Massive Articles / Environment
Cold Fusion Information
Here are some details from the University of Utah press conference yesterday. Fleishmann said the team had attained sustained fusion for hundreds of hours, producing heat at the rate of greater than 20 watts/cu-cm of electrode. He said the heat once melted the palladium electrode (M.P.1554 C) He did not state how much electric...
Bookmark this Article
Fleishmann said the team had attained sustained fusion for hundreds of hours,
producing heat at the rate of greater than 20 watts/cu-cm of electrode. He said
the heat once melted the palladium electrode (M.P.1554 C) He did not state how
much electric current was being applied at the time. He also held up a device
that he said could produce 800 watts of heat. He said that he had achieved
breakeven, by running one cell for a long period of time at very low yields. The
scientists said they had detected neutrons from the reaction, and gamma rays
they said were generated from neutrons colliding with water molecules. They said
they did not measure the energy spectrum of the neutrons or the gamma rays, but
when asked whether the neutrons were 2.4 mev neutrons (as you would expect from
a D-D fusion reaction) Pons said they are at least that powerful. Fleishmann
also said that the neutrons and fusion products (He, tritium) were nine orders
of magnitude less than they would expect (from the heat output perhaps? He
didn't specify) from "conventional" fusion reactions. Some aspect of the
experiment is supposed to be published in the Journal of Electroanalytic
Chemistry in May. They said they also planned to send a paper to Nature, but
have not yet done so.
If you can interpret these "findings," I would appreciate hearing from you. I am
science correspondent for National Public Radio. The information in this
message comes directly from the press conference, which I have taped.
Richard Harris
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Cold
Fusion: 3/27 WSJ Update Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
Posted: Mon Mar 27 13:14:09 1989
The 3/27 issue of the Wall Street Journal has an article titled "Scientist
Sticks to Claimed Test-Tube Fusion Advance". Included:
(1) Pons told WSJ that a palladium wire 1/4 inch in diameter and an inch long
reached the boiling point of water in a few minutes, and produced 26 watts/cc,
"about 4 1/2 times what we put into it".
(2) Pons said that in an early stage of the experiments the apparatus suddenly
heated up to an estimated 5000 degrees (F, probably), destroying a laboratory
hood and burning a four-inch-deep hole in the concrete floor (!).
(3) Pons says "there is no reason the reaction [in the palladium] has to be the
same as that seen in physicists' big high- temperature fusion machines", and
"heat may also be coming from other reactions". Perhaps he is suggesting H+D
fusion?
(4) Pons said they had no doubt that deuterium fusion was occuring. DD fusion
produces a 2.5 MeV neutron. He said they had detected a specific energy of
gamma ray produced when these neutrons entered the [normal] water bath
surrounding the apparatus. (If these are capture gamma rays from the neutrons
on protons, they could be confused with gammas from H+D.)
(5) Edward Teller is quoted as saying "This morning my opinion was that it could
never happen. And I am extremely happy now because I see a very good chance
that I was completely wrong."
Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.) Newsgroups:
sci.physics,sci.research Subject: cold fusion article from BYU group (repost)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ Posted: Tue Mar 28 22:24:43 1989
[ This to some might be a repost. My normal machine phoenix is up and down so I
tried posting some details from prep.ai.mit.edu. As it hasn't got to phoenix
yet, I am reposting ]
I just received a preprint of the Jones and Palmer publication. It is called
'Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter', S.E. Jones, E.P.
Palmer, et al (Depts Physics and Chemistry, BYU), J. Rafelski (Dept Physics, U.
Arizona), dated March 23, 1989.
It is 16 pages long and gives a lot of details about their setup.
This is a *real* paper and not a press release -- it shows data and probably
gives enough info to be duplicated it in the lab.
(If I have time tonight or tommorow & it is ethical, I will scan it, put it in
MacPaint or GIF format, and make it available for anonymous ftp, unless someone
from Utah or Arizona already has a machine-readable format.)
Here are some highlights:
'We have observed deuterium-deuterium fusion at room temperature during
low-voltage electrolytic infusion of deuterons into mettalic titanium or
palladium electrodes. The fusion reaction d + d -> helium-3(0.82 MeV) + n
(2.45 MeV) is evidently catalyzed as d+ and metal ions from the electrolyte are
deposited at (and into) the negative electrode. Neutrons having approx 2.5 MeV
energy are clearly detected with a neutron spec. The experimental layout is
portrayed in Figure 1.'
Only the neutron branch was measured -- the T + p is assumed to have the same
cross-section.
Estimated reaction rate for cold fusion is about 1e-23 fusions/ deutron
pair/second.
This may explain high levels of Tritium in volcanos.
They are trying other setups.
The paper is *very* cautious about applications of this for power generation.
Last sentence in paper: '... while the fusion reaction rates observed so far are
small, the discovery of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter opens the
possibility of at least of a new path to fusion energy.'
Here are some of my own personal observations+guesses.
Cold fusion can happen. The reaction rate of Jones & Palmer is too small right
now to be of use. It is far lower than the tokamak was two decades ago.
However, the technology is not exotic. In 20yrs or less we know whether or not
this technology will work. This is about the same time as tokamaks, if not
shorter.
The Fleschman and Pons experiment seems to be producing the same effects.
However, there is an interesting question left for dreamers. The Jones & Palmer
group base their reaction rate on neutron count. However, if the Helium-3 +
neutron branch is being suppressed by spin alignment, say, then the Jones and
Palmer group will have underestimated the fusion reaction rate! To find the
total reaction rate, one must also measure the fusion reaction rate of the
Helium-4 + gamma branch. [supposedly the F&P experiment observed equal numbers
of Tritium and neutrons, i.e. the T + p and He-3 + n have equal cross-section].
One could use calorimeters or measure gammas to find the total reaction rate. It
is just possible that the Fleschman and Pons group did that and saw a huge
discepency between the reaction rates.
It is also possible that Fleschman and Pons are producing an electrochemical
effect (read battery) and this is upsetting the calorimeter measurements.
Wait till the papers come out,
Scott
P.S. Be careful you have adequate amounts of neutron shielding if you try
this. As was said before, safe doses of neutrons are on the order of
nanowatts for 2.5 MeV energies.
From: donn@wasatch.UUCP (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: tidbits
from the Salt Lake Tribune coverage of the fusion story Organization: University
of Utah CS Dept Posted: Wed Mar 29 04:06:44 1989
I've naturally been curious about this story as it has developed; one of the
aspects that puzzled me was the timing of the announcement. One reason for the
timing is that there apparently were some leaks prior to last week. The 3/25
edition of the Tribune quotes Pamela Fogle, director of news services for the
University of Utah:
'We thought long and hard about the news conference,' she said. The story
was starting to leak out of the university and many of the leaks had
inaccuracies, she said, so U. officials decided it couldn't wait.
At the same time I have to wonder about the reported competing research at
Brigham Young University, and whether Pons and Fleischmann wanted to claim
credit first. Another story in the same edition states:
Brigham Young University officials confirmed Friday that BYU physicist Steven
Jones had also submitted a manuscript on 'cold fusion' research to Nature.
Unlike the U. researchers, Dr Jones has declined to discuss details until it
has been published.
BYU spokesman Paul Richards said he understood both manuscripts were
submitted with the hope they would appear side by side in Nature...
Mr Richards stressed that BYU's research has been carried out independently
of the U. project, and Dr Jones has been working on cold fusion for several
years. ...
Dr Jones is also scheduled to present his paper in May at an American
Chemical Society meeting in Baltimore.
Most of his fusion work has used [muons] to catalyze the fusion reaction,
but an abstract on the Baltimore talk indicates he will also speak on research
very similar to the U. experiment, in which fusionable material was imbedded in
palladium metal.
'We have also accumulated considerable evidence for a new form of cold
nuclear fusion which occurs when hydrogen isotopes are loaded into crystalline
solids without muons,' the abstract said.
Mr Richards said he does not believe BYU has applied for any patents on their
research, as the U. has, 'but I know we're planning to.'
He couldn't say if those plans would be affected by the U.'s application.
'We don't know because we haven't seen what they are doing.'
'If they have some kind of a comprehensive patent, that could cause some
problems for us,' he added. 'We have documented notes going back to '85 and
'86, and we hope that would have some bearing.'
The patent issue is interesting too. Here are some details on the University of
Utah's patent process from another article:
James Brophy, U. vice president for research, told regents the patent rights
for the research belong to the university.
If the patent holds up, Dr Brophy said the two researchers will get a third
of any royalties, the U. chemistry department will get a third because that's
the academic department Dr Pons is affiliated with [he's the chair -- DMS], and
the remaining third will go to the university itself.
The Tuesday (3/28) edition contains some more tantalizing hints that others have
successfully duplicated Dr Pons's experimental results:
Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratories may have already confirmed
the results of the University of Utah's nuclear-fusion studies, according to
the U. professor who made the studies.
Stanley Pons said he heard Monday that the New Mexico laboratory had
repeated his experiments with success. 'I'm very positive about that
possibility,' he said, adding that he was still encouraging other scientists
to wait until his paper is published in May.
Los Alamos officials would not confirm the report Monday afternoon. 'Nothing
yet,' said Jeff Schwartz, public affairs officer. ...
Dr Pons couldn't say whether Los Alamos scientists had directly measured
neutrons, but he suspected they had.
Here we have to trust Dr Pons for the veracity of the report. If true, then
both BYU and LANL may have duplicated the experiment, but frustratingly, neither
BYU nor LANL have yet said as much to the press.
The same interview gives some more clues about the process:
One problem in scaling up [to larger reactors] would be getting the
fusionable material into the metal rods, he said. 'It takes a long time to
charge the big rods up,' he said, estimating that a one-inch diameter rod
could take up to a year and a half. That might be reduced by casting the rods
in a deuterium environment, he added. ...
He said a neutron emitted in the fusion process undergoes a secondary
reaction which emits a gamma ray, which they have measured. 'The gamma ray is
of the predicted energy.'
While the experiment has been portrayed in such elegantly simple terms, Dr
Pons said there is really far more going on that they haven't researched
fully. Those complications include the role of lithium in the fusion
reaction. Lithium is added to the heavy water solution to help electricity
flow in the electrode.
'We have maintained that the deuterium-deuterium reaction is not the main
heat producer... There are other components in the system... Lithium is a
fine candidate right now as far as I'm concerned.'
It's amusing that Dr Pons is so devoted to the University of Utah in spite of
the state's shaky commitment to higher education. He lives here for much the
same reasons that I live here:
... The North Carolina native said he came to the university five years ago
because 'it's just one of the best departments in the country.'
A skier and hiker, Dr Pons said he is 'very happy' in Salt Lake City. 'I
love the mountains and I love the life here. I'm very impressed with the whole
city.'
A political flap has arisen as a result of the fusion announcement. Legislators
are battling over whether to increase university funding to support further
fusion research. The governor has proposed a $5 million grant, but predictably
there has been conservative opposition -- the contrary view is that work with
commercial potential should be done by commercial enterprises, not by the state.
Tuesday's political cartoon by Bagley shows Joe Utah in his easy chair holding
the sports page in front of him, with the TV in the foreground babbling about
the fusion story; he comments to his wife: 'Just a couple more of those deadbeat
U of U professors who probably think they're too good to teach a couple of
classes...'
Stanley Pons was trying to teach a class yesterday, but the camera crews were
proving to be an inconvenience,
Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@cs.utah.edu 40 46' 6"N 111 50'
34"W (801) 581-5668 utah-cs!donn
Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Reply-To:
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept,
Rochester, NY Posted: Wed Mar 29 08:18:15 1989
Some more comments on fusion...
(1) The number of 1e-23/sec/dd pair is interesting. That means (no surprise)
that tunneling is occuring with a very large separation. In muonic fusion, the
tunneling occurs more than thirty orders of magnitude faster.
Now, in my meager understanding of nuclear physics, the rate of a nuclear
reaction involving tunneling through a barrier has a multiplicative term of the
form exp{-G}, G the "Gamow factor". G is proportional to sqrt(m), m the mass of
the tunneling particle. So, you'd expect this term to be exp{.3 G} larger for a
proton instead of a deuteron. Since G is already very large, protons could
conceivably tunnel much faster than deuterons.
G is also proportional to the product of the charges of the nuclei, so I'd
expect p+d->He3+gamma to be a lot faster than reactions involving lithium.
(2) Problems with the time needed to charge the palladium with deuterium can be
solved by plating thin layers of palladium onto another metal. You'd want a
metal that is impermeable to hydrogen (is copper?), or at least a barrier layer
that is impermeable (gold?).
Thin layers have other advantages. One could run more current through a given
mass of palladium without increasing ohmic losses, since the current flows
mostly into the supporting metal. Also, a thin layer can have power density
inversely proportional to its thickness, since it has lower thermal resistance.
This would only be important if the fusion power is limited by the rate at which
heat can be removed rather than by the fusion rate itself.
Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: cold fusion
seminar Organization: New Mexico State U, LC NM Posted: Thu Mar 30 17:20:33 1989
(kinda long) I will be attending Dr. Pons' seminar in slc on friday, trying to
get as much information as possible (consistent with the experimenter's
confidentiality requirements vis a vis patent rights). Today I will be trying
to gather as much background as possible from people trying to replicate the
experiments here in the local area as well as on the net.
If you have specific questions you need answered, or if you have (even
preliminary) results from replications attempts, please send me email at
ted@nmsu.edu. I (and probably others) will be posting a summary on this group
after the seminar.
The current points that I will be looking for will be:
a) where are the neutrons. D-D fusion should produce prodigous quantities of
neutrons, but the rumors are that the experiments have not so far produced the
predicted quantities.
b) was there sufficient control on the tritium and helium detections.
c) does the system support deuterium breeding? can tritiated water be used in
addition to deuterated water?
d) were the measurements of power input done carefully enough to avoid
confounding?
e) does the reported delay in onset of fusion (10 hours according to one report)
imply that control of the reaction will be difficult? will different geometries
of palladium influence this delay time? will they also prevent the reaction?
could this be the problem with replication?
f) are there limitations on scalability other than boiling water and melting
electrodes?
g) if the fusion happening is D-D -> T+p rather than -> He + n, does this have
applications with respect to direct generation of electricity?
(here's hoping it's for real!!)
ted@nmsu.edu
btw -- can anyone suggest a CHEAP place to stay in slc?
From: kb@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Ken Burgess) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: fusion
power magnitude Organization: HP Ft. Collins, Co. Posted: Wed Mar 29 02:48:57
1989
Consider the fuel cost for a 4GW power plant: ((4000 mega watt / 1 mega ev)*(20
gram/mole)) / (200 gram/liter) = 3.94 gal/hr at $250 / liter ... (3.94 gal/hour
* 250 $/liter) / 4000 mega watt = 0.1 cent/kwh
How about auto fuel economy: Assume it takes 20 hp to go 60 mph 60 mph / (((20
hp / 1 mega ev) * 20 gram/mole) / (200 gram/liter)) = 4,081,657 miles/gal
*** your mileage may vary ***
Even at 10% efficiency thats 400,000 miles on $1000 of fuel, or (250 $/liter) /
(408165 miles/gal) = 0.0023 $/mile about 0.2 cent/mile vs 3.0 cents/mile for
gasoline for an efficient car!
Clearly the cost of this energy will be based primarily on capitalization.
Ken burgess%hpfcla@hplabs.HP.COM
From: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re:
fusion power magnitude Organization: Biar Games, Inc. Posted: Fri Mar 31
00:19:03 1989
In article <1234@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>Cars could be built with a permanent fuel supply -- given that the rest >of the
thing could be scaled to fit.
They wouldn't need _any_ fuel supply, per se. Rather, some of the energy would
be diverted to 1) condensing water from the air and 2) seperating D20 from
regular H20. An absurd notion, to be sure.
Of course, you might want to pack an emergency liter of D20 if you were going to
spend a couple of months in a desert or something.... ;^)
-- * Robert J Woodhead * The true meaning of life is cunningly encrypted and *
* uunet!biar!trebor * hidden somewhere in this signature... * *
Biar Games, Inc. * ...no, go back and look again *
Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: deuterated palladium: supercondcutor!
Organization: Princeton University, NJ Posted: Wed Mar 29 09:07:23 1989
It may interest some to know that the system Pd D (1-x) has been studied as a
superconductor with Tc about 8-9 K at best. Pd is a 5d band metal, and upon
adding deuterium, remains a metal but has its density of states at the fermi
energy reduced drastically. Pd has one of the highest M*'s of any element
(meaning large susceptibility, electronic heat capacity, and screening [at low
q: long length scales, not so useful for you cold fusion fans.] m* is almost 10)
At around 50-80 K or so the deuterated system undergoes a structural phase
transition, separating into two phases, one slightly richer in D and one slghtly
poorer in D. D even manages to order into square planes. One should conclude
that the energy for two D's to occupy the SAME interstitial in the Pd FCC
lattice is much larger. Superconducting properties of Pd-D seem to be well
described by strong-coupling BCS phonon mechanism. Would have been nice (square
planes, d8 orbitals...) if it were a cousin of high Tc!
From: andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re:
deuterated palladium: superconductor! Summary: no problem with cool
superconductors! + adsorption density guess Organization: National
Semiconductor, Santa Clara Posted: Wed Mar 29 15:39:27 1989
In article <7693@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, 6095863@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Theodore
Cheng-tao Hsu) writes: > Would have been nice [superconducting Pd - D] > (square
planes, d8 orbitals...) if it were a cousin of high Tc!
Don't worry, Theodore - with all this cheap energy, you can afford that
refrigerator now!
Related to D-adsorption, it's possible to calculate the packing density of the D
atoms in the lattice, given the figures "released" in the last few hours (1E-23
fusions/D-pair/sec and 25 watts/cc, with 2.5 MeV n's). The fusion rate predicts
4E-36 watts/D-pair, and the power output then predicts 6E36 D-pairs/cc. If Pd is
20gm/cc dense, (and has 106.4 At W), this gives 5E21 Pd atoms/cc. There is thus
a 1E15:1 population (compression) ratio here! - did I screw up? ==== Andrew
Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor
M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ;
408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Cold
Fusion -- a Chain Reaction? Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
Posted: Wed Mar 29 17:57:56 1989
Thinking a bit more about cold fusion, I was perplexed by something. There
clearly has to be tunneling going on. That means something has to force the
nuclei close to one another so the tunneling rate is nontrivial. This likely
takes energy. Where does the energy come from?
It occured to me that it might come from other fusion reactions. When a fusion
reaction occurs, it spits out one or more energetic nuclei. These nuclei scatter
off other light nuclei, which are displaced to new locations in the Pd lattice
-- perhaps to locations of higher energy, where they are close to other nuclei
with which they may now fuse.
One may ask how the chain reaction gets started. One possibility is alpha
particle emitters that are no doubt present as trace contaminants in the Pd.
This model offers a new explanation for the long induction time needed for
fusion to start -- the Pd rod must "go critical". It also suggests that the Pd
layer cannot be made much thinner than the mean free path of a fusion product
and still sustain fusion.
Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. John S Mccauley) Newsgroups:
sci.physics,sci.research Subject: Jones et. al. Preprint now avail by ftp
Keywords: cold fusion paper in PICT format for Macs Organization: Princeton
University, NJ Posted: Thu Mar 30 02:36:41 1989
I finally was able to digitize the preprint I have from Jones and Palmer. It is
called 'Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter', S.E. Jones,
E.P. Palmer, et al (Depts Physics and Chemistry, BYU), J. Rafelski (Dept
Physics, U. Arizona), dated March 23, 1989.
It is in PICT format for the Mac with 100dpi (low quality fax) resolution. I
could not figure out how to create GIF files and the MacPaint format didn't work
to well. I gave up on trying to keep it in a general format so it is pretty
mac-specific: the paper is in a bin-hexed, Stuffit archive.
YOU MUST HAVE A PROGRAM CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING PICT FORMAT! These include
MacDraw II, MacDraft, and Superpaint.
I have put in on-line for anonymous ftp on two machines: prep.ai.mit.edu
(128.52.32.14) in directory ~ftp/pub/fusion princeton.edu (128.112.0.1) in
directory ~ftp/pub/fusion
The bin-hexed, stuffit archive (jp.sit.hqx) is about 450K long and consists of
16 pages. (I am missing the last two graphs.) You probably need to manipulate it
on a mac for about 1 hr or so before you can print everything out. The README
file follows.
Have fun!
Scott
P.S. My thanks to Jim Liu and Marty Ryba for helping with this project. P.P.S. I
will try to email copies upon request. If things get too crowded I may not be
able to. MAKE SURE YOU CAN READ PICT IMAGES FIRST!
-------- README FILE --------
The following files are in this directory:
README -- this file jp.sit.hqx -- Binhexed stuffit archive of paper (ascii)
Contains 16 PICT image files of preprint. Ultrix sum command output on
this file is 17353 433 jp.sit.hqx.Z -- compressed version of the above. Make
sure you turn binary mode on with this file. stuffit.hqx -- bin-hexed
version 1.51 of Stuff-it from him1.cc.umich.edu stuffit.note -- some notes on
stuff-it.
You need:
Binhex 4.0 or higher Stuffit (shareware: a bin-hexed copy is on-line) Something
that can deal with PICT files. Programs I know of that work include
a) MacDraw II (MacDraw I doesn't seem to work) b) MacDraft c) SuperPaint
Many other graphics programs/conversion utilities probably exist.
The pictures are stored in PICT format with a resolution of about 100 dpi (low
quality fax?). There is one picture per page. Each PICT file ranges in size from
about 13-32K.
Steps:
1) Make sure you have the required programs. 2) Run BinHex on jp.sit.hqx to
produce j&p.sit. It should be 323,202 bytes long. 3) Run Stuff-it to extract
the 16 PICT format pictures. 4) Open the files with MacDraw
II/MacDraft/Superpaint/etc. You may want to reduce the image size using
printer-setup to be 80%. 5) It takes about 2 min or so to print out the files
each on a laser-writer: they are bitmaps.
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject:
Solid state fusion Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN Posted: Wed Mar
29 18:39:08 1989
If, as has been speculated, the electolysis of the heavy water is merely a
transport mechanism for getting deutrium into the palladium block -- couldn't
the whole process also be achieved by placing the palladium block in a
pressurized container of deutrium gas -- and forgo the electrical equipment all
together?
Or for that matter, the pressure container could simply be made out of
palladium. In either case one would have to modulate the fusion reaction rate
by modulating the deutrium gas pressure -- taking into account the reaction
response latency.
Any thoughts on such a system?
-- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- - ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / logajan@ns.network.com / john@logajan.mn.org
-
From: michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re:
Solid state fusion Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA Posted:
Fri Mar 31 00:26:09 1989
In article <1233@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>If, as has been speculated, the electolysis of the heavy water is merely a
>transport mechanism for getting deutrium into the palladium block -- couldn't
>the whole process also be achieved by placing the palladium block in a
>pressurized container of deutrium gas -- and forgo the electrical equipment
>all together? [...]
Electrolysis has the advantage of actively pumping the deuterium into the
palladium. Think of it as a little electric (electrostatic) motor on each
deuterium atom. I suspect doing this indirectly (by pumping the gas
mechanically) would be less efficient.
On the other hand, electrolysis requires the electrode to be under the boiling
point of (perhaps pressurized) heavy water. Even if the above suspicion is
correct, a hotter hot-end means a more efficient heat engine, and this could pay
for a lot of pumping.
From: prs@oliveb.OLIVETTI.COM (Philip Stephens) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject:
gas vs liquid, Re: Solid state fusion Sender: news@oliveb.olivetti.com Posted:
Fri Mar 31 03:13:21 1989
From article <f6H1K#=michael@xanadu.COM>, by michael@xanadu.COM (Michael
McClary): > On the other hand, electrolysis requires the electrode to be under
the > boiling point of (perhaps pressurized) heavy water. Even if the above >
suspicion is correct, a hotter hot-end means a more efficient heat engine, > and
this could pay for a lot of pumping.
For reference, boiling points for (regular) water at various pressures, in
atmospheres (I assume D2O is fairly similar):
atm C F delta (relative to hypothetical 100 F condensor) 1 100 212 112 2
120 248 148 5 152 305 105 10 180 356 156 20 213 415 315 40 251 483 383 80
296 564 464 160 348 658 558 218 374 705 605
(that's the limit of table in my reference; how much pressure is likely to be
worth bothering with? I'm not up on high-pressure containment etc. myself).
Sounds like a lot of pressure, but may be worth it for 2, 4, or 6 times the 1
atm delta. (Or more, I suppose. 1000 atm???).
'Take what you can use, leave the rest'. ---Phil (prs@oliven)
From: vanwinj@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Jim VanWinkle) Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Organization: Oregon State University - CS - Corvallis
Oregon Posted: Thu Mar 30 17:52:24 1989
There may be some problems for those of you who have been seeing htis cold
fusion breakthrough as a means of generating electricity and putting all of the
utilities out of business. Well...
1) Palladium is a great Hydrogen getter at room temperature, but the solubility
of hydrogen in the lattice drops drastically at temperature. This will force
you to run the experiment at around 20-30 C.
2) The first reports gave the power output at 3 watts in 10 hours. Even though
this is net power (a gain), it is thermal energy. To get electricity, you'll
have to construct a heat engine, and the efficiency of a heta engine with the
hot resovior at 30 C is dismal.
3) Palladium has a nasty habit of neutron activation. This means you get very
"hot" reactor components, and this is real bad. Titanium may work like
palladium, and it doesn't have that problem.
The process is not completely useless, ovbviously. It just seems that it wont
be used in power generation. It still makes a nifty neutron source for
radiography, etc.
Jim "Master of Neutrons" VanWinkle OSU Department of Nuclear Engineering I'm not
an actor, but I play one on TV
gge.(t
From: dan@salt.uucp (Dan Williams) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Summary: Reliable news Keywords: NASA head James
Fletcher, fusionRe: Cold Fusion Organization: MDCCIS, Englewood, CO Posted: Thu
Mar 30 18:23:18 1989
Just saw an Associated Press story claiming that James Fletcher will be
returning to the University of Utah to Head the states efforts to cash in on the
cold fusion breakthrough. How about that for a cold fusion space Tie in?
The Governor of Utah is trying to break loose $5 million for this program.
Sounds a little light to me but they sure are acting fast. Also it looks like
someone at the March 23 news conference stole all the diagrams illustrating the
process. Look for news organizations with exclusive diagrams.
_______________________________________________________ | Fusion is a
reality. Just ask the Governor of Utah | | Dan Williams uunet!salt!dan
| | MCDONNELL DOUGLAS Denver CO | | Any opinions expressed by me are
not the | | opinions of McDonnell Douglas. |
From: andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Cold
Fusion - problems Summary: titanium Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa
Clara Posted: Thu Mar 30 21:11:02 1989
In article <9685@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, vanwinj@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Jim VanWinkle)
writes: > There may be some problems for those of you who have been > seeing
htis cold fusion breakthrough as a means of generating > electricity and putting
all of the utilities out of business. > Well... > [...] > 3) Palladium has a
nasty habit of neutron activation. This means you > get very "hot" reactor
components, and this is real bad. Titanium > may work like palladium, and it
doesn't have that problem.
Thanks for the well-written and highly informative posting, Jim.
You beg the question about titanium - how does its adsorption change with
temperature?
Assuming the temperature limitations you cite are not correctible by higher
pressure deuterium gas, casting the Pd with deuterium, or other wily tricks I've
read here, perhaps it would still be possible to get a heat engine to work,
using a refrigerated sink. Perhaps this could be created by a bootstrap, whereby
continuous refrigeration was powered by the heat engine itself? - I don't think
I'm violating thermodynamical Law here.
Someone else asked if Ti is traded as a commodity - no, it's not. I'd like to
know its price/oz though - Pd went up again today, and a new (extended) daily
price increase limit was implemented. Maybe the auto industry is getting worried
that its catalytic conversion switchover plans from Pt to Pd may be stymied by
1) demand exceeding supply this year by 300Ktons (10% of total supply) 2)
worldwide R&D grabbing what little is left. That would make for an interesting
market.
Lastly: I read (I think in the original Pons data maybe) that nickel (also a
platinum group metal) had been tried. Now that IS cheap! Any data, anybody?
===== Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National
Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA
95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and
lip
From: webb@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Jon Webb) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re:
Fusion in Titanium Summary: Hydrogen in metals; sell your palladium futures
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Posted: Thu Mar 30 17:54:44 1989
Hydrogen is absorbed by many metals. According to "Hydrogen in Metals" by
Donald Smith, there are several metals that absorb more hydrogen than palladium:
for example, cerium, thorium, titanium, vanadium, uranium, praseodymium, and
neodymium. (I don't know why palladium is used for hydrogen purification rather
than, say, titanium; maybe palladium absorbs hydrogen more rapidly, while the
total capacity of titanium is higher.) In particular, the capacity of palladium
to absorb hydrogen falls off pretty rapidly with temperature, and not so rapidly
for some of the other metals -- which might be important if the fusion reaction
is to be driven at a higher temperature for greater thermal efficiency, possibly
using electrolysis of some deuterium compound other than heavy water (because of
lower vapor pressure so you could still do fusion at room air pressure).
If you bought palladium futures, now might be a good time to sell them. If you
missed buying them Monday, you might consider selling short now. Given the
number of different metals that absorb hydrogen, it's unlikely that any
particular expensive metal will turn out to be a limiting factor in hydrogen
fusion.
All this is assuming, of course, that it's the absorption of hydrogen by
palladium that is the important factor in cold fusion and not some other factor
(this is strongly implied by the Jones et al. paper).
Here's some wild speculation: the reason why the palladium rod melted is that as
its temperature increased, its absorption of deuterium decreased, leading to an
increased pressure on the deuterium to react, leading to more heat, etc. A
runaway fusion reaction! (Sort of).
-- J --
From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject:
Titanium Keywords: titanium cold fusion Organization: Carnegie-Mellon
University, CS/RI Posted: Thu Mar 30 18:04:01 1989
TITLE titanium ARTICLE {ty-tay'-nee-uhm} Titanium is a silvery gray metal
resembling polished steel. A transition element, its symbol is Ti, its
atomic number 22, and its atomic weight 47.90. Titanium was first
discovered as its oxygen compound in 1791 by William Gregor and named
in 1795 by Martin H. Klaproth after the Titans, the giants of Greek
mythology. Nevertheless, the pure metal was not obtained until 1910
and remained a laboratory curiosity until an economical purification
process was discovered in 1946. Bibliography: Abkowitz, Stanley, et
al., Titanium in Industry (1955); Barksdale, Jelks, Titanium, 2d ed.
(1966); Clark, Robin, et al., The Chemistry of Titanium, Zirconium and
Hafnium (1975).
TITLE titanium --Occurrence. ARTICLE Titanium is the ninth most abundant
element, comprising about 0.63% of the Earth's crust. Analyses of rock
samples from the Moon indicate titanium is far more abundant there;
some rocks consisted of 12% titanium by weight. The most important
titanium minerals are anatase, brookite, and rutile, all forms of
titanium dioxide.
TITLE titanium --Uses. ARTICLE Because titanium is as strong as steel and
45% lighter, it is especially suitable for use in aviation and
astronautics. About 50% of titanium production is used for jet engine
components (rotors, fins, and compressor parts). Titanium alloys
readily with other metals such as aluminum and tin. The alloy
composition Ti + 2.5% tin + 5% aluminum is used when high strength at
high temperatures is required; and the alloy Ti + 8% aluminum +
molybdenum + vanadium is used in applications at low temperatures.
Each supersonic transport (SST) contains about 270,000 kg (600,000 lb)
of titanium.
TITLE titanium --Compounds. ARTICLE Not many titanium compounds are used
commercially. Titanium tetrachloride is a colorless liquid that fumes
in moist air; it is used in the manufacture of artificial pearls and
iridescent glass and, by the military, to create smokescreens. The
most important titanium oxide is titanium dioxide, which is a white
substance with a high reflective power. It is used extensively in both
house paint and artist's paint, replacing the poisonous lead white.
Titanium dioxide is processed at very high temperatures into
artificial rutile, which is used as a semiprecious stone (titania).
Titania has a light yellow color and a higher index of refraction than
diamond but is rather soft. STEPHEN FLEISHMAN
--
From: andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: more help
on how to access Jones and Palmer paper Summary: I'll drink to that!
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Posted: Thu Mar 30 18:53:47
1989
In article <7496@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott
McCauley Jr.) writes: > Some people have had trouble getting the paper by
anonymous ftp..... > If anyone one the net feels like retyping the 15 pages of
text and > posting it to the net in ascii form, please do so! I am too busy this
> week to do this, but a lot of people would like this.
I for one would like this VERY MUCH. We can't do anon ftp here - no ARPAnet. A
good ale for the typist - my offer (if you are local) !
Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National
Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA
95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and
lip
From: jaw@eos.UUCP (James A. Woods) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: A Nobel
prize instanter, but which field? Organization: NASA Ames Research Center,
California Posted: Thu Mar 30 20:01:42 1989
# [talking about building a seven-day disappearer ....] "Yes, said Willy
McGilly. Who would've thought you could do it with a beer can and two pieces
of cardboard? When I was a boy, I used an oatmeal box and a red crayola."
-- Raphael Aloysius Lafferty, from "Seven-Day Terror", in '900
Grandmothers'
concerning fusion-in-a-box, what we all want to know now is where the nobel
claim will be staked -- physics, chemistry, or both? might as well throw in
economics while we're at it, if the 20 watts/cm**3 figure bandied about holds
true ...
From: werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re:
Fusion in a palladium cavitation Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Posted: Tue Mar 28 19:33:23 1989
Some question whether this is "water remembering" or whether it is "ceramic
superconductors." Both were equally outlandish. However, you can postulate a
few known laws, such as tunneling, to come up with some support to back up the
claim. As for experimental work, one does have to explain: 1. More energy out
than energy in. ` 2. More energy out than is usually given by electrolysis 3.
The tritium that is detected. 4. The gamma rays.
On the other hand, in one of the news accounts they did mention that it ran at
4-8 volts imput, and at 100 volts input, the Palladium melted. So fine, we
can't make fusion reactors, but we can make fusion batteries. The next great
consumer fad: a Nuclear Sony Walkman. -- Craig Werner (future
MD/PhD, 4 years down, 3 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein
College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461,
212-931-2517) "The DNA genetic system is the one library in which it is
worthwhile to browse"
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.environment
Subject: Tritium in the environment (was: Re: Success with cold fusion reported)
Summary: Straightening out some health-physics issues Organization: Los Alamos
National Laboratory Posted: Thu Mar 30 22:44:29 1989
In article <11597@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
writes: > An example of a real problem with cold fusion (as reported in the
press, > I make no claims for its reality) would be its tendency to irradiate >
its container vessel with neutrons (producing some quantity of > low level
radioactive waste) and release tritium (a nasty isotope > of hydrogen with a
tendency to get absorbed into body tissues and > a half life short enough to
give a healthy dose of radiation per unit > time). [...]
There's more than enough net-noise making the rounds about the cold fusion
"result", and I don't want to add to it, but do permit me a small correction
here, Ethan. Tritium is actually relatively tame stuff from a radiological
point of view for two reasons. First, it is an extremely "soft" beta emitter
that emits no gamma radiation whatever (apart from incredibly low-energy
bremsstrahlung); consequently it is utterly harmless unless ingested or
inhaled. This stands in marked contrast to, for example, fission products,
which typically emit high-energy gamma radiation that is relatively penetrating
and thus hard to shield. Second, its *biological* half life (that is, the time
it takes for the body to excrete half of the tritium ingested or inhaled) is
vastly shorter than the radioactive half life (the time required for half of it
to decay away). The difference is about a factor of 10,000 -- biological half
life of about 12 hours (which can be shortened by drinking quantities of
fluids; tritium accidents have been known to occasion some major beer blasts,
and no smileys are implied here!) versus radioactive half life of 12 years.
Consequently, ingestion of, say, a millicurie of tritium is a vastly less
threatening experience that ingestion (and absorption) of a millicurie of
something like iodine 131, which is going to stay in the system for a while.
The reason why tritium is considered a hazard is simply that it is produced, and
used, in extraordinary quantity. Typical nuclear-physics experiments with
"normal" radioisotopes might involve a millicurie of material. By contrast, I
well remember an experiment during my graduate-student days, about 100 feet from
where I was working, that used about 60 KILOcuries of tritium! Even though I'm
normally pretty sanguine about working near radioactive material, I made sure I
knew where the nearest emergency exit was when that stuff was around.
(Followups, if any, should probably go to either sci.environment or sci.misc,
but not both; I've already trimmed down the list of groups considerably from
Ethan's posting.)
-- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental
physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under
adverse conditions ... like | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} a state of sheer terror." (W. K.
Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov)
From: ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Newsgroups:
sci.misc,sci.environment Subject: Re: Tritium in the environment (was: Re:
Success with cold fusion reported) Summary: a thanks and an additional comment
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Posted: Fri Mar
31 09:31:21 1989
In article <23982@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: -
some deleted stuff about the exact level of danger from tritium.
Thanks for the information.
One other comment about tritium that may (or may not) be of interest. It is
considerably easier to make a thermonuclear weapon from a fission bomb if you
have a plentiful source of tritium. Since this process (if real) appears to be
a rather poor neutron source that may be its chief impact on the arms race. --
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) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen
(bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
These must be my opinions. Who else would bother?
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re:
Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication? Organization: U of Rochester, CS
Dept, Rochester, NY Posted: Fri Mar 24 08:48:57 1989
(In the following, preface all references to the discovery with modifiers like
"reported", "claimed", etc. and statements by "assuming it is not a hoax...".)
I believe the discovery might be what is known as "pycnonuclear fusion", meaning
fusion induced by high densities rather than high temperatures.
Even in thermonuclear fusion, the fuel nuclei do not have enough energy to
actually touch, in a classical sense. Rather, they can come close enough so
that they can tunnel together in the very short time before they scatter. In
pycnonuclear fusion, the atoms are compressed statically. They therefore have a
much longer time in which to tunnel. However, because the tunneling rate goes
down exponentially with distance, they still must be quite close. The nuclei
need not be moving -- pycnonuclear fusion can proceed even at absolute zero.
I wonder if the reaction proceeds by one deuteron tunneling into the other,
forming a compound nucleus that splits, or by the tunneling of a single nucleon
from one nucleus to the other.
One of the researchers said on Macneil-Lehrer that the densities achieved are
the same as gaseous D2 compressed to 10^27 atmospheres (!). I would like to
know how this was computed.
Nowhere on the news was it reported how fast the reaction actually goes,
although it was implied that the energy released exceeded the energy supplied.
It might be possible to use slightly enriched water to suppress D+D reactions in
favor of H+D-->He3+gamma reactions. This would be largely aneutronic.
I imagine there might be problems in operating a reactor at high temperatures --
the water would boil, and deuterium would diffuse rapidly out of the electrode.
Perhaps one could use high pressure to raise the boiling point, or inject
deuterons with a low energy ion beam. Also, one could achieve high
thermodynamic efficiencies by stopping the neutrons and gamma rays in a
separate, insulated high temperature collector.
Nuclear proliferation may have just become a lot easier. I am moderately
surprised that it wasn't classified. Maybe it will be now? :-)
Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Room
Temperature Fusion - possible indication? Organization: Video7, Cupertino, CA
Posted: Fri Mar 24 14:18:17 1989
In article <1989Mar24.084857.22929@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
(Paul Dietz) writes: >Nuclear proliferation may have just become a lot easier.
I am >moderately surprised that it wasn't classified. Maybe it will be >now?
:-)
Maybe that's why they announced their discovery in such a (for a scientific
discovery) funny way. With a short-notice press conference and media coverage,
the secret is out. The newspaper article I looked at seemed to imply that some
of the skepticism of the scientific community was based on the unorthodox method
of the announcement. (Plus the sheer effrontery of a couple of _chemists_
claiming to fuse hydrogen in an electrolytic cell!) -- The powers not
delegated to the United States by the | Mike Van Pelt Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are | Video 7 reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.| ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp U. S. Constitution,
Ammendment 10. (Bill of Rights) |
From: MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Room
Temperature Fusion - possible indication? Organization: The Internet Posted: Fri
Mar 24 21:07:19 1989
Chapman remarked that "the repulsive forces from the positive charges on the two
nuclei normally require temperatures of 50 - 100 Million degrees to
overcome...".
Here is a thoery of what is happening -- IF it is happening. Thermal fusion
requires a very high temperature because at lower speeds each proton will
scatter the other before colliding, if they are slightly misaligned. As I
recall, the cross section in normal matter is about 10**-10 (because a nuclear
diameter is about 10**-5 of an atomic diameter). However, if the protons are
perfectly aligned, the fusion temperature is quite modest -- I think of the
order of kilovolts. But normally, there is no way to align them well enough at
low energy because of the uncertainty principle. It could be that if the
protons (that is, deuterons) were suitably bound in a larger solid-state matrix
(e.g., a crystal, as in the Mossbauer effect) then the alignment could be better
because of a higher effective mass.
But I can't figure out how to get the required kilovolts into that solution with
electrodes. Maybe they simply use a very fast, high voltage pulse? Why is the
palladium heated? Perhaps somehow to reduce the capacitance at the interface to
permit a large enough electric field.
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Room
Temperature Fusion - possible indication? Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Posted: Fri Mar 24 23:55:21 1989
In article <563256.890324.MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Marvin
Minsky) writes: >Here is a thoery of what is happening -- IF it is happening.
Thermal >fusion requires a very high temperature because at lower speeds each
>proton will scatter the other before colliding, if they are slightly
>misaligned... ...if the protons are perfectly aligned, the fusion >temperature
is quite modest -- I think of the order of kilovolts... >But I can't figure out
how to get the required kilovolts into that >solution with electrodes...
The alternative is that this is non-thermal fusion. The temperatures are not an
end in themselves: they are a way of pushing nuclei very close together. As
Paul Dietz speculated, this may be pycnonuclear fusion: fusion induced by
pressure rather than temperature. I'm more than slightly surprised that they
can get enough pressure out of chemical bonds, mind you... -- Welcome to Mars!
Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa,
comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re:
Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication? Reply-To: dietz@cs.rochester.edu
(Paul Dietz) Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Posted: Sat
Mar 25 11:01:12 1989
mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) writes:
>Effective mass usually only comes into play in the band-theory of
>electrons---because of the exclusion principle the electrons can't pile into
>the low lying energy levels, thus the highest states have energies way above
>the ambient temperature (50,000K vs. 300K). But, in metals at least, this
>means 1eV instead of 1/40 eV. Even if there were enough H's for a similar
>thing to happen, I don't think there would be near enough to get over the
>coulomb barrier for the nuclei in any obvious way.
There are a class of compounds called "heavy fermion" compounds that were all
the rage among superconductivity researchers before the high Tc discoveries. In
these compounds, some electrons have enormous effective masses - as much as the
mass of a proton. I was wondering if such an electron would also have a
proportionally smaller "effective wavelength", and therefore be able to make
deuterons come closer together, much as a negative muon does in mu-cat fusion.
I would like to know if Pons and Fleischman have done a control with ordinary
water. If they were giving a press release, they really should also have handed
out preprints. It's not as if someone else is now going to steal the credit,
and if it's all a mistake their names are s**t no matter what they do now.
Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Room
Temperature fusion - possible indications? Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Posted: Tue Mar 28 12:35:57 1989
In article <24998@amdcad.AMD.COM> prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) writes:
>Unless I have slipped a decimal point. It is under 1.6*10^9 miles round >trip
to/from the asetroid belt... >which if one went at 1g until half way then at 1g
to slow down would take: > t=sqrt(5280*10^8) ~= 73*10^4 sec ~=200 hours ~= 9
days
Accelerating at 1G (9.81 m/s/s, the Imperial units are useless garbage when it
comes to calculations like this) for 200 hours is a total delta-V of about 7e6
m/s (7000 kps). If we assume a mass ratio of 10, which means the ship is mostly
fuel but still manageable for a single stage, exhaust velocity is 7e6/ln(10),
about 3000 kps. Assuming a 100-ton (metric) ship (fully fueled), we "burn"
0.125 kg/s. (We will ignore the change in thrust needed to maintain a constant
1G, and assume constant thrust for the moment.) Accelerating that mass flow to
3000 kps requires 0.5*0.125*(3e6*3e6) == 560e9 watts of power, assuming no
losses. Building a half-terawatt power plant that weighs only a few tons is
going to be, um, a challenge. I don't think we're going to see 1G missions to
the asteroids right away. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer
at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? |
uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
From: greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion Organization: The Internet Posted: Tue Mar
28 14:16:05 1989
I just heard an interview with Stanley Pons on 'The Osgood File', Charles
Osgood, The CBS Radio Network. He says two eminent physicists looked at his
work and said everything looked cool. He also said skeptics and beleivers alike
should wait till May when the paper is published, and that he thought full scale
applications ought to be delayed 20 years, so sufficient environmental impact
studies could be made.