glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Glenn Chapman) (03/24/89)
A very astounding breakthrough just may have been made in nuclear
fusion. According to both the Financial Times (Mar 23, pg. 1, 26, and 22)
and the Wall Street Journal (Mar. 23, b1 & b8) two scientist will announce
indications of room temperature fusion of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) inside
a solid material today at the University of Utah. These are not off the
wall guys - the FT points out that both are experimental experts in
electrochemistry (Dr. Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University UK,
Dr. Stan Pons of University of Utah). Fleischmann is also a fellow of
the Royal Society in London. I will summarize the articles but suggest
that you get hold of the FT one (the WSJ was written by someone who really
does not know the details). I have added some physics info to make it
more understandable.
The process they are using consists of the following. Consider an
electrochemical cell (like a battery) with a platinum electrode, a heated
palladium electrode in a bath of heavy water (deuterium oxide). Flow current
from the palladium (negative electrode) to the platinum electrode (positive
one). At some current the deuterium flow into the palladium, combined with
the effect of the material itself, causes the deuterium nuclei to come
together and fuse into helium 3 plus a neutron (with 3.27 MeV of energy)
or tritium plus hydrogen (with 4.03 MeV, 1 MeV = 1.6E-13 Joules of energy).
(My speculation the fusion processes here are not certain).
To show the real strangeness here note that the repulsive forces from the
positive charges on the two nuclei normally require temperatures
of 50 - 100 Million degrees to overcome (high temp. mean the atoms are
travelling very fast and so when they collide they overcome the repulsion
to get close enough together to have fusion occur). This room temp.
result is obviously very unusual. What really indicates that fusion has
occurred is that the FT article states they saw fusion products, gamma
rays, tritium and neutrons, none of which are generated by chemical processes.
It is especially the neutrons that are important - that shows that fusion
occurred. People at the UK Atomic Energy Authority say they know of the
work and are treating it seriously. The article has been submitted to the
British science journal Nature. Just my own speculation but one
thing that may agree with this is that there is a material called Zeolite
which stores hydrogen at densities higher than that of liquid hydrogen.
This shows that solids can force hydrogen atoms closer together than they
normally would be.
There is a news conference that will be held today at U of Utah. If
there is anyone who can get more information on this please send it to me.
Glenn Chapman
MIT Lincoln Lab
glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa
glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edubugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) (03/24/89)
I'm wathing an interview with the discoverers right now on MacNeil-Lehrer. You know, it just sounds too good to be true. Maybe these guys are pulling an elaborate April Fools' joke. Either that, or it's going to be bigger than the high-temperature superconductors. Guaranteed Nobel prizes. But anyway, these guys say they've had bottles producing heat continuously for hundreds of hours in experiments over the last year, and that their experiments could essentially be duplicated using the resources of a high school chemistry classroom. It's just too good to be true. Anyone see "Back to the Future?" remember the "Mr. Fusion" blender-sized device? That's basically what these guys have developed. You put heavy water in, you get gobs of energy out. Just think, governments have spent $billions upon billions on nuclear fusion research using Tokomaks and high-powered lasers, and here these chemists do it at room temperature in their kitchen. Anyway, I'm anxiously waiting to see whether this can be duplicated. -- ,-------M-i-c-h-a-e-l---F-r-a-n-k------------------------------------------. | AI Stanford Microsoft philosophy Alas,Babylon Chattanooga,TN | | Amiga swimming Star Trek Pink Floyd nanotechnology Gainesville,FL | `-----------b-u-g-b-o-y-@-p-o-r-t-i-a-.-s-t-a-n-f-o-r-d-.-e-d-u------------'
sarrett@harlie.ics.uci.edu (Wendy Sarrett) (03/24/89)
To follow up - I heard them interviewed on McNeil/Learer tonight and they stated that the results will be published in May. Wendy Sarrett (sarrett@ics.uci.edu) Department of Information and Computer Science University of California, Irvine
nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) (03/24/89)
In article <1098@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) writes: > I'm wathing an interview with the discoverers right now on MacNeil-Lehrer. > You know, it just sounds too good to be true. Maybe these guys are pulling > an elaborate April Fools' joke. Either that, or it's going to be > bigger than the high-temperature superconductors. Guaranteed Nobel prizes. Yes sounds very much like an April Fools' joke. Especially since there's an international connection. But darn it, if it is, it's not fair since April Fools' jokes should be confined to the first of April on pain of death! However, I am reminded of when I first read in the New Scientist of the plutonium release from Windscale decades ago, complete with diagrams of leukemia rates and so on. It was so dramatic and being in their April 1 issue, I didn't believe it. It was only several years later that I realised it was a true report based on fact. Or was it... neil
koontz@oregon (03/24/89)
In article <1098@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) writes: > I'm wathing an interview with the discoverers right now on MacNeil-Lehrer. > But anyway, these guys say they've had bottles producing heat > continuously for hundreds of hours in experiments over the last year, and > that their experiments could essentially be duplicated using the resources > of a high school chemistry classroom. Yes, but can someone comeup with a nuetron reflector which can be engaged in microseconds?
tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) (03/25/89)
In article <290@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Glenn Chapman) writes: > > A very astounding breakthrough just may have been made in nuclear > fusion. According to both the Financial Times (Mar 23, pg. 1, 26, and 22) -----Stuff deleted---- > The process they are using consists of the following. Consider an > electrochemical cell (like a battery) with a platinum electrode, a heated > palladium electrode in a bath of heavy water (deuterium oxide). Flow current I read somewhere not very authoritative (I can't remember, but I don't read autoritative magazines much) that "cold," or muon-catalyzed, fusion would be expected to occur at about 900 C or so. I can hardly wait for real news on how this "Pd-Pt catalyzed" fusion can be sustained with essentially no rise in temperature. Any speculations available? My trusty dictionary indicates Palladium is used as a catalyst in hydrogenation processes, so there is some justification for why it might be useful in a process involving Deuterium. However, this reaction is not all that interesting to me since it produces nasty fast neutrons. I know there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with no gamma rays or neutrons; I seem to recall these involve carbon as one of the "reactants." Anyone know what these particular fusion reactions are, or have a reference I could look this up in? Perhaps this fusion-catalyzing process will turn out to be more general once it's understood. (I like to leap before I look.) I'd even accept a process which had to occcur at 100 C, if it was clean in a non-gamma ray, non-neutron producing sort of way. If I had any choice in the matter. =============== -- Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/25/89)
In article <4380@mtuxo.att.com> tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes: >...there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with >no gamma rays or neutrons; I seem to recall these involve carbon as one >of the "reactants." Anyone know what these particular fusion reactions >are, or have a reference I could look this up in? ... The major ones are deuterium plus helium-3 yielding helium-4 plus proton (unfortunately there is also some tendency for the deuterium to react with itself, so neutron emission isn't zero; also, helium-3 is rare and extremely expensive) and boron-11 plus proton yielding helium-4 (works fine but rather harder to ignite). -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/25/89)
In article <1989Mar25.041342.25786@utzoo.uucp> I wrote: >>...there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with >>no gamma rays or neutrons... > >The major ones are deuterium plus helium-3 yielding helium-4 plus proton... >... and boron-11 plus proton yielding helium-4 ... Oops, I should amend that: those are the major reactions that don't yield neutrons. If you're after a reaction that doesn't yield gamma rays, you may be looking for a long time. Almost any nuclear process yields gamma rays to some extent. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (03/27/89)
In article <1989Mar25.041342.25786@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <4380@mtuxo.att.com> tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes: >>...there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with >>no gamma rays or neutrons; I seem to recall these involve carbon as one >>of the "reactants." > .. . . . boron-11 plus proton yielding helium-4 (works >fine but rather harder to ignite). The protium-boron (isotope 11 -- the common one) is the reaction that forms a carbon (isotope 12) which then immediately fissions to three helium isotope-four atoms and 8.7 MeV of energy, if I recall. This fission, incidentally, does not come under the proscription 'What G-- has joined, let no man put asunder'. >Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu WHAT? - Russians will use PLASMAK(tm) p-B11 propulsion engines, first? In the relatively near future, the Room Temperature Fusion fusion technology, should be able to provide the "fusion battery" to cold start more powerful forms of thermonuclear fusion such as PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic devices. +-------------------------------------------------------************ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 ** FUSION ** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 *** this *** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ** decade ** +-------------------------------------------------------************ Made it!!! -- with months to spare. --------
keithm@wicat.UUCP (Keith McQueen) (03/28/89)
Just a thought... What are the implications of this for terrorist activities? Will this make cheap available nuclear weapons possible? Shudder! I hope not! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | Keith McQueen, N7HMF Organization: Wicat Systems, Inc. | | 1116 Graff Circle Work (801)224-6605x422 | | Orem, Utah 84058 Packet: N7HMF @ NV7V | | Home (801)224-9460 Voice: 147.340 MHz or 449.675 MHz | | =====> My opinions are all mine... <===== | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
jkl@csli.STANFORD.EDU (John Kallen) (03/28/89)
I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction? Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here? [I've forgotten all my nuclear physics :-) ] _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |\ | | /|\ | John Kallen | |\ \|/ \| * |/ | |/| | | PoBox 11215 "Life. Don't talk to me | |\ /|\ |\ * |\ | | | | Stanford CA 94309 about life." _|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|_jkl@csli.stanford.edu___________________________
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/28/89)
In article <8299@csli.STANFORD.EDU> jkl@csli.stanford.edu (John Kallen) writes: >I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I >am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction? >Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does >the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here? Uncharged particles in general are much more penetrating, because they interact more weakly with matter. This has several implications, including the need for massive shielding for personnel and electronics. For really high-power applications like fusion rocketry, everything near the engine gets hot, instead of just the engine, due to neutron heating. Neutrons also tend to make the shielding (etc.) radioactive, which adds a nasty waste-disposal problem. Finally, protons can be controlled and bullied around with magnetic fields, which neutrons ignore. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (03/28/89)
In article <8299@csli.STANFORD.EDU> jkl@csli.stanford.edu (John Kallen) writes: >I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I >am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction? >Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does >the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here? >[I've forgotten all my nuclear physics :-) ] The neutrons aren't necessarily bad for the reaction, but they aren't good for your health. Protons would also be bad if they got into you, but being charged, they will lose energy rapidly upon passing through any matter and are therefore easily stopped, whereas neutrons, having no charge, only lose energy slowly (generally by crashing into a nucleus, which is not necessary for stopping protons) and therefore require considerably more shielding to stop, and make the shielding radioactive besides. Yes, Coulomb repulsion of a proton by a nucleus does play a role -- the higher the atomic number of the nucleus, the faster the proton has to be moving to react with it instead of being deflected by it. This means that protons moving at the minimal speeds needed for fusion of light elements (up to boron) will not be able to make shielding radioactive, provided that the shielding is made of something at least as heavy as carbon (preferably a little heavier than that, just to provide a little safety margin). On the other hand, even very slow neutrons can react with nuclei and thus have the potential to make things radioactive. Thermal neutrons (that is, neutrons moving at speeds expected for room temperature) have been successfully used as a mutagen (source of information: _Genetic Mutations of Drosophila melanogaster_) (although this may be partly due to the fact that the neutrons themselves are radioactive). -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | ARPA: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu BITNET: chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR) ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) (03/30/89)
In article <392@wicat.UUCP> keithm@wicat.UUCP (Keith McQueen) writes: >Just a thought... > >What are the implications of this for terrorist activities? >Will this make cheap available nuclear weapons possible? > > >Shudder! I hope not! > I don't think so. There are reasons terrorists have never stooped to mass destruction, even beyond the technical difficulties. There are dams that if destroyed at the proper moment would kill on the order of hundreds of thousands of people. Why hasn't that happened? Terrorism is political. It thrives on publicity and the natural sympathy most people have for the underdog. Using simple, home-made weapons to embarass major powers is perfect. Underdog-lovers send money, and certain nations protect them. Destroy a city and there's nowhere to hide. What's the point? This doesn't rule out the insane, of course. -- Don Varvel ({tektronix,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!varvel)