CFRL English News No. 34 (2002. 4. 10)

Cold Fusion Research Laboratory (Japan) Dr. Hideo Kozima, Director

                            E-mail address; cf-lab.kozima@pdx.edu

                            Websites; http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/  

   Dear cold fusion researchers,

   This CFRL News No.34 is sent to all researchers who received the previous News No.33 because all of them have shown their favor to receive this News. I hope that this News will be useful in helping you to stay abreast of new developments in research on the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) and also in science and technology in the present stage of history.

Sincerely yours,

Hideo Kozima

 

   This is the CFRL News (in English) No. 34 for Cold Fusion researchers published by Dr. H. Kozima, now at the Low Energy Nuclear Laboratory and Physics Department, Portland State University.

This issue contains following items.

1) Lecture Note “Solid State-Nuclear Physics” (3)

– Interaction between “Trapped Neutrons” and a Nucleus –

2) On the “Isaac Newton’s Model” by J. Bronowski

3) CFRL Model, Kindly Advertised but with Obsolete Catchphrases

4) Cold Fusion Session in APS March Meeting at Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

5) ICCF9 Expects more than 100 Presentations at Beijing, China.

 

1. From Lecture Note “Solid State-Nuclear Physics” (3)

Interaction between “Trapped Neutrons” (a Neutron Drop) and a Nucleus – Possible Reaction Branches –

 

(1) Formation of Neutron Drops

   “Trapped neutrons”, or thermal neutrons in solids with positive energy (i.e. not bound in any nucleus in a crystal) behave as Bloch waves having a band structure in their energy spectrum [1]. Neutrons in lattice nuclei (nuclei on lattice points of the crystal), on the other hand, may interact with each other through protons or deuterons occluded in the crystal [2]. The former band above zero energy may be called “neutron conduction band” and the latter below zero “neutron valence band”.

Neutrons in a band state (conduction or valence) have local coherence at a region where they are reflected and therefore have a high probability density there [3]. The presence of protons or deuterons assists in the formation of “neutron drops” in this region [4].

 

(2) Absorption of neutrons. Formation of a new nuclide A’Z’X’ from an original nuclide AZX and “trapped neutrons”.

     AZX　.⇒ A’Z’X’

2.1 Single neutron absorption to make A’ = A+1.

2.2 Two neutrons absorption to make A’ = A+2.

2.3 νneutrons absorption to make A’ = A+ν (.ν>2).

- - - - -

(3) Decay of the new nuclide.

     A’Z’X　.⇒ A’’Z’’X’ + (A’’’Z’’’X” +ν’n)

3.1 The stabilization of an excited nuclide A’Z’X’* to A’Z’X’ is realized by the energy release into thermal energy of the solid through interactions with neutron drops that surround the nuclide. (This type of energy dissipation is not possible for excited nuclides in free space where occurs only gamma emission for stabilization.)

3.2 β-decay stimulated by the interactions to increase the atomic number Z’ by 1.

3.3 α-decay stimulated by the interactions to decrease the atomic number Z’ by 2 and mass number A’ by 4.

3.4 Doubleβ-decay stimulated by the interactions to increase Z’ by 2.

3.5 Tripleβ-decay stimulated by the interactions to increase Z’ by 3.

3.6 Fission stimulated by the interactions to produce two nuclei with A and Z far away from A’ and Z’ accompanied with the process 3.1 and generation of several (ν’) neutrons.

 

(4) Mass Spectra of Nuclear Products by NTF

   In the book published in 1998 [5], we tried to explain the mass spectrum of NTF observed by Miley et al. [6]

“This table shows the same tendency observed in the branching ratio of fission products of a composite nuclei formed by the n–23592U absorption reaction known in Neutron Physics that the larger the difference of masses of product nuclei is, the larger the branching ratio of the fission reaction is, although this fact is not explained yet. It is interesting to notice the same tendency is seen in the curious event, the nuclear transmutation by fission, in the cold fusion phenomenon.” ([5] p.221. There are misprints in Section 11.12c; Table 9.1 in this section should be read as Table 9.2.)

The same idea was used by Fisher to analyze the data [6] to give a semi-quantitative explanation of the mass spectrum [7].

 

References

(1) H. Kozima, "Neutron Bands in Solids," J. Phys. Soc. Japan 67, 3310 (1998). And also, Elemental Energy (Cold Fusion) 28, 30 (1998).

(2) H. Kozima, J. Warner and G. Goddard, "Cold Fusion Phenomenon and Atomic Processes in Transition-metal Hydrides and Deuterides" J. New Energy 6-2, 126 (2002).

(3) H. Kozima, K. Kaki and M. Ohta, "Anomalous Phenomenon in Solids Described by the TNCF Model", Fusion Technology 33, 52 (1998).

(4) H. Kozima, "Neutron Drop; Condensation of Neutrons in Metal Hydrides and Deuterides," Fusion Technol. 37, 253 (2000).

(5) H. Kozima, Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon – Evolution of the Solid State - Nuclear Physics and the Energy Crisis in 21st Century, Ohtake Shuppan KK., Tokyo, Japan, 1998.

(6) G.H. Miley, G. Narne, M.J. Williams, J.A. Patterson, J. Nix, D. Cravens and H. Hora, "Quantitative Observation of Transmutation Products Occurring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres during Electrolysis", Progress in New Hydrogen Energy (Proc. ICCF6) (1996, Hokkaido, Japan), p.629 (1996). And also Cold Fusion 20, 71 (1996).

(7) J.C. Fisher, "Liquid-Drop Model for Extremely Neutron Rich Nuclei" Fusion Technol. 34, 66 (1998).

 

2. On the “Isaac Newton’s Model” (Chapter III of J. Bronowski, The Common Sense of Science [1])

J. Bronowski (1908–1974)) was a mathematician - biological scientist - philosopher interested in culture and society born in Poland and died in USA through England.

 

The Principia [2] by Isaac Newton is the greatest book in physics even if many physicists including me did surely not read it through now. I had read it only first several tens of pages in my student days and had been impressed by its difficulty to understand correctly.

  I have recently encountered with J. Bronowski’s essay The Common Sense of Science [1] and noticed a chapter “Isaac Newton’s Model.” I have had impression before when I read “The Principia” in student days that Newton’s formulation is not perfect. Rereading the text, I have understood what I felt odd before. I will explain it.

“Definition 1. Quantity of matter is a measure of matter that arises from its density and volume jointly.” ([2] p.403)

This sentence has its meaning only if density and volume of matter are defined independently of the quantity of matter (or mass).

Following this definition, there is an explanation of “this quantity”:

“Furthermore, I mean this quantity whenever I use the term “body” or “mass” in the following pages. It can always be known from a body’s weight, for – by making very accurate experiments with pendulums – I have found it to be proportional to the weight, as will be shown below.” ([2] p.404)

   This explanation means Newton’s mass is the gravitational mass in the modern terminology and we can say that Newton assumed equivalence of the gravitational mass and the inertial mass unconsciously. In A. Einstein’s theory of general relativity, this equality of two masses has been elevated to a part of the equivalence principle of the general theory of relativity, as we know well now.

   This interpretation of mine is consistent with Definition 2 and Law 2 expressed as follows:

Definition 2. Quantity of motion is a measure of motion that arises from the velocity and the quantity of matter jointly. ([2] p.404)

Law 2. A change in motion is proportional to the motive force impressed and takes place along the straight line in which that force is impressed. ([2] p.416)

   When I looked at the title of the chapter III “Isaac Newton’s Model” in Bronowski’s book, I did not understand what “model” means at first even if I have recently discussed much about models in relation with my TNCF model. What is Newton’s model in The Principia?

   Reading the chapter III of The Common Sense of Science I have understood what Bronowski means by it that I have not noticed before in The Principia. Bronowski stresses important role of a model in formulation of a science. It is suggestive for us to listen in Bronowski’s opinion about the great model of Newton’s in addition to Bohr’s model of H-atom that I have often discussed in defense of model’s value in research about.

   Newton writes himself in The Principia about his “model” as follows:

“. . . The circular motions of bodies about their own centers also generally arise from reflections of this sort. But I do not consider such cases in what follows, and it would be too tedious to demonstrate everything relating to this subject.” ([2] p.421)

   Neglecting “the circular motions of bodies about their own centers,” Newton reached “the mass points” in modern terminology even if he used “bodies” in his description after this sentence.

   Bronowski noticed this point and wrote:

“But it is at the next step that the break really comes. What Newton did now was to suppose that the general rules which fair-sized masses seem to obey are true of every piece of matter, whatever its kind or its size. And having decided to try this thought, he made himself a new world of his own, which he built up from minute pieces of matter each following the same laws or axioms.” ([1] p.33 – 34)

“He [Newton] supposed that everything in the world is assembled from small particles. He never defined these particles, and are have come to think of them as the atoms of Democritus and the poet Lucretius. Newton did not say this, and I am not sure that he believed it . . .” ([1] p.34)

“.. . There are two other [than the notion of cause] changes which to my mind are more important. One is the change from the world of will to the world of machine. The other is the change on which I have laid greater stress, from a world of hierarchies to the modeled world of Newton which is build upon a substratum of undefined particles and simple laws, yet which clocks in triumphantly at each revolution upon the orbits of the real world. This notion of cause is an essential cement within both these, within the machine and within the model. But it is not the fundamental notion. It can be replaced by other cements. And if it is not replaced at the right time, it can bring the machine and the model themselves to a standstill. This has been so historically and is apparent in the problems in science and outside it today. . . .” ([1] p.40) (Bracketed insertion and bold faces at citation.)

   On the final paragraph cited above, Bronowski extends his thought to world outside physics; scientific rational thinking not confined to a specific field is the most important human power possible to use it to keep the social and ecological system of the Earth community dynamically sustainable if possible anyway.

   We have to replace our reference frames for and old models of the world by new ones if there appear heterogeneous events inexplicable by the old ones not persisting them to ignore the problematic events.

 

(1) J. Bronowski, The Common Sense of Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1978,

(2) Isaac Newton, The Principia – Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, translated by I. Bernard Cohen and A. Whitman, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA, 1999.

 

 

3. CFRL Model, Kindly Advertised but with Obsolete Catchphrases by A.C.

   When I wrote article 3 of News No.33, I did not make an unnecessary citation of whole A.C.’s letter to spare space. To my surprise, someone dared to declare that “A.C. is me” and sent his letter I had partly cited in the previous News to several people including the readers of CFRL News.

There is another more important reason for my omission of parts of the letter. It may be enough for our readers to notice the following fact. Remaining problems revealed in the analysis of the experimental data were mentioned already in Section 11.14, “Remaining Questions not Explained by the TNCF Model.” of my book “Discovery” (published in 1998, originally in 1997 in Japanese. It is also posted in the CFRL website;

http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/Books/Discovery/chap11.htm)

Some of them as catchphrases were repeated with commentaries by A.C. to advertise TNCF model in his letter. It is too late to use these questions as if they are brand-new catchphrases. Our efforts since then have been to answer these questions using quantum mechanics based on the existing knowledge of solid state physics and nuclear physics and to establish the “Science of CFP,” or “Solid State-Nuclear Physics.” (Cf. News No.33, Article 1 and also Article 1 in this issue.)

Furthermore, A.C.’s letter has shown, as I explained in the previous News, that A.C. did not understand the role of a model that is based on experimental facts and therefore did not understand the dynamics of research at the frontiers of science. I have taught more than 40 undergraduate students and more than 20 graduate students in my solid state-nuclear physics course over the last ten years both in Japan and in America. During the course, I lectured them to understand the fundamental roles of experimental facts, working hypotheses including models based on assumptions suggested by the experimental facts, and final theories based on fundamental principles. All of my students, undergraduate and graduate, were able to understand the role of a model and studied functions of working hypotheses in research works. More than ten of my previous students are working as scientists in the fields close to or of cold fusion phenomenon. The cold fusion phenomenon is really a good field to teach students the essence of fundamental work in the frontiers of sciences.

If one does not accept experimental facts, s/he has nothing to do with the facts and complains against a model based on them. If one accepts the experimental facts, then the work starts to grasp their meaning on the scientific basis. Sometimes, the facts are too innovative to be included in the existing scientific framework and then the basis itself is innovated and a new science grows.

We do not know how deep the CFP penetrates into the foundations of modern physics yet; some try to innovate present quantum mechanics, some seek new particles, others invent new mechanisms where the present actors in solid state physics and nuclear physics play new roles. The fundamental difference between serious researchers inside and irresponsible critics outside the Medawar zone is the trust in the experimental facts of CFP. This point is clearly shown in A.C.’s letter. It is not bad to have silly critics as typical examples of ignorance about science itself.

 

4. APS March Meeting was held in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

A Cold Fusion session of American Physical Society (APS) March Meeting which includes 14 presentations was held March 22, 2002.

The presentation titles of the presentations are given below and Abstracts of these presentations are posted in the following website;

http://www.aps.org/meet/MAR02/baps/abs/S7810.html

 

08:00 W21.001 Quantum Delocalized Interfacial Deuterium as Cold Fusion Heat Source Talbot Chubb

08:12 W21.002 Progress on the SRI/ENEA Collaboration to Investigate Gaseous D2/Pd Nuclear Effects Michael C.H. McKubre, Francis L. Tanzella, Paolo Tripodi, Vittorio Violante

08:24 W21.003 the Impact of Heavy Water (D2O) Doping Mitchell Swartz

08:36 W21.004 The Elevation of Boiling Points in H2O and D2O Electrolytes

M.H. Miles, H.D. Arman, J.D. Carrick, C.K. Gren, K.A. Haggerty, H.Y. Kim, A.G. Ky, J.E. Markham, C.F. Meeks, D.E. Noga

08:48 W21.005 In-situ Long-range Alpha Particles and X-ray Detection for Thin-film Pd Cathodes During Electrolysis in Li2SO4/H2O A.G. Lipson, A.S. Roussetski, C.H. Castano, Kim S-O., G.H. Miley  

09:00 W21.006 Thermal Measurement during Electrolysis of Pd-Ni Thin-film Cathodes in Li2SO4/H2O Solution C.H. Castano, A.G. Lipson, Kim S-O., G.H. Miley

09:12 W21.007 Preparation of Pd-Ni Thin-film Electrodes using Magnetron Sputtering S.-O. Kim, C.H. Castano, A.G. Lipson, N. Luo, G.H. Miley

09:24 W21.008 Sub-surface Separation of Pd Isotopes in Cold-worked Palladium Foils as a Result of Deuterium Loading E.I. Saunin, A.G. Lipson, G.H. Miley, V.I. Savenko

09:36 W21.009 Resistance Measurement of Sputtered Pd Thin-films During Electrolysis N. Luo, C.H. Castano, Kim S-O., A.G. Lipson, T.H. Woo, G.H. Miley

09:48 W21.010 Thermal and Pressure Gradients in the Polarized Pd/D System J. Dea, P.A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak

10:00 W21.011 Finding the Missing gamma　in D+D　→ 4He Cold Fusion Excess Heat Scott Chubb

10:12 W21.012 Evidence for D+D → 4He Without High Energy Particles via Cavitation Roger Stringham

10:24 W21.013 Progress Toward a Sono-fusion Demonstration Device Kenneth Rauen, Eugene Mallove

10:36 W21.014 Extracting Compact dd State Energies from the Kasagi Experiment Peter Hagelstein

 

5. ICCF9 Expects more than 100 Presentations.

   Prof. X.Z. Li, the Chairman of ICCF9 (May 19 to 24, 2002 in Beijing, China) announced recently a global feature of the Conference as follows.

“We have made progress in both academic and cultural parts of ICCF9.

We have more than 134 pre-registrations, and 102 abstracts submitted.

The International Advisory Committee has selected more than 26 abstracts for the Oral presentation in the plenary session. We will keep the tradition of

3 minute oral presentation per poster, and we will keep also the ICCF5 mode to give all the oral presentations a space in the poster session in order to have more communications.” (March 1, 2002)

  We can expect new developments in experimental and theoretical fields of CFP almost two years after last Conference in Lerici, Italy. ICCF9 Website: http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/