CFRL News No. 26 (2001. 7. 10)

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　常温核融合研究所　　　　　　小島英夫

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

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

                                             www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~kunihito/cf-lab/index.html

 

   CFRL News (Cold Fusion Research Laboratory News) No. 26 をお届けします。

   第26 号では､次の項目をお読み頂きます.

1)   “Possible Explanation of 4He Production in a Pd/D2 System by the TNCF

Model” がFusion Science and Technology に掲載されます、

2) “Ni-H System” by E.G. Campari et al. Proc. ICCF8 p.69 (2001) について、

3) On the Cold Fusion Research by Robert E. Smith

4) JCF3 Announcement

 

1) “Possible Explanation of 4He Production in a Pd/D2 System by the TNCF Model” Fusion Science and Technology (July 2001)

来月からFusion Technology に代わって上記のFusion Science and Technology がAmerican Nuclear Society の編集で発行されるようになったようです.それに伴い、多少の事務的混乱があるようで、論文発行手続きの遅延などが起っています。編集方針もかなり変わるようで、従来のCFにたいする好意的な方針が大幅に改訂される雰囲気が感じられます。

 

2) E.G. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, E. Porcu, E. Tosti and S. Veronesi, “Ni-H System” Proc. ICCF8, p. 69 (2001)

　この論文についての概略は、News No.16 (2000. 9. 10) の (4)-1で紹介しています。

「試料サイズが前の実験と同じ（5mmφX 90mm）とすると、S/V比は8.2で70Wの出力は40W/cm3という莫大な値になります。また、Focardi達のデータで中性子が観測されているのは、Pd-D系でBressani達が中性子スペクトルを測定したのに対応します(“Discovery”6.2c)。エネルギースペクトルが分かるとその素性もはっきりするのですが、そこまではいっていないようです。Milano大学グループとの共同研究が実現する事を期待したいと思います。γ線スペクトルについても同様で、TNCFモデルの解析の結果と比較できれば、CFPの物理学の解明に役立つでしょう｡」

　常温核融合現象の研究が、重水素系でしか起らない筈だという先入観によって、かなりの被害を受けていることは、私が前から指摘してきたことです。それで、1994年にFocardi達がNi-H系での過剰熱の発生を報じた時には、疑いと驚きの混在した感情を持ったことを記憶しています。それも一つの切っ掛けで、d-d直接融合反応以外の可能性を考えるようになり、TNCFモデルに結びついたわけです。このデータは、TNCFモデルでの解析結果をDiscovery 11.10bに示しています。

それから6年、ICCF8での発表まで、Nuovo Cimento に発表された下記論文を含めて、Focardi達は着実な実験データを積み重ねてきたようです。それらをまとめて考察したいと思います。

S. Focardi, R. Habel and F. Piantelli, “Anomalous Heat Production in Hi-H Systems” Il Nuovo Cimento 107A, 163 (1994). （I）

S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli and S. Veronesi, “Large Excess Heat Production in Ni-H Systems” Il Nuovo Cimento 111A, 1233 (1998). （II）

A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P.G. Sona and S. Veronesi, “Neutron Emission in Ni-H Systems” Il Nuovo Cimento 112A, 921 (1999) （III）

E.G. Campari et al., “Ni-H Systems” Proc. ICCF8 p. 69 (2001). (IV)

　論文(I)のデータは、TNCFモデルによって解析され、その結果はDiscovery11.10bに与えられています.そこで仮定された反応は

n + p = d (1.33 keV) + gamma (2.22 MeV),            (1)

d (1.33 keV) + p = 3He + gamma (5.49 MeV)         (2)

でした.

(I)では、「放射線が全く出ない」と報告されていましたが、(III), (IV)では少量の中性子線とガンマ線が観測されています。反応(1) と(2) で予想されるガンマ線が観測されていないのは確かなようです。それについては別に、表面層における中性子滴の存在と絡んだ考察をしなくてはならないでしょう.

(I). Ni棒5mmφ×90mmを173℃以上に熱したときに570mbのH2ガスが良く吸収され、一度過剰熱の発生が起こると、50W程度の発熱が数十日間は続く。

(II). Ni棒を820℃に長期間維持することのできる装置をつくり、この状態のNi (excited state) で起こる現象を研究した。2種の装置セルAとBで、それぞれ278日と319日にわたり38Wと22W、総計900MJと600MJの発熱を観測した。

(III) 上記実験(II)のセルAを使って中性子発生を観測した。過剰熱の変化に相関した中性子放射を測定した。中性子発生量のピークは6×103/s になる。1個の核反応に１MeVのエネルギーが伴うと仮定すると、過剰熱の最大値は2×1014個の反応に対応し、測定された中性子線量から1011個の反応に1個の中性子発生があることになる。

   (IV) 200-1000mbのH2ガス圧、700-800℃の試料温度で、従来の実験をおこない、過剰熱、中性子とガンマ線発生に加えて、新しい元素(核変換(NT)生成物)として、Niより原子番号の小さい元素Fe, Mn, Cr, Caなど(Sc, Ti, V, Coを除く)、およびCuとZnが、試料表面の局在した領域に不均質に生ずることを見出した。各局在領域はこれらの元素のうちの何種かだけを含み、場所によってはNiより強いEDX信号を示す元素が存在する。

 

　これらの実験結果は、いくつかの点で非常に興味深いものです。

まず、僕が何度も強調してきたように、常温核融合現象(CFP)は重水素系だけでなく軽水素系でも起ることが、過剰熱と核反応生成物(n, γ, NT)とで、明瞭に示されています。CFPが基本的にはd + d 反応ではない、というTNCFモデルの立場が、最もよく理解できる現象がこの系で起っていると言っていいでしょう。

次に、この系でのCFPは、一度彼らの言うexcited stateで反応が起ると、かなりの長期にわたって持続することです。これは、トリガー反応で誘起された核反応が、増殖反応で維持されるという、TNCFモデルの筋書きを忠実に再現しているものと解釈することができます。

中性子とガンマ線の発生が過剰熱発生量を大幅に下回ることは、中性子バンドの特性、特に境界での局所的コヒーレンスとの関連で理解できるでしょう。

NT生成物の表面での局在も、この局所的コヒーレンスと関連した事象であることは、確かでしょう。

 

3) On the Cold Fusion Research(*)

 by  Robert E. Smith, Jr., President of Oakton International Corporation (OIC), 2714 Clarkes Landing Drive, Oakton, VA 22124

(*) This article is originally sent to OED on the occasion of its Public Meetings on June 26 and published here by permission of the author.

　DOE（Department of Energy）が開いたPublic Meetingというのは、多分公聴会なのでしょうが、Smith氏は出席できなかったので、この手紙を送って自分の意見を表明した、ということのようです。CF研究者では、T. Chubb氏が出席して意見表明をしたようです。CF関係は少なかったとかで、全体の流れは変わっていないようです。データをちゃんと見ている人間は、CFPの実験事実がなんらかの科学的真理を表していることを認識していることが、この手紙からも読み取れるでしょう。

In April, 1994, I was contacted by a person in the intelligence community and asked to provide a worldwide assessment of the new science of "COLD FUSION" that was originally announced by Pons and Fleischmann in Salt Lake City, UT in 1989. 

At first, I was very skeptical about this technology.  Most of my background was in fission nuclear reactors that utilized particle physics approaches and their nuclear engineering applications.  By reading many technical papers, attending several local cold fusion meetings, and participating in several international conferences on cold fusion, and examining DATA in several international laboratories (including 7 trips to Russia and other countries) I became convinced that several scientists and engineers (including Pons and Fleischmann) had in fact produced significant excess heat (more power out than input power) without associated radioactivity (no neutrons, no gammas, no alphas, no betas etc. seen on standard detectors).

 I also realized that there were several types of cold fusion reactions and processes, most of which can be explained with solid state physics and quantum mechanics, and NOT by former standard particle physics and engineering approaches (cross sections for this and that) taught in most nuclear engineering schools.

 It is somewhat like when computers were being built with vacuum tubes in large air-conditioned rooms, while solid state physicists and engineers were standing in the wings saying to themselves, we can put the capability of the vacuum tube computer in our wrist watch and give it many times the computing power of the large computer.

 I also observed that in order to provide high reliability excess power reactions that it requires very strict attention to detailed required cold fusion reactor conditions, configurations, and materials.  Early cold fusion experiments did not have good quality control of required parameters, thus duplication of experiments was difficult.  This duplication problem has been clearly solved.  Power levels of at least 10 KW per cubic centimeter of excess heat power have been observed.

Comments by the numbers in the announcement:

1.  The objectives of the current energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE) research, development, demonstration and deployment (RDD&D) programs.

Comment.  I have had several meetings at DOE headquarters, DOE National Laboratories including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Denver, CO, and have determined that there is very little RDD&D on cold fusion research taking place in the United States of America (USA).  Hot fusion programs have

Consumed large sums of funding and they have not produced significant power levels with greater than a ratio of unity (more power out than input power), as have cold fusion researchers.  The research objectives of the EERE should definitely be reformed to include significant requirements and provisions for cold fusion RDD&D.

2.  Suggested potential objectives for future programs.

Comment.  EERE objectives for research in the new science of cold fusion

Should include, as a minimum, the following objectives:

      a.  Expand theoretical explanations of the various types of cold fusion reactions.

      b.  Expand experimentation of cold fusion processes using a predict (simulation) and verify approach.

      c.  Perform requirements analyses to document the justification and identification of users of the cold fusion RDD&D and resulting applications.

      d.  Perform economic, political, and social comparison analyses for existing energy sources (fossil, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) versus cold fusion energy sources.

      e.  Perform non-proliferation of nuclear energy analyses to show the importance of peaceful uses of cold fusion nuclear hydrogen energy since the cold fusion reactions do not involve exponential neutron multiplication factors (k-effective).

      f.  Expand the use of cold nuclear fusion hydrogen energy that has no associated radioactivity or radioactive waste products.

      g.  Develop cold fusion processes to reduce radioactive wastes from fuel of fission nuclear reactors.

      h.  Develop commercial applications that utilize cold fusion reactors

such as electric vehicles, heating and air-conditioning equipment, different  size electrical power plants, district heating and cooling, space and terrestrial cold fusion nuclear power and propulsion systems, and environmentally clean systems to reduce smog, global warming, and radioactive wastes.

3.  Implementation of current and future programs.

Comment.  If there are any current cold fusion programs in EERE RDD&D, they should be significantly expanded so that they are well known, well funded, and involve world wide participation of expert cold fusion scientists and engineers. New start programs/projects are essential and should be required to be submitted in the program, planning, and budgeting system process of the 10 DOE National Laboratories.  Mixed Government Corporations like the U.S. Enrichment Corporation should be considered to "fence funding, both public and private" for the specific purpose of developing cold fusion hydrogen energy sources and applications. Coordination and cooperation with the other U.S. Departments, Private Industry, and foreign collaborators should be encouraged.

4.  Whether these Federal programs are achieving intended objectives.

Comment.  It has been my personal observation that there have been few federal cold fusion programs that have even attempted to satisfy the objectives listed in comment 2 above.

 There have been two excellent cold fusion federal reports published by the U.S. Navy at the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC.  There have been reports of alternate sources of Tritium production at the DOE Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

There have been some small efforts sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.  There has been significant exploratory cold fusion research done at the SRI International laboratory in Menlo Park, California, the University of Illinois fusion studies laboratory, the University of New Mexico, New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, the University of Texas, Texas A&M University, etc.,

 ALL of which were with sub-critical amounts of funding.  It is estimated that any expansion of the DOE EERE RDD&D, over a five year period, should have a minimum of $40 Million assigned to the effort and be coordinated and jointly funded by using organizations such as the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Efforts and funding by the International Proliferation and Prevention (IPP) Program and the United States Energy Coalition and the International Science and Technology Centers (ISTC) should be significantly expanded, especially for USA small business participation. 

It is one thing to fund the foreign collaborators and another to fund U.S. Industry small businesses.  Some large businesses have provided funding up to 1.6 times federal funding for IPP efforts, but funding for significant small business participation in the USA has not been solved. 

DOE National laboratories should be allocated "fenced funding" for small businesses contracts for cold fusion RDD&D such that the funds are not used for in-house personnel/research (Full Time Equivalents), just to keep laboratory people on staff and their gold watch programs funded.

When funding is identified and budgeted for USA small business contracts, the degree of participation of small USA businesses in worthwhile projects such as IPP, ISTC and other world wide efforts such as those sponsored by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be greatly improved.

We at OIC, are looking forward to participation with EERE once some or all of these suggested comments have been implemented.  We will provide non-proprietary information briefings on details of radiationless cold nuclear fusion at anytime, or place convenient for you and the EERE staff, to help justify the implementation of these suggested reforms.

 

Robert E. Smith, Jr.

President/CEO

Oakton International Corporation (OIC)

(703) 620-5886

(954) 941-9057

(703) 620-6247 Fax

 

4) JCF3 Announcement:

CALL FOR PAPERS: The 3rd Japan Meeting on Nuclear Reactions in Solid (JCF3)

　日本CF研究会の第3回研究会が10月に横浜国大で開かれます。多くの方にはAnnouncementが届いていることでしょうが、ここに採録します。

 

Dear JCF members and CF-research colleagues:

    The research activity on nuclear-reactions-in-solid (cold fusion) grows steadily in Japan. Since the last meeting (JCF2) at Hokkaido University, we have been informally aware of new progresses on detection of excess heat, neutrons, He-4, X-rays and "transmuted" products, from several groups, and of innovative proposals on theoretical models and analyses. The International Conference ICCF9 is now scheduled on May 19-24, 2002, in Beijing China (http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/iccf9.htm). So the JCF3 meeting on October 25-26, 2001, at Yokohama National University, will provide us good occasion of summarizing and discussing Japanese (and including possibly some of over-sea activities) activities in the field to make further progress toward ICCF9.

 

Place of JCF3 Meeting: University Hall of Yokohama National University,

                                  Tokiwadai 79-5, Hotogayaku, Yokohama, Japan

Date: October 25-26, 2001

Topics: nuclear products, excess heat, low energy nuclear reactions, fusion,

            fission, materials, experimental techniques, theories, CF politics, etc.

Presentation: oral presentation (English or Japanese) in 20-25 min per paper

Abstract dead-line: September 10, 2001 ( send via attached file in e-mail to

             (mohta@newjapan.nucl.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp) or usual mail, to

             JCF-desk, Takahashi laboratory, Department of Nuclear Engineering,

             Osaka University, Yamadaoka 2-1, Suita, Osaka, Japan

Abstract style: 1-2 pages, A4 format in free style, write in English

                      Title, names (mark presenter), affiliation, keywords (4-5),

                      main sentences, figures, tables, references

Registration: on Meeting site in the Morning of October 25, 2001

registration fee: 5,000 yen

banquet: 5,000 yen

Inquiry to the Local Organizing Committee: to

    Prof. Kenichiro Ota, Yokohama National University

    E-mail: ken-ota@ynu.ac.jp

    Tel: 81-45-339-4021

Inquiry to JCF office: to

    Akito Takahashi, Osaka University

    E-mail: akito@nucl.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp

    Tel: 81-6-6879-7890