CFRL English News No. 19 (December 10,
2000)
Cold Fusion
Research Laboratory Prof. Hideo Kozima.
This is CFRL News (in English) No. 19 translated from
Japanese version published for friend researchers of Cold Fusion Research
Laboratory directed by Dr. H. Kozima now in Portland State University. The e-mail address
in PSU is cf-lab.kozima@pdx.edu.
In this issue, there are
following articles,
1)
A new paper published in J. New Energy Vol. 5 (2000),
2)
On the “Coulomb lattice” of neutron and proton
clusters,
3)
G. Miley’s Comments in Fusion Technology Vol. 38 (2000).
Details of Russian
Conference announced in the preceding issue will be given in the next issue.
1) H. Kozima, “TNCF
MODEL-A Possible Explanation of Cold Fusion Phenomenon” J. New Energy Vol. 5, p. 68 (2000).
Abstract
The TNCF model with a single adjustable parameter for the cold fusion
phenomenon (CFP), a complicated phenomenon composed of various events occurring
in complex systems, is explained as an example of the phenomenological approach
with several Premises based on experimental facts. Applied to many selected
data sets, the model has given consistent explanations of CFP and therefore the
Premises of the model may be taken as reflections of some phases of physics in
the materials where occurred CFP. Selection of more than 60 data sets explained
by the TNCF model has a statistical meaning even if each data set may include
some faults or errors in it. Physical bases of the Premises are investigated
upon physics of neutrons in solids.
In this issue of J. New Energy, there is another paper by Japanese
researcher R. Notoya the title of which is as follows;
R. Notoya, T. Ohnishi and Y. Noya, “Products of Nuclear Processes
caused by Electrolysis on Nickel and Platinum Electrodes in Solutions of Alkali-metallic
Ions” J. New Energy Vol. 5, p. 88 (2000)
2) About “Coulomb lattice” of neutron and proton clusters in neutron
star matter and in solids.
In the study of neutrons in solids, I have studied two papers written about 30 years ago, which suggest important properties of neutrons at sub-nuclear densities.
[1] G. Baym, H.A. Bethe and C.J. Pethick, "Neutron Star Matter" Nuclear Physics A175, 225 - 271 (1971).
[2] J.W. Negele and D. Vautherin, "Neutron Star Matter at Sub-nuclear
Densities” Nuclear Physics A207, 298 - 320 (1973).
i) Neutron Star Matter
In these papers, formation of clusters including
neutrons and protons in neutron matter (how it resembles to the formation of
neutron drops proposed by me in the paper appeared in Fusion Technology Vol. 37, p. 253, 2000, last Spring) is proved by
variational calculation. First of all, following sentence shocked me ([1]
p.249):
“----- This modification of A
(nucleon number in a cluster of neutron and proton) due to lattice interactions
strikingly illustrates the subtle interplay between nuclear and solid-state
physics that takes place in neutron stars.”
These papers
appeared when the neutron star had been recognized as reality for the first
time tried to determine the stationary state of neutron matters by variational
principle. Spatial distribution of neutrons, formation of clusters with N
neutrons and Z protons (and Z electrons) with definite ratio of Z/N, stability
of neutrons against beta decay are discussed. Main interactions between
particles are the nuclear interaction between nucleons and the electromagnetic
interaction between charged particles.
At first, stability
of neutrons against beta decay is proved. Then, it is shown the “Coulomb
lattice” of neutron and proton with a definite ratio of Z/N (<<1) is more
stable than a uniform distribution of the neutron star matter at sub-nuclear
density. This “lattice” is similar to crystal lattices composed of atoms and
the sentence cited above was written by the authors of the first paper [1].
In the Coulomb
lattice (crystal lattice), clusters (atoms) are in a lattice with a lattice
constant a, which depend on the
density of the neutron matter (radius of atoms). In a cluster, Z/N is smaller
than 1 and reaches less than 0.1. Distribution of neutrons in the cluster is
wider than that of protons more pronounced but similarly to that in exotic
nuclei. In the limit of large density, the lattice constant a becomes zero and the Z/N also
approaches zero forming a neutron star.
Applicability of
this calculation for lower density seems to about 10^{30} cm^{-3} or less. This
is interesting for the investigation of CFP from our point of view.
ii) TNCF Model
Now, we turn to our
TNCF model.
In the TNCF model, it was
assumed existence of trapped thermal neutrons in solids and its nominal density
has been determined using experimental data sets as 10^{8} - 10^{13} cm^{-3}.
Several questions raised to
this model were as follows; a) Stability of trapped neutrons against beta
decay, b) Appropriateness of the determined value of the density given above,
c) Source of these trapped neutrons, d) Possible explanation of gammaless
de-excitation in CFP by TNCF model, etc. etc. etc.
It is clear that
some of these questions have been resolved already by the calculations in the
papers [1][2] in relation with stable composition of neutron star matter at
sub-nuclear densities if we notice a possible existence of high-density
neutrons realized by the local coherence at boundary region pointed out in one
of our papers appeared in Fusion
Technology (Vol. 36, p. 337, 1999)
Here, we point out
possible explanation for only one problem of gammaless de-excitation.
In the ordinary nuclear
physics, the nuclei are isolated fundamentally and its interaction with another
particle if any occurs in short limited time. Or, if a many body problem is
taken up, a nucleus is a part of the system and has no identity as we can see
in the papers [1][2] cited above.
Therefore, the situation occurring in CFP is so different from those treated in nuclear physics where nuclei keep their identity while interacting with others.
In CFP, there are several
decay channels in the excited nuclei existing in the material used there and
gammaless de-excitation is not special but usual modes of de-excitation.
Similar explanation of
events in CFP is possible from our point of view while ordinary nuclear physics
could not give explanation for such events as the decay-time shortening and
fission barrier lowering assumed to explain nuclear products in CFP.
The successful
perspective given above is a merit of exchanging relationship between different
branches to explore a new branch of science.
3) George Miley’s “Comments” Fusion Technology Vol. 38, p. iii (2000)
“ It is with deep
sadness that I retire in June 2001 as editor of Fusion Technology (FT). Despite the extensive time involvement, I
have immensely enjoyed serving as editor. Discussions with authors and
reviewers were continuously stimulating, and I always enjoyed a feeling of
satisfaction from providing this service to the fusion community and to the
American Nuclear Society (ANS). There were, of course, a few downsides, largely
concerned with occasional financial struggles, debates over rejected
manuscripts, and continued attempts to control paper backlogs that slowly
oscillated back and forth from being either too large or too small as
circumstances in the fusion community changed.
------“
“Inclusion of
papers on “cold fusion” (or anomalous nuclear reactions in solids) in FT has been one of the more
controversial decisions I made as editor of FT.
Rather than rehash the issues involved, I would simply repeat my view expressed
in an early preface that it is the “responsibility of a journal to publish
scientific work related to its field of coverage that can pass through peer
reviews.” Indeed, all papers on this topic in FT have undergone a rigorous peer review. In the early years (1987-
1990) following Pons and Fleischmann’s original announcement, reviewers ensured
that the papers were technically sound but allowed speculations about
mechanisms since the field was so new. However, starting in 1990, as the field
matured, review standards reverted to the same guidelines as other papers in FT. Further, based on discussions in the
FT Editorial Advisory Committee, an
additional reviewer from outside the “cold fusion community” was typically
added on these manuscripts. Readers who are interested in more detail about
events during this period from my point of view as an editor are referred to an
article titled “Some Personal Reflections on Scientific Ethics and the Cold
Fusion ‘Episode’” that I prepared for a fall issue of the Journal on Accountability in Research’ Policies and Quality Assurance,
Vol. 8, No. 1 (2000).”
As was stated in
the first paragraph in the above Comments, G. Miley is going retire from the
Editor of Fusion Technology by June
2001. His successor will be Dr. Nermin Uckan. It is not certain yet but we
would like to hope that the new Editorial Board would keep his policy for “cold
fusion”.
It is true that ideas
presented in the field of CFP is in full variety from using ordinary physics to
those of new ones ignoring principles of physics easily or thinking similarly
to UFO and supernatural phenomenon.
But, it is the undeniable
fact that there occur events showing bio-nuclear transmutation in bodies of
some plants and animals even if someone tries to explain bio-nuclear
transmutation by assuming a micro-cyclotron in a living cell, which contradicts
principles of physics.