background by subtracting the spectrum over a sink (containing identical
shielding materials) 10 m from the water bath.

    The neutron flux from a cell containing a 0.4x10cm Pd rod electrode was
measured using a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, Type 95/0949-5.
The counting efficiency of the Bonner-sphere type instrument for 2.5MeV
neutrons was estimated to be ~2.4x10^-4 and was further reduced by a factor
~100 due  to the unfavorable configuration (the rod opposite the BF3 filled
detector).  The background count was determined by making measurements 50m
from the laboratory containing the experiments: both locations were in the
basement fo a new building which is overlain by 5 floors of concrete.  In
view of the low counting efficiency, counting was carried out for 50 hours.
Measurements on a 0.4x10 cm rod electrode run at 64mA cm^-2 gave a neutron
count 3 times above that of the background.

4)  The rate of generation/accumulation of tritium was measured using similar
cells (test tubes sealed with Parafilm) containing 1 mm diameter x 10 cm
Pd rod electrodes.  Measurements on the D/T separation factor alone
were made using an identical cell containing a 1 mm diameter x 10 cm Pt
electrode (this measurement served as a blank as the H/D separation factors
on Pd and Pt are known to be closely similar).  1 mL samples of the electrolyte
were withdrawn at 2 day intervals, neutralized with potassium hydrogen
phthalate and the T-content was determined using Ready Gel liquid scintillation
"cocktail" and a Beckman LS 5000 TD counting system.  The counting
efficiency was determined to be about 45% using standard samples of
T-containing solutions.  The beta decay scintillation spectrum was
determined using the counting system.

    In these experiments standard additions of 1 mL of the electrolyte
were made following sampling.  Losses of D2O due to electrolysis in these
and all other experiments recorded here were made up using D2O alone.
A record of the volume of D2O additions was made for all the experiments.

    In all of the experiments reported here all connections were fitted
Kel-F caps and the caps were sealed to the glass cells using Parafilm.

   Results for the mass spectroscopy of the evolved gases and full
experimental detials for all the measurements will be given elsewhere."
--
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) [e-mail]
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) [e-mail]

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?


Article 671 of sci.research:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!gatech!purdue!decwrl!labrea!glacier!jbn
From: [e-mail] (John B. Nagle)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Latest public annoucement on cold fusion
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Apr 89 00:35:56 GMT
Sender: John B. Nagle <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 17
Posted: Sat Apr  1 19:35:56 1989


     Pons is now claiming that he is now getting 10-12 watts out for each
watt going in.  He also gave two warnings of things that might make the
reaction go must faster, and must be approached with caution: the
use of sintered, instead of solid, palladium, which would increase the
surface-to-volume ratio considerably and allow much more of the material
to particpate in the reaction, and the use of tritium instead of deuterium,
which, he claims, might make the reaction go 1000 times faster.
This info is from the S.F. Chronicle, in an article by Charles Petit,
on page A1 of today's (Saturday) edition.

     Still no confirmation from another lab.

     Please, no flames about the bomb potential until we have more data.


                    John Nagle