CFRL English News No.11 (April 10, 2000)
Cold Fusion Research Laboratory Prof. Hideo Kozima
This is CFRL News (in English) No.11 translated from Japanese version published for friend researchers of Cold Fusion Research Laboratory directed by Dr. H. Kozima.
In this issue, there are following items;
1) Three papers appeared in Intern J. Hydrogen Energy,
2) Three papers to be presented at ICCF8,
3) On a review article ”Electroanalytical Chemistry in the Cold Fusion Phenomenon”,
4) On the Missing Factor (2).
1) As reported in the previous News, our three papers which analyzed data obtained by researchers in Texas A&M University have been published in Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy 25, No.6 (March 2000). This Journal is published semi-monthly and No.6 was published in March not in June I supposed before. Reprint will be obtained from CFRL.
2) The papers to be presented at ICCF8 have been decided. As was reported in this News No. 7, we have submitted six papers and had received an answer from Organizing Committee to reduce number of papers to be presented. After negotiation with them, it was finally decided that following three papers would be presented.
H. Kozima, "TNCF model - A Phenomenological Approach" at 20 min. Oral,
H. Kozima, M. Ohta, K. Arai, M. Fujii, H. Kudoh and K. Yoshimoto, "Nuclear Transmutation in Solids explained by TNCF Model” and
H. Kozima, "The Cold Fusion Phenomenon and Physics of Neutrons in Solids" at Poster session.
In the first paper, we will give a perspective of theoretical approaches to the CFP occurring in complex systems and then characteristics of TNCF model showing usefulness of the phenomenological approach. In the second paper, results of analyses of nuclear transmutations by a decay NTD and by a fission NTF using the TNCF model are given including until recent analysis of the data by Bockris et al., the first data where observed NTF. In the third paper, characteristics of thermal neutrons in solids elucidated by our works including the recent one are used to explain the CFP.
3) I have written a review article
”Electroanalytical Chemistry in the Cold Fusion Phenomenon”
and am seeking place to submit it. This article is written by stimulation from a publisher to ask an article for a volume with a title “Topics in Electroanalytical Chemistry”. The manuscript was accomplished and I am satisfied with it.
In this review paper, I have emphasized importance of electrochemistry in CF research, which was used in the pioneering work reported in 1989, emphasizing the localization of nuclear reactions in the surface region revealed by NT and He-4 results as an example.
The qualitative reproducibility I have proposed and locality of reactions responsible revealed by facts in CFP - localization of transmuted nuclei and preferential existence of generated helium-4 in the gas phase - are key elements to clarify physics of cold fusion.
The paper by Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins in 1989 was the first one discovered occurrence of the abnormal phenomenon in an electrolytic system. There have been, however, many critiques to the experimental techniques used in the experiments of the paper to deduce results. In the analyses by the TNCF model, however, we have taken the results as written in their paper. And the result of our analyses of the data by Morrey et al of helium-4 detection are consistent with the data obtained by Pons of the excess heat in the same sample showing validity of our principle in this case.
This principle of our analysis seems a cause of disbelief to our data analysis cast by some people. I have to point out qualitative difference of works in a juubako (a frame of an established genre of science) and that to establish a new juubako. In the former, the object of an experiment is to add a pattern to fine structures of a large building, or an established juubako, and severe checks are demanded. In the latter, however, many data sets should be analyzed by a common point of view to find out statistically meaningful results as materials to build a new building.
We may recollect such examples in simple systems of the latter case as the discovery of X ray by “exposure of a photographic plate in a drawer” and that of radioactivity by “exposure of a photographic plate by a mineral placed on it as a weight”. What we can expect from the discovery in a complex system of “anomalous phenomenon occurred by electrolysis of heavy water with Pd cathode”? It is clear at least that necessary conditions of CFP are occlusion of hydrogen isotopes into cathode metals and formation of appropriate surface layers made of alkaline metals on the cathode. We have to be conscious of these facts in experimental and theoretical researches.
4) On the Missing Factor (2)
In the previous News, we have noticed that the missing factors in the classical physics, i.e. “the principle of constant light speed” and “the principle of the quantum of action”, disclosed two fundamental theories of modern physics, Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics. Discoveries of these principles have characteristic stories depending on the individual nature of each science but common factor for both is expansion of range of the research realm by development of experimental means and human thought. The larger the meaning of the discovered Missing Factor in the old Juubako is, the larger the impact it gives. The two examples noticed above are the most fundamental one explored new physics.
It is the theme of this article to consider a possible change of perspective of CFP when we take the missing factor as a key word. I have read the book by G. Taubes and J.H. Huizenga again having enough time after my retirement. I have recognized again the fever occurred after the news briefing at Utah in March 1989 where only the D-D fusion reaction had been taken up as the central reaction of events in CFP. It is also true that the entertaining story in the book by Taubes written for sale confused scientists who did not search truth themselves in original papers. Really in Japan, also, a peer reviewer of a Journal “Butsuri” (in Japanese) for members of Japan Physical Society (JPS) used the book to reject an article by the present writer to protest the Statement written by the Board of Directors, JPS against Organizing Committee ofICCF3. It is true that a dramatic description cannot convey scientific truth.
The description in the story may be trustworthy if the matter is not related with his target of attack and we can believe following sentence about what said by Dr. E. Teller of LRNR on CFP (translated from Japanese into English by H.K.):
“Dr. Edward Teller was invited to the Meeting as a special guest to make the Report substantial. Dr. Teller over 80 years old thought that CFP is difficult to believe its reality but if it is true the phenomenon be induced by “an unknown particle without electric charge””. (From p. 528 of Japanese version. The quotation mark in the sentence is by G. Taubes.)
This is a sentence from a description of CF Meeting at Washington D.C. in from 16 to 18 of October 1989 held by NSF and EPRI. This sentence shows that “the Father of H-bomb” had felt instinctively the missing factor, which brought CFP out, is a neutral particle even if he could not figure out its nature.
Recently, there are several trials to use neutral particles to realize nuclear reactions in solids to avoid difficulty of fusion reaction between charged particles in solids. A trial using a known nuclear particle, Fisher did neutron, in a state of polyneutron. Other trials seek some ways to create neutron or other neutral particles in solids. We will take up some of them to review theoretical situation in the research of CFP.
1. The first one we take up here is the trial by E. Conte who proposed an idea that a proton and an electron fuse to form a neutron in solids with particular characteristics. As is well known, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino liberating energy of 782 keV. Therefore, it is necessary to feed at least the same energy to proton-electron pair in solids to realize the proposed fusion and this is an almost unrealizable event from the viewpoint of statistical mechanics. The approach by E. Conte should be “the Conte model” with a missing factor “fusion of a proton and an electron in solids” rather than a theory. If the Conte model is very useful to explain the experimental data of CFP, the next step is to show reality of the proton-electron fusion in solids theoretically, which seems very difficult from common sense of physics.
2. The second trial is by Mills using new states of a hydrogen atom with lower energy than the 1s level, the ground state, well known in atomic physics. His postulate is that there are states with the principal quantum numbers 1/n (n: integer) below 1s level and he calls the hydrogen atom in one of these states “hydrino”. This postulate is in contradiction with principles of quantum mechanics and this trial should be called “the Mills model” with a missing factor “hydrogen atom in lower energy state than 1s level” rather than a theory.
In this case, it is also necessary to show usefulness of the Mills model to explain various events in CFP and then to show validity of the assumption consistently with the present principles of physics or to prove “Discovery of New Principles” overwhelming the present ones.
Here, we want to point out an interpretation of the Mills model as an approach with a neutral particle called hydrino. The states of hydrogen atom in hydrino defined by Mills have very small radius and behaves as a neutral particle with an internal structure. The energy level of the internal structure is defined as that of a hydrogen atom with the principal quantum number of 1/n. The hydrino can take many internal states with different energies which make the assumed particle participates in various reactions in solids even if the mechanism is obscure.
3. The model proposed by J.C. Fisher is the polyneutron suggested by neutron matter in astrophysics. He assumes existence of the polyneutron in solids, which feed several neutrons to lattice nuclei, which disintegrate into two or more nuclei by fission. Fisher was able to explain the mass spectrum of generated nuclei observed in CFP. The existence of the polyneutron in solids is purely an assumption and this approach should be called “the Fisher model” with a missing factor “polyneutron”. The model was able to explain the mass spectrum of nuclei observed in NT and the next step should be explanation of other events in CFP and then justification of the fundamental assumption, existence of the polyneutron in solids.
This idea of the polyneutron together with the exotic nuclei 10He, 11Li, 32Na etc. discovered recently in free space suggested the author formation of neutron drop composed of a few protons and many neutrons in the region where is high density neutrons due to local coherence of neutron Bloch waves. The author’s point of view is in the solids rather than in heaven.
We have given comments on several models with neutral particles as s missing factor starting from Teller’s supposition to show a view opened by a key word “missing factor”. There have been proposed some theoretical approaches difficult to understand their meaning from outside and we have made sometimes misjudge their value. An assumption proposed by the late J. Schwinger that two deuterons fuse in solids to produce only helium-4 and phonons has been “the Schwinger model” with the mechanism as a missing factor to explain the then plausible experimental facts of the excess heat without sufficient neutrons and tritium. An assumption proposed by P. Hagelstein that CFP is explained by virtual neutron transition between lattice nuclei through phonon interaction also was not a theory but “the Hagelstein model” with the virtual neutron transition as a missing factor until the assumption is verified by principles of physics. The assumption was made to explain the excess heat generation without neutron emission but the verification had failed not saying the inappropriate object of the excess heat without neutron emission, which is only a part of events in CFP.
We have to be careful to accept a calculation leading to an unexpected result from common senses of science, even if the common sense depends on each scientist.