Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Mon, 3 Apr 89 07:44:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 07:43:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #334 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 334 Today's Topics: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89 (long, > 200 lines ) Re: Success with cold fusion reported Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? Re: Recovery of Salyut 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Mar 89 23:56:29 GMT From: xanth!hoptoad!hsfmsh!mhyman@g.ms.uky.edu (Marco S. Hyman) Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? In article <7767@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes: > In article <355@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: > > > >Ah, but who said they would want to contact the US government! :-> > >("Wellcome, Comrad Alien") > >-- > Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on > Earth. More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on > Earth. Compared to the U.S., the Soviet Union is third-rate, at best. Exactly! Assuming capitalistic aliens, which country has a bigger potential for exploitation, uh sales. --marc -- //Marco S. Hyman //UUCP: ...!sun!sfsun!hsfmsh!mhyman //Domain: sfsun!hsfmsh!mhyman@sun.com ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 89 04:51:09 GMT From: mailrus!wasatch!ch-tkr@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Timothy K Reynolds) Subject: summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89 (long, > 200 lines ) 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.] ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu Behind the Zion Curtain ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 02:49:13 GMT From: xanadu!michael@apple.com (Michael McClary) Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: > >[...] if history teaches >anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price. Actually, history teaches no such thing. Benefits and prices of any given discovery or invention don't correlate. Those with prices up to their benefits tend to be developed and used (unless something cheaper does the job as well or better). Those with excessive prices are discarded. This creates the illusion of proportional cost. Once this illusion is set in your mind, everything new with improved price/ performance makes you think "there's got to be a catch", and sends you on a search to find the catch. If you can't accept the lack of a catch, you can never end your search, and can never go beyond what had been done before. This is not to say such a search is folly. Many things DO have catches, and these need to be discovered. But be prepared to acknowledge real wonders now and then. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 18:59:38 GMT From: nsc!ken@decwrl.dec.com (Ken Trant) Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? article <7767@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) says: % Xref: nsc sci.space:10525 rec.ham-radio:1611 talk.rumors:915 misc.headlines:12001 % In article <355@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: %>Ah, but who said they would want to contact the US government! :-> %>("Wellcome, Comrad Alien") %>-- % Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on % Earth. More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on % Earth. Compared to the U.S., the Soviet Union is third-rate, at best. Assumming of course that the aliens believe paving over the earth is a sign of an advanced civilization and not a sign of a very primative culture. Ken- -- PATH= Second star to the right, {...Ken Trant...} and straight on till morning National SemiConductor, 1135 Kern Ave. M/S 7C-266; Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Uucp: ...{pyramid,sun,amdahl,apple}!nsc!ken ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 14:16:20 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Recovery of Salyut 7 In article <2168@wyse.wyse.com> mikew@wyse.com (Mike Wexler) writes: >mission was? I can think of several possibilities: > 3. so they can analyze the effects of long term exposure to LEO. This seems like the best reason for bringing Salyut 7 down in one bit. Taking it apart in a laboratory back on Earth will provide the Soviets with a lot of very valuable information on how materials and machinery wear and deteriorate during long term exposure to conditions in orbit. Build for a short lifetime, analyse anything that goes wrong, re-design, re-build. That seems to be the usual Soviet space exploration technique. Contrast with the NASA method of a designing the space station to have a 30 year life expectancy, using new alloys and plastics, none of which have had any long term exposure to conditions in orbit. Bob. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #334 *******************