Thinking can range from dangerous to insightful

[Richard Hull]

Well Folks, I have ben thinking and reading again. Wise in some respects dangerous in others.

I am half of the opinion, based on reading, logic, physical observation and insightful ponderings that man will never, under any circumstances, produce economical fusion within or from a plasma!!

Does this mean dropping the fires from the fusor? No, but it is maybe a wake up call for the entire fusion business.
How many iterations of gaseous, plasma fusion efforts are required before we must say DUH...this is stupid and involves continuous wheel spinning.

It is like the fusion community is sitting in a car, stuck in the mud. Realizing we are stuck, we apply power to the rear wheels, they spin and the back end continues to sink and dig itself, ever deeper, into a quagmire. Still, even after getting out and applying some intended fix, gravel under the tires, etc., We get back in and spin the tires some more making a gravel and mud slurry under the wheels. The solution in our case may not be to get a tow, but maybe abandon the vehicle altogether. This time starting out afresh in a totally new vehicle (aircraft) and fly over the mud pits (plasma fusion).

Nature may give us clues. Many times, when we try and do things the way nature does them, we tend to fail. Nature often uses forces we have no control over, i.e. gravity, uses plasmas in quantity, i.e. stellar sized plasma clouds and does her fusion at efficiencies approaching .000000000000000001% which, in such sizes, still produces 10 to the gazillion joules of energy.

Somehow, someone got the idea, way back when, that we could take 10 to the minus gazillionth solar mass of deuterium at 10-6 torr, heat it way beyond solar temps and hopefully confine it long enough to do a work around on nature. It ain't happenin' and don't look promisin'. The Farnsworth fusor, for its size, beats most tokomaks in neutrons per unit volume and this appears to be only due to its 3 order of magnitude increase in plasma density. In simple plasma fusion, we are using micro masses, confined lightly or barely at very high tmeperatures. The bottom line is we are just trying to get more fusions per unit mass than in any known natural fusion reaction in the universe! A tall order, indeed.

Inertial confinement appears intriguing because we are attempting to mime gravity by its shadow, inertia, to contain the fusible matter, often a solid, for a long enough period to efficeintly fuse based on the tiny amount of matter in the experiment. This is at least now optimizing two parameters, confinement (extreme) and temperature (extreme). The mass, still very tiny, but dense at the start is relying on efficiency of process to reap large bursts of power. With each new extreme, the confinement time relaxes a bit, but the energy increases at the focus as well and whether this can be harnessed is still an open issue.

I am now thinking about some processes SEEMINGLY found in nature which point to fusion on the bio-generative level. A key synopsis was just published, or rather re-published, in R&D magazine in the often humorous and insightful column by Juneman. (See R&D magazine August 2001 page 9. I really hope the serious among you read this column) The original article was published in 1977. This was published well before the Cold fusion flap in 1989. I say flap because most scientific powers-that-be have relegated CF to a wasteland of "also rans".

I always held out that CF was not total bunk, that there was some kernal that deserved better that it got. Just because it didn't, as discovered or reported, yield 100% repeatable results, it was dumped. I feel the baby may have been thrown out with the bath water.

I further feel that useful fusion might better be found IN THE SOLID STATE! Rather than being a total CF, foaming mouth, advocate, I have taken a wait and see attitude as work continues in a number of backwaters, both in highly scientific and basement bomber environments.

With my current thoughts and a few new ideas of my own, I might have to dip my hands into this area. Like the fusor, the investment can be moderate, but the controls must be more rigorous.

There is a great tape I have which shows Martin Fleishman in 1999 at a conference 10 years after his original announcement giving incredible numbers KW/cm for some researchers using even light water and nickel and titanium loadings. Paladium, while not totally abandoned is not the only metal hydride system that seems to load up well. Likewise, with light water, we are not relying on the deuteron in heavy water as in the original 1989 anouncements.

The incredible and well done work of Bockris and others at Texas A&M showing evidence for transmutation at surfaces of used up (excess energy producing) metal hydride cathodes, is another positive sign of what appears to be PROTON-PROTON fusion in the solid state!!! In all cases the transmutted isotopes formed were non-radioactive!!

It appears, now that after 10 years and numerous experiments, that a common thread is emerging regarding CF.
1.We still can't warrant results but successes by the better experimenters are approaching 80% reproducibility. 2.There appears to be vastly more energy coming out of metal hydride systems than any chemical reaction could explain. 3.There are transmutations found in most all used up cathodes, mainly in the first 30 microns of the surface. Careful controls are inplace to avoid plating out of materials in the electrolyte. Besides, in most cases the transmuted elements are of a non-earthly isotopic ratio or form. 4.No neutrons are present due to the suspected fusion and the energy release appears to wind up as heat, which might actually be weak photons absorbed in the solid electrode. Nuclear stuff appears to be happening in a more quiet and gentler form than the violence of the BEV accelerators or Billion degree kelvin plasma reactions.

Trapped in a metal lattice, hydrogen atoms are confined to super levels of confinement (very short range). Confinement times are nearly infinite. Even at low temps, perhaps fusions are possible in a form of nuclear catalytic reaction totally un-appreciated heretofore. The density of the medium is about 10E20 times that of the tokomak. It is worth consideration. More consideration than a gruff laugh-off because the standard model and high energy physics says it can't happen. Especially since nature seems to be doing something similar in biota.

Cold Fusion, if it is real, appears to be somewhere between chemical reaction rates in explosives which are nearly 100% efficient in the best systems (all reactants consumed) and stellar fusion where only about 1 in 10e27 nuclei react. Likewise the CF energy throw off is probably fixed in between the few ev per molecule energy of a chemical explosion and the Mev of a classic stellar fusion reaction. So, in CF, we might anticipate low energy reactions at moderately high rates or moderate energy reactions at moderate to low rates, but still vastly exceeding plasma fusion rates per unit volume. We just don't have the data yet, mostly due to official and codified ignoring of the issues related to CF. Some have attempted to relable the CF moniker to "warm fusion" or "catalyized nuclear reactions", etc. Regardless, any reaction energy in the CF framework is going to be freezing cold compared to the least energetic hot fusion reaction.

God, how I hated blurting out the proton-proton fusion statement earlier above! It makes no sense by any measure of the standard model or interpretation of HOT fusion physics with MEV particle energies reigning supreme and radiation flying off in massive amounts, etc.

Fortunately, and perhaps blessedly, I am trained in the standard model but have always held it in low to moderate regard and now even less so were quarks are a charmin' and a colorin' their way into flavorlets, singlets, etc. Solid state fusion seems far less wild eyed and some hard evidience is surfacing which, if correct, would just about blast the standard model, as perceived in its finest minutia to bits, at worse, or force an entire shift in thought about how things nuclear occur, at least.

Fusor IV is still in the works. I am still planning more reading, more thinking, more reviewing and looking with more open eyes (wide open eyes) at possibilities now laughed at or derided by the establishment which continues to take my tax dollars and shoot them down the plasma fusion rat hole.

Again, this entire site is a fusion forum site and not totally dedicated to one form of fusion, but hopefully, the SUCCESSFUL form of fusion. In that venue, many methods are capable of being discussed.

Some of the more cerebral of us may demand a hard and fast theory before accepting even the notion of fusion. Too bad. Many times in history, successful implimentation of devices and ideas are in hand before a total and satifactory understanding of the process was extracted from the physics community.

Is it politics, make busy projects for acedemic employment or simple scientific conspiracy/inertia that keeps this plasma thing going.

Richard Hull

[Tom Dressel]

A few years after the cold fusion flap of March 1989 setteled down, I found a few books on cold fusion in my local public library. The books were written by hot nuclear fusion wonks, and for the most part debunked the idea of cold fusion, but it was also stated that some form of fusion MUST be occuring deep under or within the earth's crust, to explaine the presence of helium in oil wells.

Tom Dressel

[Richard Hull]

There were never any books written about the CF stuff that were totally satisfying. Peek's book was the least slanted, but was published very early and therefore lacks details developed after the first few months. All the others are slanted against CF except Mallove's book "Fire from Ice" which is friendly towards CF. There is no book in print which details the last ten years of the CF effort. Infinite Energy is a great magazine for good CF updates provided one can read through the positive, rose tinted hype and occassional far out subject matter. It is certainly the only main line, slick cover publication that gives a damned about CF.

However, CF related papers are indeed being accepted and published by some peer reviewed journals of the second rank. I fear the coffee is smelled in many quarters by those thinking editors of a few good scientific journals. It may not be accepted stuff yet due to no codified theory, but some folks seem to realize something is going on which might be worth at least listening to now.

Richard Hull

[guest]

Providing Cold fusion does not require Special Realivity I see it posible but would expect to find evidance in nature rather than in the lab. I favor AD over SR as SR does not
conserve energy and momentiom. http://www.flic.net/~saa/

[quinnrisch]

Special relataivety does conserve both quantites: momentum and energy. However, momentum and energy are not defined as they are in classical physics.
____________________

To really solve the problems of fusion one must observe and experiment very presicely and acurrately. There is also a great deal of luck.

The cold fusion phenomenon is real, I beleive, but there is probably a lot more happening than antisapated. I have tryed to follow the cold fusion articles I have run across, but most of the time there is scant detail, and lots of theory, which sounds nice, but usually is there to satisfy the need of the author to not feel like s/he is a nut.

I have heard of nuetron detection at the mere introduction of D2 gas to Pd metal. Maybe something is happening, I would guess that there is.

In my research into cold fusion about a year ago, I found out that until 1989, the term cold fusion referred to muon catalyzed fusion. A muon is created by the decay of a pion, which is created by the high energy (30MeV) collision of nucleons. THis is also a very interesting subject, but very out of the range of the amatuer scientist. A problem with muon catalyzed fusion is that the muon preferencally binds to larger nuclei, thus duetron fusion becomes the lowest on the ladder.

[Tom Dressel]

My understanding of muon catalized cold fusion, is that you replace the electron in the hydrogen molecule with a muon. The muon has the same charge and angular momentum as the electron but a larger mass, and thus a smaller cloud radius. This allows much more dense packing of the hydrogen, making fusion more likely. The problem is that the energy needed to make the muons is greater than energy released by fusion.

Tom Dressel

[guest]

Allthough I don't have the experience with fusing as much as others... I do make up for that in thought. I have a lot of ideas that I will try. Unfortunately I have more pressing matters.... Like moving out of my parents house and getting a "real" job.

All intro's aside I wish the best for those who want to experiment with cold fusion. I myself don't know enough about the subject to argue either way. As for the Farnsworth effort I have been studying as much as possible: from both patent's and the records at this site. I do believe that efficency is possible from the fusor with certain changes. To name a few: increased tritium production, getting rid of the inner grid, certain pulse operations, and possibly external fields for increasing plasma density, to name a few that have been racking my brain. The Farnsworth fusor hasn't run it's course just yet. How about any one else?... Any ideas? As for me I will build my fusor... although it's just on the drawing board for now....

Lee

[ijv]

I thought that the helium was due to alpha decay of heavy radioactive nuclei.

On the CF side, a few months ago I saw a paper by Miley & others. In which CF was dressed up as low energy nuclear reactions.

This paper showed the change in isotope compositions before & after an experiment that Richard mentioned. But the implication that I drew from the paper is that CF might be a form of catalytic fission, not fusion!.

[Richard Hull]

Catalytic fission or fusion,.... all are thoughts just now. The explaination and theory behind the observed LENT (low energy nuclear transformations is neither understood nor genuinely investigated yet. Groping for a handle or name is just a lot of words to describe an observed, but non-understood process. I like LENT. It sort of says it all without ascribing a methodology. It will suffice until understanding gives the process a real name that it can live with. CF is a red flag to a huge segment of the scientific community. For many, they just stop listening or chuckle. I avoid the use of the term unless I am in among a group of open minded folks who realize that the CF moniker is just a term used to verbalize what appears to be excess energy goings on in a metal lattice.

I also mispoke grossly in my original post.

Proton-Proton fusion, I still believe is a physical imposibility. I posted on this earlier. The standard model and solar model has the P-P reaction occuring and quick as a wink, one of the protons magically becomes a neutron. They had to do this, for there has never been a PP nuclei observed.

What I meant to say in the original post is that in light water systems, the fusion, if it is fusion, would be a proton-nuclear fusion. I would think this would be more likely in metals with a large excess of neutrons (high neutron to proton ratio). I have always felt that the neutrons were the nuclear glue, not a mysterious and dreamed up strong force.

Richard Hull

[quinnrisch]

If proton-proton fusion were to occur the nuetron would decay to an anti-nuetrino, and an electron. If one were to attempt proton-proton fusion the presence of an anti-nuetrino would indicate nuetron decay and thus prove proton-proton fusion.

I beleive that such experiments have been done.

Richard,
If nuetrons carryed the strong force wouldn't protons "aimed" at proton targets show only a coloumb scattering effect? However. protons scattered off of protons do show a strong force devaition from coloumb scattering at high energies, energies sufficient to penitrate into the strong force range.

[quinnrisch]

It does take more energy to create a muon that is released by ONE duetron fusion event, BUT a muon can catalyze many fusion events. If I remember correctly the break even point with 100% efficiency is 200 fusion events, but a realistic estimate of efficiency requires 1000 fusion events.

[quinnrisch]

Could you post that paper? I love literature.

[Richard Hull]

I don't believe neutrons carry a strong force, or that protons carry a strong force or any nucleons carry a strong force.

The neutrons are the glue because they have the electron to electrostatically bind the protons in the nucleus. It is a form of electrostatic bonding that is peculiar to short range bound positive and negative particles which I feel the neutron is. Some sort of lilliputian hydrogen atom. The manner or mechanism of this is certainly no stranger suggestion than dreaming up a separate strong force. We have no way of examining electrostatic forces at nuclear ranges anymore than we have of examining a mysterious new Strong Force. We can only measure the forces through inferences based on generalized measurments of many observations. can't see the strong force or the unsual electrostatic binding of the neutron. One is as acceptable as the other. A lot of folks lose sight of this because they assume that because someone said there is a strong force, it must be so. We are in a region where quantum guestimation and statistical analysis supply only a range of force which we can't explain.

Richard Hull

[quinnrisch]

Concerning a nuetron as proton with an electron electrostatically to it-

This topic was debated in the early 50's (i beleive) and was decided to be impossible for several reasons, even if electrostatic force changes at nuclear distances for positive and negative charges.

1) For the electron to get so close to proton, a certain amount of energy would have to be expended. This energy would have to be either radiated away as a photon or become rest mass of the nuetron.
a) If the energy was radiated away as a photon, then a decay of a nuetron into proton and electron would be endothermic, thus requiring energy, which is not the case.
b) If the energy was solely converted to rest mass nuetron would have to be much heavier than observed.

[Richard Hull]

No one has ever seen a single neutron decay. Only a large number of them from which average data is taken. The resultant, classically, is an electron and a proton and a neutrino. No one has ever recorded a neutrino from neutron decay in any neutron decay experiment!
It is inferred. As the reaction is exothermic a number of photons could be released in the form of low grade heat which would not be detected by physicists looking for particles. We have no way of examining an isolated single neutron decay in extreme minute detail. In the instances where a bubble or cloud chamber has caught such an even, we only see an electron and a proton. Conveniently, for physicists the neutrino can't be picked up except in the minds of the standard model crafters.

Good lockstep physicists tell us that the neutron is NOT a proton and an electron in any combination. Yet the neutron is a rigid constituent of bulk matter. Beta decay always adds a proton magically to the nucleus. Neutrons decay into two easily identifiable particles, a proton and an electron with no other material particle visible. We know that outside of the nucleus the neutron APPEARS to be an unstable isotope of hydrogen. Yet it refuses to take on an electron as any ordinary nucleon would. (it already has one)

Ocam's razor demands the assumption that the neutron is a proton and an electron. How it is composed, held together, works or is formed is anyones guess, for that is all it would be.

Perhaps the electron associated with the neutron spirals or moves slowly into toward proton radiating photonic, low grade heat all the while until some critical point is reached and the two separate with the observed kinetic energies. I know the quantumists love wholesale electron jumps, but in a neutron, (a collapsed hydrogen atom) the jump phase for the electron may be over. My thoughts are as good as most everyone elses here as there is little proof for anyone's ideas without micro analyizing a single neutron decay process.

Richard Hull

I, therefore keep an open mind on the matter.

[ijv]

I found the paper at this site

apc2000.jpl.nasa.gov

Unfortunately the site has been down for the last few days. It was the 2000 Advanced Propulsion Workshop

[guest]

I think they have detected the neutrino back in the early
sixties..... it takes a nuclear reactor to make enough of them to detect. A neutino can travel through a light year
of lead but not be absorbed. But like all statistical processes some will decay early and be detectable
,the rest wiz on by ... about a billion neutrinos from cosmic events pass through you every second...
thank goodness they don't interact very well. If you look
in the september or october Discover magazine you will find an amazing story about the creation of low energy neutrinos (pion decays) from Fermi Lab throught the earth to detectors in France at CERN.
A crude morse type communication using neutrinos has been born. Only 38 billion dollars COD. If you act now.

Larry Leins
Physics Teacher

[quinnrisch]

Nuetrino production is not out of the amatuer fusionists releam of possiblity.

With a large nuetron flux hitting a metal target, isotopes are bound to be produced, these isotopes can decay via beta decay and thus produce nuetrinos. The right choice of a target would make this fesible, some element that has an isotope that decays VERY quickly by beta decay.

[r_c_edgar]

It's not the production that's hard, it's the detection. The interaction between neutrinos and and everyday matter is incredibly weak - that's why such large detectors are needed, and why even the huge, multi-million dollar detectors can only detect the largest changes in neutrino flux.

And besides, compared to the background of solar neutrinos, I'm pretty sure anything that could be produced in a garage or basement would be utterly insignificant.

-Ryan Edgar